[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35909-35917]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14591]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

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

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via
electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established an annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations. At that time, EPA also established a 24-hour NAAQS of
65 [mu]g/m\3\. See 40 CFR 50.7. On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA
retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, and promulgated a new 24-hour NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\
based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations. By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by states within three years
after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) require states to address basic SIP requirements, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs
to EPA no later than July 2000 for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, no later than October 2009 for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
    On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice submitted a notice of intent to sue
related to EPA's failure to issue findings of failure to submit related
to the ``infrastructure'' requirements for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. On March 10, 2005, EPA entered into a consent
decree with Earthjustice which required EPA, among other things, to
complete a Federal Register notice announcing EPA's determinations
pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) as to whether each state had made
complete submissions to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2) for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by October 5, 2008. In accordance with
the consent decree, EPA made completeness findings for each state based
upon what the Agency received from each state for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS as of October 3, 2008.
    On October 22, 2008, EPA published a final rulemaking entitled,
``Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans
Pertaining to the Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) NAAQS''
making a finding that each state had submitted or failed to submit a
complete SIP that provided the basic program elements of section
110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (See
73 FR 62902). For those states that did receive findings, the findings
of failure to submit for all or a portion of a state's implementation
plan established a 24-month deadline for EPA to promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the outstanding SIP elements
unless, prior to that time, the affected states submitted, and EPA
approved, the required SIPs.
    The findings that all or portions of a state's submission are
complete established a 12-month deadline for EPA to take action upon
the complete SIP elements in accordance with section 110(k). Georgia's
infrastructure submissions were received by EPA on July 23, 2008, for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and on October 21, 2009, for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The submissions were determined to
be complete on January 23, 2009, and April 21, 2010, respectively.
Georgia was among other states that did not receive findings of failure
to submit because it had provided a complete submission to EPA to
address the infrastructure elements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
by October 3, 2008.
    On July 6, 2011, WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club filed an
amended complaint related to EPA's failure to take action on the SIP
submittal related to the ``infrastructure'' requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. On October 20, 2011, EPA entered into a
consent decree with WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club which required
EPA, among other things, to complete a Federal Register notice of the
Agency's final action either approving, disapproving, or approving in
part and disapproving in part the Georgia 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS Infrastructure SIP submittal addressing the applicable
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(A)-(H), (J)-(M), except for section
110(a)(2)(C) the nonattainment area requirements and section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) interstate transport requirements, by September 30,
2012.
    Today's action is proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure
submission for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
for sections 110(a)(2)(A)-(H), (J)-(M), except for section 110(a)(2)(C)
nonattainment area requirements and section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) interstate
transport requirements. This action is not approving any specific rule,
but rather proposing that Georgia's already approved SIP meets certain
CAA requirements.

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

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such
NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the
data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and
submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already
contains. In the case of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, some states may need to adopt language specific
to the PM2.5 NAAQS to ensure that they have adequate SIP
provisions to implement the PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements
for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must
meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related to a newly
established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these requirements
include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling, monitoring, and
emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements that are the subject of this
proposed rulemaking are listed below \1\ and in EPA's October 2, 2007,
memorandum entitled ``Guidance on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs

    EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that address the infrastructure
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS for various states across the country.
Commenters on EPA's recent proposals for some states raised concerns
about EPA statements that it was not addressing certain substantive
issues in the context of acting on those infrastructure SIP
submissions.\5\ Those Commenters specifically raised concerns involving
provisions in existing SIPs and with EPA's statements in other
proposals that it would address two issues separately and not as part
of actions on the infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) Existing
provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up,
shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) at sources, that may be contrary to the
CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; and (ii)
existing provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions
limits with limited public process or without requiring further
approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (``director's
discretion''). EPA notes that there are two other substantive issues
for which EPA likewise stated in other proposals that it would address
the issues separately: (i) existing provisions for minor source new
source review (NSR) programs that may be inconsistent with the
requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such
programs (``minor source NSR''); and (ii) existing provisions for
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs that may be
inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement
Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526
(June 13, 2007) (``NSR Reform''). In light of the comments, EPA
believes that its statements in various proposed actions on
infrastructure SIPs with respect to these four individual issues should
be explained in greater depth. It is important to emphasize that EPA is
taking the same position with respect to these four substantive issues
in this action on the infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS from Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

EPA's statements in those other proposals, however, we want to explain
more fully the Agency's reasons for concluding that these four
potential substantive issues in existing SIPs may be addressed
separately from actions on infrastructure SIP submissions.
    The requirement for the SIP submissions at issue arises out of CAA
section 110(a)(1). That provision requires that states must make a SIP
submission ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof)'' and
that these SIPs are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must meet. EPA
has historically referred to these particular submissions that states
must make after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS as
``infrastructure SIPs.'' This specific term does not appear in the
statute, but EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of
SIP submission designed to address basic structural requirements of a
SIP from other types of SIP submissions designed to address other
different requirements, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' submissions
required to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D,
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required to address the visibility
protection requirements of CAA section 169A, NSR permitting program
submissions required to address the requirements of part D, and a host
of other specific types of SIP submissions that address other specific
matters.
    Although section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general
requirements for these infrastructure SIPs, and section 110(a)(2)
provides more details concerning the required contents of these
infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes that many of the specific statutory
provisions are facially ambiguous. In particular, the list of required
elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of
disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal
authority, some of which pertain to required substantive provisions,
and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and
substantive provisions.\6\ Some of the elements of section 110(a)(2)
are relatively straightforward, but others clearly require
interpretation by EPA through rulemaking, or recommendations through
guidance, in order to give specific meaning for a particular NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Similarly, EPA notes that other types of SIP submissions required
under the statute also must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2),
and this also demonstrates the need to identify the applicable elements
for other SIP submissions. For example, nonattainment SIPs required by
part D likewise have to meet the relevant subsections of section
110(a)(2) such as section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, it is clear
that nonattainment SIPs would not need to meet the portion of section
110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part C, i.e., the PSD requirements
applicable in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs required by part D
also would not need to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G)
with respect to emergency episodes, as such requirements would not be
limited to nonattainment areas. As this example illustrates, each type
of SIP submission may implicate some subsections of section 110(a)(2)
and not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity of the statutory language of
section 110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is appropriate for EPA
to interpret that language in the context of acting on the
infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. Because of the inherent
ambiguity of the list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), EPA has
adopted an approach in which it reviews infrastructure SIPs against
this list of elements ``as applicable.'' In other words, EPA assumes
that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP
submission, regardless of the purpose of the submission or the NAAQS in
question, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in
the same way. EPA elected to use guidance to make recommendations for
infrastructure SIPs for these ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.

    On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance making recommendations for
the infrastructure SIP submissions for both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\11\ Within this guidance document,
EPA described the duty of states to make these submissions to meet what
the Agency characterized as the ``infrastructure'' elements for SIPs,
which it further described as the ``basic SIP requirements, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment
and maintenance of the standards.'' \12\ As further identification of
these basic structural SIP requirements, ``attachment A'' to the
guidance document included a short description of the various elements
of section 110(a)(2) and additional information about the types of
issues that EPA considered germane in the context of such
infrastructure SIPs. EPA emphasized that the description of the basic
requirements listed on attachment A was not intended ``to constitute an
interpretation of'' the requirements, and was merely a ``brief
description of the required elements.'' \13\ EPA also stated its belief
that with one exception, these requirements were ``relatively self
explanatory, and past experience with SIPs for other NAAQS should
enable States to meet these requirements with assistance from EPA
Regions.'' \14\ However, for the one exception to that general
assumption (i.e., how states should proceed with respect to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS), EPA gave much more specific recommendations. But for other
infrastructure SIP submittals, and for certain elements of the
submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA assumed that each
state would work with its corresponding EPA regional office to refine
the scope of a state's submittal based on an assessment of how the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) should reasonably apply to the basic
structure of the state's implementation plans for the NAAQS in
question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on the infrastructure
SIP is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential
existing SIP problems does not preclude the Agency's subsequent
reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for
action at a later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate
to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's
discretion provisions in the course of acting on the infrastructure
SIP, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory
bases that the Agency cites in the course of addressing the issue in a
subsequent action.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. Proposed Action

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

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as
meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

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


[Federal Register: December 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 73939-73940]
[DOCID:fr04de08-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0453]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Regulations Under the
Federal Import Milk Act

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by January
5, 2009.

ADDRESSES:  To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0212.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information
Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Regulations Under the Federal Import Milk Act--(OMB Control Number
0910-0212--Extension)

    Under the Federal Import Milk Act (FIMA) (21 U.S.C. 141-149), milk
or cream may be imported into the United States only by the holder of a
valid import milk permit (21 U.S.C. 141). Before such permit is issued:
(1) All cows from which import milk or cream is produced must be
physically examined and found healthy; (2) if the milk or cream is
imported raw, all such cows must pass a tuberculin test; (3) the dairy
farm and each plant in which the milk or cream is processed or handled
must be inspected and found to meet certain sanitary requirements; (4)
bacterial counts of the milk at the time of importation must not exceed
specified limits; and (5) the temperature of the milk or cream at time
of importation must not exceed 50[deg] F (21 U.S.C. 142).
    FDA's regulations in part 1210 (21 CFR part 1210) implement the
provisions of FIMA. Sections 1210.11 and 1210.14 require reports on the
sanitary conditions of, respectively, dairy farms and plants producing
milk and/or cream to be shipped to the United States. Section 1210.12
requires reports on the physical examination of herds, while Sec.
1210.13 requires the reporting of tuberculin testing of the herds. In
addition, the regulations in part 1210 require that dairy farmers and
plants maintain pasteurization records (Sec.  1210.15) and that each
container of milk or cream imported into the United States bear a tag
with the product type, permit number, and shipper's name and address
(Sec.  1210.22). Section 1210.20 requires that an application for a
permit to ship or transport milk or cream into the United States be
made by the actual shipper. Section 1210.23 allows permits to be
granted based on certificates from accredited officials.
    In the Federal Register of August 25, 2008 (73 FR 50031), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the information
collection provisions. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Annual
           21 CFR Section                           Form No.                  No. of       Frequency per   Total Annual      Hours per      Total Hours
                                                                            Respondents      Response        Responses       Response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1210.11                                  FDA 1996/Sanitary inspection of               8             200           1,600             1.5           2,400
                                                             dairy farms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1210.12                                 FDA 1995/Physical examination of               1               1               1             0.5             0.5
                                                                    cows
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1210.13                                         FDA 1994/Tuberculin test               1               1               1             0.5             0.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1210.14                                 FDA 1997/Sanitary inspections of               8               1               8             2.0            16.0
                                                                  plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1210.20                                  FDA 1993/Application for permit               8               1               8             0.5             4.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1210.23                                      FDA 1815/Permits granted on               8               1               8             0.5             4.0
                                                            certificates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                                                2,425.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

                               Table 2.--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         No. of        Annual Frequency     Total Annual
  21 CFR Section     Recordkeepers    per Recordkeeping       Records       Hours per  Record     Total Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1210.15                            8                  1                  8               0.05               0.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    The estimated number of respondents and hours per response are
based on FDA's experience with the import milk permit program and the
average number of import milk permit holders over the past 3 years. FDA
estimates that 8 respondents will submit approximately 200 Form FDA
1996 reports annually, for a total of 1,600 responses. FDA estimates
the reporting burden to be 1.5 hours per response, for a total burden
of 2,400 hours.
    The Secretary of Health and Human Services has the discretion to
allow Form FDA 1815, a duly certified statement signed by an accredited
official of a foreign government, to be submitted in lieu of Forms FDA
1994 and 1995. To date, Form FDA 1815 has been submitted in lieu of
these forms. Because FDA has not received any Forms FDA 1994 and 1995
in the last 3 years, the agency estimates no more than one will be
submitted annually. FDA estimates the reporting burden for each to be
0.5 hours per response for a total burden reporting burden of 0.5 hours
each.
    FDA estimates that eight respondents will submit one Form FDA 1997
report annually, for a total of eight responses. FDA estimates the
reporting burden to be 2.0 hours per response, for a total burden of 16
hours. FDA estimates that eight respondents will submit one Form FDA
1993 report annually, for a total of eight responses. FDA estimates the
reporting burden to be 0.5 hours per response, for a total burden of 4
hours. FDA estimates that eight respondents will submit one Form FDA
1815 report annually, for a total of eight responses. FDA estimates the
reporting burden to be 0.5 hours per response, for a total burden of 4
hours.
    With regard to records maintenance, FDA estimates that
approximately eight recordkeepers will spend 0.05 hours annually
maintaining the additional pasteurization records required by Sec.
1210.15, for a total of 0.40 hours annually.
    No burden has been estimated for the tagging requirement in Sec.
1210.22 because the information on the tag is either supplied by FDA
(permit number) or is disclosed to third parties as a usual and
customary part of the shipper's normal business activities (type of
product, shipper's name and address). Under 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2), the
public disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal
Government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public
is not a collection of information. Under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2)), the
time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with a
collection of information are excluded from the burden estimate if the
reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure activities needed to comply are
usual and customary because they would occur in the normal course of
activities.

    Dated: November 25, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-28692 Filed 12-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 48781]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17531]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-2194-000]

Clinton Battery Utility, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Clinton Battery Utility, LLC`s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 8, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 19, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17531 Filed 7-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 68)]
[Notices]
[Page 19120]
[DOCID:fr08ap08-95]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, April
10, 2008 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3) (5), (7), (8), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), (8), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of
the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for April 10,
2008 will be:
    Formal orders of investigation;
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature;
    Regulatory matters regarding financial institutions;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and an
    Adjudicatory matter.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 3, 2008.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-7438 Filed 4-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P