Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 35909 

request authorization from the Captain 

of the Port North Carolina or his 

designated representative by telephone 

at (910) 343–3882 or on VHF–FM 

marine band radio channel 16. 

(4) All Coast Guard assets enforcing 

this safety zone can be contacted on 

VHF–FM marine band radio channels 

13 and 16. 

(5) The operator of any vessel within 

or in the immediate vicinity of this 

safety zone shall: (i) Stop the vessel 

immediately upon being directed to do 

so by any commissioned, warrant or 

petty officer on board a vessel 

displaying a Coast Guard Ensign, and 

(ii) Proceed as directed by any 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

on board a vessel displaying a Coast 

Guard Ensign. 

(c) Definitions. 

(1) Captain of the Port North Carolina 

means the Commander, Coast Guard 

Sector North Carolina or any Coast 

Guard commissioned, warrant or petty 

officer who has been authorized by the 

Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. 

(2) Designated representative means 

any Coast Guard commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer who has been 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

North Carolina to assist in enforcing the 

safety zone described in paragraph (a) of 

this section. 

(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast 

Guard may be assisted by Federal, State 

and local agencies in the patrol and 

enforcement of the zone. 

(e) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 8 a.m. September 

12, 2012 through 8 p.m. December 12, 

2012 unless cancelled earlier by the 

Captain of the Port. 

Dated: May 29, 2012. 

A. Popiel, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the 

Port Sector North Carolina. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14639 Filed 6–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

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: R4-RDS@epa.gov. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
35910 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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

not governed by the three year submission deadline 

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

necessary local nonattainment area controls are not 

due within three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS, but rather 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). 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9043. 

Mr. Lakeman can be reached via 

electronic mail at lakeman.sean@epa.

gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. 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 (mg/ 

m3) based on a 3-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations. At that time, 

EPA also established a 24-hour NAAQS 

of 65 mg/m3. See 40 CFR 50.7. On 

October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA 

retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

at 15.0 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average 

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, 

and promulgated a new 24-hour 

NAAQS of 35 mg/m3 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 35911 

2This rulemaking only addresses requirements 

for this element as they relate to attainment areas. 

3Today’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. 

4This requirement was inadvertently omitted 

from EPA’s October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under 

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

and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ 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. 

5See 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. 

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.’’ 

• 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. 

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
35912 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

6For 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. 

7For 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’’). 

8See 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)). 

9EPA 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. 

10For 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. 

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 PM2.5 NAAQS. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 35913 

11See ‘‘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. 

15See ‘‘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’’). 

16EPA 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). 

17EPA 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 EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 

75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has 

Continued 

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. 

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. 

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
35914 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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). 

18EPA 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). 

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

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
35916 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0969; FRL–9686–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Revisions to the 

Georgia State Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Georgia, through the Department of 

Natural Resources, Environmental 

Protection Division on November 16, 

2010. This revision consists of 

transportation conformity criteria and 

procedures related to interagency 

consultation and enforceability of 

certain transportation-related control 

measures and mitigation measures. The 

intended effect is to update the 

transportation conformity criteria and 

procedures in the Georgia SIP. This 

action is being taken pursuant to section 

110 of the Clean Air Act. 

In the Final Rules Section of this 

Federal Register, EPA is approving the 

State’s SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this document. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this 

document should do so at this time. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 16, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2010–0969, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: 

somerville.amanetta@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2010– 

0969,’’ Air Quality Modeling and 

Transportation 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: Amanetta 

Somerville, Air Quality Modeling and 

Transportation 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. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amanetta Somerville of the Air Quality 

Modeling and Transportation Section at 

the Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 

Somerville’s telephone number is 404– 

562–9025. She can also be reached via 

electronic mail at 

somerville.amanetta@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information see the direct 

final rule which is published in the 

Rules Section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: June 1, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14594 Filed 6–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Parts 405 and 411 

[CMS–6047–ANPRM] 

RIN 0938–AR43 

Medicare Program; Medicare 

Secondary Payer and ‘‘Future 

Medicals’’ 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS