Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 42777 

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, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: July 9, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–17744 Filed 7–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0368; FRL–9930–77– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Carolina; 

Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan revision 

submitted by the State of North 

Carolina, through the North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources on August 13, 2012, 

pertaining to definition changes for the 

Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. EPA is approving this SIP 

revision because the State has 

demonstrated that it is consistent with 

the Clean Air Act. In the Final Rules 

section of this issue of the Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

implementation plan revision as a direct 

final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial submittal and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 19, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2015–0368, 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–2015– 

0368,’’ 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. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

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 also be reached via 

electronic mail at farngalo.zuri@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information see the direct 

final rule which is published in the 

Rules Section of this Federal Register. 

A detailed rationale for the approval is 

set forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this rule, no further activity 

is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this 

document. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this document should 

do so at this time. 

Dated: July 6, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–17682 Filed 7–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

42778 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 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 (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. 

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

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 42779 

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). 

3This rulemaking only addresses requirements 

for this element as they relate to attainment areas. 

4As mentioned above, this element is not 

relevant to today’s proposed rulemaking. 

5For 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. 

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

• 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

• 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

• 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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

42780 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

6See, 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)). 

7EPA 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. 

8See, 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). 

9On 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. 

10For 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. 

11EPA 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. 

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. 

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

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

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 upto-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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 42781 

13EPA’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. 

14By 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. 

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. 

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 EPAapproved 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. 

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) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

42782 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

15For 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). 

16EPA 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). 

17See, 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). 

18On 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. 

19On occasion, proposed changes to the 

monitoring network are evaluated outside of the 

network plan approval process in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58. 

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

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. 

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. 

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– 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 abovedescribed, 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 subelements (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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

42784 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

20This rule is not approved into the federally 

approved SIP. 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 42785 

21This rule is not approved into the federally 

approved SIP. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

42786 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS