Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 62449 

1.2 Alternate Entry by Priority Mail 

1.2.1 Preparation 

Place prepared EDDM-Retail mail, in 

bundles with facing slips, in Priority 

Mail boxes, including Priority Mail Flat 

Rate boxes. 

1.2.2 Documentation 

Box #1 (see 1.2.3) for the EDDM-Retail 

mailing must contain an envelope with 

the following: 

a. Sample mailpiece. 

b. Check or money order made out to 

‘‘Postmaster’’ or ‘‘Postal Service’’ for the 

amount of postage for the EDDM-Retail 

pieces (not for the Priority Mail 

shipment). Include your telephone 

number on the front of the check. 

c. Completed EDDM-Retail postage 

statement (PS Form 3587). 

d. The Postmaster Instruction letter; 

see https://www.usps.com/business/pdf/ 

eddm-postmaster-letter.pdf for a copy. 

1.2.3 Labeling the Boxes 

On each box, write ‘‘Every Door Direct 

Mail—Retail’’ and ‘‘Open Immediately.’’ 

For multiple boxes, number the boxes, 

starting with 1 of X, (with ‘‘X’’ being the 

total number of boxes in the shipment). 

Include the payment and 

documentation in box #1. 

1.2.4 Shipping 

Address the boxes to ‘‘Postmaster’’ at 

the Post Office that will deliver the 

mailpieces. To ship them, either bring 

the boxes to your local Post Office or 

use Click-N-Ship. Each box must have a 

Delivery Confirmation label affixed by 

the mailer. 

* * * * * 

300 Commercial Mail Flats 

* * * * * 

301 Physical Standards 

* * * * * 

2.0 Physical Standards for 

Nonautomation Flats 

* * * * * 

2.2 Standard Mail 

* * * * * 

[Revise the title and introductory text 

of 2.2.2 as follows:] 

2.2.2 Dimensions for Standard Mail 

and EDDM-Retail Flats with Simplified 

Addresses 

Standard Mail flats with simplified 

addresses for which saturation flats 

prices are paid and EDDM-Retail flats 

(see 140) must have at least one 

dimension that is greater than a lettersize maximum dimension as noted in 

1.1a. The minimum thickness must be at 

least 0.007 inch up to a maximum of 

0.75 inch. As an exception to the 

minimum length, flats with simplified 

addresses may have a length shorter 

than a letter-size maximum length, 

under all of the following conditions: 

* * * 

* * * * * 

302 Elements on the Face of a 

Mailpiece 

* * * * * 

3.0 Placement and Content of Mail 

Markings 

* * * * * 

3.2 First-Class Mail and Standard 

Mail Markings 

3.2.1 Placement 

Mailpieces must be marked under the 

corresponding standards to show the 

class of service and/or price paid: 

a. Basic Marking. The basic required 

marking that indicates the class or 

subclass which must be printed or 

produced as part of, directly below, or 

to the left of the permit imprint, meter 

imprint, or stamp as follows: 

[Revise items 1 through 4 as follows:] 

1. ‘‘First-Class Mail’’ 

2. ‘‘Standard,’’ ‘‘STD,’’ ‘‘Presorted 

Standard,’’ or ‘‘PRSRT STD’’ 

3. ‘‘Nonprofit Organization,’’ 

‘‘Nonprofit Org.,’’ or ‘‘Nonprofit’’ 

4. For Standard Mail flats mailed at 

saturation flats prices under EDDMRetail standards in 140 and 602.3.0, add 

‘‘EDDM-Retail’’ as the last line in the 

permit imprint indicia. See Exhibit 

144.1.3 for an example. 

* * * * * 

602 Addressing 

* * * * * 

3.0 Use of Alternative Addressing 

* * * * * 

3.2 Simplified Address 

3.2.1 Conditions for General Use 

The following conditions must be met 

when using a simplified address on 

commercial mailpieces: 

* * * * * 

[Revise item 3.2.1c as follows:] 

c. Standard Mail flats with simplified 

addresses (also known as ‘‘Every Door 

Direct Mail’’ or ‘‘EDDM’’) must have one 

dimension larger than a letter-size 

maximum dimension, except under 

301.2.2.2. Standard Mail pieces, when 

mailed under conditions in 301.2.2.2 

and delivered by city route delivery or 

Post Office Box delivery in offices with 

city route delivery, are considered to be 

flats and are charged postage for 

Standard Mail saturation flats. Lettersize pieces that meet the size standards 

in 301.2.2.2 and that are delivered by 

rural or HCR routes may be mailed 

(when entered at a BMEU) as letters or 

flats with simplified addresses, at the 

mailer’s option. See 140 for more 

information about entering EDDM 

pieces (EDDM-Retail) at Retail locations. 

* * * * * 

3.2.4 Postage 

[Add a new last sentence in 3.2.4 as 

follows:] 

* * * Postage for pieces mailed as 

EDDM-Retail flats must be as described 

in 144. 

* * * * * 

We will publish an appropriate 

amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect 

these changes. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Legal Policy & Legislative Advice. 

[FR Doc. 2012–25059 Filed 10–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0343; FRL–9739–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Alabama; 

Disapproval of 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

Infrastructure Requirement for the 

1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

disapprove a portion of the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions, 

submitted by the State of Alabama, 

through the Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management (ADEM), 

on July 25, 2008, and September 23, 

2009, which were intended to meet the 

requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or the Act). 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. Alabama certified 

that the Alabama SIP contains 

provisions that ensure the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) are implemented, 

enforced and maintained in the State. 

Specifically, EPA is disapproving the 

State’s submissions that requires the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
62450 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1See ‘‘Guidance to States for Meeting Conflict of 

Interest Requirements of section 128’’ from David 

O. Bickert, Deputy General Counsel, to Regional Air 

Directors, dated March 2, 1978. 

2Prior to EPA’s proposed disapproval for this 

sub-element, ADEM and EPA engaged in a 

numerous communications regarding this 

infrastructure SIP deficiency (see, e.g., EPA’s 

comment to ADEM’s proposed SIP submittal 

addressing infrastructure requirements for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS which was attached to ADEM’s 

State to comply with the CAA. EPA is 

taking a separate action to address the 

other applicable infrastructure elements 

for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: This rule will be effective 

November 14, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2012–0343. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9043. 

Mr. Lakeman can be reached via 

electronic mail at 

lakeman.sean@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. EPA’s Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Upon promulgation of a new or 

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

(2) of the CAA require states to make a 

SIP submission to address basic SIP 

requirements, including emissions 

inventories, monitoring, and modeling 

to assure attainment and maintenance 

for that new NAAQS. On July 18, 1997 

(62 FR 36852), EPA promulgated a new 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS and on October 

17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA 

promulgated a new 24-hour NAAQS. On 

July 20, 2012, EPA proposed to 

disapprove Alabama’s July 25, 2008, 

and September 23, 2009, infrastructure 

submissions related to the requirements 

respecting state boards for the for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. See 77 FR 42682. A summary 

of the background for today’s final 

action is provided below. See EPA’s July 

20, 2012, proposed rulemaking at 77 FR 

42682 for more detail. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of such NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the 

obligation upon states to make a SIP 

submission to EPA for a new or revised 

NAAQS, but the contents of that 

submission may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. 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 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, states typically 

have met the basic program elements 

required in section 110(a)(2) through 

earlier SIP submissions in connection 

with previous PM NAAQS. 

More specifically, section 110(a)(1) 

provides the procedural and timing 

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

lists specific elements that states must 

meet for ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. Among 

the elements that states must address is 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), which in turn 

refers to the specific requirements of 

section 128. Section 128 explicitly 

provides that state SIPs ‘‘shall contain 

requirements’’ as described in sections 

128(a)(1) and (2). In addition, states may 

adopt any additional requirements that 

are ‘‘more stringent’’ than those 

explicitly required in section 128. EPA 

issued guidance to states making 

recommendations concerning 

compliance with section 128.1

In this action, EPA is only addressing 

sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). In taking 

final action on the proposed 

disapproval, EPA is responding to an 

adverse comment received on EPA’s 

July 20, 2012, proposed disapproval of 

Alabama’s July 25, 2008, and September 

23, 2009, infrastructure submissions for 

sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). EPA is 

taking a separate action to address the 

other applicable infrastructure elements 

for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. See, e.g., 77 FR 34288. 

II. EPA’s Response to Comments 

The following is EPA’s response to 

the adverse comment received on EPA’s 

July 20, 2012, proposed disapproval of 

Alabama’s July 25, 2008, and September 

23, 2009, infrastructure submissions as 

they relate to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of 

the CAA. 

Comment: On August 20, 2012, 

ADEM commented on EPA’s proposed 

action and requested that EPA withdraw 

its proposed disapproval of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). ADEM suggested in their 

comment that EPA approve a conflict of 

interest protocol submitted for inclusion 

in the SIP in connection with the State’s 

2008 ozone NAAQS infrastructure 

submission. ADEM submitted this 

conflict of interest protocol as an 

attachment to its adverse comment on 

the proposal action. ADEM asserted that 

with the inclusion of this protocol in the 

SIP, EPA would be able to approve 

Alabama’s 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 infrastructure SIP for subelement 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

Response: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

requires that each implementation plan 

provide that states comply with the 

requirements respecting state boards 

pursuant to section 128 of the Act. 

Section 128 requires that: (1) The 

majority of members of the state board 

or body which approves permits or 

enforcement orders represent the public 

interest and do not derive any 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permitting or 

enforcement orders under the CAA; and 

(2) any potential conflicts of interest by 

such board or body, or the head of an 

executive agency with similar powers be 

adequately disclosed. 

In its July 20, 2012, proposed 

rulemaking (77 FR 42682), EPA 

preliminarily determined that the 

State’s implementation plan did not 

contain provisions to comply with 

section 128 of the Act, and thus, 

Alabama’s July 25, 2008, and September 

23, 2009, submissions do not meet the 

requirements of the Act with respect to 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).2 Alabama’s 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 62451 

adverse comment and is available in the docket for 

today’s action.) 

3EPA notes that this suggested definition is 

provided in a guidance document as an example to 

states of how to define significant portions of 

income, therefore, states may propose a different 

standard as constituting a ‘‘significant portion of 

income.’’ However, as noted in the guidance, EPA 

views the substance of the suggested definitions as 

representing the minimum level of stringency 

necessary to meet the requirements of section 128. 

comment on that proposal, which 

contends that EPA should not finalize 

the proposed disapproval based upon a 

conflict of interest disclosure protocol 

included with the comment for 

incorporation into the SIP, does not 

address the underlying basis for the 

proposed disapproval of element 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). The basis for EPA’s 

disapproval, as discussed in the 

proposed rule for today’s action, is that 

the SIP presently fails to include any 

requirements to address the applicable 

requirements of section 128 of the CAA. 

EPA considered the State’s comment 

and has determined the comments do 

not adequately address the requirements 

for the following procedural and 

substantive reasons. With respect to 

procedural issues, an adverse comment 

letter on a proposed action does not 

meet the statutory and regulatory 

requirements for a SIP submission. 

Section 110(a)(1), section 110(a)(2), and 

section 110(l), all provide that a state’s 

implementation plan submission must 

undergo reasonable notice and 

opportunity for comment. In addition, 

EPA regulations at Part 51, Appendix V, 

set forth additional criteria for a SIP 

submission. EPA has determined that 

the conflict of interest disclosure 

protocol attached to the State’s adverse 

comment letter does not constitute such 

a SIP submission for a number of 

reasons including, but not limited to, 

the fact that the State has not provided 

information that the submission has 

undergone the requisite public notice or 

a demonstration that the protocol has 

been adopted and is in final form as 

submitted. In addition, the protocol was 

not signed, stamped and dated by an 

appropriate official to indicate that it is 

fully enforceable by the State. 

Substantively, were it an official 

submission, it would not be sufficient to 

satisfy the requirements of section 128 

necessary for EPA to approve Alabama’s 

infrastructure submissions as they relate 

to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). As noted in 

the proposed rule for today’s action, 

section 128 requires that: (1) The 

majority of members of the state board 

or body which approves permits or 

enforcement orders represent the public 

interest and do not derive any 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permitting or 

enforcement orders under the CAA; and 

(2) any potential conflicts of interest by 

such board or body, or the head of an 

executive agency with similar powers be 

adequately disclosed. 

Alabama provides no explanation as 

to how its conflict of interest disclosure 

protocol would satisfy the public 

interest and significant portion of 

income requirements applicable to the 

majority of a state board or body subject 

to section 128(a)(1). Alabama’s response 

to EPA’s comments on the State’s draft 

2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure 

submission (included with Alabama’s 

comment on today’s rulemaking) notes 

that certain ADEM officials are charged 

with responsibilities for issuing permits 

or enforcement orders. EPA has 

interpreted the ‘‘board or body’’ 

requirements of section 128(a)(1) as not 

applying to individuals tasked with 

authority to approve permits or 

enforcement orders. However, where 

appeals of such permits or enforcement 

orders are resolved by boards or bodies, 

those entities are subject to the majority 

requirements of section 128(a)(1). 

