Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 38651 

17This information is available in the SIP 

submittal and at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/ 

air-quality-design-values. Design values are 

computed and published annually by EPA’s Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards and 

reviewed in conjunction with the EPA Regional 

Offices. 

18The State reported these NOX emissions as NO2

emissions in its SIP submittal. 

Third, the 2013–2015 NO2 design 

values in South Carolina and 

surrounding states are well below the 

100 ppb standard. The highest 

monitored design values during this 

time period are 56 to 65 percent below 

the NAAQS with Georgia and Florida 

recording the highest design values (48 

and 44 ppb, respectively).17

Fourth, NOX point source emissions 

data provided in the SIP submittal show 

that NOX emissions decreased from 

72,885 tons in 2008 to 41,070 tons in 

2014, a reduction of approximately 44 

percent.18

For all the reasons discussed above, 

EPA has preliminarily determined that 

South Carolina does not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2010 

1-hour NO2 NAAQS in any other state 

and that South Carolina’s SIP includes 

adequate provisions to prevent 

emissions sources within the State from 

significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of this standard in any 

other state. 

V. Proposed Action 

As described above, EPA is proposing 

to approve South Carolina’s December 

7, 2016, SIP revision addressing prongs 

1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely proposes to approve state 

law as meeting federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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 actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule for the 

state of South Carolina does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because it does not 

have substantial direct effects on an 

Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian 

Nation Reservation is located within the 

State of South Carolina. Pursuant to the 

Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, 

S.C. Code Ann. 27–16–120, ‘‘all state 

and local environmental laws and 

regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian 

Nation] and Reservation and are fully 

enforceable by all relevant state and 

local agencies and authorities.’’ EPA 

notes this action 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: August 3, 2017. 

V. Anne Heard, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17223 Filed 8–14–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2007–1092; FRL–9966–14– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Michigan Minor New 

Source Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

certain changes to the Michigan State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This action 

relates to changes to the Permit to Install 

(PTI) requirements of the Michigan 

Rules submitted on November 12, 1993; 

May 16, 1996; April 3, 1998; September 

2, 2003; March 24, 2009; and February 

28, 2017. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 14, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2007–1092 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

damico.genvieve@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rachel Rineheart, Environmental 

Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

38652 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–7017, 

Rineheart.rachel@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. Background 

II. Review of State Submittals 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) requires that the SIP include 

a program to provide for the ‘‘regulation 

of the modification and construction of 

any stationary source within the areas 

covered by the plan as necessary to 

assure that national ambient air quality 

standards are achieved.’’ This includes 

a program for permitting construction 

and modification of both major sources 

and minor sources that the State deems 

necessary to protect air quality. The 

State of Michigan’s minor source PTI 

rules are contained in Part 2 of the 

Michigan Administrative Code. EPA last 

approved changes to the Part 2 rules in 

1982. The Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has 

submitted several Part 2 revision 

packages since that time; however, EPA 

has not taken a final action on any of the 

submittals. The following table provides 

a summary of the various state 

submittals with the most recent version 

of each section of the Michigan Rule 

highlighted in bold. 

Submittal 

State 

effective 

date 

Submittal 

date Rules submitted 336.1xxx 

1 ........................ 04/20/1989 11/12/1993 240, 241. 

04/17/1992 .................... 201, 283. 

11/18/1993 .................... 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290. 

2 ........................ 07/26/1995 05/16/1996 201, 205, 208 (rescinded), 209, 219, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 

289, 290. 

3 ........................ 12/12/1996 04/03/1998 201a, 205. 

4 ........................ 06/13/1997 08/20/1998 278, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 290. 

5 ........................ 07/01/2003 09/02/2003 201, 201a, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 212, 216, 219, 240, 241, 278, 278a, 279 (rescinded), 

281, 282, 284, 285, 287, 289, 299. 

6 ........................ 06/20/2008 03/24/2009 201, 202, 205, 207, 219, 240, 241, 278, 281, 284, 285, 288, 299. 

7 ........................ 12/20/2016 2/21/2017 278a, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290. 

EPA published a proposed 

disapproval of the 1993, 1996, and 1998 

submittals on November 9, 1999; 

however, EPA never published a final 

disapproval. The changes included in 

the 2003, 2009, and 2017 submittals 

were primarily intended to address 

disapproval issues identified by EPA in 

1999. At the time of the 1999 proposed 

disapproval, the Part 2 Rules also 

included the state’s major nonattainment PTI program. The major nonattainment provisions have been 

removed from Part 2, and are now 

covered by the Part 19 rules which were 

approved on December 16, 2013. 

II. Review of State Submittals 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA 

requires that each SIP include a program 

to provide for the regulation of 

construction and modification of 

stationary sources as necessary to assure 

that the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) are achieved. 

Specific elements for an approvable 

construction permitting plan are found 

in the implementing regulations at 40 

CFR 51 subpart I—Review of New 

Sources and Modifications. 

Requirements relevant to minor 

construction programs are 40 CFR 

51.160–51.163. EPA regulations have 

few specific criteria for state minor new 

source review (NSR) programs. 

Generally, state programs must set forth 

legally enforceable procedures that 

allow the state to determine if a planned 

construction activity would result in a 

violation of the state’s SIP or a national 

standard and prevent any activity that 

would. In accordance with 40 CFR 

51.162, the state plan must identify the 

responsible agency for making 

permitting decisions. 40 CFR 51.160 

requires that the plan identify the types 

and sizes of activities that are subject to 

the plan, provide that sources 

undertaking an activity submit adequate 

information regarding the location, 

design and emissions related 

information to enable the state to make 

a determination, and discuss the air 

quality data and dispersion or other air 

quality modeling used. 40 CFR 51.161 

provides specific criteria for public 

availability of information and 

opportunity for public comment. 

Finally, 40 CFR 51.164 requires that the 

plan identify the administrative 

procedures that will be followed in 

making permitting decisions. 

The revisions to Part 2 submitted by 

MDEQ are largely provisions that 

strengthen the already approved minor 

NSR program adding greater detail with 

respect to applicability, required 

application material, and processing of 

applications; however, the revisions do 

include changes to waiver provisions 

and the addition of several categories of 

exemptions from the requirement to 

obtain a PTI. The revisions also include 

changes the public notice requirements, 

Michigan R 336.1205. EPA is not acting 

on Michigan R 336.1205 at this time, 

and it will be addressed in a subsequent 

rulemaking action. 

The expansion of exemptions would 

be viewed as a potential relaxation of 

the already approved plan; therefore, 

Michigan was required to provide 

information as required by section 

110(l) of the CAA to demonstrate that 

the revision would not interfere with 

any applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. The 2003 and 

2017 submittals provide analyses of the 

emissions associated with each new 

exemption and the impact they would 

have on air quality. EPA’s review of the 

waiver and exemption provisions are 

discussed in greater detail below. 

Michigan R 336.1202 provides a 

waiver from the requirement to obtain a 

permit prior to commencing 

construction under limited 

circumstances. The Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

provisions of the CAA prohibit 

commencement of construction without 

first obtaining the required permit 

authorizing construction; however, the 

requirement only applies to major 

sources, and no such restriction is 

specified under the minor NSR program 

requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.160. 

In addition, EPA has made 

determinations which further support 

that limited construction may begin 

before a permit is issued for minor 

sources. For example, EPA’s October 10, 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 38653 

1978, memorandum from Edward E. 

Reich to Thomas W. Devine in Region 

1 discusses limited preconstruction 

activities allowed at a site with both 

PSD and non-PSD sources. This memo 

states that construction may begin on 

PSD-exempt projects before the permit 

is issued. Furthermore, EPA approved a 

rule for Idaho’s permit program and 

Wisconsin’s permit program which 

allowed construction to commence 

under limited circumstance prior to a 

permit being issued. (See 68 FR 2217 

and 73 FR 12893.) As stated previously, 

the minor NSR provisions at 40 CFR 

51.160 require state programs to 

determine if activities would violate an 

applicable SIP or national standard and 

to prevent construction of an activity 

that would violate an applicable SIP 

provision or national standard. 

Michigan R 336.1202(1) requires an 

application for a waiver be submitted to 

MDEQ and requires MDEQ to act on the 

request within 30 days. Construction 

may not proceed unless the waiver is 

granted. The rule also indicates that the 

waiver does not guarantee approval of 

the required PTI and any construction 

activity would be at the owner/ 

operator’s risk. Michigan R 336.1202(2) 

limits the waiver to minor construction 

activities and activities that are not 

considered construction or 

reconstruction under a National 

Emission Standard for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants of 40 CFR part 61 or part 63. 

EPA finds the Michigan waiver 

provisions are consistent with EPA 

regulations and policy, are similar to 

waiver provisions previously approved 

in Idaho and Wisconsin, and provide 

adequate assurance that major 

construction activities would be 

prevented and activities will not result 

in a violation of the SIP or a national 

standard. 

Generally, MDEQ requires a PTI for 

any activity that results in the emission 

of any amount of a regulated air 

pollutant. The state’s minor NSR 

program does not exempt based on 

emission thresholds and instead lists 

specific exempt source categories of 

emissions. The exemption provisions 

considered in this action are Michigan 

R 336.1278, 336.1278a, and 336.1280– 

336.1290. When determining adequacy 

of the state rules, EPA is concerned with 

the possibility that an exemption might 

allow an activity that should be subject 

to major source permitting requirements 

escape appropriate review and 

permitting, that sources are required to 

maintain information adequate for the 

state to ensure that exemptions have 

been applied appropriately, and that the 

exemptions would not interfere with 

any applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

Michigan R 336.1278 and 336.1278a 

provide limitation on the use of the 

specific exemptions provided in R 

336.1280–336.1290, and require sources 

using the exemptions to maintain 

certain records to demonstrate that the 

exemptions have been applied 

appropriately. Michigan R 336.1278 

excludes any activity that would be 

subject to PSD or major non-attainment 

permitting from use of the exemptions. 

The rule also defines activity to include 

all ‘‘concurrent and related installation, 

construction, reconstruction, relocation, 

or modification of any process or 

process equipment’’ which will ensure 

that projects are aggregated properly 

before applying an exemption. Michigan 

R 336.1278a requires owner/operators 

applying an exemption to maintain 

records and a written demonstration 

supporting application of the 

exemption. Additionally, specific 

exemptions may include additional 

monitoring and recordkeeping as 

required to ensure that the equipment is 

operating as required under the 

exemption. 

Section 110(l) of the CAA states that 

a SIP revision cannot be approved if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress towards attainment of a 

NAAQS or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. The 

exemptions only apply to the need to 

obtain a PTI prior to construction. 

Exempt units would still be required to 

comply with any non-PTI related SIP 

requirements or standards under the 

CAA. The 2003 and 2017 submittals 

provide an estimation of emissions that 

could result from each exemption. Many 

of these exemptions would result in 

very low levels of emissions, generally 

less than 3 tons per year of a regulated 

pollutant. Several would likely result in 

no emission of a regulated pollutant. 

Where an exemption could result in an 

increase of a regulated pollutant in 

amounts greater than 10 tons per year, 

MDEQ provided modeling, or in the 

case of ozone a qualitative analysis to 

demonstrate that the emissions that 

could result from the exempt categories 

would have no significant impact on 

compliance with the NAAQS. After 

reviewing the information provided by 

MDEQ, EPA agrees that the exemptions 

are unlikely to result in a violation of 

the NAAQS. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve all 

changes submitted by MDEQ except for 

changes to Michigan R 336.1205 which 

includes provisions for public notice. 

EPA will not be taking any action with 

respect to the changes in public notice 

and will be addressing Michigan R 

336.1205 in a separate action. The 

already approved public notice 

procedures will remain in the SIP until 

EPA takes action on Michigan R 

336.1205. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA proposes to include 

in a final EPA rule regulatory text that 

includes incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA proposes to incorporate by 

reference Michigan’s updated 

permitting rules including 336.1209, 

effective 07/26/1995; 336.1201a, 

336.1203, 336.1204, 336.1206, 336.1212, 

336.1216, effective 07/01/2003; 

336.1201, 336.1202, 336.1207, 336.1219, 

336.1240, 336.1241, 336.1278, 336.1299, 

effective 06/20/2008; and 336.1278a, 

336.1280, 336.1281, 336.1282, 336.1283, 

336.1284, 336.1285, 336.1286, 336.1287, 

336.1288, 336.1289, 336.1290, effective 

12/20/2016. EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available through 

www.regulations.gov, and/or at the EPA 

Region 5 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

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 

Clean Air 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 Clean Air Act. 

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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

38654 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). These areas are listed at 40 CFR part 81, 

subpart D. 

2 Georgia’s February 11, 2010, regional haze plan 

as supplemented on November 19, 2010, is 

hereinafter collectively referred to as Georgia’s 

regional haze plan unless otherwise specified. 

3CAIR required certain states, including Georgia, 

to reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX that 

significantly contribute to downwind 

nonattainment of the 1997 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) and ozone. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 

2005). 

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 Clean Air Act; 

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, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: July 27, 2017. 

Robert A. Kaplan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17230 Filed 8–14–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2016–0634; FRL–9966–32– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Regional 

Haze Progress Report 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Georgia, Department of Natural 

Resources, through the Georgia 

Environmental Protection Division (GA 

EPD) on January 8, 2014. Georgia’s 

January 8, 2014, SIP revision (Progress 

Report) addresses requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA’s 

rules that require each state to submit 

periodic reports describing progress 

towards reasonable progress goals 

(RPGs) established for regional haze and 

a determination of the adequacy of the 

state’s existing SIP addressing regional 

haze (regional haze plan). EPA is 

proposing to approve Georgia’s 

determination that the State’s regional 

haze plan is adequate to meet these 

RPGs for the first implementation 

period covering through 2018 and 

requires no substantive revision at this 

time. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 14, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2016–0634 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 

Notarianni can be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9031 and via electronic mail 

at notarianni.michele@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

States are required to submit a 

progress report in the form of a SIP 

revision during the first implementation 

period that evaluates progress towards 

the RPGs for each mandatory Class I 

federal area 1 (Class I area) within the 

state and for each Class I area outside 

the state which may be affected by 

emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 

51.308(g). In addition, the provisions of 

40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to 

submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 

51.308(g) progress report, a 

determination of the adequacy of the 

state’s existing regional haze plan. The 

first progress report is due five years 

after submittal of the initial regional 

haze plan. Georgia submitted its first 

regional haze plan on February 11, 

2010, and supplemented its plan on 

November 19, 2010.2

Like many other states subject to the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 

Georgia relied on CAIR in its regional 

haze plan to meet certain requirements 

of EPA’s Regional Haze Rule, including 

best available retrofit technology 

(BART) requirements for emissions of 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides 

(NOx) from certain electric generating 

units (EGUs) in the State.3 This reliance 

was consistent with EPA’s regulations at 

the time that Georgia developed its 

regional haze plan. See 70 FR 39104 

(July 6, 2005). However, in 2008, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS