Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 21841 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under Executive Order 

13211, Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that this action is one 

of a category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves 

removing 33 CFR 117.415(b) and 33 CFR 

117.427 due to removal of drawbridges 

from the waterway. This rule is 

categorically excluded, under figure 

2–1, paragraph (32) (e), of the 

Instruction. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32) (e), 

of the Instruction, an environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are not 

required for this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

§ 117.415 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 117.415, remove paragraph (b), 

and redesignate paragraph (c) as 

paragraph (b). 

§ 117.427 [Removed] 

■ 3. Remove § 117.427. 

Dated: March 28, 2013. 

Roy A. Nash, 

Rear Admiral, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, 

Eighth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2013–08580 Filed 4–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0814; FRL– 9799–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Region 4 

States; Prong 3 Infrastructure 

Requirement for the 1997 and 2006 

Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve submissions from Alabama, 

Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina 

for inclusion into each states’ State 

Implementation Plans (SIP). This action 

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 taking final 

action 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. EPA is also providing 

clarification for a footnote that was 

included in the proposed rulemaking for 

this action. 

DATES: This rule is effective May 13, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2012–0814. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information 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 through 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. This Action 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Upon promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the CAA require states to address 

basic SIP requirements, including 

emissions inventories, monitoring, and 

modeling to assure attainment and 

maintenance for that new NAAQS. On 

July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA 

promulgated a new annual PM2.5

NAAQS and on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 

61144), EPA promulgated a new 24-hour 

NAAQS. On December 5, 2012, EPA 

proposed to approve Alabama, Georgia, 

Mississippi and South Carolina’s 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES

21842 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

submissions addressing section 

110(a)(2) (D)(i)(II) related to PSD. A 

summary of the background for today’s 

final action is provided below. See 

EPA’s December 5, 2012, proposed 

rulemaking at 77 FR 72284 for more 

detail. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of such NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the 

obligation upon states to make a SIP 

submission to EPA for a new or revised 

NAAQS, but the contents of that 

submission may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. The data 

and analytical tools available at the time 

the state develops and submits the SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS affects the 

content of the submission. The contents 

of such SIP submissions may also vary 

depending upon what provisions the 

state’s existing SIP already contains. In 

the case of the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, states typically 

have met the basic program elements 

required in section 110(a)(2) through 

earlier SIP submissions in connection 

with previous PM NAAQS. 

More specifically, section 110(a)(1) 

provides the procedural and timing 

requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) 

lists specific elements that states must 

meet for ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. As 

already mentioned, these requirements 

include SIP infrastructure elements 

such as modeling, monitoring, and 

emissions inventories that are designed 

to assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. However, EPA is only 

addressing element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

related to PSD in this action. 

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

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

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

includes four distinct components, 

commonly referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that 

generally must be addressed in SIP 

submissions. The first two prongs, 

which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that 

prohibit any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

state (‘‘prong 1’’), and interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state (‘‘prong 2’’). The third and fourth 

prongs, which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that 

prohibit emissions activity in one state 

interfering with measures required to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in another state (‘‘prong 3’’), or 

to protect visibility in another state 

(‘‘prong 4’’). 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 

final rulemaking action 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. 

II. This Action 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and 

South Carolina’s infrastructure 

submissions as demonstrating that the 

States meet the applicable requirements 

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

the CAA, that relate to adequate 

provisions prohibiting emissions that 

interfere with any other state’s required 

measures to prevent significant 

deterioration of its air quality for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires that each state adopt and 

submit a SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by the EPA, which 

is commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. 

On December 5, 2012, EPA proposed 

to approve Alabama, Georgia, 

Mississippi and South Carolina’s July 

25, 2008, July 23, 2008, December 7, 

2007, and March 14, 2008, (respectively, 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS) and 

September 23, 2009, October 21, 2009, 

October 6, 2009, and September 18, 

2009, (respectively, for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS) infrastructure SIP 

submissions addressing prong 3 of 

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

Regarding final approval of Georgia 

and South Carolina’s prong 3 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA’s December 5, 2012 

(77 FR 72284), proposed action required 

EPA to first take final action to approve 

Georgia’s July 26, 2012, and South 

Carolina’s May 1, 2012, SIP revisions 

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

Increments) into each State’s 

implementation plan. Final approval of 

Georgia’s July 26, 2012, PSD SIP 

revision was signed on March 27, 2013, 

and final approval of South Carolina’s 

May 1, 2012, PSD SIP revision was 

signed on March 21, 2013. 

EPA notes that on September 26, 

2012, the Agency approved the 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC) portion of the PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC Rule into the SIPs 

for Alabama and Mississippi. See 77 FR 

59100 and 77 FR 59095. Since that time, 

on January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia, in 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 703 F.3d 458 (D.C. 

Cir. 2013), issued a judgment that, inter 

alia, vacated the provisions adding the 

PM2.5 SMC to the federal regulations, at 

40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 

52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), that were promulgated 

as part of the 2010 PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC Rule. In its 

decision, the court held that EPA did 

not have the authority to use SMCs to 

exempt permit applicants from the 

statutory requirement in section 

165(e)(2) of the CAA that ambient 

monitoring data for PM2.5 be included in 

all PSD permit applications. Thus, 

although the PM2.5 SMC was not a 

required element of a State’s PSD 

program and thus not a structural 

requirement for purposes of 

infrastructure SIPs, were a SIP-approved 

PSD program that contains such a 

provision to use that provision to issue 

new permits without requiring ambient 

PM2.5 monitoring data, such application 

of the SIP would be inconsistent with 

the court’s opinion and the 

requirements of section 165(e)(2) of the 

CAA. 

Given the clarity of the court’s 

decision, it would now be inappropriate 

for Mississippi or Alabama to continue 

to allow applicants for any pending or 

future PSD permits to rely on the PM2.5

SMC in order to avoid compiling 

ambient monitoring data for PM2.5. 

Because of the vacatur of the EPA 

regulations, the SMC provisions, 

included in these States’ SIP-approved 

PSD programs on the basis of EPA’s 

regulations are unlawful and no longer 

enforceable by law. Permits issued on 

the basis of these provisions as they 

appear in approved SIPs would be 

inconsistent with the CAA and difficult 

to defend in administrative and judicial 

challenges. Thus, the SIP provisions 

may not be applied even prior to their 

removal from the SIPs. Mississippi and 

Alabama should instead require 

applicants requesting a PSD permit, 

including those having already been 

applied for but for which the permit has 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 21843 

1 In lieu of the applicants’ need to set out PM2.5

monitors to collect ambient data, applicants may 

submit PM2.5 ambient data collected from existing 

monitoring networks when the permitting authority 

deems such data to be representative of the air 

quality in the area of concern for the year preceding 

receipt of the application. EPA believes that 

applicants will generally be able to rely on existing 

representative monitoring data to satisfy the 

monitoring data requirement. 

not yet been received, to submit ambient 

PM2.5 monitoring data in accordance 

with the CAA requirements whenever 

either direct PM2.5 or any PM2.5

precursor is emitted in a significant 

amount.1 As the previously-approved 

PM2.5 SMC provisions in the Mississippi 

and Alabama SIPs are no longer 

enforceable, EPA does not believe the 

existence of the provisions in the States’ 

SIPs precludes today’s approval of the 

infrastructure SIP submissions for these 

States as the submissions relate to prong 

3 of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5NAAQS. 

EPA intends to initiate a rulemaking 

to correct SIPs that were approved with 

regard to the PM2.5 SMCs prior to the 

court’s decision. EPA also advises the 

States to begin preparations to remove 

the PM2.5 provisions from their state 

PSD regulations and SIPs. However, 

EPA has not yet set a deadline requiring 

States to take action to revise their 

existing PSD programs to address the 

court’s decision. 

EPA also notes that on January 4, 

2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in 

Natural Resources Defense Council v. 

EPA, No. 08–1250, 2013 WL 45653 (D.C. 

Cir., filed July 15, 2008) (consolidated 

with 09–1102, 11–1430), issued a 

judgment that remanded EPA’s 2007 

and 2008 rules implementing the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The court ordered EPA 

to ‘‘repromulgate these rules pursuant to 

Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.’’ 

Id. at *8. Subpart 4 of Part D, Title 1 of 

the CAA establishes additional 

provisions for particulate matter 

nonattainment areas. 

The 2008 implementation rule 

addressed by the court decision, 

‘‘Implementation of New Source Review 

(NSR) Program for Particulate Matter 

Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),’’ 73 

FR 28321 (May 16, 2008), promulgated 

NSR requirements for implementation 

of PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas 

(nonattainment NSR) and attainment/ 

unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the 

requirements of Subpart 4 only pertain 

to nonattainment areas, EPA does not 

consider the portions of the 2008 rule 

that address requirements for PM2.5

attainment and unclassifiable areas to be 

affected by the court’s opinion. 

Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the 

need to revise any PSD requirements 

promulgated in the 2008 rule in order to 

comply with the court’s decision. 

Accordingly, EPA’s actions for the 

Florida infrastructure SIPs as related to 

element (D)(i)(II) with respect to the 

PSD requirements promulgated by the 

2008 implementation rule does not 

conflict with the court’s opinion. 

The court’s decision with respect to 

the nonattainment NSR requirements 

promulgated by the 2008 

implementation rule also does not affect 

EPA’s action on the present 

infrastructure action. EPA interprets the 

Act to exclude nonattainment area 

requirements, including requirements 

associated with a nonattainment NSR 

program, from infrastructure SIP 

submissions due 3 years after adoption 

or revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these 

elements are typically referred to as 

nonattainment SIP or attainment plan 

elements, which would be due by the 

dates statutorily prescribed under 

subpart 2 through 5 under part D, 

extending as far as 10 years following 

designations for some elements. 

Additionally, it should be noted that 

in the December 5, 2012, proposed rule, 

on page 72286, in footnote #2, EPA 

stated that ‘‘[o]n 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.’’ It should have read 

‘‘[o]n June 11, 2010, the South Carolina 

Governor signed a Joint Resolution 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.’’ 

EPA received one comment in 

support of EPA’s action and one offtopic comment on its December 5, 2012, 

proposed rulemaking to approve 

Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and 

South Carolina’s SIP submissions as 

meeting the prong 3 requirements of 

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

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. The off-topic Commenter 

wanted ‘‘to congratulate EPA workers 

for trying to decrease particles and 

increase the public’s health.’’ This 

comment does not appear to be related 

to the issues presented in the proposed 

rulemaking, and instead, appears related 

to a wholly separate topic— 

promulgation of the new 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA does not interpret this 

comment as relevant to the topic of 

EPA’s December 5, 2012, proposed 

action. Instead, EPA interprets this 

comment as being off-topic and outside 

of the scope of today’s final rulemaking. 

Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and 

South Carolina’s infrastructure 

submissions addressed the prong 3 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of 

the CAA for the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, 

EPA has determined that Alabama, 

Georgia, Mississippi and South 

Carolina’s submissions are consistent 

with section 110 of the CAA. 

III. Final Action 

As described above, EPA is approving 

SIP submissions for Alabama, Georgia, 

Mississippi and South Carolina to 

incorporate provisions into the States’ 

implementation plans to address the 

prong 3 requirements 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. Today’s action is not approving 

any specific rule, but rather making a 

determination that Alabama, Georgia, 

Mississippi and South Carolina’s 

already-approved SIPs meet certain 

CAA requirements. 

IV. 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. 

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 action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by Commonwealth law. 

For that reason, this 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); 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES

21844 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

• 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 determined that this final 

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 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 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), 

EPA has determined that today’s action 

will have no ‘‘substantial direct effects’’ 

on the Catawba Indian Nation. EPA has 

also determined that these revisions will 

not impose any substantial direct costs 

on tribal governments or preempt tribal 

law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by June 11, 2013. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

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. 

Dated: March 28, 2013. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart B—Alabama 

■ 2. In § 52.50, paragraph (e) is amended 

by adding two new entries for ‘‘110(a)(1) 

and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 

the 1997 Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ and ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 

Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ at the 

end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.50 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED ALABAMA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic 

or nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date/effective 

date 

EPA Approval date Explanation 

*******

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.Alabama .................... 7/25/2008 4/12/2013 [Insert citation 

of publication].

Addressing element 

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

3 only 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.Alabama .................... 9/23/2009 4/12/2013 [Insert citation 

of publication].

Addressing element 

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

3 only 

Subpart L—Georgia 

■ 3. In § 52.570, paragraph (e) is 

amended by adding two new entries for 

‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 Fine 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards’’ and ‘‘110(a)(1) and 

(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2006 Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ at the 

end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.570 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 21845 

EPA-APPROVED GEORGIA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic 

or nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date/effective 

date 

EPA Approval date Explanation 

*******

42. 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.Georgia ...................... 7/23/2008 4/12/2013 [Insert citation 

of publication].

Addressing element 

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

3 only 

43. 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.Georgia ...................... 10/21/2009 4/12/2013 [Insert citation 

of publication].

Addressing element 

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

3 only 

Subpart Z—Mississippi 

■ 4. In § 52.1270, paragraph (e) is 

amended by adding two new entries for 

‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 Fine 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards’’ and ‘‘110(a)(1) and 

(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2006 Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ at the 

end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.1270 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MISSISSIPPI NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic 

or nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date/effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.Mississippi ................. 12/7/2007 4/12/2013 [Insert citation 

of publication].

Addressing element 

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

3 only 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.Mississippi ................. 10/6/2009 4/12/2013 [Insert citation 

of publication].

Addressing element 

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

3 only 

Subpart PP—South Carolina 

■ 5. In § 52.2120, paragraph (e) is 

amended by adding three new entries 

for ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 Fine 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards’’ and ‘‘110(a)(1) and 

(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2006 Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards.’’ at the 

end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.2120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED SOUTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.4/14/2008 4/12/2013 [Insert citation 

of publication].

Addressing element 

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

3 only 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.9/18/2009 4/12/2013 [Insert citation 

of publication].

Addressing element 

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

3 only 

[FR Doc. 2013–08266 Filed 4–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES