Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans for Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina; Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Transport Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 43018-43023 [2012-17885]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
43018
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules
analyses. Afterwards, the Department
will publish either a determination that
the standards for commercial and
industrial electric motors need not be
amended or a NOPR proposing to
amend those standards. Any NOPR will
include proposed energy conservation
standards for the equipment covered by
this rulemaking, and interested parties
will be given an opportunity to submit
written and oral comments on the
proposed standards.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 10,
2012.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2012–17878 Filed 7–20–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
29 CFR Part 1926
[Docket No. OSHA–2011–0184]
RIN 1218–AC65
Updating OSHA Construction
Standards Based on National
Consensus Standards; Head
Protection; Correction of Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Department of
Labor.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;
correction.
AGENCY:
OSHA is correcting a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with
regard to the construction industry head
protection standards to eliminate
confusion resulting from a drafting
error. OSHA published the NPRM on
June 22, 2012 (77 FR 37617). OSHA also
is publishing a correction to the direct
final rule that it published the same day
in the Federal Register (77 FR 37587).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
General information and press
inquiries: Contact Frank Meilinger,
OSHA Office of Communications, Room
N–3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20210; telephone: (202) 693–1999;
email: meilinger.francis2@dol.gov.
Technical inquiries: Contact Kenneth
Stevanus, Directorate of Standards and
Guidance, Room N–3609, OSHA, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone: (202) 693–2260; fax: (202)
693–1663; email: stevanus.ken@dol.gov.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Jul 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
OSHA is
making the following correction in FR
document number 2012–15031,
appearing on page 37630 in the Federal
Register of Friday, June 22, 2012:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
§ 1926.100
Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval of Air Quality
Implementation Plans for Florida,
Mississippi, and South Carolina; Clean
Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
Transport Requirements for the 2006
24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[Corrected]
On page 37630, correct instruction
number 16, to read as follows:
16. Amend § 1926.100 as follows:
a. Remove paragraph (c).
b. Revise paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
1926.100
Head protection.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Criteria for head protection. (1)
The employer must provide each
employee with head protection that
meets the specifications contained in
any of the following consensus
standards:
(i) American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) Z89.1–2009, ‘‘American
National Standard for Industrial Head
Protection,’’ incorporated by reference
in § 1926.6;
(ii) American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) Z89.1–2003, ‘‘American
National Standard for Industrial Head
Protection,’’ incorporated by reference
in § 1926.6; or
(iii) American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) Z89.1–1997, ‘‘American
National Standard for Personnel
Protection—Protective Headwear for
Industrial Workers—Requirements,’’
incorporated by reference in § 1926.6.
(2) The employer must ensure that the
head protection provided for each
employee exposed to high-voltage
electric shock and burns also meets the
specifications contained in Section 9.7
(‘‘Electrical Insulation’’) of any of the
consensus standards identified in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) OSHA will deem any head
protection device that the employer
demonstrates is at least as effective as a
head protection device constructed in
accordance with one of the consensus
standards identified in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section to be in compliance with
the requirements of this section.
Signed at Washington, DC on July 17, 2012.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2012–17871 Filed 7–20–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0553; FRL–9702–7]
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to partially
approve and partially disapprove
revisions to the State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) for Florida, Mississippi,
and South Carolina submitted on
September 23, 2009, October 6, 2009
and September 18, 2009, respectively.
EPA is proposing to approve the
determinations, contained in those
submittals, that the existing SIPs for
Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina
are adequate to meet the obligation
under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) to address
interstate transport requirements with
regard to the 2006 24-hour particulate
matter (PM2.5) national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS). Specifically,
the interstate transport requirements
contained in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of
the CAA prohibit a state’s emissions
from significantly contributing to
nonattainment or interfering with the
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other
state. EPA is proposing to approve the
States’ determinations that their existing
SIPs satisfy this requirement and to
conclude that additional control
measures are not necessary under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because
emissions from Florida, Mississippi and
South Carolina do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other
state. EPA is also proposing to
disapprove the SIP submissions from
Florida, Mississippi and South Carolina
to the extent that they rely on the Clean
Air Interstate Rule to meet the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Because
the Clean Air Interstate Rule has been
remanded by the court and did not
address the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, it
cannot be relied upon to satisfy any
requirements related to that NAAQS. In
this action, EPA is only addressing the
SIP revisions respecting section
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The SIP revisions
respecting the remainder of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) and sections
110(a)(2)(A)–(M), except for sections
110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(I)
nonattainment area requirements, are
being addressed in separate actions.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before August 22, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2012–0553, 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–2010–
0553,’’ Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae
Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012–
0553. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 Jul 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 https://
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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What is the background for this proposed
action?
A. 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Infrastructure
Requirements
B. Background on Infrastructure Actions
C. Transport Rules
II. What is EPA’s analysis of Florida’s,
Mississippi’s and South Carolina’s
compliance with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS?
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43019
I. What is the background for this
proposed action?
A. 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Infrastructure
Requirements
On September 21, 2006, EPA revised
the 24-hour average PM2.5 primary and
secondary NAAQS from 65 micrograms
per cubic meter (mg/m3) to 35 mg/m3
based on a 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour concentrations. 71
FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). Section
110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to
submit to EPA SIPs that provide for the
‘‘implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement’’ of a new or revised
NAAQS within 3 years after
promulgation of such standards, or
within such shorter period as EPA may
prescribe.1 Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)
require these submissions to address
basic SIP requirements, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and
modeling to assure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA thus
refers to these submissions as
‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. States were
required to submit such SIPs to EPA no
later than September 21, 2009, for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. SIPs must
address the requirements of 110(a)(2), as
applicable, including section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which pertains to
interstate transport of certain emissions.
On July 6, 2011, WildEarth Guardians
and Sierra Club filed an amended
complaint alleging that EPA had failed
to take final action on SIP submittals
addressing the ‘‘infrastructure’’
requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. On October 20, 2011, EPA
entered into a consent decree with
WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club
which required EPA, among other
things, to sign for publication in the
Federal Register a notice of the
Agency’s final action either approving,
disapproving, or approving in part and
disapproving in part the Florida,
Mississippi, and South Carolina 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) the nonattainment area
requirements and the visibility
requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), no later than
September 30, 2012.
1 The rule establishing the revised PM
2.5 NAAQS
was signed by the Administrator and publically
disseminated on September 21, 2006. Because EPA
did not prescribe a shorter period for 110(a)
‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP submittals, these submittals
were due on September 21, 2009, three years from
the September 21, 2006, signature date pursuant to
section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. See 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(1).
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43020
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules
B. Background on Infrastructure Actions
Section 110(a) imposes the obligation
upon states to make infrastructure SIP
submissions to EPA for each 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 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS, some states may
need to adopt language specific to the
PM2.5 NAAQS to ensure that they have
adequate SIP provisions to implement
the PM2.5 NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(1) provides the
procedural and timing requirements for
SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific
elements that states must meet for
‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP requirements
related to a newly established or revised
NAAQS. As mentioned above, these
requirements include SIP infrastructure
elements such as modeling, monitoring,
and emissions inventories that are
designed to assure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. As a
general matter, the infrastructure
requirements are listed in EPA’s October
2, 2007, memorandum entitled
‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required
Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ and
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.’’ Although all the elements
are identified below, today’s action
pertains only to Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and
other control measures.
• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality
monitoring/data system.
• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for
enforcement of control measures.
• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.
• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source
monitoring system.
• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
• 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated
nonattainment and the applicable
requirements of part D.2
2 This requirement was inadvertently omitted
from EPA’s October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled
‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under
Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8–Hour Ozone
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 Jul 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with
government officials; public
notification; and PSD and visibility
protection.
• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/
data.
• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/
participation by affected local entities.
EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that
address the infrastructure requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS for various
states across the country. EPA has
previously discussed the scope of such
actions in prior infrastructure actions.
See, e.g., 76 FR 14631 (March 17, 2011);
76 FR 41123 (July 13, 2011). Because
today’s action is focused on only the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) infrastructure element,
EPA is not repeating its previously
articulated discussion on the scope of
infrastructure SIP actions; however,
such considerations remain applicable
here.
The requirement for the SIP
submissions at issue arises out of CAA
section 110(a)(1). That provision
requires that states must make a SIP
submission ‘‘within 3 years (or such
shorter period as the Administrator may
prescribe) after the promulgation of a
national primary ambient air quality
standard (or any revision thereof)’’ and
that these SIPs are to provide for the
‘‘implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. Section
110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’
submission must meet. EPA has
historically referred to these particular
submissions that states must make after
the promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS as ‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ This
specific term does not appear in the
statute, but EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP
submission designed to address basic
structural requirements of a SIP from
other types of SIP submissions designed
to address other different requirements,
such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’
submissions required to address the
nonattainment planning requirements of
part D, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions
required to address the visibility
protection requirements of CAA section
169A, NSR permitting program
submissions required to address the
requirements of part D, and a host of
other specific types of SIP submissions
that address other specific matters.
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards,’’ and the September 25, 2009,
memorandum entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
2006 Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards,’’ but as mentioned above is not
relevant to today’s proposed rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2)
provides that ‘‘each’’ SIP submission
must meet the list of requirements
therein, EPA has long noted that this
literal reading of the statute is internally
inconsistent, insofar as section
110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment
SIP requirements that could not be met
on the schedule provided for these SIP
submissions in section 110(a)(1).3 This
illustrates that EPA must determine
which provisions of section 110(a)(2)
may be applicable for a given
infrastructure SIP submission.
Similarly, EPA has previously decided
that it could take action on different
parts of the larger, general
‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ for a given NAAQS
without concurrent action on all
subsections, such as section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), because the Agency
bifurcated the action on these latter
‘‘interstate transport’’ provisions within
section 110(a)(2) and worked with states
to address each of the four prongs of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with substantive
administrative actions proceeding on
different tracks with different
schedules.4 This illustrates that EPA
may conclude that subdividing the
applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2) into separate SIP actions may
sometimes be appropriate for a given
NAAQS where a specific substantive
action is necessitated, beyond a mere
submission addressing basic structural
aspects of the state’s implementation
plans.
C. Transport Rules
EPA has previously addressed the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
in past regulatory actions such as the
1998 NOX SIP call, the 2005 Clean
Interstate Rule (CAIR), and the 2011
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR),
also known as the Transport Rule.5 In
the 1998 NOX SIP call, EPA evaluated
whether or not the ozone-season NOX
emissions in certain states had
prohibited interstate impacts, and if
they had such impacts, required the
states to adopt substantive SIP revisions
3 See Id., 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section
110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
4 EPA issued separate guidance to states with
respect to SIP submissions to meet section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. See ‘‘Guidance for State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current
Outstanding Obligations Under Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8–Hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ from
William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy
Division OAQPS, to Regional Air Division Director,
Regions I–X, dated August 15, 2006.
5 See 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998), NO SIP
X
Call; 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005), CAIR; and 76 FR
48208 (August 8, 2011) (Transport Rule, also known
as Cross-State Air Pollution Rule or CSAPR).
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules
to eliminate the NOX emissions,
whether through participation in a
regional cap and trade program or by
other means. EPA’s general approach to
section 110(a)(2)(D) in the NOX SIP call
was upheld in Michigan v. EPA, 213
F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000), cert denied,
532 U.S. 904 (2001). However, EPA’s
approach to interference with
maintenance in the NOX SIP call was
not explicitly reviewed by the court. See
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896,
907–09 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
On May 12, 2005, EPA published the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) in the
Federal Register. See 70 FR 25162.
CAIR required States to reduce
emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) that significantly
contribute to nonattainment and
interfere with maintenance of the 1997
NAAQS for PM2.5 and/or ozone in any
downwind state. EPA was sued by a
number of parties on various aspects of
CAIR and on July 11, 2008, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia (D.C. Circuit) issued its
decision to vacate and remand both
CAIR and the associated CAIR federal
implementation plans (FIPs) in their
entirety. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531
F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Among other
things, the Court found that EPA failed
to give independent meaning to the term
‘‘interfere with maintenance.’’
Subsequently, in response to EPA’s
petition for rehearing, the Court issued
an order remanding CAIR to EPA
without vacating either CAIR or the
CAIR federal implementation plans
(FIPs). See North Carolina v. EPA, 550
F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The Court
remanded the rule to EPA without
vacatur because it found that ‘‘allowing
CAIR to remain in effect until it is
replaced by a rule consistent with [the
court’s] opinion would at least
temporarily preserve the environmental
values covered by CAIR.’’ North
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178.
In order to address the judicial
remand of CAIR, EPA promulgated a
new rule to address interstate transport
pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), in
the eastern United States, the ‘‘Federal
Implementation Plans to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate
Matter and Ozone’’ (i.e., the Transport
Rule, also known as the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR)). See 76 FR
48208 (August 8, 2011). In the Transport
Rule, EPA finalized regulatory changes
to sunset (i.e., discontinue) CAIR and
the CAIR FIPs for control periods in
2012 and beyond. See 76 FR 48321.
On December 30, 2011, the D.C.
Circuit issued an order addressing the
status of the Transport Rule and CAIR
in response to motions filed by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 Jul 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
numerous parties seeking a stay of the
Transport Rule pending judicial review.
In that order, the D.C. Circuit stayed the
Transport Rule pending the court’s
resolution of the petitions for review of
that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P.
v. EPA (No. 11–1302 and consolidated
cases). The court also indicated that
EPA is expected to continue to
administer CAIR in the interim until the
court rules on the petitions for review
of the Transport Rule.
II. What is EPA’s analysis of Florida’s,
Mississippi’s, and South Carolina’s
compliance with section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS?
On September 25, 2009, EPA issued a
guidance entitled, ‘‘Guidance on SIP
Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour
Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2006
PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance).
EPA developed the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance to provide
additional recommendations to states
for developing SIP submissions to meet
the requirements of section 110,
including 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the revised
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
In the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance, EPA explained
that submissions from states pertaining
to the ‘‘significant contribution’’ and
‘‘interfere with maintenance’’
requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
must contain adequate provisions to
prohibit air pollutant emissions from
within the state that contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS in any other state. In the
Infrastructure Guidance, EPA explained
that states could not rely on the CAIR
to comply with CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because
CAIR does not address this NAAQS.
Recognizing that the demonstration
required may be a challenging task for
the affected states, EPA also noted in the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance the Agency’s
intention to complete a rule to address
interstate pollution transport in the
eastern half of the continental United
States (i.e., the Transport Rule). As
noted above EPA published the
Transport Rule in the Federal Register
on August 8, 2011. See 76 FR 48208.
On September 23, 2009, October 6,
2009, and September 18, 2009, Florida,
Mississippi and South Carolina,
respectively, provided EPA with
infrastructure submissions certifying
that their current SIPs addressed all the
required infrastructure elements for the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43021
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In these
submissions Florida, Mississippi and
South Carolina all relied on CAIR to
meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. CAIR addressed only the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements with
respect to the 1997 ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS and did not address the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS or any requirements
related to that NAAQS. In previous
actions disapproving SIP revisions for
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that relied on CAIR,
EPA explained both its rationale for
disapproving those SIP revisions as well
as describing a number of
considerations for states for providing
an adequate demonstration to address
interstate transport requirements for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See, e.g., 76 FR
43128 (July 20, 2011); 76 FR 4588
(January 26, 2011). Among the
considerations, EPA explained that the
state should explain whether or not
emissions from the state contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS in any other state, and that
such a conclusion should be supported
by a technical analysis. As explained in
the prior disapprovals, a state may not
rely on CAIR to satisfy the requirements
of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect
to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS because CAIR
addressed only the 1997 PM2.5 and
ozone NAAQS and did not address the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS or any requirements
related to that NAAQS. In addition,
CAIR was found flawed and remanded
to EPA by the court. North Carolina, 550
F.3d at 1176–1178. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to disapprove the States’
submission to the extent they rely on
CAIR to meet these requirements.
Since receiving these submittals, EPA
conducted additional modeling, as part
of the Transport Rule. This modeling
supports the conclusion that these
States’ existing implementation plans
are adequate to satisfy the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This
modeling is consistent with the types of
analyses and considerations that EPA
recommended states undertake in
determining whether their SIPs were
adequate to satisfy 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Thus, EPA is now proposing to
determine that the SIPs for Florida,
Mississippi, and South Carolina are
adequate to satisfy the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS based on modeling conducted
by EPA for the Transport Rule. The
Transport Rule air quality modeling
technical support document can be
accessed at www.regulations.gov using
Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012–
0553. Today, EPA is also proposing to
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
43022
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules
disapprove the States’ reliance on CAIR
to meet the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, to the extent that this rule is
relied upon in the infrastructure
submissions.
The air quality modeling conducted
for the Transport Rule evaluated
interstate contributions from emissions
in upwind states to projected future
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors for the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA used air
quality thresholds to indentify linkages
between upwind states and downwind
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors. The air quality threshold was
calculated as 1 percent of the NAAQS,
which is 0.35 mg/m3 for 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA found states with
emissions projected to exceed this air
quality threshold at one or more
downwind nonattainment receptors
emissions to be linked to all such
receptors. Emissions from states with
one or more linkages were subject to
further evaluation. EPA did not conduct
further evaluation of emissions from
states that were not linked to any
downwind receptors. The air quality
modeling for the Transport Rule did not
find emissions from either Florida,
Mississippi, or South Carolina linked to
any downwind receptors for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Below is a
summary of the air quality modeling
results for Florida, Mississippi, and
South Carolina. A technical support
document explaining the modeling in
much greater detail can be found in the
docket for this rulemaking.
LARGEST CONTRIBUTION TO DOWNWIND 2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 (μG/M3) NONATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE AREAS
Largest downwind contribution
to nonattainment
for 24-hour PM2.5
(μg/m3)
State
Largest downwind contribution
to
maintenance for
24-hour PM2.5
(μg/m3)
0.07
0.06
0.29
0.03
0.07
0.25
Florida ..............................................................................................................................................................
Mississippi ........................................................................................................................................................
South Carolina .................................................................................................................................................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
EPA believes it is appropriate to rely
on this modeling even though the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
stayed the Transport Rule pending
judicial review. The stay of the rule
does not, by itself, invalidate the
modeling and nothing in the court order
staying the rule suggests that it would
be improper for EPA to rely on technical
modeling conducted during the lengthy
rulemaking process. Further, EPA is not
proposing to rely on any requirements
of the Transport Rule or emission
reductions associated with that rule to
support its conclusion that these three
states have met their 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
obligations with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to partially approve
and partially disapprove revisions to the
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for
Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina
submitted on September 23, 2009,
October 6, 2009 and September 18, 2009
respectively. EPA is proposing to
approve the determinations that the
existing SIPs of Florida, Mississippi,
and South Carolina have adequate
provisions to satisfy the obligation
under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the
CAA to address interstate transport
requirements with regard to the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA proposes to
base this action on air quality modeling,
conducted by EPA during the
rulemaking process for the Transport
Rule. Additionally, EPA is proposing to
disapprove, the SIP submissions from
Florida, Mississippi and South Carolina
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 Jul 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
to the extent they rely on the Clean Air
Interstate Rule to meet the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA notes,
that once finalized, the partial
disapproval will not trigger a FIP for
these States so long as today’s proposed
determination that the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for the Florida,
Mississippi and South Carolina SIPs are
met, is finalized. No further action will
be required on the part of Florida,
Mississippi or South Carolina as a result
of the proposed partial disapproval
because the SIPs themselves are not
deficient.
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.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does not
have tribal implications for Florida and
Mississippi as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), because these SIPs are not
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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. With regard to South
Carolina, EPA notes that, pursuant to
the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement
Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27–16–120, the
Catawba Indian Nation Reservation,
which is located within the State of
South Carolina, is subject to all state
and local environmental laws and that
South Carolina regulations apply to the
Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation
and are fully enforceable by all relevant
state and local agencies and authorities.
Thus, the South Carolina SIP applies to
the Catawba Reservation. Nonetheless,
EPA has preliminarily determined that
today’s proposed rule determining that
the South Carolina SIP meets the State’s
obligation under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and disapproving its
reliance upon CAIR does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249). EPA has
also preliminarily determined that these
revisions will not impose any
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law in
South Carolina.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 12, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012–17885 Filed 7–20–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
[EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0317 and EPA–R01–
OAR–2011–0321 (CT); EPA–R01–OAR–
2011–0318 and EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0322
(ME); EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0459 and EPA–
R01–OAR–2011–0323 (MA); EPA–R01–
OAR–2009–0460 and EPA–R01–OAR–2011–
0324 (NH); A–1–FRL–9704–2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire; Infrastructure SIPs for
the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate
Matter Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 Jul 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve
most elements of submittals from the
States of Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. We
are also proposing to conditionally
approve certain elements of these
submittals, as well as disapprove a few
elements of Massachusetts’ submittals.
The submittals outline how each state’s
State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets
the requirements of section 110(a) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for both the 1997
and 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA
requires that each state adopt and
submit a SIP for the implementation,
maintenance and enforcement of each
NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. This
SIP is commonly referred to as an
infrastructure SIP. These actions are
being taken under the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before August 22, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by EPA–R01–OAR–2011–
0317 or EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0321 for
comments pertaining to our proposed
action for Connecticut,1 EPA–R01–
OAR–2011–0318 or EPA–R01–OAR–
2011–0322 for comments pertaining to
our proposed action for Maine, EPA–
R01–OAR–2009–0459 or EPA–R01–
OAR–2011–0323 for comments
pertaining to our proposed action for
Massachusetts, and EPA–R01–OAR–
2009–0460 or EPA–R01–OAR–2011–
0324 for comments pertaining to our
proposed action for New Hampshire by
one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (617) 918–0047.
4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification
Number EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0317;
EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0321; EPA–R01–
OAR–2011–0318; EPA–R01–OAR–
2011–0322; EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0459;
EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0323; EPA–R01–
OAR–2009–0460; or EPA–R01–OAR–
2011–0324,’’ Anne Arnold, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
New England Regional Office, 5 Post
Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code:
OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver
your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit,
Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S.
SUMMARY:
1 For each State, the first docket number refers to
the docket for the 1997 PM2.5 infrastructure
submittal and the second docket number refers to
the docket for the 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure
submittal.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43023
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
New England Regional Office, 5 Post
Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA
02109–3912. 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 legal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID Numbers: EPA–R01–OAR–
2011–0317 or EPA–R01–OAR–2011–
0321 for comments pertaining to our
proposed action for Connecticut, EPA–
R01–OAR–2011–0318 or EPA–R01–
OAR–2011–0322 for comments
pertaining to our proposed action for
Maine, EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0459 or
EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0323 for
comments pertaining to our proposed
action for Massachusetts, and EPA–
R01–OAR–2009–0460 or EPA–R01–
OAR–2011–0324 for comments
pertaining to our proposed action for
New Hampshire. 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.
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
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43018-43023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17885]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0553; FRL-9702-7]
Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality
Implementation Plans for Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina;
Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Transport Requirements for the
2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
revisions to the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for Florida,
Mississippi, and South Carolina submitted on September 23, 2009,
October 6, 2009 and September 18, 2009, respectively. EPA is proposing
to approve the determinations, contained in those submittals, that the
existing SIPs for Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina are adequate
to meet the obligation under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) to address interstate transport requirements with
regard to the 2006 24-hour particulate matter (PM2.5)
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Specifically, the
interstate transport requirements contained in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA prohibit a state's emissions from
significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with the
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state. EPA is proposing to
approve the States' determinations that their existing SIPs satisfy
this requirement and to conclude that additional control measures are
not necessary under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because emissions from
Florida, Mississippi and South Carolina do not contribute significantly
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state. EPA is also proposing to
disapprove the SIP submissions from Florida, Mississippi and South
Carolina to the extent that they rely on the Clean Air Interstate Rule
to meet the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Because the Clean Air Interstate Rule has been
remanded by the court and did not address the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, it cannot be relied upon to satisfy any requirements related to
that NAAQS. In this action, EPA is only addressing the SIP revisions
respecting section
[[Page 43019]]
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The SIP revisions respecting the remainder of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and sections 110(a)(2)(A)-(M), except for
sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(I) nonattainment area requirements,
are being addressed in separate actions.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 22, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0553, 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-2010-0553,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0553. 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 https://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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What is the background for this proposed action?
A. 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Infrastructure Requirements
B. Background on Infrastructure Actions
C. Transport Rules
II. What is EPA's analysis of Florida's, Mississippi's and South
Carolina's compliance with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS?
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background for this proposed action?
A. 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Infrastructure Requirements
On September 21, 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour average
PM2.5 primary and secondary NAAQS from 65 micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of
the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. 71 FR 61144 (October 17,
2006). Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit to EPA
SIPs that provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement'' of a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years after
promulgation of such standards, or within such shorter period as EPA
may prescribe.\1\ Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require these submissions
to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories,
monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. EPA thus refers to these submissions as ``infrastructure'' SIPs.
States were required to submit such SIPs to EPA no later than September
21, 2009, for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. SIPs must
address the requirements of 110(a)(2), as applicable, including section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which pertains to interstate transport of certain
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The rule establishing the revised PM2.5 NAAQS was
signed by the Administrator and publically disseminated on September
21, 2006. Because EPA did not prescribe a shorter period for 110(a)
``infrastructure'' SIP submittals, these submittals were due on
September 21, 2009, three years from the September 21, 2006,
signature date pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. See 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 2011, WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club filed an
amended complaint alleging that EPA had failed to take final action on
SIP submittals addressing the ``infrastructure'' requirements for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. On October 20, 2011, EPA entered
into a consent decree with WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club which
required EPA, among other things, to sign for publication in the
Federal Register a notice of the Agency's final action either
approving, disapproving, or approving in part and disapproving in part
the Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina 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) the nonattainment area requirements and the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), no later than
September 30, 2012.
[[Page 43020]]
B. Background on Infrastructure Actions
Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make
infrastructure SIP submissions to EPA for each 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, some states may need to adopt
language specific to the PM2.5 NAAQS to ensure that they
have adequate SIP provisions to implement the PM2.5 NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements
for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must
meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related to a newly
established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these requirements
include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling, monitoring, and
emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. As a general matter, the infrastructure
requirements are listed in EPA's October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled
``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for
the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards'' and 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.'' Although all the elements are identified below, today's
action pertains only to Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.
110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.
110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and the
applicable requirements of part D.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This requirement was inadvertently omitted from EPA's
October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' and
the September 25, 2009, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP
Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 Fine
Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards,'' but as mentioned above is not relevant to today's
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.
110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.
EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that address the infrastructure
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS for various states across the country. EPA has
previously discussed the scope of such actions in prior infrastructure
actions. See, e.g., 76 FR 14631 (March 17, 2011); 76 FR 41123 (July 13,
2011). Because today's action is focused on only the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
infrastructure element, EPA is not repeating its previously articulated
discussion on the scope of infrastructure SIP actions; however, such
considerations remain applicable here.
The requirement for the SIP submissions at issue arises out of CAA
section 110(a)(1). That provision requires that states must make a SIP
submission ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof)'' and
that these SIPs are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must meet. EPA
has historically referred to these particular submissions that states
must make after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS as
``infrastructure SIPs.'' This specific term does not appear in the
statute, but EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of
SIP submission designed to address basic structural requirements of a
SIP from other types of SIP submissions designed to address other
different requirements, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' submissions
required to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D,
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required to address the visibility
protection requirements of CAA section 169A, NSR permitting program
submissions required to address the requirements of part D, and a host
of other specific types of SIP submissions that address other specific
matters.
Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) provides that ``each'' SIP
submission must meet the list of requirements therein, EPA has long
noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally
inconsistent, insofar as section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment
SIP requirements that could not be met on the schedule provided for
these SIP submissions in section 110(a)(1).\3\ This illustrates that
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) may be
applicable for a given infrastructure SIP submission. Similarly, EPA
has previously decided that it could take action on different parts of
the larger, general ``infrastructure SIP'' for a given NAAQS without
concurrent action on all subsections, such as section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
because the Agency bifurcated the action on these latter ``interstate
transport'' provisions within section 110(a)(2) and worked with states
to address each of the four prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with
substantive administrative actions proceeding on different tracks with
different schedules.\4\ This illustrates that EPA may conclude that
subdividing the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) into
separate SIP actions may sometimes be appropriate for a given NAAQS
where a specific substantive action is necessitated, beyond a mere
submission addressing basic structural aspects of the state's
implementation plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Id., 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005) (explaining relationship
between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section
110(a)(2)(I)).
\4\ EPA issued separate guidance to states with respect to SIP
submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See ``Guidance for State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from William T. Harnett,
Director Air Quality Policy Division OAQPS, to Regional Air Division
Director, Regions I-X, dated August 15, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Transport Rules
EPA has previously addressed the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past regulatory actions such as the 1998
NOX SIP call, the 2005 Clean Interstate Rule (CAIR), and the
2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), also known as the
Transport Rule.\5\ In the 1998 NOX SIP call, EPA evaluated
whether or not the ozone-season NOX emissions in certain
states had prohibited interstate impacts, and if they had such impacts,
required the states to adopt substantive SIP revisions
[[Page 43021]]
to eliminate the NOX emissions, whether through
participation in a regional cap and trade program or by other means.
EPA's general approach to section 110(a)(2)(D) in the NOX
SIP call was upheld in Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000),
cert denied, 532 U.S. 904 (2001). However, EPA's approach to
interference with maintenance in the NOX SIP call was not
explicitly reviewed by the court. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d
896, 907-09 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998), NOX SIP Call;
70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005), CAIR; and 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011)
(Transport Rule, also known as Cross-State Air Pollution Rule or
CSAPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 12, 2005, EPA published the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
in the Federal Register. See 70 FR 25162. CAIR required States to
reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) that significantly contribute to nonattainment and
interfere with maintenance of the 1997 NAAQS for PM2.5 and/
or ozone in any downwind state. EPA was sued by a number of parties on
various aspects of CAIR and on July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) issued its decision to
vacate and remand both CAIR and the associated CAIR federal
implementation plans (FIPs) in their entirety. See North Carolina v.
EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Among other things, the Court found
that EPA failed to give independent meaning to the term ``interfere
with maintenance.'' Subsequently, in response to EPA's petition for
rehearing, the Court issued an order remanding CAIR to EPA without
vacating either CAIR or the CAIR federal implementation plans (FIPs).
See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The Court
remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur because it found that
``allowing CAIR to remain in effect until it is replaced by a rule
consistent with [the court's] opinion would at least temporarily
preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR.'' North Carolina v.
EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178.
In order to address the judicial remand of CAIR, EPA promulgated a
new rule to address interstate transport pursuant to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), in the eastern United States, the ``Federal
Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate
Matter and Ozone'' (i.e., the Transport Rule, also known as the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)). See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). In
the Transport Rule, EPA finalized regulatory changes to sunset (i.e.,
discontinue) CAIR and the CAIR FIPs for control periods in 2012 and
beyond. See 76 FR 48321.
On December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order addressing
the status of the Transport Rule and CAIR in response to motions filed
by numerous parties seeking a stay of the Transport Rule pending
judicial review. In that order, the D.C. Circuit stayed the Transport
Rule pending the court's resolution of the petitions for review of that
rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11-1302 and consolidated
cases). The court also indicated that EPA is expected to continue to
administer CAIR in the interim until the court rules on the petitions
for review of the Transport Rule.
II. What is EPA's analysis of Florida's, Mississippi's, and South
Carolina's compliance with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS?
On September 25, 2009, EPA issued a guidance entitled, ``Guidance
on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006
24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)'' (2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance). EPA developed the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance to provide additional recommendations to states for developing
SIP submissions to meet the requirements of section 110, including
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the revised 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
In the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance,
EPA explained that submissions from states pertaining to the
``significant contribution'' and ``interfere with maintenance''
requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) must contain adequate
provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the state
that contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state. In the Infrastructure
Guidance, EPA explained that states could not rely on the CAIR to
comply with CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because CAIR does not address this
NAAQS. Recognizing that the demonstration required may be a challenging
task for the affected states, EPA also noted in the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance the Agency's intention
to complete a rule to address interstate pollution transport in the
eastern half of the continental United States (i.e., the Transport
Rule). As noted above EPA published the Transport Rule in the Federal
Register on August 8, 2011. See 76 FR 48208.
On September 23, 2009, October 6, 2009, and September 18, 2009,
Florida, Mississippi and South Carolina, respectively, provided EPA
with infrastructure submissions certifying that their current SIPs
addressed all the required infrastructure elements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. In these submissions Florida, Mississippi and
South Carolina all relied on CAIR to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. CAIR addressed only
the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements with respect to the 1997 ozone and
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and did not address the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS or any requirements related to that NAAQS. In
previous actions disapproving SIP revisions for 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that
relied on CAIR, EPA explained both its rationale for disapproving those
SIP revisions as well as describing a number of considerations for
states for providing an adequate demonstration to address interstate
transport requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See, e.g.,
76 FR 43128 (July 20, 2011); 76 FR 4588 (January 26, 2011). Among the
considerations, EPA explained that the state should explain whether or
not emissions from the state contribute significantly to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state, and that
such a conclusion should be supported by a technical analysis. As
explained in the prior disapprovals, a state may not rely on CAIR to
satisfy the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS because CAIR addressed only the 1997
PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS and did not address the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS or any requirements related to that NAAQS. In
addition, CAIR was found flawed and remanded to EPA by the court. North
Carolina, 550 F.3d at 1176-1178. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
disapprove the States' submission to the extent they rely on CAIR to
meet these requirements.
Since receiving these submittals, EPA conducted additional
modeling, as part of the Transport Rule. This modeling supports the
conclusion that these States' existing implementation plans are
adequate to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
This modeling is consistent with the types of analyses and
considerations that EPA recommended states undertake in determining
whether their SIPs were adequate to satisfy 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Thus,
EPA is now proposing to determine that the SIPs for Florida,
Mississippi, and South Carolina are adequate to satisfy the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
based on modeling conducted by EPA for the Transport Rule. The
Transport Rule air quality modeling technical support document can be
accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-
0553. Today, EPA is also proposing to
[[Page 43022]]
disapprove the States' reliance on CAIR to meet the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, to the extent
that this rule is relied upon in the infrastructure submissions.
The air quality modeling conducted for the Transport Rule evaluated
interstate contributions from emissions in upwind states to projected
future downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA used air quality thresholds to
indentify linkages between upwind states and downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors. The air quality threshold was calculated as 1
percent of the NAAQS, which is 0.35 [mu]g/m\3\ for 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA found states with emissions projected to
exceed this air quality threshold at one or more downwind nonattainment
receptors emissions to be linked to all such receptors. Emissions from
states with one or more linkages were subject to further evaluation.
EPA did not conduct further evaluation of emissions from states that
were not linked to any downwind receptors. The air quality modeling for
the Transport Rule did not find emissions from either Florida,
Mississippi, or South Carolina linked to any downwind receptors for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Below is a summary of the air
quality modeling results for Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina.
A technical support document explaining the modeling in much greater
detail can be found in the docket for this rulemaking.
Largest Contribution to Downwind 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 ([mu]g/m\3\)
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Largest downwind
contribution to Largest downwind
nonattainment contribution to
State for 24-hour maintenance for
PM2.5 ([mu]g/ 24-hour PM2.5
m\3\) ([mu]g/m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida............................. 0.07 0.03
Mississippi......................... 0.06 0.07
South Carolina...................... 0.29 0.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes it is appropriate to rely on this modeling even though
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stayed the Transport
Rule pending judicial review. The stay of the rule does not, by itself,
invalidate the modeling and nothing in the court order staying the rule
suggests that it would be improper for EPA to rely on technical
modeling conducted during the lengthy rulemaking process. Further, EPA
is not proposing to rely on any requirements of the Transport Rule or
emission reductions associated with that rule to support its conclusion
that these three states have met their 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations
with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
revisions to the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for Florida,
Mississippi, and South Carolina submitted on September 23, 2009,
October 6, 2009 and September 18, 2009 respectively. EPA is proposing
to approve the determinations that the existing SIPs of Florida,
Mississippi, and South Carolina have adequate provisions to satisfy the
obligation under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA to address
interstate transport requirements with regard to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA proposes to base this action on air quality
modeling, conducted by EPA during the rulemaking process for the
Transport Rule. Additionally, EPA is proposing to disapprove, the SIP
submissions from Florida, Mississippi and South Carolina to the extent
they rely on the Clean Air Interstate Rule to meet the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA notes, that once finalized, the partial disapproval will not
trigger a FIP for these States so long as today's proposed
determination that the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the Florida, Mississippi and South
Carolina SIPs are met, is finalized. No further action will be required
on the part of Florida, Mississippi or South Carolina as a result of
the proposed partial disapproval because the SIPs themselves are not
deficient.
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. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications for
Florida and Mississippi as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), because these SIPs are not
[[Page 43023]]
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. With regard to South Carolina, EPA notes that,
pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann.
27-16-120, the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation, which is located
within the State of South Carolina, is subject to all state and local
environmental laws and that South Carolina regulations apply to the
Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all
relevant state and local agencies and authorities. Thus, the South
Carolina SIP applies to the Catawba Reservation. Nonetheless, EPA has
preliminarily determined that today's proposed rule determining that
the South Carolina SIP meets the State's obligation under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and disapproving its reliance upon CAIR does not
have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249). EPA has also preliminarily determined that these revisions will
not impose any substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law in South Carolina.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 12, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-17885 Filed 7-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
