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

Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and 

South Carolina have demonstrated that 

major sources in each state are subject 

to PSD permitting programs to comply 

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

the CAA for the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Therefore, EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that, pending 

these contingent revisions, Alabama, 

Georgia, Mississippi and South 

Carolina’s SIP and practices will be 

adequate for insuring compliance with 

the applicable PSD requirements 

relating to interstate transport pollution 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

IV. Proposed Action 

As described above, EPA is proposing 

to approve SIP revisions for Alabama, 

Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina 

to incorporate provisions into the States’ 

implementation plans to address prong 

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

for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is proposing 

to approve the States’ prong 3 of section 

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

are consistent with section 110 of the 

CAA. As noted above, the proposed 

approval of Georgia’s and South 

Carolina’s implementation plan 

respecting prong 3 of section 

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

first taking final action to approve the 

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

SIP revisions, respectively, for the PM2.5

PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as 

it relates to PM2.5 Increments). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

EPA has preliminarily determined 

that this proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because there are no 

‘‘substantial direct effects’’ on an Indian 

Tribe as a result of this action. EPA 

notes that the Catawba Indian Nation 

Reservation is located within the South 

Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba 

Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code 

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

environmental laws and regulations 

apply to the Catawba Indian Nation and 

Reservation and are fully enforceable by 

all relevant state and local agencies and 

authorities.’’ Thus, while the South 

Carolina SIP applies to the Catawba 

Reservation, because today’s action is 

not proposing a substantive revision to 

the South Carolina SIP, and is instead 

proposing that the existing SIP will 

satisfy the prong 3 requirements of 

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

preliminarily determined that today’s 

action will have no ‘‘substantial direct 

effects’’ on the Catawba Indian Nation. 

EPA has also preliminarily determined 

that these revisions will not impose any 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: November 21, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

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

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0814; FRL–9757–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Florida; 

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

Requirement for the 1997 and 2006 

Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

in part, and disapprove in part, the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions, 

submitted by the State of Florida, 

through the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (DEP) on 

April 18, 2008, and September 23, 2009. 

This proposal addresses the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) requirements pertaining to 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) infrastructure SIPs. The CAA 

requires that each state adopt and 

submit a SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. EPA is proposing 

to approve in part, and disapprove in 

part the submission for Florida, that 

relates to adequate provisions 

prohibiting emissions that interfere with 

any other state’s required measures to 

prevent significant deterioration of its 

air quality. All other applicable 

infrastructure requirements for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

associated with Florida are being 

addressed in separate rulemakings. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 4, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0814, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0814,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
72288 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

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

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0814. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

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

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9043. 

Mr. Lakeman can be reached via 

electronic mail at 

lakeman.sean@epa.gov. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. What are states required to address under 

sections 110(a)(2)(D)? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of how Florida 

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

PSD? 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

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

established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 

15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/ 

m3) based on a 3-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations. At that time, 

EPA also established a 24-hour NAAQS 

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

October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA 

retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

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

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, 

and promulgated a new 24-hour 

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

average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations. By statute, SIPs meeting 

the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) are to be submitted by states 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS. Sections 

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

address basic SIP requirements, 

including emissions inventories, 

monitoring, and modeling to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. States were required to submit 

such SIPs to EPA no later than July 2000 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

no later than October 2009 for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice 

submitted a notice of intent to sue 

related to EPA’s failure to issue findings 

of failure to submit related to the 

‘‘infrastructure’’ requirements for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On March 

10, 2005, EPA entered into a consent 

decree with Earthjustice which required 

EPA, among other things, to complete a 

Federal Register notice announcing 

EPA’s determinations pursuant to 

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

state had made complete submissions to 

meet the requirements of section 

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

October 5, 2008. In accordance with the 

consent decree, EPA made completeness 

findings for each state based upon what 

the Agency received from each state for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as of October 3, 

2008. 

On October 22, 2008, EPA published 

a final rulemaking entitled 

‘‘Completeness Findings for Section 

110(a) State Implementation Plans 

Pertaining to the Fine Particulate Matter 

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

each state had submitted or failed to 

submit a complete SIP that provided the 

basic program elements of section 

110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 73 FR 62902. 

For those states that did receive 

findings, the findings of failure to 

submit for all or a portion of a state’s 

implementation plan established a 24- 

month deadline for EPA to promulgate 

a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to 

address the outstanding SIP elements 

unless, prior to that time, the affected 

states submitted, and EPA approved, the 

required SIPs. 

The findings that all or portions of a 

state’s submission are complete 

established a 12-month deadline for 

EPA to take action upon the complete 

SIP elements in accordance with section 

110(k). Florida’s infrastructure 

submission was received by EPA on 

April 18, 2008, for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS and on September 23, 

2009, for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. Florida was among other states 

that did not receive findings of failure 

to submit because they had provided a 

complete submission to EPA to address 

the infrastructure elements for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS by October 3, 2008. 

On July 6, 2011, WildEarth Guardians 

and Sierra Club filed an amended 

complaint related to EPA’s failure to 

take action on the SIP submittal related 

to the ‘‘infrastructure’’ requirements for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. On 

October 20, 2011, EPA entered into a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 72289 

1EPA promulgated the Phase I Rule on April 30, 

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

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard— 

Phase 1.’’ See 69 FR 23951. 

consent decree with WildEarth 

Guardians and Sierra Club which 

required EPA, among other things, to 

complete a Federal Register notice of 

the Agency’s final action either 

approving, disapproving, or approving 

in part and disapproving in part the 

Florida 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure SIP submittals addressing 

the applicable requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(A)–(H), (J)–(M), except for 

section 110(a)(2)(C) nonattainment area 

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

visibility requirements. The rulemaking 

proposed through today’s action is 

consistent with the terms of this consent 

decree. 

Today’s action is proposing to 

approve in part, and disapprove in part, 

Florida’s infrastructure submission for 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS addressing CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D(i) as it relates to adequate 

provisions prohibiting emissions that 

interfere with any other state’s required 

measures to prevent significant 

deterioration of its air quality (referred 

to as ‘‘prong 3’’). EPA has taken 

previous action on Florida’s 

infrastructure submission for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for sections 

110(a)(2)(A)–(F), (H), (J)–(M), including 

other requirements of section 

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

today’s rulemaking. 

II. What are states required to address 

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

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

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

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

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

require SIPs to include provisions 

prohibiting any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from: (1) 

Contributing significantly to 

nonattainment maintenance of the 

NAAQS in another state, and (2) 

interfering with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in another state (collectively 

referred to as 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)); or 

interfering with measures required to (3) 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in another state (prong 3), or (4) 

protect visibility in another state 

(collectively referred to as 

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

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

provisions insuring compliance with 

sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating 

to interstate and international pollution 

abatement. 

In previous actions, EPA has already 

taken action to address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for Florida’s 

infrastructure submissions for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Today’s proposed rulemaking relates 

only to requirements related to prong 3 

of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). More information on 

this requirement and EPA’s rationale for 

today’s proposal approving in part, and 

disapproving in part, this requirement 

for purposes of the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is provided 

below. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Florida addressed element (D)(i)(II) 

related to PSD? 

EPA’s September 25, 2009, 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Guidance on 

SIP Elements Required Under Section 

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

Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards’’ provided 

guidance on addressing the 

infrastructure requirements required 

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

the CAA with respect to the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2009 Guidance 

describes that a state’s PSD permitting 

program is the primary measure that 

such state must include in its SIP to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in accordance with prong 3 of 

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

below, EPA has preliminarily 

determined that portions of Florida’s 

infrastructure submissions are 

consistent with the 2009 Guidance, 

when considered in conjunction with 

the State’s PSD program, and that a 

portion of the submissions is not. 

At present, there are four regulations 

that are required to be adopted into the 

SIP to meet PSD-related infrastructure 

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

prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and 

110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA. These 

regulations are: (1) ‘‘Final Rule To 

Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 

2; Final Rule’’ (November 29, 2005, 70 

FR 71612) (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Phase II Rule’’); (2) ‘‘Implementation of 

the New Source Review Program for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers; Final Rule’’ (May 16, 

2008, 73 FR 28321) (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘‘NSR PM2.5 Rule’’); (3) 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring 

Rule; Final Rule’’ (June 3, 2010, 75 FR 

31514) (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘GHG Tailoring Rule’’); and, (4) ‘‘Final 

Rule on the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact 

Levels (SILs) and Significant monitoring 

Concentration (SMC); Final Rule’’ 

(October 20, 2010, 75 FR 64864) 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as it 

relates to PM2.5 Increments)’’). Specific 

details on the PSD requirements of these 

regulations can be found the respective 

final rules, however, a brief summary of 

each rule is provided below. 

First, as part of the framework to 

implement the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, EPA promulgated an 

implementation rule in two phases.1

The Phase II Rule is relevant to today’s 

action. This rule, among other changes, 

revised the PSD regulations to recognize 

nitrogen oxide (NOX) as an ozone 

precursor. 

Second, the NSR PM2.5 Rule revised 

the NSR program to establish the 

framework for implementing 

preconstruction permit review for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS in both attainment areas 

and nonattainment areas. The PSD 

requirements included: (1) A provision 

that NSR permits address directly 

emitted PM2.5 and precursor pollutants; 

(2) a requirement establishing 

significant emission rates for direct 

PM2.5 and precursor pollutants 

(including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

NOX); (3) exceptions to the 

grandfathering policy for permits being 

reviewed under the PM10 surrogate 

program; and, (4) a revision that states 

account for gases that condense to form 

particles (condensables) in PM2.5 and 

PM10 emission limits in PSD permits. 

Third, in the GHG Tailoring Rule, 

EPA tailored the applicability criteria 

that determine which GHG emission 

sources become subject to the PSD 

program of the CAA. See 75 FR 31514. 

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

increments) provided additional 

regulatory requirements under the PSD 

program regarding the implementation 

of the PM2.5 NAAQS for NSR by 

specifically establishing PM2.5

increments pursuant to section 166(a) of 

the CAA to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in areas 

meeting the NAAQS. 

The PSD requirements promulgated in 

the aforementioned regulations establish 

the framework for a comprehensive SIP 

PSD program which EPA has 

determined are necessary to comply 

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

following provides a listing of relevant 

EPA approvals for Florida SIP revisions 

to address PSD requirements. 

1. EPA’s approval of Florida’s PSD/ 

NSR regulations which address the 

Ozone Implementation NSR Update 

requirements was published in the 

Federal Register on June 15, 2012 (77 

FR 35862). 

2. EPA’s approval of Florida’s NSR 

PM2.5 Rule was published in the Federal 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
72290 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits 

Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call, 

Final Rule, 75 FR 77698 (December 13, 2010). 

3Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits 

under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Federal Implementation Plan—Final Rule, 75 FR 

82246 (December 30, 2010). 

Register on September 19, 2012 (77 FR 

58027). 

3. EPA’s approval of Florida’s PSD/ 

PM2.5 approving PM2.5 increments was 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58027). 

These three approval actions 

demonstrate that Florida’s SIP-approved 

PSD program meets three of the four 

required regulatory elements necessary 

to satisfy prong 3 of section 

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

With respect to the fourth necessary 

regulatory element—the GHG Tailoring 

Rule—Florida did not submit a SIP 

revision to adopt the appropriate 

emission thresholds for determining 

which new stationary sources and 

modification projects become subject to 

PSD permitting requirements for their 

GHG emissions as promulgated in the 

GHG Tailoring Rule. Therefore, 

Florida’s federally-approved SIP 

contained errors that resulted in its 

failure to address, or provide adequate 

legal authority for, the implementation 

of a GHG PSD program in Florida. In the 

GHG SIP Call,2 EPA determined that the 

State of Florida’s SIP was substantially 

inadequate to achieve CAA 

requirements because its existing PSD 

program does not apply to GHGemitting sources. This rule finalized a 

SIP call for 15 state and local permitting 

authorities including Florida. EPA 

explained that if a state, identified in 

the SIP call, failed to submit the 

required corrective SIP revision by the 

applicable deadline, EPA would 

promulgate a FIP under CAA section 

110(c)(1)(A) for that state to govern PSD 

permitting for GHG. On December 30, 

2010, EPA promulgated a FIP 3 because 

Florida failed to submit, by its 

December 22, 2010, deadline, the 

corrective SIP revision to apply its PSD 

program to sources of GHG consistent 

with the thresholds described in the 

GHG Tailoring rule. The FIP ensured 

that a permitting authority (i.e., EPA) 

would be available to issue 

preconstruction PSD permits to GHGemitting sources in the State of Florida. 

EPA took these actions through interim 

final rulemaking, effective upon 

publication, to ensure the availability of 

a permitting authority—EPA—in Florida 

for GHG-emitting sources when they 

became subject to PSD on January 2, 

2011. 

The Florida SIP currently does not 

provide adequate legal authority to 

address the GHG PSD permitting 

requirements at or above the levels of 

emissions set forth in the GHG Tailoring 

Rule, or at other appropriate levels. As 

a result, EPA has preliminarily 

determined that the Florida SIP does not 

satisfy a portions of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) prong 3 for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing disapproval 

of FDEP’s submission for prong 3 of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) as it relates relate 

to GHG PSD permitting requirements. 

EPA’s proposed disapproval of this 

element does not result in any further 

obligation on the part of Florida, 

because EPA has already promulgated a 

FIP for the Florida PSD program to 

address permitting GHG at or above the 

GHG Tailoring Rule thresholds (76 FR 

25178). Thus, today’s proposed action to 

approve in part, and disapprove in part, 

FDEP’s submission for prong 3 of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), once final, will 

not require any further action by either 

FDEP or EPA. 

IV. Proposed Action 

As described above, EPA is proposing 

to approve in part, and disapprove in 

part, the SIP revision for Florida to 

incorporate provisions into the State’s 

implementation plan to address prong 3 

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

both the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is 

proposing to approve the State’s prong 

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

as they relate to the ‘‘Phase II Rule,’’ the 

‘‘NSR PM2.5 Rule,’’ and the ‘‘PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as it 

relates to PM2.5 increments)’’ because 

they are consistent with section 110 of 

the CAA. EPA also is proposing to 

disapprove Florida’s submissions for the 

portion of the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

prong 3 requirements related to the 

regulation of GHG emissions. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this 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, 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: November 21, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29400 Filed 12–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with