Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 75849 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Nitrogen oxides, 

Recordkeeping and reporting, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: November 22, 2011. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31189 Filed 12–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0351–201122; FRL– 

9498–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Georgia; 

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

Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submission, submitted by the State of 

Georgia, through the Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources, 

Environmental Protection Division 

(EPD), to demonstrate that the State 

meets the requirements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

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. EPD certified that 

the Georgia SIP contains provisions that 

ensure the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

are implemented, enforced, and 

maintained in Georgia (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘infrastructure 

submission’’). Georgia’s infrastructure 

submission, provided to EPA on 

December 13, 2007, and clarified in a 

subsequent submission submitted on 

September 9, 2008, addresses all the 

required infrastructure elements for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 4, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2011–0351, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2011– 

0351,’’ 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2011– 

0351. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://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 http://www.

regulations.gov or email, information 

that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected. The http://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 http://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 

http://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 http:// 

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 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9140. 

Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic 

mail at ward.nacosta@epa.gov. 

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, EPA promulgated a 

new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour 

average concentrations. The 8-hour 

averaging period replaced the previous 

1-hour averaging period, and the level of 

the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 

parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm. 

See 62 FR 38856. Pursuant to section 

110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required 

to submit SIPs meeting the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2) within three years 

after promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
75850 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2011 / 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) or the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

110(a)(2)(C). 

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 8- 

hour ozone 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 DC Circuit Court of Appeals, without 

vacatur, back to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 

531 F.3d 896 (DC Cir. 2008). Prior to this remand, 

EPA took final action to approve Georgia’s SIP 

revision, which was submitted to comply with 

CAIR. See 72 FR 57202 (October 9, 2007). In so 

doing, Georgia’s CAIR SIP revision addressed the 

interstate transport provisions in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

In response to the remand of CAIR, EPA has 

recently finalized a new rule to address the 

interstate transport of NOX and SOX in the eastern 

United States. See 76 Fed. Reg. 48208 (August 8, 

2011) (‘‘the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule’’). EPA’s 

such SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2000. 

However, intervening litigation over the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS created 

uncertainty about how to proceed and 

many states did not provide the 

required ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

submission for these newly promulgated 

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 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 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 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 

December 15, 2007. Subsequently, EPA 

received an extension of the date to 

complete this Federal Register notice 

until March 17, 2008, based upon 

agreement to make the findings with 

respect to submissions made by January 

7, 2008. In accordance with the consent 

decree, EPA made completeness 

findings for each state based upon what 

the Agency received from each state as 

of January 7, 2008. 

On March 27, 2008, EPA published a 

final rulemaking entitled, 

‘‘Completeness Findings for Section 

110(a) State Implementation Plans; 8- 

Hour Ozone 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 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 

16205. For those states that did receive 

findings, such as Georgia, 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. However, the findings of 

failure to submit did not impose 

sanctions or set deadlines for imposing 

sanctions as described in section 179 of 

the CAA, because these findings do not 

pertain to the elements contained in the 

Title I part D plan for nonattainment 

areas as required under section 

110(a)(2)(I). Additionally, the findings 

of failure to submit for the infrastructure 

submittals are not a SIP call pursuant to 

section 110(k)(5). 

The finding 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 

submission was received by EPA on 

December 13, 2007, and was determined 

to be complete on March 27, 2008, for 

all elements with the exception of 

110(a)(2)(G). Specifically, 110(a)(2)(G) 

relates to the SIP providing authority 

comparable to that in section 303 of the 

CAA, Emergency Power, and adequate 

contingency plans to implement such 

authority. Georgia was among other 

states that received a finding of failure 

to submit because its infrastructure 

submission was deemed incomplete for 

element (G) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by March 1, 2008. The finding 

of failure to submit action triggered a 

24-month clock for EPA to either issue 

a FIP or take final action on a SIP 

revision which corrects the deficiency 

for which the finding of failure to 

submit was received. 

On September 9, 2008, EPD submitted 

a letter to EPA to clarify that Georgia 

does have authority to implement 

emergency powers for the 8-hour ozone 

standard and that EPA has approved 

these provisions in the SIP. Following 

review of Georgia’s SIP in light of EPD’s 

September 9, 2008 letter, EPA has 

preliminarily determined that Georgia’s 

federally-approved SIP does include 

provisions which provide the State with 

the authority to implement emergency 

powers for the 8-hour ozone standard. 

Today’s action is proposing to approve 

Georgia’s infrastructure submission for 

which EPA made the completeness 

determination and findings of failure to 

submit on March 27, 2008. 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 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

states typically have met the basic 

program elements required in section 

110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 

submissions in connection with 

previous ozone NAAQS. 

More specifically, section 110(a)(1) 

provides the procedural and timing 

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

lists specific elements that states must 

meet for ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. As 

mentioned above, these requirements 

include SIP infrastructure elements 

such as modeling, monitoring, and 

emissions inventories that are designed 

to assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. The requirements that are 

the subject of this proposed rulemaking 

are listed below 1 and in EPA’s October 

2, 2007, memorandum entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards.’’ 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures.2

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 75851 

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,’’ 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. 

• 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 at sources, 

that may be contrary to the CAA and 

EPA’s policies addressing such excess 

emissions (‘‘SSM’’); 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 

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 8-hour ozone 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 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
75852 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2011 / 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 p.m.2.5

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 

p.m.2.5 NAAQS required the deployment of a 

system of new monitors to measure ambient levels 

of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

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. 

169A, new source review 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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 75853 

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 

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). 

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

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 the 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? 

The Georgia 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: Several 

regulations within Georgia’s SIP provide 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
75854 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Georgia’s rules and regulations relevant 

to air quality control regulations. The 

regulations described below have been 

federally approved in 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 ozone and address 

the required control measures, means 

and techniques for compliance with the 

ozone NAAQS respectively. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that the provisions contained in these 

chapters and Georgia’s practices are 

adequate to protect the 1997 8-hour 

ozone 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 a deficient SSM provision 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: 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, 

provide 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 this plan. Georgia’s approved 

monitoring network plan can be 

accessed at http://www.regulations.gov 

using Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2011–0351. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Georgia’s SIP and practices are adequate 

for the ambient air quality monitoring 

and data system related to the 1997 8- 

hour ozone 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 (PSD), pertains to the 

construction or modification of any 

major stationary source in areas 

designated as attainment or 

unclassifiable. On March 5, 2007, EPD 

submitted revisions to their Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration/New Source 

Review (PSD/NSR) regulations for EPA 

approval. In the March 5, 2007, SIP 

revision, Georgia included revisions to 

rules in Regulation 391–3–1–.02(7) 

which address infrastructure 

requirements C and J. 

The March 5, 2007, SIP revision 

addresses the Ozone Implementation 

NSR Update requirements to include 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) as an ozone 

precursor for permitting purposes. 

Specifically, the Ozone Implementation 

NSR Update requirements include 

changes to major source thresholds for 

sources in certain classes of 

nonattainment areas, changes to offset 

ratios for marginal, moderate, serious, 

severe, and extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas, provisions 

addressing offset requirements for 

facilities that shut down or curtail 

operation, and a requirement stating 

that NOx emissions are ozone 

precursors. In a November 22, 2010, 

final rulemaking action, EPA approved 

Georgia’s March 5, 2007, SIP revision. 

See 75 FR 71018. 

EPA published a final rulemaking 

notice approving Georgia’s greenhouse 

gas (GHG) regulations on September 8, 

2011 (76 FR 55572). These revisions 

establish appropriate emission 

thresholds for determining which new 

stationary sources and modification 

projects become subject to Georgia’s 

PSD permitting requirements for their 

GHG emissions. The September 8, 2011, 

rulemaking finalizes approval of the 

Georgia rules which address the 

thresholds for GHG permitting 

applicability in Georgia. 

On December 30, 2010, EPA 

published a final rulemaking, ‘‘Action 

To Ensure Authority To Implement Title 

V Permitting Programs Under the 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule’’ (75 FR 

82254) to narrow EPA’s previous 

approval of State title V operating 

permit programs that apply (or may 

apply) to GHG-emitting sources; this 

rule hereafter is referred to as the 

‘‘Narrowing Rule.’’ EPA narrowed its 

previous approval of certain State 

permitting thresholds, for GHG 

emissions so that only sources that 

equal or exceed the GHG thresholds, as 

established in the final Tailoring Rule, 

would be covered as major sources by 

the Federally-approved programs in the 

affected States. Georgia was included in 

this rulemaking. 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve Georgia’s infrastructure SIP for 

the 8-hour ozone 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, 

however, to approve or disapprove the 

state’s existing minor NSR program 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 8-hour ozone 

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 (PSD), outlines how 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. 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 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

5. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate resources: 

EPD is responsible for promulgating 

rules and regulations for the NAAQS, 

emissions standards general policies, a 

system of permits, and fee schedules for 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 75855 

the review of plans, and other planning 

needs. As evidence of the adequacy of 

EPD’s resources, EPA submitted a letter 

to Georgia on March 24, 2011, outlining 

105 grant commitments and the current 

status of these commitments for fiscal 

year 2010. The letter EPA submitted to 

Georgia can be accessed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov using Docket ID 

No. EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0351. 

Annually, states update these grant 

commitments based on current SIP 

requirements, air quality planning, and 

applicable requirements related to the 

NAAQS. Georgia satisfactorily met all 

commitments agreed to in the Air 

Planning Agreement for fiscal year 2010, 

therefore Georgia’s grants were finalized 

and closed out. 

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 be adequately 

disclosed. On August 26, 1976, EPA 

approved into the Georgia SIP 

administration and enforcement 

provisions as prescribed in the 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.’’ 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 8- 

hour ozone 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 towards 

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. 

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 

February 16, 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 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

7. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency power: 

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. As discussed above, Georgia 

received a finding of failure to submit 

because its infrastructure submission 

was deemed incomplete for element (G) 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 

March 1, 2008. On September 9, 2008, 

EPD submitted a letter to EPA to clarify 

that Georgia does have authority to 

implement emergency powers for the 8- 

hour ozone standard 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– 

2011–0351. Following this clarification, 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Georgia’s SIP and 

practices are adequate for emergency 

powers related to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

8. 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP revisions: 

EPD is responsible for adopting air 

quality rules and revising SIPs as 

needed to attain or maintain the 

NAAQS in Georgia. EPD 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 NAAQS. Specific 

to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

Georgia has provided a number of 

submissions, including the following: 

• December 31, 2004, SIP Revision—(EPA 

approval, 71 FR 50195, August 26, 2005) 

Chattanooga EAC 8-hour Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration; 

• December 31, 2004, SIP Revision—(EPA 

approval, 70 FR 50199, August 26, 2005) 

Augusta EAC 8-hour Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration; 

• June 15, 2007, SIP Revision—(EPA 

approval, 72 FR53432, September 19, 2007) 

Macon Co. 8-hr O3 Redesignation; 

• June 15, 2007, SIP Revision—(EPA 

approval, 72 FR 58538, October 16, 2007) 

Murray Co. 8-hr O3 Redesignation; 

• October 21, 2009, SIP Revision—Atlanta 

1997 8-hr ozone Attainment Demonstration; 

and, 

• October 21, 2009, SIP Revision— 

Substitution of Transportation Control 

Measures in Atlanta Ozone and PM2.5 SIPs. 

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 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS when necessary. EPA 

notes, however, that Georgia’s one 

remaining 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

nonattainment area—the Atlanta, 

Georgia Area (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Atlanta Area’’)—is currently attaining 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In a June 

23, 2011 final rulemaking, EPA 

determined that the Atlanta Area has 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

See 76 FR 36873. That final action, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.918, 

suspended the requirements for the 

Atlanta Area to submit attainment 

demonstrations, associated RACM, RFP 

plans, contingency measures, and other 

planning SIPs related to attainment of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS so long 

as the Atlanta Area continues to meet 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

9. 110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation) 

Consultation with government officials: 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
75856 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

whose jurisdictions might be affected by 

SIP development activities. Georgia 

adopted state-wide consultation 

procedures for the implementation of 

transportation conformity. These 

consultation procedures include 

considerations associated with the 

development of mobile inventories for 

SIPs. Implementation of transportation 

conformity as outlined in the 

consultation procedures requires EPD to 

consult with federal, state and local 

transportation and air quality agency 

officials on the development of motor 

vehicle emissions budgets. 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 8-hour ozone 

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 ozone and other 

pollutant forecasting, including an air 

quality monitoring Web site providing 

ground level ozone alerts, http:// 

www.georgiaair.org/smogforecast/. 

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 

Georgia’s SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate the State’s ability to 

provide public notification related to 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS when 

necessary. 

11. 110(a)(2)(J) (PSD) PSD and 

visibility protection: Georgia’s authority 

to regulate new and modified sources of 

ozone precursors volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and NOX 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 (PSD). On 

March 5, 2007, EPD submitted revisions 

to their Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration/New Source Review (PSD/ 

NSR) regulations for EPA approval. In 

the March 5, 2007, SIP revision, Georgia 

included revisions to rules in 

Regulation 391–3–1–.02(7), Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration of Air 

Quality (PSD), of Georgia’s SIP that 

address the infrastructure requirements 

C and J. 

As described above, the March 5, 

2007, SIP revision addressed the Ozone 

Implementation NSR Update 

requirements to include NOX as an 

ozone precursor for permitting 

purposes. This involved changes to 

major source thresholds for sources in 

certain classes of nonattainment areas, 

changes to offset ratios for marginal, 

moderate, serious, severe, and extreme 

ozone nonattainment areas, provisions 

addressing offset requirements for 

facilities that shut down or curtail 

operation, and a requirement stating 

that NOX emissions are ozone 

precursors. 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 169B, 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 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS when necessary. 

12. 110(a)(2)(K) Air quality and 

modeling/data: Regulation 391–3–1– 

.02(7)(b)(8), Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD)-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 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Additionally, Georgia supports a 

regional effort to coordinate the 

development of emissions inventories 

and conduct regional modeling for 

several NAAQS, including the 1997 8- 

hour ozone 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 8-hour ozone 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 8- 

hour ozone 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 State 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 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS when necessary. 

14. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities: 

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 related to the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS when necessary. 

V. Proposed Action 

As described above, EPA has 

addressed the elements of the CAA 

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

pursuant to EPA’s October 2, 2007, 

guidance to ensure that the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS are implemented, 

enforced, and maintained in Georgia. 

EPA is proposing to approve Georgia’s 

infrastructure submission for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS because its 

September 9, 2008 submission is 

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. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 75857 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: November 21, 2011. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31191 Filed 12–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0846; FRL–9493–3] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Placer County 

Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Placer County Air 

Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from 

architectural coatings and automotive 

refinishing operations. We are 

proposing to approve two local rules to 

regulate these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

(CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by January 4, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0846, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or email. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send 

email directly to EPA, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. 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. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

http://www.regulations.gov, some 

information may be publicly available 

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

copyrighted material, large maps), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Grounds, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3019, grounds.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal addresses the following local 

rules: PCAPCD Rule 218, Architectural 

Coatings and Rule 234, Automotive 

Refinishing Operations. In the Rules and 

Regulations section of this Federal 

Register, we are approving these local 

rules in a direct final action without 

prior proposal because we believe these 

SIP revisions are not controversial. If we 

receive adverse comments, however, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule and address the 

comments in subsequent action based 

on this proposed rule. Please note that 

if we receive adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

we may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

We do not plan to open a second 

comment period, so anyone interested 

in commenting should do so at this 

time. If we do not receive adverse 

comments, no further activity is 

planned. For further information, please 

see the direct final action. 

Dated: October 27, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–30786 Filed 12–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS