[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35909-35917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14591]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-1012; FRL-9683-2 ]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia; 
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 
Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plans 
(SIPs), submitted by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia 
Department of Natural Resources' Environmental Protection Division 
(EPD), as demonstrating that the State meets the requirements of 
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) for 
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a 
SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS 
promulgated by the EPA, which is commonly referred to as an 
``infrastructure'' SIP. Georgia certified that the Georgia SIP contains 
provisions that ensure the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in 
Georgia (hereafter referred to as ``infrastructure submission''). EPA 
is proposing to determine that Georgia's infrastructure submissions, 
provided to EPA on July 23, 2008, and on October 21, 2009, addressed 
all the required infrastructure elements for the for the 1997 annual 
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2010-1012, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected].
    3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2010-1012,'' Regulatory Development Section, 
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Regulatory 
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are 
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. 
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through 
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-1012. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or 
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. 
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email 
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your 
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center 
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning 
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you 
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding 
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development 
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

[[Page 35910]]

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. 
The telephone number is (404) 562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via 
electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs
IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Georgia addressed the elements of 
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``Infrastructure'' provisions?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established an annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) 
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 
concentrations. At that time, EPA also established a 24-hour NAAQS of 
65 [mu]g/m\3\. See 40 CFR 50.7. On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA 
retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ 
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 
concentrations, and promulgated a new 24-hour NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/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 PM2.5 
NAAQS, no later than October 2009 for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
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 
PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 
PM2.5 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 (PM2.5) 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 PM2.5 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). Georgia's 
infrastructure submissions were received by EPA on July 23, 2008, for 
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and on October 21, 2009, for the 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The submissions were determined to 
be complete on January 23, 2009, and April 21, 2010, respectively. 
Georgia 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 Georgia 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
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 Georgia's infrastructure 
submission for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 
for sections 110(a)(2)(A)-(H), (J)-(M), except for section 110(a)(2)(C) 
nonattainment area requirements and section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) interstate 
transport requirements. This action is not approving any specific rule, 
but rather proposing that Georgia's already approved SIP meets certain 
CAA requirements.

II. What elements are required under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    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 annual and 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS, some states may need to adopt language specific 
to the PM2.5 NAAQS to ensure that they have adequate SIP 
provisions to implement the PM2.5 NAAQS.
    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 this 
proposed rulemaking are listed below \1\ and in EPA's October 2, 2007, 
memorandum entitled ``Guidance on

[[Page 35911]]

SIP Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards'' and September 25, 2009, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on 
SIP Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-
Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not 
governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) 
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area 
controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new 
or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area 
plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These 
requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) 
to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required 
in part D Title I of the CAA, and (2) submissions required by 
section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning 
requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today's proposed 
rulemaking does not address infrastructure elements related to 
section 110(a)(2)(I) but does provide detail on how Georgia's SIP 
addresses 110(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element 
as they relate to attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Today's proposed rule does not address element 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (Interstate Transport) for the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Interstate transport requirements were 
formerly addressed by Georgia consistent with the Clean Air 
Interstate Rule (CAIR). On December 23, 2008, CAIR was remanded by 
the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, without vacatur, back to EPA. See 
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Prior to this 
remand, EPA took final action to approve Georgia SIP revision, which 
was submitted to comply with CAIR. See 72 FR 57202 (October 9, 
2007). In so doing, Georgia CAIR SIP revision addressed the 
interstate transport provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In response to the remand of 
CAIR, EPA has recently finalized a new rule to address the 
interstate transport of nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides in the 
eastern United States. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (``the 
Transport Rule''). That rule was recently stayed by the D.C. Circuit 
Court of Appeals. EPA's action on element 110(a)(2)(D)(i) will be 
addressed in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This requirement was inadvertently omitted from EPA's 
October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements 
Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' and 
the September 25, 2009, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP 
Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 Fine 
Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards,'' but as mentioned above is not relevant to today's 
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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.

III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs

    EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that address the infrastructure 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and 
PM2.5 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 emissions; 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 
the issues 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 
PM2.5 NAAQS from Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Comments of Midwest Environmental Defense Center, dated 
May 31, 2011. Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1179 (adverse 
comments on proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes that 
these public comments on another proposal are not relevant to this 
rulemaking and do not have to be directly addressed in this 
rulemaking. EPA will respond to these comments in the appropriate 
rulemaking action to which they apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
PM2.5 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 Georgia.
    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

[[Page 35912]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that states must 
provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under 
state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) 
provides that states must have a substantive program to address 
certain sources as required by part C of the CAA; section 
110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have both legal authority to 
address emergencies and substantive contingency plans in the event 
of such an emergency.
    \7\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires EPA to be sure 
that each state's SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent 
significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other 
states. This provision contains numerous terms that require 
substantial rulemaking by EPA in order to determine such basic 
points as what constitutes significant contribution. See ``Rule To 
Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone 
(Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; 
Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162 
(May 12, 2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase 
``contribute significantly to nonattainment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Id., 70 FR 25162, at 63-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) 
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \9\ EPA issued separate guidance to states with respect to SIP 
submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See ``Guidance for State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under 
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from William T. Harnett, 
Director Air Quality Policy Division OAQPS, to Regional Air Division 
Director, Regions I-X, dated August 15, 2006.
    \10\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure 
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM2.5 NAAQS.

[[Page 35913]]

    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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 
NAAQS), EPA gave much more specific recommendations. But for other 
infrastructure SIP submittals, and for certain elements of the 
submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section 
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from William T. Harnett, 
Director Air Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors, 
Regions I-X, dated October 2, 2007 (the ``2007 Guidance'').
    \12\ Id., at page 2.
    \13\ Id., at attachment A, page 1.
    \14\ Id., at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised by 
commenters with respect to EPA's approach to some substantive issues 
indicates that the statute is not so ``self explanatory,'' and 
indeed is sufficiently ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in 
order to explain why these substantive issues do not need to be 
addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs and may be addressed 
at other times and by other means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 25, 2009, EPA issued guidance to make recommendations 
to states with respect to the infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 
PM2.5 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 PM2.5 NAAQS, but 
were germane to these SIP submissions for the 2006 PM2.5 
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 PM2.5 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 Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle 
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' 
from William T, Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to 
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, dated September 25, 
2009 (the ``2009 Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM2.5 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\

[[Page 35914]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a specific 
SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. See, ``Finding of 
Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 
Implementation Plan Revision,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \17\ EPA has recently utilized this authority to correct errors 
in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See 
``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State 
Implementation Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). 
EPA has previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) to remove 
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had 
approved in error. See 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 
(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, 
Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) 
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009) 
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \18\ EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission from Colorado 
on the grounds that it would have included a director's discretion 
provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section 
110(a)(2)(A). See 75 FR 42342, 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed 
disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 
(January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Georgia addressed the elements of 
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``Infrastructure'' provisions?

    Georgia's infrastructure submission addresses the provisions of 
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below.
    1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures: 
Georgia's infrastructure submissions provide an overview of the 
provisions of Georgia's Air Pollution Control Requirements relevant to 
air quality control regulations. The regulations listed below have been 
federally approved into the Georgia SIP and include enforceable 
emission limitations and other control measures. Regulations 391-3-
1-.02(2), Emissions Standards, and 391-3-1-.02(4), Ambient Air 
Standards, establish emission limits for PM and address the required 
control measures, means and techniques for compliance with the 
PM2.5 NAAQS respectively. EPA has made the preliminary 
determination that the provisions contained in these chapters and 
Georgia's practices are adequate to protect the PM2.5 annual 
and 24-hour NAAQS in the State.
    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any 
existing state provisions with regard to excess emissions during SSM of 
operations at a facility. EPA believes that a number of states have SSM 
provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance, 
``State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During 
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown'' (September 20, 1999), and the 
Agency plans to address such state regulations in the future. In the 
meantime, EPA encourages any state having deficient SSM provisions to 
take steps to correct it as soon as possible.
    Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or 
disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's 
discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states 
have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 
guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to 
take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the 
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or 
variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to 
take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
    2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: 
Georgia's Regulations 391-3-1-.02(3), Sampling, and 391-3-1-.02(6), 
Source Monitoring, along with the Georgia Network Description and 
Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan provides for an ambient air quality 
monitoring system in the State. Annually, EPA approves the ambient air 
monitoring network plan for the state agencies. In August 2011, Georgia 
submitted its monitoring network plan to EPA, and on October 21, 2011, 
EPA approved Georgia's monitoring network plan. Georgia's approved 
monitoring network plan can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using 
Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-1012. EPA has made the preliminary 
determination that Georgia's SIP and practices are adequate for the 
ambient air quality monitoring and data systems related to the 1997 
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    3. 110(a)(2)(C) Program for enforcement of control measures 
including review of proposed new sources: Regulation 391-3-1-.02(7), 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, of the Georgia 
SIP pertains to the construction or modification of any major 
stationary source in areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable. 
On October 31, 2006, and March 5, 2007, EPD submitted revisions to 
their PSD/NSR regulations for EPA approval. In the October 31, 2006, 
and March 5, 2007, SIP revisions, Georgia included revisions to rules 
in Regulation 391-3-1-.02(7) which address infrastructure requirements 
C and J.
    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's 
infrastructure SIP for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in 
section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that regulates the 
modification and construction of any stationary source as necessary to 
assure that the NAAQS are achieved. EPA is not proposing to approve or 
disapprove the State's existing minor NSR program itself to the extent 
that it is inconsistent with EPA's regulations governing this program. 
EPA believes that a number of states may have minor NSR provisions that 
are contrary to the existing EPA regulations for this program. EPA 
intends to work with states to reconcile state minor NSR programs with 
EPA's regulatory provisions for the program. The statutory requirements 
of section 110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable flexibility in 
designing minor NSR programs, and EPA believes it may be time to 
revisit the regulatory requirements for this program to give the states 
an appropriate level of flexibility to design a program that meets 
their particular air quality concerns, while assuring reasonable 
consistency across the country in protecting the NAAQS with respect to 
new and modified minor sources.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and 
practices are adequate for program enforcement of control measures 
including review of proposed new sources related to the 1997 annual and 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    4. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate and International transport 
provisions: Regulation 391-3-1-.02(7), Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration of Air Quality, of the Georgia SIP provides that Georgia 
will notify neighboring states of potential impacts from new or 
modified sources Georgia does not have any pending obligation under 
sections 115 and 126 of the CAA. EPA has made the preliminary 
determination that Georgia's SIP and practices are adequate for 
insuring compliance with the applicable requirements relating to 
interstate and international pollution abatement for the 1997 annual 
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    5. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate resources: Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires 
that each implementation plan provide (i) Necessary assurances that the 
State will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state 
law to carry out its implementation plan, (ii) that the State comply 
with the requirements respecting State Boards pursuant to

[[Page 35915]]

section 128 of the Act, and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the 
State has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or 
instrumentality for the implementation of any plan provision, the State 
has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan 
provisions. In support of EPA's proposal to approve elements 
110(a)(2)(E)(i and iii), EPD's legal authority to establish SIPs and 
implement related plans, in general, is prescribed in Official Code of 
Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) Section 12-9-1, et seq., as amended, also 
referred to as the ``Georgia Air Quality Act.'' As with the remainder 
of the infrastructure elements addressed by this notice, EPD is 
responsible for promulgating rules and regulations for the NAAQS, 
emissions standards general policies, a system of permits, and fee 
schedules for the review of plans, and other planning needs. In 
addition, the requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(i and iii) are met when EPA 
performs a completeness determination for each SIP submittal. This 
ensures that each submittal provides evidence that adequate personnel, 
funding, and legal authority under State Law has been use to carry out 
the state's implementation plan and related issues. This information is 
included in all prehearings and final SIP submittal packages for 
approval by EPA.
    Annually, states update grant commitments based on current SIP 
requirements, air quality planning, and applicable requirements related 
to the NAAQS, including 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS. As evidence of the adequacy of EPD's resources, EPA submitted a 
letter to Georgia on March 23, 2012, outlining 105 grant commitments 
and the current status of these commitments for fiscal year 2011. There 
were no outstanding issues concerning the SIP, therefore Georgia's 
grants were finalized and closed out. The letter EPA submitted to 
Georgia can be accessed at http://www.regulations.gov using Docket ID 
No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-1012.
    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that the state comply with 
section 128 of the CAA. Section 128 requires that: (1) The majority of 
members of the state body which approves permits or enforcement orders 
represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion 
of their income from persons subject to permitting or enforcement 
orders under the CAA; and (2) any potential conflicts of interest by 
such body or the head of an executive agency exercising similar 
authority be adequately disclosed. On August 26, 1976, EPA approved 
into the Georgia SIP administration and enforcement provisions as 
prescribed in the O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-1, et seq., as amended. 
Specifically, O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-5 provides the Powers and duties of 
Board of Natural Resources as to air quality. Section 12-9-5(a) states:

    Any hearing officer appointed by the Board of Natural Resources, 
and all members of five-member committees of the Board of Natural 
Resources, shall, and at least a majority of members of the entire 
Board of Natural Resources shall, represent the public interest and 
shall not derive any significant portion of their income from 
persons subject to permits or enforcement orders under this article. 
All potential conflicts of interest shall be adequately disclosed.

EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia has adequate 
resources for implementation of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    6. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary source monitoring system: Georgia's 
infrastructure submission describes how the State establishes 
requirements for emissions compliance testing and utilizes emissions 
sampling and analysis. It further describes how the State ensures the 
quality of its data through observing emissions and monitoring 
operations. Georgia EPD uses these data to track progress toward 
maintaining the NAAQS, develop control and maintenance strategies, 
identify sources and general emission levels, and determine compliance 
with emission regulations and additional EPA requirements. These 
requirements are provided in Regulation 391-3-1-.02(6), Source 
Monitoring; Regulation 391-3-1-.02(11), Compliance Monitoring; and 
Regulation 391-3-.02(3), Sampling.
    Additionally, Georgia is required to submit emissions data to EPA 
for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is 
EPA's central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the Air 
Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the 
requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR 
76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data 
from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit 
emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive 
emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain 
larger sources annually through EPA's online Emissions Inventory System 
(EIS). States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and 
the precursors that form them--nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 
ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile 
organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants. Georgia made its latest update to the NEI on 
December 20, 2011. EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it 
where necessary, and releases it to the general public through the Web 
site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made the 
preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices are adequate 
for the stationary source monitoring systems related to the 1997 annual 
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    7. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency power: Georgia Regulation 391-3-1-.04, 
Air Pollution Episodes, of the Georgia SIP identifies air pollution 
emergency episodes and preplanned abatement strategies. These criteria 
have previously been approved by EPA. On September 9, 2008, EPD 
submitted a letter to EPA to clarify that Georgia does have authority 
to implement emergency powers for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 standards and confirmed that EPA had previously 
approved these provisions in the SIP. The September 9, 2008, letter EPD 
sent to EPA can be accessed at http://www.regulations.gov using Docket 
ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-1012. Following this clarification, EPA has 
made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices are 
adequate for emergency powers related to the 1997 annual and 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    8. 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP revisions: As previously discussed, 
Georgia EPD is responsible for adopting air quality rules and revising 
SIPs as needed to attain or maintain the NAAQS. Georgia has the ability 
and authority to respond to calls for SIP revisions, and has provided a 
number of SIP revisions over the years for implementation of the PM 
NAAQS. Specific to the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS, Georgia's submissions have included:
     October 31, 2006, SIP Revision--(EPA approval, 74 FR 
62249, November 27, 2009) NSR Reform;
     March 2, 2007, SIP Revision--(EPA approval, 74 FR 62249, 
November 27, 2009) NSR/PSD Revisions;
     August 17, 2009, SIP Revision--Macon PM2.5 
Attainment Demonstration;
     October 27, 2009, SIP Revision--Floyd County 
PM2.5 Attainment Demonstration; and
     July 6, 2010, SIP Revision--Atlanta PM2.5 
Attainment Demonstration.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and 
practices adequately demonstrate a commitment to provide future SIP 
revisions related to the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS when necessary.

[[Page 35916]]

    9. 110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation) Consultation with government 
officials: Georgia Regulation 391-3-1-.03, Permits, as well as 
Georgia's Regional Haze Implementation Plan (which allows for 
consultation between appropriate state, local, and tribal air pollution 
control agencies as well as the corresponding Federal Land Managers), 
provide for consultation with government officials whose jurisdictions 
might be affected by SIP development activities. More specifically, 
Georgia adopted state-wide consultation procedures for the 
implementation of transportation conformity which includes the 
consideration of the development of mobile inventories for SIP 
development. Required partners covered by Georgia's consultation 
procedures include federal, state and local transportation and air 
quality agency officials. EPA approved Georgia's consultation 
procedures on April 7, 2000 (See 65 FR 18245). EPA has made the 
preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices adequately 
demonstrate consultation with government officials related to the 1997 
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary.
    10. 110(a)(2)(J) (127 public notification) Public notification: EPD 
has public notice mechanisms in place to notify the public of PM and 
other pollutant forecasting, including an air quality monitoring Web 
site, http://www.georgiaair.org/smogforecast/. Georgia Regulation 391-
3-1-.04, Air Pollution Episodes, requires that EPD notify the public of 
any air pollution episode or NAAQS violation. EPA has made the 
preliminary determination that that Georgia's SIP and practices 
adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide public 
notification related to the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary.
    11. 110(a)(2)(J) (PSD) PSD and visibility protection: Georgia's 
authority to regulate new and modified sources of PM2.5 
precursors to assist in the protection of air quality in attainment and 
unclassifiable areas is provided for in Regulation 391-3-1-.02(7), 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality of the Georgia 
SIP. On March 5, 2007, EPD submitted a revision to its PSD/NSR 
regulations (including Regulation 391-3-1-.02(7), Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration of Air Quality) that addresses the 
infrastructure requirements C and J. The revision modified Georgia's 
PSD and Nonattainment New Source Review permitting rules in the SIP to 
address changes to the federal NSR regulations, which were promulgated 
by EPA on December 31, 2002, and reconsidered with minor changes on 
November 7, 2003. In a November 22, 2010, final rulemaking action, EPA 
approved Georgia's March 5, 2007, SIP revision. See 75 FR 71018.
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility 
protection, EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and 
regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act (which 
includes sections 169A and 169B). In the event of the establishment of 
a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program 
requirements under part C do not change. Thus, EPA finds that there is 
no new visibility obligation ``triggered'' under section 110(a)(2)(J) 
when a new NAAQS becomes effective. This would be the case even in the 
event a secondary PM2.5 NAAQS for visibility is established, 
because this NAAQS would not affect visibility requirements under part 
C. Georgia has submitted SIP revisions for approval to satisfy the 
requirements of the CAA Section 169A and the regional haze and best 
available retrofit technology rules contained in 40 CFR 51.308. These 
revisions are currently under review and will be acted on in a separate 
action. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP 
and practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability to implement 
PSD programs and to provide for visibility protection related to the 
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary.
    12. 110(a)(2)(K) Air quality and modeling/data: Georgia Regulation 
391-3-1-.02(7)(b)(8), Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air 
Quality--Air Quality Models, incorporates by reference 40 CFR 52.21(l), 
which specifies that air modeling be conducted in accordance with 40 
CFR part 51, Appendix W ``Guideline on Air Quality Models.'' These 
regulations demonstrate that Georgia has the authority to provide 
relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air 
quality of the PM2.5 NAAQS. Additionally, Georgia supports a 
regional effort to coordinate the development of emissions inventories 
and conduct regional modeling for several NAAQS, including the 1997 
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, for the Southeastern 
states. Taken as a whole, Georgia's air quality regulations demonstrate 
that EPD has the authority to provide relevant data for the purpose of 
predicting the effect on ambient air quality of the PM2.5 
NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP 
and practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide for 
air quality and modeling, along with analysis of the associated data, 
related to the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS when 
necessary.
    13. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting fees: Georgia addresses the review of 
construction permits as previously discussed in 110(a)(2)(C). 
Permitting fees in Georgia are collected through the State's federally-
approved title V fees program, according to Georgia Regulation 391-3-
1-.03(9), Permit Fees. EPA has made the preliminary determination that 
Georgia's SIP and practices adequately provide for permitting fees 
related to the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS when 
necessary.
    14. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/participation by affected local 
entities: Georgia Regulation 391-3-1-.03(11)(a)(2), Permit by Rule--
General Requirements, requires that EPD notify the public of an 
application, preliminary determination, the activity or activities 
involved in a permit action, any emissions associated with a permit 
modification, and the opportunity for comment prior to making a final 
permitting decision. Furthermore, EPD has demonstrated consultation 
with, and participation by, affected local entities through its work 
with local political subdivisions during the developing of its 
Transportation Conformity SIP, Regional Haze Implementation Plan, and 
Early Action Compacts. EPA has made the preliminary determination that 
Georgia's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation with 
affected local entities when necessary.

V. Proposed Action

    As described above, EPD has addressed the elements of the CAA 
110(a)(1) and (2) pursuant to EPA's October 2, 2007, and September 25, 
2009, guidance to ensure that the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and maintained in 
Georgia. EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure 
submission for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 
because its July 23, 2008, and October 21, 2009, submissions are 
consistent with section 110 of the CAA.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of

[[Page 35917]]

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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: May 29, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-14591 Filed 6-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P