Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 207 / Thursday, October 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 65125 

EPA-APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE TEXAS SIP 

Name of SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date/effective 

date 

EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Letter of explanation and interpretation of the Texas SIP 

for NSR Reform.

Statewide ............................... 5/3/2012 10/25/2012, [Insert FR page 

number where document 

begins].

Letter dated 5/3/2012 from 

TCEQ to EPA explains and 

clarifies TCEQ’s interpretation of section 116.12(22); 

and section 116.186(a), 

(b)(9), and (c)(2). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.2273(d) is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By removing paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) 

through (iii). 

■ b. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (d)(2) through (3). 

■ c. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (d)(4)(i) through (vii). 

■ d. By removing paragraphs (d)(4)(ix) 

through (x). 

§ 52.2273 Approval status. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

* * * * * 

(2)–(3) [Reserved] 

(4) * * * 

(i)–(vii) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–26094 Filed 10–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–1012; FRL–9739–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Georgia 

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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve the State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submissions, submitted by the 

State of Georgia, through the Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources’ 

Environmental Protection Division 

(EPD), as demonstrating that the State 

meets the SIP 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), with noted 

exceptions. 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. Georgia certified 

that the Georgia SIP contains provisions 

that ensure the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2 NAAQS are implemented, 

enforced, and maintained in Georgia 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘infrastructure 

submission’’). Georgia’s infrastructure 

submissions, provided to EPA on July 

23, 2008, and supplemented on 

September 9, 2008 and October 21, 

2009, address all the required 

infrastructure elements for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2 NAAQS. 

In addition, EPA is clarifying an 

inadvertent error included in the 

proposed approval for this rule. 

DATES: This rule will be effective 

November 26, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2010–1012. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9043. 

Mr. Lakeman can be reached via 

electronic mail at 

lakeman.sean@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. This Action 

III. EPA’s Response to Comments 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Upon promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the CAA require states to address 

basic SIP requirements, including 

emissions inventories, monitoring, and 

modeling to assure attainment and 

maintenance for that new NAAQS. On 

July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA 

promulgated a new annual PM2.5

NAAQS and on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 

61144), EPA promulgated a new 24-hour 

NAAQS. On June 15, 2012, EPA 

proposed to approve Georgia’s July 23, 

2008, and October 21, 2009, 

infrastructure submissions for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

See 77 FR 35909. A summary of the 

background for today’s final action is 

provided below. See EPA’s June 15, 

2012, proposed rulemaking at 77 FR 

35909 for more detail. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of such NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the 

obligation upon states to make a SIP 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
65126 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 207 / Thursday, October 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are 

not governed by the three year submission deadline 

of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating 

necessary local nonattainment area controls are not 

due within three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the time 

the nonattainment area plan requirements are due 

pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (1) 

Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the 

extent that subsection refers to a permit program as 

required in part D Title I of the CAA, and (2) 

submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which 

pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements 

of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today’s final 

rulemaking does not address infrastructure 

elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) but does 

provide detail on how Georgia’s SIP addresses 

110(a)(2)(C). 

2This rulemaking only addresses requirements 

for this element as they relate to attainment areas. 

3Today’s final rule does not address element 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) (Interstate Transport) for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

4This requirement was inadvertently omitted 

from EPA’s October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under 

Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ but as mentioned above is not relevant 

to today’s final rulemaking. 

submission to EPA for a new or revised 

NAAQS, but the contents of that 

submission may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. The data 

and analytical tools available at the time 

the state develops and submits the SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS affects the 

content of the submission. The contents 

of such SIP submissions may also vary 

depending upon what provisions the 

state’s existing SIP already contains. In 

the case of the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, states typically 

have met the basic program elements 

required in section 110(a)(2) through 

earlier SIP submissions in connection 

with previous PM NAAQS. 

More specifically, section 110(a)(1) 

provides the procedural and timing 

requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) 

lists specific elements that states must 

meet for ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. As 

already mentioned, these requirements 

include SIP infrastructure elements 

such as modeling, monitoring, and 

emissions inventories that are designed 

to assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. The requirements that are 

the subject of this final rulemaking are 

listed below 1 and in EPA’s October 2, 

2007, memorandum entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on SIP Elements Required Under 

Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards.’’ 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures.2

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

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring system. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power. 

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated 

nonattainment and meet the applicable 

requirements of part D.4

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials; public 

notification; and prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) and 

visibility protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/ 

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities. 

II. This Action 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

Georgia’s infrastructure submissions as 

demonstrating that the State meets the 

applicable requirements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, except for the elements noted 

above on which EPA is not taking 

action. 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. EPD certified that 

the Georgia SIP contains provisions that 

ensure the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS are implemented, 

enforced, and maintained in Georgia. 

Additionally, EPA is now clarifying an 

inadvertent error made in the proposed 

rule. 

In the proposal, EPA inadvertently 

stated that Georgia had met each of its 

105 grant commitments for fiscal year 

2011. Georgia did not complete one of 

its 63 grant commitments from fiscal 

year 2011—its commitment to develop 

and submit a National Emissions 

Inventory Quality Assurance Project 

Plan (QAPP). Nonetheless, as was 

explained in the proposed rule, EPA has 

determined that Georgia has provided 

necessary assurances that its SIP 

contains the adequate infrastructure 

requirements to address these types of 

issues as they arise, consistent with the 

obligation in CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i). Further, EPA has a 

process to ensure such issues are 

addressed and EPA is currently working 

with Georgia to ensure that the State 

meets all of its commitments, including 

the outstanding 2011 grant commitment. 

EPA received adverse comments on 

its June 15, 2012, proposed approval of 

portions of Georgia’s July 23, 2008, and 

on October 21, 2009, infrastructure 

submissions (hereafter ‘‘Georgia’s 

infrastructure submissions’’). Today’s 

final action includes a response to 

adverse comments. 

III. EPA’s Response to Comments 

EPA received one set of comments on 

the June 15, 2012, proposed rulemaking 

to approve Georgia’s infrastructure 

submissions as meeting the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the CAA for the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. A 

summary of the comments and EPA’s 

response are provided below. 

Comment 1: The Commenter contends 

that Georgia’s SIP does not contain the 

requisite enforceable limits for PM2.5, 

and therefore, EPA cannot approve the 

State’s infrastructure SIP submission 

with respect to section 110(a)(2)(A). The 

Commenter cites two primary reasons 

supporting this contention. 

First, the Commenter contends that 

Georgia’s SIP does not currently provide 

adequate enforceable limitations for 

PM2.5 emissions from existing stationary 

sources. In support of this proposition, 

the Commenter notes a number of 

existing Georgia SIP provisions that 

address emissions of particulate matter 

generally or PM10, but not PM2.5. The 

Commenter further asserts that in the 

title V context, the State has concluded 

that at the time of the evaluation of the 

permit application, the source did not 

need to address PM2.5 emissions. 

Similarly, the Commenter states that 

existing stationary sources permitted 

prior to January 1, 2011, do not 

adequately control condensable PM2.5,

and implies that this should be 

addressed in the context of acting on the 

State’s infrastructure submittal. Finally, 

the Commenter contends that even in 

the case of a source permitted after 

January 1, 2011, the State has not 

required specific limitations on 

condensable PM and thus fails to 

control direct PM2.5 emissions at that 

source in a way that is relevant to action 

on the State’s infrastructure SIP. The 

Commenter appears to be suggesting 

that this example evinces a SIP 

deficiency germane to EPA’s 

determination respecting the sufficiency 

of the State’s infrastructure SIP for 

purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A). 

Second, the Commenter argues that 

EPA should not approve the State’s 

infrastructure submittal because it 

contained references to several regional 

cap and trade rules as measures that 

would impose emissions limitations on 

PM2.5 precursors within the State. The 

Commenter raised three objections: (1) 

The Commenter argued that the 

Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) SIP Call, Clean 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 207 / Thursday, October 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 65127 

5The Commenter cites NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 

1245 (DC Cir. 2009). 

6See Implementation of the New Source Review 

(NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5), 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008); 

40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi); 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(vi). 

7Although an amendment to the permit was 

issued on November 18, 2011, the purpose of the 

amendment was to add case-by-case maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

requirements for organic and non-mercury metal 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) under section 112(g) 

of the Act. Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 63, States may 

use a preconstruction review process to make a 

section 112(g) case-by-case MACT determination. 

However, pursuant to section 112(b)(6), the Act 

specifically excludes HAP from the PSD permitting 

requirements. See also 40 CFR § 52.21(b)(50)(v). 

While the State may have subsequently added the 

section 112(g) determination to a permit that 

included PSD requirements, the revision of the 

construction permit to address the case-by-case 

MACT requirements was not a revision or 

reopening of the PSD requirements. The portions of 

the permit satisfying PSD requirements were final 

on April 8, 2010, before the requirement to account 

for condensables became effective. 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), and Cross 

State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) cannot 

be considered enforceable emissions 

limitations because of their status; (2) 

the Commenter argued that cap and 

trade programs cannot be considered 

permanent and enforceable because they 

allow sources to purchase allowances or 

used banked credits rather than 

reducing emissions; and (3) the 

Commenter argued that the D.C. Circuit 

has held that regional cap and trade 

programs cannot ‘‘satisfy an areaspecific statutory mandate.’’ 5

Response 1: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s contention that the State’s 

infrastructure SIP submission is not 

approvable with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(A) because it does not contain 

adequate enforceable emissions 

limitations on PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors. 

With respect to the Commenter’s 

specific concerns about the adequacy of 

emissions limitations at stationary 

sources, the Commenter is incorrect 

with respect both to the scope of what 

is germane to an action on an 

infrastructure SIP and with respect to 

when certain regulatory requirements 

for stationary sources became operative. 

This comment pertains to EPA’s action 

on an infrastructure SIP, which must 

meet the general structural requirements 

described in section 110(a)(2)(A). 

Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA states 

that each implementation plan 

submitted by a State under the Act shall 

be adopted by the State after reasonable 

notice and public hearing. Each such 

plan shall include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means, or techniques (including 

economic incentives such as fees, 

marketable permits, and auctions of 

emissions rights), as well as schedules 

and timetables for compliance, as may 

be necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements of the Act. 

The Commenter seems to believe that 

in the context of an infrastructure SIP 

submission, section 110(a)(2)(A) 

explicitly requires that a State adopt all 

possible new enforceable emission 

limits, control measures and other 

means developed specifically for 

attaining and maintaining the new 

NAAQS within the State. EPA does not 

believe that this is a reasonable 

interpretation of the provision with 

respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions. Rather, EPA believes that 

different requirements for SIPs become 

due at different times depending on the 

precise applicable requirements in the 

CAA. For example, some State 

regulations are required pursuant to 

CAA section 172(b), as part of an 

attainment demonstration for areas 

designated as nonattainment for the 

standard. The timing of such an 

attainment demonstration would be 

after promulgation of a NAAQS, after 

completion of designations, and after 

the development of the applicable 

nonattainment plans. The Commenter 

seems to believe that EPA should 

disapprove a State’s infrastructure SIP if 

the State has not already developed all 

the substantive emissions limitations 

that may ultimately be required for all 

purposes, such as attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS as part of an 

attainment plan for a designated 

nonattainment area. 

In particular, the Commenter focuses 

upon the adequacy of emissions 

limitations for specific stationary 

sources in Georgia that arose in permit 

actions—Plant Bowen’s title V Permit 

and Plant Washington’s PSD permit—to 

support its argument that Georgia’s SIP 

does not require adequate enforceable 

emissions limitations for PM2.5 for 

existing sources. As described above, for 

purposes of approving Georgia’s 

infrastructure submittal as it relates to 

section 110(a)(2)(A), EPA’s evaluation is 

limited to whether the State has 

adopted, as necessary and appropriate, 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures to meet 

applicable structural requirements of 

the CAA. Today’s action does not 

involve case specific evaluations of 

specific permits. In this action, EPA is 

not evaluating whether or not the State 

has correctly imposed emissions 

limitations on each stationary source for 

purposes of meeting requirements for 

PSD permits or embodied in title V 

permits. Moreover, EPA notes that the 

Commenter is also incorrect with 

respect to its allegations concerning the 

appropriate treatment of condensables 

in emissions limits for stationary 

sources. In the implementation 

regulations for the PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA 

separately authorized States to elect not 

to address condensable emissions in 

their air pollution programs until 

January 1, 2011.6 Thus, the State was 

not required to address condensables in 

stationary source permits identified in 

the comment. For example, the 

Commenter is incorrect with respect to 

the PSD permit for Plant Washington 

because the permit for this source was 

issued on April 8, 2010, prior to January 

1, 2011, and thus the permit was not 

required to address condensables.7 The 

State’s compliance with what EPA 

authorized with respect to condensables 

is not grounds for disapproval of the 

State’s infrastructure SIP submission. 

For purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A), 

and for purposes of an infrastructure SIP 

submission, EPA believes that the 

proper inquiry is whether the State has 

met the basic structural SIP 

requirements appropriate at the point in 

time EPA is acting upon it. As stated in 

EPA’s proposed approval for this rule, 

to meet section 110(a)(2)(A), Georgia 

submitted a list of existing emission 

reduction measures in the SIP that 

control PM2.5 emissions. These include 

all the required measures previously 

adopted for the control of PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 precursor pollutants. The 

Commenter identifies a number of ways 

in which it believes that Georgia’s SIP 

fails to meet such current requirements, 

but EPA concludes that the Commenter 

has not identified any deficiency that 

justifies disapproval of the 

infrastructure SIP submission in this 

action. 

With respect to the Commenter’s 

concern about the identification of cap 

and trade programs within the State’s 

infrastructure SIP submission, the 

Commenter is also incorrect with 

respect to the scope of what is germane 

to section 110(a)(2)(A), and with respect 

to its assertions about such cap and 

trade programs in general. 

The Commenter asserts that emissions 

limitations of sulfur dioxide and NOX

from the NOX SIP Call, CAIR, and 

CSAPR are not ‘‘enforceable emissions 

limitations’’ because of the legal status 

of each of those rules. The Commenter 

asserts that the NOX SIP call ‘‘effectively 

no longer exists,’’ that CAIR ‘‘has been 

remanded and effectively no longer 

exists,’’ and that at the time of the 

comment, CSAPR had been stayed and 

was subject to litigation. The 

Commenter also asserts that reductions 

from such cap and trade rules cannot be 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
65128 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 207 / Thursday, October 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

8EPA guidance regarding the NOX SIP Call 

transition to CAIR can be found at http:// 

www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/cair/faq10.html. 

EPA guidance regarding the NOX SIP Call transition 

for CSAPR can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ 

crossstaterule/faqs.html. 

considered permanent and enforceable 

merely because they allow for the 

purchase and transfer of allowances or 

the use of banked credits. Finally the 

Commenter claims that the D.C. Circuit 

Court of Appeals recently held that EPA 

cannot allow use of cap and trade 

programs to satisfy an area-specific 

statutory mandate. 

EPA disagrees with the Commenter’s 

position that emissions reductions 

associated with the NOX SIP Call cannot 

be considered to be permanent and 

enforceable. The Commenter’s first 

argument—that the reductions are not 

permanent and enforceable because the 

NOX SIP Call has been replaced—is 

based on a misunderstanding of the 

relationship between CAIR and the NOX

SIP Call. While the CAIR ozone-season 

NOX trading program replaced the 

ozone-season NOX trading program 

developed in the NOX SIP Call (70 FR 

25290), nothing in CAIR relieved states 

of their NOX SIP Call obligations. In 

fact, in the preamble to CAIR, EPA 

emphasized that the states and certain 

units covered by the NOX SIP Call but 

not CAIR must still satisfy the 

requirements of the NOX SIP Call. EPA 

provided guidance regarding how such 

states could meet these obligations.8 In 

no way did EPA suggest that states 

could disregard their NOX SIP Call 

obligations. See 70 FR 25290. For NOX

SIP Call states, the CAIR NOX ozone 

program provides a way to continue to 

meet the NOX SIP Call obligations for 

electric generating units (EGUs) and 

large non-electric generating units (nonEGUs). In addition, the antibacksliding 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.905(f) 

specifically provide that the provisions 

of the NOX SIP Call, including statewide 

NOX emission budgets, continue to 

apply. In sum, the requirements of the 

NOX SIP Call remain in force. They are 

permanent and enforceable as are state 

regulations developed to implement the 

requirements of the NOX SIP Call. 

Similarly, EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s characterization of the 

status of CAIR and CSAPR. When the 

court stayed CSAPR as noted by the 

Commenter, it ordered EPA to continue 

to administer CAIR. When the court 

issued its opinion to vacate and remand 

CSAPR, it also ordered EPA to continue 

to administer CAIR pending 

development of a valid replacement. 

Thus, at this juncture, CAIR remains in 

place and EPA is continuing to 

implement and enforce it. 

Consequently, all SIP provisions 

implementing CAIR also remain 

enforceable at this time under the court 

opinion. 

EPA also disagrees with the 

Commenter’s second argument—that the 

reductions associated with the NOX SIP 

Call, CAIR, or CSAPR could not be 

considered permanent and enforceable 

merely because they are trading 

programs. There is no support for the 

Commenter’s argument that states 

cannot rely on such programs as a valid 

component of their SIPs to achieve 

necessary reductions of emissions 

simply because the mechanism used to 

achieve the reductions is an emissions 

trading program. As a general matter, 

trading programs establish mandatory 

caps on emissions and permanently 

reduce the total emissions allowed by 

sources subject to the programs. The 

emission caps and associated controls 

are enforced through the associated SIP 

rules or Federal Implementation Plans 

(FIPs). Any purchase of allowances and 

increase in emissions by a utility 

necessitates a corresponding sale of 

allowances and reductions in emissions 

by another utility. Given the regional 

nature of PM2.5, the emission reductions 

will have an air quality benefit that will 

compensate, at least in part, for the 

impact of any emission increase. 

In addition, the case cited by the 

Commenter, NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 

1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009), does not support 

the Commenter’s position. That case 

addressed EPA’s determination that the 

‘‘reasonably available control 

technology’’ (RACT) requirement for 

nonattainment areas was satisfied by the 

NOX SIP Call trading program. The 

court held that because EPA had not 

demonstrated that the trading program 

would result in sufficient reductions 

within nonattainment areas to meet the 

RACT requirement, its determination 

that the program satisfied the RACT 

requirement (a specific nonattainment 

area requirement) was not supported. Id, 

1256–58. The court explicitly noted that 

EPA might be able to reinstate the 

provision providing that compliance 

with the NOX SIP Call satisfies NOX

RACT for EGUs for particular 

nonattainment areas if, upon conducting 

a technical analysis, it could 

demonstrate that the NOX SIP Call 

results in greater emission reductions in 

a nonattainment area than would be 

achieved if RACT level controls were 

installed on the affected sources within 

the nonattainment area. Id at 1258. 

Thus, EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s assertion that the case 

stands for the proposition that cap and 

trade programs can never satisfy a 

statutory mandate for area-specific 

emissions controls. Moreover, EPA’s 

action on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

does not entail an evaluation of whether 

that state has met the more specific 

nonattainment area requirements for 

RACT that may become relevant in later 

actions on a SIP submission designed by 

the state to meet nonattainment area 

requirements. For purposes of 

evaluating a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission, EPA is limiting its review 

to ensuring that the State meets basic 

structural SIP requirements. In the event 

that a state has to develop a SIP 

submission to meet nonattainment area 

requirements, the state and EPA will at 

that time evaluate whether the 

submission meets the separate statutory 

requirements for nonattainment areas. 

Comment 2: The Commenter contends 

that Georgia’s Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring Program is incomplete 

because it does not meet the federal 

reporting requirements and utilizes 

spatial scales which could lead to 

misrepresentations of PM2.5

concentrations. The Commenter 

explains that Georgia fails to incorporate 

any micro and middle spatial scales for 

PM2.5, leading to potentially inaccurate 

reporting of PM2.5 concentrations. For 

this reason, the Commenter states that 

EPA cannot make the determination that 

Georgia’s air quality monitoring and 

data systems related to the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are 

adequate. The Commenter explains that 

Georgia only utilizes the neighborhood 

spatial scale for monitoring PM2.5, with 

the exception of a PM2.5 background 

site. The Commenter cites to 40 CFR 

Part 58, Appendix D (4.7.1(c)) for the 

proposition that there are circumstances 

where a more specific spatial scale is 

necessary to accurately represent the 

PM2.5 concentrations. Specifically, the 

Commenter explains that microscale is 

appropriate for ‘‘areas such as 

downtown street canyons and traffic 

corridors where the general public 

would be exposed to maximum 

concentrations from mobile sources.’’ 

The Commenter makes certain 

statements about Atlanta, including 

traffic and asthma issues, and concludes 

that microscale would be appropriate 

for Atlanta. The Commenter concludes 

by stating that Georgia should explore 

whether such downtown, high 

maximum concentration areas occur 

and accordingly utilize the appropriate 

spatial scales. 

Response 2: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s assessment that Georgia’s 

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 

Program is incomplete. Pursuant to CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(B), each SIP shall 

‘‘provide for establishment and 

operation of appropriate devices, 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 207 / Thursday, October 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 65129 

9Although the notice was published by the 

Federal Register on June 15, 2012, the notice was 

signed by the Acting Regional Administrator on 

June 1, 2012, before the statutory deadline for 

submission of the SIP revision addressing the PM2.5

increments. 

methods, systems, and procedures 

necessary to (i) monitor, compile, and 

analyze data on ambient air quality, and 

(ii) upon request, make such data 

available to the Administrator.’’ Among 

other requirements that EPA evaluates 

to determine if the infrastructure SIP 

submission meets the applicable section 

110(a)(2)(B) requirements, the Agency 

considers whether the state has 

submitted the most recent annual 

monitoring plan, and whether EPA has 

approved that monitoring plan as 

meeting the applicable regulatory 

requirements and consistent with 

applicable guidance. The latter approval 

addressed whether the state monitors air 

quality for the relevant pollutant at 

appropriate locations throughout the 

state using EPA approved federal 

reference method or equivalent 

monitors, and whether it submits data to 

EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) in a 

timely manner. 

As noted in EPA’s proposed rule for 

this action, Georgia’s Rules 391–3–1– 

.02(3), ‘‘Sampling,’’ and 391–3–1–.02(6), 

‘‘Source Monitoring,’’ along with the 

Georgia Network Description and 

Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan 

provide for an ambient air quality 

monitoring system in the State. 

Annually, EPA approves the ambient air 

monitoring network plan for the state 

agencies including EPD. Prior to 

submission to EPA for approval, the 

State makes the annual monitoring plan 

available for public inspection and 

comment in its own administrative 

process. In August 2011, Georgia 

submitted its monitoring network plan 

to EPA, and on October 21, 2011, EPA 

approved Georgia’s monitoring network 

plan. 

With regard to the Commenter’s 

statements pertaining to the adequacy of 

monitoring in the Atlanta area, today’s 

action does not involve specific 

evaluation for the Atlanta Area; but 

rather, Georgia’s compliance with 

section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA for 

monitoring requirements statewide. As 

explained above, Georgia’s 

infrastructure SIP submission complies 

with section 110(a)(2)(B) because it 

demonstrates that the State has met 

current monitoring requirements for this 

NAAQS and is thus approvable. The 

Commenter’s concerns about the 

adequacy of monitoring in the Atlanta 

area in the future should be raised in the 

appropriate context, such as during the 

State’s development of monitoring 

systems. For purposes of today’s final 

action on Georgia’s infrastructure 

submission, EPA has concluded that 

Georgia’s monitoring program is 

adequate and thus consistent with the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) for 

this type of submission. 

Comment 3: The Commenter claims 

that Georgia’s SIP does not contain 

required provisions for PM2.5 PSD 

increments promulgated in an October 

20, 2010, EPA rule. The Commenter 

asserts that states are required to 

include these increments in their SIPs 

prior to EPA approval of their 

infrastructure SIP and cites 40 CFR 

51.166(c) and EPA’s September 25, 

2009, ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements 

Required under Sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) for the 2006 24-hour Fine Particle 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS),’’ for support. 

Further, the Commenter states that this 

‘‘lack of inclusion renders Georgia’s SIP 

inadequate to address PSD permitting, 

and, thus, the EPA cannot determine 

that ‘Georgia’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for program enforcement of 

control measures including review of 

proposed new sources related to the 

1997 and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.’’’ 

Response 3: EPA does not agree with 

the Commenter’s assertion that the lack 

of inclusion of the updated PM2.5

increments renders Georgia’s SIP 

inadequate to address PSD permitting. 

Pursuant to the 2010 PM2.5 New Source 

Review (NSR) Rule and CAA section 

166(b), states were not required to 

submit a revised SIP addressing the 

PM2.5 increments until July 20, 2012. 

The Agency proposed action on the 

Georgia infrastructure SIP in a notice 

signed on June 1, 2012.9 Therefore, on 

the date that the proposed rule was 

signed by the Agency, the PM2.5

increments were not required to be 

included in the Georgia SIP in order for 

the State to meet the PSD requirements 

of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) of the 

Act. 

The Commenter’s concerns here relate 

to the timing of Agency action on 

collateral, yet related, SIP submissions. 

These concerns highlight an important 

overarching question that the EPA has 

to confront when assessing the various 

infrastructure SIP submittals addressed 

in the proposed rule: how to proceed 

when the timing and sequencing of 

multiple related SIP submissions impact 

the ability of the State and the Agency 

to address certain substantive issues in 

the infrastructure SIP submission in a 

reasonable fashion. 

It is appropriate for EPA to take into 

consideration the timing and sequence 

of related SIP submissions as part of 

determining what it is reasonable to 

expect a state to have addressed in an 

infrastructure SIP submission for a 

NAAQS at the time when the EPA acts 

on such submission. EPA has 

historically interpreted section 

110(a)(2)(C) and section 110(a)(2)(J) as 

requiring EPA to assess a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to the then-applicable and 

federally enforceable PSD regulations 

required to be included in a state’s 

implementation plan at the time EPA 

takes action on the SIP. However, EPA 

does not consider it reasonable to 

interpret section 110(a)(2)(C) and 

section 110(a)(2)(J) as requiring EPA to 

propose to disapprove a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions because 

the state had not yet, at the time of 

proposal, made a submission that was 

not yet due for the 2010 PM2.5 NSR 

Rule. To adopt a different approach by 

which EPA could not act on an 

infrastructure SIP, or at least could not 

approve an infrastructure SIP, whenever 

there was any impending revision to the 

SIP required by another collateral 

rulemaking action would result in 

regulatory gridlock and make it 

impracticable or impossible for EPA to 

act on infrastructure SIPs if EPA is in 

the process of revising collateral PSD 

regulations. EPA believes that such an 

outcome would be an unreasonable 

reading of the statutory process for the 

infrastructure SIPs contemplated in 

section 110(a)(1) and (2). 

EPA acknowledges that it is important 

that these additional PSD program 

revisions be evaluated and approved 

into a state’s implementation plan in 

accordance with the CAA, and the EPA 

intends to address the PM2.5 increments 

in a subsequent rulemaking. 

EPA also notes that major sources in 

Georgia are subject to the PM2.5

increments pursuant to the version of 

the regulation, GA Rule 391–3–1– 

.02(7)—Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration of Air Quality, currently 

in effect in Georgia. Because the 

regulations relating to PM2.5 increments 

are currently effective and enforceable 

as a matter of State law, as of August 9, 

2012, EPA in the interim believes that 

proposed major sources in Georgia are 

being required as a matter of State law 

to comply with the PSD requirements 

like PM2.5 increments and thus that 

these sources are not being treated 

differently under State law than similar 

sources in other States that have 

adopted and submitted SIP revisions to 

include the increments. Thus, EPA does 

not believe that approving the State’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions at this 

time will lead to major sources in 

Georgia being treated differently than 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
65130 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 207 / Thursday, October 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

10EPA inadvertently stated in the proposed rule 

for this action that Georgia had met each of its 

section 105 grant commitments for 2011. The 

Agency is hereby correcting that statement to note 

that Georgia did not meet its commitment to 

develop and submit a National Emissions Inventory 

QAPP. 

similar sources in the other States as a 

factual matter. If the Commenter 

determines that sources are not being 

evaluated in accordance with applicable 

State law requirements during the 

interim before EPA acts on a later SIP 

submission, those concerns can be 

addressed in the State’s permitting 

process. 

Comment 4: The Commenter states 

that Georgia must provide assurances 

that the State will have adequate 

personnel, funding, and authority to 

carry out the SIP. The Commenter notes 

that EPD receives money from federal 

grants, and from permitting fees and 

that EPD also receives a significant 

portion of its funding from the State of 

Georgia. The Commenter explains that, 

in recent years, the EPD’s funds from 

the State of Georgia have significantly 

declined and the Commenter believes 

that continued cuts in EPD’s budget cast 

doubt on EPD’s ability to adequately 

administer its air program. Further, the 

Commenter states that Georgia does not 

seem to be completing all of the 

requirements of its federal grants, 

putting those grants in jeopardy. 

Response 4: EPA does not agree with 

the Commenter’s contention that 

Georgia does not have adequate 

personnel and funding to carry out its 

implementation plan. Section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires that each 

implementation plan provide necessary 

assurances that the State will have 

adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority under state law to carry out its 

implementation plan. EPA does not 

believe, and the Commenter has not 

demonstrated, that the State funding 

levels described in the comment 

contravene Georgia’s assurances that the 

State has adequate personnel and 

funding to carry out its implementation 

plan. Georgia’s infrastructure SIP 

submission indicated that the State 

believes that it has sufficient resources 

to meet its obligations. At this juncture, 

EPA does not see evidence that the 

State’s resources are in fact inadequate. 

As the Commenter notes, Georgia did 

not finalize one of its sixty-three 2011 

grant commitments.10 Notwithstanding 

this fact, and as was explained in the 

proposed rule, EPA has determined that 

Georgia has provided necessary 

assurances that its SIP contains the 

adequate infrastructure requirements to 

address these types of issues as they 

arise, consistent with the obligation in 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i). EPA has a 

process to ensure issues such as this are 

addressed and the Agency is currently 

working with Georgia to ensure that the 

State meets all of its commitments, 

including the outstanding 2011 grant 

commitment reference by Commenter. 

The fact that a process is in place to 

resolve the outstanding commitment 

supports EPA’s approval of Georgia’s 

infrastructure SIP. 

IV. Final Action 

As already described, EPD has 

addressed the elements of the CAA 

110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements 

pursuant to EPA’s October 2, 2007, 

guidance to ensure that 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are 

implemented, enforced, and maintained 

in Georgia. EPA is taking final action to 

approve Georgia’s July 23, 2008, and 

October 21, 2009, submissions, with 

noted exceptions for 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because 

these submissions are consistent with 

section 110 of the CAA. Today’s action 

is not approving any specific rule, but 

rather making a determination that 

Georgia’s already approved SIP meets 

certain CAA requirements. In addition, 

EPA is today clarifying the inadvertent 

error contained in the proposal approval 

for this rule as described above. 

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 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 action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 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 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, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by December 24, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 207 / Thursday, October 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 65131 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate Matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: September 27, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart L—Georgia 

■ 2. Section 52.570(e) is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.570 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED GEORGIA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date/effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

1. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) 

lane on I–85 from Chamblee-Tucker 

Road to State Road 316. High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane on I–85 

from Chamblee-Tucker Road to 

State Road 316.

Atlanta Metropolitan Area .................... 11/15/93 and 

amended on 6/ 

17/96 and 2/5/10.

3/18/99, 4/26/99 

and 11/5/09.

2. Clean Fuel Vehicles Revolving 

Loan Program.

Atlanta Metropolitan Area .................... 6/17/96 .................. 4/26/99.

3. Regional Commute Options Program and HOV Marketing Program.Atlanta Metropolitan Area .................... 6/17/96 .................. 4/26/99.

4. HOV lanes on I–75 and I–85 .......... Atlanta Metropolitan Area .................... 6/17/96 .................. 4/26/99.

5. Two Park and Ride Lots: Rockdale 

County-Sigman at I–20 and Douglas County-Chapel Hill at I–20.

Atlanta Metropolitan Area .................... 6/17/96 .................. 4/26/99.

6. MARTA Express Bus routes (15 

buses).

Atlanta Metropolitan Area .................... 6/17/96 .................. 4/26/99.

7. Signal preemption for MARTA 

routes #15 and #23.

Atlanta Metropolitan Area .................... 6/17/96 .................. 4/26/99.

8. Improve and expand service on 

MARTA’s existing routes in southeast DeKalb County.

Atlanta Metropolitan Area .................... 6/17/96 .................. 4/26/99.

9. Acquisition of clean fuel buses for 

MARTA and Cobb County Transit.

Atlanta Metropolitan Area .................... 6/17/96 .................. 4/26/99.

10. ATMS/Incident Management Program on I–75/I–85 inside I–285 and 

northern ARC of I–285 between I– 

75 and I–85.

Atlanta Metropolitan Area .................... 6/17/96 .................. 4/26/99.

11. Upgrading, coordination and computerizing intersections.Atlanta Metropolitan Area .................... 6/17/96 .................. 4/26/99.

12. [Reserved].

13. Atlantic Steel Transportation Control Measure.Atlanta Metropolitan Area .................... 3/29/00 .................. 8/28/00.

14. Procedures for Testing and Monitoring Sources of Air Pollutants.Atlanta Metropolitan Area .................... 7/31/00 .................. 7/10/01.

15. Enhanced Inspection/Maintenance 

Test Equipment, Procedures and 

Specifications.

Atlanta Metropolitan Area .................... 9/20/00 .................. 7/10/01.

16. Preemption Waiver Request for 

Low-RVP, Low-Sulfur Gasoline 

Under Air Quality Control Rule 391– 

3–1–.02(2)(bbb).

Atlanta Metropolitan Area .................... 5/31/00 .................. 2/22/02.

17. Technical Amendment to the 

Georgia Fuel Waiver Request of 

May 31, 2000.

Atlanta Metropolitan Area .................... 11/9/01 .................. 2/22/02.

18. Georgia’s State Implementation 

Plan for the Atlanta Ozone Nonattainment Area.

Atlanta Metropolitan Area .................... 7/17/01 .................. 5/7/02.

19. Post-1999 Rate of Progress Plan Atlanta Metropolitan Area .................... 12/24/03 ................ 7/19/04, 69 FR 

42884.

20. Severe Area Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT SIP) for the Atlanta 1- 

hour severe ozone nonattainment 

area.

Atlanta 1-hour ozone severe nonattainment area.6/30/04 .................. 6/14/05, 70 FR 

34358.

21. Atlanta 1-hour ozone attainment 

area 2015 maintenance plan.

Atlanta severe 1-hour ozone maintenance area.2/1/05 .................... 6/14/05, 70 FR 

34660.

22. Attainment Demonstration for the 

Chattanooga Early Action Area.

Walker and Catoosa Counties ............ 12/31/04 ................ 8/26/05, 70 FR 

50199.


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
65132 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 207 / Thursday, October 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED GEORGIA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS—Continued 

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date/effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

23. Attainment Demonstration for the 

Lower Savannah-Augusta Early Action Compact Area.

Columbia and Richmond Counties ..... 12/31/04 ................ 8/26/05, 70 FR 

50195.

24. Alternative Fuel Refueling Station/ 

Park and Ride Transportation Center, Project DO–AR–211 is removed.

Douglas County, GA ........................... 9/19/06 .................. 11/28/06, 71 FR 

68743.

25. Macon 8-hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plan.

Macon, GA encompassing a portion of 

Monroe County.

6/15/07 .................. 9/19/07, 72 FR 

53432.

26. Murray County 8-hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan.

Murray County ..................................... 6/15/07 .................. 10/16/07, 72 FR 

58538.

27. Atlanta Early Progress Plan .......... Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, 

Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, 

Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, 

Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, 

Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding and 

Walton counties.

1/12/07 .................. 2/20/08, 73 FR 

9206.

28. Rome; 1997 Fine Particulate Matter 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory.Floyd County ....................................... 10/27/2009 ............ 1/12/12, 77 FR 

1873.

29. Chattanooga; Fine Particulate 

Matter 2002 Base Year Emissions 

Inventory.

Catoosa and Walker Counties ............ 10/27/09 ................ 2/8/12; 77 FR 

6467.

30. 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards.

Georgia ................................................ 10/13/2007 ............ 2/6/2012, 77 FR 

5706.

31. Atlanta 1997 Fine Particulate Matter 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory.Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, 

Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, 

Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, 

Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, 

Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding and 

Walton Counties in their entireties 

and portions of Heard and Putnam 

Counties.

07/06/2010 ............ 3/1/2012, 77 FR 

12487.

32. Macon 1997 Fine Particulate Matter 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory.Bibb County and Monroe County ........ 8/17/2009 .............. 3/02/12, 77 FR 

12724.

33. Atlanta 1997 8-Hour Ozone 2002 

Base-Year Emissions Inventory.

Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, 

Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, 

Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, 

Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, 

Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding and 

Walton Counties in their entireties.

10/21/2009 ............ 4/24/2012, 77 FR 

24399.

34. Regional Haze Plan ...................... Statewide ............................................. 2/11/10 .................. 6/28/12, 77 FR 

38501.

35. Regional Haze Plan Supplement 

(including BART and Reasonable 

Progress emissions limits).

Statewide ............................................. 11/19/10 ................ 6/28/12, 77 FR 

38501.

36. 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards.

Georgia ................................................ 7/23/2008 .............. 10/25/2012 [Insert 

citation of publication].

With the exception 

of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

37. 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards.

Georgia ................................................ 10/21/2009 ............ 10/25/2012 [Insert 

citation of publication].

With the exception 

of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

[FR Doc. 2012–25855 Filed 10–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 207 / Thursday, October 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 65133 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0089; FRL–9737–2] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Mojave Desert 

Air Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

revisions to the Mojave Desert Air 

Quality Management District 

(MDAQMD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

action was proposed in the Federal 

Register on February 28, 2012 and 

concerns oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 

emissions from stationary gas turbines. 

Under authority of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act), this action 

simultaneously approves a local rule 

that regulates these emission sources 

and directs California to correct rule 

deficiencies. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 26, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0089 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

http://www.regulations.gov, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material, large maps, multivolume reports), and some may not be 

available in either location (e.g., 

confidential business information 

(CBI)). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Idalia Pe ́rez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

2348, perez.idalia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On February 28, 2012 (77 FR 11992), 

EPA proposed a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of the following 

rule that was submitted for 

incorporation into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

MDAQMD ................ 1159 ........................ Stationary Gas Turbines ....................................................................... 09/28/09 05/17/10 

We proposed a limited approval 

because we determined that this rule 

improves the SIP and is largely 

consistent with the relevant CAA 

requirements. We simultaneously 

proposed a limited disapproval because 

the following provision conflicts with 

section 110 and part D of the Act and 

prevents full approval of the SIP 

revision. Section D.3 exempts the 

Southern California Gas Company 

General Electric Model Frame 3 turbine 

located in Kelso, California from testing 

requirements. This undermines 

enforceability of the rule which 

contradicts CAA requirements for 

enforceability. 

Our proposed action contains more 

information on the basis for this 

rulemaking and on our evaluation of the 

submittal. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received no comments. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment of the rule as 

described in our proposed action. 

Therefore, as authorized in sections 

110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is 

finalizing a limited approval of the 

submitted rule. This action incorporates 

the submitted rule into the California 

SIP, including those provisions 

identified as deficient. As authorized 

under section 110(k)(3), EPA is 

simultaneously finalizing a limited 

disapproval of the rule. Neither 

sanctions nor a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) will be imposed following 

this final limited disapproval as 

explained in our proposed action. 

Note that the submitted rule has been 

adopted by the MDAQMD, and EPA’s 

final limited disapproval does not 

prevent the local agency from enforcing 

it. The limited disapproval also does not 

prevent any portion of the rule from 

being incorporated by reference into the 

federally enforceable SIP as discussed in 

a July 9, 1992 EPA memo found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ttnnsr01/gen/ 

pdf/memo-s.pdf. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals and 

limited approvals/limited disapprovals 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the Clean Air Act do not create any 

new requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because this 

limited approval/limited disapproval 

action does not create any new 

requirements, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of State action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. 

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with