23524 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0083; FRL–9804–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Particulate Matter Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a request submitted by the Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management on January 30, 2013, to 

revise the Indiana State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for particulate matter under 

the Clean Air Act. This submission 

contains the 24-hour fine particle 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) promulgated by EPA in 2006, 

and removes the annual coarse particle 

NAAQS that EPA has previously 

revoked. The submission also asks EPA 

to approve into the SIP certain Federally 

regulated criteria pollutant definitions 

and abbreviations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 20, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2013–0083, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Final Rules section of 

this Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0258, 

chang.andy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If we do not receive any adverse 

comments in response to this rule, we 

do not contemplate taking any further 

action. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, we will withdraw the direct 

final rule, and will address all public 

comments in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule, which is 

located in the Final Rules section of this 

Federal Register. 

Dated: April 4, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2013–09150 Filed 4–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0143; FRL–9805–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Carolina: 

Deferral of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 

Emissions From Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

Requirements for Greenhouse Gases 

(GHG) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the North Carolina State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of North Carolina, through the 

North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources (NC 

DENR), on July 30, 2012. The SIP 

revision modifies North Carolina’s 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) program to incorporate by 

reference (IBR) the federal deferral of, 

until July 21, 2014, PSD applicability to 

biogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions 

from bioenergy and other biogenic 

stationary sources. EPA is proposing to 

approve North Carolina’s SIP revision 

because the Agency has preliminarily 

determined that it is consistent with the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA’s 

new source review (NSR) permitting 

regulations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 20, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2013–0143 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–2013–0143, 

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: Ms. 

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–2013– 

0143.’’ 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 23525 

1Throughout this document IBR means 

incorporate or incorporates by reference. 

2The scope of the 15A NCAC 02D.0544 IBR of 40 

CFR 51.166 is limited to the aspects of the federal 

regulation related to CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule 

revisions. PSD applicability for all other regulated 

NSR pollutants, as defined at 40 CFR 51.166 and 

52.21, is addressed in the North Carolina SIP by 

regulation 15A NCAC 02D.0530. 

3Please refer to the July 12, 2012 (77 FR 41051) 

rulemaking finalizing GHG Tailoring Rule Step 3. 

4North Carolina’s proposed SIP revision 

incorporated a new PSD rule into North Carolina’s 

SIP for GHG, at 15A NCAC 02D.0544—Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration Requirements for 

Greenhouse Gases, to address the thresholds for 

GHG permitting applicability. 

5EPA’s July 20, 2011, CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule 

made changes to the federal PSD and title V 

permitting programs. North Carolina’s July 30, 

2012, submission did not revise the state’s title V 

program to adopt the CO2 deferral rule. 

Furthermore, the title V permitting program is not 

part of the North Carolina federally approved SIP. 

6As with the Tailoring Rule, the CO2 Biomass 

Deferral Rule addresses both PSD and title V 

requirements. 

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: For 

information regarding the North 

Carolina SIP, contact Mr. Richard Wong, 

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. Mr. 

Wong’s telephone number is (404) 562– 

8726; email address: 

wong.richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of North 

Carolina’s SIP revision? 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

On July 30, 2012, NC DENR submitted 

a SIP revision to EPA for approval into 

the North Carolina SIP to IBR1 the 

deferral until July 21, 2014, of the 

application of PSD permitting 

requirements to biogenic CO2 emissions 

from bioenergy and other biogenic 

stationary sources as promulgated in the 

rule entitled ‘‘Deferral for CO2

Emissions From Bioenergy and Other 

Biogenic Sources Under the Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Title V Programs,’’ Final Rule, 76 FR 

43490, (July 20, 2011) (hereafter referred 

to as the ‘‘CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule’’). 

The July 30, 2012, SIP submittal revises 

North Carolina’s air quality rule 15A 

North Carolina Administrative Code 

(NCAC) 02D.0544—Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Requirements 

for Greenhouse Gases to IBR the version 

of 40 CFR 51.166 as of July 20, 2011.2

This version of 40 CFR 51.166 includes 

the July 20, 2011, CO2 Biomass Deferral 

Rule revision to the definition of 

‘‘subject to regulation’’ deferring PSD 

applicability to biogenic CO2 emissions 

from bioenergy and other biogenic 

stationary sources, until July 21, 2014. 

Today, EPA is proposing to approve 

North Carolina’s July 30, 2012, SIP 

revision. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The GHG Tailoring Rule 

On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2, 

2010), EPA promulgated a final 

rulemaking, entitled ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final 

Rule’’ (hereafter referred to as the GHG 

Tailoring Rule), for the purpose of 

relieving overwhelming permitting 

burdens from the regulation of GHG that 

would, in the absence of the rule, fall on 

permitting authorities and sources. See 

75 FR 31514. EPA accomplished this by 

tailoring the applicability criteria that 

determine which GHG emission sources 

become subject to the PSD program of 

the CAA. In particular, EPA established 

in the GHG Tailoring Rule a phase-in 

approach for PSD applicability and 

established the first two steps of the 

phase-in for the largest GHG emitters.3

On, May 17, 2011,4 NC DENR submitted 

a SIP revision to EPA to IBR into the 

North Carolina SIP Rule 15 NCAC 

02D.0544—the version of 40 CFR 51.166 

as of June 3, 2010, and effective August 

3, 2010, which included the GHG 

Tailoring Rule. EPA took final action to 

approve North Carolina’s May 17, 2011, 

SIP revision on October 18, 2011. See 76 

FR 64240. Please refer to the GHG 

Tailoring Rule for specific details on the 

PSD applicability provisions. 

B. EPA’s CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule 

In the July 20, 2011, final rulemaking, 

EPA deferred until July 21, 2014, the 

consideration of CO2 emissions from 

bioenergy and other biogenic sources 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘biogenic CO2

emissions’’) when determining whether 

a stationary source meets the PSD and 

title V 5 applicability thresholds, 

including those for the application of 

best available control technology 

(BACT).6 Stationary sources that 

combust biomass (or otherwise emit 

biogenic CO2 emissions) and construct 

or modify during the deferral period 

will avoid the application of PSD to the 

biogenic CO2 emissions resulting from 

those actions. The deferral applies only 

to biogenic CO2 emissions and does not 

affect non-GHG pollutants or other GHG 

(e.g., methane and nitrous oxide) 

emitted from the combustion of biomass 

fuel. Also, the deferral only pertains to 

biogenic CO2 emissions in the PSD and 

title V program and does not pertain to 

any other EPA programs such as the 

GHG Reporting Program. 

Biogenic CO2 emissions are defined as 

emissions of CO2 from a stationary 

source directly resulting from the 

combustion or decomposition of 

biologically-based materials other than 

fossil fuels and mineral sources of 

carbon. Examples of ‘‘biogenic CO2

emissions’’ include, but are not limited 

to: 

• CO2 generated from the biological 

decomposition of waste in landfills, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

23526 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

wastewater treatment, or manure 

management processes; 

• CO2 from the combustion of biogas 

collected from biological decomposition 

of waste in landfills, wastewater 

treatment, or manure management 

processes; 

• CO2 from fermentation during 

ethanol production or other industrial 

fermentation processes; 

• CO2 from combustion of the 

biological fraction of municipal solid 

waste or biosolids; 

• CO2 from combustion of the 

biological fraction of tire-derived fuel; 

and, 

• CO2 derived from combustion of 

biological material, including all types 

of wood and wood waste, forest residue, 

and agricultural material. 

The deferral is intended to be a 

temporary measure, in effect for no 

more than three years, to allow the 

Agency time to conduct detailed 

examination of the science and 

technical issues related to accounting 

for biogenic CO2 emissions, and 

determine what, if any, treatment of 

biogenic CO2 emissions should be in the 

PSD and title V program. The biomass 

deferral rule is not EPA’s final 

determination on the treatment of 

biogenic CO2 emissions in those 

programs. The Agency plans to 

complete its science and technical 

review and any follow-on rulemakings 

within the three-year deferral period 

and further believes that three years is 

ample time to complete these tasks. It is 

possible that the subsequent 

rulemaking, depending on the nature of 

EPA’s determinations, would supersede 

the biomass deferral rulemaking and 

become effective in fewer than three 

years. In that event, North Carolina may 

revise its SIP accordingly. 

EPA’s final biomass deferral rule is an 

interim deferral for biogenic CO2

emissions only and does not relieve 

sources of the obligation to meet the 

PSD and title V permitting requirements 

for other pollutant emissions that are 

otherwise applicable to the source 

during the deferral period or that may 

be applicable to the source at a future 

date pending the results of EPA’s study 

and subsequent rulemaking action. This 

means, for example, that if the deferral 

is applicable to biogenic CO2 emissions 

from a particular source during the 

three-year effective period and the study 

and future rulemaking do not provide 

for a permanent exemption from PSD 

and title V permitting requirements for 

the biogenic CO2 emissions from a 

source with particular characteristics, 

then the deferral would end for that 

type of source and its biogenic CO2

emissions would have to be 

appropriately considered in any 

applicability determinations that the 

source may need to conduct for future 

stationary source permitting purposes, 

consistent with that subsequent 

rulemaking and the final GHG Tailoring 

Rule (e.g., a major source determination 

for title V purposes or a major 

modification determination for PSD 

purposes). EPA also wishes to clarify 

that the Agency does not require that a 

PSD permit issued during the deferral 

period be amended or that any PSD 

requirements in a PSD permit existing at 

the time the deferral took effect, such as 

BACT limitations, be revised or 

removed from an effective PSD permit 

for any reason related to the deferral or 

when the deferral period expires. 

40 CFR 52.21(w) requires that any 

PSD permit shall remain in effect, 

unless and until it expires or it is 

rescinded, under the limited conditions 

specified in that provision. Thus, a PSD 

permit that is issued to a source while 

the deferral was effective need not be 

reopened or amended if the source is no 

longer eligible to exclude its biogenic 

CO2 emissions from PSD applicability 

after the deferral expires. However, if 

such a source undertakes a modification 

that could potentially require a PSD 

permit and the source is not eligible to 

continue excluding its biogenic CO2

emissions after the deferral expires, the 

source will need to consider its biogenic 

CO2 emissions in assessing whether it 

needs a PSD permit to authorize the 

modification. 

Any future actions to modify, shorten, 

or make permanent the deferral for 

biogenic sources are beyond the scope 

of the biomass deferral action and this 

proposed approval of the deferral into 

the North Carolina SIP, and will be 

addressed through subsequent 

rulemaking. The results of EPA’s review 

of the science related to net atmospheric 

impacts of biogenic CO2 and the 

framework to properly account for such 

emissions in title V and PSD permitting 

program based on the study are 

prospective and unknown. Thus, EPA is 

unable to predict which biogenic CO2

sources, if any, currently subject to the 

deferral as incorporated into the North 

Carolina SIP would be subject to any 

permanent exemptions or which 

currently deferred sources would be 

potentially required to account for their 

emissions in the future rulemaking EPA 

has committed to undertake for such 

purposes in three or fewer years. Only 

in that rulemaking can EPA address the 

question of extending the deferral or 

putting in place requirements that 

would have the equivalent effect on 

sources covered by the biomass deferral. 

Once that rulemaking has occurred, 

North Carolina may address related 

revisions to its SIP. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of North 

Carolina’s SIP revision? 

North Carolina’s PSD program 

consists of Rule 15A NCAC 2D.0530— 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and 15A NCAC 02D.0544—Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration 

Requirements for Greenhouse Gases, 

both of which IBR the provisions for the 

preconstruction PSD review process as 

published at 40 CFR 51.166. Rule15A 

NCAC 2D.0530 applies to major 

stationary sources having the potential 

to emit at least 100-tons per year (tpy) 

or 250-tpy or more of a regulated NSR 

pollutant, depending on the type of 

source or modifications constructing in 

areas designated attainment or 

unclassifiable with respect to the 

national ambient air quality standards. 

Rule 15A NCAC 02D.0544 (the subject 

of this proposed rulemaking) only 

applies to GHG-emitting sources. 

In the July 20, 2011, CO2 Biomass 

Deferral Rule, similar to the approach 

with the Tailoring Rule, EPA 

incorporated the biomass deferral into 

the federal PSD program by amending 

the definition of ‘‘subject to regulation’’ 

under 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21, 

respectively. North Carolina’s July 30, 

2012, SIP revision IBR into the North 

Carolina SIP 40 CFR 51.166 as of July 

20, 2011, which includes the CO2

Biomass Deferral revision to the 

definition of ‘‘subject to regulation’’ 

deferring, until July 21, 2014, PSD 

applicability to biogenic CO2 emissions 

from bioenergy and other biogenic 

stationary sources. These changes to 

North Carolina’s Rule 15A NCAC 

02D.0544 became state effective on 

January 28, 2011. EPA is proposing to 

approve these changes to North 

Carolina’s Rule 15A NCAC 02D.0544 to 

update the State’s existing SIP-approved 

PSD program to be consistent with 

federal NSR regulations respecting the 

CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule (at 40 CFR 

51.166), and the CAA. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve North 

Carolina’s July 30, 2012, SIP revision to 

IBR changes to federal PSD regulations 

at 40 CFR 51.166 promulgated in the 

June 3, 2010, CO2 Biomass Deferral 

Rule. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that this SIP revision, 

with regard to the aforementioned 

proposed actions, is approvable because 

it is consistent with section 110 of the 

CAA and EPA NSR permitting 

regulations. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 23527 

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. 

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 F43255, 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). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Greenhouse gases, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: April 8, 2013. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2013–09314 Filed 4–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0194; FRL– 9804–7] 

Revisions to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan, Maricopa County 

Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Maricopa County Area 

portion of the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern particulate matter 

(PM10) emissions from fugitive dust 

sources. We are approving local statutes 

that regulate these emission sources 

under the Clean Air Act as amended in 

1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking 

comments on this proposal and plan to 

follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

May 20, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2013–0194, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. 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. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Marinaro, (415) 972–3019, 

marinaro.robert@epa.gov or Nancy 

Levin, (415) 972–3848, 

levin.nancy@epa.gov, EPA Region IX, 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What statutes did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these 

statutes? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

statutes? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating these statutes? 

B. Do the statutes meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Statutes 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What statutes did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the statutes addressed by 

this proposal with the dates that they 

were adopted and submitted by the 

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality (ADEQ). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS