72284 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0814; FRL– 9757–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Region 4 

States; Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

Infrastructure Requirement for the 

1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

submissions from Alabama, Georgia, 

Mississippi and South Carolina for 

inclusion into each states’ State 

Implementation Plans (SIP). This 

proposal pertains to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requirements regarding 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) infrastructure SIPs. The CAA 

requires that each state adopt and 

submit a SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. EPA is proposing 

to approve the submissions for 

Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and 

South Carolina that relate to adequate 

provisions prohibiting emissions that 

interfere with any other state’s required 

measures to prevent significant 

deterioration of its air quality. All other 

applicable infrastructure requirements 

for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS associated with these 

States are being addressed in separate 

rulemakings. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 4, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0814, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0814,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0814. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9043. 

Mr. Lakeman can be reached via 

electronic mail at lakeman.sean@epa.

gov. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. What are States required to address under 

Sections 110(a)(2)(D)? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of how Region 4 

States addressed element (D)(i)(II) related 

to PSD? 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA 

established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 

15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/ 

m3) based on a 3-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations. At that time, 

EPA also established a 24-hour NAAQS 

of 65 mg/m3. See 40 CFR 50.7. On 

October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA 

retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

at 15.0 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average 

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, 

and promulgated a new 24-hour 

NAAQS of 35 mg/m3 based on a 3-year 

average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations. By statute, SIPs meeting 

the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) are to be submitted by states 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS. Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) require states to 

address basic SIP requirements, 

including emissions inventories, 

monitoring, and modeling to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. States were required to submit 

such SIPs to EPA no later than July 2000 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

no later than October 2009 for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

States were required to submit such 

SIPs to EPA no later than July 2000 for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and no 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 72285 

later than Octoer 2009 for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice 

submitted a notice of intent to sue 

related to EPA’s failure to issue findings 

of failure to submit related to the 

‘‘infrastructure’’ requirements for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On March 

10, 2005, EPA entered into a consent 

decree with Earthjustice which required 

EPA, among other things, to complete a 

Federal Register notice announcing 

EPA’s determinations pursuant to 

section 110(k)(1)(B) as to whether each 

state had made complete submissions to 

meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by 

October 5, 2008. In accordance with the 

consent decree, EPA made completeness 

findings for each state based upon what 

the Agency received from each state for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as of October 3, 

2008. 

On October 22, 2008, EPA published 

a final rulemaking entitled 

‘‘Completeness Findings for Section 

110(a) State Implementation Plans 

Pertaining to the Fine Particulate Matter 

(PM2.5) NAAQS’’ making a finding that 

each state had submitted or failed to 

submit a complete SIP that provided the 

basic program elements of section 

110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 73 FR 62902. 

For those states that did receive 

findings, the findings of failure to 

submit for all or a portion of a state’s 

implementation plan established a 24- 

month deadline for EPA to promulgate 

a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to 

address the outstanding SIP elements 

unless, prior to that time, the affected 

states submitted, and EPA approved, the 

required SIPs. 

The findings that all or portions of a 

state’s submission are complete 

established a 12-month deadline for 

EPA to take action upon the complete 

SIP elements in accordance with section 

110(k). Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi 

and South Carolina’s infrastructure 

submissions were received by EPA on 

July 25, 2008, July 23, 2008, December 

7, 2007, and March 14, 2008, 

respectively, for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS and on September 23, 2009, 

October 21, 2009, October 6, 2009, and 

September 18, 2009, respectively, for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and 

South Carolina were among other states 

that did not receive findings of failure 

to submit because they had provided a 

complete submission to EPA to address 

the infrastructure elements for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS by October 3, 2008. 

On July 6, 2011, WildEarth Guardians 

and Sierra Club filed an amended 

complaint related to EPA’s failure to 

take action on the SIP submittal related 

to the ‘‘infrastructure’’ requirements for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. On 

October 20, 2011, EPA entered into a 

consent decree with WildEarth 

Guardians and Sierra Club which 

required EPA, among other things, to 

complete a Federal Register notice of 

the Agency’s final action either 

approving, disapproving, or approving 

in part and disapproving in part the 

Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and 

South Carolina 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS Infrastructure SIP submittals 

addressing the applicable requirements 

of sections 110(a)(2)(A)–(H), (J)–(M), 

except for section 110(a)(2)(C) 

nonattainment area requirements and 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) visibility 

requirements. The rulemaking proposed 

through today’s action is consistent with 

the terms of this consent decree. 

Today’s action is proposing to 

approve Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi 

and South Carolina’s infrastructure 

submissions for the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS addressing 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to 

adequate provisions prohibiting 

emissions that interfere with any other 

state’s required measures to prevent 

significant deterioration of its air quality 

(referred to as ‘‘prong 3’’). EPA has 

taken previous action on Alabama, 

Georgia, Mississippi and South 

Carolina’s infrastructure submissions for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for 

sections 110(a)(2)(A)-(F), (H), (J)-(M), 

including other portions of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) in separate actions from 

today’s rulemaking. 

II. What are States required to address 

under Sections 110(a)(2)(D)? 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two 

components, 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Specifically, section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) has four components that 

require SIPs to include provisions 

prohibiting any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from: 1) 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in any 

other State, and 2) interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS by any 

other State (collectively referred to as 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)); or interfering with 

measures required to 3) prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality in 

any other State, or 4) protect visibility 

in any other State (collectively referred 

to as 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)). Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include 

provisions insuring compliance with 

sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating 

to interstate and international pollution 

abatement. 

In previous actions, EPA has already 

taken action to address Alabama, 

Georgia, Mississippi and South 

Carolina’s SIP submissions related to 

sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Today’s 

proposed rulemaking relates only to 

requirements related to prong 3 of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which as 

previously described, requires that the 

SIP contain adequate provisions 

prohibiting emissions that interfere with 

any other state’s required measures to 

prevent significant deterioration of its 

air quality. More information on this 

requirement and EPA’s rationale for 

today’s proposal that each state is 

meeting this requirement for purposes 

of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS is provided below. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Region 4 States addressed element 

(D)(i)(II) related to PSD? 

EPA’s September 25, 2009, 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Guidance on 

SIP Elements Required Under Section 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour 

Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards’’ provided 

guidance on addressing the 

infrastructure requirements required 

under sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) of 

the CAA with respect to the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2009 Guidance 

describes that a state’s PSD permitting 

program is the primary measure that 

such state must include in its SIP to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in accordance with prong 3 of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA believes that 

Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and 

South Carolina’s infrastructure 

submissions are consistent with the 

2009 Guidance, when considered in 

conjunction with each State’s PSD 

program. 

At present, there are four regulations 

that are required to be adopted into the 

SIP to meet PSD-related infrastructure 

requirements. See Sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J) of the 

CAA. These regulations are: (1) ‘‘Final 

Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule’’ 

(November 29, 2005, 70 FR 71612) 

(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Phase II 

Rule’’); (2) ‘‘Implementation of the New 

Source Review Program for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers; Final 

Rule’’ (May 16, 2008, 73 FR 28321) 

(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘NSR PM2.5

Rule’’); (3) ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse 

Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule’’ (June 3, 

2010, 75 FR 31514) (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘‘GHG Tailoring Rule’’); and, (4) 

‘‘Final Rule on the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
72286 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1EPA promulgated the Phase I Rule on April 30, 

2004 entitled ‘‘Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard— 

Phase 1.’’ See 69 FR 23951. 2On June 11, 2010, the South Carolina Governor 

signed an Executive Order to confirm that the State 

had authority to implement appropriate emission 

thresholds for determining which new stationary 

sources and modification projects become subject to 

PSD permitting requirements for their GHG 

emissions at the state level. On December 30, 2010, 

EPA published a final rulemaking, ‘‘Action To 

Ensure Authority To Implement Title V Permitting 

Programs Under the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring 

Rule’’ (75 FR 82254) to narrow EPA’s previous 

approval of State title V operating permit programs 

that apply (or may apply) to GHG-emitting sources; 

this rule hereafter is referred to as the ‘‘Narrowing 

Rule.’’ EPA narrowed its previous approval of 

certain State permitting thresholds, for GHG 

emissions so that only sources that equal or exceed 

the GHG thresholds, as established in the final 

Tailoring Rule, would be covered as major sources 

by the Federally-approved programs in the affected 

States. South Carolina was included in this 

rulemaking. On March 4, 2011, South Carolina 

submitted a letter withdrawing from EPA’s 

consideration the portion of South Carolina’s SIP 

for which EPA withdrew its previous approval in 

the Narrowing Rule. These provisions are no longer 

intended for inclusion in the SIP, and are no longer 

before EPA for its approval or disapproval. A copy 

of South Carolina’s letter can be accessed at 

www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA– 

R04–OAR–2010–0721. 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant monitoring Concentration 

(SMC); Final Rule’’ (October 20, 2010, 

75 FR 64864) (hereafter referred to as 

‘‘PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule 

(only as it relates to PM2.5 Increments)’’). 

Specific details on these PSD 

requirements can be found in the 

respective final rules cited above, 

however, a brief summary of each rule 

is provided below. 

First, as part of the framework to 

implement the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, EPA promulgated an 

implementation rule in two phases.1

The Phase 2 Rule is relevant to today’s 

action. Among other changes, the rule 

revised the PSD regulations to recognize 

nitrogen oxide (NOx) as an ozone 

precursor. 

Second, the NSR PM2.5 Rule revised 

the NSR program to establish the 

framework for implementing 

preconstruction permit review for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS in both attainment areas 

and nonattainment areas. These PSD 

requirements included: (1) A provision 

that NSR permits address directly 

emitted PM2.5 and precursor pollutants; 

(2) a requirement establishing 

significant emission rates for direct 

PM2.5 and precursor pollutants 

(including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

NOx); 3) exceptions to the 

grandfathering policy for permits being 

reviewed under the PM10 surrogate 

program; and, (4) a revision that states 

account for gases that condense to form 

particles (condensables) in PM2.5 and 

PM10 emission limits in PSD permits. 

Third, in the GHG Tailoring Rule, 

EPA tailored the applicability criteria 

that determine which GHG emission 

sources become subject to the PSD 

program of the CAA. See 75 FR 31514. 

Lastly, the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILsSMC Rule (only as it relates to PM2.5

increments) provided additional 

regulatory requirements under the PSD 

program regarding the implementation 

of the PM2.5 NAAQS for NSR by 

specifically establishing PM2.5

increments pursuant to section 166(a) of 

the CAA to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in areas 

meeting the NAAQS. 

The PSD requirements promulgated in 

the aforementioned regulations establish 

the framework for a comprehensive SIP 

PSD program which EPA has 

determined are necessary to comply 

with prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

The following table shows when EPA 

approved the incorporation of the 

aforementioned regulations in each of 

the States’ implementation plan: 

State Phase II rule GHG tailoring rule NSR PM2.5 rule 

PM2.5 PSD 

increment-SILs-SMC 

rule (as it relates to 

PM2.5 increments) 

Alabama .................................................................. 5/1/2008 12/29/2010 9/26/2012 9/26/2012. 

73 FR 23957 75 FR 81863 77 FR 59100 77 FR 59100. 

Georgia ................................................................... 11/22/2010 9/8/2011 9/8/2011 See Below. 

75 FR 71018 76 FR 55572 76 FR 55572 

Mississippi ............................................................... 12/20/2010 12/29/2010 9/26/2012 9/26/2012. 

75 FR 79300 75 FR 81858 77 FR 59095 77 FR 59095. 

South Carolina ........................................................ 6/23/2011 Refer to Footnote 2 6/23/2011 See Below. 

76 FR 36875 76 FR 36875 

1. Alabama: As noted in the table 

above, Alabama has addressed, and EPA 

has approved, the underlying PSD 

regulations to support the State’s 

program. In this action, EPA is 

proposing to approve Alabama’s 

infrastructure submissions for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

with regard to the PSD requirements for 

prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

2. Georgia: In this action, EPA is 

proposing to approve Georgia’s 

infrastructure submissions for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

with regard to the prong 3 requirement 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Today’s 

proposed approval of Georgia’s 

implementation plan respecting the 

prong 3 infrastructure element of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) is contingent upon EPA 

first taking final action to approve 

Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP revision 

regarding PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILsSMC Rule (only as it relates to PM2.5

Increments) revision into the State’s 

implementation plan. EPA will consider 

action on Georgia’s July 26, 2012, 

submission in a rulemaking separate 

from today’s action. 

3. Mississippi: As noted in the table 

above, Mississippi has addressed, and 

EPA has approved, the underlying PSD 

regulations to support the State’s 

program. In this action, EPA is 

proposing to approve Mississippi’s 

infrastructure submissions for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

with regard to the PSD requirements for 

prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

4. South Carolina: In this action, EPA 

is proposing to approve South 

Carolina’s infrastructure submissions for 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS with regard to prong 3 of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Today’s 

proposed approval of South Carolina’s 

implementation plan respecting prong 3 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) is 

contingent upon EPA first taking final 

action to approve South Carolina’s May 

1, 2012, SIP revision regarding the PM2.5

PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as 

it relates to PM2.5 Increments) revision 

into the State’s implementation plan. 

EPA will consider action on South 

Carolina’s May 1, 2012, submission in a 

rulemaking separate from today’s action. 

Pending final approval of the abovedescribed contingent SIP revisions, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 72287 

Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and 

South Carolina have demonstrated that 

major sources in each state are subject 

to PSD permitting programs to comply 

with prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of 

the CAA for the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Therefore, EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that, pending 

these contingent revisions, Alabama, 

Georgia, Mississippi and South 

Carolina’s SIP and practices will be 

adequate for insuring compliance with 

the applicable PSD requirements 

relating to interstate transport pollution 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

IV. Proposed Action 

As described above, EPA is proposing 

to approve SIP revisions for Alabama, 

Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina 

to incorporate provisions into the States’ 

implementation plans to address prong 

3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA 

for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is proposing 

to approve the States’ prong 3 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) submissions because they 

are consistent with section 110 of the 

CAA. As noted above, the proposed 

approval of Georgia’s and South 

Carolina’s implementation plan 

respecting prong 3 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) is contingent upon EPA 

first taking final action to approve the 

States’ July 26, 2012, and May 1, 2012, 

SIP revisions, respectively, for the PM2.5

PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as 

it relates to PM2.5 Increments). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

EPA has preliminarily determined 

that this proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because there are no 

‘‘substantial direct effects’’ on an Indian 

Tribe as a result of this action. EPA 

notes that the Catawba Indian Nation 

Reservation is located within the South 

Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba 

Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code 

Ann. 27–16–120, ‘‘all state and local 

environmental laws and regulations 

apply to the Catawba Indian Nation and 

Reservation and are fully enforceable by 

all relevant state and local agencies and 

authorities.’’ Thus, while the South 

Carolina SIP applies to the Catawba 

Reservation, because today’s action is 

not proposing a substantive revision to 

the South Carolina SIP, and is instead 

proposing that the existing SIP will 

satisfy the prong 3 requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), EPA has 

preliminarily determined that today’s 

action will have no ‘‘substantial direct 

effects’’ on the Catawba Indian Nation. 

EPA has also preliminarily determined 

that these revisions will not impose any 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: November 21, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29367 Filed 12–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0814; FRL–9757–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Florida; 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Infrastructure 

Requirement for the 1997 and 2006 

Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

in part, and disapprove in part, the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions, 

submitted by the State of Florida, 

through the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (DEP) on 

April 18, 2008, and September 23, 2009. 

This proposal addresses the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) requirements pertaining to 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) infrastructure SIPs. The CAA 

requires that each state adopt and 

submit a SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. EPA is proposing 

to approve in part, and disapprove in 

part the submission for Florida, that 

relates to adequate provisions 

prohibiting emissions that interfere with 

any other state’s required measures to 

prevent significant deterioration of its 

air quality. All other applicable 

infrastructure requirements for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

associated with Florida are being 

addressed in separate rulemakings. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 4, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0814, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0814,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with