I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments A. Accessing Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0179 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0179.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The draft RIS “NRC Staff Position on the Relationship Between GDC Requirements and Technical Specification Operability,” is available electronically under ADAMS Accession No. ML12137A346.

• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0179 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

All holders of, and applicants for, power reactor operating licenses issued under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” except those that have permanently ceased operations and have certified that fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor vessel.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this regulatory issue summary (RIS) to clarify the relationship between Appendix A, “General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,” to 10 CFR part 50, and 10 CFR 50.36, “Technical Specifications.” In addition, the RIS is clarifying the process for addressing nonconformances with general design criteria (GDC) as incorporated into a plant's current licensing basis (CLB). This RIS does not transmit any new requirements and does not require any specific action or written response on the part of an addressee.

Recently, the NRC has received questions about the relationship between licensing basis design requirements, such as the GDC as incorporated into the plant CLB, and technical specification (TS) operability requirements. The relationship between CLB design requirements and the TS was addressed in a memorandum from Thomas E. Murley, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) to the NRR staff, dated January 24, 1994 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12115A279). The positions described in this memo were incorporated into the Inspection Manual Part 9900 Technical Guidance, “Operability Determinations & Functionality Assessments for Resolution of Degraded or Nonconforming Conditions Adverse to Quality or Safety (Operability Determination Process),” which was issued as the attachment to RIS 2005-20, Revision 1, “Revision to NRC Inspection Manual Part 9900 Technical Guidance, `Operability Determinations & Functionality Assessments for Resolution of Degraded or Nonconforming Conditions Adverse to Quality or Safety'” (ADAMS Accession No. ML073531473).

The GDCs or a plant-specific equivalent, 1 as incorporated into the CLB, have an important relationship to the operability requirements of the TS. Comprehending this relationship is critical to understanding how licensees should address nonconformances with CLB design requirements. This RIS discusses these relationships to promote a more comprehensive understanding of how the NRC requirements work in concert with TS to ensure plant safety.

The GDC and the TS differ in that the GDC specify NRC's requirements for the design of nuclear power reactors, whereas the TS are included in the license and specify requirements for the operation of nuclear power reactors. Design requirements, such as GDCs or similar requirements, are typically included in the licensing basis for every nuclear power plant. GDCs, according to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, “establish the necessary design, fabrication, construction, testing, and performance requirements for structures, systems, and components (SSCs) important to safety.” As such, the GDCs cover a broad category of SSCs that are important to safety, including those SSCs that are covered by TS. Both the design capability of the facility to meet the GDC (or a plant-specific equivalent) and the operational restrictions, which are to be included in the TS, are described in the final safety analysis report (FSAR). The staff safety evaluation documents the acceptability of these analyses, and it is the combination of the FSAR analyses and the staff safety evaluation that forms the bases from which the TS are derived. It is important to note that the GDCs cover a broader scope of SSCs than the TS because the TS establish, among other things, the limiting conditions for operations (LCOs). LCOs are the “lowest functional capability or performance levels of equipment required for safe operation of the facility.” Section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended and as implemented by 10 CFR 50.36, requires that those design features of the facility that, if altered or modified, would have a significant effect on safety, be included in the TS. Thus, TS are intended to ensure that the most safety-significant design features of a plant, as determined by the safety analysis, maintain their capability to perform their safety functions.

Recently, the NRC staff learned that some licensees follow their corrective action program for an identified nonconformance with a CLB design requirement, such as a GDC, or a plant-specific equivalent, that is part of the plant's CLB without consideration of the need to apply the Part 9900 operability determination process. To the NRC staff it appears that not every licensee understands the relationship between CLB design requirements and TS requirements for nonconforming conditions or that the Part 9900 operability determination process also applies to nonconforming conditions.

As noted in the January 24, 1994, memo, not all GDCs that are included in the CLB are explicitly identified in TS. However, those that are not explicitly identified may still need to be considered when either determining or to establish the basis for operability of TS SSCs. It is the staff's position that any nonconformance with a GDC, or a plant-specific equivalent included in the CLB should be evaluated to determine if the nonconformance affects or alters the operability status of a TS SSC.

As set forth in Part 9900, a documented determination is needed to establish the basis for concluding that an SSC remains capable of performing its safety function in the presence of the nonconforming condition. Part 9900 states that a “degraded condition is one in which the qualification of an SSC or its functional capability is reduced.” Similarly, Part 9900 defines a nonconforming condition as “a condition of an SSC that involves a failure to meet the CLB or a situation in which quality has been reduced because of factors such as improper design, testing, construction, or modification.” Examples of nonconforming conditions include: (1) An SSC that fails to conform to one or more applicable codes or standards (e.g., the CFR, operating license, TS, updated final safety analysis report, or licensee commitments), (2) an as-built or as-modified SSC that does not meet the current licensing basis, (3) operating experience or engineering reviews that identify a design inadequacy, or (4) documentation required by NRC requirements such as 10 CFR 50.54, “Conditions of licenses,” or 10 CFR 50.59, “Changes, Tests, and Experiments,” that is unavailable or deficient.

Section 3.8 of Part 9900 covers the definition of operability. The definition includes the following statement:

Section 4.0 of Part 9900 states the following:

Section 3.10 of Part 9900 further defines “specified function/specified safety function” as follows:

Thus, an operability determination (or functionality assessment) is performed upon identification of a degraded or nonconforming condition, including any nonconforming condition with a GDC included in either the CLB for an SSC described in TS or for a necessary and related support function required by the definition of operability. If the licensee determination concludes that the TS SSC is nonconforming but operable or the necessary and related support function is nonconforming but functional, it would be appropriate to address the nonconforming condition through the licensee's corrective action program. As stated in Section 6.3 of Part 9900:

The following example discusses a nonconforming condition that involves a failure to meet the current licensing basis because of improper construction:

As indicated in the January 24, 1994, memo, the design bases for protection against natural phenomena (GDC 2), when included in the CLB, are inherently considered in the operability of safety-related SSCs that satisfy the criteria for inclusion in the TS. The Part 9900 operability determination process should be entered when a licensee identifies any nonconformance with GDC 2 or its equivalent, as incorporated into a plant licensing basis (e.g., nonconformance with the CLB for protection against flooding, seismic events, tornadoes, etc.). Criterion 2 of the GDC states:

Licensees can implement GDC 2 in the design by specifying design bases for combinations of normal and accident conditions to protect SSCs from the effects of natural phenomena. Failure to meet GDC 2, as described in the licensing basis should be treated as a nonconforming condition and is an entry point for an operability determination for any impacted TS-required SSC or a necessary and related support function.

For example, if a licensee with GDC 2 in its CLB identified that the exhaust stacks for the emergency diesel generators (EDGs) were not protected from the impact of tornado missiles, then this condition would call into question the operability of the EDGs. EDG operability is called into question because the exhaust stacks are an integral component of the EDGs, which, if crimped by a missile, could prevent the EDGs from performing their specified safety function. Accordingly, the licensee should then enter the operability determination process to evaluate the impact of not meeting the CLB requirement for tornado missile protection. If the licensee's evaluation concludes that the EDGs are inoperable, then the licensee must enter its TS and follow the applicable required actions. As stated in Section 7.3 of Part 9900, the licensee may implement compensatory measures to restore “inoperable SSCs to an operable but degraded or nonconforming status. In general, these measures should have minimal impact on the operators or plant operations and should be relatively simple to implement.” If the licensee successfully implements compensatory measures to restore the inoperable EDGs to an operable but nonconforming status; or if the licensee's operability determination evaluation concludes that the EDGs are operable and nonconforming, then the licensee should use its corrective action program to bring the EDGs back into conformance with the CLB.

In summary, TS SSCs must be capable of performing their specified safety function (i.e., be operable or have operability) whenever a plant is operating in the modes and other specified conditions of the applicability of TS limiting conditions for operation. In addition to providing the safety function, a system is expected to perform as designed, tested, and maintained. Any nonconformance with a GDC in the CLB has the potential to negatively impact the operability of a TS SSC and must be evaluated to determine if the nonconforming condition has rendered any TS SSC inoperable. When system capability is degraded to a point in which it cannot perform with reasonable expectation or reliability, the system should be judged inoperable, even if the system could provide the specified safety function at this instantaneous point in time.

This RIS provides information concerning the NRC staff position on the relationship between Appendix A to 10 CFR part 50 and 10 CFR 50.36 so that the stakeholders may understand the requirements of the regulations more broadly. This RIS is identical to earlier NRC positions on the relationship of the GDC and the TS and, therefore, is not a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109, “Backfitting.” Consequently, the NRC staff did not perform a backfit analysis.

This RIS does not contain any new or amended information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Existing collection requirements under 10 CFR part 50 were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, control number 3150-0011.

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting on August 8, 2012, to discuss the draft RIS and to obtain feedback from members of the public. The public meeting notice is available electronically under ADAMS Accession No. ML12188A402. In addition, the meeting agenda will be posted on the NRC's Public Meeting Schedule Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/public- involve/public-meetings/index.cfm. Information regarding topics to be discussed, changes to the agenda, whether the meeting has been cancelled or rescheduled, and the time allotted for public comments can be obtained from the Public Meeting Schedule Web site.

1. Notification and Disapproval of Change in Officials. In 1989, the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act, Public Law 101-73, 103 Stat. 183 (1989), amended the Federal Credit Union Act (the Act) to require a federally insured credit union, under two conditions, to notify NCUA prior to adding or replacing any individual serving as a member of the board of directors or of a committee, or employed as a senior executive officer (together, officials). 12 U.S.C. 1790a. One condition is if the insured credit union has been chartered less than 2 years. 12 U.S.C. 1790a(a)(1). The other condition is if the insured credit union “is in troubled condition, as determined on the basis of such credit union's most recent report of condition or report of examination.” 12 U.S.C. 1790a(a)(2).

An insured credit union that meets either condition may not add or replace an official if the NCUA issues a Notice of Disapproval in response to a notification of a change in officials. 12 U.S.C. 1790a(b). NCUA may disapprove an individual when “the competence, experience, character, or integrity of the individual * * * indicates that it would not be in the best interests” of the credit union's members or the public for the individual to serve. 12 U.S.C. 1790a(e). The credit union may appeal the disapproval to the NCUA Board. 12 CFR 747.904.

2. Current Definition of “Troubled Condition”. To implement the notification requirement, the Act required NCUA to prescribe by regulation a definition for the term “troubled condition.” 12 U.S.C. 1790a(f). Since 1990, the NCUA Board has defined a natural person credit union in “troubled condition” as either: (1) A federal credit union that has been assigned a “4” or “5” composite CAMEL rating by NCUA; (2) a FISCU that has been assigned a “4” or “5” composite CAMEL rating by its SSA; (3) a FISCU that has been assigned a “4” or “5” composite CAMEL rating by NCUA based on core workpapers received from an SSA; or (4) a federal credit union or FISCU that has received special assistance under sections 208 or 216 of the Act to avoid liquidation. 12 CFR 701.14(b)(3); 55 FR 43086 (Oct. 26, 1990).

In 1999, the NCUA Board adopted a separate definition of “troubled condition” for corporate credit unions in order to conform to the Corporate Risk Information System (CRIS). 64 FR 28715 (May 27, 1999). Under that definition, a corporate credit union that is in “troubled condition” is either: (1) A corporate federal credit union that is assigned a “4” or “5” CRIS rating by NCUA in either the Financial Risk or Risk Management composites; (2) a corporate FISCU that is assigned a “4” or “5” CRIS rating by its SSA in either the Financial Risk or Risk Management composites or, if the state has not adopted CRIS, is assigned a “4” or “5” composite CAMEL rating by its SSA; (3) a corporate FISCU that is assigned a “4” or “5” CRIS rating in either the Financial Risk or Risk Management composites by NCUA based on core workpapers received from an SSA in a state that does not use either the CRIS or CAMEL rating systems; or (4) a corporate federal credit union or corporate FISCU that has received special assistance under sections 208 or 216 of the Act to avoid liquidation. 12 CFR 701.14(b)(4).

The “troubled condition” definitions for natural person credit unions and corporate credit unions have until now remained unchanged through several modifications to other parts of § 701.14, 1 and the definitions have since been incorporated by reference in parts 711, 741, 747 and 750 of NCUA regulations.

The proposed amendments to the definition of “troubled condition” primarily affect natural person FISCUs and corporate FISCUs. Under current § 701.14(b), the CAMEL or CRIS rating assigned by an SSA alone determines if a FISCU is in “troubled condition.” 12 CFR 701.14(b)(3)(i)(B), 701.14(b)(4)(i)(B). The proposed rule would define a FISCU as in “troubled condition” not just when its SSA assigns it a “4” or “5” composite CAMEL rating or a “4” or “5” CRIS rating in either the Financial Risk or Risk Management composites, but when either its SSA or NCUA assigns such a rating.

As administrator of the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (Fund), the NCUA Board is responsible for taking proactive steps to protect the Fund. NCUA is uniquely positioned to observe national trends in the credit union industry that can affect the Fund. For example, NCUA has seen an increase in the number of credit unions with assets between $250 million and $500 million that have experienced some degree of financial stress. In response to this monitoring, NCUA has increased the number of joint FISCU examinations in which it participates with SSAs. Previously, NCUA generally would only participate in joint examinations of FISCUs with assets over $500 million. More recently, NCUA has begun participating in joint examinations of FISCUs over $250 million. As a result, the number of hours NCUA examiners spend participating in joint examinations has nearly doubled. The NCUA Board emphasizes, however, that only the time spent on joint examinations has doubled, not the number of FISCUs experiencing difficulties.

Statistics indicate that in approximately 2 to 4 percent of all joint FISCU examinations, either the variation between NCUA's CAMEL rating and that given by the applicable SSA made the difference between a troubled versus an untroubled FISCU ( i.e., a “4” versus a “3”), or the SSA's troubled rating was lower than that given by NCUA ( i.e., a “5” instead of a “4”). These statistics show that disagreement between an SSA and NCUA on a FISCU rating could result from either regulator issuing the higher or lower score. When the variation in scores determines whether a FISCU is troubled versus untroubled, it is significant from a supervisory perspective.

The primary purpose of the proposal is to guard against this ratings discrepancy as a precaution to protect the Fund. Expanding the definition of “troubled condition” as proposed enhances the likelihood that problems in a particular FISCU will be identified and corrected because it permits the full utilization of the resources of both the related SSA and the NCUA. NCUA's national perspective and an SSA's in-depth familiarity with local trends complement each other in that effort.

The proposal also makes some technical corrections to § 701.14. For example, § 701.14(b)(3)(ii) and 701.14(b)(4)(ii) of the current rule also define a federally insured credit union as in “troubled condition” if it “has been granted assistance as outlined under Sections 208 or 216 of the Federal Credit Union Act.” 12 CFR 701.14(b)(3)(ii), 701.14(b)(4)(ii). The citation to section 216 of the Act, 12 U.S.C. 1790d, is inapplicable because it does not pertain to assistance to credit unions. 2 Accordingly, the proposed rule modifies this “troubled condition” criterion by deleting the reference to section 216 of the Act, while preserving the reference to assistance under section 208 of the Act. 12 U.S.C. 1788.

The current rule allows NCUA to assign a FISCU's CAMEL rating “based on core workpapers received from the state supervisor in the case of a [FISCU] in a state that does not use the CAMEL system.” 12 CFR 701.14(b)(3)(i)(C). Today, all states use the CAMEL system, rendering this alternative obsolete. The proposed rule therefore eliminates it.

Similarly, the current rule allows a state that does not use the CRIS system in rating its corporate FISCUs to instead use the CAMEL rating system. 12 CFR 701.14(b)(4)(i)(B). If a state uses neither the CRIS system nor the CAMEL system, the current rule allows NCUA to assign a CRIS rating “based on core workpapers received from the state supervisor.” 12 CFR 701.14(b)(4)(i)(C). However, with the recapitalization and restructuring of the corporate credit union system since 2009, all of the states having jurisdiction over the ten current corporate FISCUs now use the CRIS rating system. The proposed rule therefore eliminates as moot the alternatives of using the CAMEL system to rate corporate FISCUs, and of having NCUA assign CRIS ratings to corporate FISCUs in place of a state that uses neither the CAMEL nor the CRIS rating system.

The definition of “troubled condition” in § 701.14(b) is incorporated by reference in parts 711 [management official interlocks], 741 [requirements for insurance], 747 [challenge to disapproval of change in officials] and 750 [golden parachute and indemnification payments] of NCUA's regulations. 12 CFR 711.6(a), 741.205, 747.901, 750.1(e)(1) and 750.1(l). For purposes of convenience, uniformity, and ease of cross-referencing, the proposed rule adds to part 700 [general definitions] the definition of “troubled condition” for natural person and corporate credit unions exactly as revised in proposed § 701.14(b)(3) and (4).

In the case of a FISCU chartered less than 2 years or in “troubled condition,” current § 741.205 requires NCUA, before disapproving a change in officials, to “consult with the state supervisor before making its determination pursuant to § 701.14 (d)(2) and (f) of this chapter. NCUA will notify the state supervisor of its approval/disapproval no later than the time that it notifies the affected individual pursuant to § 701.14(d)(1) of this chapter.” 12 CFR 741.205. The citations in both sentences are incorrect as § 701.14 has no subsections (d)(1), (d)(2) or (f). The proposed rule deletes those incorrect citations without affecting the meaning of § 741.205.

NCUA welcomes public comment on this proposed rule. To facilitate consideration of the public's views, we ask commenters to organize and identify their comments by corresponding topic, part number or definition. General comments, if any, should be included in a separately identified section. Please recognize that the requirement that a troubled credit union notify NCUA of a change in officials is prescribed by statute. Therefore, this rulemaking will not address comments suggesting that NCUA ignore or eliminate this requirement.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a proposed rule may have on a substantial number of small credit unions (primarily those under $10 million in assets). This proposed rule does not impose any requirements on small credit unions. NCUA has determined this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions, so NCUA is not required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency by rule creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or increases an existing burden. 44 U.S.C. 3507(d); 5 CFR part 1320. For purposes of the PRA, a paperwork burden may take the form of either a reporting or a recordkeeping requirement, both referred to as information collections. NCUA has determined that the proposed rule does not impose a new information collection requirement or increase an existing burden.

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. NCUA has determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.

NCUA has determined that this proposed rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).

For the reasons set forth above, NCUA proposes to amend 12 CFR parts 700, 701, 741, and 750 as follows:

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2012-0725; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-207-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2011-33, dated August 16, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Bombardier, Inc. has issued the following temporary revisions. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

• Task 53-10-00-198, Torque Box specified in Canadair Challenger Temporary Revision (TR) 5-151, dated May 31, 2011, to the Canadair Challenger Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, PSP 605 (for Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes).

• Task 53-10-00-198, Engine Support Beam specified in Canadair Challenger TR 5-250, dated May 31, 2011, to the Canadair Challenger Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, PSP 601-5 (for Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes).

• Task 53-10-00-198, Engine Support Beam specified in Canadair Challenger TR 5-261, dated May 31, 2011, to the Canadair Challenger Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, PSP 601A-5 (for Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes).

• Task 53-30-00-155, Detailed Inspection of the Engine Support Beam specified in Bombardier Challenger 604 TR 5-2-47, dated May 31, 2011, to the Bombardier Challenger 604 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual (for Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variants) airplanes).

• Task 53-30-00-155, Detailed Inspection of the Engine Support Beam specified in Bombardier Challenger 605 TR 5-2-9, dated May 31, 2011, to the Bombardier Challenger 605 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual (for Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variants) airplanes).

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 111 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $9,435, or $85 per product.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-0662 and Airspace Docket No. 08-AWA-2) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Nos. FAA-2012-0662 and Airspace Docket No. 08-AWA-2.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

In December 1974, the FAA issued a final rule that established the Philadelphia, PA, Terminal Control Area (TCA) with an effective date of March 27, 1975 (39 FR 43710). In 1993, as part of the Airspace Reclassification Final Rule (56 FR 65638), the term “terminal control area” was replaced by “Class B airspace area.”

The primary purpose of Class B airspace is to reduce the potential for midair collisions in the airspace surrounding airports with high density air traffic operations by providing an area in which all aircraft are subject to certain operating rules and equipment requirements. FAA policy requires that Class B airspace areas be designed to contain all instrument procedures and that air traffic controllers vector aircraft to remain within Class B airspace after entry. Controllers must inform the aircraft when leaving and re-entering Class B airspace if it becomes necessary to extend the flight path outside Class B airspace for spacing. However, in the interest of safety, FAA policy dictates that such extensions be the exception rather than the rule.

The configuration of the Philadelphia Class B airspace area has not been modified since its establishment as a TCA in 1975. Since then, increasing operations have prompted a number of changes at the Philadelphia International Airport (PHL). For example, a new runway (8/26) was opened for use in December 1999; Precision Runway Monitor procedures were implemented in 2003, which permitted the use of independent ILS approaches to Runways 27L and 26; and in early 2009, Runway 17/35 was extended to accommodate continued growth in arrival demand. The newly extended runway alleviated congestion and delays on the airport's two major runways. However, the Class B configuration has not kept pace with airport expansion and increasing operations, and the current design makes it difficult to comply with FAA's policy to contain certain aircraft operations within Class B airspace.

Most aircraft operations at PHL are conducted on parallel Runways 9L/R and 27L/R. Wind conditions dictate operating on a west operation (i.e., landing and departing to the west) approximately 75 percent of the year. On a west operation, Runways 27R, 27L and 26 are in use. On an east operation, Runways 9L/R are in use. The crosswind Runway (17/35) is also utilized during both operations.

The current Class B design does not fully contain turbine-powered aircraft once they have entered the airspace as required by FAA policy. This deficiency also contributes to increased air traffic controller workload and frequency congestion. Aircraft on all final approach courses drop below the existing floor of the Class B airspace while flying published ILS procedures. This has been documented using the Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System (PDARS) tool. Lower Class B airspace floors are needed to protect all final approach courses and downwinds. A major area of concern is the truncated boundary along the southeast quadrant of the PHL Class B. The original purpose of this area was to allow aircraft inbound to LaGuardia, Newark and McGuire airports to fly up Federal airways east of PHL without infringing on the Philadelphia Class B airspace area. However, this Class B configuration on the southeast side is inadequate to contain aircraft on the downwind and final approach courses for Runway 27 and Runway 35.

The FAA prepared a preliminary design of the proposed PHL Class B modifications to illustrate the need for change and to serve as a basis for ad hoc committee review. In part, the preliminary design featured a proposed expansion of the surface area from the current 6-miles to 8-miles; expansion of the outer limit of Class B airspace from 20-miles to 24-miles around the majority of the area; lower floors of Class B airspace in certain subareas; and a cutout around Cross Keys Airport, NJ (17N).

An ad hoc committee was formed in 2009 to review the Philadelphia Class B airspace and provide recommendations to the FAA about the proposed design. Meetings were held in March and May of 2009 at the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission's Office of Aviation in Philadelphia, PA.

In addition, as announced in the Federal Register of November 30, 2010 (75 FR 74127), six informal airspace meetings were held in the Philadelphia area. The meetings were held on: February 15, 2011, at New Castle Airport, New Castle, DE; February 16, 2011, at New Garden Airport, Toughkenamon, PA; February 17 and February 22, 2011, at Wings Field, Blue Bell, PA; February 23, 2011, at Flying W Airport, Medford, NJ; and February 24, 2011, at Freefall Adventures Skydive School, Williamstown, NJ. The purpose of the meetings was to provide interested airspace users an opportunity to present their views and offer suggestions regarding the proposed modifications to the Philadelphia Class B airspace area.

The ad hoc committee provided the following input on the proposed Philadelphia Class B modifications.

The Committee asked that the surface area cutout be expanded to include Cooper Hospital and Penn's Landing Heliport (P72) to allow Medevac helicopter operations below 1,500 feet, and that an additional ring be created from 6 miles to 8 miles with a 1,000 foot floor so that flights from the Pottstown area could navigate to the Philadelphia center city hospital areas without entering Class B airspace.

The FAA expanded the proposed cutout northeast of PHL to include both Cooper Hospital and Penn's Landing heliports. A direct route of flight from the Pottstown area to center city Philadelphia is almost completely outside of the proposed Class B airspace. A 1,000-foot ring between 6 and 8 miles is unnecessary because aircraft flying from the Pottstown area to downtown Philadelphia could remain outside the proposed Class B with only a small correction to the east.

The Committee said that the proposed cutout for Cross Keys Airport (17N) should be widened to allow VFR traffic to operate in a corridor that provides sufficient access to the airport without encroaching on skydiving operations.

The proposed cutout has been reconfigured to allow for skydiving and access for VFR aircraft arriving from or departing to the southeast.

The Committee suggested a cutout south of Wings Field Airport (LOM) to allow aircraft entering the traffic pattern from the north to cross over the airport at 2,500 feet then descend to traffic pattern altitude. The Committee also noted that VFR aircraft maneuvering south of LOM must be below 2,000 feet to remain below the proposed Class B floor in that area, which could result in compression and concern about the 1,600-foot towers nearby.

Currently, the floor of Class B airspace just to the south of LOM is 3,000 feet. The proposed modifications would lower that floor to 2,000 feet. We are unable to create a cutout south of LOM because that portion of the proposed Class B is designed to protect aircraft being vectored for the ILS approach to Runway 17 at PHL. Today, aircraft inbound to PHL in this area are routinely vectored to join the ILS localizer at altitudes between 2,000 and 2,500 feet. There would be just over 1 mile available for aircraft approaching LOM from the north and northwest to cross over LOM at 2,500 feet and descend to enter the local traffic pattern without entering the Class B airspace. The requested cutout south of LOM would not allow enough room to keep the Runway 17 arrivals within Class B airspace. The towers referenced above (known as the Roxboro Antennas) are located 7.5 miles south-southeast of LOM and should not be a factor.

The Committee asked for a cutout east of New Garden Airport (N57) to allow glider operations to continue.

While N57 lies well outside the existing 20-mile ring of the Class B airspace area, the proposed modification would extend the Class B airspace boundary out to 24 miles (which would lie just to the east of N57) with a floor of 4,000 feet. N57 is located under an area where a significant amount of commercial traffic is routed on a daily basis. When PHL is on an east operation, aircraft landing Runway 9R are operating in the immediate vicinity of N57. The Runway 9R arrivals from the north and south are handed off to the Final Vector (FV) controller who sequences and spaces these aircraft for landing. To accomplish this, the FV controller vectors and descends the arriving aircraft, blending the two feeds into one. FAA directives require that the aircraft be retained within Class B airspace during this process, but the current Class B configuration does not extend far enough to the west for controllers to comply with this requirement. The requested cutout east of N57 cannot be accommodated because it would not provide sufficient airspace to allow controllers to keep PHL arrivals within Class B airspace.

The Committee said a corridor should be adopted to allow general aviation aircraft flying VFR from the west or northwest of Philadelphia to transit the Class B airspace with some predictability when en route to southeast and southern New Jersey.

The FAA raised the proposed Class B floor in the majority of the 15-mile to 20-mile ring to 3,500 feet. However, two sections between 15 miles and 20 miles (one on the east side and the other on the west side), would still have a 3,000-foot floor. These two 3,000-foot areas are essential for containing aircraft on the ILS approaches to the primary runways. Due to the 3,000-foot areas, pilots would still need to make a small route change when transitioning to or from the north or south, but setting the proposed floor at 3,500 feet in the remainder of the 15-mile to 20-mile ring would allow greater flexibility for general aviation aircraft operating around Philadelphia. Regarding VFR services, the FAA encourages VFR aircraft to contact PHL and request flight following, advisory and/or Class B separation services. This would allow these aircraft to operate at higher altitudes. PHL Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) has made a commitment to the user community to plan for and staff to provide services to aircraft potentially impacted by the proposed changes to the Class B.

The Committee proposed that a “key hole”, or Runway 24 departure corridor, be established to enable aircraft departing Trenton Mercer Airport (TTN) to climb at a more expeditious rate prior to entering Class B airspace. Also, the use of Continuous Descent Approaches (CDA) for TTN arrivals to Runway 6 should be considered.

TTN currently is, and would remain, well outside the proposed Class B airspace. The FAA believes that the proposed Class B configuration would allow sufficient opportunity (approximately 7 miles) for aircraft departing TTN Runway 24 to either contact Philadelphia approach for Class B clearance or avoid the airspace. CDAs are not operationally feasible in the TTN area. These IFR procedures allow for a continuous descent from an enroute or high initial approach altitude to the runway. ATC sectorization (both inter-facility and intra-facility) in the area northeast of PHL does not allow any procedures (CDAs or Optimized Profile Descents—OPD) that require steep, unrestricted descents.

The Committee opposed the expansion of the surface area radius to 8 miles because it would place the Commodore Barry Bridge (which serves as a landmark used by pilots to stay outside the Class B airspace) within Class B airspace. In addition, the 8-mile ring would place the Pier 36 heliport inside the surface area.

The airspace in this area is required to contain PHL arrivals on the ILS to Runways 9R and 9L. While the proposed 8-mile ring would encompass the bridge, VFR pilots could still use the bridge as a landmark but would have to visually remain 2 miles west of the bridge to avoid the Class B airspace. The expanded ring would also protect small aircraft from possible wake turbulence caused by large and heavy jet aircraft landing Runway 9R. The proposal has been revised so that Pier 36 would be included in the cutout to the northeast of PHL. Helicopters approaching downtown Philadelphia from the west would be required to either obtain a Class B clearance or circumnavigate the airspace as they do today.

The Committee requested a cutout around Perkiomen Valley Airport (N10) to accommodate flight school and skydive operations.

The preliminary Class B design proposed to expand Class B airspace out to a 24-mile ring. This would have resulted in Class B airspace being established above N10 from 4,000 feet up to 7,000 feet. The FAA reevaluated the need for the 24-mile ring, and decided to propose expanding to 24 miles on only east and west ends in order to encompass the extended finals to the primary runways at PHL. Therefore, the outer boundary of Class B airspace would remain at 20 miles in the vicinity of N10 as it is today.

The Committee suggested that the FAA consider VFR routes through the Class B airspace similar to those in Los Angeles, CA.

Charted VFR routes associated with the proposed Philadelphia Class B airspace are currently being considered and evaluated by the Philadelphia ATCT staff.

The Committee provided an alternative proposed Class B design, prepared by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). AOPA contended that the FAA's preliminary design appeared overly complex with multiple floors and sectors as well as being larger than needed to contain arriving and departing aircraft.

As previously noted, the FAA changed the proposal remove to the 24-mile ring, except on the east and west ends. However, the alternative design's higher floors and reduced eastern boundary would not meet the need for containing aircraft on ILS approaches to the primary runways. The alternative design's 5,000-foot Class B floor to the east and west of the airport would not provide enough altitudes to separate aircraft on opposing base legs. In both areas, 4,000 feet and 5,000 feet must be available for controllers to comply with the vertical separation requirements while aircraft are on opposing base legs (i.e., head-on). Class B airspace also must be extended and lowered to the south of PHL to contain aircraft being vectored to Runway 35. With the increased usage of that runway, the final approach routinely extends beyond 15 miles.

More than 300 people attended the meetings and 46 written responses were received. Three commenters supported the FAA's proposal, while the remainder objected to various aspects of the proposal. The following section discusses the issues raised.

Many commenters echoed the ad hoc committee recommendation that the proposed 24-mile ring be eliminated. As discussed above, the FAA changed the proposal to delete the 24-mile ring, except to the east and west of PHL along the extended runway centerlines.

Two commenters contended that the proposed expansion of the surface area from 6 miles to 8 miles was not adequately justified, would result in compression of VFR traffic operating below the Class B floor, would cause the boundary to be difficult to identify visually.

This issue was discussed, in part, in the “Ad hoc Committee” section, above. The expansion to 8 miles is necessary because some VFR operations are conducted beneath the final approach courses at locations and altitudes that are causing Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) Resolution Advisories (RAs) which cause arriving aircraft to execute unplanned missed approaches. Although the proposed cutout from the surface area was expanded northeast of PHL in response to Ad Hoc Committee input, the alignment of PHL's runways (09/27 and 17/35) makes an 8 mile surface are necessary to protect the final approach courses to those runways.

Several commenters requested either a cutout around Brandywine Airport (OQN) or that the Class B floor above OQN remain at 4,000 feet.

It is necessary to lower the floor of the 20-mile ring (over OQN) from 4,000 feet to 3,500 feet, and the floor of the 15-mile ring (east of OQN), from 3,000 feet to 2,000 feet to contain arrivals landing Runway 9L as they descend on base leg for approach to PHL.

Seven commenters had concerns about the effect of the proposal on glider operations at New Garden Airport (N57). A 5-mile cutout around N57 was requested.

The proposed Class B extension to 24 miles would place the boundary just east of N57, with a floor of 4,000 feet. This airspace is needed to contain arrivals when PHL is on an east operation. Philadelphia ATC personnel are discussing with the users of N57 the possibility of developing procedures via a Letter of Agreement that would minimize the impact of the Class B change on their operation.

Ten commenters were concerned about the potential for compression of traffic and inadvertent Class B intrusions near Wings Field Airport (LOM) and suggested that the Class B floor over LOM be kept at 4,000 feet; the proposed 2,000-foot floor, south of LOM, be raised to 2,500 feet or 3,000 feet; and/or a cutout around LOM be created.

The proposed Class B airspace in the vicinity of LOM is intended to contain aircraft executing the ILS Runway 17 approach at PHL. These arrivals cross a point about 14 NM north of PHL at 3,000 feet, and descend on the glide path for Runway 17. VFR aircraft arriving at LOM currently overfly the airport at 2,500 feet then enter a left traffic pattern for Runway 24. These aircraft pose a potential conflict with PHL Runway 17 arrivals. PHL ATCT encourages VFR aircraft to contact PHL and request flight following, traffic advisories and/or Class B separation services. This would allow these aircraft to operate at higher altitudes. PHL ATCT has made a commitment to the user community to plan for, and staff to provide services to aircraft impacted by the changes to the Class B.

Nine commenters suggested changes on behalf of the following airports located to the east and south of PHL: South Jersey Regional (VAY), Flying W (N14), Red Lion (N73); and Cross Keys (17N). Issues raised included: simplifying the design by changing the 3,500-foot floor northeast of the 17N airport “cutout” to either 3,000 feet or 4,000 feet to combine with adjacent areas, making the cutout for 17N larger, compression of VFR traffic, and creating a corridor similar to that in the Los Angeles, CA Class B airspace area.

The proposed 17N cutout has been slightly expanded from the design presented at the informal airspace meetings, but it could not be further expanded without having an impact on traffic flows inside the Class B. Raising the floor to 4,000 feet would not be sufficient to contain arriving aircraft within Class B airspace, while a 3,000-foot floor would be more restrictive than needed to contain those aircraft. The proposal's 3,500-foot floor provides adequate protection for PHL arrivals while minimizing the impact on VFR traffic. The volume and flow of traffic at PHL preclude the development of a corridor like the one through the Los Angeles Class B airspace area. However, VFR flyways under and around the airspace would be developed as part of the proposed Class B modification.

Six commenters suggested changes on the east and south sides of the proposed Class B, including: raise the Class B floor or create a cutout over VAY, N14 and N73; modify the Class B north of the 17N cutout so that the direct route between McGuire VORTAC (GXU) and Cedar Lake VORTAC (VCN) does not create nose-to-nose VFR traffic at 3,000 feet; and expand the “funnel” between Robbinsville VORTAC (RBV) and VCN between the Class B boundary and Alert Area A-220 to prevent compression of VFR traffic.

The FAA understands that the proposed changes would reduce the amount of airspace available for VFR operations southeast of the PHL Class B. To lessen this impact, the 24-mile ring has been reduced in size as discussed previously. However, because VAY, N14 and N73 all lie within 24 miles of PHL, as well as in the arrival area, and less than 4 miles from the final approach course, it is not possible to create a cutout or raise the proposed Class B floor over those airports without a significant impact on PHL arrivals. PHL ATC would provide clearance through the Class B airspace to VFR flights whenever possible. In addition, traffic from PNE and TTN that transitions PHL airspace to points in South Jersey represents a large number of the conflictions with arrival traffic to Runways 26 and 27R. As such, the VFR corridor designed, more than 25 years ago, is no longer viable. It is PHL ATCT's expectation that this traffic would contact PHL ATCT for flight-following and/or Class B separation services, thus providing a safer environment for all users of the ATC system. VFR aircraft wishing to transit the portion of Alert Area A-220 that would fall within the proposed Class B airspace would be under the control of ATC and therefore would receive separation services from any military aircraft. Pilots that choose to either circumnavigate the area, or fly at altitudes below the Class B airspace, could operate pretty much as they do today except at slightly lower altitudes. The possibility of developing charted routes through the Class B would be considered as a way to mitigate the potential compression issues identified by the commenters.

One commenter suggested the DME distances should be published to identify the Class B rings.

The distances depicted in this proposal are measured from the PHL Airport Reference Point (ARP) defined as lat. 39°52′20″ N., long. 75°14′27″ W. The lack of a VOR/DME facility at PHL, upon which to base radials and DME distances, limits the options for describing the airspace. There are six ILSs with DME at PHL. The FAA will explore the possibility of publishing an alternate description using ILS/DME distances on the PHL VFR Terminal Area chart with an explanation of how to use the DME distances as a guide for navigating around the area.

One commenter was concerned that the Tabernacle, NJ practice area would not be usable for certain training maneuvers if it was under Class B airspace.

The smaller proposed 24-mile Class B extension would not completely remove the practice area from under Class B airspace; however, no additional adjustments could be made in that area without impacting PHL arrivals. Users of the practice area should be able to get a Class B clearance when PHL is on an east operation and that airspace is not in use for arrivals.

A number of commenters stated that there are too many Class B floor variations in the proposed design which would be confusing to pilots and it would be difficult to determine the boundaries without GPS navigation equipment on board. Further, this could cause compression underneath the Class B.

Simplicity is a goal of airspace design and it is true that using one altitude for the entire circle would be less complex. However, the proposed 3,000-foot floor on the east and west sides could not be raised to 3,500 feet, as some suggested, without impacting PHL arrivals because this airspace is necessary to contain aircraft descending to land at PHL. Lowering the floor to 3,000 feet all the way around for simplicity would create additional impact on VFR operations by designating Class B airspace where a 3,000-foot floor is not required by ATC. The FAA understands the need of VFR pilots to have access to Class B airspace for safety and efficiency of flight, and plans to make this available on request whenever it can be provided without impacting the safety of other aircraft operating in the airspace.

One commenter proposed that the extensions on the east and west be made part-time so that they would only be active when actually being used for traffic containment.

The suggestion for part-time Class B segments could potentially decrease the impact on nonparticipating traffic. A similar concept has been successfully applied to military special use airspace areas. However, further study of various issues is required to determine whether the concept is operationally feasible and could be safely implemented in a Class B airspace environment. These issues include: procedures for activating/deactivating affected Class B sections and ensuring real-time pilot notification of airspace status changes, response to runway changes or closures and inflight emergencies, aeronautical charting specifications, weather factors, safety; etc.

One commenter contended that the need for lower Class B floors could be reduced by eliminating the requirement for aircraft to be below the ILS glideslope when being turned on to final approach and by using a two-stage glide slope set at 3 degrees within 8 to 9 miles from the runway and up to 6 degrees at greater distances.

These suggestions would require a revision of instrument flight procedures and the development of new or additional glideslope equipment which may not be technically feasible and/or may involve flight safety issues. As such, they are outside the scope of this airspace proposal.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the Philadelphia, PA, Class B airspace area. This action (depicted on the attached chart) proposes to modify the lateral and vertical limits of Class B airspace to ensure the containment of large turbine-powered aircraft once they enter the airspace, reduce frequency congestion and controller workload, and enhance safety in the Philadelphia terminal area. The Class B airspace ceiling would remain at 7,000 feet MSL. Mileages are in nautical miles and, unless otherwise noted, are based on a radius from PHL ARP (lat. 39°52′20″ N., long. 75°14′27″ W.). The proposed modifications of the Philadelphia Class B airspace area, by subarea, are outlined below.

Area A. This area, extending upward from the surface to 7,000 feet MSL, would be expanded from the current 6-mile radius to an 8-mile radius. A cutout would be incorporated in the northeast quadrant of Area A to accommodate helicopter operations as discussed above.

Area B. No changes are proposed to this area, which extends from 300 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL.

Area C. This area, which extends from 600 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL, would remain largely the same except that its boundaries would be extended outward to meet the proposed 8-mile radius of Area A.

Area D. This area would extend from 1,500 feet to 7,000 feet between the 8-mile and 11-mile rings around PHL, with an extension out to 15-miles to the east of PHL.

Area E. Area E would extend from 2,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL between the 11-mile and 15-mile rings from PHL with a cutout around 17N. The existing Class B floor in that area is 3,000 feet MSL.

Area F. Area F would consist of two sections between the 15-mile and 20-mile rings. One section would be located west of PHL and the other to the east of PHL. These sections would extend from 3,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. The purpose of Area F would be to contain arrivals to the primary runways at PHL.

Area G. This area would extend from 3,500 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. It would generally lie between the 15-mile and 20-mile rings, excluding the airspace in Areas F and H. The current Class B floor in most of that area is 4,000 feet MSL. Area G would also create new Class B airspace out to 20 miles to the east and south of PHL with a cutout to accommodate operations at 17N.

Area H. This area would consist of two sections, extending from 4,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL, between the 20-mile and 24-mile rings, to the east and west of PHL. The purpose of this new Class B airspace would be to contain arrivals to the primary runways at PHL.

The geographic latitude/longitude coordinates in this proposal are based on North American Datum 83.

Class B airspace areas are published in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order 7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011 and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class B airspace area proposed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there is no new information collection requirement associated with this proposed rule.

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 directs that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule.

Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The reasoning for this determination follows:

In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this proposed rule:

(1) Imposes minimal incremental costs and provides benefits,

(2) Is not an economically “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,

(3) Is not significant as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures;

(4) Would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;

(5) Would not have a significant effect on international trade; and

(6) Would not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the monetary threshold identified.

This action proposes to modify the Philadelphia, PA, Class B airspace area to ensure the containment of large turbine-powered aircraft within Class B airspace, reduce controller workload, and reduce the potential for midair collision in the Philadelphia terminal area.

The benefits of this action are that it would enhance safety, improve the flow of air traffic, and reduce the potential for midair collisions in the PHL terminal area. In addition this action would support the FAA's national airspace redesign goal of optimizing terminal and enroute airspace areas to reduce aircraft delays and improve system capacity.

Possible costs of this proposal would include the costs of general aviation aircraft that might have to fly further if this proposal were adopted. However, the FAA believes that any such costs would be minimal because the FAA designed the proposal to minimize the effect on aviation users who would not fly in the Class B airspace. In addition the FAA held a series of meetings to solicit comments from people who thought that they might be affected by the proposal. Wherever possible the FAA included the comments from these meetings in the proposal.

The expected outcome of the proposal would be a minimal impact with positive net benefits and a regulatory evaluation was not prepared. The FAA requests comments with supporting justification about the FAA determination of minimal impact.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the Act.

However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

The proposal is expected to improve safety by redefining Class B airspace boundaries and is expected to impose only minimal costs. The expected outcome would be a minimal economic impact on small entities affected by this rulemaking action.

Therefore, the FAA certifies that this proposed rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA requests comments on this determination. Specifically, the FAA requests comments on whether the proposal creates any specific compliance costs unique to small entities. Please provide detailed economic analysis to support any cost claims. The FAA also invites comments regarding other small entity concerns with respect to the proposal.

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that it would have no effect on international trade.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposal does not contain such a mandate; therefore the requirements of Title II do not apply.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

On August 14, 2008, Congress enacted the CPSIA (Pub. L. 110-314), as amended on August 12, 2011, by Public Law 112-28. Section 108 of the CPSIA, titled “Prohibition on Sale of Certain Products Containing Specified Phthalates,” permanently prohibits the sale of any “children's toy or child care article” containing more than 0.1 percent of three specified phthalates (di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), and benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP)). Section 108 of the CPSIA also prohibits, on an interim basis, “toys that can be placed in a child's mouth” or “child care article” containing more than 0.1 percent of three additional phthalates (diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP), and di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP)). These prohibitions became effective on February 10, 2009. 15 U.S.C. 2057c(a), (b). The terms or phrases “children's toy,” “toy that can be placed in a child's mouth,” and “child care article,” are defined in section 108(g) of the CPSIA. A “children's toy” is defined as a “consumer product designed or intended by the manufacturer for a child 12 years of age or younger for use by the child when the child plays.” A toy can be placed in a child's mouth “if any part of the toy can actually be brought to the mouth and kept in the mouth by a child so that it can be sucked and chewed. If the children's product can only be licked, it is not regarded as able to be placed in the mouth. If a toy or part of a toy in one dimension is smaller than 5 centimeters, it can be placed in a child's mouth.” The term “child care article” means “a consumer product designed or intended by the manufacturer to facilitate sleep or the feeding of children age 3 and younger, or to help such children with sucking or teething.” 15 U.S.C. 2057c(g).

Section 108 of the CPSIA also directed the Commission, not earlier than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act [enacted Aug. 14, 2008], to appoint a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP), pursuant to the procedures of section 28 of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2077), to study the effects on children's health of all phthalates and phthalate alternatives as used in children's toys and child care articles. 15 U.S.C. 2057c(b)(2). The Commission appointed the CHAP on April 14, 2010, to study the effects on children's health of all phthalates and phthalate alternatives, as used in children's toys and child care articles. The CHAP currently is working on a report, including recommendations to the Commission.

Public Law 112-28 amended section 108(d) of the CPSIA to provide an exclusion for certain products containing inaccessible phthalates component parts. That section states:

The Commission was directed within 1 year after the date of enactment of Public Law 112-28 [enacted August 12, 2011] to: (A) Promulgate a rule providing guidance with respect to what product components, or classes of components, will be considered to be inaccessible; or (B) adopt the same guidance with respect to inaccessibility that was adopted by the Commission with regards to accessibility of lead under section 101(b)(2)(B) (15 U.S.C. 1278a(b)(2)(B)), with additional consideration, as appropriate, of whether such component can be placed in a child's mouth. 15 U.S.C. 2057c(d)(3).

The exclusion for inaccessible component parts for phthalates mirrors the language on inaccessible parts in the CPSIA with regard to the limits on lead content in children's products. The interpretative rule on lead provided that a component part is not accessible if it is not physically exposed by reason of a sealed covering or casing and does not become physically exposed through reasonably foreseeable use and abuse of the product including swallowing, mouthing, breaking, or other children's activities, and the aging of the product. 15 U.S.C. 1278a(b)(2). However, paint, coatings, or electroplating could not be considered to be a barrier that would render lead in the substrate to be inaccessible to a child. 15 U.S.C. 1278a(b)(3). Section 108 did not specifically disqualify paint, coatings, or electroplating as barriers that would render phthalates inaccessible. Because the Commission proposes to adopt the same guidance with respect to inaccessibility for phthalates that was adopted by the Commission with regard to inaccessibility of lead, the proposed guidance states that paint, coatings, and electroplating may not be considered a barrier that would render phthalate-containing component parts of toys and child care articles inaccessible. Moreover, in some applications, phthalates are added to paint, printing inks, or coatings. However, the Commission seeks comments, information, and data regarding whether certain paint, coatings, or electroplating could ever be considered a barrier in the context of phthalates, and whether such materials could result in sealed covering or casing that would not become physically exposed through reasonably foreseeable use and abuse of the product.

In addition, Public Law 112-28 also includes a provision for phthalates, which is not contained in the statutory requirements for assessing inaccessibility for lead in children's products. Under section 108(d)(2) of the CPSIA, the Commission may revoke any or all exclusions granted based on the inaccessible component parts provision of section 108 of the CPSIA, at any time, and require that any or all component parts manufactured after such exclusion is revoked, comply with the prohibitions of phthalates, if the Commission finds, based on scientific evidence, that such compliance is necessary to protect the public health or safety. 15 U.S.C. 2057c(d)(2).

The Commission's interpretive rule regarding inaccessible component parts with respect to lead content was published in the Federal Register on August 7, 2009 (74 FR 39535) and codified at 16 CFR 1500.87 (Children's products containing lead: Inaccessible component parts). The Commission proposes to adopt the lead guidance with respect to inaccessibility for phthalates, with the exception of polyvinyl chloride (PVC or vinyl) or other plasticized materials covering mattresses and other sleep surfaces designed or intended by the manufacturer to facilitate sleep of children age 3 and younger.

Accordingly, this proposed guidance would adopt the same definitions and tests used in the interpretative rule regarding inaccessibility of lead-containing parts. An “accessible component part” is one that a child may touch, and an “inaccessible component part” is one that is located inside the product, and cannot be touched by a child, even if such a part is visible to a user of the product. An accessible component is defined as one where children may contact a lead-containing component part with their fingers or tongues. The tests to determine whether parts are accessible are identical to those already in use by the Commission for addressing sharp points and sharp metal or glass edges on toys or other articles intended for use by children. The Commission's regulations under 16 CFR 1500.48-1500.49 provide specific technical requirements for determining accessibility of sharp points or edges through the use of accessibility probes. These sections provide that an accessible sharp point or edge is present in the product if the test indicates that any part of the specified portion of the accessibility probe contacts the sharp part. Thus, an “accessible component part” of a children's product is defined as one that can be contacted by any part of the specified portion of the accessibility probe. The regulations at 16 CFR 1500.48-49 provide that a test for accessibility of sharp points or edges shall be applied before and after use and abuse tests, referencing 16 CFR 1500.50 through 1500.53 (excluding the bite test—paragraph (c) of 16 CFR 1500.51-1500.53).

Use and abuse testing may also be used to evaluate accessibility of phthalate-containing component parts of children's toys and child care articles as a result of normal and reasonably foreseeable use and abuse of the product. The scope of the use and abuse testing regulations does not cover products for children over 96 months of age. However, a “children's toy” is defined as a “consumer product designed or intended by the manufacturer for a child 12 years of age or younger for use by the child when the child plays.” Therefore, the proposed guidance for the testing of products for determining accessibility based on the use and abuse tests will be extended to children older than 96 months of age and up through age 12 years. This proposed guidance provides that the testing indicated for products for children aged 37-96 months of age should also be used to evaluate the products for children up through age 12 years. Further, as children 12 years of age or younger grow and mature, they become, in many respects, indistinguishable from children older than 12 years, and even adults. Consequently, the intentional disassembly or destruction of products by children older than age 8 years, by means or knowledge not generally available to younger children, should not be considered in evaluating products for accessibility of phthalate-containing components. For example, accessibility arising from the use of tools, such as a screwdriver, should not be considered in accessibility and use and abuse testing.

The interpretive rule on lead also specified that a lead-containing part of a children's product that is enclosed or covered by fabric is to be considered inaccessible to a child, unless the product, or part of the product, in one dimension, is smaller than 5 centimeters. This provision addressed the possibility that a fabric covering is not a suitable barrier to the potential transfer of lead from the part to a child, if the part can be placed in a child's mouth. As is the case with lead, a fabric covering may not be a suitable barrier to the potential transfer of phthalates from a product or component part to a child, if the part can be placed in a child's mouth. If the product can be mouthed, the chemical that is present could mix with saliva that soaks through the fabric and then be transferred back into a child's mouth during further mouthing activity. With the exception of certain vinyl (or other plasticized material) covered mattresses/sleep surfaces, as discussed further below, a children's toy or child care article that is, or contains, a phthalate-containing part that is enclosed, encased, or covered by fabric, and passes the appropriate use and abuse tests on such covers and parts, would be considered to be inaccessible to a child, unless the product or part of the product, in one dimension, is smaller than 5 centimeters. Such fabric-covered items (including dolls, or plush toys with internal plasticized structural parts or housing for electronic parts) should be evaluated for the integrity of the coverings, including seams, using the appropriate use and abuse tests at 16 CFR 1500.50 through 1500.53 (excluding the bite test—paragraph (c) of 16 CFR 1500.51-1500.53). In addition, because the material beneath a fabric covering would be considered to be accessible to a child in the case that mouthing or swallowing of the part may occur, use and abuse testing should be used to evaluate the potential for small components to be removed from products, using the appropriate tests at 16 CFR 1500.50 through 1500.53 (excluding the bite test—paragraph (c) of 16 CFR 1500.51-1500.53).

Section 108(d)(3)(B) provides that if the Commission elects to adopt the same guidance with respect to inaccessibility that was adopted by the Commission with regard to accessibility of lead under section 101(b)(2)(B) of the CPSIA, the Commission must give “additional consideration, as appropriate, of whether such component can be placed in a child's mouth.” 15 U.S.C. 2057c(d)(3). Accordingly, with respect to child care articles, the Commission reviewed phthalate-containing vinyl or other plasticized materials covering mattresses and sleep surfaces designed or intended by the manufacturer to facilitate sleep of children age 3 and younger that have removable fabric covers. These mattresses or sleep surfaces are too large to be placed in a child's mouth. Although such mattresses or sleep surfaces may be covered by fabric, such as sheets or mattress pads, additional consideration was given to whether children would become physically exposed to the vinyl or other plasticized materials covering the surface through reasonably foreseeable use and abuse of the products, including swallowing, mouthing, breaking, or other children's activities, and the aging of the product. 15 U.S.C. 2057c(d)(1). There may be instances in which a child's skin comes into close contact with a fabric covering over a phthalate-containing item for large portions of a day, such as a vinyl or other plasticized material covering a mattress or other sleep surface. Young children typically spend more than half of each day sleeping or resting, likely on a mattress or similar item. 1 While a mattress is typically covered with a sheet or mattress pad, such non-permanently affixed coverings, that are either supplied with the mattress or provided by the consumer, should not be considered to render the underlying material inaccessible. As with the potential transfer of phthalates by saliva during mouthing of an item, a mattress cover dampened with a spilled beverage, saliva, sweat, urine, or other liquid, could facilitate phthalate migration through the fabric. Furthermore, a nonpermanent covering cannot be assumed to be in use at all times; if it is not, the mattress could no longer be considered inaccessible. For these reasons, vinyl (or other plasticized material) covered mattresses/sleep surfaces, which contain phthalates, designed or intended by a manufacturer to facilitate sleep for children age 3 and younger, should not be considered to be made inaccessible through the use of a fabric covering.

The Commission appointed the CHAP on April 14, 2010, to study the effects on children's health of all phthalates and phthalate alternatives, as used in children's toys and child care articles. Currently, the CHAP is working on a report, including recommendations to the Commission. Accordingly, any guidance concerning phthalates may be modified and revised, as appropriate, based on the findings and recommendations of the CHAP.

The Commission was directed to provide guidance on phthalate-containing inaccessible component parts by August 12, 2012. Although guidance documents do not require a particular effective date under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(2), the Commission recognizes the need for providing the guidance expeditiously. Accordingly, the proposed guidance would take effect upon publication of a final guidance in the Federal Register .

For the reasons stated above, the Commission proposes to add 16 CFR part 1199, as follows:

On October 14, 2011, the United States and the Osage Nation (formerly known as the Osage Tribe) signed a Settlement Agreement to resolve litigation regarding alleged mismanagement of the Osage Nation's oil and gas mineral estate, among other claims. As part of the Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed that it would be mutually beneficial “to address means of improving the trust management of the Osage Mineral Estate, the Osage Tribal Trust Account, and Other Osage Accounts.” Settlement Agreement, Paragraph 1.i. The parties agreed that a review and revision of the existing regulations is warranted to better assist the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in managing the Osage Mineral Estate. The parties agreed to engage in a negotiated rulemaking for this purpose. Settlement Agreement, Paragraph 9.b. After the Committee submits its report, BIA will develop a proposed rule to be published in the Federal Register .

Public Comments: Public comments were submitted nominating members of the Osage Minerals Council who were not named or were named as alternates in the June 18, 2012, Federal Register Notice. These comments generally expressed concern that some elected members of the Osage Minerals Council were not being allowed to participate on the Committee. The Department understands that the Osage Minerals Council, which is the governing body of the Osage Mineral Estate, voted on the members who would sit on the Committee in order of preference; therefore, the interests of all Council members will be represented by the members voted to serve on the Committee by the Osage Minerals Council. Additionally, alternates will serve on the Committee as an official member when a Committee member is absent. Nominations were also received naming individual Osage Headright holders. The Department believes that as members who vote for the Osage Minerals Council, the interests of each of these individuals will be adequately represented by those members voted to serve on the Committee, each of whom is an elected member of the Osage Minerals Council and empowered to make decisions regarding the Osage Minerals Estate. Public comments were also received nominating non-Osage Headright holders due to concerns that the Osage Minerals Council does not have the best interests of shareholders in mind. Because all shareholders receive the same benefit per headright interest, however, the Department believes that the Osage members of the Committee, each of whom are also shareholders, will adequately represent the interest of all shareholders. It is relevant to note that all of the individuals who are not appointed to the Committee will have an opportunity to participate in the negotiated rulemaking by attending Committee meetings, submitting information and speaking at Committee meetings during the public comment sessions. Some of the comments nominating the various individuals also raised issues with the Osage Constitution and role of the BIA in managing the Osage Mineral Estate. These issues are not relevant to the nomination and appointment of members to the Committee. In any event, the Osage Nation operates pursuant to a duly enacted Constitution dated March 11, 1996. Additionally, the goal of the negotiated rulemaking is to provide recommendations to improve BIA's management and administration of the Osage Mineral Estate.

Certification and Establishment of Committee: Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended (5 USC Appendix 2), and with the concurrence of the General Services Administration, the Department of the Interior is announcing the establishment of the Osage Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. The Committee will report to the Secretary of the Interior through the Designated Federal Officer. The Bureau of Indian Affairs will provide administrative and logistical support to the Committee. The members are those individuals identified in the Notice of Intent published on June 18, 2012.

Meeting Agenda: At the first meeting, the Commission will be receiving informational briefings, discussing its goals and procedures, developing a meeting schedule and work plan, and reviewing the existing regulations and topics required to be included in the negotiated rulemaking pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The public will be able to make comments on Tuesday, August 21 from 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.; and Wednesday, August 22, 2012, from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. The final agenda will be posted on www.bia.gov/osageregneg prior to the meeting.

Public Input: Interested members of the public may present, either orally or through written comments, information for the Committee to consider during the public meeting. Speakers who wish to expand their oral statements, or those who had wished to speak, but could not be accommodated during the public comment period, are encouraged to submit their comments in written form to the Committee after the meeting.

Individuals or groups requesting to make comments at the public Committee meeting will be limited to 5 minutes per speaker. Interested parties should contact Mr. Robert Impson, Designated Federal Officer, in writing (preferably via email), by August 17, 2012 (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ), to be placed on the public speaker list for this meeting.

In order to attend this meeting, you must register by close of business August 17, 2012. The meeting location is open to the public, and current, government-issued, photo ID is required to enter. Space is limited, so all interested in attending should pre-register. Please submit your name, time of arrival, email address and phone number to Mr. Robert Impson via email at robert.impson@bia.gov or by phone at (918) 781-4600.

Certification Statement: I hereby certify that the establishment of the Osage Negotiated Rulemaking Committee is necessary, is in the public interest and is established under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior.

I. Background

Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. On August 31, 2011, WVDEP submitted a formal revision to its SIP (the August 2011 SIP submission). The SIP revision consists of amendments to the PSD permitting regulations under West Virginia State Rule 45CSR14. This action will replace the current SIP-approved version of 45CSR14, Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration, which was previously approved by EPA on May 27, 2011 (76 FR 30832).

The SIP revision submitted by West Virginia generally pertains to two Federal rulemaking actions. The first is the “Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM 2.5 )” (NSR PM 2.5 Rule), which was promulgated on May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28321). The second is the “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule” (Tailoring Rule), which was promulgated on June 3, 2010 (75 FR 31514).

Whenever a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated, section 110(a) of the CAA imposes obligations upon states to submit SIP revisions that provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS—the “infrastructure SIP” revisions. Although states typically have met many of the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous particulate matter (PM) standards, states (including all the EPA Region III states) were still required to submit SIP revisions that address section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. In addition to the August 2011 SIP submission, West Virginia has previously submitted SIP revisions addressing requirements set forth in CAA section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, as well as the 1997 ozone NAAQS and 2008 ozone and lead NAAQS. Because these SIP submissions addressed West Virginia's compliance with CAA section 110(a)(2), these SIP submissions are referred to as infrastructure SIP submissions. These previous submittals, as well as a technical support document (TSD), are included in the docket for today's action. The TSD contains a detailed discussion of these submittals and their relationship to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2).

On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for PM to add new standards for fine particles, using PM 2.5 as the indicator. Previously, EPA used PM 10 (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 PM 2.5 , setting an annual standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) and a 24-hour standard at a level of 65 μg/m 3 (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 PM 2.5 , such as visibility impairment, soiling, and materials damage. On October 17, 2006, EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for PM 2.5 . In that rulemaking action, EPA reduced the 24-hour NAAQS for PM 2.5 to 35 μg/m 3 and retained the existing annual PM 2.5 NAAQS of 15 μg/m 3 (71 FR 61236).

On May 16, 2008, EPA promulgated a rule (the NSR PM 2.5 Rule) to implement the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, including changes to the NSR program (73 FR 28321). The 2008 NSR PM 2.5 Rule revised the NSR program requirements to establish the framework for implementing preconstruction permit review for the PM 2.5 NAAQS in both attainment and nonattainment areas. The 2008 NSR PM 2.5 Rule also established the following NSR requirements to implement the PM 2.5 NAAQS: (1) Require NSR permits to address directly emitted PM 2.5 and precursor pollutants; (2) establish significant emission rates for direct PM 2.5 and precursor pollutants (including sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and oxides of nitrogen (NO X ); (3) establish PM 2.5 emission offsets; and (4) require states to account for gases that condense to form particles (condensables) in PM 2.5 emission limits.

On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2, 2010), EPA promulgated a final rulemaking action, known as the Tailoring Rule, which established GHG emission thresholds for determining the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources. In a letter dated July 30, 2010 (the 60-day letter), West Virginia stated that it could interpret the current version of 45CSR14 to apply the meaning of the term “subject to regulation” established by EPA in the Tailoring Rule in implementing the PSD program, but would still pursue rulemaking action to be consistent with Federal counterpart language. West Virginia has chosen to adopt changes under West Virginia State Rule 45CSR14 consistent with those incorporated by the Tailoring Rule on June 3, 2010 (75 FR 31514). A detailed explanation of GHGs, climate change and the impact on health, society, and the environment is included in EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) for EPA's GHG endangerment finding final rule (Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472-11292 at www.regulations.gov ), as well as the TSD for this current action.

West Virginia has also included in this revision automatic rescission provisions for the regulation of GHGs in the event that an EPA final rule, an act of the United States Congress, a Presidential Executive Order, a final order of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, or an order of the United States Supreme Court results in GHGs not being subject to regulation under the PSD program. EPA's analysis of the approvability of West Virginia's automatic rescission language is provided in the TSD for this current action.

With the addition of the requirements for PSD described above, West Virginia's program contains all of the emission limitations and control measures and other program elements required by 40 CFR 51.166 related to the PM 2.5 , ozone, and lead NAAQS. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the August 31, 2011 SIP submittal and relevant portions of West Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittals for the purpose of determining that West Virginia has met its statutory obligations relating to its PSD permit program under CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for the 2008 lead NAAQS and 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is also making a determination that West Virginia has met its obligations relating to the PSD permit program pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, 1997 ozone NAAQS, and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS . As already noted, the TSD for this action contains a detailed discussion of the relevant submissions and EPA's rationale for making this determination.

The SIP revision submitted by WVDEP consists of amendments to the PSD permitting regulations of Articles 45CSR14. The revision fulfills the Federal program requirements established by the EPA rulemaking actions discussed above. The amendments establish the major source threshold and significant emission rate for PM 2.5 pursuant to the May 2008 NSR PM 2.5 Rule, and establish thresholds at which GHGs become subject to regulation under the PSD program pursuant to the June 2010 Tailoring Rule. Several minor revisions were made as well in order to be consistent with Federal counterpart language.

The version of 45CSR14 submitted by West Virginia for approval into the SIP was adopted by West Virginia on March 18, 2011, and effective on June 16, 2011. They include revisions to 45CSR14—Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration. Based upon EPA's review of the revisions submitted by West Virginia for approval into the SIP, EPA find these revisions to be consistent with their Federal counterparts. A detailed summary of the NSR PM 2.5 rule, the Tailoring Rule, and a list of revisions to the state rule is available in the TSD.

EPA's review of the August 31, 2011 submittal finds the regulations consistent with their Federal counterparts. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve this West Virginia SIP revision. Additionally, in light of this SIP revision, EPA is proposing to approve the portions of West Virginia's submissions dated December 3, 2007, December 11, 2007, April 3, 2008, October 1, 2009, October 26, 2011, and February 17, 2012 which address the obligations set forth at CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) relating to the West Virginia PSD permit program. EPA is proposing to determine that West Virginia's SIP meets the statutory obligations relating to its PSD permit program set forth at CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) for the 2008 lead NAAQS, as well as the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Based on these and previous SIP submittals, EPA is also proposing to make a determination that West Virginia has met its obligations relating to the PSD permit program pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, 1997 ozone NAAQS, and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 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 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 proposed rule pertaining to NSR requirements for PM 2.5 and GHGs for the West Virginia SIP does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

I. Background II. Summary of SIP Revision III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia IV. Proposed Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA established the 1997 PM 2..5 NAAQS, including an annual standard of 15.0 μg/m 3 based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour (or daily) standard of 65 μg/m 3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. EPA established the standards based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to PM 2.5 .

Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. In 1999, EPA and state air-quality agencies initiated the monitoring process for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS and, by January 2001, established a complete set of air-quality monitors. On January 5, 2005, EPA promulgated initial air-quality designations for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS (70 FR 944), which became effective on April 5, 2005, based on air-quality monitoring data for calendar years 2001-03.

On April 14, 2005, EPA promulgated a supplemental rule amending the agency's initial designations (70 FR 19844), with the same effective date (April 5, 2005) as that which was promulgated at 70 FR 944. As a result of this supplemental rule, PM 2.5 nonattainment designations are in effect for 39 areas, comprising 208 counties within 20 states (and the District of Columbia) nationwide, with a combined population of approximately 88 million. The Virginia Area which is the subject of this rulemaking was included in the list of areas not attaining the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. The Virginia Area consists of the following cities and counties in Virginia: Arlington County, Alexandria City, Fairfax County, Loudoun County and Prince William County.

On January 12, 2009 (74 FR 1146), EPA determined that Virginia had attained the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the Virginia Area. That determination was based upon quality assured, quality controlled and certified ambient air monitoring data that showed the Area had monitored attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS for the 2004-2006 monitoring period and that continued to show attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS based on the 2005-2007 data. The January 12, 2009 determination suspended the requirements for Virginia to submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control measures, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the standard for so long as the nonattainment area continues to meet the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. On January 23, 2012, VDEQ submitted a request for withdrawal of the Virginia 1997 PM 2.5 SIP revisions including the withdrawal of the attainment plan, analysis of reasonably available control measures, attainment demonstration, contingency plans and mobile source budgets. To meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3), Virginia did not request the withdrawal of the 2002 base year emission inventory portion of the 1997 PM 2.5 SIP revisions. Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions.

The 2002 base year emission inventory submitted by VDEQ on April 4, 2008 includes emissions estimates that cover the general source categories of point sources, non-road mobile sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. The pollutants that comprise the inventory are nitrogen oxides (NO X ), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), PM 2.5 , coarse particles (PM 10 ), ammonia (NH 3 ), and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ). EPA has reviewed the results, procedures and methodologies for the base year emissions inventory submitted by VDEQ. The year 2002 was selected by VDEQ as the base year for the emissions inventory per 40 CFR 51.1008(b). A discussion of the emissions inventory development as well as the emissions inventory can be found in Appendix B of the April 3, 2008 SIP submittal.

Table 1 provides a summary of the annual 2002 emissions of NO X , VOCs, PM 2.5 , PM 10 , NH 3 , and SO 2 which were included in the Virginia submittal.

The CAA section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory is developed by the incorporation of data from multiple sources. States were required to develop and submit to EPA a triennial emissions inventory according to the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) for all source categories (i.e., point, area, nonroad mobile and on-road mobile). The 2002 emissions inventory was based on data developed by VDEQ and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government (MWCOG). The data were developed according to current EPA emissions inventory guidance “Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional Haze Regulations,” August 2005. EPA preliminarily agrees that the process used to develop this emissions inventory is adequate to meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3), the implementing regulations, and EPA guidance for emission inventories. More information regarding the review of the base year inventory can be found in the technical support document (TSD) titled “2002 SIP Base Year Inventory” that is located in this docket.

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information (1) that are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.

On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts. * * *” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”

Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”

Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base year emissions inventory portion of the SIP revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia through VDEQ on April 4, 2008. We have made the determination that this action is consistent with section 110 of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 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 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 proposed rule, pertaining to the PM 2.5 2002 base year emissions inventory portion of the Virginia SIP, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

On April 30, 2004, EPA designated the Atlanta Area as a marginal nonattainment area with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). See 69 FR 23858. The Atlanta Area includes the following 20 counties: Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding and Walton. 1 For background purposes, portions of the Atlanta Area were designated as a severe nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The area was subsequently redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard with a maintenance plan. The original Atlanta 1-hour severe ozone nonattainment area consisted of 13 counties including Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Paulding and Rockdale. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). As such, major sources in the 13-county 1-hour ozone nonattainment area were defined as those sources that emit 25 tpy or more of VOC or NO X . Therefore, the applicability of some of the rules being approved in today's action is for 25 tpy and above for sources in the 13 county area that was severe for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and moderate for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and 100 tpy and above in the remaining 7 counties that have only been classified as moderate for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On March 6, 2008, EPA reclassified the Atlanta Area from a marginal ozone nonattainment area to a moderate ozone nonattainment area. As a result of this designation and subsequent reclassification to moderate, Georgia was required to amend its SIP for the Atlanta Area to satisfy the requirements for a moderate area under section 182 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA requires states to adopt RACT rules for all areas designated nonattainment for ozone and classified as moderate or above. The three parts of the section 182(b)(2) RACT requirements are: (1) RACT for sources covered by an existing CTG (i.e., a CTG issued prior to enactment of the 1990 amendments to the CAA); (2) RACT for sources covered by a post-enactment CTG; and (3) all major sources not covered by a CTG (i.e., non-CTG sources). Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165, a major source for a moderate ozone area is a source that emits 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of VOC or NO X .

A CTG is a guidance document issued by EPA which, as a result of CAA section 182(b)(2), triggers a responsibility for states to submit, as part of their SIPs, RACT rules for stationary sources of VOC that are covered by the CTG. EPA defines RACT as “the lowest emission limit that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.” See 44 FR 53761, (September 17, 1979). Each CTG includes a “presumptive norm” or “presumptive RACT” that EPA believes satisfies the definition of RACT.

If a state submits a RACT rule that is consistent with presumptive RACT, the state does not need to submit additional support to demonstrate that the rule meets the CAA's RACT requirement. However, if the state decides to submit an alternative emission limit or level of control for a source or source category for which there is a presumptive RACT, the state must submit independent documentation as to why the rule meets the statutory RACT requirement. As mentioned above, section 182(b)(2) of the CAA addresses moderate and above areas for the 1-hour ozone standard. Further clarification of the RACT requirements for areas classified as moderate or above for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is provided in EPA's regulations. 2 See 40 CFR 51.912.

The CTG established by EPA are guidance to the states and only provide recommendations. A state can develop its own strategy for what constitutes RACT for the various CTG categories, and EPA will review that strategy in the context of the SIP process and determine whether it meets the RACT requirements of the CAA and its implementing regulations. If no major sources of VOC or NO X emissions (each pollutant should be considered separately) in a particular source category exist in an applicable nonattainment area, a state may submit a negative declaration for that category.

In addition, section 183(e) of the CAA directs EPA to: (1) List for regulation those categories of products that account for at least 80 percent of the VOC emissions, on a reactivity-adjusted basis, from consumer and commercial products in ozone nonattainment areas; and (2) divide the list of categories to be regulated into four groups. EPA published the initial list, following the 1990 CAA Amendments, in the Federal Register on March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15264), and has revised the list several times. See 71 FR 28320 (May 16, 2006), 70 FR 69759 (November 17, 2005), 64 FR 13422 (March 18, 1999), 63 FR 48792 (September 11, 1998). As authorized by CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), EPA chose to issue CTG in lieu of regulations for each listed product category. See 73 FR 58481 (October 7, 2008) (Group IV CTG); 72 FR 57215 (October 9, 2007) (Group III CTG); and 71 FR 58745 (October 5, 2006) (Group II CTG).

CTG categories that were established in 1978 ultimately were required to be adopted by the states by 1990 (see schedule below for details). CAA section 182(b)(2) provides that a CTG issued after 1990 must specify the date by which a state must submit a SIP revision in response to the CTG. States were required to have the pre-1990 CAA CTG categories and post-1990 CAA CTG categories for applicable areas addressed in their SIPs according to the following schedule:

On November 13, 1992, October 21, 2009, and March 19, 2012, GA EPD submitted final SIP revisions to EPA for review and approval into the Georgia SIP. On July 19, 2012, GA EPD submitted a draft SIP revision to EPA for review and approval through parallel process. In the alternative to proposing approval of Georgia's July 19, 2012, draft SIP revision, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve Georgia's July 19, 2012, SIP revisions. These four SIP revisions comprehensively address all of the remaining CTG related requirements for the Atlanta Area  3 and revise Georgia's rules to address the VOC and NO X RACT provisions for major sources.

Georgia's SIP revisions include changes made by the State of Georgia to its Air Quality Rules, found at Chapter 391-3-1, and include revisions to GA EPD's VOC and NO X rules, including its VOC and NO X RACT requirements. Georgia's VOC and NO X rules for the Atlanta Area are being approved, as they are consistent with the CAA, and EPA VOC and NO X RACT guidance including CTG guidance. A brief description of the rule changes that GA EPD submitted and that EPA is approving through this action is provided below.

On November 13, 1992, the State of Georgia submitted a SIP revision to clarify compliance options and specify solids equivalent limits for certain CTG source categories in order to meet EPA requirements. This revision was originally submitted to address the 1-hour ozone nonattainment area requirements. EPA is now proposing to approve the revisions included as part of the November 13, 1992, SIP revision. A portion of the November 13, 1992, SIP revision was previously acted on in a Federal Register notice dated March 8, 1995 (60 FR 12688). A portion of the November 13, 1992, SIP revision was withdrawn. Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(tt) and Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(yy) were originally submitted in the November 13, 1992, submittal but GA EPD submitted a December 22, 1997, letter and a subsequent February 27, 2012, letter clarifying that GA EPD withdrew Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(tt) and Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(yy) from the November 13, 1992, submittal. The following remaining rule changes from the 1992 SIP revision, supplemented by the October 21, 2009, SIP revisions, are being approved in today's rulemaking, and address the Group I CTG related to certain surface coating methods. See section B of this rulemaking for a summary of the October 21, 2009, SIP revisions. Specifically, Georgia's Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(u) addresses the control of VOC emissions from can coating operations located in the Atlanta Area; Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(v) addresses the control of VOC emissions from coil coating operations located in the Atlanta Area; Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(x) addresses the control of VOC emissions from fabric and vinyl coating operations located in the Atlanta Area; and Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(aa) addresses the control of VOC emissions from wire coating operations located in the Atlanta Area.

Additionally, there were five other rules, intended to address Group I CTG related to additional surface coating methods, flat wood paneling and graphic arts systems, included in the November 13, 1992, SIP revision. Specifically, Georgia's Rule 391-3-1- .02(2)(w) addresses the control of VOC emissions from paper coating operations located in the Atlanta Area; Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(y) addresses the control of VOC emissions from metal furniture coating operations located in the Atlanta Area; Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(z) addresses the control of VOC emissions from large appliance surface coating operations located in the Atlanta Area; Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(jj) addresses the control of VOC emissions from flat wood paneling operations located in the Atlanta Area; and Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(mm) addresses the control of VOC emissions from graphic arts systems operations located in the Atlanta Area. On March 19, 2012, Georgia updated rules 391-3-1-.02(2)(w), 391-3-1-.02(2)(y), 391-3-1-.02(2)(z), 391-3-1-.02(2)(jj), and 391-3-1-.02(2)(mm). Today, EPA is proposing to take action on the versions of these rules that were submitted in the March 19, 2012, SIP revision. See Section C for a summary of the March 19, 2012, SIP revision.

Georgia submitted three SIP revisions dated October 21, 2009.

• “October 21, 2009, Submittal A” consists of the Atlanta Area Attainment Demonstration SIP, the Atlanta Area RACT SIP and the Atlanta Area Reasonable Further Progress SIP. Today's action only addresses the Atlanta Area RACT SIP portion of October 21, 2009, Submittal A. The RACT SIP portion states “A majority of VOC provisions in Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2) apply statewide based on county-specific VOC emission thresholds. The applicability of the VOC provisions that do not apply statewide have been extended to the additional 7 counties that make up the metro Atlanta non-attainment area. In addition, these VOC provisions apply year-round. The applicable NO X rules already applied to the 7 additional counties and no change is being implemented at this time and they apply May 1 through September 31.” The submittal then provides a comprehensive list of regulations that were originally submitted November 13, 1992.

• “October 21, 2009, Submittal B” includes rule revisions that apply to the Atlanta Area, with state effective dates of June 8, 2008. It includes changes to 12 RACT rules including: (1) six VOC CTG RACT rules; (2) two VOC RACT rules; (3) two NO X RACT rules; (4) a rule for VOC emissions from major sources; and (5) a rule for NO X emissions from major sources.

• “October 21, 2009, Submittal C” includes rule revisions that apply to the Atlanta Area, with state effective dates of April 12, 2009. It includes changes to eight RACT rules including: (1) Four VOC CTG RACT rules; (2) two VOC RACT rules; and (3) two NO X RACT rules. This submittal revises seven of the rules contained in the “October 21, 2009, Submittal B” SIP revision.

As mentioned above in section II.A., of this rulemaking, the following rule changes from Georgia's November 1992 SIP revision, as supplemented by the October 21, 2009, SIP revisions, addressed Group I CTG: Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(u), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(v), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(w), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(x), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(y), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(z), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(aa), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(jj) and Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(mm). The October 21, 2009, Submittal B SIP revision also included Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(pp), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(rr), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(ss), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(tt), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(vv), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(yy), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(ccc), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(ddd), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(eee), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(hhh), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(lll) and Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(rrr). The state effective date of these rule revisions was June 8, 2008. The October 21, 2009, Submittal C SIP revision subsequently revised Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(vv), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(ccc), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(ddd), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(eee), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(hhh), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(lll) and Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(rrr) with a state effective date of April 12, 2009. In addition, the October 21, 2009, Submittal C SIP revision revised Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(kkk). On March 19, 2012, Georgia later updated Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(w), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(y) and Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(z) to incorporate the requirements of CAA Section 182(b)(2)(A) for the Group III CTG. On March 19, 2012, Georgia also updated Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(jj), Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(mm) and Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(ddd) to incorporate the requirements of CAA Section 182(b)(2)(A) for the Group II CTG. Today, EPA is proposing to take action on the version of this rule that was submitted in the March 19, 2012, SIP revision. See section C of this rulemaking for a summary of the March 19, 2012, SIP revision.

Georgia's March 19, 2012, SIP revision applies to the 20 county Atlanta Area. EPA is proposing to approve the March 19, 2012, SIP revision in its entirety. The rule additions and amendments included in the March 19, 2012, SIP revision are listed below and grouped by pertinent CTG:

• Rule 391-3-1-.01 “Definitions”

• Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(a)6 “General Provisions, VOC Emission Standards, Exemptions, Area Designations, Compliance Schedules and Compliance Determinations”

• Group II CTG (71 FR 58745, October 5, 2006)

• Group III CTG (72 FR 57215, October 9, 2007)

• Group IV CTG (73 FR 58481, October 7, 2008)

For each of the above March 19, 2012, SIP revision CTG related rule additions or changes, the SIP revision contains:

• New emission standards and/or work practice standards consistent with those in the new or revised CTG. Where existing emission limits were more stringent than the CTG, GA EPD maintained the existing provisions from the previous CTG. For Pleasure Craft Coating Operations, Georgia submitted a negative declaration, affirming that there are no sources applying coatings to pleasure craft in the Atlanta Area;

• New and revised definitions consistent with those in the CTG;

• A schedule for submitting permit applications, completing construction, and full compliance for any modifications necessary for a facility to comply with the new requirements; and

• Modifications to the applicability requirements clarifying which standards remain in effect until January 1, 2015, which standards become applicable on January 1, 2015, and what requirements are applicable after January 1, 2015.

On July 19, 2012, GA EPD submitted a draft SIP revision, for parallel processing, to apply the appropriate thresholds and applicability for certain CTG categories and RACT requirements for the 7 counties that were not a part of the original 1-hour ozone nonattainment area for Atlanta. In order to ensure that EPA can timely  4 take final action on today's proposed approval, EPA is proposing alternative actions with regard to the July 19, 2012, draft SIP revision. Because that revision was submitted in draft form, for parallel processing, EPA is today both proposing to approve the revision and alternatively, proposing to conditionally approve the revision based on Georgia's commitment to provide EPA with a revision within one year of final action on the conditional approval. Should EPA timely receive from Georgia the final version of the draft July 19, 2012, SIP revision, EPA will take final action to approve that revision. If, however, Georgia is unable to timely provide EPA with the final SIP revision, EPA will take final action on the conditional approval being proposed today. In either situation, EPA intends to take final action on the RACT SIP revisions provided by Georgia for the Atlanta Area.

Specifically, in the July 19, 2012, draft SIP revision, GA EPD revised Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(a)(6) addressing the applicability thresholds for Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Hall, Newton, Spalding and Walton Counties for the following CTG categories and RACT requirements:

• Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(u) VOC Emissions from Can Coating;

• Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(v) VOC Emissions from Coil Coating;

• Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(x) VOC Emissions from Fabric and Vinyl Coating;

• Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(aa) VOC Emissions from Wire Coating;

• Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(bb) Petroleum Liquid Storage;

• Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(cc) Bulk Gasoline Terminals;

• Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(dd) Cutback Asphalt;

• Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(ee) Petroleum Refinery;

• Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(ff) Solvent Metal Cleaning;

• Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(hh) Petroleum Refinery Equipment Leaks;

• Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(kk) VOC Emissions from Synthesized Pharmaceutical Manufacturing;

• Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(ll) VOC Emissions from the Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires;

• Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(nn) VOC Emissions from External Floating Roof Tanks;

• Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(qq) VOC Emissions from Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners;

The July 19, 2012, draft SIP revision, also included a revision to Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(kkk) VOC Emissions from Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities which addresses the applicability thresholds for Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Hall, Newton, Spalding and Walton Counties.

As mentioned above, on July 19, 2012, the State of Georgia, through GA EPD, submitted a request for parallel processing of a draft SIP revision that the State is taking through public comment. GA EPD requested parallel processing so that EPA could begin to take action on its draft SIP revision in advance of the State's submission of the final SIP revision. Consistent with EPA regulations found at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, section 2.3.1, for purposes of expediting review of a SIP submittal, parallel processing allows a state to submit a plan to EPA prior to actual adoption by the state. Generally, the state submits a copy of the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA before conducting its public hearing. EPA reviews this proposed state action, and prepares a notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking is published in the Federal Register during the same time frame that the state is holding its public process. The state and EPA then provide for concurrent public comment periods on both the state action and federal action.

If the revision that is finally adopted and submitted by the State is changed in aspects other than those identified in the proposed rulemaking on the parallel process submission, EPA will evaluate those changes and if necessary and appropriate, issue another notice of proposed rulemaking. The final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the SIP revision has been adopted by the State and submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP. As stated above, the final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the SIP revision has been: (1) Adopted by Georgia, (2) submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP; and (3) evaluated by EPA, including any changes made by the State after the July 19, 2012, draft SIP revision is submitted to EPA.

As explained earlier, in the alternative, EPA is also proposing conditional approval of Georgia's July 19, 2012, draft SIP revision, in order to ensure that EPA can take timely action to act on Georgia's RACT related revisions for the Atlanta Area. On July 19, 2012, Georgia submitted a commitment letter to provide EPA a SIP revision to address the appropriate thresholds and applicability for certain CTG categories and RACT requirements (listed above) for the 7 counties that are in the Atlanta Area but were not a part of the original 1-hour ozone nonattainment area for Atlanta. Georgia requested conditional approval of the CTG categories and RACT requirements until such time (within a year) that the State could submit a SIP revision to fully address these requirements. The State requested conditional approval in coordination with the July 19, 2012, draft SIP revision that the State has out for public comment, and requested conditional approval in the event that EPA had to take action on the CTG and RACT requirements for Georgia in advance of receipt of a final submission. A copy of Georgia's commitment letter is provided in the docket at EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0448 for today's proposed rulemaking.

Below summarizes the specifics of each rule being proposed for approval in today's action.

Revisions to this rule were state effective June 8, 2008, and submitted to EPA on June 25, 2008, for SIP approval. EPA approved the June 25, 2008, revisions into the SIP on June 11, 2009 (74 FR 27713). Subsequently, this rule was revised on March 7, 2012, to update the definition of Georgia Department of Natural Resources “Procedures for Testing and Monitoring Sources of Air Pollutants,” (PTM) to reference the most recent, October 11, 2011, version of the PTM. It was submitted for SIP approval on March 19, 2012, and EPA is proposing to approve into the SIP the March 19, 2012, version of Rule 391-3-1-.01, “Definitions.”

VOC emission standards are required for all CTG source category sources in the 20 county Atlanta Area. Revisions to this rule were state effective June 8, 2008, and submitted to EPA on June 25, 2008, for SIP approval. EPA approved the June 25, 2008, revisions into the SIP on June, 11, 2009 (74 FR 27713). Subsequently, on March 7, 2012, Georgia updated the applicability requirements regarding these sources. The March 7, 2012, changes were submitted to EPA on March 19, 2012, for SIP approval. These changes remove the reference to Rules 391-3-1-.02(2)(t), (w), (y), (z), (ii), (jj), and (mm) from the applicability provisions in subparagraphs 391-3-1-.02(2)(a)6(i)(I). Georgia updated its applicability requirements again and submitted a draft SIP revision on July 19, 2012. These changes expanded the applicability to the entire 20 county Atlanta Area for Rules 391-3-1-.02(2)(u), (v), (x), (aa), (bb), (cc), (dd), (ee), (ff), (hh), (kk), (ll), (nn) and (qq).

EPA is proposing to approve into the SIP the March 19, 2012, version of Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(a)6, “General Provisions, VOC Emission Standards, Exemptions, Area Designations, Compliance Schedules and Compliance Determinations.” EPA is also proposing to approve Georgia's rule changes submitted on July 19, 2012, for parallel processing. In the alternative to proposing approval of Georgia's July 19, 2012, draft SIP revision, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve Georgia's July 19, 2012, SIP revisions.

In May 1977, EPA issued a CTG document (1977 CTG) for controlling VOC emissions from surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks. On October 7, 2008 (73 FR 58481), EPA updated the 1977 CTG, as part of Group IV CTG, addressing the control of VOC emissions from automobile and light-duty truck manufacturing. On January 3, 1991, April 3, 1991, and September 30, 1991, GA EPD corrected VOC RACT deficiencies for a number of rules including Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(t) “VOC Emissions from Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Manufacturing.” EPA approved these 1991 revisions into the SIP on October 13, 1992 (57 FR 46780). Subsequent revisions made to GA EPD's VOC Emissions from Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Manufacturing rule were state effective on December 20, 1994, and submitted to EPA for SIP approval. EPA approved this 1994 rule into the SIP on February 2, 1996. See 61 FR 3817).

Revisions to the rule were then made to address this CTG source category for the entire 20 county Atlanta Area and made state effective on March 7, 2012. GA EPD submitted the March 7, 2012, revisions to EPA on March 19, 2012. EPA has reviewed Georgia's revised rule and preliminarily determined that Georgia's rule is consistent with the Group IV CTG for VOC emissions from automobile and light-duty truck manufacturing. EPA is therefore proposing to approve Georgia's rule, submitted on March 19, 2012, regarding VOC emissions from automobile and light-duty truck manufacturing.

In May 1977, EPA established a CTG addressing the control of VOC emissions from can coating operations. On January 3, 1991, April 3, 1991, and September 30, 1991, GA EPD corrected VOC RACT deficiencies for a number of rules including Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(u) “VOC Emissions from Can Coating.” EPA approved these 1991 revisions into the SIP on October 13, 1992 (57 FR 46780). On November 13, 1992, GA EPD submitted a SIP revision to address this CTG source category for the 13 county Atlanta 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. Subsequently, through the October 21, 2009, “Submittal A” SIP revision, and the draft July 19, 2012, SIP revision the applicability of these rules was extended to include the 20 county Atlanta Area. 5 The July 19, 2012, SIP revision revised Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(a)(6) “General Provisions, VOC Emission Standards, Exemptions, Area Designations, Compliance Schedules and Compliance Determinations” which affected the applicability for Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(u) “VOC Emissions from Can Coating.”

The purpose of Georgia's rule is to control VOC emissions from can coating operations located in the Atlanta Area. GA EPD's Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(u) “VOC Emissions from Can Coating” was changed to clarify compliance options and to specify solids equivalent limits to be used as a compliance option. EPA has reviewed Georgia's rule changes, submitted on November 13, 1992, and in the October 21, 2009, Submittal A SIP revision and has preliminarily determined that these changes are consistent with EPA RACT guidance and EPA's CTG for Can Coatings, and these changes are therefore proposed for approval. EPA is also proposing to approve Georgia's rule changes submitted on July 19, 2012, for parallel processing and in alternative, proposing conditional approval of Georgia's July 19, 2012, draft SIP revision.

In May 1977, EPA established a CTG addressing the control of VOC emissions from coil coating operations. On January 3, 1991, April 3, 1991, and September 30, 1991, GA EPD corrected VOC RACT deficiencies for a number of rules including Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(v) “VOC Emissions from Coil Coating.” EPA approved these 1991 revisions into the SIP on October 13, 1992 (57 FR 46780). On November 13, 1992, GA EPD submitted a SIP revision to address this CTG source category for the 13 county Atlanta 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. Subsequently, through the October 21, 2009, Submittal A SIP revision, and the draft July 19, 2012, SIP revision the applicability of these rules was extended to include the current 20 county 1997 8-hour Atlanta ozone nonattainment area. The July 19, 2012, SIP revision revised Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(a)(6) “General Provisions, VOC Emission Standards, Exemptions, Area Designations, Compliance Schedules and Compliance Determinations” which affected the applicability for Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(v) “VOC Emissions from Coil Coating.”

The purpose of Georgia's rule is to control VOC emissions from coil coating operations located in the Atlanta Area. It was changed to clarify compliance options and to specify solids equivalent limits to be used as a compliance option. EPA has reviewed Georgia's rule changes, submitted on November 13, 1992, and in the October 21, 2009, Submittal A SIP revision and has preliminarily determined that these changes are consistent with EPA RACT guidance and EPA's CTG for Coil Coatings, and these changes are therefore proposed for approval. EPA is also proposing to approve Georgia's rule changes submitted on July 19, 2012, for parallel processing. In the alternative, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve of Georgia's July 19, 2012, draft SIP revision.

In May 1977, EPA established a CTG addressing the control of VOC emissions from paper coating operations. On October 9, 2007 (73 FR 57215), EPA updated the 1977 CTG, as part of Group III CTG, addressing the control of VOC emissions from paper, film and foil coating operations. On January 3, 1991, April 3, 1991, and September 30, 1991, GA EPD corrected VOC RACT deficiencies for a number of rules including Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(w) “VOC Emissions from Paper Coating.” EPA approved these 1991 revisions into the SIP on October 13, 1992 (57 FR 46780). Subsequent changes to this rule became state effective on September 16, 1992, and were submitted to EPA for SIP approval on November 13, 1992. At the time it was submitted it applied to the 13 counties in the 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. Through the October 21, 2009, Submittal A SIP revision, the applicability of these rules was extended to include the current 20 county Atlanta Area. The Georgia rule was changed again on March 7, 2012, to be consistent with EPA Group III CTG established October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57215), and submitted to EPA for SIP approval on March 19, 2012.

The purpose of this rule is to control VOC emissions from paper coating operations located in the Atlanta Area. It was changed to clarify compliance options and to specify solids equivalent limits to be used as a compliance option. Please see pages A-22 through A-25 of the March 19, 2012, submittal for the specific changes made to this rule. The Georgia submittal can be found in the docket at “EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0448” for today's rulemaking. EPA has reviewed Georgia's rule changes, which became state effective on March 7, 2012, and has preliminarily determined that these changes are consistent with EPA RACT guidance and Group III CTG for VOC emissions for Paper, Film and Foil Coatings, and these changes are therefore proposed for approval.

In May 1977, EPA established a CTG addressing the control of VOC emissions from fabric and vinyl coating operations. On January 3, 1991, April 3, 1991, and September 30, 1991, GA EPD corrected VOC RACT deficiencies for a number of rules including Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(x) “VOC Emissions from Fabric and Vinyl Coating.” EPA approved these 1991 revisions into the SIP on October 13, 1992 (57 FR 46780). On November 13, 1992, GA EPD submitted a SIP revision to address this CTG source category for the 13 county Atlanta 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. Subsequently, through the October 21, 2009, Submittal A SIP revision, and the draft July 19, 2012, SIP revision, the applicability of Georgia's rule was extended to include the 20 county Atlanta Area. The July 19, 2012, SIP revision revised Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(a)(6) “General Provisions, VOC Emission Standards, Exemptions, Area Designations, Compliance Schedules and Compliance Determinations” which affected the applicability for Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(x) “VOC Emissions from Fabric and Vinyl Coating.”

The purpose of this rule is to control VOC emissions from fabric and vinyl coating operations located in the Atlanta Area. It was changed to clarify compliance options and to specify solids equivalent limits to be used as a compliance option. EPA has reviewed Georgia's rule changes, and has preliminarily determined that these changes, submitted on November 13, 1992, and in the October 21, 2009, Submittal A SIP revision, are consistent with EPA RACT guidance and EPA's CTG for fabric and vinyl coatings, and these changes are therefore proposed for approval. EPA is also proposing to approve Georgia's rule changes submitted on July 19, 2012, for parallel processing and in the alternative, proposing conditional approval of Georgia's July 19, 2012, draft SIP revision.

In June 1978, EPA established a CTG addressing the control of VOC emissions from Metal Furniture Coating. On October 9, 2007 (73 FR 57215), EPA updated the 1978 CTG, as part of Group III CTG, addressing control of VOC emissions from metal furniture coating operations.

On January 3, 1991, April 3, 1991, and September 30, 1991, GA EPD corrected VOC RACT deficiencies for a number of rules including Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(y) “VOC Emissions from Metal Furniture Coating.” EPA approved these 1991 revisions into the SIP on October 13, 1992 (57 FR 46780). Subsequent revisions to this rule became state effective on September 16, 1992, and were submitted to EPA for SIP approval on November 13, 1992. At the time it was submitted it applied to the 13 counties in the Atlanta 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. Through the October 21, 2009, Submittal A SIP revision, the applicability of these rules was extended to include the 20 county Atlanta Area. The Georgia rule was changed again on March 7, 2012, to be consistent with EPA Group III CTG established October 9, 2007, (72 FR 57215) and submitted to EPA for SIP approval on March 19, 2012.

The purpose of this rule is to control VOC emissions from metal furniture coating operations located in the Atlanta Area. It was revised to clarify compliance options and to specify solids equivalent limits to be used as a compliance option. Please see pages A-25 through A-30 of the March 19, 2012, submittal for the specific changes made to this rule. The Georgia submittal can be found in the docket at “EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0448” for today's rulemaking. EPA has reviewed Georgia's rule changes, submitted on March 19, 2012, and has preliminarily determined that these changes are consistent with EPA RACT guidance and Group III CTG VOC emissions for metal furniture coatings, and these changes are therefore proposed for approval.

In May 1977, EPA established a CTG addressing the control of VOC emissions from large appliance surface coating operations. On October 9, 2007 (73 FR 57215), EPA updated the 1977 CTG, as part of Group III CTG, addressing the control of VOC emissions from large appliance surface coating operations.

On January 3, 1991, April 3, 1991, and September 30, 1991, GA EPD corrected VOC RACT deficiencies for a number of rules including Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(z) “VOC Emissions from Large Appliance Surface Coating.” EPA approved these 1991 revisions into the SIP on October 13, 1992 (57 FR 46780). Subsequent revisions to this rule became state effective on September 16, 1992, and were submitted to EPA for SIP approval on November 13, 1992. At the time it was submitted it applied to the 13 counties in the Atlanta 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. Subsequently, through the October 21, 2009, Submittal A, SIP revision, the applicability of these rules was extended to include the 20 county Atlanta Area. The Georgia rule was revised again on March 7, 2012, to be consistent with EPA Group III CTG established October 9, 2007, (see 72 FR 57215) and submitted to EPA for SIP approval on March 19, 2012. EPA is now approving into the SIP the rule submitted to EPA on March 19, 2012.

The purpose of this rule is to control VOC emissions from large appliance surface coating operations located in the Atlanta Area. It was changed to clarify compliance options and to specify solids equivalent limits to be used as a compliance option. Please see pages A-30 through A-35 of the March 19, 2012, submittal for the specific changes made to this rule. The Georgia submittal can be found in the docket at “EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0448” for today's rulemaking. EPA has reviewed Georgia's rule changes in the March 19, 2012, submittal and has preliminarily determined that these changes are consistent with EPA RACT guidance and Group III CTG for VOC emissions for large appliance coatings, and these changes are therefore proposed for approval.

In May 1977, EPA established a CTG addressing the control of VOC emissions from magnet wire coating operations. On January 3, 1991, April 3, 1991, and September 30, 1991, GA EPD corrected VOC RACT deficiencies for a number of rules including Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(aa) “VOC Emissions from Wire Coating.” EPA approved these 1991 revisions into the SIP on October 13, 1992 (57 FR 46780). On November 13, 1992, GA EPD submitted a SIP revision to address this CTG source category for the 13 county Atlanta 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. Subsequently, through the October 21, 2009, Submittal A SIP revision, and the draft July 19, 2012, SIP revision, the applicability of these rules was extended to include the 20 county Atlanta Area. The July 19, 2012, SIP revision revised Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(a)(6) “General Provisions, VOC Emission Standards, Exemptions, Area Designations, Compliance Schedules and Compliance Determinations” which affected the applicability for Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(aa) “VOC Emissions from Wire Coating.”

The purpose of Georgia's rule is to control VOC emissions from wire coating operations located in the Atlanta Area. It was changed to clarify compliance options and to specify solids equivalent limits to be used as a compliance option. EPA has reviewed Georgia's rule changes, submitted on November 13, 1992, and in the October 21, 2009, Submittal A SIP revision and has preliminarily determined that these changes are consistent with EPA RACT guidance and EPA's CTG for wire coatings, and these changes are therefore proposed for approval. EPA is also proposing to approve Georgia's rule changes submitted on July 19, 2012, for parallel processing. In the alternative, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve of Georgia's July 19, 2012, draft SIP revision.

In June 1978, EPA issued a CTG document to address the control of VOC emissions from surface coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products. On October 7, 2008 (73 FR 58481), EPA updated the 1978 CTG, as part of Group IV CTG, addressing the control of VOC emissions from surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products.

On January 3, 1991, April 3, 1991, and September 30, 1991, GA EPD corrected VOC RACT deficiencies for a number of rules including Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(ii) “VOC Emissions from Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products.” EPA approved these 1991 revisions into the SIP on October 13, 1992 (57 FR 46780). On October 28, 1999, GA EPD submitted to EPA a revision to Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(ii) “VOC Emissions from Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products” and EPA approved this rule on July 10, 2001 (66 FR 35906). On March 19, 2012, GA EPD submitted another SIP revision revising Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(ii) “VOC Emissions from Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products,” to address this CTG source category for the entire 20 county Atlanta Area.

The purpose of Georgia's rule is to control VOC emissions from surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products operations located in the Atlanta Area. It was changed to clarify compliance options and to specify solids equivalent limits to be used as a compliance option. The changes set emissions limits and solids equivalent for various coating scenarios. Please see pages A-35 through A-44 of the March 19, 2012, submittal for the specific changes made to this rule. The Georgia submittal can be found in the docket at “EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0448” for today's rulemaking. EPA has reviewed Georgia's rule changes, submitted on March 19, 2012, and has preliminarily determined that these changes are consistent with EPA RACT guidance and Group IV CTG for VOC emissions for surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products, and these changes are therefore proposed for approval.

In June 1978, EPA issued a CTG document to address the control of VOC emissions from surface coating of flat wood paneling. On October 5, 2006 (71 FR 58745), EPA updated the 1978 CTG, as part of Group II CTG, addressing the control of VOC emissions from surface coating of flat wood paneling operations.

On January 3, 1991, April 3, 1991, and September 30, 1991, GA EPD corrected VOC RACT deficiencies for a number of rules including Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(jj) “VOC Emissions from Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling.” EPA approved these 1991 revisions into the SIP on October 13, 1992 (57 FR 46780). GA EPD revised the rule again on September 16, 1992, and submitted it to EPA for SIP approval on November 13, 1992. At the time it was submitted it applied to the 13 counties in the 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. Subsequently, through the October 21, 2009, Submittal A, SIP revision, the applicability of these rules was extended to include the 20 county Atlanta Area. The Georgia rule was changed again on March 7, 2012, to be consistent with EPA Group II CTG established October 5, 2006 (71 FR 58745), and was submitted to EPA for SIP approval on March 19, 2012.

The purpose of Georgia's rule is to control VOC emissions from surface coating of flat wood paneling operations located in the Atlanta Area. It was changed to more clearly specify compliance options that are already approved in this section. Specifically, subparagraphs (jjj)2.(i),(ii) and (iii) are changed to more clearly define the compliance options. Please see pages A-44 through A-47 of the March 19, 2012, submittal for the specific changes made to this rule. The Georgia submittal can be found in the docket at “EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0448” for today's rulemaking. EPA has reviewed Georgia's rule changes, submitted in the October 21, 2009, Submittal A, and March 19, 2012, SIP revisions and has preliminarily determined that these changes are consistent with EPA RACT guidance and Group II for VOC emissions for surface coating of flat wood paneling, and these revisions are therefore proposed for approval.

In December 1978, EPA published a CTG for graphic arts (rotogravure printing and flexographic printing) that included flexible packaging printing. On October 5, 2006 (71 FR 58745), EPA updated the1978 CTG, as part of Group II CTG, addressing the control of VOC emissions from graphic arts systems consisting of packaging rotogravure, publication rotogravure or flexographic printing operations.

On January 3, 1991, April 3, 1991, and September 30, 1991, GA EPD corrected VOC RACT deficiencies for a number of rules including Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(mm) “VOC Emissions from Graphic Arts Systems.” EPA approved these 1991 revisions into the SIP on October 13, 1992 (57 FR 46780). GA EPD revised its rule again on September 16, 1992, and submitted the revisions to EPA for SIP approval on November 13, 1992. At the time Georgia's rule was submitted it applied to the 13 counties in the 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. Subsequently, through the October 21, 2009, Submittal A SIP revision, the applicability of these rules was extended to include the 20 county Atlanta Area. The Georgia rule was changed again on March 7, 2012, to be consistent with EPA Group II CTG established October 5, 2006 (71 FR 58745), and submitted to EPA for SIP approval on March 19, 2012. EPA is now proposing to approve into the SIP the rule submitted to EPA on March 19, 2012.

The purpose of Georgia's rule is to control VOC emissions from graphic arts operations located in the Atlanta Area. It was changed to clarify compliance options and to specify solids equivalent limits to be used as a compliance option. The changes also allows for a compliance option to average a 24-hour weighted basis of VOC content, provided the average does not exceed the limits set in this section. Please see pages A-48 through A-52 of the March 19, 2012, submittal for the specific changes made to this rule. The Georgia submittal can be found in the docket at “EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0448” for today's rulemaking. EPA has reviewed Georgia's rule changes, submitted on March 19, 2012, and has preliminarily determined that these changes are consistent with EPA RACT guidance and Group II CTG for VOC emissions for graphic arts, and these changes are therefore proposed for approval.

In 1977, EPA established a CTG addressing the control of VOC emissions from bulk gasoline plants. On January 3, 1991, April 3, 1991, and September 30, 1991, GA EPD corrected VOC RACT deficiencies for a number of rules including Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(pp) “Bulk Gasoline Plants.” EPA approved these 1991 revisions into the SIP on October 13, 1992 (57 FR 46780). On December 31, 2004, GA EPD revised Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(pp) “Bulk Gasoline Plants” again. EPA approved these revisions into the SIP on August 26, 2005, (70 FR 50199). GA EPD revised its rule again on June 8, 2008, and submitted the revisions to EPA for SIP approval in the October 21, 2009, Submittal B SIP revision. EPA is now proposing to approve into the SIP the rule submitted to EPA on October 21, 2009.

The purpose of Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(pp) “Bulk Gasoline Plants” is to comply with section 182 of the CAA, as it relates to the implementation of RACT for bulk gasoline plants. The amendment extends the requirement to all 20 counties in the Atlanta Area, by adding the counties of Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Hall, Newton, Spalding, and Walton. The compliance date for the seven additional counties is June 1, 2008, to coincide with the applicability of rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(rr) “Gasoline Dispensing Facility,” for these counties. Additionally, language has been added to subparagraphs 1.(i), (ii), and (iii), and a definition for “stationary storage tank” has been added to subparagraph 5.(v), to further clarify that the provisions in this section apply to stationary storage tanks. These changes, submitted on October 21, 2009, are being proposed for approval, as they appear to be consistent with the federal requirements for RACT (Group I CTG) and the CAA.

In 1975, EPA established a CTG addressing the control of VOC emissions from gasoline dispensing facilities. On January 3, 1991, April 3, 1991, and September 30, 1991, GA EPD corrected VOC RACT deficiencies for a number of rules including Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(rr) “Gasoline Dispensing Facility.” EPA approved these 1991 revisions into the SIP on October 13, 1992 (57 FR 46780). On December 31, 2004, GA EPD revised Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(rr) “Gasoline Dispensing Facility” again. EPA approved these revisions into the SIP on August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50199). GA EPD revised its rule again on June 8, 2008, and submitted the revisions to EPA for SIP approval in the October 21, 2009, Submittal B SIP revision. EPA is now proposing to approve into the SIP the rule submitted to EPA on October 21, 2009.

The purpose of Georgia's rule is to comply with section 182 of the CAA, as it relates to the implementation of RACT for gasoline dispensing facilities. Subparagraph (rr)1.-14. of the rule was deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new subparagraph (rr)1.-16. to make the rule more clearly understandable. The installation and operation of Stage I Vapor Recovery control is equivalent to RACT for such plants. The revisions expand the requirements of this subparagraph to include the seven additional counties (Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Hall, Newton, Spalding, and Walton) that were added to the Atlanta Area, with staggered compliance dates ranging from June 1, 2008, to May 1, 2009, based on gallons per month of gasoline dispensed. Existing facilities in the counties of Catoosa, Richmond and Walker also have staggered compliance dates of May 1, 2006, or May 1, 2007, based on whether they dispense greater than, or less than or equal to, 50,000 gallons of gasoline per month. Any newly constructed or reconstructed facilities would need to be in compliance with the requirements of the subparagraph upon startup of gasoline dispensing operations.

The changes also establish the requirement that applicable gasoline dispensing facilities implement enhanced Stage I vapor recovery systems rather than Stage I vapor recovery systems. The revisions establish compliance dates for the upgrade of existing Stage I vapor control systems to enhanced vapor control systems. The amendment extends the requirement to all 20 counties in the Atlanta Area, by adding the counties of Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Hall, Newton, Spalding, and Walton. The compliance date for existing facilities in the counties of Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Paulding, and Rockdale to be in compliance with the requirements of an approved enhanced Stage I gasoline vapor recovery system is May 1, 2012, and for the counties of Catoosa, Richmond and Walker is May 1, 2023. Any newly constructed or reconstructed facilities would need to be in compliance with the enhanced Stage I requirements upon startup of gasoline dispensing operations. EPA has preliminarily determined that all of the changes and compliance dates in this rule revision submitted in the October 21, 2009, Submittal B SIP revision meet the requirements of RACT under the CAA and the Group I CTG for “Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems—Gasoline Service Stations,” and are therefore proposed for approval.

In December 1978, EPA established a CTG addressing the control of VOC emissions from gasoline transport vehicles and vapor collection systems. On January 3, 1991, April 3, 1991, and September 30, 1991, GA EPD corrected VOC RACT deficiencies for a number of rules including Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(ss) “Gasoline Transport Vehicles and Vapor Collection Systems.” EPA approved these 1991 revisions into the SIP on October 13, 1992 (57 FR 46780). On December 31, 2004, GA EPD revised Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(ss) “Gasoline Transport Vehicles and Vapor Collection Systems” again. EPA approved these revisions into the SIP on August 26, 2005, (70 FR 50199). GA EPD revised its rule again on June 8, 2008, and submitted the revisions to EPA for SIP approval in the October 21, 2009, Submittal B SIP revision. EPA is now proposing to approve into the SIP the rule submitted to EPA on October 21, 2009.

The purpose of this revision is to expand applicability to the seven additional counties (Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Hall, Newton, Spalding, and Walton) that were added to the Atlanta Area. This will allow the rule requirements to cover gasoline transport vehicles that deliver gasoline to gasoline dispensing facilities in these counties. Additionally, several administrative revisions are made to the rule to clarify and consolidate the rule, including the addition of the term “vapor” to clarify that the control system is a vapor control system, and the addition of the definition of “gasoline.” These changes, submitted in the October 21, 2009, Submittal B SIP revision appear to meet the requirements of RACT under the CAA, and the Group I CTG for “Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank Trucks and Vapor Collection Systems,” and are therefore proposed for approval.

On October 5, 2006 (71 FR 58745), EPA established an offset lithography and letterpress CTG separate from the graphic arts CTG, as part of Group II CTG, addressing the control of VOC emissions from offset lithography and letterpress operations.

On October 28, 1999, GA EPD submitted to EPA a revision to Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(ddd) “Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Offset Lithography and Letterpress” and EPA approved this rule on July 10, 2001 (66 FR 35906). GA EPD revised its rule again on June 8, 2008, and submitted it to EPA for SIP approval in the October 21, 2009, Submittal B SIP revision. The October 21, 2009, Submittal B, SIP revision updated the list of counties to include Barrow County so the Georgia rule applies to the entire 20 county Atlanta Area and the revision established a compliance date of May 1, 2009, for Barrow County. Subsequently, this rule was revised on April 12, 2009, and submitted to EPA for SIP approval in the October 21, 2009, Submittal C SIP revision. The October 21, Submittal C, SIP revision revised the compliance date to March 1, 2009. Subsequently, this rule was revised again on March 7, 2012, to be consistent with EPA Group II CTG established, October 5, 2006 (71 FR 58745), for the Atlanta Area and submitted to EPA for SIP approval on March 19, 2012. EPA is now proposing to approve into the SIP the rule submitted to EPA on March 19, 2012.

In 1983, EPA established a CTG addressing the control of VOC emissions from expanded polystyrene products manufacturing. On October 28, 1999, GA EPD submitted to EPA a revision to Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(eee) “Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Expanded Polystyrene Products Manufacturing” and EPA approved this rule on July 10, 2001 (66 FR 35906). GA EPD revised the rule again on June 8, 2008, and submitted it to EPA for SIP approval in the October 21, 2009, Submittal B SIP revision and then again on April 12, 2009, and submitted it to EPA for SIP approval in the October 21, 2009, Submittal C SIP revision.

The purpose of Georgia's rule is to establish applicability and compliance dates associated with emission limitations from Expanded Polystyrene Products Manufacturing VOC emissions in the Atlanta Area. Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(eee) “Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Expanded Polystyrene Products Manufacturing” was amended in the October 21, 2009, Submittal B SIP revision to update the list of counties to include Barrow County so that the rule applies to the entire 20 county Atlanta Area and to provide Barrow County with a compliance date of May 1, 2009. This rule was subsequently revised and submitted in the October 21, 2009, Submittal C SIP revision to amend the compliance date for Barrow County to March 1, 2009. These revisions, submitted on October 21, 2009, appear to be consistent with the requirements of RACT under the CAA, and are therefore proposed for approval.

In 1996, EPA established a CTG addressing the control of VOC emissions from wood furniture finishing and cleaning operations. On October 28, 1999, GA EPD submitted to EPA a revision to Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(hhh) “Wood Furniture Finishing and Cleaning Operations” and EPA approved this rule on July 10, 2001 (66 FR 35906). GA EPD revised the rule on June 8, 2008, and submitted it to EPA for SIP approval in the October 21, 2009, Submittal B SIP revisions and then again on April 12, 2009, and submitted to EPA for SIP approval in the October 21, 2009, Submittal C SIP revision.

The purpose of Georgia's rule is to establish applicability and compliance dates associated with emission limitations from wood furniture finishing and cleaning operation VOC emissions in the Atlanta Area. Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(hhh) “Wood Furniture Finishing and Cleaning Operations” was amended in the October 21, 2009, Submittal B SIP revision to update the list of counties to include Barrow County so that the rule applies to the entire Atlanta Area and to provide Barrow County with a compliance date of May 1, 2009. This rule was subsequently revised and submitted in the October 21, 2009, Submittal C SIP revision to amend the compliance date for Barrow County to March 1, 2009. These revisions, submitted on October 21, 2009, appear to be consistent with the requirements of RACT under the CAA, and are therefore proposed for approval.

In December 1997, EPA established a CTG addressing the control of VOC emissions from aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities. On October 28, 1999, GA EPD submitted to EPA a revision to Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(kkk) “VOC Emissions from Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities” and EPA approved this rule on July 10, 2001 (66 FR 35906). In the October 21, 2009, Submittal C SIP revision, and the draft July 19, 2012, SIP revision, GA EPD expanded the applicability of Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(kkk) “VOC Emissions from Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities” to include all the counties in the Atlanta Area.

The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities that are located within or contribute to ozone levels in ozone nonattainment areas. The rules also limit VOC emissions from major sources (emitting greater than 100 tons per year of VOC emissions) located outside the ozone nonattainment area. The revisions amend the recordkeeping requirements for solvents to be consistent with Federal requirements found at 40 CFR 63, subpart GG. Also the definition of “cleaning solvent” is revised to include a definition of “no VOCs” (VOC content less than 1.0 weight percent), to make the definition more clear. A typographical error is also corrected. These revisions, submitted on October 21, 2009, appear to be consistent with EPA's CTG under the CAA, and are therefore proposed for approval. EPA is also proposing to approve Georgia's rule changes submitted on July 19, 2012, for parallel processing. In the alternative, EPA is proposing to conditionally approval Georgia's July 19, 2012, draft SIP revision.

In June 1978, EPA issued a CTG document addressing the control of VOC emissions from surface coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products. On October 7, 2008 (73 FR 58481), EPA updated the 1978 CTG, as part of Group IV CTG, addressing the control of VOC emissions from the surface coating of miscellaneous plastic parts and products. On March 19, 2012, GA EPD submitted a SIP revision addressing this CTG source category for the entire 20-county Atlanta Area. EPA has reviewed Georgia's rule, which became state effective on March 7, 2012, and has preliminarily determined that Georgia's rule is consistent with the Group IV CTG for VOC emission from the surface coating of miscellaneous plastic parts and products. EPA is therefore proposing to approve Georgia's SIP revision submitted on March 19, 2012, regarding VOC emissions from source coating of miscellaneous plastic parts and products.

On October 7, 2008 (73 FR 58486) EPA published the Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coatings CTG (MMPPC CTG) as part of the Group IV CTG, addressing the control of VOC emissions from various metal and plastic part coatings. Members of the pleasure craft coatings industry contacted EPA requesting reconsideration of the pleasure craft VOC limits contained in EPA's 2008 MMPPC CTG. In response, EPA issued a memorandum on June 1, 2010, titled “Control Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coatings—Industry Request for Reconsideration,” recommending that the pleasure craft industry work with State agencies during their RACT rule development process to assess what is reasonable for the specific sources regulated. EPA stated that states can use the recommendations from the MMPPC CTG to inform their own determinations as to what constitutes RACT for pleasure craft coating operations in their particular ozone nonattainment area.

In its March 19, 2012, SIP revision, GA EPD provided a negative declaration for the surface coatings of pleasure craft, noting that there are no such sources located in Georgia. EPA has reviewed this negative declaration and has preliminarily determined that there are no sources the emit VOC emissions from surface coating of pleasure craft in the Atlanta Area. EPA is therefore proposing to approve Georgia's negative declaration for surface coatings of pleasure craft submitted on March 19, 2012.

On October 7, 2008 (73 FR 58481), EPA established a CTG, as part of Group IV CTG, addressing the control of VOC emissions from the use of miscellaneous industrial adhesives. On March 19, 2012, GA EPD submitted a SIP revision to address this CTG source category for the entire 20 county Atlanta Area. EPA has reviewed Georgia's rule, which became state effective on March 7, 2012, and has preliminarily determined that Georgia's rule is consistent with the Group IV CTG for VOC emissions from the use of miscellaneous industrial adhesives. EPA is therefore proposing to approve Georgia's SIP revision submitted on March 19, 2012, regarding VOC emissions from the use of miscellaneous industrial adhesives.

On October 7, 2008 (73 FR 58481), EPA established a CTG, as part of the Group IV CTG, addressing the control of VOC emissions from the fiberglass boat manufacturing industry.

On March 19, 2012, GA EPD submitted a SIP revision to address this CTG source category for the entire 20 county Atlanta Area. EPA has reviewed Georgia's rule, which became state effective on March 7, 2012, and has preliminarily determined that Georgia's rule is consistent with the Group IV CTG for VOC emissions from the fiberglass boat manufacturing. EPA is therefore proposing to approve Georgia's SIP revision submitted on March 19, 2012, regarding VOC emissions from the fiberglass boat manufacturing.

On October 5, 2006 (71 FR 58745), as part of the Group II CTG, EPA updated the portion of the 1977 Solvent Metal Cleaning CTG regarding the control of VOC emissions from the use of industrial cleaning solvents.

On March 19, 2012, GA EPD submitted a SIP revision to address this CTG source category for the entire 20 county Atlanta Area. EPA has reviewed Georgia's rule, which became state effective on March 7, 2012, and preliminarily determined that Georgia's rule is consistent with the Group IV CTG for industrial cleaning solvents. EPA is therefore proposing to approve Georgia's SIP revision submitted on March 19, 2012, regarding industrial cleaning solvents.

Moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas are required to have regulations in place that require major VOC sources and NOx sources to meet RACT requirements. In 1993 the Atlanta 1-hour ozone nonattainment area was required to meet VOC major source RACT and NOx major source RACT for the thirteen counties in the Atlanta 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. The Atlanta Area was designated as a marginal nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard on June 15, 2004, and was reclassified to moderate on March 6, 2008. The Area was then required to meet major source VOC RACT and major source NO X RACT for entire 20-county 1997 8-hour nonattainment area. The following are RACT rules for the 20-county Atlanta Area.

On November 13, 1992, GA EPD submitted to EPA a SIP revision that included Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(tt) “Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions From Major Sources.” Through a December 22, 1997, letter and a subsequent February 27, 2012, letter GA EPD withdrew Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(tt) (and Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(yy)) from the November 13, 1992, submittal. On October 28, 1999, GA EPD submitted to EPA a revision to Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(tt) “Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions From Major Sources” and EPA approved this rule on July 10, 2001 (66 FR 35906). GA EPD revised its rule again on June 8, 2008, and submitted it to EPA for SIP approval in the October 21, 2009, Submittal B SIP revision.

The purpose of Georgia's October 21, 2009, revision is to establish applicability and compliance dates associated with emission limitations from major VOC sources in the Atlanta Area. Specifically, this rule is amended to update the list of counties to include Barrow County so that the rule applies to the entire Atlanta Area. Barrow County has a compliance date of May 1, 2009.

On October 28, 1999, GA EPD submitted to EPA a revision to Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(vv) “Volatile Organic Liquid Handling and Storage” and EPA approved this rule on July 10, 2001 (66 FR 35906). GA EPD revised its rule on June 8, 2008, and submitted it to EPA for SIP approval in the October 21, 2009, Submittal B SIP revision. The rule was again revised on April 12, 2009, and submitted to EPA for SIP approval in the October 21, 2009, Submittal C SIP revision.

The purpose of this revision is to establish applicability and compliance dates associated with emission limitations from VOC handling and storage sources in the Atlanta Area. Specifically, the October 21, 2009, Submittal B SIP revision amended the list of counties to include Barrow County so that the rule applies to the entire Atlanta Area and to provide Barrow County with a compliance date of May 1, 2009. This rule was subsequently revised and submitted in the October 21, 2009, Submittal C SIP revision to amend the compliance date for Barrow County to March 1, 2009. EPA has reviewed Georgia's rule changes, submitted on October 21, 2009, and has preliminarily determined that these changes are consistent with EPA RACT guidance, and are therefore proposed for approval.

On November 13, 1992, GA EPD submitted to EPA a SIP revision that included Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(yy) “Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NO X ) Major Sources.” Through a December 22, 1997, letter and a subsequent February 27, 2012, letter, GA EPD withdrew Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(yy) (and Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(tt)) from the November 13, 1992, submittal. On March 15, 2005, GA EPD submitted to EPA a revision to Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(yy) “Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NO X ) Major Sources” and EPA approved this revision on May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24310). GA EPD revised its rule again on June 8, 2008, and submitted it to EPA for SIP approval in the October 21, 2009, Submittal B, SIP revision.

The purpose of this rule is to establish applicability and compliance dates associated with emission limitations from NO X major sources in the Atlanta Area. This rule is amended to update the list of counties to include Barrow County so that the rule applies to the entire Atlanta Area. Barrow County has a compliance date of May 1, 2009. These changes, submitted on October 21, 2009, appear to be consistent with the requirements of RACT under the CAA, and the changes are therefore proposed for approval.

On October 28, 1999, GA EPD submitted to EPA a revision to Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(ccc) “Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Bulk Mixing Tanks” and EPA approved this rule on July 10, 2001 (66 FR 35906). GA EPD revised its rule on June 8, 2008, and submitted it to EPA for SIP approval in the October 21, 2009, Submittal B SIP revision and then again on April 12, 2009, and submitted to EPA for SIP approval in the October 21, 2009, Submittal C SIP revision.

The purpose of this rule is to establish applicability and compliance dates associated with emission limitations from VOC bulk mixing tanks in the Atlanta Area. This rule was amended in the October 21, 2009, Submittal B SIP revision to update the list of counties to include Barrow County so that the rule applies to the entire Atlanta Area and provides a compliance Date of May 1, 2009, for Barrow County. This rule was subsequently revised and submitted in the October 21, 2009, Submittal C SIP revision to amend the compliance date for Barrow County to March 1, 2009. These revisions appear to be consistent with the requirements of RACT under the CAA, and are therefore proposed for approval.

On October 28, 1999, GA EPD submitted to EPA a revision to Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(lll) “Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Fuel-Burning Equipment” and EPA approved this rule on July 10, 2001 (66 FR 35906). GA EPD revised the rule on June 8, 2008, and submitted to EPA for SIP approval in the October 21, 2009, Submittal B SIP revision and then again on April 12, 2009, and submitted to EPA for SIP approval in the October 21, 2009, Submittal C SIP revision. October 21, 2009, Submittal B SIP revision exempts wood burning boilers located in counties outside the Atlanta Area. The October 21, 2009, Submittal C SIP revision changes the definition of a wood burning boiler from 50 percent wood fired to 90 percent wood fired. The rule is amended to no longer subject fuel-burning equipment burning wood or wood residue in specific amounts outside of the Atlanta Area to the existing NO X emission standard. No sources currently exist in these ozone unclassifiable/attainment areas outside the Atlanta Area and any new major source (greater than 100 tpy) would be required to meet Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements. PSD requirements require Best Available Control Technology (BACT) which would meet RACT and the source would have to show that its emissions do not interfere with the Atlanta Area air quality. Any new minor source (less than 100 tpy) would have to go through the state permitting process.

On October 21, 2009, GA EPD submitted two SIP revisions affecting the applicability and compliance for NO X emissions from small fuel-burning equipment for the entire 20-county Atlanta Area. The October 21, 2009, Submittal B SIP revision revised Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(rrr) to expand the rule to the entire 20-county Atlanta Area. The rule applied to sources with greater than 25 tpy of NO X emissions in Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Paulding, and Rockdale County and is now revised to include sources with greater than 100 tpy of NO X emissions in Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Hall, Newton, Spalding and Walton County. The changes to Georgia's rule also established a May 15, 2005, compliance date for Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Paulding, and Rockdale County and a May 1, 2009, compliance date for Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Hall, Newton, Spalding and Walton County. The October 21, 2009, Submittal C SIP revision revised the compliance date for Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Hall, Newton, Spalding and Walton County to March 1, 2009. EPA has reviewed Georgia's rule, which became state effective on June 8, 2008, (October 21, 2009, Submittal B, SIP revision) and April 12, 2009, (October 21, 2009, Submittal C, SIP revision) and has preliminarily determined that Georgia's rule is consistent with the requirements of RACT under the CAA. EPA is therefore proposing to approve Georgia's rule, submitted in the October 21, 2009, Submittal B and Submittal C SIP revisions regarding NO X emissions from small fuel-burning engines.

The effect of this proposed action is to include the aforementioned requirements for RACT and CTG source categories into the Atlanta Area portion of the Georgia SIP. In accordance with the Georgia rules, some affected sources in the Atlanta Area will have to comply with rules in the March 19, 2012, and July 19, 2012, SIP revisions by January 1, 2015, unless the Atlanta Area is redesignated to attainment prior to January 1, 2015. According to the Georgia rules, if the Atlanta Area is redesignated to attainment prior to January 1, 2015, Georgia provides that the new and revised requirements of these rules will not become applicable and instead will be approved into the contingency measures portion of the Georgia SIP.  7 However, in order for that to occur, the redesignation process for the Altanta Area would have to be completed prior to January 1, 2015. Today, EPA is proposing to approve the rules included in the March 19, 2012, and July 19, 2012, SIP revisions (along with other rules, as explained earlier), and simultaneously proposing conditional approval for the July 19, 2012, SIP revision. Any action regarding the movement of rules into the contingency measures portion of the SIP would be effectuated through a separate process (i.e., the redesignation process) and not final action on today's proposal.

Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to Georgia's SIP addressing sources subject to NOx RACT and VOC RACT, including Groups I, II, III and IV CTG source categories for the Atlanta Area. EPA has evaluated Georgia's November 13, 1992, October 21, 2009, and March 19, 2012, final SIP revisions and July 19, 2012, draft SIP revisions, and preliminarily determined that they meet the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations, and EPA has made the preliminary determination that the rules included in the SIP revisions are consistent with the CAA, its implementing regulations and EPA policy on addressing RACT requirements. Although EPA has received a draft SIP revisions from Georgia, dated July 19, 2012, for parallel processing, in the event, that EPA does not receive the final version of that SIP revision within the time frames in which EPA must finalize today's proposal, EPA is also today proposing to conditionally approve Georgia's July 19, 2012, draft SIP revision. The alternative conditional approval option will ensure that EPA can timely finalize its approval of the RACT requirements for the Atlanta Area.

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 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 proposal 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the determination does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe. There are no Indian Tribes located within the Atlanta nonattainment area.

Consistent with EPA regulations found at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, section 2.3.1, for purposes of expediting review of a SIP submittal, parallel processing allows a state to submit a plan to EPA prior to actual adoption by the state. Generally, the state submits a copy of the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA before conducting its public hearing. EPA reviews this proposed state action, and prepares a notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking is published in the Federal Register during the same time frame that the state is holding its public process. The state and EPA then provide for concurrent public comment periods on both the state action and federal action.

If the revision that is finally adopted and submitted by the State is changed in aspects other than those identified in the proposed rulemaking on the parallel process submission, EPA will evaluate those changes and if necessary and appropriate, issue another notice of proposed rulemaking. The final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the SIP revision has been adopted by the state and submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP.

On July 13, 2012, the State of Mississippi, through MDEQ, submitted requests for parallel processing of draft SIP revision that the State has taken through public comment. MDEQ requested parallel processing so that EPA could begin to take action on its draft SIP revisions in advance of the State's submission of the final SIP revisions. As stated above, the final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the SIP revision has been: (1) Adopted by Mississippi, (2) submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP; and (3) evaluated by EPA, including any changes made by the State after the July 13, 2012, draft was submitted to EPA.

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established an annual PM 2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations. At that time, EPA also established a 24-hour NAAQS of 65 μg/m 3 . See 40 CFR 50.7. On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 μg/m 3 based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations, and promulgated a new 24-hour NAAQS of 35 μg/m 3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by states within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs to EPA no later than July 2000 for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, and no later than October 2009 for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS.

On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice submitted a notice of intent to sue related to EPA's failure to issue findings of failure to submit related to the “infrastructure” requirements for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. On March 10, 2005, EPA entered into a consent decree with Earthjustice which required EPA, among other things, to complete a Federal Register notice announcing EPA's determinations pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) as to whether each state had made complete submissions to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS by October 5, 2008. In accordance with the consent decree, EPA made completeness findings for each state based upon what the Agency received from each state for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS as of October 3, 2008.

On October 22, 2008, EPA published a final rulemaking entitled “Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans Pertaining to the Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 ) NAAQS” making a finding that each state had submitted or failed to submit a complete SIP that provided the basic program elements of section 110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS ( See 73 FR 62902). For those states that did receive findings, the findings of failure to submit for all or a portion of a state's implementation plan established a 24-month deadline for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the outstanding SIP elements unless, prior to that time, the affected states submitted, and EPA approved, the required SIPs.

The findings that all or portions of a state's submission are complete established a 12-month deadline for EPA to take action upon the complete SIP elements in accordance with section 110(k). Mississippi's infrastructure submissions were received by EPA on December 7, 2007, for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS and on October 6, 2009, for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. The submissions were determined to be complete on June 7, 2008, and April 6, 2010, respectively. Mississippi was among other states that did not receive findings of failure to submit because it had provided a complete submission to EPA to address the infrastructure elements for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS by October 3, 2008.

On July 6, 2011, WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club filed an amended complaint related to EPA's failure to take action on the SIP submittal related to the “infrastructure” requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. On October 20, 2011, EPA entered into a consent decree with WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club which required EPA, among other things, to complete a Federal Register notice of the Agency's final action either approving, disapproving, or approving in part and disapproving in part the Mississippi 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure SIP submittal addressing the applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(A)-(H), (J)-(M), except for section 110(a)(2)(C) the nonattainment area requirements and section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) interstate transport requirements, by September 30, 2012.

Today's action is proposing to approve Mississippi's December 7, 2007, October 6, 2009, and July 13, 2012, infrastructure submissions for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(G). EPA is taking action on Mississippi's infrastructure submission for the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS for sections 110(a)(2)(A)-(F), (H), (J)-(M), except for section 110(a)(2)(C) the nonattainment area requirements and section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) interstate transport and section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements in a separate action.

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 submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, 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 and 2006 PM 2.5 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 mentioned above, 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 the infrastructure rulemaking process 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 PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” and EPA's September 25, 2009, memorandum entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) .”

• 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 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.

In today's action, EPA is only addressing section 110(a)(2) requirements related to element 110(a)(2)(G) for Mississippi for both the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA is addressing the other 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS infrastructure requirements in a separate rulemaking.

EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS for various states across the country. Commenters on EPA's recent proposals for some states raised concerns about EPA statements that it was not addressing certain substantive issues in the context of acting on those infrastructure SIP submissions. 5 Those Commenters specifically raised concerns involving provisions in existing SIPs and with EPA's statements in other proposals that it would address two issues separately and not as part of actions on the infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emission; and (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions limits with limited public process or without requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (director's discretion). EPA notes that there are two other substantive issues for which EPA likewise stated in other proposals that it would address separately: (i) Existing provisions for minor source New Source Review (NSR) programs that may be inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs (minor source NSR); and (ii) existing provisions for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR Reform). In light of the comments, EPA believes that its statements in various proposed actions on infrastructure SIPs with respect to these four individual issues should be explained in greater depth. It is important to emphasize that EPA is taking the same position with respect to these four substantive issues in this action on the infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS from Mississippi.

EPA intended the statements in the other proposals concerning these four issues merely to be informational, and to provide general notice of the potential existence of provisions within the existing SIPs of some states that might require future corrective action. EPA did not want states, regulated entities, or members of the public to be under the misconception that the Agency's approval of the infrastructure SIP submission of a given state should be interpreted as a re-approval of certain types of provisions that might exist buried in the larger existing SIP for such state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly noted that the Agency believes that some states may have existing SIP approved SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and EPA policy, but that “in this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state provisions with regard to excess emissions during SSM of operations at facilities.” EPA further explained, for informational purposes, that “EPA plans to address such State regulations in the future.” EPA made similar statements, for similar reasons, with respect to the director's discretion, minor source NSR, and NSR Reform issues. EPA's objective was to make clear that approval of an infrastructure SIP for these ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any existing provisions that relate to these four substantive issues. EPA is reiterating that position in this action on the infrastructure SIP for Mississippi.

Unfortunately, the Commenters and others evidently interpreted these statements to mean that EPA considered action upon the SSM provisions and the other three substantive issues to be integral parts of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, and therefore that EPA was merely postponing taking final action on the issues in the context of the infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA's intention. To the contrary, EPA only meant to convey its awareness of the potential for certain types of deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to prevent any misunderstanding that it was reapproving any such existing provisions. EPA's intention was to convey its position that the statute does not require that infrastructure SIPs address these specific substantive issues in existing SIPs and that these issues may be dealt with separately, outside the context of acting on the infrastructure SIP submission of a state. To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply that it was not taking a full final agency action on the infrastructure SIP submission with respect to any substantive issue that EPA considers to be a required part of acting on such submissions under section 110(k) or under section 110(c). Given the confusion evidently resulting from EPA's statements in those other proposals, however, we want to explain more fully the Agency's reasons for concluding that these four potential substantive issues in existing SIPs may be addressed separately from actions on infrastructure SIP submissions.

The requirement for the SIP submissions at issue arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). That provision requires that states must make a SIP submission “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof)” and that these SIPs are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must meet. EPA has historically referred to these particular submissions that states must make after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS as “infrastructure SIPs.” This specific term does not appear in the statute, but EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission designed to address basic structural requirements of a SIP from other types of SIP submissions designed to address other different requirements, such as “nonattainment SIP” submissions required to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, “regional haze SIP” submissions required to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, NSR permitting program submissions required to address the requirements of part D, and a host of other specific types of SIP submissions that address other specific matters.

Although section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for these infrastructure SIPs, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes that many of the specific statutory provisions are facially ambiguous. In particular, the list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive provisions. 6 Some of the elements of section 110(a)(2) are relatively straightforward, but others clearly require interpretation by EPA through rulemaking, or recommendations through guidance, in order to give specific meaning for a particular NAAQS. 7

Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) provides that “each” SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent, insofar as section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements that could not be met on the schedule provided for these SIP submissions in section 110(a)(1). 8 This illustrates that EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) may be applicable for a given infrastructure SIP submission. Similarly, EPA has previously decided that it could take action on different parts of the larger, general “infrastructure SIP” for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on all subsections, such as section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), because the Agency bifurcated the action on these latter “interstate transport” provisions within section 110(a)(2) and worked with states to address each of the four prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with substantive administrative actions proceeding on different tracks with different schedules. 9 This illustrates that EPA may conclude that subdividing the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) into separate SIP actions may sometimes be appropriate for a given NAAQS where a specific substantive action is necessitated, beyond a mere submission addressing basic structural aspects of the state's implementation plans. Finally, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS and the attendant infrastructure SIP submission for that NAAQS. For example, the monitoring requirements that might be necessary for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could be very different than what might be necessary for a different pollutant. Thus, the content of an infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element from a state might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor revision to an existing NAAQS. 10

Similarly, EPA notes that other types of SIP submissions required under the statute also must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2), and this also demonstrates the need to identify the applicable elements for other SIP submissions. For example, nonattainment SIPs required by part D likewise have to meet the relevant subsections of section 110(a)(2) such as section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, it is clear that nonattainment SIPs would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part C, i.e., the PSD requirements applicable in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs required by part D also would not need to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to emergency episodes, as such requirements would not be limited to nonattainment areas. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some subsections of section 110(a)(2) and not others.

Given the potential for ambiguity of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is appropriate for EPA to interpret that language in the context of acting on the infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. Because of the inherent ambiguity of the list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), EPA has adopted an approach in which it reviews infrastructure SIPs against this list of elements “as applicable.” In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the purpose of the submission or the NAAQS in question, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. EPA elected to use guidance to make recommendations for infrastructure SIPs for these ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance making recommendations for the infrastructure SIP submissions for both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. 11 Within this guidance document, EPA described the duty of states to make these submissions to meet what the Agency characterized as the “infrastructure” elements for SIPs, which it further described as the “basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards.”  12 As further identification of these basic structural SIP requirements, “attachment A” to the guidance document included a short description of the various elements of section 110(a)(2) and additional information about the types of issues that EPA considered germane in the context of such infrastructure SIPs. EPA emphasized that the description of the basic requirements listed on attachment A was not intended “to constitute an interpretation of” the requirements, and was merely a “brief description of the required elements.”  13 EPA also stated its belief that with one exception, these requirements were “relatively self explanatory, and past experience with SIPs for other NAAQS should enable States to meet these requirements with assistance from EPA Regions.”  14 However, for the one exception to that general assumption ( i.e., how states should proceed with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS), EPA gave much more specific recommendations. But for other infrastructure SIP submittals, and for certain elements of the submittals for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, EPA assumed that each State would work with its corresponding EPA regional office to refine the scope of a State's submittal based on an assessment of how the requirements of section 110(a)(2) should reasonably apply to the basic structure of the State's implementation plans for the NAAQS in question.

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued guidance to make recommendations to states with respect to the infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. 15 In the 2009 Guidance, EPA addressed a number of additional issues that were not germane to the infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, but were germane to these SIP submissions for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS (e.g., the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) that EPA had bifurcated from the other infrastructure elements for those specific 1997 ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS). Significantly, neither the 2007 Guidance nor the 2009 Guidance explicitly referred to the SSM, director's discretion, minor source NSR, or NSR Reform issues as among specific substantive issues EPA expected states to address in the context of the infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give any more specific recommendations with respect to how states might address such issues even if they elected to do so. The SSM and director's discretion issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), and the minor source NSR and NSR Reform issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance and the 2009 Guidance, however, EPA did not indicate to states that it intended to interpret these provisions as requiring a substantive submission to address these specific issues in existing SIP provisions in the context of the infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA's 2007 Guidance merely indicated its belief that the states should make submissions in which they established that they have the basic SIP structure necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. EPA believes that states can establish that they have the basic SIP structure, notwithstanding that there may be potential deficiencies within the existing SIP. Thus, EPA's proposals for other states mentioned these issues not because the Agency considers them issues that must be addressed in the context of an infrastructure SIP as required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), but rather because EPA wanted to be clear that it considers these potential existing SIP problems as separate from the pending infrastructure SIP actions. The same holds true for this action on the infrastructure SIPs for Mississippi.

EPA believes that this approach to the infrastructure SIP requirement is reasonable because it would not be feasible to read section 110(a)(1) and (2) to require a top to bottom, stem to stern, review of each and every provision of an existing SIP merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts that, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA considers the overall effectiveness of the SIP. To the contrary, EPA believes that a better approach is for EPA to determine which specific SIP elements from section 110(a)(2) are applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a given NAAQS, and to focus attention on those elements that are most likely to need a specific SIP revision in light of the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for example, EPA's 2007 Guidance specifically directed states to focus on the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS because of the absence of underlying EPA regulations for emergency episodes for this NAAQS and an anticipated absence of relevant provisions in existing SIPs.

Finally, EPA believes that its approach is a reasonable reading of section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the statute provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the Agency to take appropriate tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or otherwise to comply with the CAA. 16 Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions. 17 Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on the infrastructure SIP is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP problems does not preclude the Agency's subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action at a later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting on the infrastructure SIP, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that the Agency cites in the course of addressing the issue in a subsequent action. 18

The Mississippi infrastructure submission address the provision of section 110(a)(2) with respect to element (G), as described below.

110(a)(2)(G) Emergency episodes : Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, including contingency plans to implement the emergency episode provisions in their SIPs. On September 25, 2009, EPA released the guidance entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).” This guidance clarified that “to address the section 110(a)(2)(G) element, states with air quality control regions identified as either Priority I, IA, or Priority II by the `Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes' rule at 40 CFR 51.150, must develop emergency episode contingency plans.” EPA's September 25, 2009, guidance also states that “until the Agency finalized changes to the emergency episode regulation to establish for PM 2.5 specific levels for classifying areas as Priority I, IA, or II for PM 2.5, and to establish a significant harm level (SHL) * * *,” it recommends that states with a 24-Hour PM 2.5 concentration above 140 µg/m 3 (using the most recent three years of data) develop an emergency episode plan. For states where this level has not been exceeded, the state can certify that it has appropriate general emergency powers to address PM 2.5 related episodes, and that no specific emergency episode plans are needed at this time.

On December 7, 2007, and October 6, 2009, MDEQ made submissions to EPA certifying that its SIP adequately addressed the section 110(a)(2)(G) requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, because it is a Class III Priority Area and is exempt from adopting emergency episode plan for the PM 2.5 NAAQS. However, Mississippi had not previously public noticed its submissions with regard to 110(a)(2)(G) for the PM 2.5 NAAQS, so on June 16, 2012, Mississippi provided public notice for this element.

EPA has reviewed Mississippi's July 13, 2012, draft SIP revision (requesting parallel processing) and has made the preliminary determination, that this draft SIP revision, and in combination with Mississippi's December 7, 2007, and October 6, 2009, submissions meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(G). Given the State's monitored PM 2.5 levels, EPA is proposing that Mississippi is not required to submit an emergency episode plan and contingency measures at this time, for the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 standards. As a result, EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's infrastructure submissions for the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS as these submissions related to the section 110(a)(2)(G) requirement. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices are adequate for emergency powers related to the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

As described above, EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's July 13, 2012, draft SIP revision to incorporate provisions into the Mississippi SIP to address section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's December 7, 2007, October 6, 2009, and July 13, 2012, submissions addressing section 110(a)(2)(G), of the CAA for both the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS because they are consistent with section 110 of the CAA.

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 approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes as a national goal the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” Arizona has twelve mandatory Class I areas; several Class I areas in other states are also affected by emissions from Arizona facilities.

Regional haze is visibility impairment caused by the cumulative air pollutant emissions from numerous sources over a wide geographic area. EPA's proposed Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Arizona addresses the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regional haze regulations pertaining to Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for three electric generating stations in Arizona: Apache Generating Station, Cholla Power Plant and Coronado Generating Station. EPA will propose to address other facilities and other elements of the Arizona SIP in a later action. The proposed rule, “Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans”, was published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2012 (77 FR 42833).

The proposed rule and information on which the proposed rule relies are available in the docket for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action will be available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., Confidential Business Information). 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.

Public hearings: EPA will hold public hearings at the following dates, times and locations to accept oral and written comments into the record. These hearings will provide further opportunities for public comment beyond the initial hearing scheduled for July 31, 2012, in Phoenix, Arizona. See the proposed rule for more information on the July 31 hearing.

Date: August 14, 2012.

Time: 6:00-8:00 p.m.

Location: Northland Pioneer College, Painted Desert Campus, Tiponi Community Center, Conference Room, 2251 East Navajo Boulevard, Holbrook, AZ 86025.

Date: August 15, 2012.

Time: 6:00-8:00 p.m.

Location: Cochise College, Benson Center, Rooms 113 and 115, 1025 South State Route 90, Benson, AZ 85602-6501.

The public hearings will provide the public with an opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed action for Arizona. EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Simultaneous translation in Spanish will be available during the public hearings. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as any oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearings. Please consult the proposed rule for guidance on how to submit written comments to EPA.

At the public hearings, the hearing officer may limit the time available for each commenter to address the proposal to five minutes or less if the hearing officer determines it is appropriate. Any person may provide written or oral comments and data pertaining to our proposal at the public hearings. We will include verbatim transcripts, in English, of the hearing and written statements in the rulemaking docket.

Extension of comment period: EPA also is extending the public comment period for the proposed rule to provide more time for comments and to align with the dates of the public hearings. The comment period will now end on September 18, 2012.

In 2011, the Board held a hearing to consider the state of competition in the railroad industry and what steps, if any, it should take to increase rail-to-rail competition. See Competition in the Railroad Industry, Docket No. EP 705. After the hearing, NITL proposed that the Board modify its standards for mandatory competitive switching. NITL suggests that the Board mandate switching where a “captive shipper”—one that lacks competitive transportation options—is located within a terminal area and also within 30 miles of a working interchange, and the transportation rate charged by the Class I carrier from origin to destination exceeds 240% of that carrier's variable costs of providing service. This proposal has the potential to promote more rail-to-rail competition and reduce the agency's role in regulating the reasonableness of transportation rates. It could permit the agency to rely on competitive market forces to discipline railroad pricing from origin to destination, and regulate only the access price for the first (or last) 30 miles.

As described more fully in our decision, however, additional information is needed before we can determine how to proceed. The Board therefore is instituting a proceeding to receive empirical evidence on the impact of the proposal on shippers and the railroad industry. Specifically, interested parties are invited to submit information on the following: (1) The impact on rates and service for shippers that would qualify under the competitive switching proposal; (2) the impact on rates and service for captive shippers that would not qualify under this proposal (because they are not located in a terminal area or within 30 miles of a working interchange); (3) the impact on the railroad industry, including its financial condition, network efficiencies or inefficiencies (including the potential for increased traffic); and (4) an access pricing proposal. The empirical evidence we are now requesting would be used to augment the Board's ongoing analysis of NITL's proposal as well as to evaluate other issues raised in the Competition in the Railroad Industry proceeding.

Additional information is contained in the Board's decision, which is available on our Web site at w ww.stb.dot.gov . Copies of the decision may also be purchased by contacting the Board's Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance at (202) 245-0238.

This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.