Alabama’s comment does not describe 

how appeals of permits or enforcement 

order are handled in the State. In order 

for EPA to determine that the 

requirements of section 128(a)(1) are not 

applicable in Alabama, the State must 

provide this information. If a board or 

body does review appeals of permit or 

enforcement orders, the SIP must 

require that such board or board be 

subject to the 128(a)(1) majority 

requirements in order for EPA to 

approve Alabama’s section 

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

Based upon the information protocol 

described by Alabama, the State’s 

approach fails to address the majority 

requirements of section 128. 

In addition to the issues noted above 

regarding the section 128(a)(1) 

requirements, the question of whether a 

board or body handles appeals of 

permits or enforcement orders is also 

relevant to sufficiency of the State’s 

protocol with respect to the section 

128(a)(2) requirements. To the extent a 

board or body decides appeals of 

permits or enforcement orders, the SIP 

must require that members of such 

board or body be subject to the section 

128(a)(2) conflict of interest disclosure 

requirements. The State’s conflict of 

interest disclosure protocol, as 

submitted, would appear to only apply 

to three specified officials within 

ADEM. Alabama has failed to 

demonstrate how the submitted protocol 

would provide adequate disclosure 

consistent with the requirements section 

128(a)(2). 

EPA also notes that Alabama’s 

conflict of interest disclosure protocol, 

at footnote 3, asserts that ‘‘EPA defines 

‘significant portion of income’ as 50% 

or more of gross personal income for a 

calendar year if the recipient is over 60 

years of age and is receiving that portion 

under retirement, pension, or similar 

arrangement. This information need 

only be provided if the recipient falls in 

this category.’’ This statement is 

incomplete. The complete suggested 

definition for ‘‘Significant Portion of 

Income’’ recommended in EPA’s 1978 

Guidance to States for Meeting Conflict 

of Interest Requirements of Section 128 

is ‘‘10 percent or more of gross personal 

income for a calendar year, including 

retirement benefits, consultation fees, 

and stock dividends, except that it shall 

mean 50 percent [or more] of gross 

personal income for a calendar year if 

the recipient is over 60 years of age and 

is receiving such portion pursuant to 

retirement, pension, or similar 

arrangement.’’ Alabama’s protocol omits 

the generally applicable 10 percent 

standard.3

EPA is finalizing disapproval of 

Alabama’s infrastructure submissions as 

they relate to sub-element 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) because, as described 

above, the SIP presently does not 

contain provisions to address the 

requirements of section 128 of the CAA. 

Consistent with the obligations under 

the CAA, EPA intends to continue 

working with the State to resolve this 

SIP deficiency. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is taking final action to 

disapprove the portion of Alabama’s 

July 25, 2008, and September 23, 2009, 

submissions which was intended to 

meet the requirement to address 

element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA has made the determination that 

Alabama’s SIP does not satisfy the 

requirement for element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. In today’s action, EPA is 

not taking any action on the remaining 

elements of the submission, including 

other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

elements. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that 

addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan 

(42 U.S.C. 7501–7515) or is required in 

response to a finding of substantial 

inadequacy as described in section 

7410(k)(5) (SIP call) starts a sanctions 

clock. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) provisions 

(the provisions being disapproved in 

today’s notice) were not submitted to 

meet requirements for Part D, and 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
62452 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

therefore, no sanctions will be triggered. 

This final action triggers the 

requirement under section 110(c) that 

EPA promulgate a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than 

2 years from the date of the disapproval 

unless the State corrects the deficiency, 

and the Administrator approves the 

plan or plan revision before the 

Administrator promulgates such FIP. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly this final action 

disapproves state law because it does 

not meet federal requirements. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• 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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by December 14, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: September 27, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart B—Alabama 

■ 2. Section 52.62 is amended by adding 

paragraph (e), to read as follows: 

§ 52.62 Control strategy: Sulfur oxides and 

particulate matter. 

* * * * * 

(e) Disapproval. EPA is disapproving 

portions of Alabama’s Infrastructure SIP 

for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS addressing section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) that requires the State to 

comply with section 128 of the CAA. 

[FR Doc. 2012–25149 Filed 10–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0244; FRL–9713–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Arizona; Prevention of Air Pollution 

Emergency Episodes 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Arizona to 

address the requirements regarding air 

pollution emergency episodes in Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 14, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action, identified by 

Docket ID Number EPA–R09–OAR– 

2012–0244. The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California 94105– 

3901. While all documents in the docket 

are listed in the index, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material), and some may 

not be publicly available in either 

location (e.g., confidential business 

information). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed directly 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning Office (AIR– 

2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 947–4152, 

buss.jeffrey@epa.gov. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with