Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 44005 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final rule regulatory text 

that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the rules listed in Table 1 of this 

preamble, except for the portion of each 

rule that incorporates Step 2 of the GHG 

Tailoring Rule at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v). 

The EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, these documents generally 

available electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate office of the EPA 

(see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Act. 

Accordingly, this 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 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 the 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 SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the 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 and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: July 7, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2015–18081 Filed 7–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0442; FRL–9931–14- 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Georgia; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the March 6, 2012, State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, 

submitted by the State of Georgia, 

through the Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources’ Environmental 

Protection Division (EPD), 

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 2008 lead 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. EPD certified that 

the Georgia SIP contains provisions that 

ensure the 2008 Lead NAAQS is 

implemented, enforced, and maintained 

in Georgia. With the exception of 

provisions pertaining to prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) 

permitting, EPA is proposing to 

determine that Georgia’s infrastructure 

SIP submission, provided to EPA on 

March 6, 2012, addresses the required 

infrastructure elements for the 2008 

Lead NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 24, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2014–0442, 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–2014– 

0442,’’ 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 to 4:30, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2014– 

0442. 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
44006 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 federallyapproved SIP. In addition, certain federallyapproved, 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 cited 

throughout this rulemaking have been approved 

into Georgia’s federally-approved SIP. The Georgia 

Air Quality Act Article 1cited throughout this 

rulemaking, however, are not approved into the 

Georgia SIP unless otherwise indicated. 

2Two 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). 

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 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zuri 

Farngalo, 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) 562–9152. 

Mr. Farngalo can be reached via 

electronic mail at farngalo.zuri@

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 October 5, 1978, EPA promulgated 

a primary and secondary NAAQS for 

lead under section 109 of the Act. See 

43 FR 46246. Both the primary and 

secondary standards were set at a level 

of 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/ 

m3), measured as lead in total 

suspended particulate matter (Pb-TSP), 

not to be exceeded by the maximum 

arithmetic mean concentration averaged 

over a calendar quarter. This standard 

was based on the 1977 Air Quality 

Criteria for Lead (USEPA, August 7, 

1977). On November 12, 2008 (75 FR 

81126), EPA issued a final rule to revise 

the primary and secondary lead 

NAAQS. The revised primary and 

secondary lead NAAQS were revised to 

0.15 mg/m3. 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 

October 15, 2011, for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS.1

Today’s action is proposing to 

approve Georgia’s infrastructure 

submission for the applicable 

requirements of the Lead NAAQS, with 

the exception of preconstruction PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 

of D(i), and (J). On March 18, 2015, EPA 

approved Georgia’s March 6, 2012, 

infrastructure SIP submission regarding 

the PSD permitting requirements for 

major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

prong 3 of D(i) and (J) for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. See 80 FR 14019. 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 2008 Lead NAAQS, states 

typically have met the basic program 

elements required in section 110(a)(2) 

through earlier SIP submissions in 

connection with the 1978 lead 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 2

and in EPA’s October 14, 2011, 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Guidance on 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 44007 

3This rulemaking only addresses requirements 

for this element as they relate to attainment areas. 

4For 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. 

5See, 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)). 

6EPA 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. 

7See, 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). 

Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 

2008 lead (Pb) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2011 

Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance.) 

• 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, Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) and new source 

review (NSR).3

• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate and 

international transport provisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring and reporting. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes. 

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

• 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. 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 Lead NAAQS. 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 ‘‘each 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.4 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. 

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 

requirements.5 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.6 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. 

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.7

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
44008 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

8On 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. 

9For 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. 

10EPA 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. 

11 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required 

under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ Memorandum 

from Stephen D. Page, October 14, 2001. 

12Although not intended to provide guidance for 

purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS, EPA notes, that following the 

2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance, EPA issued 

the ‘‘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. This 2013 guidance provides 

recommendations for air agencies’ development and 

the EPA’s review of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 

ozone primary and secondary NAAQS, the 2010 

primary nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS, the 2010 

primary sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS, and the 2012 

primary fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS, as 

well as infrastructure SIPs for new or revised 

NAAQS promulgated in the future. 

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.8

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.9

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.10 EPA issued the 

Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance on 

October 14, 2011.11 EPA developed this 

document to provide states with up-todate guidance for the 2008 Lead 

infrastructure SIPs. 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 

SIP submissions. 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.12

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. 

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach with respect to infrastructure 

SIP requirements is based on a 

reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 44009 

13For 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). 

14EPA 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). 

15See, 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). 

16On 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. 

17On occasion, proposed changes to the 

monitoring network are evaluated outside of the 

network plan approval process in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58. 

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.13 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.14

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.15

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 rules and regulations within 

Georgia’s SIP that are relevant to air 

quality control regulations. The 

regulations described below have been 

federally approved into the Georgia SIP 

and include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures. 

Georgia Rules for Air Quality 391–3–1– 

.01—Definitions. Amended, 391–3–1– 

.02—Provisions. Amended, and 391–3– 

1–.03—Permits. Amended, establish 

emission limits for lead and address the 

required control measures, means, and 

techniques for compliance with the 

2008 Lead NAAQS. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that the 

provisions contained in these rules are 

adequate to protect the 2008 Lead 

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 and 

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 plans to address such state 

regulations in a separate action.16 In the 

meantime, EPA encourages any state 

having a deficient SSM provision to take 

steps to correct it as soon as possible. 

Additionally, in this action, EPA is 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

any existing State rules with regard to 

director’s discretion or variance 

provisions. EPA believes that a number 

of states have such provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 

1987)), and the Agency plans to take a 

separate action 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. the Georgia Air Quality 

Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 

Section 12–9–6 (b)(13)), along with the 

Georgia Network Description and 

Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan 

provides for an ambient air quality 

monitoring system in the State. 

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.17 On June 1, 2014, Georgia 

submitted its plan to EPA. On 

November 7, 2014, EPA approved 

Georgia’s monitoring network plan as 

related to lead. Georgia’s approved 

monitoring network plan can be 

accessed at www.regulations.gov using 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2014– 

0442. 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 Lead NAAQS. 

3. 110(a)(2)(C) Program for 

enforcement, prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) and new source 

review (NSR): This element consists of 

three sub-elements; enforcement, statewide 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). In this action EPA is 

proposing to approve Georgia’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS with respect to the 

general requirement of 110(a)(2)(C) to 

include a program in the SIP that 

provides for enforcement of emission 

limits and control measures and 

regulation of minor sources and minor 

modifications as well as the 

enforcement of lead emission limits to 

assist in the protection of air quality in 

nonattainment, attainment or 

unclassifiable areas. This is established 

in Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air 

Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12–9, et seq. 

Georgia Rule 391–3–1-.07—Inspections 

and Investigations. Amended, and 

Georgia Rule 391–3–1–.09— 

Enforcement. Amended. EPA’s analysis 

of each sub-element is provided below. 

Enforcement: Georgia Air Quality Act 

Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
44010 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

18There are three facilities in Georgia that have 

lead emissions greater than 0.5 tpy. The facilities 

are Gerdau Ameristeel Cartersville Steel Mill, 

Georgia Power Plant Bowen (both in Cartersville, 

Bartow County), and Exide Technologies in 

Columbus, Muscogee County. Gerdau Ameristeel 

(1.41 tpy) is located at least 37 miles from the state 

border. Plant Bowen (0.77 tpy) is located at least 35 

miles from the state border. Exide Technologies 

located in the Columbus Area which is in Muscogee 

County, Georgia, and is about three miles from the 

Alabama-Georgia border. Exide owns and operates 

a lead-acid battery and lead oxide manufacturing 

facility co-located with a lead recycling plant. The 

facility-wide actual emissions are 0.66 tpy, which 

is above the 0.5 tpy threshold, requiring that a 

source-oriented Pb monitor be placed near the 

facility. 

12–9, et seq. Georgia Rule 391–3–1– 

.07—Inspections and Investigations. 

Amended, and Georgia Rule 391–3–1– 

.09—Enforcement. Amended in 

Georgia’s SIP approved regulations 

provide for enforcement of lead 

emission limits and control measures 

and construction permitting for new or 

modified stationary lead sources. 

Preconstruction PSD Permitting for 

Major Sources: With respect to Georgia’s 

infrastructure SIP submission related to 

the preconstruction PSD permitting 

requirements for major sources of 

section 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3, EPA 

approved this sub-element on March 18, 

2015, and thus is not proposing any 

action today regarding these 

requirements. See 80 FR 14019. 

Regulation of minor sources and 

modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C) also 

requires the SIP to include the 

regulation of new and modified minor 

sources and minor modifications 

provisions that govern the minor source 

pre-construction program. Georgia has a 

SIP-approved minor NSR permitting 

program at Georgia Air Quality Act 

Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 

12–9–7 and 12–9–13, et seq.), Georgia 

Rules for Air Quality 391–3–1–.02.— 

Provisions. Amended, Georgia Rules for 

Air Quality 391–3–1–.03(1).— 

Construction Permit, that regulates the 

preconstruction 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 Lead NAAQS. 

4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II), and 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—Interstate and 

International transport provisions: 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two 

components; 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(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 

from 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’’). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

Intestate and International transport 

provisions requires SIPs to include 

provisions insuring compliance with 

sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating 

to interstate and international pollution 

abatement. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)and (ii)— Interstate and 

International transport provisions: 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) provides for 

infrastructure SIPs to include provisions 

prohibiting any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment, or interfering with 

maintenance, of the NAAQS in another 

state. The preceding requirements, from 

subsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 

respectively refer to what may be called 

prongs 1 and 2. 

The physical properties of lead 

prevent lead emission from 

experiencing that same travel or 

formation phenomena as PM2.5 and 

ozone for interstate transport as outlined 

in prongs 1 and 2. More specifically, 

there is a sharp decrease in the lead 

concentrations, at least in the coarse 

fraction, as the distance from a lead 

source increases. EPA believes that the 

requirements of prongs 1 and 2 can be 

satisfied through a state’s assessment as 

to whether a lead source located within 

its State in close proximity to a state 

border has emissions that contribute 

significantly to the nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in the neighboring state. For 

example, EPA’s experience with the 

initial lead designations suggests that 

sources that emit less than 0.5 tons per 

year (tpy) generally appear unlikely to 

contribute significantly to the 

nonattainment in another state. EPA’s 

experience also suggests that sources 

located more than two miles from the 

state border generally appear unlikely to 

contribute significantly to the 

nonattainment in another state. Georgia 

has three lead sources that have 

emissions of lead over 0.5 tpy. The 

sources are located beyond two miles 

from the State border.18 Thus, EPA 

concludes that sources in Georgia are 

unlikely to contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in 

neighboring states. Therefore, EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that Georgia’s SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With 

respect to Georgia’s infrastructure SIP 

submission related to the interstate 

transport requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 3, EPA 

approved this sub-element on March 18, 

2015, (See 80 FR 14019), and thus is not 

proposing any action today regarding 

these requirements. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4: With 

regard to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the 

visibility sub-element, referred to as 

prong 4, significant visibility impacts 

from stationary source lead emissions 

are expected to be limited to short 

distances from the source. See the 2011 

Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance. Lead 

stationary sources in Georgia are located 

at distances from Class I areas such that 

visibility impacts are negligible. Georgia 

has 3 Class 1 areas, Cohutta Wilderness 

Area, Okefenokee Wilderness Area, and 

Wolf Island Wilderness Area and none 

of these are within 2 miles of a lead 

source that emits more than .5 tons per 

year. EPA has preliminarily determined 

that the Georgia SIP meets the relevant 

visibility requirements. 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—Interstate and 

International transport provisions: EPA 

is unaware of any pending obligations 

for the State of Georgia pursuant to 

sections 115 and 126. Georgia’s SIPapproved PSD requirements under 

Georgia Rules for Air Quality 391–3–1– 

.02(7).—Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration provides how Georgia will 

notify neighboring states of potential 

impacts from new or modified sources 

proposed to locate in attainment or 

unclassifiable areas. 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 2008 Lead NAAQS 

5. 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority. 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 44011 

19When ‘‘Georgia Air Quality Act’’ is referenced 

it refers to rules that the state relies on but are not 

in the federally approved SIP. While on the other 

hand when ‘‘Georgia Rule for Air Quality’’ is used 

refers to rules that are in the federally-approved 

SIP. 

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 subelements 110(a)(2)(E)(i),(ii), and (iii). 

EPA’s rationale for today’s proposals 

respecting each sub-element is 

described in turn below. 

In support of EPA’s proposal to 

approve sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 

(iii), EPA notes that 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. As 

evidence of the adequacy of 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–2014–0442. 

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. Additionally, to satisfy 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E), 

Georgia’s infrastructure SIP submission 

cites Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: 

Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Sections 12–9–10 

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. 

Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air 

Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12–9–5) 

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 Georgia’s federally 

approved 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. 

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 Lead NAAQS. 

6. 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary source 

monitoring and reporting: 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. EPD uses these 

data to track progress towards 

maintaining the NAAQS, develop 

control and maintenance strategies, 

identify sources and general emission 

levels, and determine compliance with 

emission regulations and additional 

EPA requirements. These requirements 

are provided in the Georgia Air Quality 

Act: 19 Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 

Section 12–9–5(b)(6)), Georgia Rule for 

Air Quality 391–3–1–.02(3)—Sampling, 

Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391–3–1– 

.02(6)(b) General Monitoring and 

Reporting Requirements, Georgia Rule 

for Air Quality 391–3–1–.02(6)—Source 

Monitoring, Georgia Rule for Air Quality 

391–3–1–.02(7)—Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, 

Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391–3–1– 

.02(8)—New Source Performance 

Standards, Georgia Rule for Air Quality 

391–3–1–.02(9)—Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Georgia 

Rule for Air Quality 391–3–1–.02(11)— 

Compliance Assurance Monitoring, and, 

Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391–3–1– 

.03—Permits. Amended. 

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. 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 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 related to the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing 

to approve Georgia’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(F). 

7. 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency episodes: 

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 ‘‘it 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 

‘‘whenever 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
44012 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 

‘‘consultation 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 for emergency 

powers related to the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. 

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

EPD is responsible for adopting air 

quality rules and revising SIPs as 

needed to attain or maintain the 

NAAQS in Georgia. Georgia Air Quality 

Act: Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 

Section 12–9, and EPD is required by 

12–9–6(b)(12) and (13) grants EPD the 

broad authority to implement the CAA, 

which authorizes EPD to adopt a 

comprehensive program for the 

prevention, control, and abatement of 

pollution of the air of the state, and from 

time to time review and modify such 

programs as necessary. EPD has the 

ability and authority to respond to calls 

for SIP revisions, and has provided a 

number of SIP revisions over the years 

for implementation of the NAAQS. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve Georgia’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(H) for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

9. 110(a)(2)(J): EPA is proposing to 

approve Georgia’s infrastructure SIP for 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS with respect to 

the general requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the 

SIP that provides for meeting the 

applicable consultation requirements of 

section 121, the public notification 

requirements of section 127; and the 

PSD and visibility protection 

requirements of part C of the Act. With 

respect to Georgia’s infrastructure SIP 

submission related to the 

preconstruction PSD permitting 

requirements, EPA approved this subelement of 110(a)(2)(J) on March 18, 

2015, and thus is not proposing any 

action today regarding these 

requirements. See 80 FR 14019. EPA’s 

rationale for applicable consultation 

requirements of section 121, the public 

notification requirements of section 127, 

and visibility is described below. 

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

Consultation with government officials: 

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. The Georgia Air Quality 

Act: Article I: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 

Section 12–9(b)(17)), Georgia 

Administrative Procedures Act 

(O.C.G.A. § 50–13–4), and Georgia Rule 

391–3–1–.02(7) as it relates to Class I 

areas provide for consultation with 

government officials whose jurisdictions 

might be affected by SIP development 

activities. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Georgia’s SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate consultation with 

government officials related to the 2008 

Lead NAAQS, when necessary. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve Georgia’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(J) consultation with 

government officials. 

110(a)(2)(J) (127 public notification) 

Public notification: Georgia Air Quality 

Act: Article I: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 

Section 12–9), Georgia Administrative 

Procedures Act (O.C.G.A. § 50–13–4), 

and Georgia Rule 391–3–1–.02(7) as it 

relates to Class I areas also include 

public notice requirements. 

Additionally, notification to the public 

of instances or areas exceeding the 

NAAQS and associated health effects is 

provided through implementation of the 

Air Quality Index reporting system in 

all required areas. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve Georgia’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) public 

notification. 

110(a)(2)(J) (PSD)—PSD: With respect 

to Georgia’s infrastructure SIP 

submission related to the PSD 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), EPA 

addressed this requirement in a separate 

action. Specifically, on March 18, 2015, 

EPA approved Georgia’s March 6, 2012, 

infrastructure SIP submission regarding 

the PSD permitting requirements for 

section 110(a)(2) (J) for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. See 80 FR 14019. 

110(a)(2)(J)—Visibility Protection: The 

2011 Lead 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 Lead NAAQS, and 

as such, EPA is proposing to approve 

section 110(a)(2)(J) of Georgia’s 

infrastructure SIP submission as it 

relates to visibility protection. 

10. 110(a)(2)(K)—Air quality and 

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 EPA can 

be made. Georgia Air Quality Act: 

Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 

12–9), 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 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. Additionally, Georgia supports 

a regional effort to coordinate the 

development of emissions inventories 

and conduct regional modeling for 

several NAAQS, including the 2008 

Lead 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 2008 Lead 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 44013 

modeling, along with analysis of the 

associated data, related to the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, 

EPA is proposing to approve Georgia’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(K). 

11. 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. 

Georgia Air Quality Act: Article 1: Air 

Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12–9–10, and 

Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391–3–1– 

.03(9)—Permit Fees requires the 

collection of permitting fees through the 

title V Fee Program, which EPD ensures 

is sufficient for the reasonable cost of 

reviewing and acting upon PSD and 

NNSR permits. Additionally, Georgia 

has a fully approved title V operating 

permit program at Georgia Rule for Air 

Quality 391–3–1–.03(9)—Permit Fees 

that covers the cost of implementation 

and enforcement of PSD and NNSR 

permits after they have been issued. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Georgia’s SIP and 

practices adequately provide for 

permitting fees related to the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS, when necessary. Accordingly, 

EPA is proposing to approve Georgia’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(L). 

12. 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/

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. 

Georgia Air Quality Act: Article I: Air 

Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12–9) 

authorizes EPD to advise, consult, 

cooperate and enter into agreements 

with other agencies of the state, the 

Federal Government, other states, 

interstate agencies, groups, political 

subdivisions, and industries affected by 

the provisions of this act, rules, or 

policies of the department. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that Georgia’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate consultation 

with affected local entities related to the 

22008 Lead NAAQS, when necessary. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve Georgia’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(M). 

V. Proposed Action 

With the exception of the PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 

of (D)(i), and (J), EPA is proposing to 

approve Georgia’s March 6, 2012, SIP 

submittal to address infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

EPA is proposing to take this action 

because the Agency has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Georgia’s infrastructure SIP revision is 

consistent with section 110 and EPA’s 

2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely proposes to approve state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and would 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). 

The 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, 

Lead, and Recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: July 14, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–18096 Filed 7–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0842; A–1–FRL– 

9927–33–Region 1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Connecticut; Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and Nonattainment New 

Source Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

certain revisions to the State of 

Connecticut State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) relating to regulation of fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions 

within the context of EPA’s Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

regulations. EPA is also proposing to 

approve clarifications to the 

applicability section of Connecticut’s 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

(NNSR) regulations. These revisions 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS