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, 75849-75857 [2011-31191]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 233 (Monday, December 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75849-75857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31191]


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

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. https://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 
https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI 
or otherwise protected. The https://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 https://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 https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
https://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 https://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

[[Page 75850]]

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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control 
measures.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    \3\ Today's proposed rule does not address element 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (Interstate Transport) for the 1997 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 
action on element 110(a)(2)(D)(i) will be addressed in a separate 
action.

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

[[Page 75851]]

     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the 
applicable requirements of part D.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials; 
public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local 
entities.

III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs

    EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that address the infrastructure 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and 
PM2.5 NAAQS for various states across the country. 
Commenters on EPA's recent proposals for some states raised concerns 
about EPA statements that it was not addressing certain substantive 
issues in the context of acting on those infrastructure SIP 
submissions.\5\ Those Commenters specifically raised concerns involving 
provisions in existing SIPs and with EPA's statements in other 
proposals that it would address two issues separately and not as part 
of actions on the infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) Existing 
provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up, 
shutdown, or malfunction 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    EPA intended the statements in the other proposals concerning these 
four issues merely to be informational, and to provide general notice 
of the potential existence of provisions within the existing SIPs of 
some states that might require future corrective action. EPA did not 
want states, regulated entities, or members of the public to be under 
the misconception that the Agency's approval of the infrastructure SIP 
submission of a given state should be interpreted as a re-approval of 
certain types of provisions that might exist buried in the larger 
existing SIP for such state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly noted 
that the Agency believes that some states may have existing SIP 
approved SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and EPA policy, 
but that ``in this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or 
disapprove any existing state provisions with regard to excess 
emissions during SSM of operations at facilities.'' EPA further 
explained, for informational purposes, that ``EPA plans to address such 
State regulations in the future.'' EPA made similar statements, for 
similar reasons, with respect to the director's discretion, minor 
source NSR, and NSR Reform issues. EPA's objective was to make clear 
that approval of an infrastructure SIP for these ozone and 
PM2.5 NAAQS should not be construed as explicit or implicit 
re-approval of any existing provisions that relate to these four 
substantive issues. EPA is reiterating that position in this action on 
the infrastructure SIP for Georgia.
    Unfortunately, the Commenters and others evidently interpreted 
these statements to mean that EPA considered action upon the SSM 
provisions and the other three substantive issues to be integral parts 
of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, and therefore that EPA 
was merely postponing taking final action on the issues in the context 
of the infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA's intention. To the 
contrary, EPA only meant to convey its awareness of the potential for 
certain types of deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to prevent any 
misunderstanding that it was reapproving any such existing provisions. 
EPA's intention was to convey its position that the statute does not 
require that infrastructure SIPs address these specific substantive 
issues in existing SIPs and that these issues may be dealt with 
separately, outside the context of acting on the infrastructure SIP 
submission of a state. To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply that it 
was not taking a full final agency action on the infrastructure SIP 
submission with respect to any substantive issue that EPA considers to 
be a required part of acting on such submissions under section 110(k) 
or under section 110(c). Given the confusion evidently resulting from 
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

[[Page 75852]]

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

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

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

    \8\ See Id., 70 FR 25162, at 63-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) 
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \9\ EPA issued separate guidance to states with respect to SIP 
submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 
1997 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.
    \10\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 75853]]

explanatory, and past experience with SIPs for other NAAQS should 
enable States to meet these requirements with assistance from EPA 
Regions.'' \14\ However, for the one exception to that general 
assumption (i.e., how states should proceed with respect to the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS), EPA gave much more specific recommendations. But for other 
infrastructure SIP submittals, and for certain elements of the 
submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA assumed that each 
State would work with its corresponding EPA regional office to refine 
the scope of a State's submittal based on an assessment of how the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2) should reasonably apply to the basic 
structure of the State's implementation plans for the NAAQS in 
question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    On September 25, 2009, EPA issued guidance to make recommendations 
to states with respect to the infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS.\15\ In the 2009 Guidance, EPA addressed a 
number of additional issues that were not germane to the infrastructure 
SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, but 
were germane to these SIP submissions for the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS (e.g., the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) that EPA had 
bifurcated from the other infrastructure elements for those specific 
1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS). Significantly, neither the 2007 
Guidance nor the 2009 Guidance explicitly referred to the SSM, 
director's discretion, minor source NSR, or NSR Reform issues as among 
specific substantive issues EPA expected states to address in the 
context of the infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give any more specific 
recommendations with respect to how states might address such issues 
even if they elected to do so. The SSM and director's discretion issues 
implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), and the minor source NSR and NSR Reform 
issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance and the 
2009 Guidance, however, EPA did not indicate to states that it intended 
to interpret these provisions as requiring a substantive submission to 
address these specific issues in existing SIP provisions in the context 
of the infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA's 2007 
Guidance merely indicated its belief that the states should make 
submissions in which they established that they have the basic SIP 
structure necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. EPA 
believes that states can establish that they have the basic SIP 
structure, notwithstanding that there may be potential deficiencies 
within the existing SIP. Thus, EPA's proposals for other states 
mentioned these issues not because the Agency considers them issues 
that must be addressed in the context of an infrastructure SIP as 
required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), but rather because EPA wanted to 
be clear that it considers these potential existing SIP problems as 
separate from the pending infrastructure SIP actions. The same holds 
true for this action on the infrastructure SIPs for Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    EPA believes that this approach to the infrastructure SIP 
requirement is reasonable because it would not be feasible to read 
section 110(a)(1) and (2) to require a top to bottom, stem to stern, 
review of each and every provision of an existing SIP merely for 
purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic 
structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. 
Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and 
regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include 
some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts that, while not fully 
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the 
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new 
or revised NAAQS when EPA considers the overall effectiveness of the 
SIP. To the contrary, EPA believes that a better approach is for EPA to 
determine which specific SIP elements from section 110(a)(2) are 
applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a given NAAQS, and to focus 
attention on those elements that are most likely to need a specific SIP 
revision in light of the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for example, EPA's 
2007 Guidance specifically directed states to focus on the requirements 
of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because of 
the absence of underlying EPA regulations for emergency episodes for 
this NAAQS and an anticipated absence of relevant provisions in 
existing SIPs.
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach is a reasonable reading of 
section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the statute provides other avenues 
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing 
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the Agency to take appropriate 
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged 
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP 
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is 
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 
interstate transport, or otherwise to comply with the CAA.\16\ Section 
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as 
past approvals of SIP submissions.\17\ Significantly, EPA's 
determination that an action on the infrastructure SIP is not the 
appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP 
problems does not preclude the Agency's subsequent reliance on 
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action at a 
later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate to require 
a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion 
provisions in the course of acting on the infrastructure SIP, EPA 
believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases 
that the Agency cites in the course of addressing the issue in a 
subsequent action.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Georgia addressed the elements of 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

[[Page 75854]]

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 https://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

[[Page 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 https://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 https://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 https://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

[[Page 75856]]

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, https://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,

[[Page 75857]]

EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they