```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 138 (Monday, July 20, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42777-42786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17740]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0696; FRL-9930-85-Region 4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia 
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve portions of the May 14, 2012, State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
submission, provided by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 
Environmental Protection Division (hereafter referred to as GA EPD) for 
inclusion into the Georgia SIP. This proposal pertains to the Clean Air 
Act (CAA or the Act) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 8-hour 
ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires 
that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is 
commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP. GA EPD certified 
that the Georgia SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2008 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Georgia. With 
the exception of provisions pertaining to prevention of significant 
deterioration (PSD) permitting and interstate transport requirements, 
EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission 
provided to EPA on May 14, 2012, as satisfying the required 
infrastructure elements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

[[Page 42778]]

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 19, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0696, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: R4-ARMS@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0696,'' Air Regulatory Management 
Section, (formerly the Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning 
and Implementation Branch, (formerly the Air Planning Branch) Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Air 
Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, 
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional 
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0696. 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 Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and 
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you 
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward, Air Regulatory 
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9140. Ms. Ward can be 
reached via electronic mail at ward.nacosta@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP 
submissions?
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 March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for ozone based 
on 8-hour average concentrations. EPA revised the level of the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million. See 77 FR 16436. Pursuant to 
section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs 
meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three 
years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such 
shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states 
to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, 
basic program requirements and legal authority that are designed to 
assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to 
submit such SIPs for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than 
March 2011.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In these infrastructure SIP submissions states generally 
certify evidence of compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of 
the CAA through a combination of state regulations and statutes, 
some of which have been incorporated into the federally-approved 
SIP. In addition, certain federally-approved, non-SIP regulations 
may also be appropriate for demonstrating compliance with sections 
110(a)(1) and (2). Unless otherwise indicated, the Georgia Rules for 
Air Quality (also referred to as ``Rules'' or ``Regulations'') of 
the Georgia SIP cited throughout this rulemaking have been approved 
into Georgia's federally-approved SIP. The state statutes cited from 
the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (also referred to 
as ``O.C.G.A.'') throughout this rulemaking, however, are not 
approved into the Georgia SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's action is proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure 
submission for the applicable requirements of the 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS, with the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major 
sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) prong 3 and (J) and the 
interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 
(II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4). With respect to Georgia's infrastructure SIP 
submission related to provisions pertaining to interstate transport 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs, 1, 2, and 
4), EPA is not proposing any action today regarding these requirements 
and will act on these requirements in a separate action. On March 18, 
2015, EPA approved Georgia's May 14, 2012, infrastructure SIP 
submission regarding the PSD permitting requirements for major sources 
of sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) prong 3 and (J) for the 2008 8-
hour NAAQS. See 80 FR 14019. Therefore, EPA is not proposing any action 
in today's proposed rulemaking pertaining to the PSD components of 
sections 110(a)(2)(C), D)(i)(II) prong 3, and (J). For the aspects of 
Georgia's submittal proposed for approval today, EPA notes that the 
Agency is not approving any specific rule, but rather proposing that 
Georgia's already approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements.

[[Page 42779]]

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 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states typically 
have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) 
through earlier SIP submissions in connection with the 1997 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS.
    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and 
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements 
that states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related 
to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these 
requirements include basic SIP elements such as requirements for 
monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are 
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The 
requirements of section 110(a)(2) are summarized below and in EPA's 
September 13, 2013, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System
     110(a)(2)(C): Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures 
and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element 
as they relate to attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate Pollution 
Transport
     110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and 
International Air Pollution
     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict 
of Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers
     110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions
     110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As mentioned above, this element 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 and Submission of 
Modeling Data
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected 
Local Entities

III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP 
submissions?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from Georgia that addresses 
the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a 
SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). 
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions 
``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 these SIP submissions 
are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' 
of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make 
these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is 
not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a 
new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific 
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the 
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term 
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to 
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions 
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such 
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to 
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of 
the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to 
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and 
nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address 
the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for 
infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more 
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. 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 program 
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both 
authority and substantive program provisions.\5\ EPA therefore believes 
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, 
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, 
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP 
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) 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 SIP-approved program to address 
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and 
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority 
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements 
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or 
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) 
requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of 
requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal 
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a 
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the 
Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP

[[Page 42780]]

requirements.\6\ Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP 
requirements and part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions 
to address nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, 
section 172(b) requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of 
such plans for certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates 
the designation of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) 
allows up to two years, or in some cases three years, for such 
designations to be promulgated.\7\ This ambiguity illustrates that 
rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a 
strict literal sense, EPA must determine which provisions of section 
110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP 
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., ``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, at 25163--65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining relationship 
between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 
110(a)(2)(I)).
    \7\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is 
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific 
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in 
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., 
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of 
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific 
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of 
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether 
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single 
SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a 
single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a 
plan'' to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow 
states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing 
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make 
such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP 
requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either 
individually or in a larger combined action.\8\ Similarly, EPA 
interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts 
of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given 
NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For example, 
EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements 
and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State 
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR 
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural 
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately 
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule), 
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013) 
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \9\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the 
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP 
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for 
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On 
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA 
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14, 
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise 
with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for 
different NAAQS. Thus, 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. The states' attendant 
infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be 
different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might 
need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of 
section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants 
because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP 
submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely 
new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also 
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required 
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA 
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. 
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP 
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable 
requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan 
SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 
regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By 
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by 
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that 
pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA, 
because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is 
designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning 
requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission 
may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language 
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is 
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) 
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP 
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have 
intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, 
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same 
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews 
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that 
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make 
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some 
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and 
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\11\ EPA 
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 
2013 (2013 Guidance).\12\ EPA developed this document to provide states 
with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised 
NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make 
infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP 
requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised 
NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of 
section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure

[[Page 42781]]

SIP submissions.\13\ The guidance also discusses the substantively 
important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section 
110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address 
certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews 
each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the applicable 
statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to 
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP 
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the 
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether 
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such 
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 
states, as appropriate.
    \12\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \13\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make 
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to 
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly 
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit 
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had 
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light 
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to 
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding 
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a 
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of 
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this 
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, 
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement 
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA 
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's 
implementation plan appropriately addresses the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's 
interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can 
appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, 
depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or 
enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are 
approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency). 
However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements 
of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of 
infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 
explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section 
128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions 
with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program 
requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural 
PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD 
program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including 
greenhouse gases. By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do 
not include provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 
40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such 
as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications 
with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the 
latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA considers 
irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a 
state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the 
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 
110(a)(2)(C) includes, among other things, the requirement that states 
have a program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates 
whether the state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program 
and whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that 
NAAQS. In the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, 
however, EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each 
and every provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., 
already in the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of 
the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an 
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the 
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in 
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions 
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's 
policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (ii) existing 
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's 
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to 
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public 
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing 
provisions for 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''). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP 
submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for 
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission 
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\14\ It is important to 
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission 
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any 
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three 
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a 
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a 
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions 
during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision 
for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in 
the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to 
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that 
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a 
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it 
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of 
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all 
requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations 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. These provisions, 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 evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP 
submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA 
to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA 
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation 
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with 
respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the 
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon 
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP 
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need 
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to 
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of 
sections 110(a)(1)

[[Page 42782]]

and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to 
address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other 
statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately 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 to 
otherwise comply with the CAA.\15\ Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to 
correct errors in past actions, such as past approvals of SIP 
submissions.\16\ Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on a 
state's infrastructure SIP submission is not the appropriate time and 
place to address all potential existing SIP deficiencies does not 
preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) 
as part of the basis for action to correct those deficiencies 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 an infrastructure SIP submission, 
EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases 
that EPA relies upon in the course of addressing such deficiency in a 
subsequent action.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address 
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of 
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial 
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \16\ EPA has used 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 section 110(k)(6) to remove 
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had 
approved in error. See, e.g., 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).
    \17\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of 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, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 
FR 4540 (Jan. 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?

    The Georgia infrastructure submission addresses the provisions of 
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below.
    1. 110(a)(2)(A) Emission limits and other control measures: There 
are several provisions within the Georgia Rules for Air Quality that 
provide GA EPD with the necessary authority to adopt and enforce air 
quality controls, which include enforceable emission limitations and 
other control measures. Rule 391-3-1-.01 ``Definitions'' provides 
definitions of emissions limitations, controls, and standards for 
Georgia. Rules 391-3-1-.02 ``Provisions'' and 391-3-1-.03 ``Permits'' 
provides emissions limitations, control measures and compliance 
schedules and provides Georgia with the authority to enforce such 
provisions for ozone. EPA has made the preliminary determination that 
the provisions contained in these rules are adequate to protect the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the State.
    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any 
existing State provisions with regard to excess emissions during 
startup, shutdown or malfunction (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 is addressing such 
state regulations in a separate action.\18\ In the meantime, EPA 
encourages any state having a deficient SSM provision to take steps to 
correct it as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ On May 22, 2015, the EPA Administrator signed a final 
action entitled, ``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition 
for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy 
Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP 
Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During 
Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.'' The prepublication 
version of this rule is available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/emissions.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: SIPs 
are required to provide for the establishment and operation of ambient 
air quality monitors; the compilation and analysis of ambient air 
quality data; and the submission of these data to EPA upon request. 
Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-6 
(b)(13) Powers and duties of director as to air quality generally) 
along with the Georgia Annual Monitoring Network Plan, provides GA EPD 
with the authority to monitor ambient air quality in Georgia through an 
ambient air quality monitoring system in the State, which includes the 
monitoring of ozone at appropriate locations throughout the state using 
the EPA approved Federal Reference Method or equivalent monitors. 
Annually, States develop and submit to EPA for approval statewide 
ambient monitoring network plans consistent with the requirements of 40 
CFR parts 50, 53, and 58. The annual network plan involves an 
evaluation of any proposed changes to the monitoring network, includes 
the annual ambient monitoring network design plan and a certified 
evaluation of the agency's ambient monitors and auxiliary support 
equipment.\19\ The latest monitoring network plan for Georgia was 
submitted to EPA on June 1, 2014, and on November 7, 2014, EPA approved 
this plan. Georgia's approved monitoring network plan can be accessed 
at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0696. EPA 
has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices 
are adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and data system 
related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ On occasion, proposed changes to the monitoring network are 
evaluated outside of the network plan approval process in accordance 
with 40 CFR part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. 110(a)(2)(C) Program for enforcement of control measures 
including review of proposed new sources: This element consists of 
three sub-elements; enforcement, state-wide regulation of new and 
modified minor sources and minor modifications of major sources; and 
preconstruction permitting of major sources and major modifications in 
areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the subject NAAQS as 
required by CAA title I part C (i.e., the major source
    PSD program). To meet these obligations, Georgia cited Rules 391-3-

[[Page 42783]]

1-.07 ``Inspections and Investigations,'' Rule 391-3-1-.09 
``Enforcement,'' and Rule 391-3-1-.03(1), ``Construction (SIP) Permit'' 
along with the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 
Sections 12-9-13 Proceedings for enforcement and 12-9-7 Permit 
required; application; issuance; revocation, suspension, or amendment) 
each of which pertain to enforcement and permitting of any new major 
stationary source or any project at an existing major stationary source 
in an area designated as attainment or unclassifiable as well as 
regulation of minor stationary sources. In this action, EPA is only 
proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission for the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in 
section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that provides for 
the enforcement of emission limits and control measures on sources of 
oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and the 
regulation of minor sources and modifications to assist in the 
protection of air quality in nonattainment, attainment or 
unclassifiable areas.
    Enforcement: GA EPD's above-described, SIP-approved regulations 
provide for enforcement of ozone precursor (VOC and NOx) emission 
limits and control measures.
    Preconstruction PSD Permitting for Major Sources: With respect to 
Georgia's May 14, 2012, infrastructure SIP submission related to the 
preconstruction PSD permitting requirements for major sources of 
section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA took final action to approve these provisions 
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on March 18, 2015. See 80 FR 14019.
    Regulation of minor sources and modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C) 
also requires the SIP to include provisions that govern the minor 
source program that regulates emissions of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 
Rule 391-3-1-.03(1), ``Construction (SIP) Permit'' governs the 
preconstruction permitting of modifications and construction of minor 
stationary sources.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and 
practices are adequate for enforcement of control measures and 
regulation of minor sources and modifications related to the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
    4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) Interstate Pollution Transport: 
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components; 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 
110(a)(2)(D)(II). Each of these components have two subparts resulting 
in four distinct components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that 
must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two 
prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are 
provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity 
in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the 
NAAQS in another state (``prong 1''), and interfering with maintenance 
of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 2''). The third and fourth 
prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are 
provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state interfering 
with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air 
quality in another state (``prong 3''), or to protect visibility in 
another state (``prong 4''). With respect to Georgia's infrastructure 
SIP submissions related to the interstate transport requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prongs 1 through 
4), EPA is not proposing any action today regarding these requirements. 
With respect to Georgia's May 14, 2012, infrastructure SIP submission 
related to the preconstruction PSD permitting requirements for major 
sources of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3), EPA took final action 
to approve these provisions for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on March 
18, 2015. See 80 FR 14019. EPA will act on prongs 1, 2, and 4 of 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) in a separate action.
    5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate Pollution Abatement and 
International Air Pollution: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to 
include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the 
Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement. Rule 
391-3-1-.02 ``Provisions'' provides how GA EPD will notify neighboring 
states of potential impacts from new or modified sources consistent 
with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166. In addition, Georgia does not 
have any pending obligation under sections 115 and 126 of the CAA. 
Accordingly, EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's 
SIP and practices are adequate for ensuring compliance with the 
applicable requirements relating to interstate and international 
pollution abatement for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    6. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of 
Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies: 
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. EPA is proposing to approve 
Georgia's SIP as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E). 
EPA's rationale for today's proposal respecting sub-elements (i), (ii), 
and (iii) is described below.
    In support of EPA's proposal to approve sub-elements 
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), EPA notes that GA 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. Georgia's infrastructure SIP 
submission cites Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality 
(O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-10 Permit related fees; costs of public notice 
and Rule 391-3-1-.03(9) ``Georgia Air Permit Fee System'' which 
provides the State's adequate funding and authority and rules for 
permit fees. Additionally, as evidence of the adequacy of GA EPD's 
resources, EPA submitted a letter to Georgia on March 26, 2014, 
outlining 105 grant commitments and the current status of these 
commitments for fiscal year 2013. The letter EPA submitted to Georgia 
can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0696. Annually, states update these grant commitments based on 
current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable 
requirements related to the NAAQS. Georgia satisfactorily met all 
commitments agreed to in the Air Planning Agreement for fiscal year 
2013, therefore Georgia's grants were finalized and closed out.
    With respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 
pertaining the state board requirements of CAA section 128, Georgia's 
infrastructure SIP submission cites Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: 
Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-5 Powers and duties of Board of 
Natural Resources as to air quality generally) which provides the 
powers and duties of the Board of Natural Resources as to air quality 
and provides that at least a majority of members of this board 
represent the public interest and not derive any significant portion of 
income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders and that 
potential conflicts of interest will be adequately disclosed. This 
provision has been incorporated into the federally approved

[[Page 42784]]

SIP. Collectively, these rules and commitments provide evidence that GA 
EPD has adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority under state 
law to carry out the state's implementation plan and related issues to 
ensure that conflicts of interest are adequately addressed. EPA has 
made the preliminary determination that Georgia has adequate resources 
and authority to satisfy sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii), and (iii) of 
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    7. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting: 
Georgia's infrastructure SIP 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. GA EPD uses these data to track progress towards 
maintaining the NAAQS, develop control and maintenance strategies, 
identify sources and general emission levels, and determine compliance 
with emission regulations and additional EPA requirements. Georgia 
meets these requirements through the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: 
Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-5(b)(6) Powers and duties of Board 
of Natural Resources as to air quality generally), Rules 391-3-1-.02(3) 
``Sampling,'' 391-3-1-.02(6)(b) ``General Monitoring and Reporting 
Requirements,'' 391-3-1-.02(6) ``Source Monitoring,'' 391-3-1-.02(7) 
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality,'' 391-3-
1-.02(11) ``Compliance Assurance Monitoring,'' and, 391-3-1-.03 
``Permits.''
    In addition, Rule 391-3-1-.02(3) ``Sampling'' \20\ allows for the 
use of credible evidence in the event that the GA EPD Director has 
evidence that a source is violating an emission standard or permit 
condition, the Director may require that the owner or operator of any 
source submit to the Director any information necessary to determine 
the compliance status of the source. In addition, EPA is unaware of any 
provision preventing the use of credible evidence in the Georgia SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ This rule is not approved into the federally approved SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. See 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. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants 
and the precursors that form them--NOX, 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 2011 
NEI on June 10, 2014. 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 obligations for the 2008 
8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    8. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency powers: This section requires that states 
demonstrate authority comparable with section 303 of the CAA and 
adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. Georgia's 
infrastructure SIP submission cites air pollution emergency episodes 
and preplanned abatement strategies in the Georgia Air Quality Act: 
Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Sections 12-9-2 Declaration of public 
policy, 12-9-6 Powers and duties of director as to air quality 
generally, 12-9-12 Injunctive relief, 12-9-13 Proceedings for 
enforcement, and 12-9-14 Powers of director in situations involving 
imminent and substantial danger to public health), and Rule 391-3-1 .04 
``Air Pollution Episodes.'' O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-2 provides ``[i]t is 
declared to be the public policy of the state of Georgia to preserve, 
protect, and improve air quality . . . to attain and maintain ambient 
air quality standards so as to safeguard the public health, safety, and 
welfare.'' O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-6(b)(10) provides the Director of EPD 
authority to ``issue orders as may be necessary to enforce compliance 
with [the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A)] and 
all rules and regulations of this article.'' O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-12 
provides that ``[w]henever in the judgment of the director any person 
has engaged in or is about to engage in any act or practice which 
constitutes or will constitute an unlawful action under [the Georgia 
Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A)], he may make 
application to the superior court of the county in which the unlawful 
act or practice has been or is about to be engaged in, or in which 
jurisdiction is appropriate, for an order enjoining such act or 
practice or for an order requiring compliance with this article. Upon a 
showing by the director that such person has engaged in or is about to 
engage in any such act or practice, a permanent or temporary 
injunction, restraining order, or other order shall be granted without 
the necessity of showing lack of an adequate remedy of law.'' O.C.G.A. 
Section 12-19-13 specifically pertains to enforcement proceedings when 
the Director of EPD has reason to believe that a violation of any 
provision of the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality 
(O.C.G.A), or environmental rules, regulations or orders have occurred. 
O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-14 also provides that the Governor, may issue 
orders as necessary to protect the health of persons who are, or may 
be, affected by a pollution source or facility after ``consult[ation] 
with local authorities in order to confirm the correctness of the 
information on which action proposed to be taken is based and to 
ascertain the action which such authorities are or will be taking.''
    Rule 391-3-1-.04 ``Air Pollution Episodes'' provides that the 
Director of EPD ``will proclaim that an Air Pollution Alert, Air 
Pollution Warning, or Air Pollution Emergency exists when the 
meteorological conditions are such that an air stagnation condition is 
in existence and/or the accumulation of air contaminants in any place 
is attaining or has attained levels which could, if such levels are 
sustained or exceeded, lead to a substantial threat to the health of 
persons in the specific area affected.'' Collectively the cited 
provisions provide that Georgia EPD demonstrate authority comparable 
with section 303 of the CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement 
such authority in the state. EPA has made the preliminary determination 
that Georgia's SIP and practices are adequate to satisfy the emergency 
powers obligations of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    9. 110(a)(2)(H) SIP revisions: GA EPD is responsible for adopting 
air quality rules and revising SIPs as needed to attain or maintain the 
NAAQS in Georgia. Georgia Air Quality Act: Article 1: Air Quality 
(O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-6(b)(12), 12-9-6(b)(13) Powers and duties of 
director as to air quality generally) provides Georgia the authority to 
implement the CAA and submit SIP revisions whenever the NAAQS are 
revised. These provisions also provide GA EPD the ability and authority 
to respond to calls for SIP

[[Page 42785]]

revisions, and Georgia has provided a number of SIP revisions over the 
years for implementation of the NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA has made the 
preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices adequately 
demonstrate a commitment to provide future SIP revisions related to the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, when necessary.
    10. 110(a)(2)(J) Consultation with Government Officials, Public 
Notification, and PSD and Visibility Protection: EPA is proposing to 
approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) to 
include a program in the SIP that complies with the applicable 
consultation requirements of section 121, the public notification 
requirements of section 127, and visibility protection. With respect to 
Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission related to the preconstruction 
PSD permitting, EPA took final action to approve Georgia's May 14, 
2012, 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP for these requirements 
on March 18, 2015. See 80 FR 14019. EPA's rationale for its proposed 
action regarding applicable consultation requirements of section 121, 
the public notification requirements of section 127, and the visibility 
requirements is described below.
    Consultation with government officials (121 consultation): Section 
110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires states to provide a process for 
consultation with local governments, designated organizations and 
federal land managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS implementation 
requirements pursuant to section 121 relative to consultation. Georgia 
Air Quality Act: Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-5(b)(17) 
Powers and duties of Board of Natural Resources as to air quality 
generally), Georgia Administrative Procedures Act (O.C.G.A. Section 50-
13-4 Procedural requirements for adoption, amendment, or repeal of 
rules; emergency rules; limitation on action to contest rule; 
legislative override), and Rule 391-3-1-.02(7) ``Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD)'' as it relates to Class I areas along 
with the Regional Haze SIP Plan provide for consultation with 
government officials whose jurisdictions might be affected by SIP 
development activities. These consultation procedures were developed in 
coordination with the transportation partners in the State and are 
consistent with the approaches used for development of mobile 
inventories for SIPs. Implementation of transportation conformity as 
outlined in the consultation procedures requires GA EPD to consult with 
federal, state and local transportation and air quality agency 
officials on the development of motor vehicle emissions budgets. The 
Regional Haze SIP provides for consultation between appropriate state, 
local, and tribal air pollution control agencies as well as the 
corresponding Federal Land Managers.
    Public notification (127 public notification): GA EPD has public 
notice mechanisms in place to notify the public of ozone and other 
pollutant forecasting, including an air quality monitoring Web site 
providing ground level ozone alerts, http://www.georgiaair.org/smogforecast/. Regulation 391-3-1-.04, ``Air Pollution Episodes,'' 
requires that EPD notify the public of any air pollution episode or 
NAAQS violation. Additionally, the Georgia SIP process affords the 
public an opportunity to participate in regulatory and other efforts to 
improve air quality by holding public hearings for interested persons 
to appear and submit written or oral comments.
    Visibility Protection: EPA's September 2013 Infrastructure SIP 
Guidance notes that EPA does not generally treat the visibility 
protection aspects of section 110(a)(2)(J) as applicable for purposes 
of the infrastructure SIP approval process. EPA recognizes that states 
are subject to visibility protection and regional haze program 
requirements under Part C of the Act (which includes sections 169A and 
169B). However, in the event of the establishment of a new primary 
NAAQS, the visibility protection and regional haze program requirements 
under part C do not change. Thus, EPA concludes there are no new 
applicable visibility protection obligations under section 110(a)(2)(J) 
as a result of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that need to be addressed in 
Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission as it relates to visibility 
protection.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and 
practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide 
consultation with government officials, public notification related to 
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary, and, as explained above, is 
sufficient for visibility protection for this element.
    11. 110(a)(2)(K) Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling 
Data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires that SIPs provide for 
performing air quality modeling so that effects on air quality of 
emissions from NAAQS pollutants can be predicted and submission of such 
data to the USEPA can be made. Regulation 391-3-1-.02(7)(b)(8), 
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD)-Air 
Quality Models,'' incorporates by reference 40 CFR 52.21(l), which 
specifies that air modeling be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 
51, Appendix W ``Guideline on Air Quality Models.'' This regulation 
demonstrates that Georgia has the authority to perform air quality 
modeling and to provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the 
effect on ambient air quality of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 
Additionally, Georgia supports a regional effort to coordinate the 
development of emissions inventories and conduct regional modeling for 
several NAAQS, including the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, for the 
Southeastern states. Taken as a whole, Georgia's air quality 
regulations demonstrate that GA EPD has the authority to provide 
relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air 
quality of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary 
determination that Georgia's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate 
the State's ability to provide for air quality modeling, along with 
analysis of the associated data, related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
when necessary.
    12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting fees: This element necessitates that 
the SIP require the owner or operator of each major stationary source 
to pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit 
required under the CAA, 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.
    To satisfy these requirements, Georgia's infrastructure SIP 
submission cites Rule 391-3-1-.03(9) ``Permit Fees,'' \21\ which 
includes the federally approved title V fee program. Additionally, 
Georgia's PSD and NNSR programs are funded by title V fees. Georgia's 
authority to charge fees or require funding for processing PSD and NNSR 
permits is provided for in the Georgia Air Quality Act: Article 1: Air 
Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-10 Permit related fees; costs of public 
notice). Georgia's fully approved title V operating permit program 
covers the cost of implementation and enforcement

[[Page 42786]]

of PSD and NNSR permits after they have been issued. EPA has made the 
preliminary determination that Georgia's practices adequately provide 
for permitting fees related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, when 
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ This rule is not approved into the federally approved SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation and Participation by Affected Local 
Entities: This element requires states to provide for consultation and 
participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions 
affected by the SIP. The Georgia Air Quality Act: Article 1: Air 
Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-5 (b)(17) Powers and duties of Board of 
Natural Resources as to air quality generally) establishes 
``satisfactory processes of consultation and cooperation with local 
governments or other designated organizations of elected officials or 
federal agencies for purposes of planning [and implementation].'' 
Furthermore, GA 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, and Regional Haze Implementation Plan. EPA has made the 
preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices adequately 
demonstrate consultation with affected local entities related to the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, when necessary.

V. Proposed Action

    With the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major 
sources contained in section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) prong 3, and (J) 
and the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
and (II) (prongs 1, 2 and 4), EPA is proposing to approve GA EPD's 
infrastructure SIP submission, submitted May 14, 2012, for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS because it meets the above described infrastructure 
SIP requirements. EPA is proposing to approve these portions of 
Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
because these aspects of the submission are consistent with section 110 
of the CAA. EPA previously acted upon Georgia's infrastructure 
submission for the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of 
sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) prong 3 and (J) on March 18, 2015, 
and will address prongs 1, 2, and 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 
(II) in a separate action.

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 Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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, the Georgia SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: July 6, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2015-17740 Filed 7-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```