Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 29581 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100,000,000 or more 

in any one year, and it will not uniquely 

affect small governments. Therefore, no 

actions were deemed necessary under 

the provisions of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by section 804 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not 

result in an annual effect on the 

economy of $100,000,000 or more; a 

major increase in cost or prices; or 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

companies to compete in domestic and 

export markets. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 90 

Grant programs; Judicial 

administration. 

For the reason set forth in the 

preamble, the Office on Violence 

Against Women proposes to amend 28 

CFR part 90 as follows: 

PART 90—VIOLENCE AGAINST 

WOMEN 

1. The authority citation for Part 90 

reads as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3711–3796gg–7; Sec. 

826, Part E, Title VIII, Public Law 105–244, 

112 Stat. 1581, 1815. 

Subpart C—Indian Tribal Governments 

Discretionary Program [Removed and 

Reserved] 

2. Remove and reserve subpart C, 

consisting of §§ 90.50–90.59. 

Subpart E—[Removed and Reserved] 

3. Remove and reserve subpart E, 

consisting of §§ 90.100–90.106. 

Dated: May 10, 2012. 

Bea Hanson, 

Acting Director, Office on Violence Against 

Women, U.S. Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12134 Filed 5–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FX–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0809; FRL–9673–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Florida; Section 

128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and (G) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

supplement an April 18, 2012, proposed 

rule related to submissions provided by 

the State of Florida, through the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP) on December 13, 2007, and 

supplemented on April 18, 2008, to 

demonstrate that the Florida State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) meets the 

‘‘infrastructure’’ requirements of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS). First, EPA 

is proposing to supplement that earlier 

proposed action by proposing full 

approval of the State’s section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) infrastructure SIP in 

addition to the earlier proposed 

conditional approval of this subelement. Second, EPA is proposing 

approval of the State’s section 

110(a)(2)(G) infrastructure SIP in 

addition to the earlier proposed federal 

implementation plan (FIP) for this 

element. In addition, EPA is proposing 

to approve two related draft revisions to 

the Florida SIP that were submitted for 

parallel processing by FDEP on April 

19, 2012, to address the requirements of 

section 128 and the substantive 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) of 

the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 18, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2011–0809, 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–2011– 

0809,’’ 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–2011– 

0089. 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29582 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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: 

Nacosta C. Ward, 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) 562–9140. 

Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic 

mail at ward.nacosta@epa.gov. 

Table of Contents 

I. What is parallel processing? 

II. Background 

III. What elements are required under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how Florida 

addressed CAA Section 128? 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of how Florida 

addressed CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)? 

VI. What is EPA’s analysis of how Florida 

addressed CAA Section 110(a)(2)(G)? 

VII. Proposed Action 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is parallel processing? 

Parallel processing refers to a 

concurrent state and federal proposed 

rulemaking action. Generally under this 

process, the state submits a copy of the 

proposed regulation or other revisions 

to EPA before conducting its public 

hearing. See, e.g., 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix V. EPA reviews this proposed 

state action and prepares a notice of 

proposed rulemaking. EPA publishes 

this notice of proposed rulemaking in 

the Federal Register and solicits public 

comment during approximately the 

same time frame during which the state 

is holding its public hearing. The state 

and EPA thus provide for public 

comment periods on both the state and 

the federal actions in parallel. 

On April 19, 2012, the State of 

Florida, through FDEP, submitted a 

request for parallel processing for draft 

SIP revision related to CAA section 128 

and the substantive requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(G). This revision was 

noticed for public comment by the State 

on April 19, 2012, but is not yet state 

effective. Through today’s proposed 

rulemaking, EPA is proposing parallel 

approval for this draft SIP revision. 

Once the April 19, 2012 revision is 

state-effective, Florida will need to 

provide EPA with a formal SIP revision 

request to incorporate these changes 

into the Florida SIP. After Florida 

submits the formal SIP revision request 

(including a response to any public 

comments raised during the State’s 

public participation process), EPA will 

prepare a final rulemaking notice for the 

SIP revision. If the formal SIP revision 

associated with the parallel process 

submission is changed from what is 

proposed in today’s action, EPA will 

evaluate those changes for significance. 

If any such changes are found by EPA 

to be significant, then the Agency 

intends to re-propose the action based 

upon the revised submission. In 

addition, if the changes render the SIP 

revision not approvable, EPA would repropose the action as a disapproval of 

the revision. 

While EPA may not be able to have 

a concurrent public comment process 

with the State, the FDEP-requested 

parallel processing allows EPA to begin 

to take action on the State’s draft SIP 

revision in advance of the submission of 

the formal SIP revision. As stated above, 

the final rulemaking action by EPA will 

occur only after the SIP revision has 

been: (1) Adopted by Florida, (2) 

evaluated for changes, and (3) submitted 

formally to EPA for incorporation into 

the SIP. 

II. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a 

new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour 

average concentrations. The 8-hour 

averaging period replaced the previous 

1-hour averaging period, and the level of 

the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 

parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm. 

See 62 FR 38856. Pursuant to section 

110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required 

to submit SIPs meeting the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2) within three years 

after promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) requires 

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 for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2000. 

However, intervening litigation over the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS created 

uncertainty about how to proceed and 

many states did not provide the 

required ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

submission for these newly promulgated 

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 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 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 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 

December 15, 2007. Subsequently, EPA 

received an extension of the date to 

complete this Federal Register notice 

until March 17, 2008, based upon 

agreement to make the findings with 

respect to submissions made by January 

7, 2008. In accordance with the consent 

decree, EPA made completeness 

findings for each state based upon what 

the Agency received from each state as 

of January 7, 2008. 

On March 27, 2008, EPA published a 

final rulemaking entitled, 

‘‘Completeness Findings for Section 

110(a) State Implementation Plans; 

8-Hour Ozone 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 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. See 73 FR 16205. For those 

states that did receive findings, such as 

Florida, 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 FIP to address the outstanding SIP 

elements unless, prior to that time, the 

affected states submitted, and EPA 

approved, the required SIPs. However, 

the findings of failure to submit did not 

impose sanctions or set deadlines for 

imposing sanctions as described in 

section 179 of the CAA, because these 

findings do not pertain to the elements 

contained in the Title I part D plan for 

nonattainment areas as required under 

section 110(a)(2)(I). Additionally, the 

findings of failure to submit for the 

infrastructure submittals are not a SIP 

call pursuant to section 110(k)(5). 

The finding 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). Florida’s infrastructure 

submission was received by EPA on 

December 13, 2007, and was determined 

to be complete on March 27, 2008, for 

all elements with the exception of 

110(a)(2)(G). In FDEP’s December 13, 

2007, submission, and in a letter dated 

April 18, 2008, FDEP cited State statutes 

as evidence that Florida has the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 29583 

1 In a letter dated March 23, 2012, FDEP notified 

EPA of FDEP’s intent to submit a SIP revision to 

address the SIP deficiency for 110(a)(2)(G) in the 

very near future. The letter Florida submitted to 

EPA can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0809. 

2Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are 

not governed by the three year submission deadline 

of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating 

necessary local nonattainment area controls are not 

due within three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the 

nonattainment area plan requirements are due 

pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (1) 

Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the 

extent that subsection refers to a permit program as 

required in part D Title I of the CAA; and (2) 

submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which 

pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements 

of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today’s proposed 

rulemaking does not address infrastructure 

elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

110(a)(2)(C). Additionally, EPA has taken action on 

all other infrastructure elements with the exception 

of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for Florida in a separate 

rulemaking from today’s action. Today’s action is 

limited to infrastructure elements 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

and 110(a)(2)(G) only. 

3EPA’s April 18, 2012, proposed rule does not 

address element 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (Interstate 

Transport) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Interstate transport requirements were formerly 

addressed by Florida consistent with the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR). On December 23, 2008, CAIR 

was remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 

without vacatur, back to EPA. See North Carolina 

v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Prior to this 

remand, EPA took final action to approve Florida’s 

SIP revision, which was submitted to comply with 

CAIR. See 72 FR 58016 (October 12, 2007). In so 

doing, Florida’s CAIR SIP revision addressed the 

interstate transport provisions in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

In response to the remand of CAIR, EPA has 

recently finalized a new rule to address the 

interstate transport of nitrogen oxides and sulfur 

oxides in the eastern United States. See 76 FR 

48208 (August 8, 2011) (‘‘the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule’’). EPA’s action on element 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) will be addressed in a separate 

action. 

4This requirement was inadvertently omitted 

from EPA’s October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under 

Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ but as mentioned above is not relevant 

to today’s proposed rulemaking. 

authority to implement emergency 

powers for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS as required by section 

110(a)(2)(G). EPA, however, proposed a 

FIP with respect to this element of the 

infrastructure SIP because the statutes 

cited by FDEP had not been approved 

into the Florida SIP.1 See 77 FR 23181 

(April 18, 2012). EPA noted that the 

Agency would take action to approve 

the FIP for element 110(a)(2)(G) unless 

Florida submits a final SIP revision 

correcting the deficiency for element 

110(a)(2)(G) and EPA takes final action 

to approve the revision prior to such 

time that EPA is obligated to take final 

action on this 1997 8-hour ozone 

infrastructure SIP submission, per a 

settlement agreement signed on 

November 30, 2011. 

On April 19, 2012, FDEP submitted, 

for parallel processing, draft changes to 

address the deficiencies of the Florida 

SIP regarding the substantive 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G). 

Today’s action proposes approval of 

these changes into the Florida SIP and 

proposes approval for element 

110(a)(2)(G) of the State’s infrastructure 

SIP submittal. If EPA is able to take final 

action on Florida’s forthcoming final 

SIP revision prior to finalizing the April 

18, 2012, proposed FIP, the final action 

to approve a FIP for 110(a)(2)(G) will no 

longer be necessary. If, EPA is not able 

to take final action the SIP revision, EPA 

may proceed with finalizing the FIP for 

element 110(a)(2)(G). 

In EPA’s April 18, 2012, proposed 

infrastructure rulemaking for Florida, 

the EPA also proposed to conditionally 

approve FDEP’s December 13, 2007, 

infrastructure submission with regard to 

the 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements. EPA 

proposed conditional approval of this 

sub-element because the State’s 

implementation plan did not contain 

provisions to address CAA section 128 

requirements, however, FDEP submitted 

a letter to EPA on March 13, 2012, that 

included a commitment to submit a SIP 

revision to address the CAA section 128 

requirements. See 77 FR 23181. The 

letter Florida submitted to EPA can be 

accessed at www.regulations.gov using 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2011– 

0809. On April 19, 2012, FDEP 

submitted, for parallel processing, a 

draft SIP revision to address the 

deficiencies within the Florida SIP to 

address CAA section 128 requirements. 

In today’s action, EPA is proposing to 

approve this SIP revision into the 

Florida SIP and supplement the 

Agency’s earlier proposed conditional 

approval of Florida’s infrastructure SIP 

with respect to sub-element 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with a proposed 

approval of this sub-element contingent 

upon final action to approve the section 

128 provisions into the Florida SIP. 

If EPA is able to take final action to 

approve Florida’s forthcoming final SIP 

revision pertaining to the section 128 

requirements prior to taking final 

rulemaking action on the April 18, 2012, 

proposed conditional approval and FIP, 

finalizing the conditional approval for 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) will no longer be 

necessary. If, EPA is not able to take 

final action on the SIP revision, EPA 

may proceed with finalizing the 

conditional approval for element 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

III. What elements are required under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

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. In 

particular, 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 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

states typically have met the basic 

program elements required in section 

110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 

submissions in connection with 

previous ozone 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 

mentioned above, these requirements 

include SIP infrastructure elements 

such as modeling, monitoring, and 

emissions inventories that are designed 

to assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. The requirements that are 

the subject of EPA’s proposed 

infrastructure SIP rulemaking for 

Florida are listed below 2 and in EPA’s 

October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards.’’ 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.3

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring system. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power. 

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated 

nonattainment and meet the applicable 

requirements of part D.4

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials; public 

notification; and PSD and visibility 

protection. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29584 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

5Today’s action is related specifically to the 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) sub-element of Florida’s December 

13, 2007, infrastructure submission for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. As noted earlier in this 

proposed rulemaking, EPA has already proposed 

action for the majority of Florida’s December 13, 

2007, infrastructure submission for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, and is not re-proposing for many of 

those elements, including sub-elements 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 110(a)(2)(E)(iii), in this today’s 

action. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/ 

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities. 

As discussed above, on April 18, 2012 

(77 FR 23181), EPA proposed action on 

Florida’s December 13, 2007, 

infrastructure submission for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. Today’s 

proposed action supplements EPA’s 

April 18, 2012, proposed rulemaking 

with regard to the conditional approval 

for section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and a FIP for 

section 110(a)(2)(G) requirements for 

Florida for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Today’s action proposes full 

SIP approval for both elements based 

upon pending changes to the Florida 

SIP regarding section 128 (State Boards 

as applicable to the State’s 

infrastructure SIP pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii)) and the substantive 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) 

(emergency power authority comparable 

to that in section 303 of the CAA). 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Florida addressed CAA Section 128? 

Section 128 of the CAA requires that 

states include provisions in their SIP to 

address conflict interest for state boards 

that oversee CAA permits and 

enforcement orders. Specifically, CAA 

section 128 reads as follows: 

(a) Not later than the date one year 

after August 7, 1977, each applicable 

implementation plan shall contain 

requirements that— 

(1) any board or body which approves 

permits or enforcement orders under 

this chapter shall have at least a 

majority of members who represent the 

public interest and do not derive any 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permits or 

enforcement orders under this chapter, 

and 

(2) any potential conflicts of interest 

by members of such board or body or 

the head of an executive agency with 

similar powers be adequately disclosed. 

A State may adopt any requirements 

respecting conflicts of interest for such 

boards or bodies or heads of executive 

agencies, or any other entities which are 

more stringent than the requirements 

submitted as part of an implementation 

plan. 

During the evaluation of Florida’s SIP 

in regards to EPA’s proposed 

rulemaking of the State’s December 13, 

2007, and supplemented on April 18, 

2008, infrastructure submission related 

to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, EPA noted that 

Florida’s SIP did not include provisions 

to address CAA section 128 

requirements. As such, EPA alerted the 

State to this missing component of their 

implementation plan and as a result, 

FDEP submitted a letter to EPA dated 

March 13, 2012, which contained the 

State’s commitment to correct this 

deficiency and requested that EPA take 

action to conditionally approve 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) as a result of this 

commitment. Based upon this 

commitment, EPA proposed conditional 

approval of this sub-element in its April 

18, 2012, rulemaking. See 77 FR 23181. 

On April 19, 2012, FDEP submitted a 

draft SIP revision for parallel processing 

to address the section 128 requirements. 

Florida’s April 19, 2012, draft SIP 

revision, proposes to include existing 

state statues to meet the applicable 

requirements of section 128. 

For purposes of section 128(a)(1), 

Florida has no boards or bodies with 

authority over air pollution permits or 

enforcement actions. Such matters are 

instead handled by an appointed 

Secretary. Appeals of final 

administrative orders and permits are 

available only through the judicial 

appellate process described at Florida 

Statute 120.68. As such, a ‘‘board or 

body’’ is not responsible for approving 

permits or enforcement orders in 

Florida, and the requirements of section 

128(a)(1) are not applicable. 

Regarding section 128(a)(2) (also 

made applicable to the infrastructure 

SIP pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)), 

Florida has submitted for incorporation 

into the SIP relevant provisions of 

Florida Statutes 112.3143(4)—Voting 

Conflict and 112.3144—Full and Public 

Disclosure of Financial Interests. 

Because Florida does not rely upon a 

‘‘board or body’’ to approve permits or 

enforcement orders, the conflict of 

interest disclosure requirements of 

section 128(a)(2) only apply to the head 

of the State’s executive agency (i.e., 

FDEP) tasked with these powers. The 

above cited Florida Statutes are 

applicable to the Secretary of FDEP and 

EPA has preliminarily determined them 

to be sufficient to satisfy the applicable 

conflict of interest provisions of section 

128. 

Today, EPA is proposing to approve 

Florida Statutes 112.3143(4) and 

112.3144 into the Florida’s SIP as 

meeting the requirements of section 128 

of the CAA. This proposed approval is 

contingent upon Florida submitting a 

final SIP revision consistent with the 

April 19, 2012, draft SIP revision. 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Florida addressed CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii)? 

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that 

each implementation plan provide that 

the State comply with the requirements 

respecting state boards pursuant to 

section 128 of the Act.5 As a result of 

Florida’s April 19, 2012, draft SIP 

revision to address 128 requirements 

(discussed above), EPA is now 

proposing a full approval of Florida’s 

December 13, 2007, infrastructure 

submission with regard to section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. This proposed full 

approval (contingent on EPA’s final 

approval of Florida’s SIP revision to 

meet the CAA section 128 requirements) 

is an alternative to the conditional 

approval that EPA proposed for this 

element on April 18, 2012. See 77 FR 

23181. If EPA is able to take final action 

to approve Florida’s forthcoming final 

SIP revision pertaining to these 

requirements prior to taking final action 

on the April 18, 2012, proposed 

conditional approval, finalizing the 

conditional approval for 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

will no longer be necessary. If, EPA is 

not able to take final action on the SIP 

revision, EPA may proceed with 

finalizing the conditional approval for 

element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

VI. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Florida addressed CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(G)? 

Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to 

provide for authority to address 

activities causing imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

health, including contingency plans to 

implement the emergency episode 

provisions in their SIPs. On March 27, 

2008, EPA published a final rulemaking 

entitled, ‘‘Completeness Findings for 

Section 110(a) State Implementation 

Plans; 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS,’’ making 

a finding as to whether 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 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. See 73 FR 16205. Florida was 

among the states that received a finding 

of failure to submit because its 

infrastructure submission was deemed 

incomplete for element 110(a)(2)(G) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 

March 1, 2008. The finding of failure to 

submit action triggered a 24-month 

clock for EPA to either issue a FIP or 

take final action on a SIP revision which 

corrects the deficiency for which the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 29585 

finding of failure to submit was 

received. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1). 

In FDEP’s December 13, 2007, 

submission and a letter dated April 18, 

2008, FDEP cited State statutes as 

evidence that Florida has the authority 

to implement emergency powers for the 

8-hour ozone standard. The April 18, 

2008, letter FDEP sent to EPA, which 

included the specific State statutes cited 

by FDEP, can be accessed at 

www.regulations.gov using Docket ID 

No. EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0809. 

Because these statutes had not been 

adopted into the federally-approved SIP, 

in an April 18, 2012, rulemaking, EPA 

proposed a FIP to correct this deficiency 

and preliminarily determined that the 

cited statutes were sufficient to meet the 

requirements of section 303 of the CAA 

thus meet the requirements of element 

110(a)(2)(G). See 77 FR 23181. In the 

April 18, 2012, rulemaking, EPA noted 

the Agency’s intentions to approve a FIP 

for element 110(a)(2)(G) unless Florida 

submitted a final SIP revision correcting 

the deficiency for element 110(a)(2)(G) 

and the Agency acted on such 

submission prior to the finalization of 

the FIP. 

Due to EPA’s obligations pursuant to 

the infrastructure SIP settlement 

agreement described above, EPA would 

need to take final action to approve such 

a SIP revision prior to the date on which 

EPA is obligated to take final action on 

the FIP for this element. Should final 

approval of a SIP revision related to 

emergency powers (the subject of this 

action) occur after EPA finalizes a FIP 

for element 110(a)(2)(G), EPA would act 

to rescind the FIP at that time. If EPA 

is able to take final action to approve 

Florida’s forthcoming final SIP revision 

pertaining to these requirements 

(section 110(a)(2)(G)) prior to taking 

final rulemaking action on the April 18, 

2012 proposed FIP, finalizing the FIP for 

110(a)(2)(G) will no longer be necessary. 

On April 19, 2012, FDEP submitted a 

draft SIP revision, for parallel 

processing, to address the 110(a)(2)(G) 

requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. In FDEP’s proposed SIP 

revision, Florida Statutes 403.131 and 

120.569(2)(n) were submitted for 

inclusion to the SIP to address the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) of 

the CAA. EPA has reviewed Florida’s 

April 19, 2012, draft SIP revision, and 

has made the preliminary 

determination, that the draft revision is 

adequate for emergency powers and 

meets the requirements of 110(a)(2)(G) 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Therefore, through today’s action, EPA 

is proposing to approve this revision 

into the Florida SIP and is proposing 

approval in alternative to the Agency’s 

April 18, 2012, proposed FIP for this 

infrastructure element. This proposed 

approval is contingent upon Florida 

submitting a final SIP revision 

consistent with the April 19, 2012, draft 

SIP revision. 

VII. Proposed Action 

As described above, EPA is proposing 

to approve Florida’s April 19, 2012, 

draft SIP revision to incorporate 

provisions into the Florida SIP to 

address section 128 requirements of the 

CAA. As a result of EPA’s proposed 

approval of Florida’s April 19, 2012, 

draft SIP revision to address 128 

requirements, EPA is also proposing to 

approve the 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) sub-element 

of Florida’s December 13, 2007, 

infrastructure submission for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. Further, EPA is 

proposing to approval Florida’s April 

19, 2012, draft SIP revision to 

incorporate provisions into the Florida 

SIP to address section 110(a)(2)(G) 

requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. As a result of EPA’s proposed 

approval of Florida’s April 19, 2012, 

draft SIP revision to address the 

substantive requirements 110(a)(2)(G), 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

110(a)(2)(G) element of Florida 

December 13, 2007, infrastructure 

submission for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

EPA’s proposed approval is 

contingent on Florida’s submission of a 

final SIP revision to address CAA 

section 128, and the substantive 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Should Florida not submit a 

final SIP revision to EPA addressing 

CAA section 128, and CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) requirements for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and/or EPA is not 

able to finalize a full approval action 

prior to such time that EPA is obligated 

to take final action on the 1997 8-hour 

ozone infrastructure SIP submission for 

Florida, EPA will be obligated to take 

final action on the proposed conditional 

approval of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 

the proposed FIP for 110(a)(2)(G). The 

Agency has made the preliminary 

determination that these proposed 

actions are consistent with the CAA and 

EPA guidance related to 128 

requirements and infrastructure 

submissions. 

VIII. 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). 

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, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29586 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: May 7, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12137 Filed 5–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2008–0177(a); FRL–9673– 

8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Portion of York 

County, South Carolina Within 

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North 

Carolina-South Carolina 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone Nonattainment Area; Ozone 

2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the ozone 2002 base year emissions 

inventory portion of the state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the South Carolina 

Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (SC DHEC) on 

April 29, 2010. The emissions inventory 

is included in the ozone attainment 

demonstration that was submitted for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS) for the 

portion of York County, South Carolina 

that is within the bi-state CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. The CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill, North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘‘bi-state Charlotte Area’’) is 

comprised of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, 

Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and a 

portion of Iredell (Davidson and Coddle 

Creek Townships) Counties in North 

Carolina; and a portion of York County 

in South Carolina. This action is being 

taken pursuant to section 110 of the 

Clean Air Act. EPA will take action on 

the North Carolina submission for the 

ozone 2002 base year emissions 

inventory, for its portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte Area, in a separate action. In 

the Final Rules Section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 18, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2008–0177 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–2008– 

0177,’’ 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, 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. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara 

Waterson, 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) 562–9061. 

Ms. Waterson can be reached via 

electronic mail at waterson.sara@epa.

gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

12, 2008, EPA issued a revised ozone 

NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436. The current 

action, however, is being taken to 

address requirements under the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. Requirements for 

the South Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area under the 2008 

ozone NAAQS will be addressed in the 

future. For additional information see 

the direct final rule which is published 

in the Rules Section of this Federal 

Register. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this document. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this 

document should do so at this time. 

Dated: May 8, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12006 Filed 5–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 223 

RIN 0648–BC10 

Sea Turtle Conservation; Shrimp 

Trawling Requirements; Correction 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Correction to a proposed rule; 

request for comments; notice of public 

hearings. 

SUMMARY: On May 10, 2012, we 

published a proposed rule to withdraw 

the alternative tow time restriction and 

require all skimmer trawls, pusher-head 

trawls, and wing nets (butterfly trawls) 

rigged for fishing to use turtle excluder 

devices (TEDs) in their nets, and 

announced five public hearings to be 

held in Morehead City, NC, Larose, LA, 

Belle Chasse, LA, D’Iberville, MS, and 

Bayou La Batre, AL. In this document, 

we are correcting the time for the public 

hearing to be held in Larose, LA. 

DATES: A public hearing will be held on 

June 4, 2012, from 6 to 8 p.m. in Larose, 

LA. Written comments (see ADDRESSES) 

will be accepted through July 9, 2012. 

See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

further details. 

ADDRESSES: As published on May 10, 

2012 (77 FR 27411), you may submit 

comments on this proposed rule, 

identified by 0648–BC10, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail: Michael Barnette, Southeast 

Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th 

Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. 

• Fax: 727–824–5309; Attention: 

Michael Barnette. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS