# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 77 Fed. Reg. 3213 2012

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Fri Oct 3 13:28:11 2014

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

### Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 14/Monday, January 23, 2012/Proposed Rules

emissions from industrialboilers and
process heaters at petroleum refineries in Delaware, 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 thatit will not impose substantial direct costs ontribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in40 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority:42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq.
Dated: January 3, 2012. W.C. Early, Acting,Regional Administrator, RegionIIL
[FRDoe. 2012-1225 Filed 1-20-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0353-201122; FRL9621-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee; 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements forthe 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient AirQuality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the state implementation plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department ofEnvironment and Conservation (TDEC), to demonstrate that the State meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) withrespect to sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) forthe 1997 8-hourozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) ofthe CAA requiresthat each
state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement ofeach NAAQS promulgated by theEPA, which is commonly referred to as an "infrastructure" SIP. TDEC certified that the Tennessee SIP contains provisions that ensure the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and maintained in Tennessee (hereafter referred to as "infrastructure submission"). Tennessee's infrastructure submission, provided to EPA on December 14, 2007, and clarified in a subsequent May 28, 2009, submission, addressed the required infrastructure elements for the 1997 8- hour ozone NAAQS, however the subject ofthis notice is limited to infrastructure elements 110(a)(2)(C) and (J). All other applicable Tennessee infrastructure elements willbe addressed in a separate rulemaking. DATES: Written comments must be received on orbefore February 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.EPA-R04- OAR-2011-0353, by one ofthe following methods: 1. www.regulations.gov:Followthe on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

2. Email:benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. 3.Fax:(404) 562-9019. 4. Mail:"EPA-R04-OAR-2011- 0353," Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

5. HandDeliveryorCourier: Lynorae Benjamin, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours ofbusiness are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2011- 0353. EPA's policy is that all comments received willbe included in the public docket without change andmay be made available online at www.regulations.gov,including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.govor email, information thatyou consider tobe CBI

or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.govWeb siteis an "anonymous access" system, which

means EPA will notknow your identity

or contact information unless you provide itin thebody ofyour comment. Ifyou send an email comment directly
to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,your email address will be automatically captured and included as part ofthe comment that isplaced in the public docket and made available on the Internet. Ifyou submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends thatyou include your

name and other contact information in thebody ofyour comment andwith any disk orCD-ROM you submit. IfEPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may notbe able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, andbe free ofany defects or viruses. Foradditional information about EPA's public docketvisit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http:// www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket:Alldocuments in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.govor 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 thatifat all possible,you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to scheduleyour inspection. The Regional Office's official hours ofbusiness are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9140. Ms. Ward canbe reached via electronic mail at ward.nacosta@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table ofContents

I.Background 

### II.What elements arerequiredunder sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? III. Scope ofInfrastructure SIPs IV.What isEPA's analysis ofhowTennessee addressed the elements (C)and (J)of Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) "Infrastructure" provisions? V.Proposed Action VI. Statutory and Executive OrderReviews 

### 3213

### Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 14/Monday, January 23, 2012/Proposed Rules

I. Background

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a

new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour average concentrations. The 8-hour averaging period replaced theprevious 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm)to 0.08 ppm. See62 FR 38856. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) ofthe CAA, states are required
to submit SIPs meeting the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2) withinthree years afterpromulgation ofa new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) requires
states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance ofthe NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2000. However, intervening litigation over the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS created uncertainty about howto proceed and
many states did not provide the required "infrastructure" SIP submission for these newly promulgated NAAQS.

On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice submitted anotice ofintent to sue related to EPA's failure to issue findings offailure to submitrelated to the "infrastructure" requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA entered into a consent decree with Earthjustice which required EPA, among other things, to complete aFederal Register notice announcing EPA's determinations pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) as to whether each state had made complete submissions to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by December 15, 2007. Subsequently, EPA received an extension ofthe date to complete this FederalRegister notice until March 17, 2008, based upon agreement to make the findings with respect to submissions made byJanuary 7, 2008. In accordance with the consent decree, EPA made completeness findings for each state based upon what the Agency received from each state as ofJanuary 7, 2008.

On March 27, 2008, EPA published a final rulemaking entitled, "Completeness Findings for Section 110(a)State Implementation Plans; 8- hour ozone NAAQS," making a finding that each state had submitted or failed
to submit a complete SIP that provided thebasic program elements ofsection 110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 73FR 16205. For those states that did receive findings, such as Tennessee, the findings offailure to submit for all or a portion ofa state's implementation plan established a 24-month deadline for EPA topromulgate a Federal Implementation Plan to address the outstanding SIP elements unless, prior
to thattime, the affected states submitted, and EPA approved, the required SIPs. However, the findings of failure to submit did notimpose sanctions or set deadlines for imposing sanctions as described in section 179 of the CAA,because these findings do not pertain to the elements contained in the Title I part D plan fornonattainment

areas as required under section 110(a)(2)(I). Additionally, the findings offailure to submit for the infrastructure submittals are not a SIP call pursuant to section 110(k)(5).

The findings that all or portions ofa state's submission are complete established a 12-month deadline for EPA totake actionupon the complete SIP elements in accordance with section 110(k). Tennessee's infrastructure submission was received by EPA on December 14, 2007, and was determined
to be complete on March 27, 2008, for all elements withthe exception of 110(a)(2)(C) and (J). Tennessee was among other states thatreceived a finding offailure to submit because its infrastructure submission was not complete for elements (C) and (J)for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by March 1, 2008. Specifically, the Tennessee infrastructure submission did not address the part C Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program requirements promulgated in the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Implementation Rule New Source Review (NSR)Update-Phase 2final rule (hereafterreferred to as the Ozone Implementation NSR Update) recognizing nitrogen oxide (NOx) as an

ozone precursor. See 70 FR 71612, (November 29, 2005). On May 28, 2009, TDEC submitted a SIP revision to EPA for federal approval which included revisions to Chapter 1200-03-09 ofthe Tennessee NSR program that address changes promulgated in the Ozone Implementation NSR Update. On December 5, 2011, EPAproposed to approve Tennessee's May 28, 2009, SIP revision. See 76 FR 75845. EPA is moving forward with final action on Tennessee's May 28, 2009, SIP revision in an action separate from today's action. Today's action isproposing to approve Tennessee's infrastructure submission for which EPA made the findings offailure to submit on March 27, 2008. This action is not approving any specific rule, but ratherproposing that Tennessee's SIP, once two separate proposed revisions have been incorporated, meets certain CAA requirements. As discussed further below, final approval oftoday's proposed rule is contingent upon the Agency first taking final action to approve Tennessee's Ozone Implementation NSR Update (76 FR 75845) and PSD Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule Revision (75 FR 68265). As such, final action approving Tennessee's infrastructure submission with respect to infrastructure elements 110(a)(2)(C) and (J)willnot occur prior
to those revisions being approved in the SIP.

II. Whatelements are requiredunder sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

Section 110(a) ofthe CAA requires
states to submit SIPs to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement ofa new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of suchNAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new orrevised NAAQS, but the contents ofthat submission mayvary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at thetime the state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content ofthe submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may alsovary depending
upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains. In the

case ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
states typically have met thebasic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous ozone NAAQS.

More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for "infrastructure" SIP requirements related to anewly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these requirements include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories thatare designed
to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements that are the subject ofthisproposed rulemaking

are listedbelow' and inEPA's October

'Two elements identified insection 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three year submission deadline ofsection 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating
necessary local nonattainment area controls arenot duewithin three years after promulgation ofa new

or revised NAAQS, butrather dueat the time the nonattainment area plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. Theserequirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the
extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required in partD Title I ofthe CAA; and (2) 

### 3214

### Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 14/Monday, January 23, 2012/Proposed Rules

2, 2007, memorandum entitled "Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2)for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2. 5National Ambient Air Quality Standards."

* 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.

* 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.

* 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement ofcontrol measures. 2

* 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.3

* 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources. * 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.

* 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power. * 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. * 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the applicable requirements ofpart D.4

* 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials; public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.

* 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/ data.

* 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. * 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ participation by affected local entities.

III. Scope of InfrastructureSIPs

EPA iscurrently acting upon SIPs that address the infrastructure requirements ofCAA section 110(a)(1) and (2)for

ozone and PM2. 5NAAQS for various
states across the country. Commenters

on EPA's recent proposals for some

submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements ofpart D, Title I of the CAA. Today's proposed rulemaking does not address infrastructure elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of 110(a)(2)(C).

2 This rulemaking only addresses requirements
for this element asthey relate to attainment areas.

3 Today's proposedrule does not address element 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (Interstate Transport) for the 1997 8- hour ozone NAAQS. Interstate transport requirements were formerly addressedby Tennessee consistent with the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). OnDecember 23, 2008, CAIR was remanded by the DC Circuit Court ofAppeals, without vacatur, back to EPA. See North Carolina

v. EPA,531 F.3d 896 (DC Cir. 2008). Priorto this remand, EPA tookfinal action to approve Tennessee's SIPrevision, which was submitted to comply with CAIR. See 72 FR 46388 (August 20, 2007). In so doing, Tennessee's CAIR SIP revision addressed the interstate transport provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In response to the remand ofCAIR, EPA has promulgated a newrule to address the interstate transport. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) ("the Transport Rule"). That rule was recently stayed by the DC Circuit Court ofAppeals. EPA's action on element 110(a)(2)(D)(i) willbe addressed in a separate action.

4This requirement was inadvertently omitted from EPA's October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled "Guidance on SIPElements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM25 NationalAmbient Air Quality Standards," but as mentioned aboveis notrelevant
to today's proposed rulemaking. states raised concerns about EPA
statements thatit was not addressing certain substantive issues in the context ofacting on those infrastructure SIP submissions. 5Those Commenters specifically raised concerns involving provisions in existing SIPs and with EPA's statements in otherproposals that it would address two issues separately and not as part ofactions on the infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources, that maybe contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (SSM); and (ii)existing provisions related to "director's variance" or "director's discretion" that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions limits with limited public process or withoutrequiring further approval by EPA, thatmay be contrary to the CAA (director's discretion). EPA notes thatthere are two other substantive issues for which EPA likewise stated in other proposals thatit would address the issues separately: (i) Existing provisions for minor source

new source review programs thatmay be inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs (minorsource NSR); and (ii)existing provisions for PSD programs that maybe inconsistent with current requirements ofEPA's "Final NSR Improvement Rule," 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR Reform). In light ofthe comments, EPA believes that its statements invarious proposed actions on infrastructure SIPs with respect tothese four individual issues shouldbe explained in greater depth. It is important to emphasize that EPA istaking the same position with respect to these four substantive issues in this action on the infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS from Tennessee.

EPA intended the statements in the other proposals concerning these four issues merely tobe informational, and
to provide general notice ofthe potential existence ofprovisions within the existing SIPs of some states that might require future corrective action. EPA did not want states, regulated entities, or members ofthe publicto be under the misconception that the

5See Comments ofMidwest Environmental Defense Center, datedMay 31, 2011. Docket # EPARO5-OAR-2007-1179 (adverse comments on proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes that thesepublic comments on another proposal are notrelevant to this rulemaking and do not have to be directly addressed inthis rulemaking. EPA will respond to these comments inthe appropriate rulemaking actionto which they apply. Agency's approval ofthe infrastructure SIP submission ofa given state should be interpreted as a re-approval ofcertain types ofprovisions thatmight exist buried in the larger existing SIP for such
state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly noted that the Agency believes that

some states may have existing SIP approved SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and EPApolicy, but that "in this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state provisions withregard to

excess emissions during SSM of operations at facilities." EPA further explained, for informational purposes, that "EPA plans to address such State regulations in the future." EPA made similar statements, for similar reasons, with respect to the director's discretion, minor source NSR, and NSR Reform issues. EPA's objective was to make clear that approval ofan infrastructure SIP for these ozone andPM 2
.5NAAQS should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval ofany existing provisions that relate to these four substantive issues. EPA is reiterating that position in this action on the infrastructure SIP for Tennessee.

Unfortunately, the Commenters and others evidently interpreted these
statements to mean thatEPA considered actionupon the SSM provisions andthe other three substantive issues to be integral parts of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, and therefore thatEPA was merely postponing taking final action on the issues in the context ofthe infrastructure SIPs. This was notEPA's intention. To the contrary, EPA only
meant to convey its awareness ofthe potential for certain types of deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to prevent any misunderstanding thatit

was reapproving any such existing provisions. EPA's intention was to convey its position thatthe statute does
not require that infrastructure SIPs address these specific substantive issues in existing SIPs and thatthese issues
may be dealt with separately, outside the context ofacting onthe infrastructure SIP submission ofa state. To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply that itwas not taking afull final agency action on the infrastructure SIP submission withrespect to any substantive issue that EPA considers to be a required part ofacting on such submissions under section 110(k) or under section 110(c). Given the confusion evidently resulting from EPA's statements in those other proposals, however, we want to explain

more fully the Agency's reasons for concluding that these fourpotential 

### 3215

### Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 14/Monday, January 23, 2012/Proposed Rules

substantive issues in existing SIPs may be addressed separately from actions on infrastructure SIP submissions.

The requirement for the SIP submissions at issue arises out ofCAA section 110(a)(1). Thatprovision requires that states must make a SIP submission "within 3years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation ofa national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof)" and that these SIPs are to provide for the "implementation, maintenance, and enforcement" of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list ofspecific elements that "[e]ach suchplan" submission must meet. EPAhas historically referred tothese particular submissions that states must make after the promulgation ofa new or revised NAAQS as "infrastructure SIPs." This specific term does not appear in the statute, but EPAuses the term to distinguish this particular type ofSIP submission designed to address basic structural requirements ofa SIP from other types ofSIP submissions designed
to address other different requirements, such as "nonattainment SIP" submissions required to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, "regional haze SIP" submissions required to address the visibility protection requirements ofCAA section 169A, NSR permitting program submissions required to address the requirements ofpart D, and a host of other specific types ofSIP submissions that address other specific matters.

Although section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for these infrastructure SIPs, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning therequired contents of these infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes that many ofthe specific statutory provisions are facially ambiguous. In particular, the list ofrequired elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety ofdisparate provisions,

some ofwhich pertain to required legal authority, some ofwhich pertain to required substantive provisions, and

some ofwhich pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive provisions. 6 Some ofthe elements of section 110(a)(2) are relatively straightforward, but others clearly require interpretation by EPA through

6For example, section 110(a)(2)(E)provides that

states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority understate and local law
to carry outthe SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that statesmust have a substantive program to address certain sources asrequired bypart C ofthe CAA; section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have both legal authorityto address emergencies and substantive contingency plans in the event of such an emergency. rulemaking, or recommendations through guidance, in order to give specific meaning for a particular NAAQS. 7

Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) provides that "each" SIP submission
must meet the list ofrequirements therein, EPA has longnoted that this literal reading ofthe statute is internally inconsistent, insofar as section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements that could not be met

on the schedule provided for these SIP submissions in section 110(a)(1).8 This illustrates thatEPA must determine which provisions ofsection 110(a)(2) may be applicable for a given infrastructure SIP submission. Similarly, EPAhas previously decided that itcould take action on different parts ofthe larger, general "infrastructure SIP" for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on all subsections, such as section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), because the Agency bifurcated the action on these latter "interstate transport" provisions within section 110(a)(2) and worked with states to address each ofthe four prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with substantive administrative actions proceeding on different tracks with different schedules. 9This illustrates that EPA
may conclude that subdividing the applicable requirements ofsection 110(a)(2) into separate SIP actions may sometimes be appropriate for a given NAAQS where a specific substantive action is necessitated, beyond a mere submission addressingbasic structural aspects ofthe state's implementation plans. Finally, EPA notes that not every element ofsection 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in

7Forexample, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires EPA to be surethat each state's SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other states. This provision contains numerous terms that require substantial rulemaking by EPA in order to determine such basic points as what constitutes significant contribution. See "Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport ofFine Particulate Matter and Ozone (CleanAir InterstateRule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; FinalRule," 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase "contribute significantly to nonattainment").

8 See id., 70 FR 25162, at 63-65 (May 12, 2005) (explainingrelationship between timing requirement ofsection 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2) (1)).

9EPA issued separate guidance to states with respect to SIP submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See "Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards," from William T. Harnett, Director AirQuality Policy Division OAQPS, to Regional AirDivision Director, Regions I-X, datedAugust 15, 2006. the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS and the attendant infrastructure SIP submission for that NAAQS. For example, the monitoring requirements that mightbe necessary for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could be very different thanwhat might be necessary for a different pollutant. Thus, the content ofan infrastructure SIP submission to meetthis element from a state mightbe very different for

an entirely new NAAQS, versus aminor revision to an existing NAAQS. 1 0 Similarly, EPA notes that other types ofSIP submissions required under the
statute also must meetthe requirements of section 110(a)(2), and this also demonstrates the need to identify the applicable elements for other SIP submissions. For example, nonattainment SIPs required by part D likewise have to meet the relevant subsections ofsection 110(a)(2) such as section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, it is clear thatnonattainment SIPs would not need tomeetthe portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part C, i.e.,the PSD requirements applicable in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs required bypart D also would not need to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) withrespect to emergency episodes, as such requirements would
not be limited tononattainment areas. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some subsections ofsection 110(a)(2) and not others.

Given the potential for ambiguity of the statutory language ofsection 110(a)(1) and (2), EPAbelieves that itis appropriate for EPA to interpret that language in the context ofacting onthe infrastructure SIPs for agiven NAAQS. Because ofthe inherent ambiguity ofthe list ofrequirements in section 110(a)(2), EPA has adopted an approach inwhich it reviews infrastructure SIPs against this list ofelements "as applicable." In other words, EPA assumes thatCongress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless ofthe
purpose ofthe submission or the NAAQS in question, would meet each ofthe requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. EPA elected to

use guidance to make recommendations for infrastructure SIPs for these ozone and PM2
. 5 NAAQS.
On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance making recommendations for the infrastructure SIP submissions for both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and

10Forexample, implementation of the 1997 PM2 .5 NAAQS required the deployment ofa system of

new monitors to measure ambient levels ofthat new indicator species forthe newNAAQS. 

### 3216

### Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 14/Monday, January 23, 2012/Proposed Rules

the 1997 PM2. 5 NAAQS. " Within this guidance document, EPA described the duty ofstates to make these submissions
to meet what the Agency characterized

asthe "infrastructure" elements for SIPs, which itfurther described asthe "basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance ofthe standards." 12 As further identification ofthese basic structural SIP requirements, "attachment A" to the guidance document included a short description ofthe various elements ofsection 110(a)(2) and additional information about the types ofissues thatEPA considered germane in the context of suchinfrastructure SIPs. EPA emphasized that the description ofthe basic requirements listed on attachment A was not intended "to constitute an interpretation of" the requirements, and

was merely a "briefdescription ofthe required elements." 13 EPA also stated its beliefthat with one exception, these requirements were "relatively self explanatory, and past experience with SIPs for other NAAQS should enable States to meetthese requirements with assistance from EPA Regions." 14 However, for the one exception to that general assumption (i.e.,how states should proceed withrespect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2. 5NAAQS), EPA gave much more specific recommendations. But for other infrastructure SIP submittals, and for certain elements of the submittals for the 1997 PM2. 5 NAAQS, EPA assumed that each State would work with its corresponding EPA regional office torefine the scope ofa State's submittal based on an assessment ofhow therequirements of section 110(a)(2) should reasonably apply to thebasic structure ofthe State's implementation plans for the NAAQS in question.

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued guidance to make recommendations to states withrespect to the infrastructure

11

See "Guidance on SIPElements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient AirQuality Standards," from William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to AirDivisionDirectors, Regions I-X, dated October 2, 2007 (the "2007 Guidance").

12Id., at page2. 13

Id., at attachment A, page 1. 14

Id., at page4. Inretrospect, the concerns raised by commenters with respect to EPA's approach to

some substantive issues indicates that the statute is
not so "self explanatory," and indeed is sufficiently ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it inorder
to explain why these substantive issues do notneed
to be addressed inthe context ofinfrastructure SIPs and maybe addressed at other times and by other

means. SIPs for the 2006PM 2.5NAAQS. 15 In the 2009 Guidance, EPA addressed a number ofadditional issues thatwere not germane to the infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2
. 5NAAQS, but were germane to these SIP submissions for the 2006 PM2. 5NAAQS (e.g.,the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) thatEPA had bifurcated from the other infrastructure elements for those specific 1997 ozone and PM2. 5NAAQS). Significantly, neither the 2007 Guidance nor the 2009 Guidance explicitly referred to the SSM, director's discretion, minor source NSR,

or NSR Reform issues as among specific substantive issues EPA expected states to address in the context ofthe infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give any more specific recommendations with respect to how states might address such issues even ifthey elected to do so. The SSM and director's discretion issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), and the minor source NSR and NSR Reform issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007Guidance and the 2009 Guidance, however, EPA did
not indicate to states that itintended to interpret these provisions as requiring a substantive submission to address these specific issues in existing SIP provisions in the context ofthe infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA's 2007 Guidance merely indicated its belief that the states shouldmake submissions in which they established thatthey have the basic SIP structure necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. EPAbelieves that states can establish that theyhave the basic SIP structure, notwithstanding thatthere
may be potential deficiencies within the existing SIP. Thus, EPA's proposals for other states mentioned these issues not because the Agency considers them issues thatmust be addressed in the
context ofan infrastructure SIP as required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), butrather because EPA wanted tobe clear thatit considers these potential existing SIP problems as separate from the pending infrastructure SIP actions. The same holds true for this action on the infrastructure SIPs for Tennessee.

EPA believes thatthis approach to the infrastructure SIP requirement is reasonable because itwould not be feasible to read section 110(a)(1) and (2)
to require a top tobottom, stem to stern, review ofeach and every provision ofan existing SIP merely forpurposes of

15 See "Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24- HourFine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)," from William T, Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to Regional AirDivision Directors, Regions I-X, dated September 25, 2009 (the "2009 Guidance"). assuring that the state in questionhas the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory andregulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include

some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts that, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may notpose a significant problem for the purposes of "implementation, maintenance, and enforcement" ofa new or revised NAAQS when EPA considers the overall effectiveness ofthe SIP. To the contrary, EPA believes that a better approach is for EPA to determine which specific SIP elements from section 110(a)(2) are applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a given NAAQS, and to focus attention on those elements that are mostlikely to need a specific SIP revision in light of the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for example, EPA's 2007 Guidance specifically directed states to focus on the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 p.m. 2.5NAAQS because of the absence ofunderlying EPA regulations for emergency episodes for this NAAQS and an anticipated absence ofrelevant provisions in existing SIPs.

Finally, EPA believes thatits approach is a reasonable reading of section 110(a)(1) and (2)because the
statute provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the Agency to take appropriate tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity ofthe alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a "SIP call" whenever the Agency determines thata state's SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or otherwise to comply with the CAA.16 Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct

errors in pastactions, such aspast approvals ofSIP submissions.17

16EPA has recently issued a SIP callto rectify a specific SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. See, "Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call forUtah State Implementation Plan Revision," 76FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).

17

EPA has recently utilized this authorityto correct errors inpast actions on SIPsubmissions related to PSDprograms. See "Limitation of Approval ofPrevention ofSignificant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans; FinalRule," 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6)
to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had approved in error. See 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 Continued



### 3217

### Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 14/Monday, January 23, 2012/Proposed Rules

Significantly, EPA's determination that

an action on the infrastructure SIP is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP problems does not preclude the Agency's subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action at a latertime. For example, although it may notbe appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion provisions inthe

course ofacting on the infrastructure SIP, EPAbelieves that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases thatthe Agency cites in the course ofaddressing the issue in a subsequent action.18

IV. Whatis EPA's analysis ofhow Tennessee addressedthe elements (C) and (J) ofsections 110(a)(1) and(2) "infrastructure"provisions?

The Tennessee infrastructure submission addresses the provisions of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) withrespect to elements (C) and (J), as described below. 1. 110(a)(2)(C) Program for enforcementofcontrolmeasures includingreviewof proposednew

sources.In this action, EPA isproposing
to approve Tennessee's infrastructure SIP for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that regulates the modification and construction ofany stationary source as necessary to assure that theNAAQS are achieved. Chapter 1200-3-9, ConstructionandOperating Permits,ofTennessee's SIP pertains to the construction ofany new major stationary source or any project at an existing major stationary source in an

area designated as nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable. This regulation addresses many ofthe infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C) requirements, however, as discussed below, there are two pending revisions
to the Tennessee SIP (including revisions to Chapter 1200-3-9) that are necessary tomeet the requirements of infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C). These two revisions are related tothe Ozone Implementation NSR Update and the "Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule" (75 FR 31514).

(November 16, 2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).

1'EPA has recently disapproved a SIPsubmission
from Colorado on the grounds that itwould have included a director's discretion provision inconsistent with CAArequirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See 75 FR 42342, 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval ofdirector's discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January26, 2011) (final disapproval ofsuch provisions). The first pending revision to the Tennessee SIP (OzoneImplementation NSR Update revisions) was submitted by TDEC on May 28, 2009. Thatrevision modifies provisions ofthe state's SIP at Chapter 1200-3-9, Constructionand Operating Permits.In addition to meeting the requirements ofthe Ozone Implementation NSR Update, these revisions are also necessary to address portions ofthe infrastructure SIP requirements described at element 110(a)(2)(C). Specifically, the May 28, 2009, SIP revisions address the Ozone Implementation NSR Update requirements to include NOx as an

ozone precursor for permitting
purposes. These revisions involve changes to major source thresholds for

sources in certain classes of nonattainment areas, changes to offset ratios for marginal, moderate, serious,
severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas, provisions addressing offsetrequirements for facilities that shut down or curtail operation, and a requirement stating that NOx emissions are ozone precursors. On December 5, 2011, EPA proposed approval ofTennessee's May 28, 2009, submission. See 76 FR 75845. EPA will take final action onthese regulations in a separate action from this notice.

The second pending rulemaking pertains to revisions to the PSDprogram promulgated in the GHGTailoring Rule. On November 5, 2010, EPA published a rulemaking proposing to approve Tennessee's PSD GHG Tailoring Rule revision, 19 which was submittedto EPA

on August 30, 2010, for parallel processing. 2 0 See 75FR 68265. This

19On December 30, 2010, EPA published a final rulemaking, "Limitation of Approval ofPrevention of Significant Deterioration Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in StateImplementation Plans: FinalRule" (75 FR 82536), which narrowed its previous approval ofPSD programs as applicable
to GHG-emitting sources in SIPs for 24 states, including Tennessee. Specifically, inthe PSD Narrowing Rule, EPA withdrew its previous approval of Tennessee's SIP to the extent itapplied PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources below the thresholds described in the finalTailoring Rule. The provisions of SIPs from which EPA withdrew its approval are treated as submitted bythe state but
not yetacted upon by EPA. Once a state submits

a SIPrevision forEPA's approval to incorporate the Tailoring Rulethresholds, EPA will treat the approval as removing the no-longer-approved provisions. See 75 FR at 82540.

20Tennessee requested parallel processing of this
SIP revision because on the date ofits submittal, the revision was not yet state-effective. Under parallel processing an EPA Regional Office works closely with the state while developing new orrevised regulations. Generally the state submits a copy of the proposed regulation orother revisions to EPA before conducting its public hearing. EPA then proceeds with a federal rulemaking to add to or revise the SIPduring approximately the same time during which the stateis holdingits public hearing. proposed revision establishes appropriate emission thresholds for determining which new stationary

sources and modification projects become subject toTennessee's PSD permitting requirements for their GHG emissions, and thereby addresses the thresholds for GHG permitting applicability in Tennessee. On January 11, 2012, EPA received Tennessee's PSD GHG Tailoring Rule revision final submittal. EPA will take final action on these regulations in a separate action from this notice.

Both ofthese proposed SIP revisions 21 address requisite requirements ofinfrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C), therefore, today's action to propose approval ofinfrastructure SIP element 110(a)(2)(C) is contingent upon EPA taking final action to approve each ofthese pending revisions into the Tennessee SIP. Final action regarding today's proposed approval of infrastructure SIP element 110(a)(2)(C) will not occur prior to final approval of these related SIP revisions.

EPA also notes that today's action is
not proposing to approve or disapprove the State's existing minor NSR program itselfto the extent thatit is inconsistent with EPA's regulations governing this program. EPAbelieves that a number of
states may have minorNSR provisions that are contrary to the existing EPA regulations for this program. EPA intends to work with states to reconcile
state minor NSR programs with EPA's regulatory provisions for theprogram. The statutory requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable flexibility in designing minorNSR
programs, and EPAbelieves it maybe time to revisitthe regulatory requirements for this program to give the states an appropriate level of flexibility to design a program that
meets their particular air quality
concerns, while assuring reasonable consistency across the country in protecting the NAAQS withrespect to

new andmodified minor sources.

EPA has made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and practices are adequate for program enforcement ofcontrol measures including review ofproposed new

sources related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

The stateand EPA thus provide for public comment periods on both the stateand federal action in parallel.

21EPA's proposed approval of: (1) Tennessee's PSD/NSR regulations which address the Ozone Implementation NSR Update requirements and (2) Tennessee's PSDGHG Tailoring Rule revisions which addresses the thresholds for GHG permitting applicability inTennessee (See 76 FR 75845 and 75
FR 68265). 

### 3218

### Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 14/Monday, January 23, 2012/Proposed Rules

2. 110(a)(2)(J). In this action, EPA is alsoproposing to approve Tennessee's infrastructure SIP for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the SIP that provides for meeting the applicable consultation requirements of section 121, the public notification requirements of section 127; and the PSD andvisibility protection requirements ofpart C ofthe Act. 110(a)(2)(J)(121 consultation) Consultationwithgovernmentofficials: Chapter 1200-3-9 Constructionand Operating Permits,aswell as the Regional Haze Implementation Plan (which allows for consultation between appropriate state, local, andtribal air pollution control agencies as well as the corresponding Federal Land Managers), provide for consultation with government officials whose jurisdictions might be affected by SIP development activities. Tennessee adopted state-wide consultation procedures for the implementation oftransportation conformity. These consultation procedures include considerations associated with the development of mobile inventories for SIPs. Implementation oftransportation conformity as outlined in the consultation procedures requires TDEC
to consult withfederal, state and local transportation and air quality agency officials on the development ofmotor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA approved Tennessee's consultation procedures on May 16, 2003 (68 FR 26492). EPA has made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation with government officials related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary. 110(a)(2)(J)(127publicnotification) Publicnotification: TDEC has public notice mechanisms in place to notify the public ofozone and other pollutant forecasting, including an air quality monitoring Web site with ground level

ozone alerts, http://tn.gov/environmentl apc/ozone/.Chapter 1200-3-15, EmergencyEpisodeRequirements, requires that TDEC notify the public of any air pollution episode orNAAQS violation. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's abilityto provide public notification related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary. 110(a)(2)(J)(PartC)PSDandvisibility protection:Tennessee demonstrates its authority toregulate new andmodified

sources ofozone precursors, volatile organic compounds, and NOxto assist in the protection ofair quality in Chapter 1200-3-9, Constructionand Operating Permits.As with infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C), infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(J) also requires compliance with applicable provisions ofthe PSD program described in part C ofthe Act. Accordingly, the pending EPA actions

on the Ozone Implementation NSR Update and GHGTailoring Rule revisions to Tennessee's SIP are likewise prerequisites to today's proposed actionto approve the State's infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(J). See the discussion for element 110(a)(2)(C) above for a description ofthese two pending revisions tothe Tennessee SIP.

Both ofthese proposed SIP revisions 22 address requisite requirements ofinfrastructure element 110(a)(2)(J) (PSDand visibility protection), therefore, today's action to propose approval ofinfrastructure SIP element 110(a)(2)(J) (PSD andvisibility protection) is contingent upon EPA taking final action to approve each of these pending revisions into the Tennessee SIP. Final action regarding today's proposed approval of infrastructure SIP element 110(a)(2)(J) (PSD andvisibility protection) will not

occur prior to final approval ofthese related SIP revisions.

With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection, EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C ofthe Act (whichincludes sections 169A and 169B). In the event ofthe establishment ofa new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus, EPA finds thatthere is no
new visibility obligation "triggered" under section 110(a)(2)(J) when anew NAAQS becomes effective. This would be the case even in the event a secondary PM2.5NAAQS for visibilityis established, because this NAAQS would
not affect visibility requirements under part C. Tennessee has submitted SIP revisions for approval to satisfy the requirements ofthe CAA Section 169A and 169B, and the regional haze and best available retrofit technology rules contained in 40 CFR 51.308. These revisions are currently under review and will be acted on in a separate action. EPAhas made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and

22

EPA's proposedapproval of: (1) Tennessee's PSD/NSR regulations which addresses the Ozone Implementation NSR Update requirements and (2) Tennessee's PSDGHG Tailoring Rule revisions which addresses the thresholds for GHG permitting applicability in Tennessee (See 76 FR 75845 and 75
FR 68265). practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability to implement PSD programs and to provide for visibility protection related to the 1997 8-hour

ozone NAAQS when necessary.
V. Proposed Action

As described above, following final approval oftheproposed revisions to the Tennessee SIP regarding the Ozone Implementation NSR Update and the PSD GHG Tailoring Rule Revision, TDEC will have addressed elements 110(a)(2)(C) and (J)ofthe CAA 110(a)(1) and (2)SIP requirements pursuant to EPA's October 2, 2007, guidance to

ensure that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and maintained in Tennessee. EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's infrastructure submission for the 1997 8-hourozone NAAQS for these elements, contingent upon the final approval ofthose revisions, because its December 12, 2007, and May 28, 2009, submissions will thenbe consistent with section 110 ofthe CAA.

VI. Statutory andExecutive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions ofthe Act and applicable Federal regulations. See42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role isto approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposedby state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

* Is not a "significant regulatory action" subject to reviewby the Office ofManagement and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

* Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.);

* Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 etseq.);

* Does not contain any unfunded mandate orsignificantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of1995 (Pub.L. 104-4);

* Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

* Is not an economically significant regulatory actionbased onhealth or 

### 3219

### Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 14/Monday, January 23, 2012/Proposed Rules

safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

* Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

* Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application ofthose requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

* Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition,this proposed rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in40 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq.

Dated: January 12, 2012. A. Stanley Meiburg, ActingRegionalAdministrator, Region4.
[FRDoe. 2012-1220 Filed 1-20-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-RO1-OAR-2011-0960; A-1-FRL9621-2]
Approval and Promulgation ofAir Quality Implementation Plans; Massachusetts; Determination of Attainment ofthe 1997 Ozone Standard for the Western Massachusetts Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing two separate and independent determinations regarding the Springfield (Western Massachusetts) moderate 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. First, EPA is proposing to determine thatthe Western Massachusetts nonattainment area has attained the 1997 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone, based upon complete, quality-assured, certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area has monitored attainment ofthe 1997 8- hour ozone NAAQS for the 2007-2009 and 2008-2010 monitoring periods. Preliminary data for 2011 indicate the

area continues to attain the standard. If this proposed determination is made final, under the provisions ofEPA's

ozone implementation rule, the requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency
measures, and other planning State Implementation Plans related to attainment ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS shall be suspended for so long

as the area continues to attain the 1997

ozone NAAQS. Second, based on complete, quality-assured and certified air monitoring data for 2007-2009, EPA is proposing to determine that the Western Massachusetts nonattainment

area also attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS as ofJune 15, 2010, its applicable attainment date.

DATES: Written comments must be received on orbefore February 22, 2012. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPAR01-OAR-2011-0960 by one ofthe following methods: 1. www.regulations.gov:Followthe on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

2. Email:arnold.anne@epa.gov. 3.Fax:(617) 918-0047. 4. Mail:"Docket Identification Number EPA-ROl-OAR-2011-0960," Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA NewEngland Regional Office, 5Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. 5. HandDeliveryorCourier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office ofEcosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston,MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours ofoperation. The Regional Office's official hours ofbusiness are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-ROl-OAR-2011- 0960. EPA's policy is that all comments received willbe included in the public docket without change andmay be made available online at www.regulations.gov,including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed tobe Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov,or email, information thatyou consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected.

The www.regulations.govWeb site is

an "anonymous access" system, which

means EPA will not know youridentity

or contact information unless you provide itin the body ofyour comment. Ifyou send an email comment directly
to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part ofthe commentthat is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. Ifyou submit

an electronic comment, EPA recommends thatyou include your

name and other contact information in thebody ofyour comment andwith any disk orCD-ROM you submit. IfEPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may notbe able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, andbe free ofany defects or viruses.

Docket:All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.govor in hard copy at Office ofEcosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA NewEngland Regional Office, 5Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPArequests that ifat all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours ofbusiness are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA NewEngland Regional Office, 5Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1664, fax number (617) 918-0664, email Burkhart.Richard@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

### 3220