no authority to waive NSR requirements in areas designated nonattainment
under the Act and that the proposed rule was unlawful.  Earthjustice
acknowledged a need for EPA’s gap-filling program as supported by
§§101(b)(1), 110(a)(2)(C), and 301 of the Act.  This commenter
disagrees that §110(a)(2)(C) implies an authority to waive NSR
requirements, but rather expressly requires each SIP to include “a
permit program as required in parts C and D,” and part D does not
allow for waiver of NSR permitting requirements in nonattainment areas.
They went on to question allowing section VI waivers after the statutory
deadline for completion of the state’s Part D SIP development process.
They voiced their concern that the proposed rule appears to allow
continued issuance of NSR waivers even if the state has failed to timely
submit a part D SIP.

	Two commenters questioned the legal underpinnings of section VI
pursuant to sections 110(a)(2)(C), 173, and 182 of the Act.  One was of
the opinion that EPA’s revisions do not provide any incentive for the
timely completion of the SIP, and the exemption appears to allow
continued issuance of NSR waivers after a state fails to timely submit a
SIP.  Also, the commenter said we did not propose or establish an end
date for the transitional period during which a waiver would apply, thus
allowing NSR requirements to be waived indefinitely without any
restrictions on such waiver.

	In response to these specific comments, we note that section VI
pre-dated the Phase 2 rule and that our reconsideration did not open up
the entirety of section VI for comment.  Nevertheless, we will discuss
these issues briefly.  We recounted the history of appendix S in the
preamble to the Phase 2 rule (70 FR 71677 – 71680).  There, we noted
that the SIP development period provided for in section 172(b) leaves a
gap in part D major NSR permitting and that section 110(a)(2)(C) does
not define specific requirements States must follow for issuing major
source permits during this time.  We further noted that EPA’s
regulations at 40 CFR section 52.24(k) require States to follow Appendix
S during the period between nonattainment designation and EPA approval
of a part D nonattainment NSR SIP.  We also summarized the relationship
of the construction ban to Appendix S, stating: “When Congress removed
the construction ban . . . it left in place 40 CFR section 52.25(k),
implementing the interim major NSR program under appendix S” (70 FR
71678).  In adding paragraph (c) to Section VI, we did not disturb the
existing requirements and incentives for timely SIP completion.
Regarding the concern that waivers might be granted after a state fails
to timely submit a SIP, EPA would be highly disinclined to grant a
waiver where the SIP submission deadline had passed and EPA had not
received the required submission.

The State also thought the original purpose of this exemption has long
passed.  Thus, there would be little or no use of the exemptions in
practice and, consequently, EPA’s proposed revision to this section
amounts to encouraging states to reconsider its use.  They see the
proposal as EPA’s encouragement of an NSR exemption that would create
a new obstacle for them to surmount as we strive to attain the 8-hour
ozone standard.  Another State agency saw us as proposing to waive NSR
provisions for LAER and emissions offsets requirements which many states
need as part of their state implementation plans in order to attain and
maintain compliance with the ozone NAAQS.  They were of the opinion that
the proposal constituted that kind of “backsliding” precluded by the
South Coast decision

We received additional comments echoing concerns that the addition of
paragraph C. would encourage the use of section VI and expand its
impacts.  One commenter speaking on behalf of the nation’s air
pollution control agencies expressed concern that the new paragraph
might create new difficulties for states attempting to meet attainment
deadlines. Also given was a concern that new and existing modified
sources would not achieve the level of emissions reductions that would
be possible with installation of LAER without the usual NSR benefit of
comparable or greater decreases in emissions.  They continued that
attainment dates are, in fact, highly likely to be affected by this
exemption from LAER and offsets for new and modifying sources.  In
summation, they expressed concern that increased emissions resulting
from the NSR exemption could jeopardize state and local attainment
plans.

We respond to the commenters by first noting that, as discussed above,
section VI as a whole was not placed on the table for comment.  We do
believe that the commenter’s concerns over the addition of the
Administrator as a gatekeeper to application of section VI are
misplaced.  Their comments upon today’s action and the concerns
conveyed by Earthjustice in their petition for reconsideration make
clear a misunderstanding by several parties who have come to believe our
addition of paragraph C. is intended to open the door for widespread use
and abuse of section VI.  This is not the case.  We added paragraph C.
expressly to limit and minimize usage of Section VI.  Further, paragraph
C. brings to the public’s attention any usage of section VI by
requiring publication of any approvals for such use in the Federal
Register.  So, the concerns that EPA is encouraging States to apply
section VI, making it open-ended, or encouraging backsliding are
unfounded.  Quite the contrary, our intention with the addition of
paragraph C. is to decrease the likelihood that section VI might be
applied by first requiring close scrutiny by the EPA and by
communicating any decisions in a public forum.  Tightening pre-existing
requirements does not constitute backsliding.

	Several commenters perceived the intent of our addition of paragraph C.
and offered comments in support of re-proposed rule language.  Their
comments expressed viewpoints opposite to the just-described comments of
Earthjustice and the air pollution control agencies.  Four commenters
expressed their opinions that the revision adding EPA as the determining
authority to application of section VI would not interfere with
achieving attainment in a timely manner.  Two offered their expectations
that section VI provides a limited flexibility that would be seldom
used.  One commenter does not believe that the waiver of certain LAER or
offset requirements would often be approved, but may make sense and
should be provided when there is a public need.  The commenter opined
that, in many instances, there is little difference between BACT and
LAER.  With the modeling demonstrations that require the use of
worst-case scenarios to demonstrate that neither attainment nor progress
towards attainment would be interfered with, there is little opportunity
“to evade the strictures of Part D.”  Another commenter believes
States should be given the limited flexibility provided in the rule to
allow new sources to locate in nonattainment areas without applying LAER
or obtaining offsets if such action is reviewed by EPA and found not to
interfere with attaining the NAAQS.  They agreed that the additional
safeguard of EPA determining that the conditions of the rule have been
satisfied (i.e., non-interference) provides a positive safeguard to
ensure areas meet their attainment deadlines.  Another commenter found
the EPA rationale reasonable and saw no merit to the petition for
reconsideration.

	EPA appreciates the comments in support of the addition of paragraph C.
 These commenters have correctly identified our purpose of adding a
requirement that EPA oversee application of Section VI in order to limit
its usage while preserving its flexibility for those limited instances
where its application might be justified.

	Three commenters specifically endorsed the requirement for the
Administrator to publish in the Federal Register all approvals of
section VI actions.  The commenters said EPA’s requirement for
publication in the Federal Register ensures public awareness of the use
of this provision as an added safeguard.

	At proposal we provided two possible outcomes for today’s action.
First, we said that should we receive compelling arguments that it was
inappropriate for us to add the section VI.C. requirement for the
Administrator approval, we would remove the language in question so as
to revert the text of section VI to that which existed prior to November
29, 2005.  The second possibility was that we would leave the rule
language unchanged from that currently codified in the Code of Federal
Regulations.  None of the comments received made a good case for
removing the language change from November 29, 2005 and we have elected
to make no amendments removing that provision.

IV.  STATUTORY AND EXECUTIVE ORDER REVIEWS

 A.  Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

	Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a "significant regulatory action.”  This action is
significant because it raises novel legal or policy issues.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response
to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this
action.

B.  Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this reconsideration notice
have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.  They
were addressed along with those covering the Phase 1 Rule (April 30,
2004; 69 FR 23951) and the Phase 2 Rule (November 29, 2005; 70 FR 71612)
under EPA ICR # 2236.01.  The information collection requirements are
not enforceable until OMB approves them other than to the extent
required by statute.

This action announces EPA’s final decision on reconsideration of
several provisions of the Phase 2 Rule, namely the RACT provisions and
selected NSR provisions.  This action does not establish any new
information collection burden on States beyond what was required in the
Phase 2 Rule.

The EPA has projected cost and hour burden for the statutory SIP
development obligation for the Phase 2 Rule, and prepared an Information
Collection Request (ICR).  Assessments of some of the administrative
cost categories identified as a part of the SIP for an 8-hour standard
are already conducted as a result of other provisions of the CAA and
associated ICRs (e.g. emission inventory preparation, air quality
monitoring program, conformity assessments, NSR, inspection and
maintenance program).

The burden estimates in the ICR for the Phase 2 rule are incremental to
what is required under other provisions of the CAA and what would be
required under a 1-hour standard.  Burden means the total time, effort,
or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.
This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.  When the ICR for the Phase 2
rule is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment
to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control
number for the approved information collection requirements contained in
this final rule.  However, the failure to have an approved ICR for this
rule does not affect the statutory obligation for the States to submit
SIPs as required under part D of the CAA.

The information collection requirements associated with NSR permitting
for ozone are covered by EPA(s request to renew the approval of the ICR
for the NSR program, ICR 1230.17, which was approved by OMB on January
25, 2005.  The information collection requirements associated with NSR
permitting were previously covered by ICR 1230.10 and 1230.11.  The OMB
previously approved the information collection requirements contained in
the existing NSR regulations at 40 CFR parts 51 and 52 under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and assigned OMB control
number 2060-0003.  A copy of the approved ICR may be obtained from Susan
Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460 or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

C.  Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an Agency to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedures Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.  Small entities include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this reconsideration action on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any
not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Rules,
we concluded that those actions did not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. For those same
reasons, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.  This action of
reconsideration will not impose any requirements on small entities.

	Concerning the NSR portion of this notice of reconsideration, a
Regulatory Flexibility Act Screening Analysis (RFASA) was developed as
part of a 1994 draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and incorporated
into the September 1995 ICR renewal.  This analysis showed that the
changes to the NSR program due to the 1990 CAA Amendments would not have
an adverse impact on small entities.  This analysis encompassed the
entire universe of applicable major sources that were likely to also be
small businesses (approximately 50 “small business” major sources).
Because the administrative burden of the NSR program is the primary
source of the NSR program’s regulatory costs, the analysis estimated a
negligible “cost to sales” (regulatory cost divided by the business
category mean revenue) ratio for this source group.  The incorporation
of the major source thresholds and offset ratios from the 1990 CAA
Amendments in section 51.165 and appendix S for the purpose of
implementing NSR for the 8-hour standard does not change this
conclusion.  Under section 110(a)(2)(C), all States must implement a
preconstruction permitting program “as necessary to assure that the
[NAAQS] are achieved,” regardless of the changes in the Phase 2 rule.
Thus, small businesses continue to be subject to regulations for
construction and modification of stationary sources, whether under State
and local agency minor NSR programs, SIPs to implement section 51.165,
or appendix S, to ensure that the 8-hour standard is achieved.

D.  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector.  Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with (Federal mandates( that may
result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one
year.  Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives, and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule.  The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law.  Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.  Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan.  The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.

The EPA has determined that this reconsideration action does not contain
a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or
more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year.  In promulgating the Phase 1 and Phase 2
Rules, we concluded that they were not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.  For those same reasons, this notice
of reconsideration and request for comment is not subject to the UMRA.

The EPA has determined that this notice of reconsideration contains no
regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments.

E.  Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure (meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications.(  (Policies that have federalism
implications( is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have (substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.(

This action does not have federalism implications.  It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132.  This reconsideration action
pertains to three aspects of the Phase 2 Rule.  For the same reasons
stated in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Rules, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action.

F.  Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure (meaningful and timely input by
Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
Tribal implications.(  This reconsideration action does not have (Tribal
implications( as specified in Executive Order 13175.

The purpose of this reconsideration action is to announce our decision
following reconsideration of specific aspects of the Phase 2 Rule.  The
CAA provides for States and Tribes to develop plans to regulate
emissions of air pollutants within their jurisdictions.  The Tribal
Authority Rule (TAR) gives Tribes the opportunity to develop and
implement CAA programs such as the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, but it leaves to
the discretion of the Tribes whether to develop these programs and which
programs, or appropriate elements of a program, they will adopt.

For the same reasons stated in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Rules, this
action does not have Tribal implications as defined by Executive Order
13175.  It does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian Tribes, since no Tribe has implemented a CAA program to attain
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS at this time.  If a Tribe does implement such a
plan, it would not impose substantial direct costs upon it.
Furthermore, this action does not affect the relationship or
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian Tribes.  The CAA and the TAR establish the
relationship of the Federal government and Tribes in developing plans to
attain the NAAQS, and this action does nothing to modify that
relationship.  Because this action does not have Tribal implications,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply.

G.  Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that (1) is determined to be (economically significant( as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have
disproportionate effect on children.  If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

	This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental
health or safety risk addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children.  We have evaluated the environmental
health or safety effects of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS on children.  The
results of this evaluation are contained in 40 CFR part 50, National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final Rule (July 18, 1997; 62
FR 38855-38896, specifically, 62 FR 38860 and 62 FR 38865).

H.  Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not a (significant energy action( as defined in Executive
Order 13211, (Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,( (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution,
or use of energy.  The reconsideration action announces our decision
following reconsideration of several aspects of the Phase 2 Rule, for
which EPA did perform an analysis of the energy impacts under Executive
Order 13211.

I.  National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of
1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical.  Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS
bodies.  The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable
VCS.

This action does not involve technical standards.  Therefore, EPA did
not consider the use of any VCS.

The EPA will encourage the States and Tribes to consider the use of such
standards, where appropriate, in the development of the implementation
plans.

J.   Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental justice.  Its main provisions direct
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States.

The EPA concluded that the Phase 2 Rule does not raise any environmental
justice issues (See 70 FR at 71695, col. 2; (November 29, 2005)); for
the same reasons, since this action concerns several aspects of the
Phase 2 rule, this reconsideration action does not raise any
environmental justice issues.  This action will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because the 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard is designed to protect public
health and is intended to apply equally to all portions of the
population.  In addition, this rule makes only minor changes to the
previous Phase 2 implementation rule and these changes are intended to
strengthen the rule, which should not disproportionately affect minority
or low income populations.  The health and environmental risks
associated with ozone were considered in the establishment of the
8-hour, 0.08 ppm ozone NAAQS [62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997)].  The level
is designed to be protective with an adequate margin of safety.  The
Phase 2 Rule provides a framework for improving environmental quality
and reducing health risks for areas that may be designated
nonattainment.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 K. Congressional Review Act

	The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this reconsideration action
and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the reconsideration action in the Federal Register. A
Major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2). This action will be effective [insert date 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register].

L.  Judicial Review

	Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal
have venue for petitions of review of final actions by EPA.  This
section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in
the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit if (i) the
agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations
promulgated, or final action taken, by the  Administrator,” or (ii)
such action is locally or regionally applicable, if “such action is
based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking
such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is
based on such a determination.”

	Final actions described in this Final Action on Reconsideration are
“nationally applicable” within the meaning of section 307(b)(1).
This action explains the final

Phase 2 of the Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard – Notice of Reconsideration – page 89 of 90

actions EPA is taking on the petitions for reconsideration of several
aspects of the Phase 2 rule.  EPA has determined that all of these
actions are of nationwide scope and effect for purposes of section
307(d)(1) because these actions clarify the obligations of all states
with respect to the nationwide implementation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and concern the basic program elements of nonattainment new source
review SIPs.  Thus, any petitions for review of the final action
described in this Notice must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the
district of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date this Notice is
published in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

Environnemental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.

_______________________________

Dated:

________________________________

Stephen L. Johnson,

Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 51 – REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

1.  The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

	Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart X – [Amended]

Section 51.912 is added to read as follows:

********

(a)  *****

(2)  The State shall submit the RACT SIP for each area no later than 27
months after designation for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, except that for a
State subject to the requirements of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, the
State shall submit NOx RACT SIPs for electrical generating units (EGUs)
no later than the date by which the area’s attainment demonstration is
due (prior to any reclassification under section 181(b)(3)) for the
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard, or [insert date 30
days after publication in the Federal Register], whichever comes later.

 Federal Register of  May 12, 2005  (70 FR 25,162).

 However, EPA also determined that a state that elects to bring its NOx
SIP Call non-EGU sources into the CAIR ozone season trading program
could continue to rely on EPA’s determination that RACT is met for EGU
sources covered by the CAIR trading program.  EPA further noted that a
state could rely on this determination if and only if the state retained
a summer season EGU budget under the CAIR that was at least as
restrictive as the EGU budget that was set in the state(s NOx SIP Call
SIP.

  In this rule, the phrase “compliance with the CAIR” is used to
mean compliance with a FIP or an EPA-approved SIP meeting the
requirements of the CAIR.

  Technical Support Document For Phase 2 Of The Final Rule To Implement
The 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard –Notice Of
Reconsideration; NOx RACT For EGUs In CAIR states--Supplemental
Technical Analysis.  (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAQ-2003-0079, item number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0079-1044.2).

 However, a state that elects to bring its NOx SIP Call non-EGU sources
into the CAIR ozone season trading program need not show that all the
CAIR reductions are achieved solely from EGUs if, and only if, the state
retained a summer season EGU budget under the CAIR that was at least as
restrictive as the EGU budget that was set in the state’s NOx SIP Call
SIP.

 The EPA emissions analysis shows that for the following nonattainment
areas the CAIR is projected to achieve equal or greater annual emissions
reductions than source-by-source RACT:  Baltimore, MD, Buffalo-Niagara
Falls, NY (Subpart 1); Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC;
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN; Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH; Dallas-Fort
Worth, TX; Greater Connecticut, CT; Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX;
Jefferson Co, NY; Milwaukee-Racine, WI; New York-New Jersey-Long Island,
NY-NJ-CT; Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE; Sheboygan,
WI;  St Louis, MO-IL; Washington, DC-MD-VA.  The emissions analysis
shows that for the following nonattainment areas the CAIR is projected
to achieve equal or greater summer emission reductions than
source-by-source RACT:  Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC;
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain; Dallas-Fort worth, TX; Greater Connecticut, CT;
Houston –Galveston- Brazoria, TX; Jefferson Co., NY; Milwaukee-Racine,
WI; New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT; Philadelphia
–Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE; Sheboygan, WI; Springfield
(Western MA), MA; St. Louis, MO-IL; Washington, DC-MD-VA

 EPA’s emissions analysis shows that for the following OTR states, the
CAIR is projected to achieve equal or greater annual emissions
reductions than source-by-source RACT:  Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania, and OTR portion of Virginia (Alexandria and
Prince Counties).  For the following OTR states, the CAIR is projected
to achieve equal or greater summer emission reductions than
source-by-source RACT:  Maryland, Pennsylvania and OTR portions of
Virginia (Alexandria and Prince William Counties).

  For 2010, annual NOx emission reductions expected from implementation
of the CAIR in the entire CAIR region are 1.3 million tons/year.  This
compares with annual NOx emission reductions projected from application
of source-by-source RACT from within the Ozone Transport Region (OTR)
plus other nonattainment areas in the CAIR region, but outside of the
OTR, of 166,780 tons/year.  Ozone-season NOx emission reductions
expected from implementation of the CAIR in the entire CAIR region are
200,000 tons/season.  This compares with summer time RACT-only emission
reductions from within the OTR plus other nonattainment areas in the
CAIR region, but outside of the OTR, of 19,210 tons/summer.  These
estimates show that CAIR is projected to get overwhelmingly greater NOx
reductions than source-by-source RACT in the CAIR region.  The CAIR
region emissions estimates are from “Regulatory Impact Analysis for
the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule,” EPA-452/R-05-002, March 2005.
This document can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/interstateairquality/pdfs/finaltech08.pdf and is also
in the CAIR docket no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0053.  The RACT emission
estimates for OTR states and nonattainment areas in the CAIR region, but
outside OTR states, are found in “Technical Support Document For Phase
2 Of The Final Rule To Implement The 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard –Notice Of Reconsideration; NOx RACT For EGUs In CAIR
states--Supplemental Technical Analysis.” (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAQ-2003-0079, document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0079-1044.2).

 However, a state that elects to bring its NOx SIP Call non-EGU sources
into the CAIR ozone season trading program may continue to rely on
EPA’s determination that RACT is met for EGU sources covered by the
CAIR trading program.  It may rely on this determination if and only if
the state retains a summer season EGU budget under the CAIR that is at
least as restrictive as the EGU budget that was set in the state(s NOx
SIP call SIP.

 “Technical Support Document For Phase 2 Of The Final Rule To
Implement The 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
–Notice Of Reconsideration; NOx RACT For EGUs In CAIR
states--Supplemental Technical Analysis” (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0079, item 1044.2)

   The determination for OTR states is separate from the determination
for nonattainment within the OTR states, i.e., this determination
applies to areas in these OTR states other than (a) moderate and above
subpart 2 areas and (b) subpart 1 areas that request an attainment date
more than 5 years after designation for the 8-hour NAAQS.  This means
that an OTR state can get a determination that CAIR equals RACT within
the State, but a particular nonattainment within the State may not get
this determination based on the results of the technical analysis.

   The determination for OTR states is separate from the determination
for nonattainment within the OTR states, i.e., this determination
applies to areas in these OTR states other than (a) moderate and above
subpart 2 areas and (b) subpart 1 areas that request an attainment date
more than 5 years after designation for the 8-hour NAAQS.  This means
that an OTR state can get a determination that CAIR equals RACT within
the State, but a particular nonattainment within the State may not get
this determination based on the results of the technical analysis.

  The current deadline for submitting attainment demonstrations in these
areas is June 15, 2007.

 The decision of the Court in South Coast v EPA vacated the Phase 1
ozone implementation rule, including the classifications contained
within that Rule.  On March 22, 2007, EPA filed a petition for panel
rehearing of this decision.  Among other things, EPA requested further
briefing and panel rehearing on whether the Court erred in vacating the
entire Rule even though many provisions of the Rule were not challenged
or were upheld by the Court.

 See 57 FR 13553.  After the 1990 CAA Amendments were enacted, 1990 was
the base year for 1-hour ozone NAAQS attainment planning purposes.  See
57 FR 13502.  The EPA encouraged States to allow sources to use
pre-enactment banked emissions reductions credits for offsetting
purposes.  States have been allowed to do so if the restored credits
meet all other offset creditability criteria, and States consider such
credits as part of the attainment emissions inventory when developing
their post-enactment attainment demonstration.

 For a discussion of emission inventories for the 8-hour ozone standard,
see our emission inventory guidance, "Emissions Inventory Guidance for
Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations - Final," at
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/eiguid/index.html."
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/eiguid/index.html  . For a
discussion of emission projections used in attainment demonstrations,
see Emission Inventory Improvement Program, Volume X, Emission
Projections, December 1999, available at    HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/  .

 68 FR 32833, See also “2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP
Planning: 8-hr Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze Programs,” U.S. EPA, pg.
1 (November 18, 2002).

 Technical Appendix:  Potential Impacts of Implementation of the 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS; Technical Support Document.  July 21, 2005.  Docket
Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0079-0860.

 PAGE

 PAGE   90

Version sent to OMB for review prior to signature by Administrator.
This was logged into OMB on 5/15/07.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54632-54633]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19397]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2020-0068]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that on August 14,
2020, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the American
Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) (Petitioners), on
behalf of themselves and their member railroads, petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain
provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49
CFR part 236, Rules, Standards, and Instructions Governing the
Installation, Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair of Signal and Train
Control Systems, Devices, and Appliances. FRA assigned the petition
Docket Number FRA-2020-0068.
    Specifically, Petitioners request relief from 49 CFR 236.1021,
which governs the Request for Amendment (RFA) process when material
modifications are made to a mixed-certification Interoperable Train
Control Positive Train Control (PTC) system or its accompanying Safety
Plan (PTCSP). Petitioners state that the RFA process when modifications
are made to a PTCSP is a time consuming and significant undertaking for
both FRA and railroad staff, involving submission of a voluminous
amount of information and likely a lengthy review and approval process.
Petitioners further state that frequently occurring modifications to
account for regular PTC technology updates of the FRA-certified PTC
system are necessary to allow for the continued successful and safe
operation of the PTC system.
    Petitioners assert that approval of this waiver request would
eliminate undue paperwork, administrative burdens, and delays to
modifications that are intended to improve the functioning of existing
PTC systems. Petitioners also contend that approval would result in
significant resource and cost savings to both FRA and the railroads.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by October 19, 2020 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-19397 Filed 9-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39651-39652]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16425]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2012 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0539; Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-10]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Circle Town, MT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Circle
Town County Airport, Circle Town, MT, to accommodate aircraft using new
Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard
instrument approach procedures at the airport. The FAA is proposing
this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) operations at Circle Town County Airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-
0539; Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-10, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA 2012-0539 and Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-10) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2012-0539 and Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-10''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Circle
Town County Airport, Circle Town, MT. Controlled airspace is necessary
to accommodate aircraft using new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument
approach procedures at Circle Town County Airport. This action would
enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of
FAA Order 7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's

authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would establish controlled airspace at Circle Town
County Airport, Circle Town, MT.
    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM MT E5 Circle Town, MT [New]

Circle Town County Airport
    (Lat. 47[deg]25'06'' N., long. 105[deg]33'39'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within 12.1-mile radius of the Circle Town County Airport; that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded
by a line beginning at lat. 47[deg]59'00'' N., long. 106[deg]16'00''
W.; to lat. 47[deg]49'00'' N., long. 105[deg]59'00'' W.; to lat.
47[deg]49'00'' N., long. 105[deg]24'00'' W.; to lat. 47[deg]40'00''
N., long. 105[deg]26'00'' W.; to lat. 47[deg]25'00'' N., long.
105[deg]00'00'' W.; to lat. 47[deg]05'00'' N., long. 105[deg]25'00''
W., to lat. 47[deg]22'00'' N., long. 106[deg]06'00'' W.; to lat.
47[deg]27'00'' N., long. 106[deg]17'00'' W.; to lat. 47[deg]50'00''
N., long. 106[deg]26'00'' W.; thence to the point of origin.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on June 25, 2012.
John Warner,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-16425 Filed 7-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


ATTACHMENT - SIP SUBMITTAL COMPLETENESS CRITERIA CHECKLIST

   SIP Submitted by:

     Date Submitted:                Subject:     Confirmation of
110(a)(2)(A)-(M) PM NAAQS Requirements in the Current Georgia SIP

110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements Checklist – Georgia

Section 110(a) element	Summary of element	How Addressed in Submittal

	Status

§110(a)(2)(A)	include enforceable emission limitations and other
control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives
such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as
well as schedules and timetables for compliance as may be necessary or
appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act.

Georgia Rules for Air Quality 391-3-1-.01 – “Definitions.
Amended”;

Georgia Rules for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02 – “Provisions. Amended”;
and

Georgia Rules for Air Quality 391-3-1-.03 – “Permits. Amended”.
391-3-1-.01 – general PM references, PM and PM10 definitions

391-3-1-.02 – PM references throughout, PM10 reference in definition
of PM in paragraph (c)

391-3-1-.03 – PM and PM10 references

???

§110(a)(2)(B)	provide for establishment and operation of appropriate
devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to-

monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and

upon request, make such data available to the Administrator;

Performance Partnership Agreement

Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(4)(c)2. – PM2.5

Letter from EPA to EPD dated September 26, 2007 – conditionally
approving “Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan”.  Requested changes
have been made and approval is now final.

Letter from EPA to EPD dated December 17, 1993 in which EPA approved
Georgia’s PAMS Network (The Georgia SIP for Photochemical Assessment
Monitoring Stations)

Georgia’s Ambient Monitoring Program is discussed in the following
recent SIPS:

*For Atlanta:

“Atlanta One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan” dated February 1, 2005 and approved in 70 FR
35660-34665

*For Macon:

“Macon 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan” dated June 15, 2007 and approved in 72 FR
53432-53436

*For Murray County

“Georgia’s Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for Murray
County 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area”  dated June 15, 2007 and
approved in 72 FR 58538-58542	391-3-1-.02(4)(c)2 – this references
PM10 – has it been updated??

§110(a)(2)(C)	include a program to provide for the enforcement of the
measures described in subparagraph (A) and regulation of the
modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas
covered by the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air
quality standards are achieved, including a permit program as required
in parts C and D;

The Georgia Air Quality Act:  Article I:  Air Quality

(O.C.G.A. Section 12-9, et. Seq.)

Performance Partnership Agreement

Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(1) – General Requirement

Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(7) – “Prevention of
Significant Deterioration of Air Quality”

Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.03 – “Permits. Amended”

Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.07 – “Inspections and
Investigations. Amended”

Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.09 – “Enforcement. Amended”
391-3-1-.02(1) – general language  OK

391-3-1-02(7) – general language   OK

391-3-1-.03 – PM and PM10          ????

391-3-1-.07 – general language     OK

391-3-1-.09 – general language     OK

§110(a)(2)(D)	contain adequate provisions—

   (i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this title, any
source or other type of emissions activity within the state from
emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will--

     (I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state with respect to any such national
primary or secondary ambient air quality standard, or

     (II) interfere with measures required to be included in the
applicable implementation plan for any other State under part C to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect
visibility,

  (ii) insuring compliance with the applicable requirements of sections
126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution
abatement);

Approved SIP Revision for the Incorporation of the Requirements of CAA
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS:  EPA took
final action in the Federal Register on October 9, 2007 72 FR
57202-57207 to fully approve this SIP Revision and this full approval
became effective on November 8, 2007.

Regional Haze SIP will be submitted to EPA in 2008	OK

§110(a)(2)(E)(i)	provide

   (i) necessary assurances that the state (or, except where the
Administrator deems inappropriate, the general purpose local government
or governments, or a regional agency designated by the state or general
purpose local governments for such purpose) will have adequate
personnel, funding, and authority under state (and, as appropriate,
local) law to carry out such implementation plan (and is not prohibited
by any provision of federal or state law from carrying out such
implementation plan or portion thereof);

The Georgia Air Quality Act:  Article I:  Air Quality

(O.C.G.A. Section 12-9, et. Seq.)

Performance Partnership Agreement

“Georgia’s Title V Plan” dated November 12, 1993, in particular
section 8 which addresses “adequate personnel and resources” in
accordance with 40 CFR 70.4(b)(8)	OK?

§110(a)(2)(E)(ii)	(ii) requirements that the state comply with the
requirements respecting state boards under section 128, and

The Georgia Air Quality Act:  Article I:  Air Quality

O.C.G.A. Section 12-9, et. Seq.)	OK?

§110(a)(2)(E)(iii)	(iii) necessary assurances that, where the state has
relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for
the implementation of any plan provision, the state has responsibility
for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provision;

SIP is adequate because it does not rely upon local or regional
governments.	OK?

§110(a)(2)(F)	require, as may be prescribed by the Administrator—

   (i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and
the implementation of other necessary steps by owners or operators of
stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources,

   (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and
emissions-related data from such sources, and

(iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with any emission
limitations or standards established pursuant to this Act, which reports
shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection;

The Georgia Air Quality Act:  Article I:  Air Quality

(O.C.G.A. Section 12-9, et. Seq.)

Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(3) – “Sampling”

Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(6) – “Source Monitoring”

Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(11) – “Compliance Assurance
Monitoring:”

Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.03 – “Permits.Amended”
391-3-1-.02(3) – general language

391-3-1-.02(6) – PM reference

391-3-1-.02(11) – NOT IN SIP

391-3-1-.03 – PM and PM10 references

§110(a)(2)(G)	provide for authority comparable to that in section 303
and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority;

Georgia Air Quality Act:  Article I:  Air Quality

(O.C.G.A. Section 12-9, et. Seq.)

Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.04 – “Air Pollution
Episodes.”

January 1972 SIP

“Implementation Plan for Attainment of State and National Ambient Air
Standards” – Air Quality Control Branch, Georgia Department of
Public Health (primary pages are 169-266)	391-3-1-.04 – no reference
to PM

State had previous plan in place (January 1972 SIP) – is this
acceptable??????

§110(a)(2)(H)	provide for revision of such plan—

    (i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of
revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality
standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of
attaining such standard, and

   (iii) except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), whenever the
Administrator finds on the basis of information available to the
Administrator that the plan is substantially inadequate to attain the
national ambient air quality standard which it implements, or to
otherwise comply with any additional requirements established under this
Act;

The Georgia Air Quality Act:  Article I:  Air Quality

(O.C.G.A. Section 12-9, et. Seq.)

Performance Partnership Agreement

	OK

§110(a)(2)(I)	in the case of a plan or plan revision for an area
designated as a nonattainment area, meet the applicable requirements of
part D (relating to nonattainment areas);

The Georgia Air Quality Act:  Article I:  Air Quality

(O.C.G.A. Section 12-9, et. Seq.)

Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02 – “Provisions. Amended”

Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.03 – “Permits. Amended”

	PM and PM10 references

§110(a)(2)(J)

(§ 121 consultation)

	meet the applicable requirements of section 121 (relating to
consultation), …	The Georgia Air Quality Act:  Article I:  Air Quality

(O.C.G.A. Section 12-9, et. Seq.)

Transportation Conformity SIP Revision dated April 7, 2000 and approved
in 65 FR 18245

Ozone SIP contains equivalent consultation and participation for PM2.5
requirements:

*For Atlanta:

“Atlanta One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan” dated February 1, 2005 and approved in 70 FR
35660-34665

*For Macon:

“Macon 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan” dated June 15, 2007 and approved in 72 FR
53432-53436

*For Murray County

“Georgia’s Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for Murray
County 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area”  dated June 15, 2007 and
approved in 72 FR 58538-58542

	OK

§110(a)(2)(J)

(Section 127 public notification)	meet the applicable requirements of
section 127 of this title,

Adequate provisions.????

	§110(a)(2)(J)

(PSD)	meet the applicable requirements of … part C (relating to
prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility
protection);

Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(1) – “General
Requirements”

Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(7) – “Prevention of
Significant Deterioration”	General language

OK

§110(a)(2)(K)

	provide for:

   (i) the performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator
may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air
quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the
Administrator has established a national ambient air quality standard,
and

   (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air
quality modeling to the Administrator;

Regional Haze Modeling as part of VISTAS

ASIP and GA EPD developed 2002 meteorology (MM5) and 2002/2009 emissions
(SMOKE) as inputs into the CMAQ air quality model.  Annual CMAQ
simulations were performed for 2002 and 2009 and relative response
factors (RRFs) were calculated to project the 2009 future design values
(DVFs) at all monitors in Georgia.  The DVFs were compared to the NAAQS
standard for annual PM2.5.

PM2.5 modeling protocol to be included in PM2.5 SIPs to be submitted to
EPA in 2008.

	??

§110(a)(2)(L)

require the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to
the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under
this Act, a fee sufficient to cover—

   (i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any application
for such a permit, and

    (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the
reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions
of any such permit (not including any court costs or other costs
associated with any enforcement action), until such fee requirement is
superseded with respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval
of a fee program under title V;

*391-3-1-.03(9) – “Permit Fees”

*Rule 391-3-1-.03(9) to compute fees for calendar year 2002 was
submitted as a SIP revision on June 25, 2003 – appears to be SIP
approved.

*Rule 391-3-1-.03(9) to compute fees for calendar years 2003, 2004, and
2005 where submitted as part of one SIP submittal in July 2006.

*Rule 391-3-1-.03(9) to compute fees for calendar year 2006 – was
submitted as a SIP revision on August 22, 2007

	Not federally approved???

§110(a)(2)(M)

	provide for consultation and participation by local political
subdivisions affected by the plan.	The Georgia Air Quality Act:  Article
I:  Air Quality

(O.C.G.A. Section 12-9, et. Seq.)

Transportation Conformity SIP Revision dated April 7, 2000 and approved
in 65 FR 18245

Ozone SIP contains equivalent consultation and participation for PM2.5
requirements:

*For Atlanta –

“Atlanta One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan” dated February 1, 2005 and approved in 70 FR
35660-34665

*For Macon:

“Macon 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan” dated June 15, 2007 and approved in 72 FR
53432-53436

*For Murray County

“Georgia’s Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for Murray
County 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area”  dated June 15, 2007 and
approved in 72 FR 58538-58542

	OK

§§110(a)(2)(C) & 110(a)(2)(J)	Part C Permit program:

§110(a)(2)(J) meet the applicable requirements of … part C (relating
to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility
protection);

§110(a)(2)(C) …  regulation of the modification and construction of
any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary
to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved,
including a permit program as required in parts C and D;

40 CFR 51.166:  Amend PSD regulations as required by the November 29,
2005 final rule (70 FR 71612 at 71699-71700).  See also 70 FR
71671-71684.

Not sure why this row exists in this table.

	Page   PAGE  7