[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 5, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72284-72287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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: [email protected].
    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 http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning 
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you 
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding 
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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 
[email protected].

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