71018 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then 

become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2010– 

0972’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the 

‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. You may also visit the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the Department 

of Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation to use 

the Docket Management Facility. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one using one of the four methods 

specified under ADDRESSES. Please 

explain why one would be beneficial. If 

we determine that one would aid this 

rulemaking, we will hold one at a time 

and place announced by a later notice 

in the Federal Register. 

For information on facilities or 

services for individuals with disabilities 

or to request special assistance at the 

public meeting, contact Jim 

Wetherington at the telephone number 

or e-mail address indicated under the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this notice. 

Basis and Purpose 

The subject bridge is the S443 Swing 

Bridge across the Bayou Liberty at mile 

2.0, in St. Tammany Parish. The vertical 

clearance is 7.59 feet (2.31m) above the 

2% flowline, elevation 2.5 feet (0.76m) 

NAVD 1988. 

Presently, under 33 CFR 117.469, the 

draw of the S433 Bridge, mile 2.0, at 

Slidell, shall open on signal, except that 

between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., the draw 

shall open on signal if at least two hours 

notice is given. 

The owner requests a test to allow the 

public to experience the new schedule 

and determine if the two hour advance 

notice is sufficient. The current 

regulation has been in effect since 2008; 

however, the bridge for which the 

regulation was in place (a pontoon 

bridge) no longer exists. With the 

completion of the new bridge (a swing 

bridge) in April 2010, there has been an 

average of less than one opening per 

month, which is down from an average 

of 70 per month in previous years. 

Currently the land traffic outpaces 

marine traffic but most all traffic is local 

and marine traffic is recreational. 

Vessels will be able to pass under the 

bridge during the deviation and 

therefore no alternate routes are 

recommended at this time. 

This request is in conjunction with a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to make 

the test deviation schedule changes 

permanent. 

This deviation is effective from 

December 7, 2010 through January 6, 

2011. 

Vessel counts were collected and 

analyzed by the owner and reflect a 

marked reduction in the number of 

required openings since the completion 

of the new bridge and removal of the old 

one. The expected impact on navigation 

during the test period will be minimal 

based on the increase in vertical 

clearance. The test deviation will allow 

the bridge to remain unmanned during 

most of the day by requiring a two-hour 

notice for an opening of the draw. 

Coordination will be through Public 

Notice and Local Notice to Mariners 

upon date of publication in the Federal 

Register. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the designated time period. 

This deviation from the operating 

regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 

117.35. 

Dated: October 26, 2010. 

David M. Frank, 

Bridge Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29299 Filed 11–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2006–0649–201059; FRL– 

9229–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Georgia; 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Nonattainment New Source 

Review Rules 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve portions of the revisions to the 

Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the State of Georgia in 

three submittals dated October 31, 2006, 

March 5, 2007, and August 22, 2007. 

The revisions modify Georgia’s 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NNSR) permitting rules in the 

SIP to address changes to the federal 

New Source Review (NSR) regulations, 

which were promulgated by EPA on 

December 31, 2002, and reconsidered 

with minor changes on November 7, 

2003 (collectively, these two final 

actions are referred to as the ‘‘2002 NSR 

Reform Rules’’). EPA proposed to 

approve these revisions on September 4, 

2008; one comment letter was received. 

EPA’s response to comments is included 

in this notice. 

DATES: This rule will be effective 

December 22, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2006–0649. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be 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 http:// 

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: Ms. 

Kelly Fortin, Air Permits Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Telephone 

number: (404) 562–9117; e-mail address: 

fortin.kelly@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, references 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 71019 

1EPA took final action to disapprove the revision 

to subparagraph 391–3–1–.03(13)(c), related to 

‘‘Emissions Reduction Credits,’’ in a previous action 

(73 FR 79653, December 30, 2008). 

2NRDC notes that, ‘‘[t]he 2002 rule provisions 

considered by the DC Circuit in New York v. EPA 

were EPA regulations, not state ones. The court thus 

had no occasion to decide whether EPA could 

approve any state’s versions of any of the 2002 rule 

provisions consistently with section 110(l) of the 

Act.’’ NRDC Comments at 3. The Georgia rules at 

issue here track the federally approved rules, as 

upheld by the DC Circuit (which NRDC admits— 

NRDC Comments at 4) and NRDC supported all its 

comments with information related to the challenge 

of EPA’s 2002 NSR Reform Rules. NRDC provided 

no Georgia-specific support for its comments. 

to ‘‘EPA,’’ ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our,’’ are 

intended to mean the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. The 

supplementary information is arranged 

as follows: 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s action? 

III. Response to Comments 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is now taking action, consistent 

with section 110(k)(3) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act), to approve portions 

of SIP submittals made by the State of 

Georgia, through the Georgia 

Environmental Protection Division 

(EPD), on October 31, 2006, March 5, 

2007, and August 22, 2007. These SIP 

submittals consist of changes to the 

Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control, 

Chapter 391–3–1. Specifically, the 

October 31, 2006, revisions included 

changes to Rules 391–3–1–.02(7) 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

of Air Quality’’ and 391–3–1–.03(8)(c) 

‘‘Permit Requirements’’ related to NNSR. 

The March 5, 2007, submittal included 

changes to Rules 391–3–1–.02(7) 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

of Air Quality,’’ and 391–3–1–.03(13)(c) 

‘‘Emission Reduction Credits.’’ Finally, 

the August 22, 2007, submittal included 

changes to Rules 391–3–1–.02(7) 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

of Air Quality,’’ and 391–3–1–.03(8) 

‘‘Permit Requirements.’’ 

EPA approved most of the non-NSR 

Reform portions of the submittals (rules 

391–3–1–.01(llll), 391–3–1–.02(2)(jjj), 

391–3–1–.02(6)(a)4, 391–3–1–.02(12), 

and 391–3–1–.03(6)(b)) in a previous 

action (74 FR 62249, November 27, 

2009). EPA has not yet acted on rule 

391–3–1–.02(2)(ooo). In addition, EPA is 

not acting on revisions to rules 391–3– 

1–.02(8)b, and 391–3–1–.03(9), because 

these rules are not part of the federallyapproved SIP. EPA disapproved a 

portion of the March 5, 2007, submittal, 

subparagraph 391–3–1–.03(13)(c), 

related to ‘‘Emissions Reduction 

Credits,’’ in a previous action (73 FR 

79653, December 30, 2008). 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

action? 

On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), 

EPA published final rule changes to 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 

51 and 52, regarding the CAA’s PSD and 

NNSR programs. On November 7, 2003 

(68 FR 63021), EPA published a notice 

of final action on the reconsideration of 

the December 31, 2002, final rule 

changes. The December 31, 2002, and 

the November 7, 2003, final actions are 

collectively referred to as the ‘‘2002 NSR 

Reform Rules.’’ For additional 

information on the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules, see 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 

2002). For information on the 

subsequent revisions to these rules, see 

http://www.epa.gov/nsr. 

On October 31, 2006, March 5, 2007, 

and August 22, 2007, EPD submitted 

revisions to EPA for the purpose of 

including the revised State NSR 

permitting rules in the SIP. Copies of 

Georgia’s revised NSR rules, as well as 

the State’s Technical Support 

Document, can be obtained from the 

Docket, as discussed in the ADDRESSES

section above. 

On September 4, 2008 (73 FR 51606), 

EPA proposed to approve portions of 

the above-summarized SIP submittals as 

they pertain to Georgia’s NSR program, 

with the exception of the revision to 

subparagraph 391–3–1–.03(13)(c), 

related to ‘‘Emissions Reduction 

Credits,’’ which EPA proposed to 

disapprove.1 In response to requests for 

an extension of the public comment 

period, EPA extended the public 

comment period on that proposal 

through November 6, 2008 (73 FR 

58084). One comment letter was 

received and it contained adverse 

comments. EPA’s response to this 

comment letter is below in section III, 

Response to Comments. EPA’s analysis 

of the State’s NSR reform SIP submittals 

is contained in the September 4, 2008, 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR). 

The NPR, the comment letter, and 

additional information regarding this 

action may be obtained from the Docket, 

as discussed in the ADDRESSES section 

above. 

III. Response to Comments 

EPA received one comment letter 

from the National Resource Defense 

Council (NRDC) on the September 4, 

2008, NPR; this letter included adverse 

comments. NRDC primarily commented 

on the requirements of the federal NSR 

rules, not Georgia’s application of the 

federal requirements in its own rules. 

Notably, NRDC participated in litigation 

challenging EPA’s 2002 promulgation of 

the NSR Reform Rules, where similar 

arguments were made by NRDC and 

dismissed by the DC Circuit Court. New 

York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005). 

NRDC’s comments, including exhibits, 

do not raise any specific concerns with 

Georgia’s rules, but rather, reiterate 

arguments made by NRDC to the DC 

Circuit regarding Sections 110(l) and 

193 of the CAA.2

While NRDC’s comments provide 

citations to five portions of the Georgia 

rules, the comments make no attempt to 

specifically explain or demonstrate how 

those identified provisions are 

inconsistent with either Section 110(l) 

or Section 193 of the CAA. Furthermore, 

NRDC provides no evidence supporting 

its allegations that approval of the 

specific provisions would result in a 

violation of the CAA or otherwise be 

‘‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, and otherwise not in 

accordance with law.’’ NRDC Comments 

at 2. 

The NRDC comments include a list of 

31 exhibits which the comment letter 

incorporates by reference into the 

comments. NRDC Comments at 1. The 

31 exhibits appear to all be related to 

the DC Circuit Court case New York v. 

EPA, and were either submitted to that 

Court for review, or are relevant to that 

adjudication. To the extent that these 

exhibits were provided to the DC 

Circuit, those issues were previously 

resolved by the Court and/or already 

responded to by EPA in its responsive 

court papers. Any other documents 

included in the 31 exhibits that were 

not provided to the DC Circuit Court do 

not provide EPA with any comments 

specific to the Georgia rules at issue. 

Despite the lack of Georgia-specific 

discussion in NRDC’s letter, EPA has 

responded to the few comments that 

appear related to the September 4, 2008, 

NPR to approve portions of Georgia’s 

SIP submittals pertaining to EPA’s 2002 

NSR Reform Rules. 

Summary of Comments Regarding 

Section 110(l)—NRDC Comments at 

1–6 

NRDC stated that finalizing the EPA 

rulemaking proposal at issue here 

would violate section 110(l) of the Act. 

As support for its conclusion, NRDC 

asserted that ‘‘[t]he 2002 NSR Reform 

Rule provisions that were not vacated 

by the DC Circuit in New York v. EPA 

[citation omitted] allow previouslyprohibited emissions-increases to 

occur.’’ NRDC Comments at 3. Further, 

that ‘‘Georgia nevertheless made no 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
71020 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

‘demonstration that the emissions that 

are allowed by its revised rule but are 

prohibited by the current SIP would not 

interfere with attainment or other 

applicable requirements.’ ’’ As a result, 

NRDC stated that, ‘‘it cannot be said of 

Georgia’s plan that it ‘will cause no 

degradation of air quality.’ ’’ NRDC 

Comments at 5. NRDC also stated that 

EPA has not made any findings that 

Georgia’s rule will not cause 

degradation of air quality or interfere 

with any applicable requirements 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress, or any other applicable 

requirements of the CAA. NRDC 

Comments at 5. 

EPA Response to Section 110(l) 

Comments 

EPA’s 2002 NSR Reform Rules were 

upheld by the DC Circuit Court which 

reviewed them, with the exception of 

the pollution control project and clean 

unit provisions (and the remanded 

matters). The three significant changes 

in NSR Reform that were upheld by the 

DC Circuit were (1) Plantwide 

applicability limits (PALs), (2) the 2-in10 baseline, and (3) the actual-toprojected actual emission test. The 

Supplemental Environmental Analysis 

of the Impact of the 2002 Final NSR 

Improvement Rules (November 21, 

2002) (Supplemental Analysis) 

discussed each of these three changes 

individually, and addresses some of the 

issues raised by NRDC. 

With regard to PALs, the 

Supplemental Analysis explained, ‘‘[t]he 

EPA expects that the adoption of PAL 

provisions will result in a net 

environmental benefit. Our experience 

to date is that the emissions caps found 

in PAL-type permits result in real 

emissions reductions, as well as other 

benefits.’’ Supplemental Analysis at 6. 

EPA further explained that, 

Although it is impossible to predict how 

many and which sources will take PALs, and 

what actual reductions those sources will 

achieve for what pollutants, we believe that, 

on a nationwide basis, PALs are certain to 

lead to tens of thousands of tons of 

reductions of volatile organic compounds 

from source categories where frequent 

operational changes are made, where these 

changes are time-sensitive, and where there 

are opportunities for economical air 

pollution control measures. These reductions 

occur because of the incentives that the PAL 

creates to control existing and new units in 

order to provide room under the cap to make 

necessary operational changes over the life of 

the PAL. 

Supplemental Analysis at 7. The 

Supplemental Analysis, and particularly 

Appendix B, provided additional details 

regarding EPA’s analysis of PALs and 

anticipated associated emissions 

decreases. 

With regard to the 2-in-10 baseline, 

EPA concluded that, ‘‘[t]he EPA believes 

that the environmental impact from the 

change in baseline EPA is now 

finalizing will not result in any 

significant change in benefits derived 

from the NSR program.’’ Supplemental 

Analysis at 13. This is mainly because 

‘‘the number of sources receiving 

different baselines likely represents a 

very small fraction of the overall NSR 

permit universe, excludes new sources 

and coal fired power plants, and 

because the baseline may shift in either 

direction, we conclude that any overall 

consequences would be negligible.’’ 

Supplemental Analysis at 14. 

Additional information regarding the 2- 

in-10 baseline changes is available in 

the Supplemental Analysis, Appendix 

F. 

With regard to the actual-to-projected 

actual test, EPA concluded, ‘‘we believe 

that the environmental impacts of the 

switch to the actual-to-projected actual 

test are likely to be environmentally 

beneficial. However, as with the change 

to the baseline, we believe the vast 

majority of sources, including new 

sources, new units, electric utility steam 

generating units, and units that actually 

increase emissions as a result of a 

change, will be unaffected by this 

change. Thus, the overall impacts of the 

NSR changes are likely to be 

environmentally beneficial, but only to 

a small extent.’’ Supplemental Analysis 

at 14 (see also Supplemental Analysis 

Appendix G). 

For more information on the 2002 

NSR Reform Rules, and its supporting 

technical documents, see, http:// 

www.epa.gov/nsr/actions.html#2002 

(last visited November 2, 2010). 

Section 110(l) of the CAA states, in 

relevant part, that ‘‘[t]he Administrator 

shall not approve a revision of a plan if 

the revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress * * * or any other applicable 

requirement of this chapter.’’ CAA, 42 

U.S.C. 7410(l). In ‘‘Approval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans; 

New Source Review; State of Nevada, 

Clark County Department of Air Quality 

and Environmental Management,’’ 69 FR 

54006 (September 7, 2004), EPA stated 

that Section 110(l) does not preclude 

SIP relaxations. Rather, EPA stated that 

Section 110(l) only requires that the 

‘‘relaxations not interfere with specified 

requirements of the Act including 

requirements for attainment and 

reasonable further progress,’’ and that, 

therefore, a state can relax its SIP 

provisions if it is able to show that it can 

attain or maintain the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 

meet any applicable reasonable further 

progress goals or other specific 

requirements. 69 FR at 54011–12. 

Georgia’s Proposed NSR reform rules 

track the federal NSR Reform Rules, 

with enhancements, as described in 

Georgia’s submittal. EPA evaluated 

Georgia’s rules consistent with its 

evaluation of the federal rules, and 

determined that Georgia’s rules were 

equivalent to or more stringent than the 

2002 NSR Reform Rules. Overall, as 

summarized above, EPA expects that 

changes in air quality as a result of 

implementing Georgia’s rules will be 

consistent with EPA’s position on the 

federal NSR Reform Rules—that there 

will be somewhere between neutral and 

providing a modest contribution to 

reasonable further progress between the 

NSR Reform and pre-Reform provisions. 

EPA’s analysis for the environmental 

impacts of the three components of the 

NSR Reform rules (discussed earlier) is 

informative of how Georgia’s adoption 

of NSR Reform (based on the federal 

rules) will affect emissions. EPA has no 

reason to believe that the environmental 

impacts will be different from those 

discussed in the Supplemental Analysis 

for the NSR Reform rules, and thus, 

approval of Georgia’s SIP revision 

would not be contrary to Section 110(l) 

of the CAA. 

NRDC cites to five general portions of 

Georgia’s rules as provisions that would 

violate Section 110(l). These provisions 

are: Administrative Code of Georgia 

(ACG) 391–3–1–.02(7)(a), (7)(b)15, and 

(7)(b)(21) (from Georgia’s PSD rules); 

and 391–3–1–.03(8)(c) and (8)(g) (from 

Georgia’s NNSR rules). NRDC 

Comments at 2. NRDC provides no 

evidence supporting its contention that 

these specific provisions violate Section 

110(l). The first provision noted by 

NRDC, 391–3–1–.02(7)(a), represents 

general requirements regarding 

Georgia’s PSD program, which do 

include some changes per the SIP 

revision at issue. Nonetheless, without 

further specificity, it is not clear why or 

how NRDC believes this provision is a 

violation of Section 110(l). In addition, 

NRDC has provided no Georgia-specific 

documentation that indicates that EPA’s 

analysis and conclusions regarding the 

impact of NSR Reform, in the 

Supplemental Analysis, is not 

applicable to Georgia’s rules, which are 

equivalent to or more stringent than the 

federal rules. 

In evaluating Georgia’s SIP 

submissions, EPA compared Georgia’s 

rules with the existing federal rules and 

determined that Georgia’s rules were 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 71021 

equivalent to or more stringent than the 

NSR reform (federal) rules. EPA also 

considered Georgia’s approximately 

thirty enhancements to the federal NSR 

Reform provisions, including specific 

anti-backsliding provisions. This 

comparison was discussed in the 

proposal to approve Georgia’s SIP 

revision. Georgia’s anti-backsliding 

provisions are discussed in their SIP 

submittal and included in EPA’s docket. 

EPA also considered Georgia’s 

numerous responses to comments, 

included as part of the submittals, 

wherein Georgia discussed the two-year 

stakeholder process, as well as 

answered questions as to why it was 

including anti-backsliding provisions 

and discussed the NSR Reform changes 

in relation to their air quality program. 

Georgia determined that ‘‘the NAAQS, 

PSD increment, RFP demonstration and 

visibility will be protected if these SIP 

revisions are approved and 

implemented.’’ See Technical Support 

for SIP Submittal dated August 4, 2007. 

Finally, EPA also considered the 

Supplemental Analysis in reviewing 

Georgia’s submittal and NRDC’s 

comments. EPA concluded that 

approval of Georgia’s SIP revision 

would not be contrary to Section 110(l) 

of the CAA. Absent more explicit 

information demonstrating that 

Georgia’s plan for implementation of a 

specific provision of its rules would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement of the CAA and thus 

should be disapproved under Section 

110(l), Georgia’s Technical Support and 

the Supplemental Analysis support 

approval. As a result, there is no basis 

to determine that approval of Georgia’s 

rules would violate Section 110(l). 

Summary of Comments Regarding 

Section 193 of the CAA—NRDC 

Comments at 7–10 

NRDC states that NSR is a ‘‘control 

requirement’’ and thus the requirements 

of Section 193 apply to the NSR rules 

at issue in the Georgia SIP revision. 

NRDC Comments at 7. NRDC further 

alleges that Georgia’s revisions ‘‘ensure 

that emissions will not be reduced as 

much as under the pre-existing rules. In 

fact, the modifications allow emissions 

to increase in Georgia’s nonattainment 

areas.’’ NRDC Comments at 9. Finally, 

NRDC states that ‘‘because section 193 

lies within part D,’’ ‘‘if EPA approves 

Georgia’s revised plan, that action will 

additionally exceed the agency’s 

authority under section 110(k)(3) and 

violate section 100(l).’’ (Note, the last 

citation to 100(l) appears to be a typo 

and should read 110(l).) NRDC 

Comments at 10. 

EPA Response to Section 193 Related 

Comments 

The response to the Section 193 

issues raised by NRDC involves many of 

the same elements of the response 

above, to the Section 110(l) comments, 

which is also incorporated by reference 

here. 

Section 193 states, in relevant part, 

that ‘‘[n]o control requirement in effect, 

or required to be adopted by an order, 

settlement agreement, or plan in effect 

before November 15, 1990, in any area 

which is a nonattainment area for any 

air pollutant may be modified after 

November 15, 1990, in any manner 

unless the modification insures 

equivalent or greater emission 

reductions of such air pollutant.’’ 

Assuming for purposes of this 

discussion that Section 193 does apply 

to the instant action, as was discussed 

earlier in this notice, EPA has 

previously determined and explained in 

the Supplemental Analysis, that 

implementation of the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rule provisions still in effect (that is, 

those not vacated by the DC Circuit) are 

expected to have at least a neutral 

environmental benefit. In addition, 

Georgia’s rules include several 

differences from the federal rule that are 

likely to result in greater environmental 

protection. These provisions include, 

among others: (1) Adjusting the PAL 

limits downward upon renewal if 

average actual emissions are less than 

80 percent of the PAL limit; (2) antibacksliding provisions included in the 

major source baseline date to ensure 

that baseline dates established prior to 

the effective date of the rule changes 

remain in effect; (3) additional 

requirements related to the definition of 

projected actual emissions intended to 

result in more accurate estimates of 

emissions increases; (4) provisions that 

make the ‘‘demand growth’’ exclusion 

optional, and require additional 

recordkeeping to ensure the rules are 

implemented properly; (5) a 

requirement that baseline actual 

emissions not be based on a period for 

which there is inadequate information; 

(6) a requirement to adjust baseline 

actual emissions for new applicable 

requirements; (7) provisions that require 

submission of an application prior to 

construction for all major and minor 

sources; (8) requirements that the 

‘‘reasonable possibility’’ recordkeeping 

reporting requirements are triggered 

whenever a minor source permit is 

required. Therefore, even if Section 193 

did apply to this action, EPA does not 

agree with commenter’s assertions that 

the SIP submissions approved in this 

action raise a Section 193 concern. 

In addition, the core of NRDC’s 

argument seems to revolve around the 

DC Circuit Court decision in South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 

v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006) 

(finding that NSR associated with the 1- 

hour ozone standard included control 

requirements). At issue in South Coast 

was EPA’s determination regarding the 

revocation of the entire 1-hour ozone 

program (and corresponding SIP 

elements), including all the 1-hour 

nonattainment NSR elements, and 

whether such elements would continue 

to be required as part of SIPs 

implementing the new (at that time) 

8-hour ozone standard. The facts in the 

South Coast case are distinguishable 

from the instant matter where the 

Georgia SIP is merely being updated to 

include changes to the Federal NSR 

program. EPA is not removing the 

entirety of Georgia’s NNSR program 

from the SIP as it pertains to a particular 

NAAQS. Rather, EPA is simply 

approving Georgia’s SIP revision that 

implements rules equivalent to or more 

stringent than the federal rules; and as 

discussed earlier in this notice, EPA 

developed a Supplemental Analysis to 

support adoption of the federal rules. 

The Georgia SIP will continue to operate 

with the full suite of NSR related 

elements, including a comprehensive 

minor source program, and the 

restrictive ‘de-minimus rule,’ which 

requires sources to aggregate 5-year 

emissions increases and offset emissions 

increases greater than 25 tons. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

portions of three revisions to the 

Georgia SIP submitted by the State of 

Georgia on October 31, 2006, March 5, 

2007, and August 22, 2007, which 

address changes to Georgia’s PSD and 

NNSR programs. 

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. 

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. This action merely ensures 

that State law meets Federal 

requirements, and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
71022 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by January 21, 2011. 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: November 12, 2010. 

Gwendolyn Keyes-Fleming, 

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 L—Georgia 

■ 2. In § 52.570(c) the table is amended 

by revising the entries for ‘‘391–3–1– 

.02(7)’’ and ‘‘391–3–1–.03’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.570 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA APPROVED GEORGIA REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

391–3–1–.02(7) ...... Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD).7/25/2007 11/22/2010 [Insert citation of 

publication].

This rule contains NOX as a precursor to ozone for PSD and 

NSR. 

* * * * * * * 

391–3–1–.03 ........... Permits ........................................ 7/25/2007 11/22/2010 [Insert citation of 

publication].

Changes specifically to (8)—Permit Requirements. 

* * * * * * * 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 71023 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–29246 Filed 11–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2009–0557; FRL–9229–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plan Revisions; State 

of North Dakota; Interstate Transport 

of Pollution for the 1997 PM2.5 and 8- 

Hour Ozone NAAQS: ‘‘Interference 

With Maintenance’’ Requirement 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving the 

State Implementation Plan revisions 

submitted by the State of North Dakota 

on April 6, 2009. Specifically, EPA is 

approving the portions of the ‘‘Interstate 

Transport of Air Pollution’’ revisions 

addressing the ‘‘interference with 

maintenance’’ requirement of Clean Air 

Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

1997 PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The ‘‘interference with 

maintenance’’ requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) prohibits a state’s 

emissions from interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS by any 

other state. This action is being taken 

under section 110 of the CAA. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective December 22, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2009–0557. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(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 through 

http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard 

copy at the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Domenico Mastrangelo, Air Program, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6416, 

mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The words State or North Dakota 

mean the State of North Dakota, unless 

the context indicates otherwise. 

Table of Contents 

I . Background 

II . Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

new standards for 8-hour ozone and fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5). This action is 

being taken in response to the July 18, 

1997 revision to the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, and PM2.5 NAAQS. This action 

does not address the requirements for 

the 2006 24- hour PM2.5 NAAQS, or the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; those 

standards will be addressed in a later 

action. 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to address a new 

or revised NAAQS within 3 years after 

promulgation of such standards, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the 

elements that such new SIPs must 

address, as applicable, including section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) which pertains to 

interstate transport of certain emissions. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA 

requires that a state’s SIP must contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity within the state from emitting 

any air pollutant in amounts which will: 

(1) Contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in any 

other state; (2) interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS by any 

other state; (3) interfere with any other 

state’s required measures to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality; 

or (4) interfere with any other state’s 

required measures to protect visibility. 

On April 6, 2009 the State of North 

Dakota submitted a SIP addressing the 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) four 

requirements, noted above, for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and for the 1997 

annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

state based its submittal on EPA’s 2006 

Guidance discussed below. As noted 

earlier, in this rulemaking EPA is 

addressing the requirement that pertains 

to preventing sources in the State from 

emitting pollutants in amounts which 

will interfere with the maintenance of 

the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS by 

any other state. 

On August 15, 2006, EPA issued its 

‘‘Guidance for State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current 

Outstanding Obligations Under Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ (2006 Guidance) for SIP 

submissions that states should use to 

address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA developed this 

guidance to make recommendations to 

states for making submissions to meet 

the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In a Federal Register action dated 

September 17, 2010, EPA proposed 

approval of the North Dakota Interstate 

Transport SIP portions addressing the 

interference with maintenance 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

EPA concluded in its proposed action 

that the various factual and technical 

considerations supported a 

determination that emissions from 

North Dakota do not interfere with 

maintenance by any states with areas at 

risk for maintenance of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS or for maintenance of the 

1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA did not receive comments that 

persuade the Agency that there is such 

interference with maintenance for the 

1997 ozone or PM2.5 NAAQS and thus 

in today’s final action EPA is making a 

final regulatory determination that 

North Dakota’s sources do not interfere 

with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, and the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state. 

II. Response to Comments 

EPA received one letter dated October 

18, 2010 with comments from the 

WildEarth Guardians (WG) 

environmental organization. The WG 

letter includes three separate comments 

identifiable under sections A., B., and 

C., and is accessible online at 

regulations.gov under Docket No. EPA– 

R08–OAR–2009–0057. Later in this 

section EPA responds to the significant 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES