Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Region 4 States; Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Infrastructure Requirement for the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 72284-72287 [2012-29367]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
72284
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0814; FRL– 9757–9]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Region 4
States; Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
Infrastructure Requirement for the
1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
submissions from Alabama, Georgia,
Mississippi and South Carolina for
inclusion into each states’ State
Implementation Plans (SIP). This
proposal pertains to the Clean Air Act
(CAA) requirements regarding
prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) infrastructure SIPs. The CAA
requires that each state adopt and
submit a SIP for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of each
NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is
commonly referred to as an
‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. EPA is proposing
to approve the submissions for
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and
South Carolina that relate to adequate
provisions prohibiting emissions that
interfere with any other state’s required
measures to prevent significant
deterioration of its air quality. All other
applicable infrastructure requirements
for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS associated with these
States are being addressed in separate
rulemakings.
SUMMARY:
Written comments must be
received on or before January 4, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2012–0814, by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: R4–RDS@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012–
0814,’’ Regulatory Development Section,
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
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Dec 04, 2012
Jkt 229001
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012–
0814. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly
to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at 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
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
in hard copy at the Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street,
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The
telephone number is (404) 562–9043.
Mr. Lakeman can be reached via
electronic mail at lakeman.sean@epa.
gov.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. What are States required to address under
Sections 110(a)(2)(D)?
III. What is EPA’s analysis of how Region 4
States addressed element (D)(i)(II) related
to PSD?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA
established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS at
15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/
m3) based on a 3-year average of annual
mean PM2.5 concentrations. At that time,
EPA also established a 24-hour NAAQS
of 65 mg/m3. See 40 CFR 50.7. On
October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA
retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
at 15.0 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average
of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations,
and promulgated a new 24-hour
NAAQS of 35 mg/m3 based on a 3-year
average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations. By statute, SIPs meeting
the requirements of sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) are to be submitted by states
within three years after promulgation of
a new or revised NAAQS. Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) require states to
address basic SIP requirements,
including emissions inventories,
monitoring, and modeling to assure
attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. States were required to submit
such SIPs to EPA no later than July 2000
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and
no later than October 2009 for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
States were required to submit such
SIPs to EPA no later than July 2000 for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and no
E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM
05DEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules
later than Octoer 2009 for the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice
submitted a notice of intent to sue
related to EPA’s failure to issue findings
of failure to submit related to the
‘‘infrastructure’’ requirements for the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On March
10, 2005, EPA entered into a consent
decree with Earthjustice which required
EPA, among other things, to complete a
Federal Register notice announcing
EPA’s determinations pursuant to
section 110(k)(1)(B) as to whether each
state had made complete submissions to
meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by
October 5, 2008. In accordance with the
consent decree, EPA made completeness
findings for each state based upon what
the Agency received from each state for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as of October 3,
2008.
On October 22, 2008, EPA published
a final rulemaking entitled
‘‘Completeness Findings for Section
110(a) State Implementation Plans
Pertaining to the Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS’’ making a finding that
each state had submitted or failed to
submit a complete SIP that provided the
basic program elements of section
110(a)(2) necessary to implement the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 73 FR 62902.
For those states that did receive
findings, the findings of failure to
submit for all or a portion of a state’s
implementation plan established a 24month deadline for EPA to promulgate
a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to
address the outstanding SIP elements
unless, prior to that time, the affected
states submitted, and EPA approved, the
required SIPs.
The findings that all or portions of a
state’s submission are complete
established a 12-month deadline for
EPA to take action upon the complete
SIP elements in accordance with section
110(k). Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi
and South Carolina’s infrastructure
submissions were received by EPA on
July 25, 2008, July 23, 2008, December
7, 2007, and March 14, 2008,
respectively, for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS and on September 23, 2009,
October 21, 2009, October 6, 2009, and
September 18, 2009, respectively, for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and
South Carolina were among other states
that did not receive findings of failure
to submit because they had provided a
complete submission to EPA to address
the infrastructure elements for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS by October 3, 2008.
On July 6, 2011, WildEarth Guardians
and Sierra Club filed an amended
complaint related to EPA’s failure to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Dec 04, 2012
Jkt 229001
take action on the SIP submittal related
to the ‘‘infrastructure’’ requirements for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. On
October 20, 2011, EPA entered into a
consent decree with WildEarth
Guardians and Sierra Club which
required EPA, among other things, to
complete a Federal Register notice of
the Agency’s final action either
approving, disapproving, or approving
in part and disapproving in part the
Alabama, Georgia, 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)
nonattainment area requirements and
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) visibility
requirements. The rulemaking proposed
through today’s action is consistent with
the terms of this consent decree.
Today’s action is proposing to
approve Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi
and South Carolina’s infrastructure
submissions for the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS addressing
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to
adequate provisions prohibiting
emissions that interfere with any other
state’s required measures to prevent
significant deterioration of its air quality
(referred to as ‘‘prong 3’’). EPA has
taken previous action on Alabama,
Georgia, Mississippi and South
Carolina’s infrastructure submissions for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for
sections 110(a)(2)(A)-(F), (H), (J)-(M),
including other portions of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) in separate actions from
today’s rulemaking.
II. What are States required to address
under Sections 110(a)(2)(D)?
Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two
components, 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Specifically, section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) has four components that
require SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of
emissions activity in one state from: 1)
contributing significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in any
other State, and 2) interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS by any
other State (collectively referred to as
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)); or interfering with
measures required to 3) prevent
significant deterioration of air quality in
any other State, or 4) protect visibility
in any other State (collectively referred
to as 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)). Section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include
provisions insuring compliance with
sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating
to interstate and international pollution
abatement.
In previous actions, EPA has already
taken action to address Alabama,
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
72285
Georgia, Mississippi and South
Carolina’s SIP submissions related to
sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Today’s
proposed rulemaking relates only to
requirements related to prong 3 of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which as
previously described, requires that the
SIP contain adequate provisions
prohibiting emissions that interfere with
any other state’s required measures to
prevent significant deterioration of its
air quality. More information on this
requirement and EPA’s rationale for
today’s proposal that each state is
meeting this requirement for purposes
of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS is provided below.
III. What is EPA’s analysis of how
Region 4 States addressed element
(D)(i)(II) related to PSD?
EPA’s September 25, 2009,
memorandum entitled ‘‘Guidance on
SIP Elements Required Under Section
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour
Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient
Air Quality Standards’’ provided
guidance on addressing the
infrastructure requirements required
under sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) of
the CAA with respect to the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2009 Guidance
describes that a state’s PSD permitting
program is the primary measure that
such state must include in its SIP to
prevent significant deterioration of air
quality in accordance with prong 3 of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA believes that
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and
South Carolina’s infrastructure
submissions are consistent with the
2009 Guidance, when considered in
conjunction with each State’s PSD
program.
At present, there are four regulations
that are required to be adopted into the
SIP to meet PSD-related infrastructure
requirements. See Sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J) of the
CAA. These regulations are: (1) ‘‘Final
Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality
Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule’’
(November 29, 2005, 70 FR 71612)
(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Phase II
Rule’’); (2) ‘‘Implementation of the New
Source Review Program for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers; Final
Rule’’ (May 16, 2008, 73 FR 28321)
(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘NSR PM2.5
Rule’’); (3) ‘‘Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse
Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule’’ (June 3,
2010, 75 FR 31514) (hereafter referred to
as the ‘‘GHG Tailoring Rule’’); and, (4)
‘‘Final Rule on the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) for
E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM
05DEP1
72286
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments,
Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant monitoring Concentration
(SMC); Final Rule’’ (October 20, 2010,
75 FR 64864) (hereafter referred to as
‘‘PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule
(only as it relates to PM2.5 Increments)’’).
Specific details on these PSD
requirements can be found in the
respective final rules cited above,
however, a brief summary of each rule
is provided below.
First, as part of the framework to
implement the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, EPA promulgated an
implementation rule in two phases.1
The Phase 2 Rule is relevant to today’s
action. Among other changes, the rule
revised the PSD regulations to recognize
nitrogen oxide (NOx) as an ozone
precursor.
Second, the NSR PM2.5 Rule revised
the NSR program to establish the
framework for implementing
preconstruction permit review for the
PM2.5 NAAQS in both attainment areas
and nonattainment areas. These PSD
requirements included: (1) A provision
that NSR permits address directly
emitted PM2.5 and precursor pollutants;
(2) a requirement establishing
significant emission rates for direct
PM2.5 and precursor pollutants
(including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
NOx); 3) exceptions to the
grandfathering policy for permits being
reviewed under the PM10 surrogate
program; and, (4) a revision that states
account for gases that condense to form
particles (condensables) in PM2.5 and
PM10 emission limits in PSD permits.
Third, in the GHG Tailoring Rule,
EPA tailored the applicability criteria
that determine which GHG emission
State
Phase II rule
Alabama ..................................................................
Georgia ...................................................................
Mississippi ...............................................................
South Carolina ........................................................
5/1/2008
73 FR 23957
11/22/2010
75 FR 71018
12/20/2010
75 FR 79300
6/23/2011
76 FR 36875
GHG tailoring rule
12/29/2010
75 FR 81863
9/8/2011
76 FR 55572
12/29/2010
75 FR 81858
Refer to Footnote 2
sources become subject to the PSD
program of the CAA. See 75 FR 31514.
Lastly, the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILsSMC Rule (only as it relates to PM2.5
increments) provided additional
regulatory requirements under the PSD
program regarding the implementation
of the PM2.5 NAAQS for NSR by
specifically establishing PM2.5
increments pursuant to section 166(a) of
the CAA to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in areas
meeting the NAAQS.
The PSD requirements promulgated in
the aforementioned regulations establish
the framework for a comprehensive SIP
PSD program which EPA has
determined are necessary to comply
with prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
The following table shows when EPA
approved the incorporation of the
aforementioned regulations in each of
the States’ implementation plan:
NSR PM2.5 rule
9/26/2012
77 FR 59100
9/8/2011
76 FR 55572
9/26/2012
77 FR 59095
6/23/2011
76 FR 36875
PM2.5 PSD
increment-SILs-SMC
rule (as it relates to
PM2.5 increments)
9/26/2012.
77 FR 59100.
See Below.
9/26/2012.
77 FR 59095.
See Below.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
1. Alabama: As noted in the table
above, Alabama has addressed, and EPA
has approved, the underlying PSD
regulations to support the State’s
program. In this action, EPA is
proposing to approve Alabama’s
infrastructure submissions for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
with regard to the PSD requirements for
prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
2. Georgia: In this action, EPA is
proposing to approve Georgia’s
infrastructure submissions for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
with regard to the prong 3 requirement
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Today’s
proposed approval of Georgia’s
implementation plan respecting the
prong 3 infrastructure element of
110(a)(2)(D)(i) is contingent upon EPA
first taking final action to approve
Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP revision
regarding PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILsSMC Rule (only as it relates to PM2.5
Increments) revision into the State’s
implementation plan. EPA will consider
action on Georgia’s July 26, 2012,
submission in a rulemaking separate
from today’s action.
3. Mississippi: As noted in the table
above, Mississippi has addressed, and
EPA has approved, the underlying PSD
regulations to support the State’s
program. In this action, EPA is
proposing to approve Mississippi’s
infrastructure submissions for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
with regard to the PSD requirements for
prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
4. South Carolina: In this action, EPA
is proposing to approve South
Carolina’s infrastructure submissions for
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS with regard to prong 3 of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Today’s
proposed approval of South Carolina’s
implementation plan respecting prong 3
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) is
contingent upon EPA first taking final
action to approve South Carolina’s May
1, 2012, SIP revision regarding the PM2.5
PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as
it relates to PM2.5 Increments) revision
into the State’s implementation plan.
EPA will consider action on South
Carolina’s May 1, 2012, submission in a
rulemaking separate from today’s action.
Pending final approval of the abovedescribed contingent SIP revisions,
1 EPA promulgated the Phase I Rule on April 30,
2004 entitled ‘‘Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—
Phase 1.’’ See 69 FR 23951.
2 On June 11, 2010, the South Carolina Governor
signed an Executive Order to confirm that the State
had authority to implement appropriate emission
thresholds for determining which new stationary
sources and modification projects become subject to
PSD permitting requirements for their GHG
emissions at the state level. On December 30, 2010,
EPA published a final rulemaking, ‘‘Action To
Ensure Authority To Implement Title V Permitting
Programs Under the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring
Rule’’ (75 FR 82254) to narrow EPA’s previous
approval of State title V operating permit programs
that apply (or may apply) to GHG-emitting sources;
this rule hereafter is referred to as the ‘‘Narrowing
Rule.’’ EPA narrowed its previous approval of
certain State permitting thresholds, for GHG
emissions so that only sources that equal or exceed
the GHG thresholds, as established in the final
Tailoring Rule, would be covered as major sources
by the Federally-approved programs in the affected
States. South Carolina was included in this
rulemaking. On March 4, 2011, South Carolina
submitted a letter withdrawing from EPA’s
consideration the portion of South Carolina’s SIP
for which EPA withdrew its previous approval in
the Narrowing Rule. These provisions are no longer
intended for inclusion in the SIP, and are no longer
before EPA for its approval or disapproval. A copy
of South Carolina’s letter can be accessed at
www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA–
R04–OAR–2010–0721.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Dec 04, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM
05DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and
South Carolina have demonstrated that
major sources in each state are subject
to PSD permitting programs to comply
with prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of
the CAA for the PM2.5 NAAQS.
Therefore, EPA has made the
preliminary determination that, pending
these contingent revisions, Alabama,
Georgia, Mississippi and South
Carolina’s SIP and practices will be
adequate for insuring compliance with
the applicable PSD requirements
relating to interstate transport pollution
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
IV. Proposed Action
As described above, EPA is proposing
to approve SIP revisions for Alabama,
Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina
to incorporate provisions into the States’
implementation plans to address prong
3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA
for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is proposing
to approve the States’ prong 3 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) submissions because they
are consistent with section 110 of the
CAA. As noted above, the proposed
approval of Georgia’s and South
Carolina’s implementation plan
respecting prong 3 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) is contingent upon EPA
first taking final action to approve the
States’ July 26, 2012, and May 1, 2012,
SIP revisions, respectively, for the PM2.5
PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as
it relates to PM2.5 Increments).
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely approves state law as
meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Dec 04, 2012
Jkt 229001
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
EPA has preliminarily determined
that this proposed rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because there are no
‘‘substantial direct effects’’ on an Indian
Tribe as a result of this action. EPA
notes that the Catawba Indian Nation
Reservation is located within the South
Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba
Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code
Ann. 27–16–120, ‘‘all state and local
environmental laws and regulations
apply to the Catawba Indian Nation and
Reservation and are fully enforceable by
all relevant state and local agencies and
authorities.’’ Thus, while the South
Carolina SIP applies to the Catawba
Reservation, because today’s action is
not proposing a substantive revision to
the South Carolina SIP, and is instead
proposing that the existing SIP will
satisfy the prong 3 requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), EPA has
preliminarily determined that today’s
action will have no ‘‘substantial direct
effects’’ on the Catawba Indian Nation.
EPA has also preliminarily determined
that these revisions will not impose any
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
72287
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 21, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012–29367 Filed 12–4–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0814; FRL–9757–8]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Florida;
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Infrastructure
Requirement for the 1997 and 2006
Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
in part, and disapprove in part, the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions,
submitted by the State of Florida,
through the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) on
April 18, 2008, and September 23, 2009.
This proposal addresses the Clean Air
Act (CAA) requirements pertaining to
prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) infrastructure SIPs. The CAA
requires that each state adopt and
submit a SIP for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of each
NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is
commonly referred to as an
‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. EPA is proposing
to approve in part, and disapprove in
part the submission for Florida, that
relates to adequate provisions
prohibiting emissions that interfere with
any other state’s required measures to
prevent significant deterioration of its
air quality. All other applicable
infrastructure requirements for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
associated with Florida are being
addressed in separate rulemakings.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before January 4, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2012–0814, by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: R4–RDS@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012–
0814,’’ Regulatory Development Section,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM
05DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 5, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72284-72287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29367]
[[Page 72284]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0814; FRL- 9757-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Region 4
States; Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Infrastructure Requirement for the
1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve submissions from Alabama, Georgia,
Mississippi and South Carolina for inclusion into each states' State
Implementation Plans (SIP). This proposal pertains to the Clean Air Act
(CAA) requirements regarding prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
infrastructure SIPs. The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit
a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each
NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure'' SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the submissions for
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina that relate to
adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that interfere with any other
state's required measures to prevent significant deterioration of its
air quality. All other applicable infrastructure requirements for the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS associated with
these States are being addressed in separate rulemakings.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 4, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0814, by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0814,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0814. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at 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.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. What are States required to address under Sections 110(a)(2)(D)?
III. What is EPA's analysis of how Region 4 States addressed element
(D)(i)(II) related to PSD?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA established an annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations. At that time, EPA also established a 24-hour NAAQS of
65 [mu]g/m\3\. See 40 CFR 50.7. On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA
retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, and promulgated a new 24-hour NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\
based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations. By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by states within three years
after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) require states to address basic SIP requirements, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs
to EPA no later than July 2000 for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, and no later than October 2009 for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
States were required to submit such SIPs to EPA no later than July
2000 for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and no
[[Page 72285]]
later than Octoer 2009 for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice submitted a notice of intent to sue
related to EPA's failure to issue findings of failure to submit related
to the ``infrastructure'' requirements for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. On March 10, 2005, EPA entered into a consent
decree with Earthjustice which required EPA, among other things, to
complete a Federal Register notice announcing EPA's determinations
pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) as to whether each state had made
complete submissions to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2) for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by October 5, 2008. In accordance with
the consent decree, EPA made completeness findings for each state based
upon what the Agency received from each state for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS as of October 3, 2008.
On October 22, 2008, EPA published a final rulemaking entitled
``Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans
Pertaining to the Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) NAAQS''
making a finding that each state had submitted or failed to submit a
complete SIP that provided the basic program elements of section
110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See
73 FR 62902. For those states that did receive findings, the findings
of failure to submit for all or a portion of a state's implementation
plan established a 24-month deadline for EPA to promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the outstanding SIP elements
unless, prior to that time, the affected states submitted, and EPA
approved, the required SIPs.
The findings that all or portions of a state's submission are
complete established a 12-month deadline for EPA to take action upon
the complete SIP elements in accordance with section 110(k). Alabama,
Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina's infrastructure submissions
were received by EPA on July 25, 2008, July 23, 2008, December 7, 2007,
and March 14, 2008, respectively, for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS and on September 23, 2009, October 21, 2009, October 6, 2009, and
September 18, 2009, respectively, for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina were among
other states that did not receive findings of failure to submit because
they had provided a complete submission to EPA to address the
infrastructure elements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by October
3, 2008.
On July 6, 2011, WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club filed an
amended complaint related to EPA's failure to take action on the SIP
submittal related to the ``infrastructure'' requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. On October 20, 2011, EPA entered into a
consent decree with WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club which required
EPA, among other things, to complete a Federal Register notice of the
Agency's final action either approving, disapproving, or approving in
part and disapproving in part the Alabama, Georgia, 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)
nonattainment area requirements and section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) visibility
requirements. The rulemaking proposed through today's action is
consistent with the terms of this consent decree.
Today's action is proposing to approve Alabama, Georgia,
Mississippi and South Carolina's infrastructure submissions for the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS addressing CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to adequate provisions prohibiting
emissions that interfere with any other state's required measures to
prevent significant deterioration of its air quality (referred to as
``prong 3''). EPA has taken previous action on Alabama, Georgia,
Mississippi and South Carolina's infrastructure submissions for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for sections 110(a)(2)(A)-(F),
(H), (J)-(M), including other portions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in
separate actions from today's rulemaking.
II. What are States required to address under Sections 110(a)(2)(D)?
Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components, 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Specifically, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has four
components that require SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any
source or other type of emissions activity in one state from: 1)
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other
State, and 2) interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS by any other
State (collectively referred to as 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)); or interfering
with measures required to 3) prevent significant deterioration of air
quality in any other State, or 4) protect visibility in any other State
(collectively referred to as 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)). Section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions insuring
compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate
and international pollution abatement.
In previous actions, EPA has already taken action to address
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina's SIP submissions
related to sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Today's proposed
rulemaking relates only to requirements related to prong 3 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), which as previously described, requires that the SIP
contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that interfere with
any other state's required measures to prevent significant
deterioration of its air quality. More information on this requirement
and EPA's rationale for today's proposal that each state is meeting
this requirement for purposes of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS is provided below.
III. What is EPA's analysis of how Region 4 States addressed element
(D)(i)(II) related to PSD?
EPA's September 25, 2009, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP
Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour
Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards'' provided guidance on addressing the infrastructure
requirements required under sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) of the CAA
with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2009
Guidance describes that a state's PSD permitting program is the primary
measure that such state must include in its SIP to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in accordance with prong 3 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA believes that Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and
South Carolina's infrastructure submissions are consistent with the
2009 Guidance, when considered in conjunction with each State's PSD
program.
At present, there are four regulations that are required to be
adopted into the SIP to meet PSD-related infrastructure requirements.
See Sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J) of the
CAA. These regulations are: (1) ``Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule''
(November 29, 2005, 70 FR 71612) (hereafter referred to as the ``Phase
II Rule''); (2) ``Implementation of the New Source Review Program for
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers; Final Rule'' (May 16,
2008, 73 FR 28321) (hereafter referred to as the ``NSR PM2.5
Rule''); (3) ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule'' (June 3, 2010, 75 FR 31514)
(hereafter referred to as the ``GHG Tailoring Rule''); and, (4) ``Final
Rule on the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for
[[Page 72286]]
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--
Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant monitoring
Concentration (SMC); Final Rule'' (October 20, 2010, 75 FR 64864)
(hereafter referred to as ``PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC
Rule (only as it relates to PM2.5 Increments)''). Specific
details on these PSD requirements can be found in the respective final
rules cited above, however, a brief summary of each rule is provided
below.
First, as part of the framework to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, EPA promulgated an implementation rule in two phases.\1\ The
Phase 2 Rule is relevant to today's action. Among other changes, the
rule revised the PSD regulations to recognize nitrogen oxide (NOx) as
an ozone precursor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA promulgated the Phase I Rule on April 30, 2004 entitled
``Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard--Phase 1.'' See 69 FR 23951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the NSR PM2.5 Rule revised the NSR program to
establish the framework for implementing preconstruction permit review
for the PM2.5 NAAQS in both attainment areas and
nonattainment areas. These PSD requirements included: (1) A provision
that NSR permits address directly emitted PM2.5 and
precursor pollutants; (2) a requirement establishing significant
emission rates for direct PM2.5 and precursor pollutants
(including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOx); 3) exceptions to
the grandfathering policy for permits being reviewed under the
PM10 surrogate program; and, (4) a revision that states
account for gases that condense to form particles (condensables) in
PM2.5 and PM10 emission limits in PSD permits.
Third, in the GHG Tailoring Rule, EPA tailored the applicability
criteria that determine which GHG emission sources become subject to
the PSD program of the CAA. See 75 FR 31514.
Lastly, the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as
it relates to PM2.5 increments) provided additional
regulatory requirements under the PSD program regarding the
implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS for NSR by specifically
establishing PM2.5 increments pursuant to section 166(a) of
the CAA to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in areas
meeting the NAAQS.
The PSD requirements promulgated in the aforementioned regulations
establish the framework for a comprehensive SIP PSD program which EPA
has determined are necessary to comply with prong 3 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). The following table shows when EPA approved the
incorporation of the aforementioned regulations in each of the States'
implementation plan:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On June 11, 2010, the South Carolina Governor signed an
Executive Order to confirm that the State had authority to implement
appropriate emission thresholds for determining which new stationary
sources and modification projects become subject to PSD permitting
requirements for their GHG emissions at the state level. On December
30, 2010, EPA published a final rulemaking, ``Action To Ensure
Authority To Implement Title V Permitting Programs Under the
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule'' (75 FR 82254) to narrow EPA's
previous approval of State title V operating permit programs that
apply (or may apply) to GHG-emitting sources; this rule hereafter is
referred to as the ``Narrowing Rule.'' EPA narrowed its previous
approval of certain State permitting thresholds, for GHG emissions
so that only sources that equal or exceed the GHG thresholds, as
established in the final Tailoring Rule, would be covered as major
sources by the Federally-approved programs in the affected States.
South Carolina was included in this rulemaking. On March 4, 2011,
South Carolina submitted a letter withdrawing from EPA's
consideration the portion of South Carolina's SIP for which EPA
withdrew its previous approval in the Narrowing Rule. These
provisions are no longer intended for inclusion in the SIP, and are
no longer before EPA for its approval or disapproval. A copy of
South Carolina's letter can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using
Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0721.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 PSD increment-SILs-SMC
State Phase II rule GHG tailoring rule NSR PM2.5 rule rule (as it relates to PM2.5
increments)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................ 5/1/2008 12/29/2010 9/26/2012 9/26/2012.
73 FR 23957 75 FR 81863 77 FR 59100 77 FR 59100.
Georgia........................ 11/22/2010 9/8/2011 9/8/2011 See Below.
75 FR 71018 76 FR 55572 76 FR 55572
Mississippi.................... 12/20/2010 12/29/2010 9/26/2012 9/26/2012.
75 FR 79300 75 FR 81858 77 FR 59095 77 FR 59095.
South Carolina................. 6/23/2011 Refer to Footnote \2\ 6/23/2011 See Below.
76 FR 36875 ............................ 76 FR 36875
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Alabama: As noted in the table above, Alabama has addressed, and
EPA has approved, the underlying PSD regulations to support the State's
program. In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's
infrastructure submissions for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS with regard to the PSD requirements for prong 3
of 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
2. Georgia: In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's
infrastructure submissions for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS with regard to the prong 3 requirement of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Today's proposed approval of Georgia's
implementation plan respecting the prong 3 infrastructure element of
110(a)(2)(D)(i) is contingent upon EPA first taking final action to
approve Georgia's July 26, 2012, SIP revision regarding
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as it relates to
PM2.5 Increments) revision into the State's implementation
plan. EPA will consider action on Georgia's July 26, 2012, submission
in a rulemaking separate from today's action.
3. Mississippi: As noted in the table above, Mississippi has
addressed, and EPA has approved, the underlying PSD regulations to
support the State's program. In this action, EPA is proposing to
approve Mississippi's infrastructure submissions for the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with regard to the PSD
requirements for prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
4. South Carolina: In this action, EPA is proposing to approve
South Carolina's infrastructure submissions for the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with regard to prong 3 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). Today's proposed approval of South Carolina's
implementation plan respecting prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
is contingent upon EPA first taking final action to approve South
Carolina's May 1, 2012, SIP revision regarding the PM2.5 PSD
Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as it relates to PM2.5
Increments) revision into the State's implementation plan. EPA will
consider action on South Carolina's May 1, 2012, submission in a
rulemaking separate from today's action.
Pending final approval of the above-described contingent SIP
revisions,
[[Page 72287]]
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina have demonstrated that
major sources in each state are subject to PSD permitting programs to
comply with prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for the
PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA has made the preliminary
determination that, pending these contingent revisions, Alabama,
Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina's SIP and practices will be
adequate for insuring compliance with the applicable PSD requirements
relating to interstate transport pollution for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
IV. Proposed Action
As described above, EPA is proposing to approve SIP revisions for
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina to incorporate
provisions into the States' implementation plans to address prong 3 of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for both the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the
States' prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) submissions because they are
consistent with section 110 of the CAA. As noted above, the proposed
approval of Georgia's and South Carolina's implementation plan
respecting prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) is contingent upon EPA
first taking final action to approve the States' July 26, 2012, and May
1, 2012, SIP revisions, respectively, for the PM2.5 PSD
Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as it relates to PM2.5
Increments).
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
EPA has preliminarily determined that this proposed rule does not
have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), because there are no ``substantial direct
effects'' on an Indian Tribe as a result of this action. EPA notes that
the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the South
Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C.
Code Ann. 27-16-120, ``all state and local environmental laws and
regulations apply to the Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation and are
fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and
authorities.'' Thus, while the South Carolina SIP applies to the
Catawba Reservation, because today's action is not proposing a
substantive revision to the South Carolina SIP, and is instead
proposing that the existing SIP will satisfy the prong 3 requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), EPA has preliminarily determined that
today's action will have no ``substantial direct effects'' on the
Catawba Indian Nation. EPA has also preliminarily determined that these
revisions will not impose any substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 21, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-29367 Filed 12-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
