Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33363 

data substitution was conducted. The 

24-hour mean was recalculated, and the 

resulting 2009–2011 PM2.5 24-hour 

design value with data substitution is 27 

mg/m3. The Air Lab monitor has a 

preliminary 2009–2011 PM2.5 24-hour 

design value of 24 mg/m3. The monitor 

had one incomplete quarter during the 

first quarter of 2010, and PM10 data 

substitution was conducted. The 24- 

hour mean was recalculated, and the 

resulting 2009–2011 PM2.5 24-hour 

design value with data substitution is 29 

mg/m3. Because the design values with 

data substitution are below the 35 mg/m3

standard, both monitors are considered 

to be attaining the 2006 24-hour 

NAAQS. The official design values of 

the monitors are 24 mg/m3 and 24 mg/m3, 

respectively. On the basis of this review, 

EPA is proposing to determine that the 

Knoxville Area has attained the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

C. Has the Knoxville Area met the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 air quality standard? 

EPA has reviewed the ambient air 

monitoring data for PM2.5, consistent 

with the requirements contained in 40 

CFR part 50 and recorded the data in the 

EPA AQS database, for the Knoxville 

Area. Based on EPA’s review of the data 

for 2009–2011, EPA proposes to 

determine that the Area attained the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

V. What is the effect of these actions? 

If these proposed determinations of 

attaining data are made final, the 

requirements for the Knoxville Area to 

submit attainment demonstrations and 

associated RACM, RFP plans, 

contingency measures, and any other 

planning SIPs related to attainment of 

either the 1997 annual or the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS would be 

suspended for so long as the Area 

continues to attain the applicable PM2.5

NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.1004(c). 

Notably, as described below, any such 

determination would not be equivalent 

to the redesignation of the Area to 

attainment for the 1997 annual or 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

If these proposed rulemakings are 

finalized and EPA subsequently 

determines, after notice-and-comment 

rulemaking in the Federal Register, that 

the Area has violated either the 1997 

annual or 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

the basis for the suspension of the 

specific requirements would no longer 

exist for the Knoxville Area for the 

NAAQS (i.e, the 1997 annual or the 

2006 24-hour NAAQS) which was 

violated, and the Area would thereafter 

have to address the applicable 

requirements for that particular 

NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.1004(c). 

Finalizing these proposed actions 

would not constitute a redesignation of 

the Area to attainment of the 1997 

annual or 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. 

Further, finalizing these proposed 

actions does not involve approving a 

maintenance plan for the Area as 

required under section 175A of the 

CAA, nor would it find that the Area 

has met all other requirements for 

redesignation. Even if EPA finalizes the 

proposed actions, the designation status 

of the Knoxville Area would remain 

nonattainment for the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS until such 

time as EPA determines that the Area 

meets the CAA requirements for 

redesignation to attainment and takes 

action to redesignate the Area. 

If the Knoxville Area continues to 

monitor attainment of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements for the 

Knoxville Area to submit an attainment 

demonstration and associated RACM, 

RFP plan, contingency measures, and 

any other planning SIPs related to 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS will remain suspended. 

Further, if the Knoxville Area continues 

to monitor attainment of the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements 

for the Knoxville Area to submit an 

attainment demonstration and 

associated RACM, RFP plan, 

contingency measures, and any other 

planning SIPs related to attainment of 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS will 

remain suspended. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

These actions propose to make 

determinations of attaining data based 

on air quality, and would, if finalized, 

result in the suspension of certain 

federal requirements, and it would not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, these proposed actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In 

addition, these proposed 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

determinations for the Knoxville Area 

do 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. 

For purposes of judicial review, the two 

determinations proposed by today’s 

action are severable from one another. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: May 17, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13715 Filed 6–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0227; FRL–9681–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Kentucky; 

Approval of Revisions to the Jefferson 

County Portion of the Kentucky SIP; 

New Source Review; Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

33364 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

multiple revisions to the Jefferson 

County portion of the Kentucky State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, 

through the Kentucky Division for Air 

Quality (KDAQ), to EPA in two 

submittals dated June 1, 2009, and 

February 8, 2011. These proposed 

revisions were submitted by KDAQ on 

behalf of the Louisville Metro Air 

Pollution Control District (LMAPCD), 

(also referred to as Jefferson County) and 

modifies the LMAPCD New Source 

Review (NSR) Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permitting 

regulations. The proposed revisions 

incorporate by reference (IBR) federal 

NSR PSD requirements promulgated in 

the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring 

Rule (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘GHG 

Tailoring Rule’’), requirements for the 

fine particulate matter (also known as 

PM2.5) national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) as amended in 

EPA’s 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘NSR 

PM2.5 Rule’’), the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS Implementation Rule NSR 

Update Phase II (hereafter referred to as 

the ‘‘Phase II Rule’’), and the 2002 NSR 

Reform Rule, into the Jefferson County 

portion of the Kentucky SIP. EPA is 

proposing approval of Jefferson 

County’s June 1, 2009, and February 8, 

2011, SIP revisions because the Agency 

has determined that these SIP revisions 

are in accordance with the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act) and EPA regulations 

regarding the PSD permitting program. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 6, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2011–0227 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–2011–0227, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

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

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2011– 

0227.’’ 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 Jefferson 

County portion of the Kentucky 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 the GHG 

Tailoring Rule, 2002 NSR Reform and 

NSR PM2.5 Rule, contact Yolanda 

Adams, Air Permits Section, at the same 

address above. Ms. Adams’ telephone 

number is (404) 562–9214; email 

address: adams.yolanda@epa.gov. For 

information regarding the Phase II Rule 

and ozone NAAQS, contact Jane Spann, 

Regulatory Development Section, at the 

same address above. Ms. Spann’s 

telephone number is (404) 562–9029; 

email address: spann.jane@epa.gov. For 

information regarding the PM2.5

NAAQS, contact Mr. Joel Huey, 

Regulatory Development Section, at the 

same address above. Mr. Huey’s 

telephone number is (404) 562–9104; 

email address: huey.joel@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What actions are proposed in this notice? 

II. What is EPA’s proposed action for GHGemitting sources? 

III. What is EPA’s proposed action for the 

NSR PM2.5 Rule? 

IV. What is EPA’s proposed action for the 

Phase II Rule? 

V. What are EPA’s proposed actions for 

NSR Reform and Reasonable Possibility? 

VI. What is EPA’s proposed action for the 

automatic rescission clause? 

VII. Proposed Actions 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

I. What actions are proposed in this 

notice? 

On June 1, 2009, and February 8, 

2011, the Commonwealth of Kentucky 

through the KDAQ (and on behalf of 

LMAPCD) submitted two SIP revisions 

to EPA for approval into the Jefferson 

County portion of the Kentucky SIP to 

adopt federal NSR PSD permitting 

requirements. The SIP revisions consist 

of changes to the LMAPCD Air Quality 

Regulations, Regulation 2 Permit 

Requirements: Regulation 2.05— 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33365 

1With respect to the NSR PM2.5 Rule, Phase II 

Rule and NSR Reform, Jefferson County’s SIP 

revisions only address PSD requirements at 

Regulation 2.05. The nonattainment NSR (NNSR) 

provisions for Jefferson County (Regulation 2.04) for 

these provisions are still under development by 

LMAPCD. 

2On March 31, 2010, EPA stayed the Fugitive 

Emissions Rule (73 FR 77882) for 18 months to 

October 3, 2011, to allow the Agency time to 

propose, take comment and issue a final action 

regarding the inclusion of fugitive emissions in NSR 

applicability determinations. This stay was 

established as a result of EPA granting the Natural 

Resource Defense Council’s petition for 

reconsideration on the original Fugitive Emissions 

Rule. See 73 FR 77882 (December 19, 2008). 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. 

3The GHG Tailoring Rule also applies to the title 

V program, which requires operating permits for 

existing sources. However, today’s action does not 

affect LMAPCD’s title V program. 

4 ‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Finding for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) 

of the Clean Air Act.’’ 74 FR 66496 (December 15, 

2009). 

5 ‘‘Interpretation of Regulations that Determine 

Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting 

Programs.’’ 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010). 

6 ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010). 

of Air Quality and address several NSR 

PSD permitting requirements 

promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21. 

Specifically, the June 1, 2009, SIP 

revision: (1) Incorporates provisions for 

implementing the PSD program for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS as promulgated in the 

NSR PM2.5 Rule,1 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 

2008); (2) adopts PSD provisions related 

to the implementation of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone Phase II Rule including 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) as a precursor to 

ozone, 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 

2005); and (3) adopts federal PSD 

regulations established in the 2002 NSR 

Reform Rules, 67 FR 80186 (December 

31, 2002) and the NSR Reasonable 

Possibility Rule, 72 FR 72607 (December 

21, 2007). These PSD permitting 

provisions became effective in Jefferson 

County on May 20, 2009. The February 

8, 2011, SIP revision provides Jefferson 

County with the authority to regulate 

GHG under its PSD program and 

establishes appropriate emission 

thresholds for determining which new 

stationary sources and modification 

projects become subject to LMAPCD’s 

PSD permitting requirements for their 

GHG emissions as promulgated in the 

GHG Tailoring Rule, 75 FR 31514 (June 

3, 2010). These GHG PSD applicability 

provisions became effective in Jefferson 

County on November 17, 2010. In 

addition, the February 8, 2011, 

submittal adopts a provision that would 

automatically render Jefferson County’s 

Regulation 2.05 or a portion thereof 

invalid in the wake of certain court 

decisions or other events (the 

‘‘automatic rescission clause’’). 

Approval of Jefferson County’s GHG 

permitting regulations also includes a 

proposal to simultaneously rescind the 

federal implementation plan (FIP) that 

EPA promulgated on January 14, 2011. 

See 76 FR 2581. For more information 

on the Jefferson County FIP see Section 

II of this rulemaking. Pursuant to 

section 110 of the CAA, EPA is 

proposing to approve these changes into 

the Jefferson County portion of the 

Kentucky SIP. 

In addition to incorporating the 

changes discussed above, Jefferson 

County’s SIP revisions also include PSD 

permitting provisions that: (1) Exclude 

facilities that produce ethanol through a 

natural fermentation process from the 

definition of ‘‘chemical process plants’’ 

in the major NSR source permitting 

program as amended in the Ethanol 

Rule, 72 FR 24060 (May 1, 2007); and 

(2) IBR changes pursuant to EPA’s 

Fugitive Emissions Rule, 73 FR 77882 

(December 19, 2008).2 In today’s 

proposed rulemaking, EPA is not 

proposing to take action on LMAPCD’s 

changes to its PSD regulations to adopt 

provisions promulgated in the Ethanol 

Rule nor is EPA proposing to take action 

on LMAPCD’s changes to incorporate 

the provisions of the Fugitive Emission 

Rule. 

LMAPCD IBR the federal PSD 

permitting requirements found at 40 

CFR 52.21 to update its permitting 

program at Regulation 2.05. Jefferson 

County’s practice for revising its PSD 

regulations is to IBR into its SIP the 

version of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (at 40 CFR 52.21) that is in 

effect as of a specified date. LMAPCD’s 

Regulation 2.05 contains the 

preconstruction review program that 

provides for the prevention of 

significant deterioration of ambient air 

quality as required under part C of title 

I of the CAA (the PSD program). 

Jefferson County’s June 1, 2009, SIP 

revision, which provided version 9 of 

LMAPCD’s Regulation 2.05, IBR the 

federal PSD regulations as set forth at 40 

CFR 52.21, and as amended as of July 

1, 2008. Subsequently, the February 8, 

2011, SIP revision, which provided 

version 10 of LMAPCD’s Regulation 

2.05, IBR federal PSD regulations as set 

forth at 40 CFR 52.21, and as amended 

as of July 1, 2010, thereby superseding 

version 9 of Regulation 2.05. 

Throughout this rulemaking, EPA will 

refer to the June 1, 2009, and February 

8, 2011, SIP revisions as the ‘‘Jefferson 

County’s SIP revisions.’’ 

II. What is EPA’s proposed action for 

GHG-emitting sources? 

On February 8, 2011, KDAQ 

submitted a request to EPA to approve 

changes to the Jefferson County portion 

of the Kentucky SIP to incorporate 

federal requirements for NSR PSD 

permitting. These adopted rules became 

effective in Jefferson County on 

November 17, 2010. These amendments 

provide Jefferson County with the 

authority to regulate GHG under its PSD 

program and establish PSD applicability 

thresholds for GHG emissions in 

LMAPCD’s PSD regulations at the same 

emissions thresholds and in the same 

timeframes as those specified by EPA in 

the GHG Tailoring Rule. By 

incorporating the GHG Tailoring Rule 

thresholds into the Jefferson County 

portion of the Kentucky SIP, KDAQ is 

ensuring that smaller GHG sources 

emitting less than these thresholds will 

not be subject to PSD permitting 

requirements for their GHG emissions. 

In today’s action, pursuant to section 

110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to 

approve these changes into the Jefferson 

County portion of the Kentucky SIP.3

Approval of Jefferson County’s GHG 

permitting regulations also includes a 

proposal to simultaneously rescind the 

FIP that EPA promulgated on January 

14, 2011. See 76 FR 2581. More 

information regarding Jefferson County’s 

FIP is summarized below. This section 

briefly summarizes EPA’s GHG-related 

actions that provide the background for 

today’s proposed action. More detailed 

discussion of the background is found 

in the preambles for those actions cited 

herein. 

A. Background 

EPA has recently undertaken a series 

of actions pertaining to the regulation of 

GHGs that, although for the most part 

are distinct from one another, establish 

the overall framework for today’s final 

action on the Jefferson County portion 

of the Kentucky SIP. Four of these 

actions include, as they are commonly 

called, the ‘‘Endangerment Finding’’ 

and ‘‘Cause or Contribute Finding,’’ 4

which EPA issued in a single final 

action; the ‘‘Johnson Memo 

Reconsideration;’’ 5 the ‘‘Light-Duty 

Vehicle Rule;’’ 6 and the ‘‘Tailoring 

Rule.’’ Taken together and in 

conjunction with the CAA, these actions 

established regulatory requirements for 

GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles 

and new motor vehicle engines; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

33366 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

7On December 30, 2010, (75 FR 82536) EPA 

promulgated the rule entitled ‘‘Limitation of 

Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule; 

(the ‘‘Narrowing Rule’’). In the Narrowing Rule, 

EPA explained that by ‘‘narrowing’’ its prior 

approval of a SIP-approved PSD program, EPA 

could ensure that for federal purposes, GHG sources 

below the Tailoring Rule’s thresholds would not be 

obligated to hold PSD permits until the state 

develops and submits a revised PSD program that 

EPA approves, either because the state adopts the 

Tailoring Rule thresholds or because the state 

demonstrates that it has adequate resources to 

administer a program covering GHGs at lower 

applicability thresholds. See 75 FR at 31518. 

However, as discussed later in this section, EPA 

issued a SIP call and FIP for the Jefferson County 

jurisdiction, and therefore did not narrow federal 

approval of LMAPCD’s PSD program. 

8EPA’s action on January 14, 2011, to put a FIP 

in place for Jefferson County, Kentucky does not 

relate to the rest of Kentucky, as the 

Commonwealth, through KDAQ submitted a 

corrective SIP revision to address the remainder of 

Kentucky on December 13, 2010. KDAQ’s SIP 

revision to adopt the GHG Tailoring Rule thresholds 

for all portions of Kentucky, except Jefferson 

County, was approved by EPA on December 29, 

2010 (75 FR 81868). 

determined that such regulations, when 

they took effect on January 2, 2011, 

subjected GHGs emitted from stationary 

sources to PSD requirements; and 

limited the applicability of PSD 

requirements to GHG sources on a 

phased-in basis. EPA took this last 

action in the GHG Tailoring Rule, 

which, more specifically, established 

appropriate GHG emission thresholds 

for determining the applicability of PSD 

requirements to GHG-emitting sources. 

In the GHG Tailoring Rule, EPA tailored 

the applicability criteria that determine 

which GHG emission sources become 

subject to the PSD program of the CAA 

to relieve overwhelming permitting 

burdens that would, in the absence of 

the rule, fall on permitting authorities 

and sources. See 75 FR 31514, (June 3, 

2010). As EPA explained in the GHG 

Tailoring Rule, the threshold limitations 

are necessary because without them 

PSD would apply to all stationary 

sources that emit or have the potential 

to emit more than 100 or 250 tons of 

GHG per year as of January 2, 2011. 

January 2, 2011, was the date when 

EPA’s Light-Duty Vehicle Rule took 

effect, imposing control requirements 

for the first time on carbon dioxide and 

other GHGs. EPA asked permitting 

authorities to confirm that they would 

follow this implementation approach for 

their programs, and if they could not, to 

notify EPA so that the Agency could 

take appropriate follow-up action to 

narrow 7 federal approval of their 

programs before GHGs became subject 

to PSD permitting on January 2, 2011. 

See 75 FR at 31518. 

Recognizing that some states had SIPapproved PSD programs that did not 

apply PSD to GHGs, EPA issued a SIP 

call and, for some of these states, a FIP. 

On December 13, 2010, EPA finalized 

the rulemaking entitled ‘‘Action to 

Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under 

the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Program to Sources of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of 

Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,’’ 

Final Rule (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘SIP call’’). See 75 FR 77698. The rule 

finalized findings of substantial 

inadequacy and SIP call for 15 state and 

local permitting authorities (including 

Jefferson County) where the existing 

SIP-approved PSD program did not 

provide authority to regulate GHGs. EPA 

explained that if a state identified in the 

SIP call failed to submit the required 

corrective SIP revision by the applicable 

deadline, EPA would promulgate a FIP 

under CAA section 110(c)(1)(A) for that 

state to govern PSD permitting for 

GHGs. LMAPCD requested a SIP call 

deadline of January 1, 2011, to provide 

its corrective SIP with the 

understanding that EPA would put a FIP 

in place for Jefferson County soon after 

that date if a SIP revision was not 

provided. On January 14, 2011, EPA 

finalized a FIP for Jefferson County in 

the rulemaking ‘‘Action to Ensure 

Authority to Issue Permits Under the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan 

for Jefferson County, KY,’’ Final Rule 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘Jefferson 

County GHG FIP’’). See 76 FR 2581. 

This rulemaking established a FIP for 

Jefferson County because LMAPCD, 

through KDAQ, was unable to submit, 

by its January 1, 2011, deadline, the 

corrective SIP revision to apply its PSD 

program to sources of GHG.8 The FIP 

was put in place to ensure that a 

permitting authority (i.e., EPA) would 

be available to issue preconstruction 

PSD permits to GHG-emitting sources in 

Jefferson County, if necessary. 

B. Jefferson County’s Actions 

In response to EPA’s request in the 

GHG Tailoring Rule that permitting 

authorities confirm whether their SIPs 

provide authority to implement the 

GHG Tailoring Rule thresholds, 

LMAPCD provided a letter (commonly 

referred to as the 60-day letter) to EPA 

on August 2, 2010, explaining that 

LMAPCD * * * ‘‘[i]s authorized in its 

existing SIP to apply the meaning of the 

term ‘‘subject to regulation’’ established 

by EPA in the GHG Tailoring Rule in 

both the PSD and title V permitting 

programs.’’ LMAPCD further explained 

that it would need to amend its SIP for 

Jefferson County to enable it to 

implement the GHG Tailoring Rule 

thresholds. See the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking for a copy of 

LMAPCD’s 60-day letter. 

However, on October 4, 2010, in 

response to EPA’s request in the 

September 2, 2010, proposed SIP call 

Rule, LMAPCD submitted a letter to 

EPA changing its view of whether 

Jefferson County’s SIP-approved PSD 

regulations provided authority to 

regulate GHGs (referred to as the 30-day 

letter). Jefferson County’s 30-day letter 

acknowledged that while its existing SIP 

could be interpreted as providing the 

Agency authority to issue PSD permits 

to GHG-emitting sources, this 

interpretation would be a departure 

from its past practice of utilizing 

rulemaking procedures to update the 

SIP to incorporate revised EPA 

regulations.’’ See Docket ID: EPA–R04– 

OAR–2011–0227 for LMAPCD’s October 

4, 2010, 30-day letter. In a follow-up 

letter dated October 19, 2010, LMAPCD 

reiterated its position that it did not 

have the authority, under its existing 

SIP, to issue PSD permits to regulate 

GHG-emitting sources without going 

through rulemaking. See DOCKET ID: 

EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0227 for 

LMAPCD’s October 19, 2010, follow-up 

letter. 

With the final GHG SIP call (75 FR 

77698) and the Jefferson County GHG 

FIP rulemaking (76 FR 2581), EPA took 

steps to ensure that LMAPCD, which 

did not interpret its exiting SIPapproved PSD program to provide 

authority to issue PSD permits to GHGemitting sources, would not be at risk 

for permitting interruptions related to 

GHG by either having EPA issue permits 

for GHG through a FIP or be in a 

position for EPA to use delegation to 

allow LMAPCD to issue permits related 

to GHGs. More detail regarding EPA’s 

analysis of the proposed changes to the 

Jefferson County portion of the 

Kentucky SIP (as provided in the 

February 8, 2011, revision) is provided 

below. 

C. EPA’s Analysis of Jefferson County’s 

SIP Revision To Adopt the GHG 

Tailoring Rule 

On February 8, 2011, KDAQ, on 

behalf of LMAPCD, submitted to EPA a 

revision to the Jefferson County portion 

of Kentucky’s SIP to IBR NSR PSD 

requirements for GHG. Specifically, the 

February 8, 2011, SIP revision includes 

changes to LMAPCD’s Regulation 2.05— 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

of Air Quality (version 10) to provide 

authority to LMAPCD to regulate GHG 

under the PSD program; and establish 

appropriate PSD applicability 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33367 

thresholds for GHGs, consistent with 

EPA’s Tailoring Rule. 

LMAPCD is currently the SIPapproved permitting authority for the 

PSD program in Jefferson County, 

Kentucky. As mentioned above, 

LMAPCD does not interpret the current 

SIP-approved version of its PSD 

regulations at Regulation 2.05 (i.e., 

version 9), which IBR the federal PSD 

regulations, to be applicable to GHG. In 

correspondences dated October 4, 2010, 

and October 19, 2010, LMAPCD notified 

EPA that it did not have the authority 

to regulate GHG under the PSD program, 

and thus was in the process of revising 

its regulations (the subject of this 

proposed action) to provide LMAPCD 

with this authority. The February 8, 

2011 SIP revision IBR the federal PSD 

regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 as of July 

2010 into Jefferson County Regulation 

2.05 to include the relevant federal GHG 

Tailoring Rule revisions that provide 

LMAPCD with the authority to regulate 

GHG under the PSD program and 

establish the thresholds for GHG 

permitting applicability. The GHG 

Tailoring Rule changes that this 

proposed action would incorporate into 

the Jefferson County portion of 

Kentucky’s SIP define the term ‘‘subject 

to regulation’’ for the PSD program and 

define ‘‘greenhouse gases’’ and ‘‘tons 

per year (tpy) carbon dioxide equivalent 

emissions’’ (CO2e). Additionally, the 

changes specify the methodology for 

calculating an emissions increase for 

GHG, the applicable thresholds for GHG 

emissions subject to PSD, and the 

schedule for when the applicability 

thresholds take effect. See 75 FR at 

31606–31607. EPA has preliminarily 

determined that these provisions, which 

provide LMAPCD with the authority to 

regulate GHG under the PSD program 

and establish the thresholds for GHG 

permitting applicability, are consistent 

with EPA’s PSD regulations for GHG 

emitting sources as promulgated in the 

GHG Tailoring Rule and section 110 of 

the CAA. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

approve the GHG PSD permitting 

revision into the Jefferson County 

portion of Kentucky’s SIP. See GHG 

Tailoring Rule, 75 FR at 31561. In 

addition, EPA is proposing to rescind 

the FIP promulgated January 14, 2011, 

codified in 40 CFR 52.37(b)(7), that 

ensures the availability of a PSDpermitting authority for GHG-emitting 

sources in Jefferson County, Kentucky. 

This FIP will no longer be required once 

the proposed GHG PSD permitting 

revision has been approved into the 

Jefferson County portion of Kentucky’s 

SIP. 

III. What is EPA’s proposed action for 

the NSR PM2.5 Rule? 

A. Background on Fine Particulate 

Matter 

Today’s proposed action to revise the 

Jefferson County portion of the 

Kentucky SIP also regards EPA’s 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5),’’ Final Rule (NSR PM2.5 Rule), 

73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008). In the NSR 

PM2.5 Rule, EPA finalized regulations to 

implement the NSR program for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS. As a result of EPA’s final 

NSR PM2.5 Rule, states were required to 

provide SIP revisions no later than May 

16, 2011, to address these requirements 

for both the PSD and NNSR programs. 

Jefferson County’s June 1, 2009, and 

February 8, 2011, SIP revisions both 

address the PSD requirements for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS. More detail on the NSR 

PM2.5 Rule can be found in EPA’s May 

16, 2008, final rule and is summarized 

below. 

Fine particles in the atmosphere are 

made up of a complex mixture of 

components. Common constituents 

include sulfate (SO4); nitrate (NO3); 

ammonium; elemental carbon; a great 

variety of organic compounds; and 

inorganic material (including metals, 

dust, sea salt, and other trace elements) 

generally referred to as ‘‘crustal’’ 

material, although it may contain 

material from other sources. Airborne 

particulate matter (PM) with a nominal 

aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 

micrometers or less (a micrometer is 

one-millionth of a meter, and 2.5 

micrometers is less than one-seventh the 

average width of a human hair) are 

considered to be ‘‘fine particles’’ and are 

also known as PM2.5. ‘‘Primary’’ 

particles are emitted directly into the air 

as a solid or liquid particle (e.g., 

elemental carbon from diesel engines or 

fire activities, or condensable organic 

particles from gasoline engines). 

‘‘Secondary’’ particles (e.g., SO4 and 

NO3) form in the atmosphere as a result 

of various chemical reactions. 

The health effects associated with 

exposure to PM2.5 include potential 

aggravation of respiratory and 

cardiovascular disease (i.e., lung 

disease, decreased lung function, 

asthma attacks and certain 

cardiovascular issues). Epidemiological 

studies have indicated a correlation 

between elevated PM2.5 levels and 

premature mortality. Groups considered 

especially sensitive to PM2.5 exposure 

include older adults, children, and 

individuals with heart and lung 

diseases. For more details regarding 

health effects and PM2.5 see EPA’s Web 

site at http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/ 

pm/index.html (See heading ‘‘Health’’). 

On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the 

NAAQS for PM to add new standards 

for fine particles, using PM2.5 as the 

indicator. Previously, EPA used PM10

(inhalable particles smaller than or 

equal to 10 micrometers in diameter) as 

the indicator for the PM NAAQS. EPA 

established health-based (primary) 

annual and 24-hour standards for PM2.5, 

setting an annual standard at a level of 

15.0 micrograms per cubic meter 

(mg/m3) and a 24-hour standard at a 

level of 65 mg/m3. See 62 FR 38652. At 

the time the 1997 primary standards 

were established, EPA also established 

welfare-based (secondary) standards 

identical to the primary standards. The 

secondary standards are designed to 

protect against major environmental 

effects of PM2.5, such as visibility 

impairment, soiling, and materials 

damage. On October 17, 2006, EPA 

revised the primary and secondary 24- 

hour NAAQS for PM2.5 to 35 mg/m3 and 

retained the existing annual PM2.5

NAAQS of 15.0 mg/m3. See 71 FR 61236. 

B. Implementation of NSR for the PM2.5

NAAQS 

After EPA promulgated the NAAQS 

for PM2.5 in 1997, the Agency issued a 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Interim 

Implementation of New Source Review 

Requirements for PM2.5.’’ John S. Seitz, 

EPA, October 23, 1997 (the ‘‘Seitz 

memo’’). The Seitz memo was designed 

to help states implement NSR 

requirements pertaining to the new 

PM2.5 NAAQS in light of technical 

difficulties posed by PM2.5 at that time. 

Specifically, the Seitz memo stated: 

‘‘PM–10 may properly be used as a 

surrogate for PM–2.5 in meeting NSR 

requirements until these difficulties are 

resolved’’ (the PM10 Surrogate Policy). 

EPA also issued a guidance document 

entitled ‘‘Implementation of New 

Source Review Requirements in PM2.5

Nonattainment Areas’’ (the ‘‘2005 PM2.5

Nonattainment NSR Guidance’’), on 

April 5, 2005, the date that EPA’s PM2.5

nonattainment area designations became 

effective for the 1997 NAAQS. This 

memorandum provided guidance on the 

implementation of the nonattainment 

major NSR provisions in PM2.5

nonattainment areas in the interim 

period between the effective date of the 

PM2.5 nonattainment area designations 

(April 5, 2005) and EPA’s promulgation 

of final PM2.5 NNSR regulations. Besides 

re-affirming the continuation of the 

PM10 Surrogate Policy for PM2.5

attainment areas set forth in the Seitz 

memo, the 2005 PM2.5 Nonattainment 

NSR Guidance recommended that until 

EPA promulgated the PM2.5 major NSR 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

33368 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

9Additional information on this issue can also be 

found in an August 12, 2009, final order on a title 

V petition describing the use of PM10 as a surrogate 

for PM2.5. In the Matter of Louisville Gas & Electric 

Company, Petition No. IV–2008–3, Order on 

Petition (August 12, 2009) (available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/region07/air/title5/petitiondb/ 

petitions/lg_e_2nddecision2006.pdf). 

10Sources that applied for a PSD permit under 

the federal PSD program on or after July 15, 2008, 

are already excluded from using the 1997 PM10

Surrogate Policy as a means of satisfying the PSD 

requirements for PM2.5. See 73 FR 28321. 

11On July 21, 2011, as a result of reconsidering 

the interpollutant (IPT) policy, EPA issued a 

memorandum indicating that the existing preferred 

precursor offset ratios associated with the IPT 

policy and promulgated in the NSR PM2.5 Rule were 

no longer considered approvable. The 

memorandum stated that any PM2.5 precursor offset 

ratio submitted as part of the NSR SIP for PM2.5

nonattainment areas would need to be accompanied 

by a technical demonstration exhibiting how the 

ratios are suitable for that particular nonattainment 

area. See Memorandum from Gina McCarthy to 

Regional Air Division Directors, ‘‘Revised Policy to 

Address Reconsideration of Interpollutant Trading 

Provisions for Fine Particles (PM2.5)’’ (July 21, 2011) 

(available at http://www.epa.gov/nsr/documents/ 

20110721PM25InterpollutantTradingPolicy.pdf. 

12 In addition to the NSPS for PM, it is noted that 

states regulated ‘‘particulate matter emissions’’ for 

many years in their SIPs for PM, and the same 

indicator has been used as a surrogate for 

determining compliance with certain standards 

contained in 40 CFR part 63, regarding National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. 

regulations, ‘‘[s]tates should use a PM10

nonattainment major NSR program as a 

surrogate to address the requirements of 

nonattainment major NSR for the PM2.5

NAAQS.’’ 

On May 16, 2008, EPA finalized a rule 

to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

including changes to the NSR program. 

See 73 FR 28321. The 2008 NSR PM2.5

Rule revised the NSR program 

requirements to establish the framework 

for implementing preconstruction 

permit review for the PM2.5 NAAQS in 

both attainment and nonattainment 

areas. The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule requires 

that major stationary sources seeking 

permits must begin directly satisfying 

the PM2.5 requirements, as of the 

effective date of the rule, rather than 

relying on PM10 as a surrogate, with two 

exceptions. The first exception is a 

‘‘grandfathering’’ provision in the 

federal PSD program at 40 CFR 

52.21(i)(1)(xi). This grandfathering 

provision applied to sources that had 

applied for, but had not yet received, a 

final and effective PSD permit before the 

July 15, 2008, effective date of the May 

2008 final rule. The second exception 

was that states with SIP-approved PSD 

programs could continue to implement 

the Seitz Memo’s PM10 Surrogate Policy 

for up to three years (until May 2011) 

or until the individual revised state PSD 

programs for PM2.5 are approved by 

EPA, whichever comes first. For 

additional information on the NSR 

PM2.5 Rule, see 73 FR 28321.9

On February 11, 2010, EPA proposed 

to repeal the grandfathering provision 

for PM2.5 contained in the federal PSD 

program at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi) and to 

end early the PM10 Surrogate Policy 

applicable in states that have a SIPapproved PSD program. See 75 FR 6827. 

In support of this proposal, EPA 

explained that the PM2.5

implementation issues that led to the 

adoption of the PM10 Surrogate Policy in 

1997 had been largely resolved to a 

degree sufficient for sources and 

permitting authorities to conduct 

meaningful permit-related PM2.5

analyses. 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. This 

final action ended the use of the 1997 

PM10 Surrogate Policy for PSD permits 

under the federal PSD program at 40 

CFR 52.21. In effect, any PSD permit 

applicant previously covered by the 

grandfathering provision (for sources 

that completed and submitted a permit 

application before July 15, 2008) 10 that 

did not have a final and effective PSD 

permit before the effective date of the 

repeal will not be able to rely on the 

1997 PM10 Surrogate Policy to satisfy 

the PSD requirements for PM2.5 unless 

the application includes a valid 

surrogacy demonstration. See 76 FR 

28646. In the February 8, 2011, SIP 

revision, LMAPCD elected to IBR the 

grandfathering provision at 40 CFR 

52.21(i)(1)(xi) in its PSD regulations at 

Regulation 2.05. However, since the rule 

is repealed, EPA is not taking action to 

approve this provision into the Jefferson 

County portion of the Kentucky SIP. 

The NSR PM2.5 Rule also established 

the following NSR requirements to 

implement the PM2.5 NAAQS: (1) 

Require NSR permits to address directly 

emitted PM2.5 and precursor pollutants; 

(2) establish significant emission rates 

for direct PM2.5 and precursor pollutants 

(including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

NOX); (3) establish PM2.5 emission 

offsets; and (4) require states to account 

for gases that condense to form particles 

(‘‘condensables’’) in PM2.5 and PM10

emission limits in PSD or 

nonattainment NSR permits. In 

addition, the NNSR PM2.5 Rule gives 

states the option of allowing 

interpollutant trading for the purpose of 

precursor offsets under the PM2.5 NNSR 

program.11 Jefferson County’s June 1, 

2009, and February 8, 2011, SIP 

revisions address only the PSD 

requirements related to EPA’s May 16, 

2008, NSR PM2.5 Rule. 

In the NSR PM2.5 Rule, EPA also 

revised the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ for PSD and NNSR to add a 

paragraph providing that ‘‘particulate 

matter (PM) emissions, PM2.5 emissions 

and PM10 emissions’’ shall include 

gaseous emissions from a source or 

activity which condense to form 

particulate matter at ambient 

temperatures and that on or after 

January 1, 2011, such condensable 

particulate matter shall be accounted for 

in applicability determinations and in 

establishing emissions limitations for 

PM, PM2.5 and PM10 in permits issued. 

See 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi), 

52.21(b)(50)(vi) and ‘‘Emissions Offset 

Interpretative Ruling’’ (40 CFR Part 51, 

Appendix S). A similar paragraph added 

to the NNSR rule does not include 

‘‘particulate matter (PM) emissions.’’ 

See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(D). 

On March 12, 2012, EPA proposed a 

rulemaking to amend the definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ promulgated 

in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule regarding 

the PM condensable provision at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(vi), 52.21(b)(50)(i) and 

EPA’s Emissions Offset Interpretative 

Ruling. See 77 FR 15656. The 

rulemaking proposes to remove the 

inadvertent requirement in the NSR 

PM2.5 Rule that the measurement of 

condensable ‘‘particulate matter 

emissions’’ be included as part of the 

measurement and regulation of 

‘‘particulate matter emissions.’’ The 

term ‘‘particulate matter emissions’’ 

includes particles that are larger than 

PM2.5 and PM10 and is an indicator 

measured under various New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) (40 CFR 

part 60).12 Jefferson County’s February 

11, 2011, SIP revision IBR EPA’s 

definition for regulated NSR pollutant 

for condensables (at 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)(vi)), including the term 

‘‘particulate matter emissions’’, as 

promulgated in the NSR PM2.5 Rule. 

EPA’s review of Jefferson County’s 

February 11, 2011, SIP revision with 

regards to the NSR PM2.5 Rule 

condensable provision is provided 

below in Section III. 

C. EPA’s Analysis of Jefferson County’s 

SIP Revision To Adopt the NSR PM2.5

PSD Permitting Requirements 

Jefferson County’s Regulation 2.05— 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

of Air Quality IBR the provisions at 40 

CFR 52.21, as amended in the NSR 

PM2.5 Rule for PSD. Specifically, 

Jefferson County’s June 1, 2009, and 

February 8, 2011, proposed SIP 

revisions IBR the following NSR PM2.5

provisions for PSD: (1) Requirement for 

NSR permits to address directly emitted 

PM2.5 and precursor pollutants; (2) 

significant emission rates for direct 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33369 

13 Jefferson County’s SIP submittals proposed for 

approval in this rulemaking do not include NNSR 

provisions for the Phase II Rule. These permitting 

requirements (at Regulation 2.04) are still under 

development by LMAPCD. 

PM2.5 and precursor pollutants (SO2 and 

NOX); (3) PSD and NNSR requirement of 

states to address condensable PM in 

establishing enforceable emission limits 

for PM10 or PM2.5; and (4) PM2.5

emission offsets Regarding the PM10

‘‘grandfathering’’ provision, Jefferson 

County’s SIP revisions include the 

provision at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(ix) 

promulgated in the NSR PM2.5 Rule. As 

mentioned in Section III.B, EPA took 

final action to repeal the PM10

grandfathering provision on May 18, 

2011. See 76 FR 28646. Therefore, EPA 

is not taking action to approve this 

provision into the Jefferson County 

portion of the Kentucky SIP. Jefferson 

County will need to update its PSD 

provisions to reflect the repeal of the 

PM10 grandfathering provision in federal 

regulations at 40 CFR 52.21. At this time 

Jefferson County’s PSD regulations are 

approvable because they are at least as 

stringent as the current federal 

regulations, and are consistent with 

section 110 of the CAA. 

Jefferson County’s February 11, 2011 

SIP revision also IBR, into the Jefferson 

County portion of the Kentucky SIP, 

PSD regulations regarding the 

requirement to address condensable PM 

in applicability determinations and in 

establishing enforceable emission limits 

in PSD and NNSR permits, as 

established in the NSR PM2.5 Rule. As 

discussed above in Section III.B, under 

a separate action, EPA has proposed to 

correct the inadvertent inclusion of 

‘‘particulate matter emissions’’ in the 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ 

as an indicator for which condensable 

emissions must be addressed. See 77 FR 

75656 (March 16, 2012). Further, on 

May 14, 2012, the State of Kentucky, on 

behalf of LMAPCD, provided a letter to 

EPA with clarification of Jefferson 

County’s intent in light of EPA’s March 

12, 2012, proposed rulemaking. 

Specifically, in the letter, the State of 

Kentucky requested that EPA not 

approve (into the Jefferson County 

portion of the SIP) the term ‘‘particulate 

matter emissions’’ (at Regulation 2.05) 

as part of the definition for ‘‘regulated 

NSR pollutant’’ that condensable 

emissions be accounted for in 

applicability determinations and in 

establishing emissions limitations for 

PM. Therefore given the state’s and 

LMAPCD’s request and EPA’s intention 

to amend the definition of ‘‘regulated 

NSR pollutant,’’ EPA is not proposing 

action to approve the terminology 

‘‘particulate matter emissions’’ into the 

Jefferson County portion of the 

Kentucky SIP (at Regulation 2.05) for 

the condensable provision at the 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant.’’ 

EPA is, however, proposing to approve 

into the SIP at Regulation 2.05 the 

remaining condensable requirement at 

40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi) that 

condensable emissions be accounted for 

in applicability determinations and in 

establishing emissions limitations for 

PM2.5 and PM10. EPA has preliminarily 

determined that Jefferson County’s June 

1, 2009, and February 8, 2011, SIP 

revisions are consistent with the NSR 

PM2.5 Rule for PSD and with section 110 

of the CAA. See NSR PM2.5 Rule, 75 FR 

31514. 

IV. What is EPA’s proposed action for 

the Phase II Rule? 

A. Background 

Today’s proposed action on Jefferson 

County’s portion of the Kentucky SIP 

also relates to EPA’s November 29, 

2005, Phase II Rule. See 70 FR 71612. 

In the Phase II Rule, EPA made a 

number of changes to the NSR rules 

including: recognizing NOX as an ozone 

precursor for PSD purposes; changing 

the NNSR rules that establish major 

stationary thresholds (marginal, 

moderate, serious, severe, and extreme 

nonattainment area classifications) and 

significant emission rates for the 8-hour 

ozone, PM10 and carbon monoxide 

NAAQS; revising the criteria for 

crediting emission reductions credits 

from operation shutdowns and 

curtailments as offsets, and changing 

offset ratios for marginal, moderate, 

serious, severe, and extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas. The following 

provides the background for the Phase 

II Rule requirements for NOX as an 

ozone precursor. 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a 

revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 

parts per million—also referred to as the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On April 

30, 2004, EPA designated areas as 

attainment, nonattainment and 

unclassifiable for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. In addition, as part of the 

framework to implement the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, EPA promulgated 

an implementation rule in two phases 

(Phase I and II). The Phase I Rule 

(effective on June 15, 2004) provided the 

implementation requirements for 

designating areas under subpart 1 and 

subpart 2 of the CAA. See 69 FR 23951 

(April 30, 2004). 

On November 29, 2005, EPA 

promulgated the second phase for 

implementation provisions related to 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS—also 

known as the Phase II Rule. See 70 FR 

71612. The Phase II Rule addressed 

control and planning requirements as 

they applied to areas designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, such as reasonably 

available control technology, reasonably 

available control measures, reasonable 

further progress, modeling and 

attainment demonstrations, NSR, and 

the impact to reformulated gas for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS transition. 

The Phase II Rule NSR requirements 

include, among other changes, a 

provision stating that NOX is an ozone 

precursor. See 70 FR at 71679. In the 

Phase II Rule, EPA stated as follows: 

The EPA has recognized NOX as an ozone 

precursor in several national rules because of 

its contribution to ozone transport and the 

ozone nonattainment problem. The EPA’s 

recognition of NOX as an ozone precursor is 

supported by scientific studies, which have 

long recognized the role of NOX in ozone 

formation and transport. Such formation and 

transport is not limited to nonattainment 

areas. Therefore, we believe NOX should be 

treated consistently as an ozone precursor in 

both our PSD and nonattainment NSR 

regulations. For these reasons, we have 

promulgated final regulations providing that 

NOX is an ozone precursor in attainment 

areas. 

The Phase II Rule made changes to 

federal regulations 40 CFR 51.165, 

51.166 and 52.21 (which governs the 

NNSR and PSD permitting programs 

respectively). Pursuant to these 

requirements, states were required to 

submit SIP revisions adopting the 

federal requirements of the Phase II Rule 

(at 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166 and 52.21) 

into their SIP no later than June 15, 

2007. Jefferson County’s June 1, 2009, 

and February 8, 2011, SIP revisions both 

address the federal PSD-only provisions 

requirements promulgated in the Phase 

II rule recognizing NOX as an ozone 

precursor (at 40 CFR 52.21).13

B. EPA’s Analysis of Jefferson County’s 

SIP Revisions To Adopt the Phase II 

Rule 

Jefferson County’s June 1, 2009, SIP 

revision updated LMAPCD’s PSD 

program to include NOX as an ozone 

precursor for PSD permitting, consistent 

with changes to the federal regulations 

set forth in the Phase II Rule at 40 CFR 

52.21. Subsequently, on February 8, 

2011, KDAQ, submitted a SIP revision 

which included the June 1, 2009, 

changes in addition to other federal PSD 

permitting updates to the Jefferson 

County portion of the Kentucky SIP. 

Jefferson County’s SIP revisions IBR the 

federal PSD regulations (at 40 CFR 

52.21) to include the NOX as a precursor 

PSD-only permitting provisions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

33370 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

14On January 14, 2009, EPA denied a petition by 

the State of New Jersey (submitted February 8, 

2008) for reconsideration and stay of the December 

21, 2007, final rule for ‘‘reasonable possibility.’’ 

However, on March 11, 2009, New Jersey reiterated 

its request for reconsideration, which EPA granted 

on April 24, 2009. EPA has not taken action on the 

reconsideration therefore, the current recordkeeping 

rules established in the December 21, 2007, final 

rule are approvable. 

promulgated in the Phase II Rule into 

the Jefferson County portion of the 

Kentucky SIP at Regulation 2.05— 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

of Air Quality (version 10) as of July 1, 

2010. EPA has preliminarily determined 

that Jefferson County’s SIP revisions are 

consistent with the PSD Phase II Rule 

permitting requirements and section 110 

of the CAA. 

V. What are EPA’s Proposed Actions for 

NSR Reform and Reasonable 

Possibility? 

A. Background 

On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), 

EPA published final rule changes to 40 

CFR parts 51 and 52 regarding the 

CAA’s PSD and NNSR programs. On 

November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA 

published a notice of final action on the 

reconsideration of the December 31, 

2002, final rule changes. The December 

31, 2002, and the November 7, 2003, 

final actions are collectively referred to 

as the ‘‘2002 NSR Reform Rules.’’ The 

2002 NSR Reform Rules are part of 

EPA’s implementation of parts C and D 

of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470– 

7515. Part C of title I of the CAA, 42 

U.S.C. 7470–7492, consists of the PSD 

program and applies to attainment and 

unclassifiable areas. Part D of title I of 

the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7501–7515, includes 

the NNSR program and applies in 

nonattainment areas. Collectively, the 

PSD and NNSR programs are referred to 

as the ‘‘New Source Review’’ or NSR 

programs. 

The 2002 NSR Reform Rules made 

changes to five areas of the NSR 

programs. In summary, the 2002 NSR 

Reform Rules: (1) Provide a new method 

for determining baseline actual 

emissions; (2) adopt an actual-toprojected-actual methodology for 

determining whether a major 

modification has occurred; (3) allow 

major stationary sources to comply with 

plant-wide applicability limits (PALs) to 

avoid having a significant emissions 

increase that triggers the requirements 

of the major NSR program; (4) provide 

a new applicability provision for 

emissions units that are designated 

clean units; and (5) exclude pollution 

control projects (PCPs) from the 

definition of ‘‘physical change or change 

in the method of operation.’’ On 

November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA 

published a notice of final action on its 

reconsideration of the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules, which added a definition for 

‘‘replacement unit’’ and clarified an 

issue regarding PALs. For additional 

information on the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules, see 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 

2002) and http://www.epa.gov/nsr. 

After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules 

were finalized and effective (March 3, 

2003), industry, state, and 

environmental petitioners challenged 

numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR 

Reform Rules, along with portions of 

EPA’s 1980 NSR Rules, 45 FR 52676 

(August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit Court) 

issued a decision on the challenges to 

the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. New York 

v. U.S. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005). 

In summary, the D.C. Circuit Court 

vacated portions of the rules pertaining 

to clean units and PCPs, remanded a 

portion of the rules regarding 

recordkeeping and the term ‘‘reasonable 

possibility’’ found in 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) 

and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) and 

51.166(r)(6), and either upheld or did 

not comment on the other provisions 

included as part of the 2002 NSR 

Reform Rules. On June 13, 2007 (72 FR 

32526), EPA took final action to revise 

the 2002 NSR Reform Rules to remove 

from federal law all provisions 

pertaining to clean units and the PCPs 

exemption that were vacated by the D.C. 

Circuit Court. 

The 2002 NSR Reform Rules required 

that state agencies adopt and submit 

revisions to their SIP permitting 

programs implementing the minimum 

program elements of the 2002 NSR 

Reform Rules no later than January 2, 

2006. State agencies may meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51 and the 2002 

NSR Reform Rules with different but 

equivalent regulations. 

With regard to the remanded portions 

of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules related to 

recordkeeping, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals remanded to EPA either to 

provide an acceptable explanation for 

its ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ standard or 

devise an appropriate alternative. To 

satisfy the courts, on December 21, 

2007, EPA took final action to clarify 

that a ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ applies 

where source emissions equal or exceed 

50 percent of the CAA NSR significance 

levels for any pollutant. See ‘‘Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration and 

Nonattainment New Source Review: 

Reasonable Possibility in 

Recordkeeping:’’ Final Rule, 72 FR 

72607 (December 21, 2007) (the 

Reasonable Possibility Rule). The 

‘‘reasonable possibility’’ provision 

identifies for sources and reviewing 

authorities the circumstances under 

which a major stationary source 

undergoing a modification that does not 

trigger major NSR must keep records. 

EPA’s December 21, 2007, final rule on 

the recordkeeping and reporting 

provisions also explains state 

obligations with regard to the reasonable 

possibility related rule changes.14 See 72 

FR at 72613–72614. The final rule gave 

states and local permitting authorities 

three years from publication to submit 

revisions to incorporate the reasonable 

possibility provisions or to submit 

notice to EPA that their regulations 

fulfill these requirements. 

On June 1, 2009, and February 8, 

2011, KDAQ, on behalf of LMAPCD, 

submitted to EPA revisions to the 

Jefferson County portion of Kentucky’s 

SIP to IBR the federal PSD permitting 

regulations promulgated in the 2002 

NSR Reform Rule and the Reasonable 

Possibility Rule. EPA is now proposing 

to approve these SIP revisions 

consistent with section 110 of the CAA. 

B. EPA’s Analysis of Jefferson County’s 

SIP Revision To Adopt the NSR Reform 

and Reasonable Possibility 

As mentioned in Section I, LMAPCD’s 

PSD Program at Regulation 2.05— 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

for Air Quality establishes the 

preconstruction review program as 

required under part C of title I of the 

CAA. The changes to LMAPCD’s PSD 

rules, which EPA is now proposing to 

approve into the Jefferson County 

portion of the Kentucky SIP, were 

established to update the existing PSD 

Program to meet the requirements of the 

2002 NSR Reform Rules. Jefferson 

County’s SIP revisions IBR the 2002 

NSR Reform PSD changes regarding 

baseline actual emissions, actual-toprojected-actual applicability tests, and 

PAL provisions. Jefferson County’s June 

1, 2009, and February 8, 2011, SIP 

revisions both address the federal PSD 

requirements promulgated in the 2002 

NSR Reform rules. The proposed 

revisions explicitly exclude the PCPs 

and clean unit portions of the 2002 NSR 

Reform Rules that were vacated as part 

of the DC Circuit Court’s June 2005 

decision. 

With regard to the remanded portions 

of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules related to 

recordkeeping and EPA’s December 21, 

2007, clarifications of the term 

‘‘reasonable possibility’’ (72 FR 72607), 

Jefferson County’s SIP revisions IBR the 

federal revised ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ 

provisions at 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6). Thus, 

LMAPCD’s recordkeeping and reporting 

provisions are the same as the federal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33371 

requirements promulgated in EPA’s 

December 21, 2007, final action. 

In addition to incorporating the 

federal PSD regulations, Jefferson 

County’s February 8, 2011, SIP revision 

includes a technical support document 

(TSD), which assesses the impact of 

adopting the 2002 NSR Reform 

provisions into Jefferson County’s PSD 

permitting program and the air quality 

impacts. As mentioned above, LMAPCD 

has a SIP-approved PSD program. 

However, due to the limited number of 

sources in Jefferson County, the 

permitting program does not assess 

many major PSD permits. In fact, in 

nearly ten years, LMAPCD has only 

analyzed two projects under PSD. Most 

sources in Jefferson County are 

permitted through LMAPCD’s minor 

source program, which allows sources 

to take emission limits to avoid PSD 

permitting. Additionally, regarding 

criteria pollutants, the TSD explains 

that sources typically subject to PSD 

permitting (i.e. point sources) have not 

been the primary driver for past or 

current nonattainment NAAQS 

designations in Jefferson County. See 

the TSD in the Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2011–0227. 

LMAPCD’s TSD concluded that 

adoption of the 2002 NSR Reform 

improvements would not impede the 

LMAPCD’s ability to comply with the 

NAAQS or any reasonable progress 

towards continued maintenance. After 

evaluating Jefferson County’s SIP 

revision, and the TSD provided with the 

February 8, 2011, SIP revision, EPA has 

determined that the proposed SIP 

revisions to adopt NSR Reform and 

reasonable possibility provisions are 

consistent with the federal program 

requirements for the preparation, 

adoption and submittal of 

implementation plans for the PSD of air 

quality, set forth at 40 CFR 52.21, and 

the 2002 NSR Reform Rule. 

VI. What is EPA’s proposed action for 

the automatic rescission clause? 

A. Jefferson County’s Proposed 

Automatic Rescission Clause 

Jefferson County’s February 8, 2011, 

proposed SIP revision adds a new 

section to Regulation 2.05, Section 2— 

Effect of Stay, Vacatur, or Withdrawal, 

also known as an automatic rescission 

clause. This clause provides that in the 

event that EPA or a federal court stays, 

vacates, or withdraws any section or 

subsection of 40 CFR 52.21, that section 

or subsection shall automatically be 

deemed stayed, vacated or withdrawn 

from Jefferson County’s SIP-approved 

PSD program at Regulation 2.05. The 

period of delay resulting from a stay 

would begin and end for purposes of 

Jefferson County’s SIP on the date 

specified by EPA in a Federal Register 

notice announcing the stay. Likewise, 

any provision that is vacated or 

withdrawn shall be null and void for 

purposes of Jefferson County’s SIP as of 

the date specified in the notice of 

vacatur or withdrawal published by 

EPA in a Federal Register notice. 

B. EPA’s analysis of the approvability of 

Jefferson County’s automatic rescission 

clause 

EPA has preliminarily concluded that 

Jefferson County’s automatic rescission 

clause is approvable. In assessing the 

approvability of this provision, EPA 

considered two key factors: (1) Whether 

the public will be given reasonable 

notice of any change to the SIP that 

occurs as a result of the automatic 

rescission clause, and (2) whether any 

future change to the SIP that occurs as 

a result of the automatic rescission 

clause would be consistent with EPA’s 

interpretation of the effect of the 

triggering EPA or federal court action 

(e.g., the extent of an administrative or 

judicial stay). These criteria are derived 

from the SIP revision procedures set 

forth in the CAA and federal 

regulations. 

Regarding public notice, CAA section 

110(l) provides that any revision to a 

SIP submitted by a state to EPA for 

approval ‘‘shall be adopted by such 

State after reasonable notice and public 

hearing.’’ In accordance with CAA 

section 110(l), the LMAPCD followed 

applicable notice-and-comment 

procedures prior to adopting the 

automatic rescission clause. Thus, the 

public is on notice that the Jefferson 

County portion of the Kentucky SIP will 

automatically update to reflect any EPA 

or federal action that stays, withdraws, 

or vacates any portion of 40 CFR 52.21. 

In addition, the automatic rescission 

clause provides that no change to the 

SIP will occur until EPA publishes a 

Federal Register notice announcing that 

a portion of 40 CFR 52.21 has been 

stayed, vacated, or withdrawn. Thus, 

the timing and extent of any future SIP 

change resulting from the automatic 

rescission clause will be clear to both 

the regulated community and the 

general public. 

EPA’s consideration of whether any 

SIP change resulting from the proposed 

automatic rescission clause would be 

consistent with EPA’s interpretation of 

the effect of the triggering action on 

federal regulations is based on 40 CFR 

51.105. Under 40 CFR 51.105, 

‘‘[r]evisions of a plan, or any portion 

thereof, will not be considered part of 

an applicable plan until such revisions 

have been approved by the 

Administrator in accordance with this 

part.’’ See 40 CFR 51.105. While EPA is 

approving the automatic updating of the 

Jefferson County portion of the 

Kentucky SIP to reflect the stay, 

withdrawal or vacatur of any section or 

subsection of 40 CFR 52.21, there could 

be varying interpretations of the timing 

and extent of changes to 40 CFR 52.21 

resulting from a given EPA or federal 

court action. By tying the automatic 

updating of the SIP to EPA’s publication 

of a Federal Register notice announcing 

the change to 40 CFR 52.21, the 

proposed automatic rescission clause 

ensures that any change to the SIP will 

be consistent with EPA’s interpretation 

of the triggering action. 

VII. Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to approve Jefferson 

County’s June 1, 2009, and February 8, 

2011, SIP revisions which adopt federal 

requirements for NSR PSD permitting. 

Jefferson County’s SIP revisions consist 

of changes to the LMAPCD Air Quality 

Regulation 2.05—Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration of Air Quality 

and address several NSR PSD permitting 

requirements promulgated at 40 CFR 

52.21. Specifically, Jefferson County’s 

June 1, 2009, SIP revision adopts federal 

regulations relating to PSD requirements 

for the NSR PM2.5 Rule, the Phase II 

Rule, the 2002 NSR Reform Rule, and 

the NSR Reasonable Possibility Rule 

into the Jefferson County portion of the 

Kentucky SIP. Jefferson County’s 

February 8, 2011, proposed SIP revision 

includes all of the aforementioned 

updates to LMAPCD’s PSD regulations 

but also provides Jefferson County with 

the authority to regulate GHGs under its 

PSD program, establishes appropriate 

emissions thresholds for determining 

PSD applicability with respect to new 

and modified GHG-emitting sources (in 

accordance with EPA’s Tailoring Rule), 

and incorporates an automatic 

rescission clause for 40 CFR 52.21 

regulations. EPA has preliminarily 

determined that these SIP revisions are 

approvable because they are in 

accordance with the CAA and EPA 

regulations regarding PSD permitting. In 

addition, EPA is proposing to rescind 

the FIP promulgated on January 14, 

2011 at 40 CFR 52.37(b)(7) once the 

proposed GHG PSD permitting revision 

has been approved into the Jefferson 

County portion of the Kentucky SIP. 

VIII. 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

33372 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, these proposed 

actions merely approve state law as 

meeting federal requirements and do not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, these proposed actions: 

• Are not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not a significant regulatory 

action subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this 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 Commonwealth, and 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 Gas, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: May 24, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13694 Filed 6–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0238; FRL–9681–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; South Carolina; 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 

Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the State Implementation Plans (SIP), 

submitted by the State of South 

Carolina, through the Department of 

Health and Environmental Control 

(DHEC), as demonstrating that the State 

meets the requirements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act) for the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of 

the CAA requires that each state adopt 

and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by the EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. South Carolina 

certified that the South Carolina SIP 

contains provisions that ensure the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

is implemented, enforced, and 

maintained in South Carolina (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘infrastructure 

submission’’). South Carolina’s 

infrastructure submissions, provided to 

EPA on March 14, 2008, and on 

September 18, 2009, addressed all the 

required infrastructure elements for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS with the exception of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(G) which 

were submitted by South Carolina on 

April 3, 2012. South Carolina’s April 3, 

2012, submittal is being addressed in a 

separate action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 6, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0238, 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– 

0238,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

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

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0238. 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS