45304 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

under the PSD program. EPA’s analysis 

of the approvability of West Virginia’s 

automatic rescission language is 

provided in the TSD for this current 

action. 

D. Infrastructure Requirements Relating 

to West Virginia’s PSD Permit Program 

With the addition of the requirements 

for PSD described above, West 

Virginia’s program contains all of the 

emission limitations and control 

measures and other program elements 

required by 40 CFR 51.166 related to the 

PM2.5, ozone, and lead NAAQS. 

Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

the August 31, 2011 SIP submittal and 

relevant portions of West Virginia’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals for the 

purpose of determining that West 

Virginia has met its statutory obligations 

relating to its PSD permit program 

under CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS and 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA 

is also making a determination that 

West Virginia has met its obligations 

relating to the PSD permit program 

pursuant to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, 1997 ozone NAAQS, and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS . As already noted, the 

TSD for this action contains a detailed 

discussion of the relevant submissions 

and EPA’s rationale for making this 

determination. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The SIP revision submitted by 

WVDEP consists of amendments to the 

PSD permitting regulations of Articles 

45CSR14. The revision fulfills the 

Federal program requirements 

established by the EPA rulemaking 

actions discussed above. The 

amendments establish the major source 

threshold and significant emission rate 

for PM2.5 pursuant to the May 2008 NSR 

PM 2.5 Rule, and establish thresholds at 

which GHGs become subject to 

regulation under the PSD program 

pursuant to the June 2010 Tailoring 

Rule. Several minor revisions were 

made as well in order to be consistent 

with Federal counterpart language. 

The version of 45CSR14 submitted by 

West Virginia for approval into the SIP 

was adopted by West Virginia on March 

18, 2011, and effective on June 16, 2011. 

They include revisions to 45CSR14— 

Permits for Construction and Major 

Modification of Major Stationary 

Sources of Air Pollution for the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration. 

Based upon EPA’s review of the 

revisions submitted by West Virginia for 

approval into the SIP, EPA find these 

revisions to be consistent with their 

Federal counterparts. A detailed 

summary of the NSR PM2.5 rule, the 

Tailoring Rule, and a list of revisions to 

the state rule is available in the TSD. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA’s review of the August 31, 2011 

submittal finds the regulations 

consistent with their Federal 

counterparts. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to approve this West Virginia 

SIP revision. Additionally, in light of 

this SIP revision, EPA is proposing to 

approve the portions of West Virginia’s 

submissions dated December 3, 2007, 

December 11, 2007, April 3, 2008, 

October 1, 2009, October 26, 2011, and 

February 17, 2012 which address the 

obligations set forth at CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) relating to 

the West Virginia PSD permit program. 

EPA is proposing to determine that West 

Virginia’s SIP meets the statutory 

obligations relating to its PSD permit 

program set forth at CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) for the 

2008 lead NAAQS, as well as the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. Based on these and 

previous SIP submittals, EPA is also 

proposing to make a determination that 

West Virginia has met its obligations 

relating to the PSD permit program 

pursuant to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, 1997 ozone NAAQS, and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this document. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve 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). 

In addition, this proposed rule 

pertaining to NSR requirements for 

PM2.5 and GHGs for the West Virginia 

SIP 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

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: July 18, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–18664 Filed 7–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0151; FRL–9706–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

The 2002 Base Year Inventory 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 45305 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 2002 

base year emissions inventory portion of 

the Virginia State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Virginia, through the 

Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality (VDEQ), on April 4, 2008. The 

emissions inventory is part of the 

Virginia April 4, 2008 SIP revision that 

was submitted to meet nonattainment 

requirements related to Virginia’s 

portion of the Washington DC–MD–VA 

nonattainment area (hereafter referred to 

as Virginia Area or Area) for the 1997 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) SIP. EPA is 

proposing to approve the 2002 base year 

PM2.5 emissions inventory in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 30, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2010–0151 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: mastro.donna@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0151, 

Donna Mastro, Acting Associate 

Director, Office of Air Program 

Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2010– 

0151. 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 information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. 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. 

