72040 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 81—[DESIGNATION OF AREAS 

FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

PURPOSES] 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 4. In § 81.334, the table entitled 

‘‘North Carolina-1997 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)’’ is by 

revising the entries for ‘‘CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill, NC–SC,’’ ‘‘Cabarrus 

County,’’ ‘‘Gaston County,’’ ‘‘Iredell 

County (part) Davidson Township, 

Coddle Creek Township,’’ ‘‘Lincoln 

County,’’ ‘‘Mecklenburg County,’’ 

‘‘Rowan County,’’ and ‘‘Union County’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 81.334 North Carolina. 

* * * * * 

NORTH CAROLINA-1997 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designated a Category/classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC–SC ............. This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment. 

Cabarrus County .............................................. This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment.

Gaston County ................................................. This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment. 

Iredell County (part) Davidson Township, 

Coddle Creek Township.

This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment. 

Lincoln County ................................................. This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment. 

Mecklenburg County ........................................ This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment. 

Rowan County ................................................. This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment.

Union County ................................................... This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment. 

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. 

2Effective April 15, 2008. 

3 November 22, 2004. 

4Attainment date extended to June 15, 2011. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–28099 Filed 11–29–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0986; FRL–9903–32– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Georgia; Redesignation of 

the Atlanta 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Moderate Nonattainment Area to 

Attainment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve a request submitted on April 4, 

2012, from the State of Georgia, through 

the Georgia Environmental Protection 

Division (GA EPD), to redesignate the 

Atlanta, Georgia, ozone nonattainment 

area (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Atlanta Area,’’ or ‘‘Area’’) to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The Atlanta Area consists of 

Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, 

Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, 

Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, 

Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, 

Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding and 

Walton Counties in their entireties. 

EPA’s approval of the redesignation 

request is based on the determination 

that Georgia has met the criteria for 

redesignation to attainment set forth in 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

Additionally, EPA is approving, as a 

revision to the Georgia State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) a 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard for the Atlanta Area, 

including new 2024 motor vehicle 

emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and volatile organic 

compounds (VOC). In this final notice, 

EPA also responds to comments 

received on EPA’s February 4, 2013, 

proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: This rule will be effective on 

January 2, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2012–0986. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not 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 

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: Jane 

Spann or Sara Waterson of the 

Regulatory Development Section, in the 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 

Spann may be reached by phone at (404) 

562–9029, or via electronic mail at 

spann.jane@epa.gov. Ms. Waterson may 

be reached by phone at (404) 562–9061, 

or via electronic mail at waterson.sara@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for these final 

actions? 

II. What are the actions EPA is taking? 

III. What are EPA’s responses to comments? 

IV. Why is EPA taking these actions? 

V. What are the effects of these actions? 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 72041 

1On March 6, 2008, the Atlanta Area was 

reclassified to moderate nonattainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 12013. 

2On November 30, 2010, EPA published a final 

rule extending the attainment date for the Atlanta 

Area until June 15, 2011. See 75 FR 73969. 

VI. Final Actions 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for these 

final actions? 

On April 4, 2012, Georgia submitted 

to EPA a request to redesignate the 

Atlanta Area to attainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and to approve 

Georgia’s SIP revision containing a 

maintenance plan for the Atlanta Area. 

In an action published on February 4, 

2013 (78 FR 7705), EPA proposed 

approval of Georgia’s maintenance plan 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

including the NOX and VOC MVEBs 

contained therein. At that time, EPA 

also proposed to approve the 

redesignation of the Atlanta Area to 

attainment. Additional background for 

today’s action is set forth in EPA’s 

February 4, 2013, proposal. See 78 FR 

7705. 

As stated in the February 4, 2013, 

proposal, this redesignation addresses 

the Atlanta Area’s status solely with 

respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, for which designations were 

finalized on April 30, 2004.1 See 69 FR 

23857. On March 7, 2012, at 77 FR 

13491, EPA determined that the Atlanta 

Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by its June 15, 2011, applicable 

attainment date,2 and that the Area was 

continuing to attain the ozone NAAQS 

based on quality-assured monitoring 

data that was currently available. 

EPA reviewed quality-assured ozone 

monitoring data from ambient ozone 

monitoring stations in the Atlanta Area 

from 2008–2011, as recorded in Air 

Quality System (AQS), and summarized 

the 3-year average of the annual fourth 

highest daily maximum 8-hour average 

(i.e., design value) for 2008–2010 and 

2009–2011 in Tables 1 and 2. The data 

for 2012 were certified on May 1, 2013, 

and the design value for 2010–2012 is 

in Table 3. The 2008–2010 design value 

establishes that the Area attained by its 

attainment date and the 2009–2011, and 

the 2010–2012 design values establish 

that the Atlanta Area continues to meet 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Preliminary data provided by GA EPD 

for 2013 indicate that the Atlanta Area 

continues to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and further indicate that 

in 2013 no monitors in the Area 

recorded a fourth-high ozone value 

above the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

See Response 1 below for more detail on 

the 2013 preliminary data. 

TABLE 1—2008–2010 DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATION FOR THE ATLANTA AREA FOR THE 1997 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

(PPM) 

Location County Monitor ID 

4th highest 8-hour ozone value 3-Year design 

values 

2008 2009 2010 2008–2010 

GA National Guard McCollum Pkwy Cobb .................... 13–067–0003 0.075 0.076 0.079 0.076 

University of West Georgia at 

Newnan.

Coweta ................ 13–077–0002 0.075 0.065 0.065 0.068 

2390–B Wildcat Road Decatur .......... Dekalb ................. 13–089–0002 0.087 0.077 0.075 0.079 

Douglasville W. Strickland St. ........... Douglas ............... 13–097–0004 0.080 0.072 0.074 0.075 

Gwinnett Tech 1250 Atkinson Rd ...... Gwinnett .............. 13–135–0002 0.079 0.073 0.072 0.074 

Henry County Extension Office ......... Henry ................... 13–151–0002 0.086 0.074 0.078 0.079 

Yorkville ............................................. Paulding ............... 13–223–0003 0.072 0.067 0.071 0.070 

Conyers Monastery ............................ Rockdale .............. 13–247–0001 0.089 0.070 0.076 0.078 

Confederate Ave ................................ Fulton ................... 13–121–0055 0.084 0.077 0.080 0.080 

Fayetteville-GDOT ............................. Fayette ................. 13–113–0001 0.086 * * * 

* The Fayetteville-GDOT monitor was temporarily discontinued on October 31, 2008. 

TABLE 2—2009–2011 DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATION FOR THE ATLANTA AREA FOR THE 1997 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

(PPM) 

Location County Monitor ID 

4th highest 8-hour ozone value 3-Year design 

values 

2009 2010 2011 2009–2011 

GA National Guard 

McCollum Pkwy.

Cobb ................. 13–067–0003 0.076 0.079 0.079 0.078 

University of West 

Georgia at 

Newnan.

Coweta ............. 13–077–0002 0.065 0.065 0.072 0.067 

2390–B Wildcat 

Road Decatur.

Dekalb .............. 13–089–0002 0.077 0.075 0.080 0.077 

Douglasville W. 

Strickland St..

Douglas ............ 13–097–0004 0.072 0.074 0.078 0.074 

Gwinnett Tech 1250 

Atkinson Rd.

Gwinnett ........... 13–135–0002 0.073 0.072 0.082 0.075 

Henry County Extension Office.Henry ................ 13–151–0002 0.074 0.078 0.082 0.078 

Yorkville ................... Paulding ........... 13–223–0003 0.067 0.071 0.075 0.071 

Conyers Monastery Rockdale .......... 13–247–0001 0.070 0.076 0.081 0.075 

Confederate Ave ..... Fulton ............... 13–121–0055 0.077 0.080 0.084 0.080 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
72042 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

3The remaining safety margins for NOX and VOC 

were inadvertently listed in reverse order in the 

February 4, 2013, proposal. See 78 FR 7716. The 

remaining safety margins for NOX are 276.69 tpd 

and 28.87 tpd for VOC as correctly stated in section 

vi of the proposed rulemaking notice. 

TABLE 3—2010–2012 DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATION FOR THE ATLANTA AREA FOR THE 1997 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

(PPM) 

Location County Monitor ID 

4th highest 8-hour ozone value 3-Year design 

values 

2010 2011 2012 2010–2012 

GA National Guard McCollum Pkwy Cobb .................... 13–067–0003 0.079 0.079 0.075 0.077 

University of West Georgia at 

Newnan.

Coweta ................ 13–077–0002 0.065 0.072 0.062 0.066 

2390–B Wildcat Road Decatur .......... Dekalb ................. 13–089–0002 0.075 0.080 0.085 0.080 

Douglasville W. Strickland St. ........... Douglas ............... 13–097–0004 0.074 0.078 0.073 0.075 

Gwinnett Tech 1250 Atkinson Rd ...... Gwinnett .............. 13–135–0002 0.072 0.082 0.080 0.078 

Henry County Extension Office ......... Henry ................... 13–151–0002 0.078 0.082 0.088 0.082 

Yorkville ............................................. Paulding ............... 13–223–0003 0.071 0.075 0.072 0.072 

Conyers Monastery ............................ Rockdale .............. 13–247–0001 0.076 0.081 0.081 0.079 

Confederate Ave ................................ Fulton ................... 13–121–0055 0.080 0.084 0.087 0.083 

Effective July 20, 2012, EPA 

designated a portion of the Atlanta Area 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as 

nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. This rulemaking does 

not address requirements for the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. Requirements for 

the Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS will be addressed in the future. 

II. What are the actions EPA is taking? 

In today’s rulemaking, EPA is 

approving: (1) Georgia’s 1997 8-hour 

ozone maintenance plan for the Atlanta 

Area, including the MVEBs contained 

therein (such approval being one of the 

CAA criteria for redesignation to 

attainment status); and (2) Georgia’s 

redesignation request to change the legal 

designation of the Atlanta Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

maintenance plan is designed to 

demonstrate that the Atlanta Area will 

continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS through 2024. EPA’s approval 

of the redesignation request is based on 

EPA’s determination that Georgia has 

shown that the Atlanta Area meets the 

criteria for redesignation set forth in 

CAA, sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A, 

including the determination that the 

Atlanta Area has attained the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. EPA’s analyses of 

Georgia’s redesignation request and 

maintenance plan are described in 

detail in the February 4, 2013, proposed 

rule (see 78 FR 7705), and in responses 

to comments in this final rulemaking. 

As stated above, since the publication of 

EPA’s proposed rule, preliminary data 

available for 2013 show the Area 

continues to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

Consistent with the CAA, the 

maintenance plan that EPA is approving 

includes the 2024 MVEBs for NOX and 

VOC for the Atlanta Area. In this action, 

EPA is approving these NOX and VOC 

MVEBs for the purposes of 

transportation conformity. For required 

regional emissions analysis for 2024 and 

beyond, the applicable budgets will be 

the new 2024 MVEBs. 

Georgia has chosen to allocate a 

portion of the available safety margin to 

the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2024 for 

the Atlanta Area. This allocation is 26.9 

tons per day (tpd) and 29.4 tpd for NOX

and VOC, respectively. The remaining 

safety margins for 2024 are 276.69 tpd 

and 28.87 tpd NOX and VOC, 

respectively.3

The MVEBs, specified in tpd, 

included in the maintenance plan are as 

follows: 

TABLE 4—2024 ATLANTA AREA NOX

AND VOC MVEBS (TPD) 

NOX Emissions 

Base Emissions .............................. 99 .43 

Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB4 26 .9 

NOX Conformity MVEB .................. 126 

VOC Emissions 

Base Emissions .............................. 62 .56 

Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB .. 29 .4 

VOC Conformity MVEB .................. 92 

In its February 4, 2013, proposed 

action, EPA noted that the public 

comment period on the adequacy of the 

Atlanta Area MVEBs for the year 2024 

(as contained in Georgia’s submittal) 

began on February 29, 2012, and closed 

on March 30, 2012. No comments were 

received during the public comment 

period. 

III. What are EPA’s responses to 

comments? 

EPA received one set of comments on 

the February 4, 2013, proposed actions 

associated with the redesignation of the 

Atlanta Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. These comments were 

submitted by GreenLaw on behalf of 

Mothers & Others for Clean Air, Sierra 

Club, and its members. A summary of 

the comments and EPA’s responses to 

them are provided below. 

Comment 1: The Commenter contends 

that EPA cannot redesignate the Atlanta 

Area because the Agency relied on 

ambient air quality data from 2008–2011 

to determine that the area has attained 

the NAAQS and did not consider data 

from 2012. The Commenter states that 

the fourth-highest ozone value at two 

monitors in the Atlanta Area exceeded 

0.084 ppm in 2012. The Commenter 

claims that this shows that the Area 

‘‘has not solved its ozone problem,’’ and 

that EPA should require GA EPD to 

certify the 2012 data before approving 

the final redesignation to attainment. 

Response 1: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s claim that the monitored 

air quality in the Atlanta Area precludes 

EPA from approving Georgia’s request to 

redesignate the area to attainment. The 

quality-assured monitoring data show 

that the Area continues to qualify for 

redesignation. First, EPA has considered 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

data for all monitors through 2012. 

These data have been certified and show 

that the Area continues to attain the 

standard. In accordance with 40 CFR 

Part 50, Appendix I, the determination 

as to whether the Area meets the 

NAAQS is based on the three-year 

average of the annual fourth-highest 

readings at a monitor, and not a 

monitor’s fourth-highest ozone value in 

a single year. No monitored value in a 

single year can itself be a violation. A 

violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 72043 

5These preliminary data are included in the 

docket and are provided for the purpose of 

indicating continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The data have not yet been qualityassured or certified, and therefore may be subject to change. 

NAAQS occurs when the three-year 

average of the annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations measured at a monitor in 

an area exceeds 0.084 ppm (i.e., a 

violation occurs when the three-year 

average exceeds 0.084 ppm at any one 

monitor in the area). This three-year 

average is called the monitor’s ‘‘design 

value.’’ Even if the fourth-highest daily 

maximum at one monitor in one year 

exceeds 0.084 ppm, this does not 

constitute a violation. Only a three-year 

average of monitor readings can 

establish that a violation has occurred. 

Data must be quality-assured according 

to the data handling and reporting 

convention described in 40 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix I before it can be used to 

determine whether a violation has 

occurred. An ambient air monitor 

reading that exceeds 0.084 ppm in any 

one year is not determinative of a 

violation. 

The certified data in Tables 1, 2, and 

3 show that the Atlanta Area is attaining 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The 

2012 data are now certified, and the 

Area remains in attainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS because the 3- 

year design value is below 0.084 ppm. 

The Commenter’s reference to the East 

Confederate Avenue Site (AQS ID 

131210055) and the Henry County 

Extension Office Site (AQS ID 

131510002) do not call into question the 

Area’s attainment status, because the 

three-year 2010–2012 design values for 

these two monitors remain below the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Moreover, 

GA EPD provided preliminary data 

through October 2013 indicating that 

the Atlanta Area continues to attain the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and further 

indicate that in 2013 no monitors in the 

Area recorded a fourth-high ozone value 

above the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.5

Comment 2: The Commenter contends 

that Georgia’s redesignation submittal is 

flawed because it ‘‘fails to demonstrate 

that past reductions in levels of harmful 

ozone were not due to temporary factors 

such as the Great Recession and 

weather’’ and that EPA cannot approve 

the redesignation request without a 

weather adjusted analysis. The 

Commenter specifically contends that it 

would be arbitrary for EPA to rely on 

ambient monitoring data from 2008– 

2011 to satisfy the section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) 

requirement that the Area attain the 

NAAQS because the emissions and air 

quality from these years were 

influenced by temporary economic 

conditions (the ‘‘Great Recession’’) and 

that EPA has failed to provide any 

analysis to the contrary. According to 

the Commenter, ‘‘[c]ertain monitors in 

the Atlanta nonattainment area have 

higher values in 2012 than in 2008– 

2011—the years referenced by EPA in 

its Proposed Rule—and the readings 

have been increasing as the economy 

rebounds.’’ The Commenter also 

contends that it is inappropriate to use 

data from 2008–2010 to determine if the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) because 

the data ‘‘does not take into account 

economic conditions and other 

considerations’’ such as weather. 

Response 2: As noted above, EPA, 

pursuant to established regulations, uses 

a three-year cycle to determine 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The averaging of values over 

three years serves to account for 

variations in meteorology and the 

economy from year to year. See 40 CFR 

50.10 and Appendix I to CFR part 50. 

Although EPA’s proposal referred to 

2008–2010 data, EPA has shown that 

additional monitoring data establish 

that the Atlanta Area has continued to 

attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

beyond the attainment period of 2008– 

2010. EPA’s review of all data currently 

available, including certified 2009–2011 

data and now-certified 2010–2012 data, 

establishes that the Area continued to 

attain the standard with 2009–2011 and 

now-certified 2010–2012 data. This is 

the case despite the fact that conditions 

in the 2012 ozone season were more 

conducive to ozone formation than in 

many other previous years. EPA 

disagrees with the Commenter’s 

assertion that that two individual 

monitor readings in 2012 cast doubt on 

the Atlanta Area’s attainment status. 

Nor does the Commenter provide 

information to support its contention 

that the improvement in air quality 

during this period was due to the 

economy and favorable meteorological 

conditions rather than to measures the 

State and EPA have undertaken to 

reduce emissions of ozone precursors. 

To the contrary, the certified data show 

that the Area remained continuously in 

attainment throughout three sets of 

three-year period, during varying 

meteorological and economic 

conditions. 

Regarding the Commenter’s 

contention that economic conditions 

influenced the 2008–2010 ambient 

ozone concentrations, annual NOX

emissions data for Georgia electric 

generating units (EGUs) in 2008, 

emissions in the first year of the ‘‘Great 

Recession,’’ were in fact similar to 

emissions from these units for 2003– 

2007. See Table 5 below. 

TABLE 5—GEORGIA EGU SUMMER SEASON NOX EMISSION DATA * 

Power plant 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Bowen ...................................................... 5068.67 4689.08 5510.13 5671.34 4531.89 4824.60 

Hammond ................................................. 2377.06 2039.56 2756.03 2560.85 2327.03 2439.41 

Harllee Branch ......................................... 7603.69 7708.01 10369.23 11298.11 10456.83 10274.67 

Jack McDonough ..................................... 1982.57 2100.07 2241.88 2108.11 2204.02 1760.46 

Kraft .......................................................... 2156.75 1783.23 1914.35 2024.73 2292.75 1685.40 

McIntosh ................................................... 1438.09 1404.47 1246.55 1635.37 1260.17 1184.90 

Mitchell ..................................................... 1117.94 904.84 1472.60 1037.79 1028.78 1145.54 

Scherer ..................................................... 9695.31 9763.72 9289.08 8854.13 9311.99 9627.62 

Wansley ................................................... 2523.59 2709.45 3411.88 3063.36 3303.27 3052.20 

Yates ........................................................ 4935.43 4961.97 5706.27 5917.75 5894.25 5984.46 

Total .................................................. 38899.10 38064.41 43917.99 44171.54 42610.97 41979.24 

* From EPA Clean Air Markets Division Web site. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
72044 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

6http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/weather.html. 7 Data obtained from the National Climatic Data 

Center (NCDC) Web site: http://gis.ncdc.noaa.gov/

map/cag/#app=cdo. 

Furthermore, NOx emission data for 

the 10 state VISTAS region from 2002– 

2009 demonstrate that mobile and nonroad NOx emissions have decreased 

substantially in Georgia and region-wide 

and to a much greater extent than can 

be attributed to economic fluctuations 

during this period. These reductions are 

attributable to permanent and 

enforceable reductions from the 

numerous Federal and state mobile and 

non-road measures implemented during 

this period. See Tables 6 and 7. 

TABLE 6—2002 VISTAS BASE INVENTORY FOR NOX

[Tons] 

State Point Non-road Area Mobile Total 

AL ......................................................................................... 244,348 65,366 34,900 158,212 502,826 

FL ......................................................................................... 302,833 180,627 48,664 465,640 997,764 

GA ........................................................................................ 196,731 97,961 49,987 307,732 652,411

KY ........................................................................................ 237,209 104,571 40,966 156,417 539,163 

MS ........................................................................................ 104,661 88,787 7,528 111,914 312,890 

NC ........................................................................................ 196,731 84,284 41,517 327,329 649,861

SC ........................................................................................ 130,394 50,249 24,602 140,489 345,734

TN ........................................................................................ 221,638 96,827 20,063 238,577 577,105

VA ........................................................................................ 147,301 63,219 52,396 222,374 485,290

WV ....................................................................................... 277,589 33,239 13,631 58,999 383,458 

Total .............................................................................. 2,059,435 865,130 334,254 2,187,683 5,446,502 

* From GA Regional Haze Plan Appendix C.3 Table 4 (page 15). 

TABLE 7—2009 VISTAS BASE INVENTORY FOR NOX

[Tons] 

State Point Non-road Area Mobile Total 

AL ......................................................................................... 151,714 56,862 35,831 101,831 346,238 

FL ......................................................................................... 132,185 163,794 47,979 315,840 659,798 

GA ........................................................................................ 148,809 85,733 51,925 209,349 495,816

KY ........................................................................................ 129,779 94,752 43,548 101,182 369,261

MS ........................................................................................ 92,409 80,567 8,048 70,743 251,767 

NC ........................................................................................ 101,236 70,997 45,382 201,609 419,224

SC ........................................................................................ 86,934 43,235 25,259 92,499 247,927 

TN ........................................................................................ 124,274 86,641 20,717 151,912 383,544

VA ........................................................................................ 288,213 54,993 53,596 134,232 531,034

WV ....................................................................................... 124,359 30,133 14,384 35,635 204,511 

Total .............................................................................. 1,379,912 767,707 346,669 1,414,832 3,909,120 

* From GA Regional Haze Plan Appendix C.3 Table 5 (page 15). 

Regarding the Commenter’s 

contention that weather influenced the 

2008–2010 ambient ozone 

concentrations, EPA agrees that weather 

conditions have an effect on ozone 

concentrations, both in terms of 

increasing ozone and decreasing ozone. 

However, weather effects are not 

controllable, and EPA determines 

compliance with the ozone NAAQS 

using a three-year average to account for 

changes in meteorology. In the case of 

Atlanta, the Area has continuously 

attained for three three-year averaging 

periods, thereby reinforcing the 

conclusion that attainment is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

rather than variable economic 

conditions or favorable meteorology. 

Ozone season temperatures and 

precipitation are two readily available 

parameters that can be used to evaluate 

the potential weather impacts on ozone 

concentrations. Ozone is more readily 

formed on warm, sunny days when the 

air is stagnant. Conversely, ozone 

production is generally more limited 

when it is cloudy, cool, rainy, or 

windy.6 Table 8 provides temperature 

and precipitation data for Georgia for 

the ozone seasons (March-October) from 

2008–2012 obtained from the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s National Climatic Data 

Center (NOAA NCDC). The data in 

Table 8 show that both average 

temperature and precipitation varied 

significantly from 2008–2012. 

TABLE 8—GEORGIA TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION OZONE SEASON (MARCH–OCTOBER) DATA 7

Year 

Average March–October 

temperature [degrees F] 

(anomaly [degrees F]) 

Rank 

[since 1895, 

scale of 

1–118] 

Precipitation [inches] 

(anomaly, inches) 

Rank 

[since 1895, 

scale of 

1–118] 

2008 ................................................ 70.2 (¥0.7) .................................... 30 30.22 (¥4.07) ................................ 29 

2009 ................................................ 70.5 (¥0.4) .................................... 41 43.91 (+9.62) ................................. 112 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 72045 

TABLE 8—GEORGIA TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION OZONE SEASON (MARCH–OCTOBER) DATA 7—Continued 

Year 

Average March–October 

temperature [degrees F] 

(anomaly [degrees F]) 

Rank 

[since 1895, 

scale of 

1–118] 

Precipitation [inches] 

(anomaly, inches) 

Rank 

[since 1895, 

scale of 

1–118] 

2010 ................................................ 72.0 (+1.1) ..................................... 101 29.40 (¥4.89) ................................ 24 

2011 ................................................ 71.9 (+1.0) ..................................... 98 26.25 (¥4.0) .................................. 9 

2012 ................................................ 72.2 (+1.3) ..................................... 108 29.04 (¥5.25) ................................ 22 

Table 8 provides the following data: 

Average ozone season (March–October) 

temperature and precipitation; deviation 

from the 118 year average ozone season 

temperature and precipitation (termed 

the ‘‘anomaly’’); and the rank of the 

given year on the 118 year (1895–2012) 

recorded history list. A rank of 118 is 

given to the hottest or wettest year. The 

rank and anomaly data in Table 8 show 

that average ozone season temperatures 

were below normal in 2008 and 2009 

with precipitation below normal in 2008 

and much above normal in 2009. 

Temperatures were much above normal 

and precipitation was much below 

normal for the years 2010, 2011, and 

2012. If weather was the controlling 

factor for ozone concentrations, the 

levels of 2008–2010 ozone design values 

would be expected to be lower than the 

2009–2011 design values. However, for 

six out of the nine monitoring sites 

listed in Tables 1 and 2 above, the 

2008–2010 design values are higher 

than the 2009–2011 design values. 

Therefore, factors other than weather 

appear to be controlling the ozone 

concentrations. Further, there was 

nothing about the weather during the 

2008–2010 three-year period that would 

indicate that EPA cannot go forward 

with the proposed approval of the 

Atlanta redesignation. 

Additionally, 2012 was one of the 

hottest and driest years in the recent 

past. See Table 8, above. In fact, a 

record-setting heat wave occurred in 

late June through early July 2012, which 

resulted in high ozone levels measured 

across the southeast, and yet (as 

indicated in the Response to Comment 

1 above), data for the 2010–2012 ozone 

season show that the Atlanta Area 

continues to be in attainment of the 

1997 ozone standard. This fact further 

supports EPA’s position that weather is 

not the controlling factor in the Area’s 

attainment. 

The analysis of meteorological 

conditions and emissions trends 

discussed above, along with the analysis 

of permanent and enforceable emissions 

reduction measures described in the 

proposed rulemaking and in the 

Responses to Comment 3, below, 

demonstrate that the improvement in air 

quality in the Atlanta Area is 

independent of weather or economic 

factors. 

Comment 3(a): The Commenter states 

that EPA relied on a number of stateonly Georgia rules as permanent and 

enforceable measures and specifically 

refers to the Georgia Multipollutant Rule 

and the Smoke Management Plan. The 

Commenter further states that ‘‘[u]nless 

Georgia submits these rules, and EPA 

adopts them into the enforceable 

implementation plan, they cannot be 

relied upon for redesignation as they are 

not enforceable by EPA or the public 

and they are not permanent.’’ 

Response 3(a): EPA did not rely on 

any state-only Georgia rules as 

permanent and enforceable measures 

under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). The 

Commenter correctly states that 

Georgia’s Smoke Management Plan and 

Georgia Rule (sss)—Multipollutant Rule 

are not incorporated into the Georgia 

SIP and thus, EPA is not relying on 

emissions associated with those rules as 

part of this redesignation. As noted in 

the proposed rule, ‘‘Georgia’s smoke 

management plan is a state-only 

requirement and is therefore not 

federally enforceable. This measure is 

not necessary for the continued 

maintenance of the Atlanta 

nonattainment area.’’ The proposed rule 

also states that ‘‘Georgia Rule (sss) has 

not been submitted to EPA for approval 

into the SIP and is therefore not 

federally enforceable.’’ See 78 FR 7705. 

While Georgia Rule (sss) may 

contribute to future NOX reductions, 

which may help continue to assure 

maintenance, it did not contribute to 

NOX reductions that resulted in the 

Atlanta Area becoming attainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This is 

demonstrated by the fact that EGUs 

contributed 63.62 tpd of the 606.78 tpd 

NOX emissions for 2008, or only about 

10.5 percent of the NOX emissions, 

based on the Atlanta attainment year 

inventory. 

Comment 3(b): The Commenter 

contends that reductions associated 

with the NOX SIP Call are not 

permanent and enforceable because the 

NOX SIP Call ‘‘has been replaced and 

therefore effectively no longer exists.’’ 

The Commenter further states that the 

NOX SIP Call ‘‘is a cap and trade 

program, which means that there are no 

actual reductions required from the 

emission sources in the Metro-Atlanta 

nonattainment area. Rather, to the 

extent that any reductions were once 

required, they could have happened 

only in areas downwind that have little 

to no impact on the Metro-Atlanta area 

nonattainment.’’ The Commenter cites 

to the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit) decision in NRDC v. EPA, 571 

F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009) to support its 

position that ‘‘EPA cannot use cap-andtrade programs to satisfy an areaspecific statutory mandate.’’ 

Response 3(b): EPA disagrees that the 

emission reductions resulting from the 

NOX SIP Call are not permanent and 

enforceable under section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii). The Commenter’s 

contention that reductions associated 

with the NOX SIP Call cannot be 

considered permanent and enforceable 

because the rule ‘‘has been replaced and 

therefore effectively no longer exists’’ is 

erroneous. As noted in the proposal, 

even though EPA discontinued the NOX

Budget Trading Program when it 

promulgated CAIR, ‘‘all states regardless 

of the current status of their regulations 

that previously required participation in 

the NOX Budget Trading Program will 

remain subject to all of the requirements 

in the NOX SIP Call even if the existing 

CAIR ozone season trading program is 

withdrawn or altered.’’ See 78 FR 7712. 

Participation in the CAIR ozone season 

trading program is one acceptable way 

for states to meet their NOX SIP Call 

obligations, but obligations under the 

NOX SIP Call exist independent of CAIR 

and are independently permanent and 

enforceable. EPA further explained in 

the proposal that the anti-backsliding 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.905(f) 

specifically provide that the provisions 

of the NOX SIP Call, including the 

statewide NOX emission budgets, 

continue to apply after revocation of the 

1-hour NAAQS. EPA therefore does not 

agree with the Commenter that 

reductions associated with the NOX SIP 

Call are not permanent and enforceable 

because of the status of the rule. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
72046 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

8The Court specifically elected not to vacate the 

RACT provision and left open the possibility that 

EPA may be able to reinstate the provision for 

particular nonattainment areas if, upon conducting 

a technical analysis, it finds the NOX SIP Call 

results in greater emissions reductions in a 

nonattainment area than would be achieved if 

RACT-level controls were installed in that area. Id. 

at 1258. 

Although Georgia was not subject to the 

NOX SIP Call, reductions from the NOX

SIP Call in upwind states helped the 

Atlanta Area achieve attainment. 

EPA also disagrees that the Atlanta 

Area cannot be redesignated for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS solely 

because the NOX SIP Call is a cap-andtrade program. The Commenter’s 

reliance on NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 

(D.C. Cir. 2009) is inapposite. The D.C. 

Circuit’s decision in that case does not 

support the Commenter’s argument and 

is entirely consistent with EPA’s 

position here. That case addressed a 

specific aspect of the cap-and-trade 

program, solely within the very different 

context of EPA’s determination that the 

NOX SIP Call trading program 

presumptively satisfied the 

nonattainment Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) 

requirement. The Court’s decision 

centered on whether the RACT 

requirement could be satisfied by 

reductions outside the nonattainment 

area. The Court simply held that 

because EPA had not shown the trading 

program would result in sufficient 

reductions in a nonattainment area, its 

determination that the program satisfied 

the nonattainment RACT requirement 

was not supported.8 Id. at 1256– 58. The 

Court did not hold, or address the issue, 

as Commenter suggests, of how 

emissions trading programs that require 

emissions reductions—either inside or 

outside a nonattainment area—and 

which result in air quality 

improvement, should be considered in 

evaluating redesignation requests. 

Trading programs require total mass 

emission reductions by establishing 

mandatory caps on total emissions to 

permanently reduce the total mass 

emissions allowed by sources subject to 

the programs, validated through 

rigorous continuous emission 

monitoring and reporting regimes. The 

emission caps and associated controls 

are enforced through associated SIP 

rules or Federal implementation plans 

(FIPs). Any purchase of allowances and 

increase in emissions by one source 

necessitates a corresponding sale of 

allowances and either reduction in 

emissions or use of allowances by 

another source. Given the regional 

nature of ozone, the corresponding NOX

emission and/or allowance reduction in 

one affected area will have an air quality 

benefit that will compensate, at least in 

part, for the impact of any emission 

increase in another affected area. In this 

case, as shown in Tables 6 and 7 of this 

notice, the NOX SIP Call and other 

Federal mobile and non-road control 

regulations achieved measurable 

reductions in NOX emissions in the 

states upwind from and affecting the 

Atlanta Area. For the reasons explained 

above, reductions associated with the 

NOX SIP Call are permanent and 

enforceable because states remain 

subject to the requirements of that rule. 

EPA has therefore determined that with 

regard to the reductions associated with 

the NOX SIP Call, in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), ‘‘the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of . . . applicable 

Federal air pollutant control 

regulations.’’ Thus, EPA disagrees that 

the Commenter has identified a basis on 

which EPA should disapprove Georgia’s 

redesignation request. 

Comment 3(c): The Commenter does 

not believe that EPA can rely on CAIR 

or CSAPR to provide permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions under 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). According to 

the Commenter, EPA cannot rely on 

CAIR because it has been remanded, 

and cites to two prior Federal Register 

notices in support of its position that 

EPA’s proposed reliance on CAIR as a 

permanent and enforceable measure for 

redesignation is contrary to other EPA 

Region 4 actions. The Commenter 

reiterates its position that emissions 

reductions associated with CAIR cannot 

be considered permanent and 

enforceable because CAIR is a cap-andtrade program (citing again to NRDC v. 

EPA for the proposition that ‘‘cap and 

trade programs cannot be used to satisfy 

area-specific mandates’’). Specifically, 

the Commenter contends that, under 

CAIR, ‘‘[a]ny emissions reductions 

impacting the Metro-Atlanta 

nonattainment area achieved through 

CAIR could be lost through the purchase 

of emissions credits or trading of 

credits’’ and that ‘‘[a]ny source could 

decide at any time in the future to 

purchase emissions credits, increasing 

its emissions and thus impacts to the 

Atlanta Area.’’ The Commenter 

contends that ‘‘CAIR did not impose any 

reductions’’ and that the use of 

modeling in developing CAIR is 

unreliable because it used assumptions 

about the economy, the weather, and 

international commodity prices like the 

price of coal and natural gas. Instead, 

the Commenter believes that EPA could 

impose unit specific emission limits for 

units in and impacting the Atlanta Area, 

and argues that such limits would not 

be redundant of reductions required by 

CAIR ‘‘because CAIR did not impose 

any reductions on these units.’’ The 

Commenter also states that ‘‘to the 

extent’’ that EPA relies on reductions 

from CSAPR, that rule has been vacated 

and EPA may not rely on reductions 

associated with CSAPR for the purposes 

of this redesignation. 

Response 3(c): EPA does not agree 

that emission reductions associated 

with CAIR cannot be considered 

permanent and enforceable for purposes 

of meeting the requirements of section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii). Section 107(d)(3)(E) of 

the CAA sets out the requirements for 

redesignation, and states in relevant part 

that the Administrator must 

‘‘determine[] 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.’’ 42 U.S.C. 

7407(d)(3)(E)(iii). 

EPA recognizes that the D.C. Circuit’s 

remand of CAIR necessarily means that 

CAIR will at some point cease to be in 

effect. However, EPA disagrees that the 

Court’s remand forecloses the Agency 

and states from relying on CAIR for 

purposes such as redesignating an area 

from nonattainment to attainment. 

Subsection (iii) of section 107(d)(3)(E) is 

a backwards looking requirement; it 

requires that the attainment air quality 

in the area is ‘‘due to’’ permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions. The 

purpose of this requirement is to ensure 

that in redesignating areas from 

nonattainment to attainment, EPA does 

not rely on ephemeral, temporarily 

improved air quality that results from 

circumstances such as temporary 

shutdowns of plants or reduced 

emission rates because of slowed 

production. See Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, 

September 4, 1992 (Calcagni 

Memorandum) at page 4. The structure 

of section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) indicates that 

the Act generally considers reductions 

resulting from SIPs and Federal 

regulations as permanent and 

enforceable. It references ‘‘other’’ 

reductions that are comparable to 

measures adopted into SIPs or federally 

adopted regulations and can therefore 

also qualify as permanent and 

enforceable reductions, indicating that, 

in general, SIP reductions and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 72047 

reductions from Federal regulations are 

the types of reductions that the Act 

views in the first instance as having the 

requisite permanence and enforceability 

for purposes of redesignation. 

Georgia’s CAIR provisions can be 

found in Georgia Rule 391–3–1– 

.02(12)—Clean Air Interstate Rule NOX

Annual Trading Program. On October 9, 

2007, at 72 FR 57202, EPA approved 

Georgia’s CAIR provisions, including 

CAIR NOX allocations. These SIP 

provisions are in place and are federally 

enforceable. And, because CAIR has 

been in force since 2005, the monitoring 

data used to demonstrate the Area’s 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by the June 2011 attainment 

deadline were impacted by CAIR. CAIR 

reductions began as early as 2005, with 

full program requirements beginning in 

2009. CAIR was thus in place and 

federally enforceable at the time the 

Atlanta Area began monitoring 

attainment, and it continues to remain 

in place under the instruction of the 

Court in EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d. 7 (D.C. Cir., 2012), 

which vacated CSAPR and explicitly 

left CAIR in place until EPA implements 

a replacement rule. 

With regard to the Federal Register 

notices cited by Commenter, those 

notices pre-date the D.C. Circuit’s 

decision in EME Homer City. Thus, 

statements regarding CAIR in those 

notices would not be appropriately 

applied to the Atlanta action because of 

the significantly changed circumstances 

surrounding CAIR. It is not 

unreasonable for the Agency to reassess 

its position about whether the 

reductions of CAIR can be considered 

sufficiently permanent and enforceable 

for purposes of redesignation, in light of 

the D.C. Circuit’s vacatur of CSAPR and 

its order that the Agency continue to 

implement CAIR in EME Homer City. 

That decision significantly altered the 

status of CAIR, particularly in the 

context of redesignations. 

As noted in the proposed rule (78 FR 

7712), EPA believes that relying on 

CAIR emission reductions in order to 

redesignate the Atlanta Area, which has 

been attaining the NAAQS for many 

years and continues to maintain the 

standard, is precisely the type of 

‘‘reliance interest’’ that the D.C. Circuit 

was concerned about in ordering the 

Agency to continue administering CAIR. 

EME Homer City, 696 F.3d at 38. In 

addition, in its substantive holdings, the 

D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City held 

that ‘‘a SIP logically cannot be deemed 

to lack a ‘required submission’ before 

EPA quantifies the good neighbor 

obligation.’’ Id. at 32. Under this 

holding, states have no obligation to 

submit ‘‘good neighbor’’ SIPs until EPA 

has quantified their ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

obligations and EPA may not 

promulgate a FIP to address such 

obligations until the Agency first 

quantifies the state’s obligations, and 

provides the state an opportunity to 

submit a plan consistent with that 

defined obligation. 696 F.3d at 28–37. 

The EME Homer City decision thus 

significantly lengthens the time it will 

take to get in place regulations to 

replace the remanded CAIR. Under the 

EME Homer City decision, SIP 

provisions to replace CAIR could not go 

into effect until EPA has undertaken 

analysis and rulemaking to define states’ 

obligations in accordance with the other 

statutory requirements identified by the 

EME Homer City Court, provided states 

adequate time to develop 

implementation plans consistent with 

the defined obligations, and EPA has 

reviewed and approved the SIP 

submissions in notice-and-comment 

rulemakings. Similarly, no FIP to 

replace CAIR could go into effect unless 

EPA found a state failed to submit a SIP 

within the time given to develop such 

implementation plans or disapproved 

such a SIP submittal. It is not 

unreasonable for EPA to determine that 

in light of these circumstances, CAIR 

will be in place for a significant amount 

of time. EPA therefore disagrees with 

the Commenter that its prior statements 

regarding the status of CAIR before the 

EME Homer City decision dictate how 

the Agency must view CAIR after that 

decision. 

In addition, the modeling EPA 

conducted for the CSAPR rulemaking 

demonstrates that the Atlanta Area 

would have attained and will continue 

to maintain the standard even without 

CAIR. The air quality modeling analysis, 

which analyzed a base-case and futureyear modeling scenario in which neither 

CAIR nor CSAPR was in place 

demonstrated that the Atlanta Area 

would have been able to attain and will 

be able to maintain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in the absence of any 

transport rule. See ‘‘Air Quality 

Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 

Document,’’ Appendix B, B–8 to B–9. 

This modeling is available in the docket 

for this redesignation action. Nothing in 

the EME Homer City decision 

undermines that conclusion or suggests 

that the air quality modeling conducted 

during the rulemaking was flawed. 

EPA also disagrees with the 

Commenter that emission reductions 

occurring within the relevant 

nonattainment area cannot be relied 

upon for the purpose of redesignations 

simply because they are associated with 

the emissions trading programs 

established in CAIR. As discussed in 

Response to Comment 3(b), EPA does 

not agree that NRDC v. EPA supports the 

Commenter’s position. Although framed 

in terms of the requirements of section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii), that is, the Act’s 

requirement that an area’s current 

attainment is a result of permanent and 

enforceable measures, the Commenter’s 

concerns appear more focused on 

potential future problems in the Atlanta 

Area. For instance, the Commenter 

notes that reductions that were achieved 

through CAIR that impacted the Atlanta 

Area ‘‘could be lost’’ because of future 

emissions trading, and that sources 

could decide ‘‘in the future’’ to purchase 

emissions credit and therefore have a 

negative impact on the Atlanta Area. 

The Commenter’s focus on future 

reductions under CAIR suggests concern 

not with EPA’s approval under section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii), but rather the 

requirements for a fully approved 

maintenance plan in section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and section 175A that 

require the state to show that the area 

will maintain the standard for ten years 

following redesignation. In the proposal, 

EPA provided projected emissions of 

NOX and VOC, the precursors to ozone 

pollution, for the Atlanta Area for the 

relevant maintenance period. See 78 FR 

7714, tbls. 2–4. Under its existing suite 

of control measures, including CAIR, 

Atlanta is attaining the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Over the maintenance 

period, emissions for each precursor are 

expected to further decrease in the 

Atlanta Area. If violations of the 

standard after redesignation 

nevertheless occur, EPA has approved 

the contingency measures in the 

maintenance plan to account for such 

events. 

Further, evaluations have been made 

to see whether trading has created 

emissions ‘‘hot spots.’’ For example, 

since the beginning of the Acid Rain 

Program, there have been no emissions 

hot spots identified or created as a result 

of the program (see ‘‘The Acid Rain 

Program Experience: Should We Be 

Concerned About SO2 Emissions 

Hotspots?’’ at http://epa.gov/airmarkets/ 

resource/acidrain-resource.html). 

Additionally, states and localities may 

impose stricter limits on sources to 

address specific local air quality 

concerns. For example, Georgia has 

adopted a multipollutant rule for 

Electricity Generating Units that control 

emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

NOX, and North Carolina has adopted 

its Clean Smokestacks Act. Florida 

recently revised its Regional Haze Plan 

which imposed additional restrictions 

on a number of facilities in the State. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
72048 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

9 2011 Environmental and Health Results Report, 

CAIR, Acid Rain Program, and former NOX Budget 

Trading Program Progress Report 2011 (March 

2013), http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/

ARPCAIR11_downloads/ARPCAIR11_

environmental_health.pdf (‘‘2011 Environmental 

and Health Results Report’’). 

These limits must be met regardless of 

a source’s accumulated allowances. 

The Commenter’s statement that 

‘‘CAIR did not impose any reductions’’ 

is simply incorrect, and indicates a lack 

of understanding of cap-and-trade 

programs. In general, cap-and-trade 

programs provide economic incentives 

for early reductions in emissions and 

encourage sources to install controls 

earlier than required for compliance 

with future caps on emissions. The 

flexibility under a cap and trade system 

is not about whether to reduce 

emissions; rather, it is about how to 

reduce them at the lowest possible cost. 

As explained above in Response to 

Comment 3(b), trading programs require 

total mass emission reductions by 

establishing mandatory caps on total 

emissions to permanently reduce the 

total mass emissions allowed by sources 

subject to the programs, validated 

through rigorous continuous emission 

monitoring and reporting regimens. The 

emission caps and associated controls 

are enforced through the associated SIP 

rules or FIPs. Any purchase of 

allowances and increase in emissions by 

one source necessitates a corresponding 

sale of allowances and either reduction 

in emissions or use of banked 

allowances by another covered source. 

Given the regional nature of ozone, the 

corresponding NOX emission and/or 

allowance reduction in one affected area 

will have an air quality benefit that will 

compensate, at least in part, for the 

impact of any emission increase in 

another affected area. EPA disagrees 

with the Commenter’s suggestion that 

only specific emission limits on units 

can be considered ‘‘reductions.’’ 

In fact, the actual data that EPA has 

evaluated in order to conclude that the 

Atlanta Area has met the criteria for 

redesignation shows that power plant 

emissions in both Atlanta and the 

surrounding region have substantially 

decreased as a result of cap-and-trade 

programs, including CAIR. The facts 

contradict the theoretical concerns 

raised by the Commenter, and show that 

the emission trading programs, 

combined with other controls, in fact 

worked to improve air quality in the 

Area. Moreover, the NOX SIP Call and 

CAIR have successfully reduced 

transported emissions contributing to 

ozone nonattainment in areas across the 

country. Data collected from long-term 

national air quality monitoring networks 

demonstrate that these regional cap-andtrade programs have resulted in 

substantial achievements in air quality 

caused by emission reductions from 

power sector sources.9 In 2004, EPA 

designated 91 areas in the Eastern half 

of the United States as nonattainment 

for the 8-hour ozone standard adopted 

in 1997, using data from 2001–2003. 

Based on data gathered from 2009— 

2011, 90 of these original Eastern 

nonattainment areas show 

concentrations below the 1997 ozone 

standard. Id. at 12. Many states have 

sought and continue to seek 

redesignation of their nonattainment 

areas, relying in part on the reductions 

attributable to these cap-and-trade 

programs. See, e.g., 76 FR at 59607 

(proposing to redesignate a portion of 

the Chicago area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS), finalized at 76 FR 

76302, and 74 FR 63995 (redesignation 

of Great Smoky Mountain National Park 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS). The 

Commenter’s contention that EPA and 

Georgia may not rely on the substantial 

emission reductions that have already 

occurred from these rules based on a 

faulty and rigid interpretation of the 

CAA would impose a major obstacle for 

nonattainment areas across the country 

that have achieved attainment air 

quality because of the reductions 

required by the rules. This would 

unnecessarily undermine a reasonable, 

proven, and cost-effective approach to 

combating regional pollution problems. 

Of the federally-enforceable rules 

relied upon by Georgia in its 

redesignation request, the Commenter 

singles out cap-and-trade programs as 

insufficiently permanent and 

enforceable to meet the requirements for 

redesignation. Measures that have been 

approved into Georgia’s SIP that have 

helped contribute to the Area’s 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard include: Georgia Rule (yy)— 

Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides, Georgia 

Rule (lll)—NOX from Fuel Burning 

Equipment, Georgia Rule (rrr)—NOX

from Small Fuel Burning Equipment, 

and Georgia Rule (jjj)—NOX from EGUs. 

Federal rules relied upon by Georgia in 

its redesignation request include Tier 2 

vehicle standards, Large Non-road 

Diesel Engines Rule, and nonroad sparkignition engines and recreational 

engines standards. See 78 FR 7705. 

There is inherent flexibility in nearly all 

of these requirements relied upon in 

Georgia’s redesignation request, 

including Federal transportation control 

measures and SIP emission rate limits, 

also known as ‘‘command-and-control’’ 

regulations. For example, the rules do 

not and cannot account for when and 

where people drive their cars, nor do 

they dictate that consumers in a certain 

area invest in newer, lower-emitting 

cars. Similarly, emission rate limits 

limit the rate of emissions per unit of 

fuel consumed, or parts per million of 

emissions in the exhaust but do not 

regulate throughput or hours of 

operation of the regulated sources. It 

would be unworkable for EPA to 

disqualify a requirement as ‘‘permanent 

and enforceable’’ for the purposes of 

redesignation simply because the 

requirement did not require the exact 

same pollutant emission reduction 

every hour of every day of every year. 

The Atlanta Area relied on a suite of 

requirements that, while inherently 

allowing for some flexibility, has 

collectively served to bring the Area 

into, and to maintain, attainment of the 

NAAQS. 

Moreover, the Commenter’s concerns 

about modeling with regard to the CAIR 

rulemaking are not germane to this 

redesignation; it is the Atlanta Area’s 

monitored attainment and continued 

monitored attainment that EPA is 

relying on in finalizing redesignation for 

this area, as opposed to modeling that 

EPA conducted for the CAIR rulemaking 

and any assumptions about commodity 

prices and the economy that necessarily 

went into that rulemaking. 

Finally, EPA is not relying on CSAPR 

for continued maintenance of the Area 

and in approving this redesignation of 

Atlanta. As such, there is no basis to 

conclude that it would be improper to 

redesignate the Area even in the absence 

of CSAPR. 

Comment 4(a): The Commenter states 

that EPA cannot approve the emissions 

inventory under CAA section 182(a)(1) 

because ‘‘portions of the emissions 

inventory were estimated, as opposed to 

being based on actual emissions.’’ 

Response 4(a): In a prior, separate 

rulemaking, EPA has already taken final 

action to approve the emissions 

inventory for the Atlanta Area under 

section 182(a)(1). See 77 FR 24399. It is 

settled law that, in evaluating 

redesignations, EPA is not required to 

review already-approved SIP revisions. 

EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in 

approving a redesignation request 

(Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth 

Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989– 

90 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 

426 (6th Cir. 2001)), plus any additional 

measures it may approve in conjunction 

with a redesignation action (see 

Calcagni Memorandum at page 3; 68 FR 

25426 (May 12, 2003) and citations 

therein). In EPA’s prior rulemaking 

action on Atlanta’s emissions inventory, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 72049 

EPA provided an opportunity for public 

notice and comment; and no comments 

were submitted. EPA approved the 

emissions inventory as consistent with 

the requirements of section 182(a)(1), 

the CAA implementing regulations, and 

EPA guidance for emission inventories. 

Thus, any comments regarding EPA’s 

approval of the emissions inventory are 

untimely and unfounded. EPA notes 

that the maintenance demonstration 

accompanying the redesignation request 

includes an attainment year inventory 

that serves as the base year for 

projecting emissions over the 

maintenance period. The State has 

shown, and EPA agrees, that this 

inventory is accurate and 

comprehensive. Since EPA has already 

approved the inventory under section 

182(b)(1), no additional approval is 

necessary. 

Comment 4(b): The Commenter 

further disputes the approvability of the 

emissions inventory because ‘‘[t]here is 

no indication that EPA accounted for 

the increase in NOX and VOC emissions 

that will result from use of E15 when it 

approved GA EPD’s estimate of on-road 

emissions as satisfying the section 

182(a)(1) comprehensive emissions 

inventory requirement.’’ 

Response 4(b): EPA does not believe 

that the Commenter’s concerns 

regarding E15 use in the Atlanta Area 

and increases in VOC and NOx 

emissions are supported. The 

Commenter’s concerns appear to derive 

not from the emissions inventories that 

EPA approved, but rather from the 

possibility that the future increases in 

NOX and VOC that the Commenter 

believes might result from the use of 

E15. Therefore, this appears to be a 

concern regarding future maintenance of 

the standard rather than a concern about 

the approvability of the prior emissions 

inventories. In any event, EPA believes 

that the Commenter’s concerns 

regarding E15 use in that Atlanta Area 

and potential resulting increases in VOC 

and NOX emissions are unfounded. 

Georgia has a state fuel rule that covers 

45 counties that is inclusive of the 20- 

county Atlanta Area that was designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Regardless of the 

allowance for increased ethanol in 

conventional fuel (i.e., E15), Georgia 

must comply with the requirements of 

its state fuel rule which was put in place 

specifically to reduce fuel-related VOC 

and NOX emissions for the Atlanta Area. 

EPA approved Georgia’s fuel rule into 

the Georgia SIP for the purposes of 

meeting 1-hour ozone NAAQS (see 67 

FR 8200 (February 20, 2002)), and this 

rule remains in Georgia’s federallyenforceable SIP. GA EPD modeled the 

Georgia fuel rule requirements in 

developing the emissions inventory for 

the maintenance plan. 

In 2010 and 2011, EPA granted partial 

waivers for use of E15 in model year 

(MY) 2001 and newer light-duty motor 

vehicles (75 FR 68094 and 76 FR 4662). 

As discussed in the partial waiver 

decisions, there may be some small 

emission impacts from the use of E15. 

E15 is expected to cause a small 

immediate emissions increase in NOX

emissions. However, due to its lower 

volatility than the E10 currently in-use, 

its use is also expected to result in lower 

evaporative emissions. Other possible 

emissions impacts may be from the 

misfueling of E15 in vehicles or engines 

for which its use is not approved, i.e. 

MY2000 and older motor vehicles, 

heavy-duty engines and vehicles, 

motorcycles and all nonroad engines, 

vehicles and equipment. EPA 

promulgated a separate rule dealing 

specifically with the mitigation of 

misfueling to reduce the potential 

emissions impacts from misfueling (76 

FR 44406). 

However, the E15 partial waivers do 

not require that E15 be made or sold and 

it is unclear if and to what extent E15 

may even be used in Georgia. Even if 

E15 is introduced into commerce in 

Georgia, considering the likely small 

and offsetting direction of the emission 

impacts, the limited set of motor 

vehicles approved for its use, and the 

measures required to mitigate 

misfueling, EPA believes that any 

potential emission impacts of E15 will 

be less than the maintenance plan safety 

margin by which Georgia shows 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. As shown in Tables 9 and 10, 

total VOC and NOX emissions decrease 

significantly from 2008 through 2024, 

the last year of the maintenance plan. 

During this period, total NOX emissions 

decrease 50 percent (by 303 tpd) and 

VOC emissions decrease 12 percent (by 

58 tpd). It should be noted that EPA 

recently proposed the Tier 3 vehicle 

emissions and fuel standards program. 

The proposal calls for more stringent 

limits on emissions of NOX and VOCs 

from new motor vehicles beginning with 

the 2017 model year resulting in 

emissions reductions as these vehicles 

enter the fleet. The proposal also calls 

for reducing the annual average sulfur 

content of gasoline from 30 ppm to 10 

ppm beginning on January 1, 2017. 

Reductions in the sulfur content of 

gasoline would enable automobile 

manufacturers to comply with the 

proposed vehicle emissions standards, 

and would also achieve significant 

immediate benefits by reducing 

emissions from existing vehicles. The 

maintenance plan does not include 

emissions reductions from these 

proposed regulatory changes. If the Tier 

3 vehicle emissions and fuel standards 

program is finalized as proposed, it 

would result in additional reductions in 

on-road emissions of NOX and VOC that 

go beyond those which are consistent 

with maintenance of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS in the Atlanta Area. 

TABLE 9—ACTUAL AND PROJECTED ANNUAL NOX EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR THE ATLANTA AREA

Sector 2008 2014 2017 2020 2024 

Point ..................................................................................... 75.99 60.69 53.05 54.43 56.27 

Area * .................................................................................... 49.30 54.92 57.73 60.62 64.48 

Nonroad ............................................................................... 117.47 99.18 90.04 87.03 83.01 

On-road ................................................................................ 364.02 264.80 215.19 165.58 99.43 

Total ** ........................................................................... 606.78 479.59 416.01 367.66 303.19 

* For nonpoint emissions, excluding fire. 

** Numbers may be slightly different than the April 4, 2012, submittal based on rounding conventions. 

TABLE 10—ACTUAL AND PROJECTED ANNUAL VOC EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR THE ATLANTA AREA

Sector 2008 2014 2017 2020 2024 

Point ..................................................................................... 13.79 15.80 16.81 17.80 19.13 

Area* .................................................................................... 216.46 243.28 256.69 270.61 289.16 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
72050 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

10As explained in the Calcagni Memorandum, 

‘‘[w]here a state has made an adequate 

demonstration that air quality has improved as a 

result of the SIP, the attainment inventory will 

generally be the actual inventory at the time the 

area attained the standard.’’ 

TABLE 10—ACTUAL AND PROJECTED ANNUAL VOC EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR THE ATLANTA AREA—Continued 

Sector 2008 2014 2017 2020 2024 

Nonroad ............................................................................... 96.03 74.75 64.11 63.50 62.69 

On-road ................................................................................ 165.53 126.92 107.61 88.30 62.56 

Total ** ........................................................................... 491.82 460.75 445.22 440.21 433.55 

* For nonpoint emissions, excluding fire. 

** Numbers may be slightly different than the April 4, 2012, submittal based on rounding conventions. 

Georgia used EPA’s approved motor 

vehicle emissions factor model, 

MOVES2010, to prepare the on-road 

inventory. Additionally, EPA has 

concluded that GA EPD used the 

appropriate parameters for modeling the 

Georgia fuel rule and that the emissions 

inventories are approvable. 

Comment 5(a): The Commenter 

claims that EPA cannot approve the 

maintenance plan because it ‘‘would 

need to show, at a minimum, [that] the 

2014, 2017, 2020, and 2024 emissions 

will be significantly below the 2012 

emissions’’ given that ‘‘2012 emission 

levels result in ambient concentrations 

over the NAAQS.’’ 

Response 5(a): The Commenter’s 

contention that maintenance can be 

shown only by emissions that are 

‘‘significantly below the 2012’’ 

emissions is based solely on the same 

misguided premise as its argument in 

Comment 1: that two monitor readings 

in 2012 showed concentrations above 

the level of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. As EPA explained in Reponses 

to Comments 1 and 2 above, these 

readings did not establish violations or 

alter the Area’s attainment status, and 

the Area continued to attain the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS in 2012. These 

readings also in no way undermine the 

validity of the attainment year 

emissions inventory, which remains the 

benchmark for showing the levels of 

emissions that are needed to maintain 

the NAAQS. Consequently, the Area 

need not, as the Commenter claims, 

show that emissions levels in the future 

will be significantly lower in order to 

demonstrate continued attainment. 

Therefore, the State met the criteria for 

demonstrating maintenance by 

establishing its attainment inventories at 

the time of the development of the 

maintenance plan and showing that 

future projected emissions remain at or 

below the attainment emissions levels. 

See Wall v. EPA, supra. 

For its maintenance demonstration, 

Georgia used the 2008 National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI) as base year 

emissions inventory reflecting one of 

the years in a three-year period (2008 

–2011) when attainment was reached. 

Georgia’s maintenance plan projected 

that total emissions during the 10-year 

maintenance period after redesignation 

will stay below attainment year levels. 

The 2008 inventory, one of the years in 

the three-year period in which the Area 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

is an appropriate inventory to be used 

to demonstrate maintenance of the 

NAAQS.10

The Commenter asserts that ‘‘2012 

emissions levels result in ambient 

concentrations above the NAAQS.’’ 

Again, as set forth in Response 1 above, 

a violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS is based on a three-year 

average, and does not, as the 

Commenter claims, result from a oneyear fourth high value. The 2010–2012 

ozone season data established that the 

Area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Preliminary data for 

2013 indicate continued attainment. 

Moreover, the maintenance plan also 

provides a mechanism for anticipating 

and preventing violations. For example, 

the maintenance plan’s Tier I 

contingency measures are triggered 

when ‘‘the periodic emission inventory 

updates reveal excessive or 

unanticipated growth greater than 10 

percent in emissions of either ozone 

precursor over the attainment or 

intermediate emissions inventories for 

the Atlanta maintenance area (as 

determined by the triennial emission 

reporting required by AERR).’’ See 78 

FR 7705. 

Comment 5(b): The Commenter states 

its view that the maintenance plan is 

not approvable because it is missing 

contingency provisions that provide for 

the prompt correction of violations. 

According to the Commenter, neither 

the Tier I nor the Tier II response 

‘‘occurs on a prompt schedule, and 

several of the potential contingency 

measures listed are inappropriate, 

inadequate, or vague.’’ The Commenter 

goes on to state that the Tier I response 

to prepare a comprehensive study to 

develop corrective measures ‘‘is not a 

corrective measure at all.’’ The 

Commenter states its belief that a period 

of 18 to 24 months, or more, to adopt 

and implement corrective measures 

does not satisfy the statutory 

requirement for prompt correction of 

violations under either the Tier I or Tier 

II response, that the contingency 

measures listed in the maintenance plan 

are ‘‘too vague,’’ and that the procedure 

for selecting contingency measures has 

not been provided. 

Response 5(b): EPA, consistent with 

its views set forth in many other 

redesignation rulemakings, believes that 

the contingency measures in the 

maintenance plan are adequate under 

section 175A(d). EPA therefore 

disagrees with the Commenter’s 

contention that the contingency 

measures are vague and do not provide 

for prompt correction of a NAAQS 

violation. Section 175A(d) of the CAA 

requires that a maintenance plan 

include such contingency provisions, 

‘‘as the Administrator deems 

necessary,’’ to assure that the state will 

promptly correct a violation of the 

NAAQS that occurs after redesignation 

of the area. See 42 U.S.C. 7505A(d). 

Unlike section 172(c)(9), which governs 

contingency measures for 

nonattainment areas, section 175A does 

not require the adoption of specific 

contingency measures that must take 

effect without further action by the State 

or EPA. Instead, Congress provided EPA 

with the discretion to determine the 

form and timing of the contingency that 

are required. Section 175A(d) provides 

leeway for EPA to take into account the 

need of a state to assess, adopt, and 

implement contingency measures if and 

when a violation occurs after an area’s 

redesignation to attainment. Therefore, 

in accordance with the discretion 

accorded it by statute, EPA may allow 

reasonable time for states to analyze 

data and address the causes and 

appropriate means of remedying a 

violation. In assessing what ‘‘promptly’’ 

means in this context, EPA also may 

take into account time for adopting and 

implementation of the appropriate 

measure. In the case of the Atlanta Area, 

EPA reasonably concluded that 18–24 

months constitutes a timeline consistent 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 72051 

11 In the context of this rulemaking, a future 

violation indicates that the Tier II trigger is 

activated. 

12Specifically, the ‘‘Tier I’’ response in the 

Atlanta maintenance plan is triggered: (1) when any 

quality-assured 8-hour ozone monitoring reading 

exceeds 0.084 ppm at an ambient air monitoring 

station in the Atlanta maintenance area; or (2) if the 

periodic emission inventory updates reveal 

excessive or unanticipated growth greater than 10 

percent in ozone precursors emissions in the 

Atlanta maintenance area. 

with prompt correction of a potential 

monitored violation. This timeframe 

also conforms with EPA’s many prior 

rulemakings on acceptable schedules for 

implementing section 175A contingency 

measures. EPA has long exercised this 

discretion in its rulemakings on section 

175A contingency measures in 

redesignation maintenance plans, 

allowing as contingency measures 

commitments to adopt and implement 

in lieu of fully adopted contingency 

measures, and finding that 

implementation within 18 to 24 months 

of a violation complies with the 

requirements of section 175A. See 

recent redesignations such as 

Indianapolis Area 1997 Annual PM2.5

standard (76 FR 59512, 59522 (Sept. 27, 

2011)); Baton Rouge Area 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard (76 FR 74000 (Nov. 30, 

2011) (final); 76 FR 53853, 53869 (Aug. 

30, 2011) (proposed)); Crittenden 

County, Arkansas portion of the 

Memphis Area 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard (75 FR 14077 (Mar. 24, 2010) 

(final); 75 FR 2091, 2100 (Jan. 14, 2010) 

(proposal)); 76 FR 79579, 79590 (Dec. 

22, 2011) (proposed)); HickoryMorganton-Lenoir Area 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 standard, 76 FR 71452 (Nov. 18, 

2011) (final); 76 FR 58210, 58222 (Sept. 

20, 2011) (proposed)). Section 175A 

does not establish any deadlines for 

implementation of contingency 

measures after redesignation to 

attainment. It also provides far more 

latitude than does section 172(c)(9), 

which applies to a different set of 

contingency measures applicable to 

nonattainment areas. Section 172(c)(9) 

contingency measures must ‘‘take effect 

. . . without further action by the State 

or [EPA].’’ 

EPA has consistently applied this 

interpretation of section 175A since its 

announcement in a September 4, 1992, 

Calcagni Memorandum (noting that a 

State is not required under 175A ‘‘to 

have fully adopted contingency 

measures that will take effect without 

further action by the State in order for 

the maintenance plan to be approved’’), 

and two U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal 

have agreed with the Agency. In 

Greenbaum v. EPA, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit endorsed 

the Calcagni Memorandum’s statements 

regarding contingency measures for 

175A maintenance plans and noted that 

EPA ‘‘has been granted broad discretion 

by Congress in determining what is 

‘necessary to assure’ prompt correction’’ 

under this section. 370 F.3d 527, 540 

(6th Cir. 2004). The Court also stated 

that ‘‘no pre-determined schedule for 

adoption of the measures is necessary in 

each specific case.’’ Id. In Sierra Club v. 

EPA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Seventh Circuit agreed with Greenbaum 

on these issues and identified the 

rationale behind the discretion afforded 

to EPA and the states in the timing and 

development of contingency measures, 

noting that ‘‘[i]ntelligent decisions may 

depend on the nature of future 

developments.’’ 375 F.3d 537, 540 (7th 

Cir. 2004) (also noting that the ‘‘statute 

does not call for any particular degree 

of precision in the period after 

attainment . . . so again, the EPA (and 

the affected states) had choices to make, 

choices that may be gainsaid only if 

obviously misguided.’’). The CAA does 

not specify the requisite nature, scope, 

specificity, or number of contingency 

measures to be included in a 

maintenance plan under section 175A. 

It is for EPA to determine whether the 

state has given adequate assurance that 

it can promptly correct a violation. The 

State has committed to remedy a future 

violation,11 and included measures to 

address future violations and a timeline 

for promptly completing adoption and 

implementation. For example, Georgia 

included a consideration of expansion 

of RACT for point sources of VOC and 

NOx, specifically the adoption of new 

and revised RACT rules based on 

Groups II, III and IV control technique 

guidelines (CTGs) as a possible 

contingency measure to implement. 

This identification of measures is 

sufficiently specific while allowing for 

latitude in potential scope. This will 

enable the State to address a range of 

potential sources and differing degrees 

and types of violations. EPA believes 

that the contingency measures set forth 

in the submittal, combined with the 

State’s commitment to an expeditious 

timeline and process for 

implementation, provide assurance that 

the State will promptly correct a future 

violation. Given the uncertainty as to 

timing, degree, and nature of any future 

violation, EPA believes that the 

contingency measures set forth 

adequately balance the need for 

flexibility in the scope and type of 

measure to be implemented with the 

need for expeditious state action. 

Given the discretion provided to EPA 

and the states under section 175A(d), 

the need for flexibility in developing 

appropriate contingency measures in 

light of potential future developments, 

and the need for an appropriate amount 

of time to develop and adopt these 

measures, EPA has determined that 

Georgia’s maintenance plan satisfies all 

applicable requirements. 

The maintenance plan for the Atlanta 

Area contains two different types of 

contingency measures. The ‘‘Tier I’’ 

response, is not required under section 

175A, and therefore not subject to its 

criteria. The Tier I response is triggered 

before any violation has occurred. It is 

designed not to correct a violation, but 

to anticipate and evaluate circumstances 

that may prefigure a violation.12

Georgia’s Tier II contingency 

measures, by contrast, are triggered by a 

violation of the NAAQS. It compels the 

State to first conduct a comprehensive 

study to determine what contingency 

measures are required for the 

maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. 

Georgia must submit this study to EPA 

for review as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than nine 

months after the trigger date. The State 

must adopt and implement measures 

within 18 to 24 months after the trigger 

occurs. In addition to setting these 

specific timing requirements, the 

maintenance plan (see page 37 of the 

narrative) also lists a number of 

measures (e.g., expansion of RACT for 

point sources of VOC and NOx, 

specifically the adoption of new and 

revised RACT rules based on Groups II, 

III and IV CTGs) that Georgia may select 

as a contingency measure (see the 

proposed rule for this action at 78 FR 

7716 for a complete list). In a September 

20, 2013 letter to EPA that has been 

placed in the docket for this action, GA 

EPD confirms that it commits to address 

and correct any violation of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as 

practicable, and no later than 24 months 

from trigger activation. For additional 

details pertaining to the State’s 

commitments regarding contingency 

measures, see the September 20, 2013 

letter from GA EPD, included in the 

rulemaking docket. For all of the 

reasons set forth above, EPA finds that, 

pursuant to CAA section 175A(d), the 

contingency measures included in the 

maintenance plan and the schedule for 

the development and adoption of 

measures are adequate to assure that the 

State will promptly correct any future 

violation of the NAAQS that may occur 

after redesignation. 

Comment 6: The Commenter contends 

that EPA cannot approve the 

redesignation request or maintenance 

plan without considering the impacts 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
72052 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

13EPA described its interpretation in a May 10, 

1995 memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

entitled ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment 

Demonstration, and Related Requirements for 

Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone 

Ambient Air Quality Standard’’ (hereafter referred 

to as the ‘‘Seitz Memorandum’’). See also the 

discussion and rulemakings cited in EPA’s Final 

Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS— 

Phase 2, 70 FR 71612, 71644–71646 (November 29, 

2005). The Tenth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits have 

upheld EPA rulemakings applying the Clean Data 

Policy. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F. 3d 1551 (10th 

Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th 

Cir. 2004); and Our Children’s Earth Foundation v. 

EPA, No. 04–73032 (9th Cir. June 28, 2005) 

(memorandum opinion). As explained in the Seitz 

Memorandum, EPA believes it is appropriate to 

interpret the more specific attainment 

demonstration and related provisions of subpart 2 

in the same manner. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 

F.3d. 1551 (10th Cir. 1996). 

that climate change will have on ozone 

formation during the maintenance 

period. The Commenter states that 

‘‘climate change will make our ozone 

problems worse’’ and cites to an April 

2009 EPA document for support. 

Response 6: EPA agrees that climate 

change is a serious environmental issue; 

however, EPA does not agree that the 

redesignation and maintenance plan at 

issue in today’s notice are flawed 

because they do not specifically 

consider the impacts of climate change 

on future ozone concentrations. Given 

the potential wide-ranging impacts of 

climate change on air quality planning, 

EPA is developing climate adaptation 

implementation plans to assess the key 

vulnerabilities to our programs 

(including how climate change might 

affect attainment of national ambient air 

quality standards) and to identify 

priority actions to minimize these 

vulnerabilities. With respect to climate 

impacts on future ozone levels, EPA’s 

Office of Air and Radiation has 

identified as a priority action the need 

to adjust air quality modeling tools and 

guidance as necessary to account for 

climate-driven changes in 

meteorological conditions and 

meteorologically-dependent emissions. 

However, the broad range of potential 

future climate outcomes and variability 

of projected response to these outcomes 

limits EPA’s ability, at this time, to 

translate a general expectation that 

average ozone levels will increase with 

rising temperatures to specific 

‘‘actionable’’ SIP policies at any specific 

location. Additionally, EPA believes 

that the natural variability in 

meteorological patterns will have a 

larger influence on ozone 

concentrations than climate influences 

over the relatively short-term SIP 

maintenance period. Thus, EPA believes 

it is appropriate to rely upon the 

existing air quality modeling tools and 

guidance and applicable CAA 

provisions to ensure that ozone 

maintenance areas do not violate the 

NAAQS (as a result of climate change or 

any other cause). In addition, in spite of 

the uncertainty associated with shortterm climate change impacts on ozone 

concentrations, the projected emissions 

reductions of 50 percent for NOx and 12 

percent for VOC in the Atlanta Area 

over the next 10 years are so large that 

they would overwhelm any potential 

climate change impacts on ozone. EPA 

therefore believes that climate change 

will not impact the ability of the Atlanta 

Area to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

Comment 7: The Commenter asserts 

that EPA cannot redesignate the Atlanta 

Area or approve the maintenance plan 

because the Area ‘‘does not have SIP 

approved contingency measures for 

VOCs and NOx, an attainment 

demonstration and reasonable further 

progress for VOC and NOx.’’ According 

to the Commenter, ‘‘the contingency 

measures should have already been 

triggered or at most may be triggered 

this year if Metro-Atlanta’s design value 

exceeds 0.084 ppm’’ which 

distinguishes the Atlanta Area from 

prior actions where ‘‘EPA has claimed 

that these provisions do not matter 

because if any area is attaining, these 

requirements would not apply anyway.’’ 

The Commenter believes that ‘‘all 

provisions that were in the 

nonattainment SIP would need to 

become applicable again’’ if the Area 

violates the NAAQS in the future, and 

that ‘‘under EPA’s interpretation, there 

are no provisions that were in the SIP 

before redesignation that will become 

effective again if the area falls out of 

compliance with the NAAQS.’’ 

Response 7: On June 23, 2011 (76 FR 

36873), EPA determined that the Atlanta 

Area had attained the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS based on 2008–2010 

monitoring data. Under 40 CFR 51.918, 

upon a finding that the area is attaining 

the standard, requirements for SIP 

submissions linked to attainment 

demonstrations, RFP, and attainment 

plan contingency measures are 

suspended for so long as the area is 

attaining the standard.13

In addition, in the context of 

redesignations, EPA has long 

interpreted requirements related to 

attainment planning (e.g., attainment 

demonstrations, RFP, and attainment 

plan contingency measures) as not 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. In the General Preamble 

EPA stated that: [t]he section 172(c)(9) 

requirements are directed at ensuring 

reasonable further progress (RFP) and 

attainment by the applicable date. These 

requirements no longer apply when an 

area has attained the standard and is 

eligible for redesignation. Furthermore, 

section 175A for maintenance plans 

provides specific requirements for 

contingency measures that effectively 

supersede the requirements of section 

172(c)(9) for these areas. ‘‘General 

Preamble for the Interpretation of Title 

I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990,’’ (General Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 

13564 (April 16, 1992). See also 

Calcagni Memorandum (dated 9/4/1992) 

at page 6. (‘‘The requirements for 

reasonable further progress and other 

measures needed for attainment will not 

apply for redesignations because they 

only have meaning for areas not 

attaining the standard.’’). 

In any event, EPA has previously 

determined that the Atlanta Area 

attained by its attainment date (77 FR 

13491), and therefore, no contingency 

measures under the requirements of 

section 172(c)(9) can be triggered, since 

those ‘‘contingency measures are 

directed at ensuring RFP and attainment 

by the applicable date.’’ Id. at 13564. 

The State must continue to operate an 

appropriate monitoring network, in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to 

verify the attainment status of the Area. 

The air quality data relied upon to 

determine that the Area is attaining the 

ozone standard must be consistent with 

40 CFR part 58 requirements and other 

relevant EPA guidance and recorded in 

EPA’s AQS. 

As stated in Response 1, the Area 

remains in attainment of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, and the 2010— 

2012 quality-assured three-year design 

value remains below 0.084 ppm. 

Preliminary data for 2013 show 

continued attainment; therefore, no 

additional measures have been 

triggered. Even if approved section 

172(c)(9) contingency measures were 

contained in the SIP, these measures are 

undertaken solely to address a failure to 

attain by the Area’s attainment date. For 

an area like the Atlanta Area that has 

attained by its attainment date, no 

172(c)(9) contingency measures would 

be triggered by a violation that occurred 

subsequently. After attainment, section 

172(c)(9) contingency measures are no 

longer deployed. Because the Area 

qualifies for redesignation, the 175A 

maintenance plan approved today 

ensures that GA EPD will adopt and 

implement any required measures in 

accordance with the schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation of contingency 

measures.’’ See 78 FR 7705. 

Comment 8: The Commenter states 

that ‘‘EPA has failed to conduct an 

adequate analysis with respect to the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 72053 

14EPA notes that the Atlanta Area does not have 

violating monitors for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1- 

hour NOX NAAQS, the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and 

that this Area has never been designated 

nonattainment for 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

1-hour NOX NAAQS, or the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1-hour NOX

NAAQS, the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS’’ and 

that without such an analysis, ‘‘EPA 

cannot ensure that redesignation will 

not interfere with attainment of these 

NAAQS and thus cannot approve the 

redesignation.’’ The Commenter 

continues by stating ‘‘EPA’s 

redesignation of Metro-Atlanta will 

delay attainment of the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS because the 2012 ambient data 

proved that the current emission limits 

are not adequate to maintain the 1997 

NAAQS much less the 2008 NAAQS. 

Thus, if EPA does not approve the 

redesignation request, Georgia EPD will 

have to provide for additional emission 

reductions of ozone precursors. These 

emission reductions will assist in 

attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS as 

quickly as possible.’’ 

Response 8: First, as set forth earlier 

in other responses to comments, the 

2012 data do not ‘‘prove that the current 

emissions limits are not adequate to 

maintain the 1997 NAAQS . . . .’’ The 

data for 2012 establish, and preliminary 

data for 2013 also indicate, that current 

emissions levels are consistent with 

continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. EPA does not agree that 

additional emissions reductions are 

required in order for the Area to qualify 

for redesignation. EPA has also 

evaluated the redesignation in relation 

to the requirements of section 110(l) and 

believes that redesignation is consistent 

with the provisions of that section. 

Section 110(l) provides in part: ‘‘[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.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). EPA does 

not believe it is necessary to conduct an 

analysis with respect to the impact of 

the redesignation on the 1997 annual 

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

NAAQS, the 1-hour NOX NAAQS, the 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Although EPA does not 

interpret section 110(l) as requiring a 

full attainment demonstration for every 

SIP revision, the Agency does consider 

section 110(l) requirements when acting 

on each SIP revision. See, e.g., 70 FR 53, 

57 (January 3, 2005); 70 FR 17029, 

17033 (April 4, 2005); 70 FR 28429, 

28431 (May 18, 2005); and 70 FR 58119, 

58134 (October 5, 2005). In this 

instance, the redesignation does not 

relax any existing control requirements, 

nor does it alter any existing control 

requirements, and therefore, EPA 

concludes that this redesignation will 

not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of any of these air quality 

standards. The Commenter did not 

provide any information that would 

cause EPA to conclude that approval of 

Georgia’s redesignation will have any 

impact on the Area’s ability to comply 

with the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1-hour 

NOX NAAQS, the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, 

and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

As set forth above, Georgia’s April 4, 

2012, redesignation request and 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS do not revise or remove 

any existing emissions limit for any 

NAAQS or remove any other existing 

substantive SIP provisions. In fact, the 

maintenance plan provided with the 

State’s submission demonstrates a 

decline in the ozone precursors (e.g., 

NOX and VOC) emissions over the 

timeframe of the initial maintenance 

period.14 Furthermore, EPA designated 

15 of the 20 counties in the 1997 8-hour 

ozone area as nonattainment for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. With this 

nonattainment designation, EPA notes 

that, even after the redesignation of the 

Atlanta Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, 15 of these counties will 

continue to have to comply with 

nonattainment new source review 

requirements for ozone. For all of these 

reasons, EPA disagrees that the 

Commenter has identified a rationale on 

which EPA could disapprove of the SIP 

revision at issue. 

IV. Why is EPA taking these actions? 

EPA has determined that the Atlanta 

Area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and has also determined that 

all other criteria for the redesignation of 

the Atlanta Area from nonattainment to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS have been met. See CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E). One of those 

requirements is that the Atlanta Area 

has an approved plan demonstrating 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. EPA is also taking final action 

to approve the maintenance plan for the 

Atlanta Area as meeting the 

requirements of sections 175A and 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is also 

approving the new NOX and VOC 

MVEBs for the year 2024 as contained 

in Georgia’s maintenance plan for the 

Atlanta Area because these MVEBs are 

consistent with maintenance of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Area. The 

detailed rationale for EPA’s findings and 

actions is set forth in the February 4, 

2013, proposed rulemaking and in the 

Reponses to Comments and other 

discussion in this final rulemaking. 

V. What are the effects of these actions? 

Approval of the redesignation request 

changes the legal designation of the 

Atlanta Area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. EPA is modifying the 

regulatory table in 40 CFR 81.341 to 

reflect a designation of attainment for 

the counties. EPA is also approving, as 

a revision to the Georgia SIP, the State’s 

plan for maintaining the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in the Atlanta Area 

through 2024. The maintenance plan 

includes contingency measures to 

remedy possible future violations of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and 

establishes NOX and VOC MVEBs for 

the year 2024 for the Atlanta Area. 

VI. Final Action 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

the State of Georgia’s request for 

redesignation and change the legal 

designation the Atlanta Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Through 

this action, EPA is also approving into 

the Georgia SIP the 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan for the Atlanta Area, 

which includes for this Area the new 

NOX and VOC MVEB for 2024 for the 

Atlanta Area of 126 tpd and 92 tpd, 

respectively. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of the 

maintenance plan under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

required by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

impose any new requirements, but 

rather results in the application of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, 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. Accordingly, these actions 

merely approve state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and do not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
72054 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

imposed by state or federal law. For 

these reasons, these actions: 

• Are 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); 

• do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• are 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.); 

• do 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); 

• do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• are not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• are not significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• are 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, 

• do 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 31, 2014. 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 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. 

Dated: November 14, 2013. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart L—Georgia 

■ 2. Section 52.570(e) is amended by 

adding an entry for ‘‘1997 8-hour ozone 

Maintenance Plan for the Atlanta Area’’ 

at the end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.570 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED GEORGIA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

submittal 

date/ 

effective date 

EPA approval 

date Explanation 

*******

1997 8-hour ozone Maintenance Plan for the 

Atlanta Area.

Atlanta 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment 

Area.

4/4/2012 12/2/2013 

* * * * * 

PART 81–DESIGNATION OF AREAS 

FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

PURPOSES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 4. In § 81.311, the table entitled 

‘‘Georgia-1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

(Primary and Secondary)’’ is amended 

under ‘‘Atlanta, GA’’ by revising the 

entries for ‘‘Barrow County,’’ ‘‘Bartow 

County,’’ ‘‘Carroll County,’’ ‘‘Cherokee 

County,’’ ‘‘Clayton County,’’ ‘‘Cobb 

County,’’ ‘‘Coweta County,’’ ‘‘DeKalb 

County,’’ ‘‘Douglas County,’’ ‘‘Fayette 

County,’’ ‘‘Forsyth County,’’ ‘‘Fulton 

County,’’ ‘‘Gwinnett County,’’ ‘‘Hall 

County,’’ ‘‘Henry County,’’ ‘‘Newton 

County,’’ ‘‘Paulding County,’’ ‘‘Rockdale 

County,’’ ‘‘Spalding County’’ and 

‘‘Walton County’’ to read as follows: 

§ 81.311 Georgia. 

* * * * * 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 72055 

GEORGIA-1997 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation a Category/classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

Atlanta, GA: 

Barrow County ................................................. This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment. 

Bartow County ................................................. This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment. 

Carroll County .................................................. This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment. 

Cherokee County ............................................. This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment. 

Clayton County ................................................ This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment. 

Cobb County .................................................... This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment. 

Coweta County ................................................ This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment.

DeKalb County ................................................. This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment. 

Douglas County ............................................... This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment.

Fayette County ................................................ This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment. 

Forsyth County ................................................ This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment. 

Fulton County .................................................. This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment. 

Gwinnett County .............................................. This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment.

Hall County ...................................................... This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment. 

Henry County ................................................... This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment. 

Newton County ................................................ This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment.

Paulding County .............................................. This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment.

Rockdale County ............................................. This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment. 

Spalding County .............................................. This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment.

Walton County ................................................. This action is effective 12/2/13 ....................... Attainment. 

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. 

2Effective April 15, 2008. 

3The boundary change is effective October 13, 2006. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–28105 Filed 11–29–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES