Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Utah; 

Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone Standard for Salt Lake County 

and Davis County, page 33 of 33 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorportion by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: December 13, 2012. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2012–31562 Filed 12–31–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0622; FRL–9767–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Georgia: New 

Source Review—Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

portions of a revision to the Georgia 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the State of Georgia, 

through the Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources’ Environmental 

Protection Division (EPD), on July 26, 

2012. The SIP submission includes 

changes to Georgia’s New Source 

Review (NSR), Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program to 

incorporate by reference (IBR) federal 

PSD requirements regarding fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) increments, 

significant impact levels (SILs), 

significant monitoring concentration 

(SMC) and the deferral of, until July 21, 

2014, PSD applicability to biogenic 

carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from 

bioenergy and other biogenic stationary 

sources. EPA is proposing to approve 

portions of Georgia’s SIP submittal 

because the Agency has preliminarily 

determined that it is consistent with 

section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) and EPA regulations regarding 

NSR permitting. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 1, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0622 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0622, 

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–2012– 

0622.’’ 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: For 

information regarding the Georgia SIP, 

contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, 

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. Ms. 

Bradley’s telephone number is (404) 

562–9352; email address: 

bradley.twunjala@epa.gov. For 

information regarding NSR, contact Ms. 

Yolanda Adams, Air Permits Section, at 

the same address above. Ms. Adams’ 

telephone number is (404) 562–9241; 

email address: adams.yolanda@epa.gov. 

For information regarding the PM2.5

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS), contact Mr. Joel Huey, 

Regulatory Development Section, at the 

same address above. Mr. Huey’s 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
46 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1Throughout this document IBR means 

incorporate or incorporates by reference. 

2The de minimis principle is grounded in the 

decision described by the court case Alabama 

Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360 (DC Cir. 

1980). In this case, reviewing EPA’s 1978 PSD 

regulations, the court recognized that ‘‘there is 

likely a basis for an implication of de minimis 

authority to provide exemption when the burdens 

of regulation yield a gain of trivial or no value.’’ 636 

F.2d at 360. 

3On April 6, 2012, EPA filed a brief with the D.C. 

Circuit Court defending the Agency’s authority to 

implement SILs and SMC for PSD purposes. 

telephone number is (404) 562–9104; 

email address: huey.joel@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Georgia’s SIP 

revision? 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

On July 26, 2012, EPD submitted a SIP 

revision to EPA for approval into the 

Georgia SIP to IBR1 federal NSR PSD 

permitting requirements at Georgia’s Air 

Quality Control Rule 391–3–1–.02(7)— 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

of Air Quality. These rule changes were 

provided to comply with federal NSR 

permitting regulations and include 

provisions related to the 

implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS for 

the PSD program as promulgated in the 

rule entitled ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact 

Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring 

Concentration (SMC), Final Rule,’’ 75 

FR 64864 (October 20, 2010) (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘PM2.5 PSD IncrementSILs-SMC Rule’’) and the deferral until 

July 21, 2014, of the application of PSD 

permitting requirement to biogenic CO2

emissions from bioenergy and other 

biogenic stationary sources as 

promulgated in the rule entitled, 

‘‘Deferral for CO2 Emissions From 

Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources 

Under the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) and Title V 

Programs,’’ Final Rule, 76 FR 43490 

(July 20, 2011) (hereafter referred to as 

CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule). 

Additionally, the July 26, 2012, SIP 

revision (1) IBR into Georgia SIP EPA’s 

interim rulemaking entitled ‘‘Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

(NNSR): Reconsideration of Inclusion of 

Fugitive Emissions; Interim Rule; Stay 

and Revisions,’’ 76 FR 17548 (March 30, 

2011) (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule’’); (2) 

requests that EPA remove from the SIP 

the exclusion language at Rule 391–3– 

1–.02(7) regarding the coarse particle 

pollution (PM10) surrogate and 

grandfathering provision promulgated 

in the ‘‘Implementation of the New 

Source Review Program for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers,’’ 73 

FR 28321, May 16, 2008 (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘NSR PM2.5 Rule’’); (3) 

amends the definitions Rule 391–3–1– 

.01(nnn)—Definitions regarding testing 

and monitoring of air pollutants; and (4) 

revises Rule 391–3–1–.03(6)— 

Exemptions by adding a new exemption 

for cumulative small modifications at an 

existing quarry where the quarry is not 

a major source and the associated 

emissions increase is less than 10 tons 

per year of particulate matter and PM10.

The two elements of EPD’s July 26, 

2012, SIP submittal that EPA is not 

proposing to approve in this action are: 

(1) incorporation of the SIL thresholds 

and provisions promulgated in EPA’s 

PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule 

(for reasons explained later in this 

notice); and (2) revisions to Rules 391– 

3–1–.02(2)(c)—Incinerators, 391–3–1– 

.02(www)—Sewage Sludge Incineration, 

391–3–1–.02(8)(b)—New Source 

Performance Standards and 391–3–1– 

.02(9)(b)—Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants, as these 

regulations are not part of Georgia’s 

federally approved SIP. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

Today’s proposed action to revise the 

Georgia SIP relates to PSD provisions 

promulgated in EPA’s PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC Rule and CO2

Biomass Deferral Rule. Additionally, the 

July 26, 2012, SIP revision addresses 

EPA’s repeal of the grandfathering 

provision as promulgated in the Rule 

entitled ‘‘Implementation of the New 

Source Review Program for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5); Final Rule to Repeal 

Grandfather Provision’’ (76 FR 28646, 

May 18, 2011) and the extension of the 

stay in the Fugitive Emissions Interim 

Rule. More details regarding these rules 

are found in the respective final 

rulemakings and are summarized below. 

For more information on the NSR 

Program and the PM2.5 NAAQS please 

refer to the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILsSMC Rule and the NSR PM2.5 Rule. 

A. PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC-Rule 

On October 20, 2010, EPA finalized 

the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule 

to provide additional regulatory 

requirements under the PSD program 

regarding the implementation of the 

PM2.5 NAAQS for NSR. Specifically, the 

rule establishes: (1) PM2.5 increments 

pursuant to section 166(a) of the CAA to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in areas meeting the NAAQS; (2) 

SILs used as a screening tool (by a major 

source subject to PSD) to evaluate the 

impact a proposed major source or 

modification may have on the NAAQS 

or PSD increment; and (3) a SMC (also 

a screening tool) used by a major source 

subject to PSD to determine if a source 

must submit to the permitting authority 

one year of pre-construction air quality 

monitoring data prior to constructing or 

modifying a facility. As part of the 

response to comments on the October 

20, 2010, final rulemaking, EPA 

explained that the Agency agrees that 

the SILs and SMCs used as de minimis 2

thresholds for the various pollutants are 

useful tools that enable permitting 

authorities and PSD applicants to screen 

out ‘‘insignificant’’ activities; however, 

these values are not required by the Act 

as part of an approvable SIP program. 

EPA believes that most states are likely 

to adopt the SILs and SMCs because of 

the useful purpose they serve regardless 

of EPA’s position that the values are not 

mandatory. Alternatively, states may 

develop more stringent values if they 

desire to do so. In any case, states are 

not under any statutory deadline for 

revising their PSD programs to add 

these screening tools. See 75 FR 64864, 

64900. 

Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP revision 

IBR the NSR changes promulgated in 

the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule 

to be consistent with the federal NSR 

regulations and to appropriately 

implement the State’s NSR program for 

the PM2.5 NAAQS. More detail on the 

PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule 

can be found in EPA’s October 20, 2010, 

final rule and is summarized below. See 

75 FR 64864. For the reasons explained 

below, EPA is not proposing to take 

action to approve the SILs (promulgated 

in the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC 

Rule) into the Georgia SIP in this 

rulemaking. EPA’s authority to 

implement the SILs and SMC for PSD 

purposes has been challenged by the 

Sierra Club. Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No 

10–1413 (D.C. Circuit Court).3 More 

details regarding Georgia’s changes to its 

PSD regulations are also summarized 

below in Section III. 

1. What are PSD increments? 

As established in part C of title I of 

the CAA, EPA’s PSD program protects 

public health from adverse effects of air 

pollution by ensuring that construction 

of new or modified sources in 

attainment or unclassifiable areas does 

not lead to significant deterioration of 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 47 

4Section 169(4) of the CAA provides that the 

baseline concentration of a pollutant for a particular 

baseline area is generally the air quality at the time 

of the first application for a PSD permit in the area. 

5Baseline dates are pollutant specific. That is, a 

complete PSD application establishes the baseline 

date only for those regulated NSR pollutants that 

are projected to be emitted in significant amounts 

(as defined in the regulations) by the applicant’s 

new source or modification. Thus, an area may have 

different baseline dates for different pollutants. 

6EPA generally characterized the PM2.5 NAAQS 

as a NAAQS for a new indicator of PM. EPA did 

not replace the PM10 NAAQS with the NAAQS for 

PM2.5 when the PM2.5 NAAQS were promulgated in 

1997. EPA rather retained the annual and 24-hour 

NAAQS for PM2.5 as if PM2.5 was a new pollutant 

even though EPA had already developed air quality 

criteria for PM generally. See 75 FR 64864 (October 

20, 2010). 

7EPA interprets 166(a) to authorize EPA to 

promulgate pollutant-specific PSD regulations 

meeting the requirements of section 166(c) and 

166(d) for any pollutant for which EPA promulgates 

a NAAQS after 1977. 

air quality while simultaneously 

ensuring that economic growth will 

occur in a manner consistent with 

preservation of clean air resources. 

Under section 165(a)(3) of the CAA, a 

PSD permit applicant must demonstrate 

that emissions from the proposed 

construction and operation of a facility 

‘‘will not cause, or contribute to, air 

pollution in excess of any maximum 

allowable increase or allowable 

concentration for any pollutant.’’ In 

other words, when a source applies for 

a permit to emit a regulated pollutant in 

an area that meets the NAAQS, the state 

and EPA must determine if emissions of 

the regulated pollutant from the source 

will cause significant deterioration in 

air quality. Significant deterioration 

occurs when the amount of the new 

pollution exceeds the applicable PSD 

increment, which is the ‘‘maximum 

allowable increase’’ of an air pollutant 

allowed to occur above the applicable 

baseline concentration 4 for that 

pollutant. PSD increments prevent air 

quality in clean areas from deteriorating 

to the level set by the NAAQS. 

Therefore, an increment is the 

mechanism used to estimate ‘‘significant 

deterioration’’ of air quality for a 

pollutant in an area. 

For PSD baseline purposes, a baseline 

area for a particular pollutant emitted 

from a source includes the attainment or 

unclassifiable area in which the source 

is located as well as any other 

attainment or unclassifiable area in 

which the source’s emissions of that 

pollutant are projected (by air quality 

modeling) to result in an ambient 

pollutant increase of at least 1 

microgram per meter cubed (mg/m3) 

(annual average). See 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(15)(i). Under EPA’s existing 

regulations, the establishment of a 

baseline area for any PSD increment 

results from the submission of the first 

complete PSD permit application and is 

based on the location of the proposed 

source and its emissions impact on the 

area. Once the baseline area is 

established, subsequent PSD sources 

locating in that area need to consider 

that a portion of the available increment 

may have already been consumed by 

previous emissions increases. In 

general, the submittal date of the first 

complete PSD permit application in a 

particular area is the operative ‘‘baseline 

date’’ after which new sources must 

evaluate increment consumption.5 On 

or before the date of the first complete 

PSD application, emissions generally 

are considered to be part of the baseline 

concentration, except for certain 

emissions from major stationary 

sources. Most emissions increases that 

occur after the baseline date will be 

counted toward the amount of 

increment consumed. Similarly, 

emissions decreases after the baseline 

date restore or expand the amount of 

increment that is available. See 75 FR 

64864. As described in the PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, and pursuant 

to the authority under section 166(a) of 

the CAA, EPA promulgated numerical 

increments for PM2.5 as a new 

pollutant 6 for which NAAQS were 

established after August 7, 1977,7 and 

derived 24-hour and annual PM2.5

increments for the three area 

classifications (Class I, II and III) using 

the ‘‘contingent safe harbor’’ approach. 

See 75 FR 64864 at 64869 and ambient 

air increment table at 40 CFR 

51.166(c)(1) and 52.21(c). 

In addition to PSD increments for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC Rule amended the 

definition at 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 

for ‘‘major source baseline date’’ and 

‘‘minor source baseline date’’ (including 

trigger dates) to establish the PM2.5

NAAQS specific dates associated with 

the implementation of PM2.5 PSD 

increments. See 75 FR 64864. In 

accordance with section 166(b) of the 

CAA, EPA required the states to submit 

revised implementation plans to EPA 

for approval (to adopt the PM2.5 PSD 

increments) within 21 months from 

promulgation of the final rule (by July 

20, 2012). Regardless of when a state 

submits its revised SIP, the emissions 

from major sources subject to PSD for 

PM2.5 for which construction 

commenced after October 20, 2010 

(major source baseline date), consume 

PM2.5 increment and should be included 

in the increment analyses occurring 

after the minor source baseline date is 

established for an area under the state’s 

revised PSD program. See 75 FR 64864. 

As discussed in detail in Section III, 

Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP revision IBR 

the PM2.5 PSD increment permitting 

requirements promulgated in the PM2.5

PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule. 

2. What are significant monitoring 

concentrations? 

Under the CAA and EPA regulations, 

an applicant for a PSD permit is 

required to gather preconstruction 

monitoring data in certain 

circumstances. CAA Section 165(a)(7) 

calls for ‘‘such monitoring as may be 

necessary to determine the effect which 

emissions from any such facility may 

have, or is having, on air quality in any 

areas which may be affected by 

emissions from such source.’’ In 

addition, CAA section 165(e) requires 

an analysis of the air quality in areas 

affected by a proposed major facility or 

major modification and calls for 

gathering one year of monitoring data 

unless the reviewing authority 

determines that a complete and 

adequate analysis may be accomplished 

in a shorter period. These requirements 

are codified in EPA’s PSD regulations at 

40 CFR 51.166(m) and 40 CFR 52.21(m). 

In accordance with EPA’s Guideline for 

Air Quality Modeling (40 CFR part 51, 

appendix W), the preconstruction 

monitoring data are primarily used to 

determine background concentrations in 

modeling conducted to demonstrate that 

the proposed source or modification 

will not cause or contribute to a 

violation of the NAAQS. See 40 CFR 

part 51, appendix W, section 9.2. SMCs 

are numerical values that represent 

thresholds of insignificant (i.e., de 

minimis), monitored (ambient) impacts 

on pollutant concentrations. In EPA’s 

PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, 

EPA established a SMC of 4 mg/m3 for 

PM2.5.

Using the SMC as a screening tool, 

sources may be able to demonstrate that 

the modeled air quality impact of 

emissions from the new source or 

modification, or the existing air quality 

level in the area where the source would 

construct, is less than the SMC (i.e., de 

minimis), and as such, may be allowed 

to forego the preconstruction monitoring 

requirement for a particular pollutant at 

the discretion of the reviewing 

authority. See 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5) and 

52.21(i)(5). SMCs are not minimum 

required elements of an approvable SIP 

under the CAA. This de minimis value 

is widely considered to be a useful 

component for implementing the PSD 

program, but is not absolutely necessary 

for the states to implement PSD 

programs. States can satisfy the 

statutory requirements for a PSD 

program by requiring each PSD 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
48 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

8As mentioned earlier, due to litigation by the 

Sierra Club, EPA is not proposing to take action on 

the SILs portion of the Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP 

revision at this time but will take action once the 

court case regarding SILs implementation is 

resolved. 

9Additional information on this issue can also be 

found in an April 25, 2012, comment letter from 

EPA Region 6 to the Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality regarding the SILs-SMC 

litigation. A copy of this letter can be found in the 

docket for today’s rulemaking at 

www.regulations.gov using docket ID: EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0622. 

10Please refer to the July 12, 2012 rulemaking 

finalizing GHG Tailoring Rule Step 3. See 77 FR 

41051. 

11 Georgia’s submittal also revised the State’s title 

V operating permit provisions (which are not 

included in the federally approved SIP) to 

incorporate the GHG Tailoring Rule provisions. As 

such, EPA did not taking final action to approve 

Georgia’s update to its title V. 

12As with the Tailoring Rule, the Biomass 

Deferral addresses both PSD and title V 

requirements. However, EPA is only taking action 

on Georgia’s PSD program as part of this action. 

applicant to submit air quality 

monitoring data for PM2.5 without using 

de minimis thresholds to exempt certain 

sources from such requirements. See 75 

FR 64864. The PM2.5 SMC became 

effective under the federal PSD program 

on December 20, 2010. States with EPAapproved PSD programs that adopt the 

SMC for PM2.5, however, may use the 

SMC, once it is part of an approved SIP, 

to determine when it may be 

appropriate to exempt a particular major 

stationary source or major modification 

from the monitoring requirements under 

its state PSD program. Georgia’s July 26, 

2012, revision IBR the SMC provision 

into the Georgia SIP. 

Recently, the Sierra Club filed suit 

challenging EPA’s authority to 

implement the PM2.5 SILs 8 as well as 

the SMC for PSD purposes as 

promulgated in the October 20, 2010, 

rule. Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No 10– 

1413, D.C. Circuit Court. Specifically 

regarding the SMC, Sierra Club claims 

that the use of SMC to exempt a source 

from submitting a year’s worth of 

monitoring data is inconsistent with the 

CAA. EPA responded to Sierra Club’s 

claims in a brief dated April 6, 2012, 

which describes the Agency’s authority 

to develop and promulgate SMCs.9 A 

copy of EPA’s April 6, 2012, brief can 

be found in the docket for today’s 

rulemaking at www.regulations.gov 

using docket ID: EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0622. 

B. CO2 Biomass Deferral 

1. The GHG Tailoring Rule 

On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2, 

2010), EPA promulgated a final 

rulemaking, entitled ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final 

Rule’’ (hereafter referred to as the GHG 

Tailoring Rule), for the purpose of 

relieving overwhelming permitting 

burdens from the regulation of 

greenhouse gases (GHG) that would, in 

the absence of the rule, fall on 

permitting authorities and sources. See 

75 FR 31514. EPA accomplished this by 

tailoring the applicability criteria that 

determine which GHG emission sources 

become subject to the PSD program of 

the CAA. In particular, EPA established 

in the GHG Tailoring Rule a phase-in 

approach for PSD applicability and 

estblished the first two steps of the 

phase-in for the largest GHG emitters.10

On January 13, 2011, EPD submitted a 

SIP revision to EPA to IBR into the 

Georgia SIP (at 391–3–1–.02(7)), the 

version of 40 CFR 52.21 as of June 3, 

2010, which included the GHG 

Tailoring Rule thresholds.11 EPA took 

final action to approve Georgia’s SIP 

revision on September 8, 2011. See 76 

FR 55572. Please refer to the GHG 

Tailoring Rule for specific details on the 

PSD thresholds. 

2. EPA’s CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule 

In the July 20, 2011, final rulemaking, 

EPA deferred until July 21, 2014, the 

consideration of CO2 emissions from 

bioenergy and other biogenic sources 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘biogenic CO2

emissions’’) when determining whether 

a stationary source meets the PSD and 

title V applicability thresholds, 

including those for the application of 

best available control technology 

(BACT).12 See 76 FR 43490. Thus, under 

the federal PSD rules, stationary sources 

that combust biomass (or otherwise emit 

biogenic CO2 emissions) and construct 

or modify during the deferral period 

will not be subject to the application of 

PSD to the biogenic CO2 emissions 

resulting from those actions. The 

deferral applies only to biogenic CO2

emissions and does not affect non-GHG 

pollutants or other GHGs (e.g., methane 

and nitrous oxide) emitted from the 

combustion of biomass fuel. Also, the 

deferral only pertains to regulation of 

biogenic CO2 emissions under the PSD 

and title V programs and does not 

pertain to any other EPA programs such 

as the GHG Reporting Program. 

Biogenic CO2 emissions are defined as 

emissions of CO2 from a stationary 

source directly resulting from the 

combustion or decomposition of 

biologically-based materials other than 

fossil fuels and mineral sources of 

carbon. Examples of ‘‘biogenic CO2

emissions’’ include, but are not limited 

to: 

• CO2 generated from the biological 

decomposition of waste in landfills, 

wastewater treatment, or manure 

management processes; 

• CO2 from the combustion of biogas 

collected from biological decomposition 

of waste in landfills, wastewater 

treatment, or manure management 

processes; 

• CO2 from fermentation during 

ethanol production or other industrial 

fermentation processes; 

• CO2 from combustion of the 

biological fraction of municipal solid 

waste or biosolids; 

• CO2 from combustion of the 

biological fraction of tire-derived fuel; 

and 

• CO2 derived from combustion of 

biological material, including all types 

of wood and wood waste, forest residue, 

and agricultural material. 

The deferral is intended to be a 

temporary measure, in effect for no 

more than three years, to allow the 

Agency time to conduct detailed 

examination of the science and 

technical issues related to accounting 

for biogenic CO2 emissions, and 

determine what, if any, treatment of 

biogenic CO2 emissions should be in the 

PSD and title V programs. The biomass 

deferral rule is not EPA’s final 

determination on the treatment of 

biogenic CO2 emissions in those 

programs. The Agency plans to 

complete its science and technical 

review and any follow-up rulemakings 

within the three-year deferral period 

and further believes that three years is 

ample time to complete these tasks. It is 

possible that the subsequent 

rulemaking, depending on the nature of 

EPA’s determinations, would supersede 

the biomass deferral rulemaking and 

become effective in fewer than three 

years. In that event, Georgia may revise 

its SIP accordingly. 

EPA’s final biomass deferral rule is an 

interim deferral for biogenic CO2

emissions only and does not relieve 

sources of the obligation to meet the 

PSD and title V permitting requirements 

for other pollutant emissions that are 

otherwise applicable to the source 

during the deferral period or that may 

be applicable to the source at a future 

date pending the results of EPA’s study 

and subsequent rulemaking action. This 

means, for example, that if the deferral 

is applicable to biogenic CO2 emissions 

from a particular source during the 

three-year effective period and the study 

and future rulemaking do not provide 

for a permanent exemption from PSD 

and title V permitting requirements for 

the biogenic CO2 emissions from a 

source with particular characteristics, 

then the deferral would end for that 

type of source and its biogenic CO2

emissions would have to be 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49 

appropriately considered in any 

applicability determinations that the 

source may need to conduct for future 

stationary source permitting purposes, 

consistent with that subsequent 

rulemaking and the final GHG Tailoring 

Rule (e.g., a major source determination 

for title V purposes or a major 

modification determination for PSD 

purposes). EPA also wishes to clarify 

that the agency does not require that a 

PSD permit issued during the deferral 

period be amended or that any PSD 

requirements in a PSD permit existing at 

the time the deferral took effect, such as 

BACT limitations, be revised or 

removed from an effective PSD permit 

for any reason related to the deferral or 

when the deferral period expires. 

Under 40 CFR 52.21(w), any PSD 

permit shall remain in effect, unless and 

until it expires or it is rescinded, under 

the limited conditions specified in that 

provision. Thus, a PSD permit that is 

issued to a source while the deferral was 

effective need not be reopened or 

amended if the source is no longer 

eligible to exclude its biogenic CO2

emissions from PSD applicability after 

the deferral expires. However, if such a 

source undertakes a modification that 

could potentially require a PSD permit 

and the source is not eligible to 

continue excluding its biogenic CO2

emissions after the deferral expires, the 

source will need to consider its biogenic 

CO2 emissions in assessing whether it 

needs a PSD permit to authorize the 

modification. 

Any future actions to modify, shorten, 

or make permanent the deferral for 

biogenic sources are beyond the scope 

of the biomass deferral action and this 

proposed approval of the deferral into 

the Georgia SIP, and will be addressed 

through subsequent rulemaking. The 

results of EPA’s review of the science 

related to net atmospheric impacts of 

biogenic CO2 and the framework to 

properly account for such emissions in 

title V and PSD permitting programs 

based on the study are prospective and 

unknown. Thus, EPA is unable to 

predict which biogenic CO2 sources, if 

any, currently subject to the deferral as 

incorporated into the Georgia SIP would 

be subject to any permanent exemptions 

or which currently deferred sources 

would be potentially required to 

account for their emissions in the future 

rulemaking EPA has committed to 

undertake for such purposes in three or 

fewer years. Only in that rulemaking 

can EPA address the question of 

extending the deferral or putting in 

place requirements that would have the 

equivalent effect on sources covered by 

the biomass deferral. Once that 

rulemaking has occurred, Georgia may 

address related revisions to its SIP. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Georgia’s 

SIP revision? 

Georgia currently has a SIP-approved 

NSR program for new and modified 

stationary sources. EPD’s PSD 

preconstruction rules are found at 

Georgia Air Quality Control Rule 391– 

3–1–.02(7)—Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration of Air Quality and apply 

to major stationary sources or 

modifications constructed in areas 

designated attainment areas or 

unclassifiable/attainment areas as 

required under part C of title I of the 

CAA with respect to the NAAQS. 

Georgia’s Rule 391–3–1–.02(7) IBR the 

federal NSR PSD regulations at 40 CFR 

52.21 into the Georgia SIP. In effect, 

EPD’s July 26, 2012, SIP revision revises 

Rule 391–3–1–.02(7) by updating the 

State’s IBR date to July 20, 2011, which 

includes the federal PSD permitting 

updates promulgated in the PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, the CO2

Biomass Deferral Rule and the extension 

of the stay in the Fugitive Emissions 

Interim Rule. Additionally, the July 26, 

2012, SIP submission revises Rule 391– 

3–1–.02(7) by removing language to 

address EPA’s repeal of the PM10

surrogate and grandfathering provisions 

and clarifies at subparagraph (a)(1) of 

391–3–1–.01 that all dates associated 

with IBR of the federal PSD rules (at 40 

CFR 52.21) refer to the date of 

publication of those rules in the Federal 

Register. In addition to changes to Rule 

391–3–1–.02(7), the July 26, 2012, SIP 

revision also (1) amends Georgia’s 

definitions at 391–3–1–.01 by revising 

subparagraph (nnnn) to reference the 

February 1, 2012, update to Georgia’s 

‘‘Procedures for Testing and Monitoring 

Sources of Air Pollutants,’’ and; (2) 

modifies Rule 391–3–1–.03(6) by adding 

a new exemption from SIP permitting 

requirements (at subparagraph (i)(4)) for 

small modifications to an existing 

quarry that is not a major source, where 

the combined emissions increases, 

including any contemporaneous 

emission decreases from all nonexempt 

modified activities, are less than 10 tons 

per year of particulate matter and PM10. 

The new quarry exemption may not be 

used to avoid any emission limitations 

or standards of the Rules for Air Quality 

Control Chapter 391–3–1–.02 (e.g., PSD 

requirements), lower the potential to 

emit below ‘‘major source’’ thresholds, 

or avoid any ‘‘applicable requirement’’ 

as defined in 40 CFR Part 70.2. See 

Georgia Rule 391–3–1–.03(6). 

These changes to Georgia’s rules 

became state effective on August 9, 

2012. EPA is proposing to approve 

changes to Georgia’s Rule 391–3–1– 

.02(7), to update the State’s existing SIPapproved PSD program to be consistent 

with federal NSR regulations (at 40 CFR 

52.21) and the CAA. In addition, EPA is 

proposing to approve Georgia’s 

requested changes to Rules 391–3–1–.01 

and .0. 3. More details on EPA’s analysis 

and proposed approval of the portions 

of Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP submittal 

addressing PSD provisions promulgated 

in the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC 

Rule, the CO2 Deferral Rule, the Fugitive 

Emissions Interim Rule and the NSR 

PM2.5 Rule (grandfathering provision) 

are discussed below. 

A. Rule 391–3–1–.02(7) SIP Revision 

1. PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule 

EPD’s July 26, 2012, SIP revision IBR 

the following provisions into the 

Georgia SIP at regulation 391–3–1– 

.02(7) as promulgated in the October 20, 

2010, PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC 

Rule: (1) PSD increments for PM2.5

annual and 24-hour NAAQS pursuant to 

section 166(a) of the CAA; (2) SILs used 

as a screening tool (used by a major 

source subject to PSD) to evaluate the 

impact a proposed major source or 

modification may have on the NAAQS 

or PSD increment; and (3) SMC to 

determine the level of data gathering 

required of a major source in support of 

its PSD permit application for PM2.5

emissions. 

Specifically, Georgia’s July 26, 2012, 

SIP revision IBR into the Georgia SIP (at 

391–3–1–.02(7)) the PM2.5 PSD 

increments as amended in the tables at 

40 CFR 52.21(c) and (p)(5) (for Class I 

Variances) the amendments to the terms 

‘‘major source baseline date’’ (as 

amended at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14)(i)(c)); 

‘‘minor source baseline date’’ (including 

establishment of the ‘‘trigger date’’) (40 

CFR 52.21(b)(14)(ii)(c)); and the 

definition of ‘‘baseline area’’ (as 

amended at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(15)(i) and 

(ii)). These changes provide for the 

implementation of the PM2.5 PSD 

increments for the PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

State’s PSD program. In today’s action, 

EPA is proposing to approve Georgia’s 

July 26, 2012, SIP revision to address 

PM2.5 PSD increments. 

Regarding the SILs and SMC 

established in the October 20, 2010, 

PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, 

the Sierra Club has challenged EPA’s 

authority to implement SILs and SMC. 

In a brief filed in the DC Circuit on April 

6, 2012, EPA described the Agency’s 

authority under the CAA to promulgate 

and implement the SMCs and SILs de 

minimis thresholds. With respect to the 

SMC, Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP 

revision IBR the SMC of 4 mg/m3 for 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
50 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

13Pursuant to CAA section 302(j), examples of 

these industry sectors include oil refineries, 

Portland cement plants, and iron and steel mills. 

14On April 24, 2009, EPA agreed to reconsider 

the approach to handling fugitive emissions and 

granted a 3-month administrative stay of the 

Fugitive Emissions Rule. The administrative stay of 

the Fugitive Emissions Rule became effective on 

September 30, 2009. EPA put an additional threemonth stay in place from December 31, 2009, until 

March 31, 2010. 

15 Georgia’s previous incorporation by reference 

of 40 CFR 52.21 at 391–3–1–.02(7) was as of June 

3, 2010, which did not include the May 18, 2011, 

repeal of the PM10 Surrogate Policy; therefore the 

grandfathering exclusion language at 391–3–1– 

.02(7)(b)(6)(i) was necessary at that time. The June 

3, 2010, IBR date was approved into the Georgia SIP 

on September 8, 2011. 

PM2.5 NAAQS at 391–3–1–.02(7). 

Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP revision is 

consistent with EPA’s current 

promulgated provisions in the October 

20, 2010, PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILsSMC Rule. EPA is proposing to approve 

this promulgated threshold into the 

Georgia SIP as EPA believes the SMC is 

a valid exercise of the Agency’s de 

minimis authority. However, EPA notes 

that future court action may require 

subsequent rule revisions and SIP 

revisions from the State of Georgia. 

The July 26, 2012, SIP revision 

submitted by Georgia to IBR the new 

PSD requirements for PM2.5 pursuant to 

the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule 

also includes the new regulatory text at 

40 CFR 52.21(k)(2), concerning the 

implementation of SILs for PM2.5. EPA 

stated in the preamble to the October 20, 

2010, final rule that we do not consider 

the SILs to be a mandatory SIP element, 

but regard them as discretionary on the 

part of a regulating authority for use in 

the PSD permitting process. 

Nevertheless, the PM2.5 SILs are 

currently the subject of litigation before 

the U.S. Court of Appeals. Sierra Club 

v. EPA, Case No 10–1413 (DC Circuit). 

In response to that litigation, EPA has 

requested that the court remand and 

vacate the regulatory text in EPA’s PSD 

regulations at paragraph (k)(2) so that 

EPA can make necessary rulemaking 

revisions to that text. In light of EPA’s 

request for remand and vacatur and the 

acknowledgement of the need to revise 

the regulatory text presently contained 

at paragraph (k)(2) of sections 51.166 

and 52.21, EPA does not believe that it 

is appropriate at this time to approve 

that portion of Georgia’s SIP revision 

that contains the affected regulatory text 

in the State’s PSD regulations, at 391– 

3–1–0.2(7). Instead, EPA is taking no 

action at this time with regard to that 

specific provision contained in the SIP 

revision. EPA will take action on the 

SILs portion of Georgia’s July 26, 2012, 

SIP revision in a separate rulemaking 

once the issue regarding the court case 

has been resolved. 

2. CO2 Biomass Deferral 

In the July 20, 2011, CO2 Biomass 

Deferral Rule, similar to the approach 

with the GHG Tailoring Rule, EPA 

incorporated the biomass deferral into 

the Federal PSD program by amending 

the definition of ‘‘subject to regulation’’ 

under 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21, 

respectively. Georgia’s July 26, 2012, 

SIP revision IBR into the Georgia SIP 40 

CFR 52.21 as of July 20, 2011, which 

includes the CO2 Biomass Deferral 

revision to the definition of ‘‘subject to 

regulation’’ deferring, until July 21, 

2014, PSD applicability to biogenic 

carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from 

bioenergy and other biogenic stationary 

sources. EPA is proposing to approve 

Georgia’s IBR of the CO2 Biomass 

Deferral Rule. 

3. Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule 

Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP revision 

also IBR the extension of the stay of the 

Fugitive Emissions Rule into the 

Georgia PSD program at 391–3–1–.02(7). 

On December 19, 2008, EPA issued a 

final rule revising the requirements of 

the NSR permitting program regarding 

the treatment of fugitive emissions. See 

73 FR 77882. The final rule required 

fugitive emissions to be included in 

determining whether a physical or 

operational change results in a major 

modification only for sources in 

industries that have been designated 

through rulemaking under section 

302(j) 13 of the CAA. As a result of EPA 

granting the Natural Resource Defense 

Council’s petition for reconsideration on 

the original Fugitive Emissions Rule 14

on March 31, 2010, EPA stayed the 

Fugitive Emissions Rule (73 FR 77882) 

for 18 months to October 3, 2011. The 

stay allowed the Agency time to 

propose, take comment and issue a final 

action regarding the inclusion of 

fugitive emissions in NSR applicability 

determinations. On March 30, 2011 (76 

FR 17548), EPA proposed an interim 

rule which superseded the March 31, 

2010, stay and clarified and extended 

the stay of the Fugitive Emission Rule 

until EPA completes its reconsideration. 

The interim rule simply reverts the CFR 

text back to the language that existed 

prior to the Fugitive Emissions Rule 

changes in the December 19, 2008, 

rulemaking. EPA plans to issue a final 

rule affirming the interim rule as final. 

The final rule will remain in effect until 

EPA completes its reconsideration. EPA 

is proposing to approve Georgia’s IBR of 

the interim rulemaking extending the 

stay of the Fugitives Emissions Rule into 

its SIP at Rule 391–3–1–.02(7). 

4. PM2.5 Grandfathering Provision 

In the NSR PM2.5 Rule, EPA finalized 

regulations to establish the framework 

for implementing preconstruction 

permit review for the PM2.5 NAAQS in 

both attainment and nonattainment 

areas including the grandfather 

provision which allowed PSD 

applicants that submitted their complete 

permit application prior to the July 15, 

2008 effective date of the NSR PM2.5

Rule to continue to rely on the 1997 

p.m.10 Surrogate Policy rather than 

amend their application to demonstrate 

compliance directly with the new PM2.5

requirements. See 73 FR 28321. On 

January 13, 2011, Georgia submitted a 

SIP revision to IBR into the Georgia SIP 

the version of 40 CFR 52.21 as of June 

3, 2010 which included language that 

excluded the grandfathering exemption 

(at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi)) from the 

state’s PSD regulations (at Rule 391–3– 

1–.02(7)(b)(6)(i)) ensuring that sources 

were not subject to the grandfathering 

provision. EPA approved Georgia’s 

January 13, 2011, SIP revision on 

September 8, 2011(76 FR 55572). 

On May 18, 2011, EPA took final 

action to repeal the PM2.5 grandfathering 

provision at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi). See 

76 FR 28646. Georgia’s July 26, 2012, 

SIP submittal incorporates into the 

Georgia SIP the version of 40 CFR 52.21 

as of July 20, 2011, which includes the 

May 18, 2011, repeal of the grandfather 

provision. Thus, the language 

previously approved into Georgia’s SIP 

at Rule 391–3–1–.02(7)(b)(6)(i) that 

excludes the grandfathering provision is 

no longer necessary. Georgia’s July 26, 

2012, SIP submittal removes the 

unnecessary language pertaining to the 

grandfather provision from Rule 391–3– 

1–.02(7)(b)(6)(i).15 EPA is proposing to 

approve this portion of Georgia’s July 

26, 2012, SIP submittal. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve portions 

of Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP revision 

adopting federal regulations amended in 

the October 20, 2010, PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC rule, the June 3, 

2010, CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule; the 

March 30, 2011, Fugitive Emissions 

Interim Rule, the additional 

amendments regarding PM2.5

Grandfathering Provision, and the 

definition and exemption revisions into 

the Georgia SIP. EPA is not however 

proposing to approve in this rulemaking 

Georgia’s SIP revisions regarding the SIL 

thresholds and provisions and Rule 

391–3–1–.02(c)—Incinerators, 391–3–1– 

.02(www)—Sewage Sludge Incineration, 

391–3–1–.02(8)(b)—New Source 

Performance Standards and 391–3–1– 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 51 

.02(9)(b)—Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that this SIP revision, with regard to the 

aforementioned proposed actions, is 

approvable because it is consistent with 

section 110 of the CAA and EPA 

regulations regarding NSR permitting. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

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 F43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Greenhouse gases, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: December 18, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–31538 Filed 12–31–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0936; FRL–9767–4] 

Designation of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; California; 

Morongo Band of Mission Indians 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to correct an 

error in a previous rulemaking that 

revised the boundaries between 

nonattainment areas in Southern 

California established under the Clean 

Air Act for the purposes of addressing 

the revoked national ambient air quality 

standard for one-hour ozone. EPA is 

also proposing to revise the boundaries 

of certain Southern California air quality 

planning areas to designate the Indian 

country of the Morongo Band of Mission 

Indians, California (Morongo 

Reservation) as a separate air quality 

planning area for the one-hour and 1997 

eight-hour ozone standards. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 1, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0936, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: israels.ken@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 415–947–3579. 

4. Mail or deliver: Ken Israels 

(Mailcode AIR–8), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through the 

http://www.regulations.gov or email; 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

anonymous access system, and EPA will 

not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send 

email directly to EPA, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. 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. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed directly 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken 

Israels, Grants and Program Integration 

Office (AIR–8), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 

947–4102, israels.ken@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ ‘‘our,’’ and ‘‘Agency’’ refer 

to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Banning Pass and the Morongo Band of 

Mission Indians 

B. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

C. Area Designations and Classifications 

II. Proposed Action 

A. Legal Authority 

B. Proposed Correction to 2003 Action 

C. Proposed Boundary Redesignation of the 

Morongo Reservation as a Separate 

Nonattainment Area for the One-Hour 

Ozone and Eight-Hour Ozone Standards 

III. Summary of Proposed Action and Request 

for Public Comment 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with