44198 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0555; FRL–9704–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of Florida: 

New Source Review; Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration; Fine 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

changes to the Florida State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP) to 

EPA on March 15, 2012. The SIP 

revision modifies Florida’s New Source 

Review (NSR) Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permitting program. 

The SIP revision adopts, into the Florida 

SIP, federal NSR permitting provisions 

to address the implementation of the 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

as amended in EPA’s 2008 NSR PM2.5

Implementation Rule (hereafter referred 

to as the ‘‘NSR PM2.5 Rule’’) and the 

2010 PM2.5 PSD Increment, Significant 

Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant 

Monitoring Concentration (SMC) Rule 

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

Increment-SILs-SMC Rule’’). EPA is 

proposing to approve portions of 

Florida’s SIP revision because the 

Agency has preliminarily determined 

that the changes are consistent with the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA 

regulations regarding NSR permitting. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0555, 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–2012–0555, 

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–2012– 

0555 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: For 

information regarding the Florida SIP, 

contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, 

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. 

Telephone number: (404) 562–9352; 

email address: 

bradley.twunjala@epa.gov. For 

information regarding NSR, contact Ms. 

Yolanda Adams, Air Permits Section, at 

the same address above. Telephone 

number: (404) 562–9214; email address: 

adams.yolanda@epa.gov. For 

information regarding PM2.5 NAAQS, 

contact Mr. Joel Huey, Regulatory 

Development Section, at the same 

address above. Telephone number: (404) 

562–9104; email address: 

huey.joel@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

III. What are the NSR implementation 

requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Florida’s SIP 

revision? 

V. Proposed Rule 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

On March 15, 2012, FDEP submitted 

a SIP revision to EPA for approval into 

the Florida SIP to adopt federal 

requirements for NSR permitting. 

Florida’s SIP revision makes changes to 

the State’s Air Quality Regulations at 

Chapter 62–210, Florida Administrative 

Code (F.A.C.), Stationary Sources— 

General Requirements, Section 200— 

Definitions (rule 62–210.200), and 

Chapter 62–212, F.A.C., Stationary 

Sources—Preconstruction Review, 

Section 300—General Preconstruction 

Review Requirements (rule 62–212.300) 

and Section 400—Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (rule 62– 

212.400). These rule changes were 

provided to comply with federal NSR 

permitting provisions related to the 

implementation of the PSD program for 

the PM2.5 NAAQS as promulgated in the 

NSR PM2.5 Rule entitled 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44199 

1EPA’s authority to implement the SILs and SMC 

for PSD purposes has been challenged by the Sierra 

Club. Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No 10–1413 United 

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

(D.C. Circuit Court). 

2On November 1, 2005, EPA proposed a rule to 

implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, including 

proposed revisions to the NSR program. See 70 FR 

65984. 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5),’’ Final Rule, 73 FR 28321 (May 

16, 2008) and the PM2.5 PSD IncrementSILs-SMC Rule entitled ‘‘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,’’ 75 FR 64864, 

(October 20, 2010). Pursuant to section 

110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to 

approve into the Florida SIP these 

changes submitted by the State, with the 

exception of the SILs provisions 

pursuant to EPA’s PM2.5 PSD IncrementSILs-SMC Rule.1 See 75 FR 64864. More 

details regarding SILs are summarized 

below in Sections III and IV. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

Today’s proposed action to revise 

Florida’s SIP relates to EPA’s NSR PM2.5

Rule 2 and the PM2.5 PSD IncrementSILs-SMC Rule. In the NSR PM2.5 Rule, 

EPA finalized regulations to implement 

the NSR program for the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

As a result of EPA’s final NSR PM2.5

Rule, states were required to submit SIP 

revisions to EPA no later than May 16, 

2011, to address these requirements for 

both the PSD and Nonattainment NSR 

(NNSR) programs. EPA’s PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC Rule established 

PSD increments, SILs and SMC which 

address additional components for 

making PSD permitting determinations 

for the PM2.5 NAAQS. These 

requirements address air quality 

modeling and monitoring provisions for 

fine particle pollution in areas protected 

by the PSD program (that is, attainment 

or unclassifiable/attainment areas for 

the NAAQS). The PM2.5 PSD IncrementSILs-SMC Rule requires states to submit 

SIP revisions to adopt the required PSD 

increments by July 20, 2012. 

Promulgation of these two rules 

provided the framework states need to 

address the NSR permitting 

requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Florida’s March 15, 2012, SIP revision 

adopts into the Florida SIP the PSD 

requirements promulgated in these two 

rules to be consistent with federal 

regulations for the PM2.5 NAAQS. More 

detail on the NSR PM2.5 Rule and the 

PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule 

can be found in EPA’s May 16, 2008, 

and October 20, 2010, final rules, 

respectively, and are summarized 

below. See 73 FR 28321 and 75 FR 

64864. 

A. Fine Particulate Matter and the 

NAAQS 

Fine particles in the atmosphere are 

made up of a complex mixture of 

components. Common constituents 

include sulfate; nitrate; ammonium; 

elemental carbon; a great variety of 

organic compounds; and inorganic 

material (including metals, dust, sea 

salt, and other trace elements) generally 

referred to as ‘‘crustal’’ material, 

although it may contain material from 

other sources. Airborne particulate 

matter (PM) with a nominal 

aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 

micrometers or less (a micrometer is 

one-millionth of a meter, and 2.5 

micrometers is less than one-seventh the 

average width of a human hair) are 

considered to be ‘‘fine particles’’ and are 

also known as PM2.5. ‘‘Primary’’ 

particles are emitted directly into the air 

as a solid or liquid particle (e.g., 

elemental carbon from diesel engines or 

fire activities, or condensable organic 

particles from gasoline engines). 

‘‘Secondary’’ particles (e.g., sulfate and 

nitrate) form in the atmosphere as a 

result of various chemical reactions. 

The health effects associated with 

exposure to PM2.5 include potential 

aggravation of respiratory and 

cardiovascular disease (i.e., lung 

disease, decreased lung function asthma 

attacks and certain cardiovascular 

issues). Epidemiological studies have 

indicated a correlation between elevated 

PM2.5 levels and premature mortality. 

Groups considered especially sensitive 

to PM2.5 exposure include older adults, 

children, and individuals with heart 

and lung diseases. For more details 

regarding health effects and PM2.5 see 

EPA’s Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ 

oar/particlepollution/ (See heading 

‘‘Health and Welfare’’). 

On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the 

NAAQS for PM to add new standards 

for fine particles, using PM2.5 as the 

indicator. Previously, EPA used PM10

(inhalable particles smaller than or 

equal to 10 micrometers in diameter) as 

the indicator for the PM NAAQS. EPA 

established health-based (primary) 

annual and 24-hour standards for PM2.5, 

setting an annual standard at a level of 

15 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) 

and a 24-hour standard at a level of 65 

mg/m3. See 62 FR 38652. At the time the 

1997 primary standards were 

established, EPA also established 

welfare-based (secondary) standards 

identical to the primary standards. The 

secondary standards are designed to 

protect against major environmental 

effects of PM2.5, such as visibility 

impairment, soiling, and materials 

damage. On October 17, 2006, EPA 

revised the primary and secondary 

NAAQS for PM2.5. In that rulemaking, 

EPA reduced the 24-hour NAAQS for 

PM2.5 to 35 mg/m3 and retained the 

existing annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 mg/ 

m3. See 71 FR 61236. 

B. What is the NSR program? 

The CAA NSR program is a 

preconstruction review and permitting 

program applicable to certain new and 

modified stationary sources of air 

pollutants regulated under the CAA. 

The program includes a combination of 

air quality planning and air pollution 

control technology requirements. The 

CAA NSR program is composed of three 

separate programs: PSD, NNSR, and 

Minor NSR. PSD is established in part 

C of title I of the CAA and applies in 

areas that meet the NAAQS 

(‘‘attainment areas’’) as well as areas 

where there is insufficient information 

to determine if the area meets the 

NAAQS (‘‘unclassifiable areas’’). The 

NNSR program is established in part D 

of title I of the CAA and applies in areas 

that are not in attainment of the NAAQS 

(‘‘nonattainment areas’’). The Minor 

NSR program addresses construction or 

modification activities that do not 

qualify as ‘‘major’’ and applies 

regardless of the designation of the area 

in which a source is located. Together, 

these programs are referred to as the 

NSR program. EPA regulations 

governing the implementation of these 

programs are contained in 40 CFR 

51.160–.166; 52.21, .24; and, part 51, 

appendix S. Section 109 of the CAA 

requires EPA to promulgate a primary 

NAAQS to protect public health and a 

secondary NAAQS to protect public 

welfare. Once EPA sets those standards, 

states must develop, adopt, and submit 

a SIP to EPA for approval that includes 

emission limitations and other control 

measures to attain and maintain the 

NAAQS. See CAA section 110. Each SIP 

is also required to include a 

preconstruction review program for the 

construction and modification of any 

stationary source of air pollution to 

assure the maintenance of the NAAQS. 

The applicability of the PSD program to 

a major stationary source must be 

determined in advance of construction 

and is a pollutant-specific 

determination. Once a major source is 

determined to be subject to the PSD 

program (and thus is a ‘‘PSD source’’), 

among other requirements, it must 

undertake a series of analyses to 

demonstrate that it will use the best 

available control technology and will 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
44200 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3Florida’s March 15, 2012, SIP revision only 

addresses the State’s PSD permitting program and 

does not adopt the NNSR permitting requirements 

for PM2.5 emission offsets, condensable provision or 

the discretionary interpollutant trading policy and 

ratios promulgated in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule. 

Moreover Florida is attainment for the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

4Additional information on this issue can also be 

found in an August 12, 2009, final order on a title 

V petition describing the use of PM10 as a surrogate 

for PM2.5. In the Matter of Louisville Gas & Electric 

Company, Petition No. IV–2008–3, Order on 

Petition (August 12, 2009). 

5Sources that applied for a PSD permit under the 

federal PSD program on or after July 15, 2008, are 

already excluded from using the 1997 PM10

Surrogate Policy as a means of satisfying the PSD 

requirements for PM2.5. See 76 FR 28321. 

not cause or contribute to a violation of 

any NAAQS or increment. Florida’s 

March 15, 2012, SIP revision consists of 

rule amendments to adopt into Florida’s 

PSD program provisions related to the 

review and control of PM2.5 emissions 

from major stationary sources and 

modifications. 

III. What are the NSR implementation 

requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS? 

A. NSR PM2.5 Rule 

On May 16, 2008, EPA finalized the 

NSR PM2.5 Rule to implement the PM2.5

NAAQS, including changes to the NSR 

program. See 73 FR 28321. The NSR 

PM2.5 Rule revised the federal NSR 

program requirements to establish the 

framework for implementing 

preconstruction permit review for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS in both attainment and 

nonattainment areas. Specifically, the 

NSR PM2.5 Rule established NSR 

requirements to implement the PM2.5

NAAQS that: (1) Require NSR permits to 

address directly emitted PM2.5 and 

precursor pollutants; (2) establish 

significant emission rates for direct 

PM2.5 and precursor pollutants 

(including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX)); (3) establish 

PM2.5 emission offsets; (4) provide 

exceptions to the PM10 grandfathering 

policy; and (5) require states to account 

for gases that condense to form particles 

(‘‘condensables’’) in PM2.5 and PM10

emission limits in PSD or NNSR 

permits. Additionally, the NSR PM2.5

Rule authorized states to adopt 

provisions in their NNSR rules that 

would allow interpollutant offset 

trading. Florida’s March 15, 2012, SIP 

revision addresses the PSD permitting 

requirements promulgated in the NSR 

PM2.5 Rule.3 A few key issues described 

in greater detail below include the PM10

surrogate and grandfathering policy and 

the condensable provision. 

1. PM10 Surrogate and Grandfathering 

Policy 

After EPA promulgated the NAAQS 

for PM2.5 in 1997 (62 FR 38652, July 18, 

1997), the Agency issued a guidance 

document entitled ‘‘Interim 

Implementation of New Source Review 

Requirements for PM2.5.’’ John S. Seitz, 

EPA, October 23, 1997 (the ‘‘Seitz 

Memo’’). The Seitz Memo was designed 

to help states implement NSR 

requirements pertaining to the new 

PM2.5 NAAQS in light of technical 

difficulties posed by PM2.5 at that time. 

Specifically, the Seitz Memo stated: 

‘‘PM–10 may properly be used as a 

surrogate for PM–2.5 in meeting NSR 

requirements until these difficulties are 

resolved.’’ EPA also issued a guidance 

document entitled ‘‘Implementation of 

New Source Review Requirements in 

PM–2.5 Nonattainment Areas’’ (the 

‘‘2005 PM2.5 NNSR Guidance’’) on April 

5, 2005, the date that EPA’s PM2.5

nonattainment area designations became 

effective for the 1997 NAAQS. The 2005 

PM2.5 NNSR Guidance provided 

direction regarding implementation of 

the nonattainment major NSR 

provisions in PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

in the interim period between the 

effective date of the PM2.5

nonattainment area designations (April 

5, 2005) and EPA’s promulgation of 

final PM2.5 NNSR regulations. Besides 

re-affirming the continuation of the 

PM10 Surrogate Policy for PM2.5

attainment areas set forth in the Seitz 

memo, the 2005 PM2.5 NNSR Guidance 

recommended that until EPA 

promulgated the PM2.5 major NSR 

regulations, ‘‘States should use a PM10

nonattainment major NSR program as a 

surrogate to address the requirements of 

nonattainment major NSR for the PM2.5

NAAQS.’’ 

In the NSR PM2.5 Rule, EPA required 

that major stationary sources seeking 

permits must begin directly satisfying 

the PM2.5 requirements, as of the 

effective date of the rule, rather than 

relying on PM10 as a surrogate, with two 

exceptions. The first exception is the 

‘‘grandfathering’’ provision in the 

federal PSD program at 40 CFR 

52.21(i)(1)(xi). This grandfathering 

provision applied to sources that had 

applied for, but had not yet received, a 

final and effective PSD permit before the 

July 15, 2008, effective date of the May 

16, 2008, final rule. The second 

exception was that states with SIPapproved PSD programs could continue 

to implement the Seitz Memo’s PM10

Surrogate Policy for up to three years 

(until May 2011) or until EPA approved 

the individual revised state PSD 

programs for PM2.5, whichever came 

first. See 73 FR 28321.4

On February 11, 2010, EPA proposed 

to repeal the grandfathering provision 

for PM2.5 contained in the federal PSD 

program at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi) and to 

end early the PM10 Surrogate Policy 

applicable in states that have a SIPapproved PSD program. See 75 FR 6827. 

In support of this proposal, EPA 

explained that the PM2.5

implementation issues that led to the 

adoption of the PM10 Surrogate Policy in 

1997 have been largely resolved to a 

degree sufficient for sources and 

permitting authorities to conduct 

meaningful permit-related PM2.5

analyses. 

On May 18, 2011 (76 FR 28646), EPA 

took final action to repeal the PM2.5

grandfathering provision at 40 CFR 

52.21(i)(1)(xi). This final action ended 

the use of the 1997 PM10 Surrogate 

Policy for PSD permits under the federal 

PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21. In effect, 

any PSD permit applicant previously 

covered by the grandfathering provision 

(for sources that completed and 

submitted a permit application before 

July 15, 2008) 5 that did not have a final 

and effective PSD permit before the 

effective date of the repeal would no 

longer be able to rely on the 1997 PM10

Surrogate Policy to satisfy the PSD 

requirements for PM2.5 unless the 

application included a valid surrogacy 

demonstration. See 76 FR 28646. 

Florida’s March 15, 2012, SIP revision 

did not adopt the grandfathering 

provision at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi), in 

accordance with the repeal of the PM2.5

grandfathering provision. 

2. ‘‘Condensable’’ Provision 

In the NSR PM2.5 Rule, EPA revised 

the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ for PSD to add a paragraph 

providing that ‘‘particulate matter (PM) 

emissions, PM2.5 emissions and PM10

emissions’’ shall include gaseous 

emissions from a source or activity 

which condense to form particulate 

matter at ambient temperatures and that 

on or after January 1, 2011, such 

condensable particulate matter shall be 

accounted for in applicability 

determinations and in establishing 

emissions limitations for PM, PM2.5 and 

PM10 in permits. See 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(vi), 52.21(b)(50)(vi) and 

‘‘Emissions Offset Interpretative Ruling’’ 

(40 CFR part 51, appendix S). A similar 

paragraph added to the NNSR rule does 

not include ‘‘particulate matter (PM) 

emissions.’’ See 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(D). 

On March 16, 2012, EPA proposed a 

rulemaking to amend the definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ promulgated 

in the NSR PM2.5 Rule regarding the PM 

condensable provision at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(vi), 52.21(b)(50)(i) and 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44201 

6 In addition to the NSPS for PM, states have 

regulated ‘‘particulate matter emissions’’ for many 

years in their SIPs for PM, and the same indicator 

has been used as a surrogate for determining 

compliance with certain standards contained in 40 

CFR part 63 regarding National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants. 

7EPA proposed approval of the PSD IncrementsSILs-SMC Rule on September 21, 2007. See 72 FR 

54112. 

8On April 6, 2012, EPA filed a brief with the D.C. 

Circuit court defending the Agency’s authority to 

implement SILs and SMC for PSD purposes. 

9Section 169(4) of the CAA provides that the 

baseline concentration of a pollutant for a particular 

baseline area is generally the same air quality at the 

time of the first application for a PSD permit in the 

area. 

10Baseline dates are pollutant specific. That is, a 

complete PSD application establishes the baseline 

date only for those regulated NSR pollutants that 

are projected to be emitted in significant amounts 

(as defined in the regulations) by the applicant’s 

new source or modification. Thus, an area may have 

different baseline dates for different pollutants. 

11EPA generally characterized the PM2.5 NAAQS 

as a NAAQS for a new indicator of PM. EPA did 

not replace the PM10 NAAQs with the NAAQS for 

PM2.5 when the PM2.5 NAAQS were promulgated in 

1997. EPA rather retained the annual and 24-hour 

Continued 

EPA’s Emissions Offset Interpretative 

Ruling. See 77 FR 15656. The 

rulemaking proposes to remove the 

inadvertent requirement in the NSR 

PM2.5 Rule that the measurement of 

condensable ‘‘particulate matter 

emissions’’ be included as part of the 

measurement and regulation of 

‘‘particulate matter emissions.’’ The 

term ‘‘particulate matter emissions’’ 

includes particles that are larger than 

PM2.5 and PM10 and is an indicator 

measured under various New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) (40 CFR 

part 60).6 Florida’s March 15, 2012, SIP 

revision did not adopt the term 

‘‘particulate matter emissions’’ 

regarding the requirement to consider 

condensables as promulgated in the 

NSR PM2.5 Rule. 

B. PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC-Rule 

As mentioned above, EPA finalized 

the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule 

to provide additional regulatory 

requirements under the PSD program 

regarding the implementation of the 

PM2.5 NAAQS for NSR.7 Specifically, 

the rule establishes the following to 

implement the PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

PSD program: (1) PM2.5 increments 

pursuant to section 166(a) of the CAA to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in areas meeting the NAAQS; (2) 

SILs used as a screening tool (by a major 

source subject to PSD) to evaluate the 

impact a proposed major source or 

modification may have on the NAAQS 

or PSD increment; and (3) a SMC, (also 

a screening tool) used by a major source 

subject to PSD to determine the 

subsequent level of data gathering 

required for a PSD permit application 

for emissions of PM2.5. As part of the 

response to comments on October 20, 

2010 final rulemaking, EPA explained 

that, the agency agrees that the SILs and 

SMC used as de minimis thresholds for 

the various pollutants are useful tools 

that enable permitting authorities and 

PSD applicants to screen out 

‘‘insignificant’’ activities; however, the 

fact remains that these values are not 

required by the Act as part of an 

approvable SIP program. EPA believes 

that most states are likely to adopt the 

SILs and SMC because of the useful 

purpose they serve regardless of our 

position that the values are not 

mandatory. Alternatively, states may 

develop more stringent values if they 

desire to do so. In any case, states are 

not under any SIP-related deadline for 

revising their PSD programs to add 

these screening tools. See 75 FR 64864, 

64900. 

Florida’s March 15, 2012, SIP revision 

adopts the PM2.5 PSD Increments (which 

are statutorily required) as well as the 

SILs and SMC promulgated in the PM2.5

PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule to be 

consistent with the federal NSR 

regulations and to appropriately 

implement the State’s NSR program for 

the PM2.5 NAAQS. More detail on the 

PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule 

can be found in EPA’s October 20, 2010, 

final rule and is summarized below. See 

75 FR 64864. EPA is not proposing to 

approve the SILs provisions 

(promulgated in the PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC Rule) into the 

Florida SIP in this rulemaking. EPA’s 

authority to implement the SILs and 

SMC for PSD purposes has been 

challenged by the Sierra Club. See 

Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No. 10–1413 

(D.C. Circuit Court).8 More details 

regarding Florida’s changes to its NSR 

regulations are also summarized below 

in Section IV. 

1. What are PSD increments? 

As established in part C of title I of 

the CAA, EPA’s PSD program protects 

public health from adverse effects of air 

pollution by ensuring that construction 

of new or modified sources in 

attainment or unclassifiable/attainment 

areas does not lead to significant 

deterioration of air quality while 

simultaneously ensuring that economic 

growth will occur in a manner 

consistent with preservation of clean air 

resources. Under section 165(a)(3) of the 

CAA, a PSD permit applicant must 

demonstrate that emissions from the 

proposed construction and operation of 

a facility ‘‘will not cause, or contribute 

to, air pollution in excess of any 

maximum allowable increase or 

allowable concentration for any 

pollutant.’’ In other words, when a 

source applies for a permit to emit a 

regulated pollutant in an area that meets 

the NAAQS, the state and EPA must 

determine if emissions of the regulated 

pollutant from the source will cause 

significant deterioration in air quality. 

Significant deterioration occurs when 

the amount of the new pollution 

exceeds the applicable PSD increment, 

which is the ‘‘maximum allowable 

increase’’ of an air pollutant allowed to 

occur above the applicable baseline 

concentration 9 for that pollutant. PSD 

increments prevent air quality in clean 

areas from deteriorating to the level set 

by the NAAQS. Therefore an increment 

is the mechanism used to estimate 

‘‘significant deterioration’’ of air quality 

for a pollutant in an area. 

For PSD baseline purposes, a baseline 

area for a particular pollutant emitted 

from a source includes the attainment or 

unclassifiable/attainment area in which 

the source is located as well as any 

other attainment or unclassifiable/ 

attainment area in which the source’s 

emissions of that pollutant are projected 

(by air quality modeling) to result in an 

ambient pollutant increase of at least 1 

mg/m3 (annual average). See 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(15)(i). Under EPA’s existing 

regulations, the establishment of a 

baseline area for any PSD increment 

results from the submission of the first 

complete PSD permit application and is 

based on the location of the proposed 

source and its emissions impact on the 

area. Once the baseline area is 

established, subsequent PSD sources 

locating in that area need to consider 

that a portion of the available increment 

may have already been consumed by 

previous emissions increases. In 

general, the submittal date of the first 

complete PSD permit application in a 

particular area is the operative ‘‘baseline 

date.’’ 10 On or before the date of the 

first complete PSD application, 

emissions generally are considered to be 

part of the baseline concentration, 

except for certain emissions from major 

stationary sources. Most emissions 

increases that occur after the baseline 

date will be counted toward the amount 

of increment consumed. Similarly, 

emissions decreases after the baseline 

date restore or expand the amount of 

increment that is available. See 75 FR 

64864. As described in the PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, pursuant to 

the authority under section 166(a) of the 

CAA, EPA promulgated numerical 

increments for PM2.5 as a new 

pollutant 11 for which the NAAQS were 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
44202 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

NAAQS for PM2.5 as if PM2.5 was a new pollutant 

even though EPA had already developed air quality 

criteria for PM generally. See 75 FR 64864 (October 

20, 2012). 

12EPA interprets 166(a) to authorize EPA to 

promulgate pollutant-specific PSD regulations 

meeting the requirements of section 166(c) and 

166(d) for any pollutant for which EPA promulgates 

a NAAQS after 1977. 

13The de minimis principle is grounded in 

decision described by the court case Alabama 

Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360 (D.C. Cir. 

1980). In this case reviewing EPA’s 1978 PSD 

regulations, the court recognized that ‘‘there is 

likely a basis for an implication of de minimis 

authority to provide exemption when the burdens 

of regulation yield a gain of trivial or no value.’’ 636 

F.2d at 360. 

14As mentioned earlier, due to litigation by the 

Sierra Club, EPA is not proposing to take action on 

the SILs portion of Florida’s March 15, 2012, SIP 

revision at this time but will take action once the 

court case regarding SILs implementation is 

resolved. 

15Additional information on this issue can also 

be found in an April 25, 2010, comment letter from 

EPA Region 6 to the Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality regarding the SILs-SMC 

litigation. A copy of this letter can be found in the 

docket for today’s rulemaking at 

www.regulations.gov using docket ID: EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0555. 

established after August 7, 1977,12 and 

derived 24-hour and annual PM2.5

increments for the three area 

classifications (Class I, II and III) using 

the ‘‘contingent safe harbor’’ approach. 

See 75 FR 64864 at 64869 and table at 

40 CFR 51.166(c)(1). 

In addition to PSD increments for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC Rule amended the 

definition at 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 

for ‘‘major source baseline date’’ and 

‘‘minor source baseline date’’ (including 

trigger dates) to establish the PM2.5

NAAQS specific dates associated with 

the implementation of PM2.5 PSD 

increments. See 75 FR 64864. In 

accordance with section 166(b) of the 

CAA, EPA required the states to submit 

revised implementation plans to EPA 

for approval (to adopt the PM2.5 PSD 

increments) within 21 months from 

promulgation of the final rule (by July 

20, 2012). Each state was responsible for 

determining how increment 

consumption and the setting of the 

minor source baseline date for PM2.5

would occur under its own PSD 

program. Regardless of when a State 

begins to require PM2.5 increment 

analysis and how it chooses to set the 

PM2.5 minor source baseline date, the 

emissions from sources subject to PSD 

for PM2.5 for which construction 

commenced after October 20, 2010, 

(major source baseline date) consume 

the PM2.5 increment and should be 

included in the increment analyses 

occurring after the minor source 

baseline date is established for an area 

under the state’s revised PSD program. 

As discussed in detail in Section IV, 

Florida’s March 15, 2012, SIP revision 

adopts the PM2.5 increment permitting 

requirements promulgated in the PM2.5

PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule. 

2. What are significant monitoring 

concentrations? 

Under the CAA and EPA regulations, 

an applicant for a PSD permit is 

required to gather preconstruction 

monitoring data in certain 

circumstances. Section 165(a)(7) calls 

for ‘‘such monitoring as may be 

necessary to determine the effect which 

emissions from any such facility may 

have, or is having, on air quality in any 

areas which may be affected by 

emissions from such source.’’ In 

addition, section 165(e) requires an 

analysis of the air quality in areas 

affected by a proposed major facility or 

major modification and calls for 

gathering one year of monitoring data 

unless the reviewing authority 

determines that a complete and 

adequate analysis may be accomplished 

in a shorter period. These requirements 

are codified in EPA’s PSD regulations at 

40 CFR 51.166(m) and 40 CFR 52.21(m). 

In accordance with EPA’s Guideline for 

Air Quality Modeling (40 CFR part 51, 

appendix W), the preconstruction 

monitoring data is primarily used to 

determine background concentrations in 

modeling conducted to demonstrate that 

the proposed source or modification 

will not cause or contribute to a 

violation of the NAAQS. See 40 CFR 

part 51, appendix W, section 9.2. SMCs 

are numerical values that represent 

thresholds of insignificant (i.e., de 

minimis 13), monitored (ambient) 

impacts on pollutant concentrations. In 

EPA’s PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC 

Rule, EPA established a SMC of 4 mg/m3

for PM2.5 to be used as a screening tool 

by a major source subject to PSD to 

determine the subsequent level of data 

gathering required for a PSD permit 

application for emissions of PM2.5. See 

75 FR 64864. 

Using the SMC as a screening tool, 

sources may be able to demonstrate that 

the modeled air quality impact of 

emissions from the new source or 

modification, or the existing air quality 

level in the area where the source would 

construct, is less than the SMC (i.e., de 

minimis), and as such, may be allowed 

to forego the preconstruction monitoring 

requirement for a particular pollutant at 

the discretion of the reviewing 

authority. See 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5) and 

52.21(i)(5). SMCs are not minimum 

required elements of an approvable SIP 

under the CAA. This de minimis value 

is widely considered to be a useful 

component for implementing the PSD 

program, but is not absolutely necessary 

for the states to implement PSD 

programs. States can satisfy the 

statutory requirements for a PSD 

program by requiring each PSD 

applicant to submit air quality 

monitoring data for PM2.5 without using 

de minimis thresholds to exempt certain 

sources from such requirements. See 75 

FR 64864. The SMC became effective 

under the federal PSD program on 

December 20, 2010. States with EPAapproved PSD programs that adopt the 

SMC for PM2.5, however, may use the 

SMC, once it is part of an approved SIP, 

to determine when it may be 

appropriate to exempt a particular major 

stationary source or major modification 

from the monitoring requirements under 

its state PSD program. Florida’s March 

15, 2012, SIP revision adopts the SMC 

provision into the Florida SIP. 

Recently, the Sierra Club filed suit 

challenging EPA’s authority to 

implement the PM2.5 SILs 14 as well as 

the SMC for PSD purposes as 

promulgated in the October 20, 2010, 

rule. Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No 10– 

1413, D.C. Circuit Court. Specifically 

regarding the SMC, the Sierra Club 

claims that the use of an SMC to exempt 

a source from submitting a year’s worth 

of monitoring data is inconsistent with 

the CAA. EPA responded to Sierra 

Club’s claims in a Brief dated April 6, 

2012, which described the Agency’s 

authority to develop and promulgate 

SMC.15 A copy of EPA’s April 6, 2012, 

Brief can be found in the docket for 

today’s rulemaking at 

www.regulations.gov using docket ID: 

EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0555. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Florida’s 

SIP revision? 

Florida currently has a SIP-approved 

NSR program for new and modified 

stationary sources. FDEP’s PSD program 

definitions and preconstruction 

permitting rules are found at rule 62– 

210.200, F.A.C, and rules 62–212.300 

through 62–212.400, F.A.C., 

respectively. These rules apply to major 

stationary sources or modifications 

constructed in areas designated 

attainment or unclassifiable/attainment 

as required under part C of title I of the 

CAA with respect to the NAAQS. 

FDEP’s March 15, 2012, changes to 

Chapters 62–210, F.A.C., and 62–212, 

F.A.C., were submitted to adopt into 

Florida’s NSR permitting program PSD 

provisions promulgated in the NSR 

PM2.5 Rule and the PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC rule. These 

changes to Florida’s regulations became 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44203 

16Florida IBR federal rules at rule 62–204.800 

F.A.C. 

state effective on March 28, 2012. EPA 

is proposing to approve these changes 

into the Florida SIP to be consistent 

with federal NSR regulations (at 40 CFR 

51.166 and 52.21) and the CAA. 

A. NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

Florida’s March 15, 2012, SIP revision 

establishes that the State’s existing NSR 

permitting program requirements for 

PSD apply to the PM2.5 NAAQS and its 

precursors. Specifically, the SIP revision 

adopts the following NSR PM2.5 Rule 

PSD provisions into the Florida SIP: (1) 

The requirement for NSR permits to 

address directly emitted PM2.5 and 

precursor pollutants; (2) significant 

emission rates for direct PM2.5 and 

precursor pollutants (SO2 and NOX) and 

(3) the requirement that condensable 

PM be addressed in enforceable PM10

and PM2.5 emission limits included in 

PSD permits. The March 15, 2012 

changes revised the definition for 

‘‘significant emissions rates’’ at 62– 

21.200(282) to establish SO2 and NOx as 

PM2.5 precursors and adopt significant 

emission rates for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors for major modifications at 

existing sources (as amended at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(23)(i)) and established the 

requirement that condensable PM10 and 

PM2.5 emissions be accounted for in PSD 

applicability determinations and in 

establishing emissions limitations for 

PM at 62–212.300(1)(f) as amended at 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(49). In addition, Florida’s 

March 15, 2012, SIP revision added 

definitions for ‘‘condensable PM10’’ at 

62–210.200(94), ‘‘condensable PM2.5’’ at 

62–210–200(95) and ‘‘condensable PM’’ 

at 62–210.200(93), for clarification 

purposes. EPA is proposing to approve 

the aforementioned changes into the 

Florida SIP. 

B. PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule 

Florida’s March 15, 2012, SIP revision 

adopts, into the Florida SIP, the 

following PSD provisions promulgated 

in the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC 

Rule: (1) PSD increments for PM2.5

annual and 24-hour NAAQS pursuant to 

section 166(a) of the CAA (at Chapter 

62–210, F.A.C.); (2) SILs to be used as 

a screening tool to evaluate the impact 

a proposed major source or modification 

may have on the NAAQS or PSD 

increment (at Chapters 62–210, F.A.C., 

and 62–212, F.A.C.); and (3) SMC, also 

used as a screening tool, to determine 

the level of data gathering required of a 

major source in support of its PSD 

permit application for PM2.5 emissions. 

Specifically, the SIP revision makes 

the following changes to Florida’s PSD 

regulations to adopt PSD increment 

provisions established in the PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC rule at Chapters 

62–210 and 62–212, F.A.C.: (1) Revises 

the definition for ‘‘maximum allowable 

increase’’ to incorporate by reference 

(IBR) the PM2.5 PSD increments 

numerical values (established in the 

tables at 40 CFR 52.21(c) at 62–204.800, 

F.A.C.16); (2) amends definitions for 

‘‘major source baseline date’’ and 

‘‘minor source baseline date’’ to 

establish relevant dates for PM2.5

increment consumption and establish 

trigger dates (as established at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) and 

51.166(b)(14)(ii)(c) respectively) and; (3) 

revises the definition for ‘‘baseline 

area’’ as promulgated at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(15)(i) and (ii) and adds 

definitions for ‘‘baseline concentration.’’ 

The March 15, 2012, SIP submission 

also adds a definitions for ‘‘Class I and 

II Areas’’ at Chapter 62–210.200(77) and 

(78), F.A.C. respectively. The definition 

for Class I Areas IBR 40 CFR part 81, 

Subpart D (the federal Class I Area list) 

at rule 61 62–204.800, F.A.C.). In 

today’s action, EPA is proposing to 

approve Florida’s March 15, 2012, SIP 

revision to address PM2.5 PSD 

increments. 

Regarding the SILs and SMC 

established in the October 20, 2010, 

PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, 

the Sierra Club has challenged EPA’s 

authority to implement SILs and SMC. 

In a brief filed in the D.C. Circuit on 

April 6, 2012, EPA described the 

Agency’s authority under the CAA to 

promulgate and implement the SMC 

and SILs de minimis thresholds. 

Florida’s SIP revision includes the SMC 

of 4 mg/m3 for PM2.5 NAAQS (at rule 62– 

212.400(3)(e)1, F.A.C.) that was added 

to the existing monitoring exemption at 

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

52.21(i)(5)(i)(c). With respect to the 

SMC, EPA is proposing to approve these 

promulgated thresholds into the Florida 

SIP as EPA believes the use of the SMC 

is a valid exercise of the Agency’s de 

minimis authority. Furthermore, 

Florida’s March 15, 2012, SIP revision is 

consistent with EPA’s current 

promulgated provisions in the October 

20, 2010, rule. However, EPA notes that 

future court action may require 

subsequent rule revisions and SIP 

revisions from Florida. 

The March 15, 2012, SIP revision 

submitted by Florida to adopt the new 

PSD requirements for PM2.5 pursuant to 

the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule 

also includes the new regulatory text at 

40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2), 

concerning the implementation of SILs 

for PM2.5. EPA stated in the preamble to 

the October 20, 2010 final rule that we 

do not consider the SILs to be a 

mandatory SIP element, but regard them 

as discretionary on the part of regulating 

authority for use in the PSD permitting 

process. Nevertheless, the PM2.5 SILs are 

currently the subject of litigation before 

the U.S. Court of Appeals. (Sierra Club 

v. EPA, Case No 10–1413 D.C. Circuit). 

In response to that litigation, EPA has 

requested that the Court remand and 

vacate the regulatory text in the EPA’s 

PSD regulations at paragraph (k)(2) so 

that EPA can make necessary 

rulemaking revisions to that text. In 

light of EPA’s request for remand and 

vacatur and our acknowledgement of 

the need to revise the regulatory text 

presently contained at paragraph (k)(2) 

of sections 51.166 and 52.21, EPA does 

not believe that it is appropriate at this 

time to approve that portion of the 

State’s implementation plan revision 

that contains or is related to the affected 

regulatory text in the State’s PSD 

regulations, at rule, 62–212.400(5), 

F.A.C and 62–210.200(283)(c), F.A.C.. 

Instead, EPA is taking no action at this 

time with regard to these specific 

provisions contained in the SIP 

revision. EPA will take action on the 

SILs portion of Florida’s March 15, 

2012, SIP revision in a separate 

rulemaking once the issue regarding the 

court case has been resolved. 

The aforementioned amendments to 

Florida’s SIP provide the framework for 

implementation of PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

states NSR permitting. Based on review 

and consideration of Florida’s March 15, 

2012, SIP revision, EPA has made the 

preliminary determination to approve 

the aforementioned PSD permitting 

provisions promulgated in the NSR 

PM2.5 Rule and PM2.5 PSD IncrementSILs-SMC Rule into the Florida SIP to 

implement the NSR program for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve portions 

of Florida March 15, 2012, SIP revision 

adopting federal regulations amended in 

the May 16, 2008, NSR PM2.5 Rule and 

the October 20, 2010, PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC rule into the 

Florida SIP with the exception of the 

SILs provisions. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that this SIP 

revision, with regard to aforementioned 

proposed actions, is approvable because 

it is consistent with section 110 of the 

CAA and EPA regulations regarding 

NSR permitting. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
44204 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 

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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: July 16, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–18131 Filed 7–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0272; FRL–9702–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Control of Iron and Steel 

Production Installations; Sintering 

Plants 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve 

revisions to the Maryland State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Maryland Department of the 

Environment (MDE) on June 30, 2009. 

The revisions amend the visible 

emissions requirements of the Maryland 

SIP’s regulation for the Control of Iron 

and Steel Production Installations as 

they apply to sintering plants. The 

sintering plant located at the Sparrows 

Point steelmaking facility (Sparrows 

Point) is the only sintering plant located 

in the State of Maryland, and therefore 

the only source affected by these SIP 

revisions. The revisions exempt the 

sintering plant from the visible 

emissions section of the regulation for 

the Control of Iron and Steel Production 

Installations contingent upon the 

source’s two wet scrubbers, used to 

control emissions of particulate matter, 

continuously monitoring compliance 

with specified pressure drop and flow 

rate operating parameters. EPA is 

approving these revisions because they 

provide for a continuous means of 

determining compliance with the 

applicable SIP emission rate for 

particulate matter from the sintering 

plant located at Sparrows Point, and 

because that emission rate has been 

demonstrated to protect and maintain 

the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for PM10

(particulate matter consisting of 

particles with an aerodynamic diameter 

less than or equal to 10 micrometers). 

EPA is proposing to approve these 

revisions in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 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 no adverse comments are 

received in response to this action, 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. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by August 27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2012–0272 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: spink.marcia@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0272, 

Marcia L. Spink, Associate Director for 

Policy & Science, Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2012– 

0272. 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 information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1