41132 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(1) * * * These proceedings are 

authorized under section 337(b) as 

investigations on whether there is a 

violation of section 337 in the same 

manner as original investigations, and 

are conducted in accordance with the 

laws for original investigations as set 

forth in section 1337 of title 19 and 

sections 554, 555, 556, 557, and 702 of 

title 5 of the United States Code and the 

rules of this part. 

* * * * * 

(3) The Commission, in the course of 

a formal enforcement proceeding under 

this section, may hold a public hearing 

and afford the parties to the 

enforcement proceeding the opportunity 

to appear and be heard. The 

Commission may delegate the hearing to 

the chief administrative law judge for 

designation of a presiding 

administrative law judge, who shall 

certify an initial determination to the 

Commission. A presiding administrative 

law judge shall certify the record and 

issue the enforcement initial 

determination to the Commission no 

later than three months before the target 

date for completion of a formal 

enforcement proceeding. Parties may 

file petitions for review, and responses 

thereto, in accordance with § 210.43 of 

this part. The enforcement initial 

determination shall become the 

determination of the Commission 45 

days after the date of service of the 

enforcement initial determination, 

unless the Commission, within 45 days 

after the date of such service, shall have 

ordered review of the enforcement 

initial determination on certain issues 

therein, or by order shall have changed 

the effective date of the enforcement 

initial determination. 

* * * * * 

30. Amend § 210.76 by adding 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 210.76 Modification or rescission of 

exclusion orders, cease and desist orders, 

and consent orders. 

* * * * * 

(c) Comments. Parties may submit 

comments on the recommended 

determination within 10 days from the 

service of the recommended 

determination. Parties may submit 

responses thereto within 5 business 

days from service of any comments. 

31. Revise appendix A to read as 

follows: 

Appendix A to Part 210–Adjudication 

and Enforcement 

Initial determination concerning: Petitions for review 

due: 

Response to petitions 

due: 

Commission deadline for determining whether 

to review the initial determination: 

1. Violation § 210.42(a)(1) ................................ 12 days from service 

of the initial determination.

8 days from service of 

any petition.

60 days from service of the initial determination (on private parties). 

2. Summary initial determination that would 

terminate the investigation if it became the 

Commission’s final determination 

§ 210.42(c).

10 days from service 

of the initial determination.

5 business days from 

service of any petition.

45 days from service of the initial determination (on private parties). 

3. Other matters § 210.42(c) ............................ 5 business days from 

service of the initial 

determination.

5 business days from 

service of any petition.

30 days from service of the initial determination (on private parties). 

4. Forfeiture or return of respondents’ bond 

§ 210.50(d)(3).

10 days from service 

of the initial determination.

5 business days from 

service of any petition.

45 days from service of the initial determination (on private parties). 

5. Forfeiture or return of complainant’s temporary relief bond § 210.70(c).10 days from service 

of the initial determination.

5 business days from 

service of any petition.

45 days from service of the initial determination (on private parties). 

6. Formal enforcement proceedings 

§ 210.75(b).

10 days from service 

of the enforcement 

initial determination.

5 business days from 

service of any petition.

45 days from service of the enforcement initial determination (on private parties). 

32. Add appendix B to read as 

follows: 

Appendix B to Part 210—Adjudication 

and Enforcement 

Recommended determination concerning: Comments due: Response to comments due: 

Modification or Rescission § 210.76(a)(1) .......... 10 days from service of the recommended determination.5 business days from service of any comments. 

Issued: July 2, 2012. 

By Order of the Commission. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–16603 Filed 7–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0084; FRL–9698–8] 

Air Quality Implementation Plans; 

Alabama; Attainment Plan for the 

Alabama Portion of the Chattanooga 

1997 Annual PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or Agency). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a state implementation plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Alabama, through the Alabama 

Department of Environmental 

Management (ADEM) to EPA on October 

7, 2009, for the purpose of providing for 

attainment of the 1997 fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) in the 

Alabama portion of the tri-state 

Chattanooga PM2.5 nonattainment area 

(hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Chattanooga Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’). The 

Chattanooga Area is comprised of 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 41133 

Catoosa and Walker Counties in 

Georgia; Hamilton County in Tennessee; 

and a portion of Jackson County in 

Alabama. The Alabama SIP revision 

(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘attainment 

plan’’) pertains only to the Alabama 

portion of the Chattanooga Area 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘Jackson 

County’’). EPA is now proposing to 

approve Alabama’s October 7, 2009, SIP 

revision regarding reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) and 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM); reasonable further progress 

(RFP); contingency measures; and, for 

transportation conformity purposes, an 

insignificance determination for PM2.5

and nitrogen oxides (NOx) for the 

mobile source contribution to ambient 

PM2.5 levels for the Alabama portion of 

the Chattanooga Area. This action is 

being taken in accordance with the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and the 

‘‘Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation 

Rule,’’ hereafter referred to as the ‘‘PM2.5

Implementation Rule,’’ issued by EPA 

on April 25, 2007. The States of Georgia 

and Tennessee have provided separate 

SIP revisions with attainment plans for 

their portions for the Chattanooga Area. 

EPA is not addressing those SIP 

revisions in this proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 13, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R04–OAR–2011–0084 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0084, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2011– 

0084. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA‘s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy 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: Joel 

Huey or Richard Wong 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. Joel Huey 

may be reached by phone at (404) 562– 

9104, or via electronic mail at 

huey.joel@epa.gov. Richard Wong may 

be reached by phone at (404) 562–8726, 

or via electronic mail at 

wong.richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. Designation History 

B. Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation 

Rule 

C. Stay of the Transport Rule 

D. Attaining Data Determination and 

Finding of Attainment 

III. What is included in Alabama’s attainment 

plan submittal for Jackson County? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Alabama’s 

attainment plan submittal for Jackson 

County? 

A. Attainment Demonstration 

1. Pollutants Addressed 

2. Emissions Inventory Requirements 

3. Modeling 

4. Reasonably Available Control Measures/ 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACM/RACT) 

5. Reasonable Further Progress 

6. Contingency Measures 

7. Attainment Date 

B. Insignificance Determination for the 

Mobile Source Contribution to PM2.5 and 

NOX Emissions 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Alabama’s SIP revision for the Alabama 

portion of the Chattanooga Area, as 

submitted through the ADEM to EPA on 

October 7, 2009, for the purpose of 

demonstrating attainment of the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Alabama’s PM2.5

attainment plan for Jackson County 

includes an analysis of RACM/RACT, an 

RFP plan, contingency measures, and an 

insignificance determination for mobile 

direct PM2.5 and NOX emissions for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

EPA previously approved the base year 

emissions inventory for the Alabama 

portion of the Chattanooga Area on 

February 8, 2012 (77 FR 6469). 

EPA has determined that Alabama’s 

PM2.5 attainment plan for the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for Jackson 

County meets the applicable 

requirements of the CAA and the PM2.5


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
41134 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Implementation Rule. Thus, EPA is 

proposing to approve Alabama’s 

attainment plan for Jackson County, 

including the insignificance 

determination for direct PM2.5 and NOX

for Alabama’s mobile source 

contribution to ambient PM2.5 levels in 

the Chattanooga Area. EPA’s analysis for 

this proposed action is discussed in 

Section IV of this proposed rulemaking. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. Designation History 

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

established the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as 

an annual standard of 15.0 micrograms 

per cubic meter (mg/m3), based on a 3- 

year average of annual mean PM2.5

concentrations, and a 24-hour (or daily) 

standard of 65 mg/m3, based on a 3-year 

average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations. EPA established the 

NAAQS based on significant evidence 

and numerous health studies 

demonstrating that serious health effects 

are associated with exposures to PM2.5

emissions. 

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the 

CAA to designate areas throughout the 

United States as attaining or not 

attaining the NAAQS; this designation 

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

of the CAA. EPA and state air quality 

agencies initiated the monitoring 

process for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

1999 and established a complete set of 

air quality monitors by January 2001. 

On January 5, 2005, EPA promulgated 

initial air quality designations for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (70 FR 944), which 

became effective on April 5, 2005, based 

on air quality monitoring data for 

calendar years 2001–2003. 

On April 14, 2005, EPA promulgated 

a supplemental rule amending the 

Agency’s initial designations (70 FR 

19844) but retaining the original 

effective date of April 5, 2005. As a 

result of that supplemental rule, PM2.5

nonattainment designations were in 

effect for 39 areas, comprising 208 

counties within 20 states (and the 

District of Columbia) nationwide, with a 

combined population of about 88 

million. The Alabama portion of the tristate (Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama) 

Chattanooga Area, which is the subject 

of this proposed rulemaking, is included 

in the list of areas designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. As mentioned above, the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga 

Area consists of a portion of Jackson 

County in Alabama. 

On October 17, 2006, EPA 

strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

to 35 mg/m3 and retained the level of the 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 mg/m3. 

See 71 FR 61144. On November 13, 

2009, EPA designated areas as 

attainment/unclassifiable, unclassifiable 

or nonattainment with respect to the 

2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 74 FR 

58688. Of relevance to the proposed 

rulemaking herein, EPA’s November 

2009 designation action clarified the 

designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

by relabeling the existing designation 

tables to specifically identify 

designations made for the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS and those made for the 

1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (i.e., 65 mg/ 

m3). The Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga Area is only designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, this action 

only pertains to that specific NAAQS. 

B. Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule 

As noted above, on April 25, 2007, 

EPA issued the PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (72 FR 

20586). This rule describes the CAA 

framework and requirements for 

developing SIPs to achieve attainment 

in areas designated nonattainment for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Such 

attainment plans must include a 

demonstration that a nonattainment area 

will meet the applicable NAAQS within 

the timeframe provided in the statute. 

This demonstration must include 

modeling that is performed in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.112 

(Demonstration of adequacy) and 

Appendix W to part 51 (Guideline on 

Air Quality Models) and that is 

consistent with EPA modeling guidance. 

See 40 CFR 51.1007. The modeling 

demonstration should include 

supporting technical analyses and 

descriptions of all relevant adopted 

Federal, state, and local regulations and 

control measures that have been 

adopted in order to provide for 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by 

the proposed attainment date. 

For the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, an 

attainment demonstration must show 

that a nonattainment area will attain the 

standards as expeditiously as 

practicable, but within 5 years of 

designation (i.e., by an attainment date 

of no later than April 5, 2010, based on 

air quality data for 2007 through 2009). 

If the area is not expected to meet the 

NAAQS by April 5, 2010, a state may 

request to extend the attainment date by 

1 to 5 years based upon the severity of 

the nonattainment problem or the 

feasibility of implementing control 

measures in the specific area. CAA 

section 172(a)(2). For EPA to approve an 

extension of the attainment date beyond 

2010, the state must provide an analysis 

that is consistent with the statutory 

criteria for an extension and that 

demonstrates that the attainment date is 

as expeditious as practicable for the 

area, given the existing facts and 

circumstances. 

For each nonattainment area, the state 

(or each state of a multi-state area) must 

demonstrate that it has adopted all 

RACM, including all RACT, as needed 

to provide for attainment of the PM2.5

NAAQS in the area ‘‘as expeditiously as 

practicable.’’ The PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule provides guidance for making 

these RACM/RACT determinations. See 

discussion in section IV.A.4. below. 

Any measures that are necessary to meet 

these requirements that are not already 

federally promulgated or in an EPAapproved part of the SIP must be 

submitted as part of a state’s attainment 

plan. Any state measures in the control 

strategy must meet the applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements, 

and, in particular, must be enforceable. 

The PM2.5 Implementation Rule also 

includes guidance on precursor 

pollutants that states must address in 

their attainment plans. Section 302(g) of 

the CAA authorizes EPA to regulate 

criteria pollutants and their precursors. 

The main chemical precursors 

associated with fine particle formation 

are sulfur dioxide (SO2), NOX, volatile 

organic compounds (VOC), and 

ammonia. However, the effect of 

reducing emissions of precursor 

pollutants that contribute to PM2.5

concentrations varies by area depending 

upon local PM2.5 composition, emission 

levels, and other area-specific factors. 

For this reason, the PM2.5

Implementation Rule requires that states 

control the direct PM2.5 and SO2

emissions and also that states control 

the other precursor emissions that 

would be most effective for attaining the 

NAAQS within the specific area, based 

upon an appropriate technical 

demonstration. 

The PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

defines direct PM2.5 emissions as ‘‘solid 

particles emitted directly from an air 

emissions source or activity, or gaseous 

emissions or liquid droplets from an air 

emissions source or activity which 

condense to form particulate matter at 

ambient temperatures. Direct PM2.5

emissions include elemental carbon, 

directly emitted organic carbon, directly 

emitted sulfate, directly emitted nitrate, 

and other inorganic particles (including 

but not limited to crustal material, 

metals, and sea salt).’’ See 40 CFR 

51.1000. 

The PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

requires states to identify and evaluate 

sources of PM2.5 direct emissions and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 41135 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursors as 

appropriate. See 40 CFR 51.1002(c). The 

rule requires states to address SO2 as a 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursor and to 

evaluate SO2 for possible control 

measures in all PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas. States are also required to address 

and evaluate reasonable controls for 

NOX as a PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursor unless the state and EPA 

make a finding that NOX emissions from 

sources in the state do not significantly 

contribute to PM2.5 concentrations in the 

relevant nonattainment area. 

Although current scientific 

information shows that certain VOC 

emissions are precursors to the 

formation of secondary organic aerosol, 

and significant progress has been made 

in understanding the role of gaseous 

organic material in the formation of 

organic PM, this relationship remains 

complex. Further research and technical 

tools are needed to better characterize 

emissions inventories for specific VOC 

and to determine the extent of the 

contribution of specific VOC to organic 

PM mass. Because of these factors, the 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule does not 

require states to address or evaluate 

controls for VOC as PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursors unless the state or EPA 

makes a finding that VOC emissions 

from sources in the state significantly 

contribute to PM2.5 concentrations in the 

relevant nonattainment area. 

The PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

describes the formation of particles 

related to ammonia emissions, which is 

a complex, nonlinear process. Though 

recent studies have improved our 

understanding of the role of ammonia in 

aerosol formation, further research is 

needed to better describe the 

relationship between ammonia 

emissions and particulate matter 

concentrations and the related impacts. 

Also, area-specific data is needed to 

evaluate the effectiveness of reducing 

ammonia emissions in reducing PM2.5

concentrations in different areas and to 

determine where ammonia decreases 

may increase the acidity of particles and 

precipitation. For these reasons, the 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule does not 

require states to address or evaluate 

controls for ammonia as PM2.5

attainment plan precursors unless the 

state or EPA makes a finding that 

ammonia emissions from sources in the 

state significantly contribute to PM2.5

concentrations in the relevant 

nonattainment area. 

The presumptive inclusion of NOX

and the presumptive exclusion of VOC 

and ammonia as attainment plan 

precursors can be reversed based on an 

acceptable technical demonstration for a 

particular nonattainment area by the 

state or EPA. The state must 

demonstrate that, based on the sum of 

available technical and scientific 

information, it would be appropriate for 

a nonattainment area to reverse the 

presumptive approach for a particular 

precursor. Such a demonstration should 

include information from multiple 

sources, such as results of speciation 

data analyses, air-quality modeling 

studies, chemical-tracer studies, 

emissions inventories, or special 

intensive measurement studies to 

evaluate specific atmospheric chemistry 

in an area. See PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule, 72 FR 20596. 

The PM2.5 Implementation Rule also 

provides guidance for the other 

elements of a state’s attainment plan, 

including, but not limited to, emissions 

inventories, contingency measures, and 

motor-vehicle emissions budgets used 

for transportation conformity purposes. 

There are, however, three aspects of the 

preamble to the PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule for which EPA received petitions 

requesting reconsideration. The specific 

guidance elements identified by 

petitioners pertain to the presumption 

that compliance with the requirements 

of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) 

automatically satisfies the requirements 

for RACT or RACM for NOX or SO2

emissions from electric generating unit 

(EGU) sources participating in regional 

cap and trade programs (See PM2.5

Implementation Rule, section II.F.7.); 

the suggestion that the economic 

feasibility element of a RACT 

determination should include 

consideration of whether the cost of a 

measure is reasonable in light of the 

benefits (See PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule, section II.F.5.); and the policy of 

allowing certain emission reductions 

from outside the nonattainment area to 

be credited as meeting the RFP 

requirement (See PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule, section II.G.5.). EPA has granted 

these petitions and intends to propose 

rulemaking to address these aspects of 

the PM2.5 Implementation Rule. 

C. The Clean Air Interstate Rule and the 

Transport Rule 

EPA published CAIR on May 12, 

2005, to address the interstate transport 

requirements of the CAA. See 76 FR 

70093. As originally promulgated, CAIR 

requires significant reductions in 

emissions of SO2 and NOX to limit the 

interstate transport of these pollutants 

and the ozone and fine particulate 

matter they form in the atmosphere. In 

2008, however, the D.C. Circuit 

remanded CAIR back to EPA. North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176. The 

court found CAIR to be inconsistent 

with the requirements of the CAA, 

North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately 

remanded the rule to EPA without 

vacatur because it found that ‘‘allowing 

CAIR to remain in effect until it is 

replaced by a rule consistent with [the 

court’s] opinion would at least 

temporarily preserve the environmental 

values covered by CAIR.’’ North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178. CAIR 

thus remained in place following the 

remand and was in place and 

enforceable through the April 5, 2010, 

attainment date. 

In response to the court’s decision, 

EPA has issued a new rule to address 

interstate transport of NOX and SO2 in 

the eastern United States (i.e., the 

Transport Rule, also known as the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). See 76 

FR 48208, August 8, 2011. In the 

Transport Rule, EPA finalized 

regulatory changes to sunset (i.e., 

discontinue) CAIR and the CAIR FIPs 

for control periods in 2012 and beyond. 

See 76 FR 48322. 

On December 30, 2012, the DC Circuit 

issued an order addressing the status of 

the Transport Rule and CAIR in 

response to motions filed by numerous 

parties seeking a stay of the Transport 

Rule pending judicial review. In that 

order, the DC Circuit stayed the 

Transport Rule pending the court’s 

resolution of the petitions for review of 

that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. 

v. EPA (No. 11–1302 and consolidated 

cases). The court also indicated that 

EPA is expected to continue to 

administer CAIR in the interim until the 

court rules on the petitions for review 

of the Transport Rule. 

EPA does not believe that the 

circumstances set forth above preclude 

EPA from approving the attainment plan 

for the Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga Area. While the monitoring 

data that shows the Area attained the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the April 

2010 attainment deadline was impacted 

by CAIR, CAIR was in place and 

enforceable through the 2010 attainment 

date that is relevant to acting on this 

attainment plan. Moreover, EPA’s 

analysis conducted for the Transport 

Rule demonstrates that the Chattanooga 

Area would be able to attain the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS even in the 

absence of either CAIR or the Transport 

Rule. See Appendix B to the Air Quality 

Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 

Document for the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule. 

Most importantly, EPA notes that this 

action proposes approval of an 

attainment plan that demonstrated that 

the Chattanooga Area would attain the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS by 2010, 

which the Area did. As of 2010, CAIR 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
41136 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1The determination of attainment is not a 

redesignation of the Area from nonattainment to 

attainment and is not an indication that the Area 

will continue to maintain the standard for which 

the determination is made. It is merely a 

determination that the Area attained the standard 

for a particular three year period and also by the 

applicable deadline. Please see EPA’s May 31, 2011, 

rulemaking for more detail on the effects of a 

determination of attainment. 

2The State of Georgia withdrew its attainment 

plan submittal for the Georgia portion of the 

Chattanooga Area on June 29, 2011. The State of 

Tennessee has not yet withdrawn its attainment 

plan submittal for the Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga Area, however, EPA is not acting on 

that submittal at this time. 

was an enforceable control measure 

applicable to affected sources in the 

Area, as well as sources throughout the 

eastern U.S. As such, the fact that CAIR 

is now in place only temporarily as a 

result of the judicial remand of CAIR 

does not detract from our conclusion 

that the attainment plan should be 

approved. Further, the fact that the 

court has stayed the implementation of 

the Transport Rule at this time is not 

relevant because, as noted above, EPA’s 

modeling for the Transport Rule 

demonstrates the Chattanooga Area 

would be able to attain the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 even in the absence of the 

Transport Rule. Finally, the Transport 

Rule, as promulgated, only addresses 

emissions in 2012 and beyond. As such, 

neither the Transport Rule itself, nor the 

judicial stay of the Transport Rule, is 

relevant to the question addressed in 

this proposal notice. The purpose of this 

action is to determine whether the 

attainment plan submitted by Alabama 

is sufficient for bringing the Area into 

attainment by the April 2010 attainment 

date, a date before the Transport Rule 

was even promulgated. For these 

reasons, neither the current status of 

CAIR nor the current status of the 

Transport Rule affects any of the criteria 

for proposed approval of this SIP 

revision. 

D. Attaining Data Determination and 

Finding of Attainment 

On May 31, 2011, EPA determined 

that the Chattanooga Area had attaining 

data for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

See 76 FR 31239. That determination 

was based on quality-assured, quality 

controlled and certified ambient air 

monitoring data that shows the Area 

met the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Furthermore, on September 8, 2011, in 

accordance with CAA 179(c), EPA 

determined that the Chattanooga Area 

attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

by its applicable attainment date of 

April 5, 2010. See 76 FR 55774. This 

information is mentioned here in 

support of EPA’s determination that 

Alabama’s attainment plan was 

sufficient for the Chattanooga Area to 

achieve attainment by no later than the 

required attainment date of April 5, 

2010. 

As discussed in the May 31, 2011, 

rulemaking, EPA’s determination of 

attainment 1 suspended the obligation 

for the State to meet planning SIP 

requirements for the Chattanooga Area 

for so long as the Area continues to 

attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

See 40 CFR 51.1004(c). The State must 

still submit required emissions 

inventories consistent with applicable 

timelines. The suspended SIP 

submission obligations include the 

attainment demonstration (including in 

this case the mobile source 

insignificance determination submitted 

to satisfy transportation conformity 

requirements), the RACM/RACT 

analysis and requirements, the RFP 

requirements as applicable, and 

contingency measures. Despite the 

suspension of the aforementioned 

attainment plan requirements for the 

Chattanooga Area for the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, Alabama has requested 

that EPA take action on its planning SIP 

for this Area in part because the SIP 

submittal includes the insignificance 

determination for conformity purposes. 

Further, in September 2011, EPA agreed 

in a Consent Decree to take action on 

the State’s attainment plan SIP 

submission, including these specific 

plan elements that would otherwise be 

suspended. 

Monitoring data thus far available in 

the Air Quality System (AQS) database 

for 2011 show that this Area continues 

to meet the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

at this time. As shown in Table 4, found 

later in this notice, ambient PM2.5 levels 

in the Chattanooga Area have declined 

steadily since Alabama submitted its 

PM2.5 attainment plan in 2008. 

EPA understands that the State chose 

not to withdraw the attainment plan SIP 

revision for the Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga Area because it includes a 

mobile insignificance determination for 

direct PM2.5 and NOX emissions from 

mobile sources. Therefore, as mentioned 

above, although the SIP planning 

requirements for the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS have been suspended for the 

Chattanooga Area, EPA is acting on 

these elements of Alabama’s attainment 

plan for the Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga Area because the State has 

requested it and elected not to withdraw 

these elements.2

III. What is included in Alabama’s 

attainment plan submittal for Jackson 

County? 

Alabama’s attainment plan submittal 

for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

covers the Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga Area, which is the only 

portion of such Area for which the State 

has jurisdiction. Today’s action 

addresses only the Alabama portion of 

the Chattanooga Area. However, the 

modeling analysis provided with 

Alabama’s attainment plan 

documentation includes modeling 

results for the entire tri-state Area that 

also includes the results of Georgia’s 

and Tennessee’s demonstrations for 

their portions of the Area, for which the 

conclusions of attainment are consistent 

with that of Alabama’s. The analysis 

indicates that the entire Area across the 

three states will attain the NAAQS, and 

thus supports this proposed approval 

action. 

In accordance with section 172(c) of 

the CAA and the PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule, the Alabama attainment plan for 

the Chattanooga Area includes: (1) An 

emissions inventory for the plan’s base 

year (2002); (2) an attainment 

demonstration; and (3) an insignificance 

finding for the mobile source 

contribution of direct PM2.5 and NOX. 

The attainment demonstration includes: 

Technical analyses that locate, identify, 

and quantify sources of emissions 

contributing to violations of the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS; analyses of 

future-year emissions reductions and air 

quality improvements expected to result 

from national and local programs; 

adopted emission reduction measures 

with schedules for implementation; and 

contingency measures required under 

section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. See 72 FR 

20605. 

To analyze future-year emissions 

reductions and air quality 

improvements, Alabama used regional 

modeling analyses developed through 

the Association for Southeastern 

Integrated Planning (ASIP). The ASIP 

was a collaborative modeling and 

technical analysis effort among the 

States of Alabama, Kentucky, Florida, 

Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, 

and West Virginia to develop a regional 

assessment of the controls needed to 

achieve attainment of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS and the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. This regional modeling was 

performed in accordance with EPA’s 

‘‘Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 

Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze’’ 

(EPA–454/B–07–002, April 2007) 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 41137 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 

Modeling Guidance’’). 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Alabama’s attainment plan submittal 

for Jackson County? 

A. Attainment Demonstration 

Consistent with CAA requirements 

(See, e.g., section 172), and 40 CFR 

51.1007, an attainment demonstration 

for a PM2.5 nonattainment area must 

include a showing that the area will 

attain the 1997 PM2.5 annual and 

24-hour standards as expeditiously as 

practicable. The demonstration must 

also meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.112 and Part 51, Appendix W, and 

include inventory data, modeling 

results, and emissions reduction 

analyses on which the state has based 

its projected attainment. In the case of 

the Chattanooga Area, the Area has 

already attained the 1997 PM2.5 Annual 

NAAQS. Thus, EPA is now proposing 

that the attainment plan submitted by 

Alabama was sufficient, and EPA is 

proposing to approve individual 

components of the plan. 

1. Pollutants Addressed 

As discussed in section II.B. above, 

the PM2.5 Implementation Rule requires 

states to identify and evaluate sources of 

PM2.5 direct emissions and appropriate 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursors. The 

rule provides that SO2 is a PM2.5

attainment plan precursor in all areas. 

The rule also sets forth the rebuttable 

presumptions that NOX is a PM2.5

attainment plan precursor in all areas 

and that ammonia and VOC are not 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursors in any 

areas. Neither Alabama nor the EPA has 

found reason to reverse any of these 

presumptions for the Chattanooga Area. 

Accordingly, Alabama’s PM2.5

attainment plan evaluates emissions of 

direct PM2.5, SO2, and NOX in Jackson 

County. 

2. Emissions Inventory Requirements 

States are required under section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA to develop 

comprehensive, accurate and current 

emissions inventories of all sources of 

the relevant pollutant or pollutants in 

the area. These inventories provide a 

detailed accounting of all emissions and 

emission sources by precursor or 

pollutant. In addition, inventories are 

used in air quality modeling to 

demonstrate that attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS is as expeditious as 

practicable and, if an attainment date 

extension beyond 2010 is needed, to 

support the need for such an extension. 

Emissions inventory guidance was 

provided in the April 1999 document, 

‘‘Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and 

Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional 

Haze Regulations’’ (EPA–454/R–99– 

006), which was updated in November 

2005 (EPA–454/R–05–001) (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘EPA’s Emissions 

Inventory Guidance’’). Emissions 

reporting requirements were provided 

in the 2002 Consolidated Emissions 

Reporting Rule (CERR) (67 FR 39602). 

On December 17, 2008 (73 FR 76539), 

EPA promulgated the Air Emissions 

Reporting Requirements (AERR) to 

update emissions reporting 

requirements in the CERR and to 

harmonize, consolidate and simplify 

data reporting by states. 

In accordance with the AERR and 

EPA’s Emissions Inventory Guidance, 

the PM2.5 Implementation Rule requires 

states to submit inventory information 

on directly emitted PM2.5 and the main 

PM2.5 precursors (SO2, NOX, VOC, and 

ammonia) and any additional inventory 

information needed to support an 

attainment demonstration and (where 

applicable) an RFP plan. 

PM2.5 is comprised of filterable and 

condensable emissions. Condensable 

particulate matter (CPM) can comprise a 

significant percentage of direct PM2.5

emissions from certain sources and is 

required to be included in national 

emissions inventories based on 

emission factors. Test Methods 201A 

and 202 are available for source-specific 

measurement of condensable emissions. 

However, the PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule notes that there were issues raised 

by the Commenters related to 

availability and implementation of these 

test methods as well as uncertainties in 

existing data for condensable PM2.5. 

EPA thus established a transition period 

during which EPA could assess possible 

revisions to available test methods and 

to allow time for states to update 

emissions inventories as needed to fully 

address direct PM2.5, including 

condensable emissions. Because of the 

time required for this assessment, EPA 

recognized that states would be limited 

in how to effectively address CPM 

emissions and therefore established a 

period of transition, up to January 1, 

2011, during which state submissions 

for PM2.5 were not required to address 

CPM emissions. Amendments to these 

test methods were proposed on March 

25, 2009 (74 FR 12969), and finalized on 

December 21, 2010 (75 FR 80118). The 

amendments to Method 201A added a 

particle-sizing device for PM2.5

sampling, and the amendments to 

Method 202 revised the sample 

collection and recovery procedures of 

the method to reduce the formation of 

reaction artifacts that could lead to 

inaccurate measurements of CPM 

emissions. 

The period of transition for 

establishing emission limits for 

condensable direct PM2.5 ended on 

January 1, 2011. Under the PM2.5

Implementation rule, PM2.5 submissions 

made during the transition period are 

not required to address CPM emissions; 

however, states must address the control 

of direct PM2.5 emissions, including 

condensable emissions, with any new 

action taken after January 1, 2011. 

Alabama submitted its Chattanooga 

Area attainment plan prior to January 1, 

2011, and accordingly did not consider 

CPM in addressing the control of PM2.5

emissions. 

In July 2008, EarthJustice filed a 

petition requesting reconsideration of 

EPA’s transition period for CPM 

emissions provided in the PM2.5

Implementation Rule. In January 2009, 

EPA decided to allow states that have 

not previously addressed CPM to 

continue to exclude CPM for Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration permitting 

during the transition period. Today’s 

action reflects a review of Alabama’s 

submittal based on applicable EPA 

guidance as described in the PM2.5

Implementation Rule and at the time of 

Alabama’s submittal. 

The 172(c)(3) emissions inventory is 

developed by the incorporation of data 

from multiple sources. States were 

required to develop and submit to EPA 

a triennial emissions inventory 

according to the AERR for all source 

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

mobile and on-road mobile). This 

inventory often forms the basis of data 

that are updated with more recent 

information and data that also is used in 

the attainment demonstration modeling 

inventory. Such was the case in the 

development of the 2002 emissions 

inventory that the State submitted as 

part of the attainment plan for this Area. 

The State based the 2002 emissions 

inventory on data developed with 

Visibility Improvement State and Tribal 

Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) 

contractors for the same ten states of the 

ASIP effort and submitted by the states 

to the 2002 National Emissions 

Inventory. Several iterations of the 2002 

inventories were developed by VISTAS 

for the different emission source 

categories resulting from revisions and 

updates to the data. This resulted in 

version G2 of the updated data, which 

VISTAS and states used to represent 

point source emissions. Data from many 

databases, studies and models (e.g., 

vehicle miles traveled, fuel programs, 

the NONROAD 2002 model data for 

commercial marine vessels, locomotives 

and Clean Air Market Division, etc.) 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
41138 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

resulted in the emissions inventory 

submitted by the State as part of this 

attainment plan. The data were 

developed by VISTAS according to 

EPA’s Emissions Inventory Guidance 

and a quality assurance project plan that 

was developed through VISTAS and 

approved by EPA. EPA agrees that the 

process used to develop this emissions 

inventory was adequate to meet the 

requirements of the CAA, e.g., CAA 

section 172(c)(3), and the implementing 

regulations. 

Table 1 below shows the level of 

emissions, expressed in tons per year 

(tpy), in the Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga Area for the 2002 base year 

by pollutant and emissions source 

category, as provided in the October 7, 

2009, attainment plan. As stated earlier 

in this notice, EPA approved the base 

year emissions inventory for the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga 

Area on February 8, 2012 (77 FR 6469), 

as meeting the requirements of section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA. The emissions 

inventory was approved because the 

State developed the emissions inventory 

consistent with the CAA, implementing 

regulations, and EPA guidance for 

emissions inventories. 

TABLE 1—BASE YEAR (2002) ACTUAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR THE ALABAMA PORTION OF THE CHATTANOOGA AREA

Source category NOX

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

PM2.5

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

Ammonia 

(tpy) 

Point ..................................................................................... 26,337 44,080 933 144 2 

Area ...................................................................................... 10 17 38 98 38 

Mobile ................................................................................... 7 6 0 18 0 

Nonroad ............................................................................... 41 5 3 47 0 

Total .............................................................................. 26,395 44,108 974 307 40 

Table 2 below shows the level of 

emissions projected by VISTAS and the 

State for the 2009 attainment year. 

While the projections for the two point 

sources in the Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga Area indicated a slight 

increase in SO2 and direct PM2.5

emissions, the overall 2009 statewide 

emission projections for Alabama, 

Tennessee and Georgia indicated 

significant decreases in SO2 emissions. 

The projected 2009 emissions 

inventories were used by VISTAS in the 

modeling demonstration of attainment 

for the Area by that year. Although the 

projected 2009 emissions of SO2 and 

direct PM2.5 from point sources in the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga 

Area indicated a slight increase from the 

2002 actual emissions, the actual 2009 

emissions that are now recorded in AQS 

show that significant reductions 

occurred in these pollutant emissions. 

TABLE 2—ATTAINMENT YEAR (2009) PROJECTED EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR THE ALABAMA PORTION OF THE

CHATTANOOGA AREA

Source category NOX

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

PM2.5

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

Ammonia 

(tpy) 

Point ..................................................................................... 5,157 45,356 1,124 177 8 

Area ...................................................................................... 10 16 39 69 41 

Mobile ................................................................................... 5 1 0 11 1 

Nonroad ............................................................................... 38 2 2 37 0 

Total .............................................................................. 5,210 45,375 1,165 294 50 

Additional emissions inventory 

information for the Alabama portion of 

the Chattanooga Area is included in 

Appendix 3 of Alabama’s attainment 

SIP submittal. Emissions inventories for 

the Tennessee and Georgia portions of 

the Area are included in Appendices 1 

and 2, respectively, of Alabama’s 

attainment SIP submittal. This 

additional information is available in 

the docket for this final action (EPA– 

R04–OAR–2011–0084) on the 

www.regulations.gov Web site. 

3. Modeling 

The PM2.5 attainment demonstrations 

must include modeling that should be 

developed in accordance with EPA’s 

Modeling Guidance. A brief description 

of the modeling used to support 

Alabama’s attainment demonstration 

follows. More detailed information can 

be found in Alabama’s October 7, 2009, 

SIP revision in the docket for this 

proposed action (EPA–R04–OAR–2011– 

0084) on the www.regulations.gov Web 

site. 

Ambient PM2.5 typically includes 

both primary (directly emitted) PM2.5

and secondary PM2.5 (e.g., sulfates (SO4) 

and nitrates (NO3) formed by chemical 

reactions in the atmosphere). Some of 

the physicochemical processes leading 

to the formation of secondary PM2.5 may 

take hours or days, as may some of the 

removal processes. Thus, some sources 

of secondary PM2.5 may be sources 

outside of the nonattainment area. To 

model a sufficient geographic area to 

take these processes into account, 

Alabama’s regional modeling domain 

covered an area slightly greater than the 

geographical area of the VISTAS/ASIP 

states in this attainment demonstration. 

Alabama, through the ASIP and 

VISTAS, conducted an analysis of the 

major contributing components of PM2.5

in the Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga Area. Specifically, organic 

carbon (OC) and SO4 account for the 

largest contributions. The majority of 

OC can be attributed to biogenic 

emissions and SO4 to emissions of SO2. 

SO2 emissions are primarily associated 

with the point source sector. Emissions 

sensitivity modeling for the Chattanooga 

Area indicated that SO2 emissions 

reductions from EGUs in Alabama, 

Georgia, Tennessee, and Kentucky 

would have the greatest benefits for the 

Area. The VISTAS modeling also 

projects limited benefits to total ambient 

PM2.5 from reductions of NOX

emissions. See Figure 6–1 of the SIP 

Narrative of Alabama’s attainment SIP 

submittal. EPA preliminarily agrees 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 41139 

with Alabama’s assertion that 

controlling SO2 from point sources is 

the most effective means of addressing 

attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS in the Chattanooga Area. 

Model Selection and Inputs 

The ASIP performed modeling for 

ozone and PM2.5 for the 10 collaborating 

southeastern states, including Alabama. 

The modeling analysis is a complex 

technical evaluation that began with 

selection of the modeling system. The 

ASIP and/or VISTAS used the following 

modeling system: 

• Meteorological Model: The 

Pennsylvania State University/National 

Center for Atmospheric Research 

Mesoscale Meteorological Model is a 

nonhydrostatic, prognostic 

meteorological model routinely used for 

urban- and regional-scale 

photochemical, ozone, PM2.5, and 

regional haze regulatory modeling 

studies. 

• Emissions Model: The Sparse 

Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions 

modeling system is an emissions 

modeling system that generates hourly 

gridded speciated emission inputs of 

mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, 

fire and biogenic emission sources for 

photochemical grid models. 

• Air Quality Model: The EPA’s 

Models-3/Community Multiscale Air 

Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a 

photochemical grid model capable of 

addressing ozone, particulate matter, 

visibility and acid deposition at a 

regional scale. The photochemical 

model selected for this study was 

CMAQ version 4.5. It was modified 

through VISTAS with a module for 

Secondary Organics Aerosols in an open 

and transparent manner that was also 

subjected to outside peer review. 

CMAQ modeling of regional haze in 

the VISTAS region for 2002 and 2009 

was carried out on a grid of 12x12 

kilometer cells that covers the ten 

VISTAS states and states adjacent to 

them. This grid is nested within a larger 

national CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36 

kilometer grid cells that covers the 

continental United States, portions of 

Canada and Mexico, and portions of the 

Atlantic and Pacific Oceans along the 

east and west coasts. Selection of a 

representative period of meteorology is 

crucial for evaluating baseline air 

quality conditions and projecting future 

changes in air quality due to changes in 

emissions of visibility-impairing 

pollutants. Based upon an in-depth 

statistical analysis tool referred to as 

Classification and Regression Tree 

(CART) analysis, VISTAS evaluated and 

compared the years 2000 through 2004 

and selected calendar year 2002 as the 

most representative meteorological year 

available for conducting the CMAQ 

modeling. See Georgia’s State 

Implementation Plan for the 

Chattanooga PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

for Catoosa and Walker Counties, 

Appendix D, Chapter 4, which is 

Appendix 2 to the Alabama attainment 

plan submittal. As noted above, the 

VISTAS and ASIP states modeling was 

developed consistent with EPA’s 

Emissions Inventory Guidance and 

EPA’s Modeling Guidance. 

VISTAS examined the model 

performance of the regional modeling 

for the areas of interest before 

determining whether the CMAQ model 

results were suitable for use in the 

assessment of attainment of the PM2.5

NAAQS and for use in the modeling 

assessment. The modeling assessment 

predicts future levels of emissions and 

visibility impairment used to support 

the 2009 PM2.5 control strategy. In 

keeping with the objective of the CMAQ 

modeling platform, the air quality 

model performance was evaluated using 

graphical and statistical assessments 

based on measured ozone, fine particles, 

and acid deposition from various 

monitoring networks and databases for 

the 2002 base year. A diverse set of 

statistical parameters from the EPA’s 

Modeling Guidance was used to stress 

and examine the model and modeling 

inputs. Once the model performance of 

the 2002 base year was determined by 

VISTAS to be acceptable, the EPA 

model attainment test was used to 

assess whether attainment of the PM2.5

NAAQS would be achieved in 2009. 

Alabama provided the appropriate 

supporting documentation for all 

required analyses performed by the 

State and also provided, in appendices 

to their submittal as corroborating 

information, the final Tennessee and 

Georgia attainment demonstration SIPs 

for the Chattanooga Area. The technical 

analyses and modeling used to assess 

attainment in 2009 for the Area is 

consistent with the CAA, EPA’s PM2.5

Implementation Rule and EPA’s 

Modeling Guidance. EPA proposes to 

accept the VISTAS and ASIP technical 

modeling to support the attainment SIP 

for the Area because the modeling 

system was chosen and simulated 

according to EPA’s Modeling Guidance. 

For purposes of the Chattanooga 

attainment demonstration, EPA 

preliminarily agrees with the VISTAS 

model performance procedures and 

results, and preliminarily agrees that the 

CMAQ is an appropriate tool for the 

assessment of PM2.5 for the Alabama 

attainment demonstration for this Area. 

Additional details on the ASIP and 

VISTAS modeling is included in 

Appendices 1 and 2 of the Alabama SIP, 

which are the final attainment 

demonstration SIPs for the Chattanooga 

Area adopted by the States of Tennessee 

and Georgia, respectively. Due in part to 

the location of the ambient PM2.5

monitors and the significant pollution 

sources in Tennessee and Georgia, these 

states completed their attainment 

demonstration SIPs before Alabama. 

Because all three states relied upon the 

same ASIP/VISTAS modeling as the 

basis for the attainment demonstration 

for this tri-state nonattainment area, 

Alabama included the Tennessee and 

Georgia submittals as appendices to 

their submittal. 

Modeling Results 

The modeling results were used in a 

relative sense in concert with observed 

ambient air quality data (i.e., taking the 

ratio of the modeled future PM2.5

concentration to the modeled present 

PM2.5 concentration and multiplying 

that by a PM2.5 ‘‘baseline design value’’). 

EPA recommends using a baseline 

design value that is the average of the 

three design value periods that straddle 

the baseline inventory year (e.g., the 

average of the 2000–2002, 2001–2003, 

and 2002–2004 design value periods for 

a 2002 baseline inventory year). This 

average design value best represents the 

baseline concentrations while taking 

into account the variability of 

meteorology and emissions (over a fiveyear period). This EPA attainment test 

approach should reduce some of the 

uncertainty involved with using 

absolute model predictions alone. Using 

the model in a relative sense also 

reduces the effects of uneven model 

performance and possible major biases 

in predicting absolute concentrations of 

one or more components. The ratio of 

future to present model predicted air 

quality resulted in relative reduction 

factors (RRF). The multiplication of the 

RRF by an ambient design value from 

the base year (i.e., 2002) provided 

estimates of future design values to 

determine if areas with monitors in the 

nonattainment area will comply with 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA provided guidance to states and 

tribes for projecting PM2.5

concentrations using a ‘‘speciated 

modeled attainment test’’ (SMAT) 

(EPA–454/B–07–002, April 2007). Once 

modeling for a projection year and a 

base year are complete, RRFs are 

computed for each component of PM2.5

in the modeling domain. Modeling 

presented by Alabama, corroborated by 

Tennessee and Georgia as supplemental 

modeling (See Appendices 1 and 2 of 

the Alabama SIP in the docket), was 

used to assess attainment in the entire 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
41140 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Chattanooga Area and used the 

following components of PM2.5: SO4, 

NO3, directly emitted organic particles, 

and directly emitted inorganic particles. 

Ammonia is treated as part of SO4 and 

NO3 molecules, and water is assumed to 

be present at a constant mass in both the 

base year and projection year. For each 

monitoring location, the RRF for a 

component is computed as the ratio of 

the projection year divided by the base 

year modeled concentration for a threecell by three-cell array of modeled grid 

cells centered on the monitoring 

location. 

Projection year component 

concentrations are estimated by 

multiplying the RRFs by a monitoring 

based base year component 

concentration, determined by applying 

measured speciation data to the 

monitored total PM2.5 design 

concentration. The sum of these 

estimated projection year component 

concentrations is the estimated 

projection year PM2.5 concentration. If 

future estimates of PM2.5 concentrations 

are less than the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

then the modeling indicates attainment 

of the standard. 

PM2.5 includes a mixture of 

components that can behave 

independently from one another (e.g., 

primary vs. secondary particles) or that 

are related to one another in a complex 

way (e.g., different secondary particles). 

Thus, it is appropriate to consider the 

predicted future concentration of PM2.5

to be the sum of the predicted 

component concentrations. See 72 FR 

20608. As recommended in EPA’s 

Modeling Guidance, Alabama divided 

PM2.5 into its major components and 

noted the future effects of already 

implemented control strategies on each. 

The effect on PM2.5 was estimated as a 

sum of the effects on individual 

components. Future PM2.5 design values 

at specified monitoring sites were 

estimated by adding the future-year 

values of seven PM2.5 components (mass 

associated with SO4, NO3, ammonium 

(NH4), OC, elemental carbon (EC), 

particle-bound water (PBW) and ‘‘other’’ 

primary inorganic particulate matter 

(crustal) plus passively collected mass). 

All future site-specific PM2.5 design 

values were below the concentration 

specified in the NAAQS; therefore, the 

Chattanooga Area passed the SMAT 

evaluation. Table 3 illustrates the 

comparison of the designation design 

value for 2003 with the future modelpredicted 2009 annual design values for 

the monitors in the nonattainment area. 

Compliance with the PM2.5 annual 

NAAQS is predicted. 

EPA has also developed a software 

package called Modeled Attainment 

Test Software (MATS) which will 

spatially interpolate data, adjust the 

spatial fields based on model output 

gradients and multiply the fields by 

model calculated RRFs. EPA 

recommended that the State provide 

MATS attainment test values for 2009, 

but the tool became available soon after 

Alabama had drafted its attainment 

plan. The State did not submit any 

MATS results in the Chattanooga SIP. 

However, the final report for the 

‘‘Technical Support Document for the 

Association for Southeastern Integrated 

Planning (ASIP) Emissions and Air 

Quality Modeling to Support PM2.5 and 

8-Hour Ozone State Implementation 

Plans’’ (ASIP Report which is included 

in the docket) provides 2009 MATS 

version 1.2.1 results for the entire 

Chattanooga Area and the entire ASIP/ 

VISTAS modeling domain. As shown in 

Table 5–1 of this document, MATS also 

indicates attainment of the annual PM2.5

NAAQS in 2009. EPA also reviewed 

additional regional modeling to support 

the CMAQ attainment results based on 

the CAMx model developed and 

documented in the ASIP Report. 

Application of the modeled attainment 

test with the CAMx model also 

produced future design values in 2009 

that were below the annual PM2.5

NAAQS. This further supports the 

State’s technical analysis showing that 

the Chattanooga Area would achieve the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2009. 

TABLE 3—2003 ACTUAL AND 2009 MODEL-PREDICTED ANNUAL PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES

[μg/m3] 

Monitor ID State County 2003 2009 

470654002 ............................................................. TN Hamilton ................................................................ 15.2 13.6 

470650031 ............................................................. TN Hamilton ................................................................ 16.1 14.4 

470651011 ............................................................. TN Hamilton ................................................................ 14.1 12.3 

132950002 ............................................................. GA Walker ................................................................... 15.5 13.9 

EPA Analysis 

The modeling system was chosen and 

simulated by VISTAS to develop a 

model performance evaluation of the 

nonattainment area which would 

provide the necessary assurances that an 

assessment of future controls 

demonstrated attainment. Application 

of the EPA modeled attainment test and 

the MATS indicated future design 

values that are less than 15.0 mg/m3 and 

therefore consistent with attainment of 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Finally, 

the Area’s monitored status as having 

timely attained the standard further 

supports the modeling results. 

Current Air Quality Analysis 

As noted in section II.D. above, on 

May 31, 2011, EPA determined that the 

Chattanooga Area had attaining data for 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS based 

upon data for the 3-year period 2007– 

2009, with a design value (i.e., the 

highest 3-year average of annual mean 

PM2.5 concentrations) of 12.7 mg/m3. 

EPA’s review of more recent data shows 

that the Area also had attaining data for 

the 3-year period 2008–2010, with a 

design value of 11.1 mg/m3. These data, 

which have been quality-assured, 

certified, and recorded in EPA’s AQS, 

are summarized in Table 4 below. In 

addition, monitoring data thus far 

available, but not yet certified, in the 

AQS database for 2011 show that this 

Area continues to meet the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. While the data that 

shows the Chattanooga Area attained 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

April 2010 attainment deadline, as well 

as the more recent data, are impacted by 

CAIR, as described above in section II.C. 

of this notice, CAIR was enforceable 

though the attainment year, and EPA’s 

modeling analysis for the Transport 

Rule demonstrates that the Chattanooga 

Area would be able to attain the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS even in the 

absence of CAIR or the Transport Rule. 

Further, the continuing decrease in 

PM2.5 concentrations in the Area also 

supports Alabama’s determination that 

current emission control measures on 

sources were sufficient to bring the 

Chattanooga Area into attainment by no 

later than the required attainment date 

of April 5, 2010. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 41141 

TABLE 4—2007–2009 ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE CHATTANOOGA AREA

Site name County Site No. 

Design values (average of three consecutive annual average 

concentrations) (μg/m3) 

2008 2009 2010 2011 * 

Siskin Drive ......................... Hamilton, TN ...................... 47–065–4002 14.3 12.7 11.6 11.1 

Tombras Avenue ................. Hamilton, TN ...................... 47–065–0031 14.0 12.6 11.6 11.2 

Soddy-Daisy High School ... Hamilton, TN ...................... 47–065–1011 13.0 11.7 11.4 11.0 

Rossville .............................. Walker, GA ......................... 13–295–0002 13.5 12.3 10.7 10.1 

* Monitoring data for 2011 are available but not yet certified in the AQS database. 

4. Reasonably Available Control 

Measures/Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACM/RACT) 

a. Requirements for RACM/RACT 

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that 

each attainment plan ‘‘provide for the 

implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures as 

expeditiously as practicable (including 

such reductions in emissions from the 

existing sources in the area as may be 

obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of reasonably available 

control technology), and shall provide 

for attainment of the national primary 

ambient air quality standards.’’ EPA 

interprets RACM, including RACT, 

under section 172 as measures that a 

state finds are both reasonably available 

and contribute to attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable in the 

nonattainment area. Thus, what 

constitutes RACM or RACT in a specific 

PM2.5 nonattainment area is closely tied 

to the expeditious attainment 

demonstration of the plan. See 40 CFR 

51.1010; 72 FR 20586, 20612 (April 25, 

2007). 

States are required to evaluate RACM/ 

RACT for direct PM2.5 emissions and all 

of the area’s attainment plan precursors. 

See 40 CFR 51.1002(c); 72 FR 20586, 

20589–97. The state must address SO2

as a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor 

and evaluate sources of SO2 emissions 

in the state for control measures. The 

state must address NOX as a PM2.5

attainment plan precursor and evaluate 

sources of NOX emissions in the state 

for control measures, unless the state 

and EPA provide an appropriate 

technical demonstration for a specific 

area showing that NOX emissions from 

sources in the state do not significantly 

contribute to PM2.5 concentrations in the 

nonattainment area. Also, because EPA 

concluded that VOC and ammonia are 

presumptively not regulatory precursors 

for PM2.5, the state is not required to 

evaluate RACM/RACT for sources of 

VOC or ammonia unless there is a 

determination by either the state or EPA 

supported by an appropriate 

demonstration that such emissions need 

to be regulated for expeditious 

attainment of the NAAQS in the specific 

area. 

For PM2.5 attainment plans, the PM2.5

Implementation Rule requires a 

combined approach to RACM and RACT 

under subpart 1 of Part D of the CAA 

(‘‘Plan Requirements for Nonattainment 

Areas/Nonattainment Areas in 

General’’). Subpart 1, unlike subparts 2 

and 4, does not identify specific source 

categories for which EPA must issue 

control technique documents or 

guidelines and does not identify specific 

source categories for state and EPA 

evaluation during attainment plan 

development. See 72 FR 20586, 20610. 

Rather, under subpart 1, EPA considers 

RACT to be part of an area’s overall 

RACM obligation consistent with the 

section 172(c)(1) definition. Because the 

variable nature of the PM2.5 problem in 

different nonattainment areas may 

require states to develop attainment 

plans that address widely disparate 

circumstances, EPA determined not 

only that states should have flexibility 

with respect to RACM/RACT controls 

consistent with the statute but also that 

in areas needing significant emission 

reductions RACM/RACT controls on 

smaller sources may be necessary to 

reach attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable. See 72 FR 20586, 20612 and 

20615. Thus, under the PM2.5

Implementation Rule, RACT and RACM 

are those reasonably available measures 

that contribute to attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable in the 

specific nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 

51.1010; 72 FR 20586, 20612. 

The PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

requires that attainment plans include 

the list of measures that a state 

considered and information sufficient to 

show that the state met all requirements 

for the determination of what 

constitutes RACM/RACT in a specific 

nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 

51.1010(a). In addition, the rule requires 

that the state, in determining whether a 

particular emissions reduction measure 

or set of measures must be adopted as 

RACM/RACT, consider the cumulative 

impact of implementing the available 

measures and to adopt as RACM/RACT 

any potential measures that are 

reasonably available considering 

technological and economic feasibility 

if, considered collectively, they would 

advance the attainment date by one year 

or more. If a measure or measures is not 

necessary for expeditious attainment of 

the NAAQS in the area, then by 

definition that measure is not RACM/ 

RACT for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in that area. Any measures that 

are necessary to meet these 

requirements which are not already 

either federally promulgated, part of the 

state’s SIP, or otherwise creditable in 

SIPs must be submitted in enforceable 

form as part of a state’s attainment plan 

for the area. See 72 FR 20586, 20614. 

Guidance provided in the PM2.5

Implementation Rule for evaluating 

RACM/RACT level controls for an area 

also indicates that there could be 

flexibility with respect to those areas 

that were predicted to attain the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS within five years of 

designation as a result of existing 

national or local measures, i.e., by April 

2010 based upon monitoring data from 

2007, 2008, and 2009. See 72 FR 20586, 

20612. In such circumstances, EPA 

indicated that the state may conduct a 

more limited RACM/RACT analysis that 

does not involve additional air quality 

modeling. Moreover, the RACM/RACT 

analysis for such an area could focus on 

a review of reasonably available 

measures, the estimation of potential 

emissions reductions, and the 

evaluation of the time needed to 

implement the measures. Thus, the 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule guidance 

recommends that an analysis for those 

areas expected to attain within five 

years of designation as a nonattainment 

area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS may be 

less rigorous than for areas expected to 

attain later. 

A more comprehensive discussion of 

the RACM/RACT requirement for PM2.5

attainment plans and EPA’s guidance 

for it can be found in the preamble to 

the PM2.5 Implementation Rule. 72 FR 

20586, 20609–20633. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
41142 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3Table 5 shows actual emissions data obtained 

from EPA’s National Emission Inventory, which is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/. 

b. Alabama’s Analysis of Pollutants and 

Sources for Jackson County 

Alabama’s analysis appears in chapter 

6 of the October 7, 2009, attainment 

plan submission. The State determined 

that controls on sources of VOC and 

sources of ammonia would not be 

necessary for expeditious attainment of 

the NAAQS in this area. Thus, the State 

determined that control of PM2.5, SO2, 

and NOX, are appropriate in the 

Chattanooga Area for purposes of 

attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

preliminarily agrees that Alabama’s 

determination is supported by its 

analysis. The State’s determination with 

respect to which pollutants the plan 

should evaluate is discussed in chapter 

5 of the submittal. 

The Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga Area is limited to one 

census block in Jackson County 

described by U.S. Census 2000 block 

group identifier 01–071–9503–1. As 

indicated in Chapter 6 of the Technical 

Support Document for the air quality 

designations promulgated by EPA on 

January 5, 2005, this census block was 

included in the Chattanooga 

nonattainment area to encompass the 

Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA’s) 

Widows Creek power plant, which EPA 

determined to be contributing to 

violations of the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS at monitors in the nearby 

Tennessee and Georgia portions of the 

Chattanooga Area. 

c. Alabama’s Evaluation of RACM/ 

RACT Control Measures for Jackson 

County 

As was noted earlier, EPA included 

U.S. Census block 01–071–9503–1, in 

Jackson County, as part of the 

Chattanooga Area primarily because of 

emissions from the TVA Widows Creek 

power plant. For this reason, Alabama’s 

consideration of RACM/RACT control 

measures for the Area focused on the 

Widows Creek facility. Alabama’s 

RACM/RACT analysis is provided in 

Chapter 6 of the State’s October 7, 2009, 

submittal. The Widows Creek facility 

has a title V permit which includes 

requirements to operate certain control 

devices, as well as key emission limits. 

The facility was also included as part of 

the 2011 systemwide settlement with 

EPA which resulted in additional 

requirements for the facility that either 

will be or are already included into the 

title V permit to ensure they are 

permanent and enforceable. See, e.g., 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ 

resources/agreements/caa/tva-ffca.pdf. 

As identified in the submittal, TVA 

Widows Creek has two base load units, 

Units 07 and 08, with rated capacities 

of 575 megawatts (MW) and 550 MW, 

respectively. The facility also has six 

smaller units, Units 01 through 06, 

which are peaking units with rated 

capacities of 141 MW each. The 

attainment year emissions for these 

units are shown in Table 5 below. 

TABLE 5—ATTAINMENT YEAR (2009) 

ACTUAL EMISSIONS FROM UTILITY

EGUS IN THE ALABAMA PORTION OF

THE CHATTANOOGA AREA 3

Unit NOX

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

PM2.5* 

(tpy) 

01 ................ 248.5 599.3 59.9 

02 ................ 274.5 686.1 68.8 

03 ................ 109.2 250.0 25.9 

04 ................ 411.6 1022.0 102.1 

05 ................ 182.0 433.6 48.9 

06 ................ 893.8 2564.1 272.2 

07 ................ 934.7 5368.1 266.6 

08 ................ 472.1 1938.3 348.4 

* The PM2.5 values are a total of the filterable and condensable components. 

Alabama reviewed the control 

equipment installed on the EGUs at the 

TVA Widows Creek power plant and 

provided the following information in 

the summary of the State’s analysis. 

Control of NOX emissions is achieved by 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) 

controls, which were installed on Units 

07 and 08 in 2003 and 2004, 

respectively. Control of SO2 emissions is 

achieved by flue gas desulfurization 

(FGD) controls, which were installed on 

Units 07 and 08 in 1984 and 1977, 

respectively. Control of direct PM2.5

emissions is achieved by electrostatic 

precipitator (ESP) controls on Units 01 

through 07 and by FGD on Unit 08. The 

submittal states that the FGD installed 

on Unit 08 was upgraded in efficiency 

in 2004. Alabama concluded that these 

controls, and other associated 

requirements such as emission limits, 

were sufficient to comply with RACM/ 

RACT requirements and that no further 

controls were needed at the facility to 

demonstrate timely attainment. EPA 

also evaluated the Widows Creek 

controls, and a summary of that 

evaluation follows the discussion 

below. 

While Alabama did analyze existing 

controls at the TVA Widows Creek 

power plant for the purpose of its 

RACM/RACT evaluation, EPA disagrees 

with Alabama’s conclusion that ‘‘CAIR 

equals RACT’’ for several reasons. These 

reasons are outlined below although it 

is not necessary for EPA to agree with 

Alabama’s determination on that issue 

in order to approve the Jackson County 

attainment plan. In the preamble to the 

final PM2.5 Implementation Rule, EPA 

indicated that in states that fulfill their 

CAIR SO2 emission reduction 

requirements entirely through EGU 

emission reductions, compliance by 

EGU sources with an EPA-approved 

CAIR SIP or a CAIR FIP could be 

presumed to satisfy the SO2 RACT/ 

RACM requirements. 72 FR 20586 at 

20623. EPA also established a similar 

rebuttable presumption with respect to 

NOX RACT/RACM for EGUs. Id. at 

20623–24. EPA did not make any 

determination regarding whether RACT/ 

RACM requirements for any particular 

nonattainment area were, in fact, 

satisfied by CAIR, but only established 

a presumption that could be rebutted by 

data demonstrating that CAIR was not 

sufficient to satisfy RACT/RACM with 

respect to a particular nonattainment 

area. EPA did not present technical 

analysis to support this presumption. 

Subsequent to the publication of that 

preamble language, the D.C. Circuit 

issued a decision in NRDC v. EPA, 571 

F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009) holding, 

among other things, that EPA’s similar 

determination, in the ozone 

implementation rule, that compliance 

with the NOX SIP Call satisfied RACT 

for EGUs was unlawful because it was 

not supported by a technical 

demonstration showing that the NOX

SIP Call would in fact achieve greater 

reductions than source-by-source RACT 

within the nonattainment areas. Because 

the presumption established by EPA in 

the PM2.5 Implementation Rule was 

similar, in that it was supported by 

reasoning but not by a technical 

analysis, approving a state RACT/RACM 

determination based on the ‘‘CAIR 

equals RACT’’ presumption would be 

inconsistent with the court’s ruling in 

NRDC v. EPA. In addition, EPA received 

a petition for reconsideration in June of 

2007 that explicitly called into question 

the basis for the presumption on both 

procedural and substantive grounds. In 

light of the arguments raised in that 

petition for reconsideration, and in light 

of the aforementioned court decision, 

EPA has granted the petition for 

reconsideration on this issue and 

intends to initiate rulemaking to 

propose changes to this aspect of the 

guidance for the PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule. Third, CAIR itself was remanded 

to EPA by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the D.C. Circuit, North Carolina v. EPA, 

531 F.3d 896, as amended by 550 F.3d 

1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). While the court 

found serious flaws in the rule, it 

decided to leave CAIR in place while 

EPA worked on a rule to replace it. Id. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 41143 

4Major source operating permit and Statement of 

Basis issued by ADEM to the TVA Widows Creek 

Fossil Plant, Permit No. 705–0008, December 29, 

2003. 

5Major source operating permit and Statement of 

Basis issued by ADEM to Smurfit-Stone Container 

Corporation, Stevenson Mill, Permit No. 705–0014, 

October 6, 2010 (revised June 30, 2011, to change 

name to RockTenn CP, LLP). 

As mentioned above, in August 2011, 

EPA published in the Federal Register 

a rule to replace CAIR—the Transport 

Rule, also known as the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule. 76 FR 48208. EPA did 

not address whether compliance with 

the Transport Rule could, in any 

circumstances, satisfy any RACM/RACT 

requirements for any sources. The 

Transport Rule was subsequently stayed 

pending judicial review. In the order 

staying the Transport Rule, the court 

also instructed EPA to continue 

implementing CAIR while the Transport 

Rule is stayed. Thus, while CAIR 

currently remains in place, it is in place 

only temporarily and thus could not be 

said to satisfy the RACM/RACT 

requirement on a permanent basis. 

As a result, the RACM/RACT analysis 

for EGUs must include an actual 

evaluation of the level of emission 

controls on any sources located within 

the nonattainment area to establish that, 

either individually or as a category, 

these sources are controlled to the 

degree necessary to meet the RACM/ 

RACT level of control for the area. 

Given that the State developed and 

submitted the attainment plan before 

the legitimacy of the presumption in the 

guidance for the PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule was called into question, EPA is 

independently evaluating these sources 

as part of acting on the attainment plan 

rather than relying on the statement in 

the SIP submittal concerning CAIR and 

RACT. EPA believes that if its review of 

the level of SO2 and NOX emission 

controls on these sources confirms that 

the State’s SIP already requires controls 

to the degree necessary to provide for 

expeditious attainment of the NAAQS 

in the area, then EPA may conclude that 

the sources are adequately controlled to 

meet the RACM/RACT requirement. In 

other words, so long as an actual 

evaluation of the EGU sources in the 

area demonstrates that there is a RACM/ 

RACT level of controls, then EPA may 

approve the attainment plan 

notwithstanding the State’s prior 

reliance on the presumption. EPA has 

also concluded that if the area is now 

attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, then 

this is prima facia evidence that under 

section 172 the level of control on the 

EGU sources that produced the attaining 

level of emissions would constitute 

RACM/RACT for purposes of the State’s 

attainment plan for these NAAQS. EPA 

notes, however, that what constitutes 

RACM/RACT for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS would not necessarily 

constitute RACM/RACT for other 

NAAQS because the determination of 

RACM/RACT under CAA section 172 is 

dependent on the attainment needs of 

the area. 

Because the Alabama submittal relies 

in part on the rebuttable presumption 

articulated in the PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule that ‘‘CAIR equals RACT’’ for 

utility EGUs—a presumption that EPA 

cannot rely on for reasons explained 

above—EPA has evaluated the EGUs at 

TVA Widows Creek for the purposes of 

RACM/RACT. EPA notes that Widows 

Creek facility is subject to a Federal 

Facilities Compliance Agreement 

(FFCA) between EPA and TVA (http:// 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/ 

agreements/caa/tva-ffca.pdf) and a 

Consent Decree between four states, 

three non-governmental organizations 

and TVA, entered with the United 

States District Court Eastern District of 

Tennessee at Knoxville (Alabama et al. 

v. Tennessee Valley Auth., No. 3:11–cv– 

00170 and 171 (consolidated); available 

at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ 

resources/decrees/civil/caa/tvacoalfired-cd.pdf). According to the FFCA 

and the Consent Decree, Widows Creek 

Units 07 and 08 must operate their SCR, 

FGD and ESP controls continuously 

while the emission units are in 

operation. In addition, the six peaking 

units are scheduled to be retired under 

the FFCA and the Consent Decree, two 

each in 2013, 2014, and 2015. This legal 

requirement for the current level of 

controls on the EGU sources ensures 

that the level of controls which enabled 

the Area to attain the standard will 

remain federally enforceable. 

The Widows Creek facility is also 

subject to emission limits applicable to 

the facility. As described in the facility’s 

title V operating permit,4 Units 01 

through 08 at are each subject to a 

particulate matter (PM) emission limit 

of 0.12 pounds per million British 

thermal units (lb/MMBtu) heat input 

and a NOX averaging plan as provided 

in the facility’s Acid Rain permit, which 

is included in the title V permit. Units 

01 through 06 are subject to a combined 

SO2 limit of 1.6 lb/MMBtu heat input 

and opacity limit of 20 percent, and 

Units 07 and 08 at are each subject to 

an SO2 limit of 0.9 lb/MMBtu heat input 

and an opacity limit of 20 percent. 

One other significant source of PM, 

SO2 and NOX emissions, RockTenn CP, 

LLP (formerly Smurfit-Stone Container 

Corporation), Stevenson Mill, exists 

within the Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga nonattainment area. 

Alabama did not evaluate this pulp and 

paper manufacturing facility in its 

RACM/RACT analysis. However, as 

with EPA’s evaluation of RACM/RACT 

for EGUs, EPA has concluded that if the 

area is now attaining the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, then this is prima facia 

evidence that under section 172 the 

level of control on the sources that 

produced the attaining level of 

emissions would constitute RACM/ 

RACT for purposes of the State’s 

attainment plan for these NAAQS. As 

described in RockTenn CP, LLP, 

Stevenson Mill’s title V operating 

permit,5 the following emission units 

and controls were in place at the facility 

to meet various applicable emission 

limits for PM, SO2 and NOX at the time 

that the Chattanooga Area achieved 

attainment: 

• The Number 1 Power Boiler is 

controlled by a combination venturispin vane absorber and wet ESPadvance membrane up-flow system to 

meet SIP emission limits for PM and 

opacity and a Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT) emission 

limit for SO2. 

• The Number 2 Power Boiler is 

controlled by a combination venturispin vane absorber and wet ESPadvance membrane up-flow system to 

meet New Source Performance Standard 

(NSPS) limits and PSD/BACT limits for 

SO2, PM, opacity, and NOX. 

• The Number 1 Wood Fired Boiler is 

controlled by mechanical dust 

collectors, a wet multiple-element 

variable throat venture scrubber, and a 

polishing wet ESP to meet NSPS limits 

and PSD/BACT limits for SO2, PM, 

opacity, and NOX. 

• The Number 2 Wood Fired Boiler is 

controlled by a multicyclone and a dry 

ESP to meet NSPS limits and PSD/ 

BACT limits for SO2, PM, and NOX and 

a state operating permit limit for 

opacity. 

• The Chemical Recovery System 

(CRS) is controlled by both a dry and a 

wet ESP to meet PSD/BACT limits for 

PM. SO2 emissions from the CRS are 

monitored with a continuous emission 

monitoring system to assure compliance 

with NSPS limits and PSD/BACT limits. 

The CRS is also subject to PSD/BACT 

limits for NOX and a SIP limit for 

opacity. 

d. Proposed Action on RACM/RACT 

Demonstration and Control Strategy 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Alabama’s conclusion that the existing 

controls on emissions of PM2.5, SO2, and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
41144 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

NOX at the Widows Creek facility 

constitute RACM/RACT for that source 

in the Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga Area based on our analysis 

described above. Further, as 

summarized above, EPA proposes that 

no further controls would be required at 

the RockTenn facility and that existing 

controls there are sufficient for RACM/ 

RACT purposes for this Area, at this 

time. As noted above, the most current 

monitoring data for this Area indicates 

that it is attaining the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, EPA has 

already made a clean data determination 

and a finding of attaining data for this 

Area confirming that it met the NAAQS 

by its attainment date. See 76 FR 55774, 

September 8, 2011. EPA’s guidance for 

the PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

recommends that if an area is predicted 

through the attainment plan to attain the 

standards within five years after 

designation, then the state may submit 

a more limited RACM/RACT analysis 

and the state could elect not to do 

additional modeling. 

In light of the fact that the 

Chattanooga Area attained the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the State’s 

projected attainment date, and that at 

this point in time no additional 

measures could be adopted to attain one 

year sooner, EPA proposes to conclude 

that the attainment plan meets the 

RACM/RACT requirements of the PM2.5

Implementation Rule and that the level 

of control in the State’s attainment plan 

constitutes RACM/RACT for purposes of 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Because the PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

defines RACM/RACT as that level of 

control that is necessary to bring an area 

into timely attainment, and that no 

additional measures could achieve 

attainment one year earlier, the current 

level of federally enforceable controls 

on sources located within the Area is by 

definition RACM/RACT for this Area for 

this purpose. 

Our proposed approval is based upon 

the determination that these emission 

controls are in place and are, in part, the 

reason for the attainment of the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

Chattanooga Area. By approving these 

control measures as RACM/RACT for 

both sources for purposes of Alabama’s 

attainment plan, these control measures 

will become permanent and enforceable 

SIP measures to meet the requirements 

of the CAA and the PM2.5

Implementation Rule for purposes of the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

5. Reasonable Further Progress 

Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA and the 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule require that 

attainment plans include a 

demonstration that reasonable further 

progress toward meeting air quality 

standards will be achieved through 

generally linear incremental 

improvement in air quality. For the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, a state is required 

to submit a separate RFP plan for any 

area for which the state seeks an 

extension of the attainment date beyond 

2010. The PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

set forth that an area that demonstrates 

attainment within five years of the date 

of designation will be considered to 

have satisfied the RFP requirement and 

is not required to submit a separate RFP 

plan. See 40 CFR 51.1009(b). The 

Alabama attainment plan submittal for 

the Chattanooga Area by demonstrated 

that the Area would attain the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the April 5, 

2010, attainment date. Accordingly, the 

State was not required under the PM2.5

Implementation Rule to develop a 

specific RFP component of the 

attainment plan for this Area. We 

therefore propose to approve the State’s 

attainment plan with respect to the RFP 

requirement. 

6. Contingency Measures 

In accordance with section 172(c)(9) 

of the CAA, the PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule requires that PM2.5 attainment 

plans include contingency measures. 

See 40 CFR 51.1012 and 72 FR at 

20642–20646, April 25, 2007. 

Contingency measures are additional 

measures to be implemented in the 

event that an area fails to meet RFP or 

fails to attain a standard by its 

attainment date. These measures must 

be fully adopted rules or control 

measures that can be implemented 

quickly and without additional EPA or 

state action if the area fails to meet RFP 

or fails to attain by its attainment date 

and should contain trigger mechanisms 

and an implementation schedule. In 

addition, they should be measures not 

already included in the SIP control 

strategy for attaining the standard and 

should provide for emission reductions 

equivalent to one year of RFP. 

The Alabama attainment plan 

describes the contingency measures for 

the Chattanooga Area as being 

comprised of Georgia Rules for Air 

Quality Control Chapter 391–3–1 Rule 

(sss) ‘‘Multipollutant Control of Electric 

Steam Generating Units.’’ This rule 

requires additional controls on power 

plants in Georgia after the end of 2008, 

resulting in SO2 and NOX emission 

reductions that were not required for 

demonstrating attainment of the annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. However, as noted in 

section II.C. of this proposed 

rulemaking, EPA made a determination, 

based on complete, quality-assured, 

quality-controlled, and certified ambient 

air monitoring data for the 2007–2009 

monitoring period, that the Chattanooga 

Area attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date of April 5, 2010. Because EPA has 

determined, in accordance with CAA 

179(c)(1), that the Area attained by its 

applicable deadline, no contingency 

measures for failure to attain by this 

date need to be implemented, and EPA 

action with respect to contingency 

measures is unnecessary and would be 

futile and without purpose. 

Furthermore, as set forth in the PM2.5

Implementation Rule, areas that attained 

the NAAQS by the attainment date are 

considered to have satisfied the 

requirement to show RFP, and as such 

do not need to implement contingency 

measures to make further progress to 

attainment. Because EPA has 

determined that the Area has attained 

by the attainment date, the contingency 

measures submitted by Alabama are no 

longer necessary for the Chattanooga 

Area to meet RFP requirements or to 

attain the annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

attainment date. 

7. Attainment Date 

Alabama provided a demonstration of 

attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS in the Chattanooga Area by no 

later than five years after the Area was 

designated nonattainment. In 

accordance with the PM2.5

Implementation Rule, areas such as this, 

demonstrating that they will attain the 

standard by April 5, 2010, attainment 

deadline, are considered to have 

satisfied the requirement to show RFP 

toward attainment and need not submit 

a separate RFP plan. For similar reasons, 

such areas are also not subject under the 

Implementation Rule to a requirement 

for a mid-course review. Given that 

monitoring data confirm that the 

Chattanooga Area attained the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the date that 

the State anticipated in its attainment 

plan, that EPA has already made an 

attainment determination, and that the 

Area continues to attain those NAAQS, 

EPA is proposing to approve the State’s 

attainment date. 

B. Insignificance Determination for the 

Mobile Source Contribution to PM2.5 and 

NOX Emissions 

The CAA requires federal actions in 

nonattainment and maintenance areas to 

‘‘conform to’’ the goals of SIPs. See, e.g., 

CAA section 176. This means that such 

actions will not cause or contribute to 

violations of a NAAQS; worsen the 

severity of an existing violation; or 

delay timely attainment of any NAAQS 

or any interim milestone. Actions 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 41145 

6Since the July 1, 2004, revision, 40 CFR 93.109 

was revised on March 24, 2010, because of the 

Transportation Conformity Rule PM2.5 and PM10

Amendments update. In the 2004 preamble and 

rule, the insignificance determinations were 

outlined in 40 CFR 93.109(k). Due to renumbering 

of this section in a 2012 final rulemaking, the 

provisions for insignificance determinations are 

now located at 40 CFR 93.109(f). 

7 If Alabama submits a redesignation request and 

maintenance plan for its portion of the tri-state 

Chattanooga TN GA AL PM2.5 nonattainment area 

and believes that on-road emissions of NOX and 

direct PM2.5 remain insignificant during the 

maintenance period, the maintenance plan will 

need to include information to support a finding 

that on-road emissions of NOX and direct PM2.5

continue to be insignificant during the maintenance 

period. The insignificance finding for the 

attainment demonstration does not automatically 

continue to apply to the future maintenance plan. 

involving Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) or Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) funding 

or approval are subject to the 

transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 

part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, 

metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs) in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas coordinate with state 

air quality and transportation agencies, 

EPA, and the FHWA and FTA to 

demonstrate that their metropolitan 

transportation plans and transportation 

improvement programs (TIPs) conform 

to applicable SIPs. This is typically 

determined by showing that estimated 

emissions from existing and planned 

highway and transit systems are less 

than or equal to the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEB) contained in 

a SIP. 

For MVEB to be approvable, they 

must meet, at a minimum, EPA’s 

adequacy criteria found at 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4). In certain instances, the 

Transportation Conformity Rule allows 

areas to forgo establishment of a MVEB 

where it is demonstrated that the 

regional motor vehicle emissions for a 

particular pollutant or precursor are an 

insignificant contributor to the air 

quality problem in an area. The general 

criteria for insignificance 

determinations can be found in 40 CFR 

93.109(f). Insignificance determinations 

are based on a number of factors, 

including the percentage of motor 

vehicle emissions in context of the total 

SIP inventory; the current state of air 

quality as determined by monitoring 

data for the relevant NAAQS; the 

absence of SIP motor vehicle control 

measures; and the historical trends and 

future projections of the growth of 

motor vehicle emissions. EPA’s 

rationale for providing for insignificance 

determinations is described in the July 

1, 2004, revision to the Transportation 

Conformity Rule at 69 FR 40004.6

Specifically, the rationale is explained 

on page 40061 under the subsection 

entitled ‘‘XXIII.B. Areas with 

Insignificant Motor Vehicle Emissions.’’ 

Any insignificance determination under 

review of EPA is subject to the budget 

adequacy and approval process for 

EPA’s action on the SIP. 

EPA made an insignificance finding 

through the transportation conformity 

adequacy process for NOX and directly 

emitted PM2.5 for the Alabama portion 

of the Chattanooga PM2.5 nonattainment 

area on June 18, 2010 (75 FR 34734). As 

a result of EPA’s insignificance finding, 

the Alabama portion of the Chattanooga 

Area was no longer required to perform 

regional emissions analyses for either 

directly emitted PM2.5 or NOX as part of 

future PM2.5 conformity determinations 

for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS until 

such time that EPA reviewed and took 

action on the Chattanooga Area’s 

attainment plan (the subject of today’s 

proposed action). EPA’s June 18, 2010, 

insignificance finding for directly 

emitted PM2.5 and NOX through the 

adequacy process (effective on July 6, 

2010) only relates to the Alabama 

portion of the tri-state Chattanooga 

Area. 

When EPA makes an insignificance 

determination through the adequacy 

process for transportation conformity, 

EPA notes that such an adequacy 

determination does not imply that an 

insignificance determination in the SIP 

(i.e., in this case the attainment plan) 

will ultimately be approved. In this 

case, consistent with EPA’s adequacy 

review of Alabama’s October 7, 2009, 

attainment plan and the Agency’s 

subsequent thorough review of the 

entire SIP submission, EPA is proposing 

to approve Alabama’s insignificance 

determination for the mobile source 

contribution of NOX and PM2.5

emissions to the overall PM2.5 emissions 

in the Chattanooga Area. EPA 

preliminarily determined that 

Alabama’s SIP submittal meets the 

criteria in the transportation conformity 

rules for an insignificance finding for 

both NOX and PM2.5 contribution from 

motor vehicles in the Alabama portion 

of the Chattanooga Area. That is, EPA 

has preliminarily determined that the 

SIP submittal demonstrates that, for 

NOX and PM2.5, regional motor vehicle 

emissions are an insignificant 

contributor to the annual PM2.5

concentrations in the Alabama portion 

of the Area. This preliminary finding is 

based on the following factors: 

• Tables 10.1.1–1 and 10.1.1–2 of 

Alabama’s submittal demonstrate that 

the on-road NOX and PM2.5 emissions in 

2009 for the Alabama portion of the 

Area are less than 1 percent, each, of the 

total emissions for the Alabama portion 

of the Area. 

• There have been no SIP 

requirements for motor vehicles control 

measures for the Alabama portion of the 

Area. 

• According to the Chattanooga Area 

MPO’s analysis, the projected mobile 

source emissions to 2035 indicate that 

there is no reason to expect highway 

motor vehicle growth that would cause 

a violation of the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

• As described above, the Area has 

attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5

standard and EPA is proposing to 

approve the attainment plan for the 

Alabama portion of the Area. 

As discussed above, the Area is not 

currently required to perform a regional 

emissions analysis for the Alabama 

portion of the Chattanooga Area based 

on the adequacy determination for the 

finding that on-road emissions of NOX

and direct PM2.5 are insignificant 

contributors to the Area’s PM2.5 air 

quality problem. Today, EPA is 

proposing to approve that insignificance 

finding as part of the State’s attainment 

plan for the Area. If finalized, such 

approval would serve to confirm that 

the Alabama portion of the Area is not 

required to perform a regional emissions 

analysis for either directly emitted PM2.5

or NOX as a part of future PM2.5

conformity determinations for the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 standard.7 PM2.5 hot-spot 

analysis will continue to apply for 

required projects under 40 CFR 93.116 

and 93.123(b) of the Transportation 

Conformity Rule. 

Weighing all the factors for an 

insignificance finding, particularly the 

minor contribution of mobile source 

NOX and PM2.5, EPA has determined 

that the NOX and PM2.5 contribution 

from motor vehicle emissions to the 

Annual PM2.5 pollution problem for the 

Alabama portion of the Area are 

insignificant. If finalized, EPA’s 

insignificance finding should be 

considered and specifically noted in the 

transportation conformity 

documentation that is prepared for this 

Area. 

The insignificance determination that 

Alabama submitted for the Chattanooga 

Area was developed with projected 

mobile source emissions derived using 

the MOBILE6 motor vehicle emissions 

model. EPA is proposing to approve the 

inventory and the insignificance 

determination because this model was 

the most current model available at the 

time Alabama was performing its 

analysis. However, EPA has now issued 

an updated motor vehicle emissions 

model known as Motor Vehicle 

Emission Simulator or MOVES. In its 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
41146 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

8EPA recently extended the grace period to use 

MOVES for regional emissions analysis in 

conformity determinations to March 2, 2013 (77 FR 

11394). 

announcement of this model, EPA 

established a two-year grace period for 

continued use of MOBILE6 in regional 

emissions analyses for transportation 

plan and TIP conformity determinations 

(extending to March 2, 2012),8 after 

which states (other than California) 

must use MOVES in conformity 

determinations for TIPs. As stated above 

MOBILE6.2 was the applicable mobile 

source emissions model that was 

available when this SIP was submitted. 

EPA’s ‘‘Policy Guidance on the Use of 

MOVES2010 and Subsequent Minor 

Revisions for State Implementation Plan 

Development, Transportation 

Conformity, and Other Purposes’’ 

(http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/ 

moves/documents/420b12010.pdf) 

explains that the Clean Air Act does not 

require states that have already 

submitted SIPs to revise these SIPs 

simply because a new motor vehicle 

emissions model is now available. The 

guidance further states that the use of 

MOBILE6.2 in an already submitted SIP 

should not be an obstacle to approval of 

that SIP assuming that it is otherwise 

approvable because it would be 

unreasonable to require revision to a SIP 

which in this case was submitted prior 

to the release of MOVES. In this 

instance the on-road emissions of NOX

and PM2.5 represent such a small 

percentage of the inventory in the 

Alabama portion of the Area (less than 

1 percent of the total inventory) that 

recalculating the on-road emissions 

with MOVES would not result in a 

change in the proposed conclusion that 

on-road emissions meet the 

insignificance criteria in the 

transportation conformity rule. 40 CFR 

93.109(f). 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Alabama’s annual PM2.5 attainment plan 

for the Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga Area. EPA has 

preliminarily determined that the SIP 

meets applicable requirements of the 

CAA, as described in the PM2.5

Implementation Rule. Specifically, EPA 

is proposing to approve Alabama’s 

attainment demonstration, including the 

RACM/RACT analysis; RFP analysis; 

and, for transportation conformity 

purposes, an insignificance 

determination for PM2.5 and NOX for the 

mobile source contribution to ambient 

PM2.5 levels for the State’s portion of the 

Chattanooga Area. The requirement for 

a RFP plan is satisfied because Alabama 

demonstrated attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the Area by April 5, 

2010. Also, because EPA has previously 

determined that the Area has attained 

by the attainment date, the contingency 

measures submitted by Alabama are no 

longer necessary for the Chattanooga 

Area to meet RFP requirements or to 

attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

by the attainment date. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, October 7, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule 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 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. 

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

Dated: June 21, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–16959 Filed 7–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0286; FRL–9698–6] 

Delegation of National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Source Categories; Gila River 

Indian Community 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 112(l) of 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, 

EPA is proposing to grant delegation of 

specific national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) to 

the Gila River Indian Community 

Department of Environmental Quality in 

Arizona. 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by August 13, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0286, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(AIR–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1