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 during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Asrah Khadr, (215) 814–2071, or by 

email at khadr.asrah@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

III. General Information Pertaining to SIP 

Submittals From the Commonwealth of 

Virginia 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), 

EPA established the 1997 PM2..5

NAAQS, including an annual standard 

of 15.0 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average 

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, 

and a 24-hour (or daily) standard of 65 

mg/m3 based on a 3-year average of the 

98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations. EPA established the 

standards based on significant evidence 

and numerous health studies 

demonstrating that serious health effects 

are associated with exposures to PM2.5. 

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the 

CAA to designate areas throughout the 

United States as attaining or not 

attaining the NAAQS; this designation 

process is described in section 107(d)(1) 

of the CAA. In 1999, EPA and state airquality agencies initiated the monitoring 

process for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and, 

by January 2001, established a complete 

set of air-quality monitors. On January 

5, 2005, EPA promulgated initial airquality designations for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS (70 FR 944), which became 

effective on April 5, 2005, based on airquality monitoring data for calendar 

years 2001–03. 

On April 14, 2005, EPA promulgated 

a supplemental rule amending the 

agency’s initial designations (70 FR 

19844), with the same effective date 

(April 5, 2005) as that which was 

promulgated at 70 FR 944. As a result 

of this supplemental rule, PM2.5

nonattainment designations are in effect 

for 39 areas, comprising 208 counties 

within 20 states (and the District of 

Columbia) nationwide, with a combined 

population of approximately 88 million. 

The Virginia Area which is the subject 

of this rulemaking was included in the 

list of areas not attaining the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. The Virginia Area consists of 

the following cities and counties in 

Virginia: Arlington County, Alexandria 

City, Fairfax County, Loudoun County 

and Prince William County. 

On January 12, 2009 (74 FR 1146), 

EPA determined that Virginia had 

attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

Virginia Area. That determination was 

based upon quality assured, quality 

controlled and certified ambient air 

monitoring data that showed the Area 

had monitored attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2004–2006 

monitoring period and that continued to 

show attainment of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS based on the 2005–2007 data. 

The January 12, 2009 determination 

suspended the requirements for Virginia 

to submit an attainment demonstration, 

associated reasonably available control 

measures, a reasonable further progress 

plan, contingency measures, and other 

planning SIP revisions related to 

attainment of the standard for so long as 

the nonattainment area continues to 

meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. On 

January 23, 2012, VDEQ submitted a 

request for withdrawal of the Virginia 

1997 PM2.5 SIP revisions including the 

withdrawal of the attainment plan, 

analysis of reasonably available control 

measures, attainment demonstration, 

contingency plans and mobile source 

budgets. To meet the requirements of 

CAA section 172(c)(3), Virginia did not 

request the withdrawal of the 2002 base 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45306 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

year emission inventory portion of the 

1997 PM2.5 SIP revisions. Section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA requires 

submission and approval of a 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

inventory of actual emissions. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The 2002 base year emission 

inventory submitted by VDEQ on April 

4, 2008 includes emissions estimates 

that cover the general source categories 

of point sources, non-road mobile 

sources, area sources, on-road mobile 

sources, and biogenic sources. The 

pollutants that comprise the inventory 

are nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs), PM2.5, 

coarse particles (PM10), ammonia (NH3), 

and sulfur dioxide (SO2). EPA has 

reviewed the results, procedures and 

methodologies for the base year 

emissions inventory submitted by 

VDEQ. The year 2002 was selected by 

VDEQ as the base year for the emissions 

inventory per 40 CFR 51.1008(b). A 

discussion of the emissions inventory 

development as well as the emissions 

inventory can be found in Appendix B 

of the April 3, 2008 SIP submittal. 

Table 1 provides a summary of the 

annual 2002 emissions of NOX, VOCs, 

PM2.5, PM10, NH3, and SO2 which were 

included in the Virginia submittal. 

TABLE 1—EMISSIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN TONS PER YEAR

[TPY] 

Pollutant NOX VOCs PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Emissions (TPY) ...................................... 75,909.63 92,724.76 8,277.43 29,997.85 2,370.78 49,974.50 

The CAA section 172(c)(3) emissions 

inventory is developed by the 

incorporation of data from multiple 

sources. States were required to develop 

and submit to EPA a triennial emissions 

inventory according to the Consolidated 

Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) for all 

source categories (i.e., point, area, 

nonroad mobile and on-road mobile). 

The 2002 emissions inventory was 

based on data developed by VDEQ and 

the Metropolitan Washington Council of 

Government (MWCOG). The data were 

developed according to current EPA 

emissions inventory guidance 

‘‘Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and 

Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional 

Haze Regulations,’’ August 2005. EPA 

preliminarily agrees that the process 

used to develop this emissions 

inventory is adequate to meet the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3), 

the implementing regulations, and EPA 

guidance for emission inventories. More 

information regarding the review of the 

base year inventory can be found in the 

technical support document (TSD) titled 

‘‘2002 SIP Base Year Inventory’’ that is 

located in this docket. 

III. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information (1) 

that are generated or developed before 

the commencement of a voluntary 

environmental assessment; (2) that are 

prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) that demonstrate 

a clear, imminent and substantial 

danger to the public health or 

environment; or (4) that are required by 

law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes 

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’ 

including documents and information 

‘‘required by Federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

Federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their Federal 

counterparts. * * *’’ The opinion 

concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, 

therefore, documents or other 

information needed for civil or criminal 

enforcement under one of these 

programs could not be privileged 

because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

Federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code 

Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the 

extent consistent with requirements 

imposed by Federal law,’’ any person 

making a voluntary disclosure of 

information to a state agency regarding 

a violation of an environmental statute, 

regulation, permit, or administrative 

order is granted immunity from 

administrative or civil penalty. The 

Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 

opinion states that the quoted language 

renders this statute inapplicable to 

enforcement of any Federally authorized 

programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be 

afforded from administrative, civil, or 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with Federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its 

program consistent with the Federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

CAA, including, for example, sections 

113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the 

requirements or prohibitions of the state 

plan, independently of any state 

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 

enforcement under section 304 of the 

CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or 

any, state audit privilege or immunity 

law. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 

base year emissions inventory portion of 

the SIP revision submitted by the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 45307 

Commonwealth of Virginia through 

VDEQ on April 4, 2008. We have made 

the determination that this action is 

consistent with section 110 of the CAA. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

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 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve 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). 

In addition, this proposed rule, 

pertaining to the PM2.5 2002 base year 

emissions inventory portion of the 

Virginia SIP, 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: July 18, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–18657 Filed 7–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0448; FRL–9707–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans: 

Georgia; Control Techniques 

Guidelines and Reasonably Available 

Control Technology 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

three final and one draft State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Georgia, 

through the Georgia Environmental 

Protection Division (GA EPD), to EPA 

on November 13, 1992, October 21, 

2009, March 19, 2012, and July 19, 2012 

(draft SIP revision). With regard only to 

the July 19, 2012, SIP submission, EPA 

is also proposing, in the alternative, to 

conditionally approve that revision 

which relates to certain control 

techniques guidelines (CTG) categories. 

Together, these four revisions establish 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) requirements for the major 

sources located in the Atlanta, Georgia 

1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area 

(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Atlanta 

Area’’) that either emit volatile organic 

compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides 

(NOx), or both. Georgia’s SIP revisions 

include certain VOC source categories 

for which EPA has issued CTG. EPA has 

evaluated the proposed revisions to 

Georgia’s SIP, and has made the 

preliminary determination that they are 

consistent with statutory and regulatory 

requirements and EPA guidance. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 30, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0448 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–2012–0448’’ 

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– 

0448.’’ 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS