Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

August 31, 2012 

MEMORANDUM 

Environmental Protection Division • Air Protection Branch 

4244 International Parkway • Suite 120 • Atlanta • Georgia 30354 

404/363-7000 • Fax: 404/363-7100 

Mark Williams, Commissioner 

Judson H. Turner, Director 

To: Judson Turner, Director 

Environmental Protection Division 

From: James Capp, Chief 

Air Protection Branch 

Subject: Responses to Comments Received During the Public Comment 

Period Regarding the Proposed Annual PM2.s Maintenance Plan for 

the Georgia Portion of the Chattanooga Nonattainment Area 

On May 31, 2011, EPA promulgated its determination (76 FR 31239) that the 

Chattanooga nonattainment area had attained the 1997 annual average PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). As a result, the Environmental Protection 

Division (EPD) of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources is submitting to the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision which incorporates a maintenance plan for the Georgia portion of the 

Chattanooga Non attainment Area. 

On July 2, 2012, EPD issued a public notice to all persons who have requested that 

they be placed on a notification list and requested comments on the proposed 

amendments to Georgia's SIP. The amendments were described in the notice as 

follows: "The proposed State Implementation Plan revision includes Georgia's request 

under the Clean Air Act that Georgia's Portion of the Chattanooga annual PM25 

nonattainment area (Catoosa and Walker Counties) be redesignated to attainment with 

respect to the 1997 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM2.

5 as well 

as Georgia's plan to maintain attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard in 

Georgia's Portion of the Chattanooga area." 

No oral comments were received during the public hearing held on August 14, 2012. 

Written comments were received from EPA during the public comment period which 

ended August 21, 2012. Comments received and EPD's responses are included in the 

attached document. 

JC:JK:klc 
Responses to Comments Received During the Public Comment Period 

July 2 through August 21, 2012 

Proposed State Implementation Plan Revision Incorporating the 

Maintenance Plan for the Georgia Portion of the 

Chattanooga PM2.s Nonattainment Area 

On July 2, 2012, EPD issued a public notice requesting comments on the proposed 

State Implementation Plan revision incorporating the maintenance plan for the Georgia 

portion of the Chattanooga PM2.s Nonattainment Area. No oral comments were 

received during the public hearing on August 14, 2012. Written comments were 

received during the public comment period. Comments received are summarized in 

this memo. 

Issues raised by the commenters, followed by EPD's responses to the commenters' 

assertions, are presented below. 

Public Hearing 

No oral comments were received during the public hearing. 

Written Comments 

Comments on the proposed Maintenance Plan were received only from the U.S. EPA. 

EPA's Comments to the Chattanooga Proposed PM2.5 Maintenance Plan Received 

August 16, 2012 

Revisions/responses to address comments are in italics. 

EPA notes that the plan lists the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)ICross State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) as federal control measures impacting ambient PM2.5 

levels. EPA also noted that CSAPR, which is to replace CAIR, is currently stayed 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court. Therefore any emissions 

reductions attributable to CAIRICSAPR are not considered permanent and 

enforceable until the stay is lifted or emission reductions are otherwise required 

by an EPA-approved SIP rule or other federally-enforceable means. 

Response: EPA's use of the phrase "not considered permanent and enforceable" 

appears to be a reference to Clean Air Act (CAA) section 1 07(d)(3)(E)(iii), which 

requires "that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation 

plan and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and 

enforceable reductions." 
Responses to Comments Received -Chattanooga (GA) PM2.5 SIP 

As described herein, EPD strongly disagrees with EPA's assertion that "any emissions 

reductions attributable to CAIRI CSAPR are not considered permanent and 

enforceable." In addition, the only relevant reason for EPA to include such a comment 

is because EPA intends to use the uncertainty of the status of CAIR (and any possible 

future successor) as justification to not approve the redesignation request. If this is the 

case, EPA should state their position clearly. If EPA has a different intention for the 

inclusion ofthis comment, EPA should communicate that intention to the state. EPA 

has not done so. 

The CAA does not allow EPA to indefinitely delay their approval (or disapproval) of a 

state's submittal due to the uncertainty of a separate federal rule. The only authority 

EPA has with regard to the approval (or disapproval) of a state's redesignation request 

is found in CAA section 1 07(d)(3), "Redesignation" and the only authority EPA has with 

regard to the approval (or disapproval) of a maintenance plan is found in CAA section 

110(k), "Environmental Protection Agency Action on Plan Submissions." 

In accordance with CAA section 107(d)(3) and section 110(k)(1) and (2), EPA shall act 

on the state's submission no later than 18 months after submittal. There are no 

exceptions or extensions for EPA in a situation where there is some uncertainty 

regarding the future of a particular federal rule. This would be true even if the federal 

rule at issue had a material impact on the state's submittal. However, as described 

below, that is not the case in this situation. 

As a preliminary matter, EPA's statement regarding emissions reductions attributable to 

CSAPR is completely erroneous. The emission limits in CSAPR were scheduled to 

begin on January 1, 2012. However, before that date arrived, the D.C. Circuit Court of 

Appeals stayed the implementation of the rule. Then, on August 21, 2012, the D. C. 

Circuit Court of Appeals issued the following order to EPA: 

"We vacate the Transport Rule [aka CSAPR] and the Transport Rule FIPs 

and remand this proceeding to EPA. EPA must continue administering CAIR 

pending the promulgation of a valid replacement." 

At this point in time, EPA has not announced their intended response to the court's 

ruling. So, it is unknown whether or not EPA will appeal the decision (either to a full 

panel of the D.C. Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court), if it will conduct rulemaking in 

response to the court's decision, or take some other path forward. Nonetheless, none 

of that is relevant to the approval (or disapproval) of this redesignation request and 

maintenance plan. The CSAPR was never implemented. There were never any 

emissions reductions attributable to CSAPR. For EPA to suggest otherwise is 

completely erroneous. 

Georgia has not relied upon any power plant emissions reductions in Georgia that are 

attributable to CAIR in the implementation plan. The power plant emissions reductions 

in Georgia that are documented in the implementation plan are from Georgia Rules 

(sss) and (uuu). 

2 
Responses to Comments Received- Chattanooga (GA) PM2.5 SIP 

Obviously, the State of Georgia does not have legal authority over emissions that 

originate in another state and are transported downwind into Georgia to contribute to 

particulate matter levels in Georgia. However, there are two independent reasons why 

the emissions reductions that have occurred in upwind states are both permanent and 

enforceable. 

First, the D. C. Circuit's decisions regarding both CAIR and CSAPR are very clear that 

CAIR is to remain in effect until it is replaced by another rule that completely satisfies 

the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirement that prohibits emissions in upwind states 

from contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance in a 

downwind state (i.e. Georgia). In the recent CSAPR decision, the court said, "EPA must 

continue administering CAIR pending the promulgation of a valid replacement." 

Therefore, the court has assured that the emission reductions attributable to CAIR are 

permanent, or, if not, that those emissions reductions were not necessary to prevent 

nonattainment or interference with maintenance in the first place. 

Second, EPA cannot credibly claim, regardless of what happens with CAIR or CSAPR, 

that emissions of PM2.s and PM2.s precursors from power plants are going to increase in 

the future in states that could be contributing to PM2.5 concentrations in Georgia. The 

following lengthy, yet certainly not exhaustive, list of current and pending federal 

regulations ensures that emissions of PM2.s and PM2 s precursors from power plants will 

not increase, but will instead continue to decrease substantially. 

• NAAQS for S02 promulgated in 2010 

• NAAQS for N02 promulgated in 2010 

• EGU MACT promulgated in 2012 

• Regional Haze SIPs required by CAA Section 107(d)(7) 

• GHG NSPS for new EGUs proposed in 2012 (This proposal effectively prohibits 

future construction of coal power plants. In addition, EPA asserted in the 

proposed rule that even without the proposed GHG NSPS that there would be no 

new coal plants due to other factors.) 

• Current NSPS for EGUs (40 CFR 60 Subparts D, Da, Db) 

• Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulation 

• Section 11 0(1) of the Clean Air Act (prohibiting emissions increases that would 

interfere with attainment) 

• Acid Rain provisions from Title IV of the Clean Air Act 

• Title V Permitting regulation 

EPA cites no credible information to support its assertion that emissions of PM2.s and 

PM2.s precursors from power plants may increase depending upon the outcome of future 

EPA actions to respond to the CAIR and CSAPR court decisions. EPA cites no such 

credible information because it does not exist. The public domain is filled with stories 

regarding current, and near future, retirements of coal-fired power plants. It has been, 

and continues to be, EPA's position that these retirements are being driven by long 

range economic factors and not CAIR and/or CSAPR. Further, EPA cannot credibly 

3 
Responses to Comments Received -Chattanooga (GA) PM2.5 SIP 

claim, regardless of what happens with CAIR or CSAPR, that emissions of PM2.5 and 

PM2.5precursors from power plants are unenforceable. As the list of applicable 

regulations above demonstrates, emissions from power plants are heavily regulated. 

And that Jist doesn't even take into account the many applicable state regulations that 

are federally-enforceable under the state SIPs. 

Because EPA's statement is so conclusive, "Therefore any emissions reductions 

attributable to CAJR!CSAPR are not considered permanent and enforceable", it appears 

that EPA has already determined that Georgia redesignation request and maintenance 

plan will not be approved and therefore could be construed as EPA having taken final 

agency action. Therefore that decision could be subject to judicial review. 

Finally, while not directly relevant to the issue at hand, it is certainly notable, and ironic, 

that EPA is in effect punishing the state of Georgia as a result of EPA's own failure to 

promulgate a rule regulating interstate transport of emissions that complies with the 

CAA even though the state of Georgia has done everything within its power to comply 

with the CAA Section 107(d)(3) requirements to have this area redesignated to 

attainment. 

In conclusion, we believe that our redesignation request and maintenance plan meet all 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act, that any uncertainty regarding the future of CAIR 

and/or CSAPR does not compromise this conclusion, and EPA should act expeditiously 

to approve it. 

EPA notes that the Chattanooga nonattainment area is a tri-state area that is 

composed of portions of Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee and that this plan 

only includes emissions for the Georgia portion of the plan. Since the area was 

designated as a single area, Georgia should include some discussion regarding 

coordination with the other states relating to emissions and the expectations for 

maintenance for the entire area. 

Response: EPD will address the emissions from the other States' portions in the 

transmittal correspondence. 

EPA cites that if Georgia is to have a separate motor vehicle emissions budget 

(MVEB) for the Georgia portion of the area, then it should be clearly articulated in 

the submissions. 

Response: The plan has been revised to clearly state that the MVEB is for the Georgia 

portion of the area only. 

4