Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans for Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina; Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Transport Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 61724-61727 [2012-24897]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
61724
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
longitude 76°32′06″ W; thence to
latitude 37°15′27″ N, longitude
76°31′48″ W; thence to latitude
37°15′05″ N, longitude 76°31′27″ W;
thence to a point on the shore line at
latitude 37°14′51″ N, longitude
76°31′50″ W; and thence along the shore
line to the point of beginning.
(2) Naval mine service-testing area
(restricted). A rectangular area adjacent
to the northeast boundary of the
prohibited area described in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section, beginning at
latitude 37°16′00″ N, longitude
76°32′29″ W; thence to latitude
37°16′23″ N, longitude 76°32′00″ W;
thence to latitude 37°15′27″ N,
longitude 76°30′54″ W; thence to
latitude 37°15′05″ N, longitude
76°31′27″ W; thence to latitude
37°15′27″ N, longitude 76°31′48″ W;
thence to latitude 37°15′42″ N,
longitude 76°32′06″ W; thence to
latitude 37°15′40″ N, longitude
76°32′09″ W; and thence to the point of
beginning.
(3) Explosives-Handling Berth
(Naval). A circular area of 600 yards
radius with its center at latitude
37°13′56″ N, longitude 76°28′48″ W.
(4) Felgates Creek (prohibited).
Navigable waters of the United States as
defined at 33 CFR part 329 within
Felgates Creek from the boundary fence
line at the mouth to the mean high
water line of the head and all associated
tributaries. The area contains the
entirety of Felgates Creek and all
associated tributaries south of the line
which begins at latitude 37°16′24″ N,
longitude 76°35′12″ W and extends east
to latitude 37°16′21″ N, longitude
76°35′00″ W.
(5) Indian Field Creek (prohibited).
Navigable waters of the United States as
defined at 33 CFR part 329 within
Indian Field Creek from the boundary
fence line at the mouth to the mean high
water line of the head and all associated
tributaries. The area contains the
entirety of Indian Field Creek and all
associated tributaries south of the line
which begins at latitude 37°16′05″ N,
longitude 76°33′29″ W and extends east
to latitude 37°16′01″ N, longitude
76°33′22″ W.
(b) The regulations. (1) All persons
and all vessels other than naval craft are
forbidden to enter the prohibited area
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section.
(2) Trawling, dragging, and net-fishing
are prohibited, and no permanent
obstructions may at any time be placed
in the area described in paragraph (a)(2)
of this section. Upon official
notification, any vessel anchored in the
area and any person in the area will be
required to vacate the area during the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:00 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
actual mine-laying operation. Persons
and vessels entering the area during
mine-laying operations by aircraft must
proceed directly through the area
without delay, except in case of
emergency. Naval authorities are
required to publish advance notice of
mine-laying and/or retrieving operations
scheduled to be carried on in the area,
and during such published periods of
operation, fishing or other aquatic
activities are forbidden in the area. No
vessel will be denied passage through
the area at any time during either minelaying or retrieving operations.
(3) The Explosives-Handling Berth
(Naval) described in paragraph (a)(3) of
this section is reserved for the exclusive
use of naval vessels and except in cases
of emergency no other vessel shall
anchor therein without the permission
of local naval authorities, obtained
through the Captain of the Port, U.S.
Coast Guard, Norfolk, Virginia. There
shall be no restriction on the movement
of vessels through the ExplosiveHandling Berth.
(4) Vessels shall not be anchored, nor
shall persons in the water approach
within 300 yards of the perimeter of the
Explosives-Handling Berth (Naval)
when that berth is occupied by a vessel
handling explosives.
(5) All persons and all vessels are
forbidden to enter the prohibited areas
described in paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5)
of this section without prior permission
of the enforcing agency.
(6) The regulations of this section
shall be enforced by the Commander,
Naval Weapons Station Yorktown,
Virginia, and such agencies as he/she
may designate.
Dated: October 1, 2012.
James R. Hannon,
Chief, Operations and Regulatory Directorate
of Civil Works.
[FR Doc. 2012–24994 Filed 10–10–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720–58–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0553; FRL–9738–9]
Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval of Air Quality
Implementation Plans for Florida,
Mississippi, and South Carolina;
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Transport
Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour
Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ACTION:
Final rule.
EPA is taking final action 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 approving 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 approving the States’
determinations that their existing SIPs
satisfy this requirement and conclusion
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
disapproving the SIP submissions from
Florida, Mississippi and South Carolina
to the extent that they rely on the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to meet the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Because
CAIR does not address the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, it cannot be relied upon to
satisfy any requirements related to that
NAAQS.
DATES: This rule will be effective on
November 13, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR–
2012–0553. 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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11OCR1.SGM
11OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
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. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. Background
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.
See 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.
On September 23, 2009, October 6,
2009, and September 18, 2009, Florida,
Mississippi and South Carolina,
respectively, provided EPA with
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:00 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
infrastructure SIP submissions
certifying that the provisions in their
current SIPs were adequate to address
the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. On July 23, 2012, EPA
proposed to partially approve Florida,
Mississippi and South Carolina’s
determination 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
these states do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other
state. Additionally, in the same proposal
EPA proposed to partially disapprove
Florida, Mississippi and South
Carolina’s determination that their
existing SIPs satisfy section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to the extent that these
states relied upon CAIR to meet section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements in their
infrastructure submissions for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, since CAIR did not
address that NAAQS. See EPA’s July 23,
2012, proposed rulemaking at 77 FR
43018 for more detail. EPA received no
adverse comments on this proposal.
EPA is taking final action to partially
approve and partially disapprove
revisions to the SIPs for Florida,
Mississippi, and South Carolina
submitted on September 23, 2009,
October 6, 2009, and September 18,
2009 respectively. EPA is approving the
States’ 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. This conclusion is based on air
quality modeling originally conducted
to quantify each individual state’s
contributions to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance areas
during the rulemaking process for the
Transport Rule (also known as the Cross
State Air Pollution Rule or CSAPR).
This modeling is described in a
technical support document which is in
the docket for this rulemaking, Docket
ID No., EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0553.
This air quality modeling demonstrates
that emissions from the states of Florida,
Mississippi and South Carolina do not
contribute more than one percent of the
NAAQS to any downwind areas with
nonattainment and maintenance
problems with respect to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. For this reason, as explained in
the proposal, 77 FR 43021, EPA
concludes that these states do not
contribute significantly to
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
61725
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
in another state.
The recent opinion vacating the
Transport Rule, EME Homer City
Generation v. EPA, No. 11–1302 (D.C.
Cir., August 21, 2012), does not alter our
conclusion that the existing SIPs for
these states adequately address this
requirement, and our rationale
supporting this conclusion remains the
same. Nothing in the Homer City
opinion suggests that the air quality
modeling on which our July 23, 2012
proposal relied was flawed or invalid
for any reason. In addition, nothing in
that opinion undermines or calls into
question our proposed conclusion that,
because emissions from Florida,
Mississippi and South Carolina do not
contribute more than one percent of the
NAAQS to any downwind area with
nonattainment or maintenance
problems, these states do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance in another
state. As EPA explained in the proposal,
77 FR 43022, this action does not 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.
Additionally, EPA is partially
disapproving the SIP submissions from
Florida, Mississippi and South Carolina
to the extent they rely on CAIR to meet
the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As
explained in our July 23, 2012,
proposal, 77 FR 43021, 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 8hour ozone NAAQS and did not address
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS or any
requirements related to that NAAQS.
Today’s partial disapproval will not
trigger any further action, or a Federal
Implementation Plan, for these States
because today’s action does not identify
any deficiency in the SIPs. Thus, no
further action will be required on the
part of Florida, Mississippi, or South
Carolina as a result of the partial
disapproval because the SIPs
themselves are not deficient with
respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
II. Final Action
EPA is taking final action to partially
approve and partially disapprove
infrastructure submissions from Florida,
Mississippi and South Carolina dated
September 23, 2009, October 6, 2009
and September 18, 2009, respectively,
E:\FR\FM\11OCR1.SGM
11OCR1
61726
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
regarding the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. Today’s partial disapproval
will not trigger a FIP for these States.
See EPA’s July 23, 2012, proposed
rulemaking at 77 FR 43018 for more
detail. In this action, EPA is only
addressing the SIP revisions respecting
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. The SIP revisions
pertaining to 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.
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 action
partially approves state law as meeting
federal requirements and partially
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:00 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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 for Florida and
Mississippi as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), because the SIP is not approved
to apply in Indian country, and EPA
notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law. Further, EPA has
determined that this final rule does not
have tribal implications for South
Carolina as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because there are no ‘‘substantial direct
effects’’ on an Indian Tribe as a result
of this action. The Catawba Indian
Nation Reservation is located within the
South Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte nonattainment area. Pursuant
to the Catawba Indian Claims
Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27–16–
120, ‘‘all state and local environmental
laws and regulations apply to the
Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation
and are fully enforceable by all relevant
state and local agencies and
authorities.’’ Thus, the South Carolina
SIP applies to the Catawba Reservation.
EPA has also preliminarily determined
that these revisions will not impose any
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
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 10, 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, Particulate matter,
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—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart K—Florida
2. Section 52.520(e) is amended by
adding a new entry for ‘‘110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS’’ at the end of the
table to read as follows:
■
§ 52.520
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
E:\FR\FM\11OCR1.SGM
11OCR1
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
61727
EPA-APPROVED FLORIDA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Provision
State effective
date
*
*
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
9/23/2009
3. Section 52.1270(e) is amended by
adding a new entry for ‘‘110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
■
Federal Register notice
*
Subpart Z—Mississippi
EPA approval
date
*
[Insert citation of publication].
10/11/2012
Explanation
*
*
*
EPA partially disapproved this SIP submission to
the extent that it relied on the Clean Air Interstate Rule to meet the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS’’ at the end of the
table to read as follows:
§ 52.1270
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED MISSISSIPPI NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Name of nonregulatory SIP
provision
Applicable geographic
or nonattainment area
State submittal
date/effective
date
*
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Infrastructure Requirements for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
*
*
Mississippi ..................
10/6/2009
Subpart PP—South Carolina
4. Section 52.2120(e) is amended by
adding a new entry for ‘‘110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
■
Provision
9/18/2009
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 635
RIN 0648–BA64
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Vessel Monitoring Systems
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of effective date for VMS
requirements in Atlantic HMS fisheries.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:00 Oct 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
*
10/11/2012 [Insert citation of publication].
*
*
EPA partially disapproved this SIP submission
to the extent that it relied on the Clean Air
Interstate Rule to meet the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
§ 52.2120
*
*
10/11/2012 [Insert citation of
publication].
*
*
*
*
(e) EPA-approved South Carolina
non-regulatory provisions.
Explanation
*
*
*
EPA partially disapproved this SIP submission to the extent
that it relied on the Clean Air Interstate Rule to meet the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
As of January 1, 2013, all
vessels participating in Atlantic HMS
fisheries that are subject to VMS
requirements, including vessels with
pelagic longline gear on board, vessels
with bottom longline gear on board in
the vicinity of the mid-Atlantic closed
area (between 33° N and 36°30′ N) from
January 1 to July 31, and vessels with
shark gillnet gear on board fishing
between November 15 and April 15,
must have an Enhanced Mobile
Transmitting Unit (E–MTU) installed by
a qualified marine electrician and must
provide hail in/hail out declarations
specifying target species, gear possessed
onboard, and location and timing of
landing. These requirements were
originally effective March 1, 2011,
consistent with a December 2, 2011 final
rule. On February 29, 2012, NMFS
provided notice that HMS vessels could
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Identification of plan.
*
EPA approval date
SUMMARY:
[FR Doc. 2012–24897 Filed 10–10–12; 8:45 am]
AGENCY:
*
Explanation
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS’’ at the end of the
table to read as follows:
State effective
date
*
*
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA approval date
use either old MTUs or new E–MTUs
without providing hail in/hail out
declarations specifying target species,
gear possessed onboard, and location
and timing of landing. However, no new
installations of MTUs were permitted,
all installations of E–MTUs were
required to be done by a qualified
marine electrician, and vessels were to
provide hourly position reports using
VMS units starting two hours prior to
leaving port and at all times away from
port.
DATES: As of January 1, 2013, all vessels
participating in Atlantic HMS fisheries
that are subject to VMS requirements,
including vessels with pelagic longline
gear on board, vessels with bottom
longline gear on board in the vicinity of
the mid-Atlantic closed area (between
33° N and 36°30′ N) from January 1 to
July 31, and vessels with shark gillnet
E:\FR\FM\11OCR1.SGM
11OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 197 (Thursday, October 11, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61724-61727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24897]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0553; FRL-9738-9]
Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality
Implementation Plans for Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina;
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action 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
approving 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 approving the
States' determinations that their existing SIPs satisfy this
requirement and conclusion 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 disapproving the
SIP submissions from Florida, Mississippi and South Carolina to the
extent that they rely on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to meet
the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Because CAIR does not address the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, it cannot be relied upon to satisfy any
requirements related to that NAAQS.
DATES: This rule will be effective on November 13, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0553. 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
[[Page 61725]]
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. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
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. See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 23, 2009, October 6, 2009, and September 18, 2009,
Florida, Mississippi and South Carolina, respectively, provided EPA
with infrastructure SIP submissions certifying that the provisions in
their current SIPs were adequate to address the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. On July 23, 2012, EPA proposed to partially approve Florida,
Mississippi and South Carolina's determination 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 these states do not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state. Additionally, in the same
proposal EPA proposed to partially disapprove Florida, Mississippi and
South Carolina's determination that their existing SIPs satisfy section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to the extent that these states relied upon CAIR to
meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements in their infrastructure
submissions for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, since CAIR did not
address that NAAQS. See EPA's July 23, 2012, proposed rulemaking at 77
FR 43018 for more detail. EPA received no adverse comments on this
proposal.
EPA is taking final action to partially approve and partially
disapprove revisions to the SIPs for Florida, Mississippi, and South
Carolina submitted on September 23, 2009, October 6, 2009, and
September 18, 2009 respectively. EPA is approving the States'
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.
This conclusion is based on air quality modeling originally conducted
to quantify each individual state's contributions to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance areas during the rulemaking process for
the Transport Rule (also known as the Cross State Air Pollution Rule or
CSAPR). This modeling is described in a technical support document
which is in the docket for this rulemaking, Docket ID No., EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0553. This air quality modeling demonstrates that emissions from
the states of Florida, Mississippi and South Carolina do not contribute
more than one percent of the NAAQS to any downwind areas with
nonattainment and maintenance problems with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. For this reason, as explained in the proposal,
77 FR 43021, EPA concludes that these states do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in another state.
The recent opinion vacating the Transport Rule, EME Homer City
Generation v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir., August 21, 2012), does not
alter our conclusion that the existing SIPs for these states adequately
address this requirement, and our rationale supporting this conclusion
remains the same. Nothing in the Homer City opinion suggests that the
air quality modeling on which our July 23, 2012 proposal relied was
flawed or invalid for any reason. In addition, nothing in that opinion
undermines or calls into question our proposed conclusion that, because
emissions from Florida, Mississippi and South Carolina do not
contribute more than one percent of the NAAQS to any downwind area with
nonattainment or maintenance problems, these states do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another
state. As EPA explained in the proposal, 77 FR 43022, this action does
not 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.
Additionally, EPA is partially disapproving the SIP submissions
from Florida, Mississippi and South Carolina to the extent they rely on
CAIR to meet the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained in our July 23, 2012, proposal, 77
FR 43021, 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 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and did not address the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS or any
requirements related to that NAAQS. Today's partial disapproval will
not trigger any further action, or a Federal Implementation Plan, for
these States because today's action does not identify any deficiency in
the SIPs. Thus, no further action will be required on the part of
Florida, Mississippi, or South Carolina as a result of the partial
disapproval because the SIPs themselves are not deficient with respect
to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
II. Final Action
EPA is taking final action to partially approve and partially
disapprove infrastructure submissions from Florida, Mississippi and
South Carolina dated September 23, 2009, October 6, 2009 and September
18, 2009, respectively,
[[Page 61726]]
regarding the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Today's partial disapproval will not trigger a
FIP for these States. See EPA's July 23, 2012, proposed rulemaking at
77 FR 43018 for more detail. In this action, EPA is only addressing the
SIP revisions respecting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. The SIP revisions pertaining to 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.
III. 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
action partially approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
partially 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 for Florida
and Mississippi as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs
on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Further, EPA has
determined that this final rule does not have tribal implications for
South Carolina as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because there are no ``substantial direct effects''
on an Indian Tribe as a result of this action. The Catawba Indian
Nation Reservation is located within the South Carolina portion of the
bi-state Charlotte nonattainment area. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian
Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, ``all state and local
environmental laws and regulations apply to the Catawba Indian Nation
and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and
local agencies and authorities.'' Thus, the South Carolina SIP applies
to the Catawba Reservation. EPA has also preliminarily determined that
these revisions will not impose any 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 10, 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, Particulate
matter, 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--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart K--Florida
0
2. Section 52.520(e) is amended by adding a new entry for
``110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.520 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 61727]]
EPA-Approved Florida Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State effective EPA approval Federal Register
Provision date date notice Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 9/23/2009 10/11/2012 [Insert citation of EPA partially
Infrastructure Requirements for publication]. disapproved this SIP
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. submission to the
extent that it relied
on the Clean Air
Interstate Rule to
meet the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart Z--Mississippi
0
3. Section 52.1270(e) is amended by adding a new entry for
``110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1270 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Mississippi Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable State submittal
Name of nonregulatory SIP geographic or date/effective EPA approval date Explanation
provision nonattainment area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Mississippi....... 10/6/2009 10/11/2012 [Insert EPA partially
Infrastructure Requirements citation of disapproved this SIP
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 publication]. submission to the
NAAQS. extent that it relied
on the Clean Air
Interstate Rule to
meet the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart PP--South Carolina
0
4. Section 52.2120(e) is amended by adding a new entry for
``110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) EPA-approved South Carolina non-regulatory provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State effective
Provision date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Infrastructure 9/18/2009 10/11/2012 [Insert EPA partially disapproved
Requirements for the 2006 24-hour citation of this SIP submission to the
PM2.5 NAAQS. publication]. extent that it relied on the
Clean Air Interstate Rule to
meet the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2012-24897 Filed 10-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
