Document ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0152-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Georgia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard
Posted Date: 2016-02-05T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6200-6210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02303]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0152; FRL-9941-95-Region 4]

Air Quality Plans; Georgia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 
2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, 
submitted by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Department of 
Natural Resources (DNR), Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD), on 
October 22, 2013, and supplemented on July 25, 2014, to demonstrate 
that the State meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) 
national ambient air quality standard (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. GAEPD certified that the 
Georgia SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in 
Georgia. EPA is proposing to determine that Georgia's infrastructure 
submission, submitted on October 22, 2013, and supplemented on July 25, 
2014, addresses certain required infrastructure elements for the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2015-0152, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.

[[Page 6201]]

    2. Email: R4-ARMS@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0152,'' 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.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, 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-
2015-0152. 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: Michele Notarianni, 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. Ms. Notarianni can be reached via electronic mail at 
notarianni.michele@epa.gov or via telephone at (404) 562-9031.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Overview
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 and Overview

    On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a revised primary 
SO2 NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts per billion 
(ppb) based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour 
daily maximum concentrations. 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 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 22, 2013.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In these infrastructure SIP submissions states generally 
certify evidence of compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of 
the CAA through a combination of state regulations and statutes, 
some of which have been incorporated into the federally-approved 
SIP. In addition, certain federally-approved, non-SIP regulations 
may also be appropriate for demonstrating compliance with sections 
110(a)(1) and (2). Georgia's existing SIP consists largely of 
Georgia's Rule for Air Quality rules adopted by GAEPD and approved 
by EPA through the SIP revision process. However, there are some 
state regulations that are not part of the Georgia federally-
approved SIP. Throughout this rulemaking, unless otherwise 
indicated, the term ``State rules'' or ``State regulations'' 
indicate that the cited regulation has been approved into Georgia's 
federally-approved SIP. The term ``Georgia Air Quality Act'' 
indicates cited Georgia State statutes, which are not a part of the 
SIP unless otherwise indicated. The Georgia Air Quality Act is 
located at http://epd.georgia.gov/existing-rules-and-corresponding-laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action is proposing to approve portions of Georgia's 
infrastructure SIP submissions \2\ for the applicable requirements of 
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, with the exception of the 
interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 
(II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), for which EPA is not proposing any action 
today regarding these requirements. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Georgia's 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure 
SIP submissions dated October 22, 2013, and supplemented on July 25, 
2014, are also collectively referred to as ``Georgia's 
SO2 infrastructure SIP'' in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 6202]]

    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 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).'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not 
governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) 
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area 
controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new 
or revised NAAQS, but rather are 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. This proposed rulemaking 
does not address infrastructure elements related to section 
110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of 
110(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System
     110(a)(2)(C): Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures 
and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element 
as they relate to attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate Pollution 
Transport
     110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and 
International Air Pollution
     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict 
of Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers
     110(a)(2)(H): SIP Revisions
     110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As mentioned above, this element is not relevant to this 
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, 
Public Notification, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (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 submissions from Georgia that address 
the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 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 (NNSR) 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.\6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states 
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority 
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) 
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address 
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and 
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority 
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements 
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or 
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) 
requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of 
requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal 
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a 
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the 
Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\7\ 
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.\8\ This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all 
the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, 
EPA must determine

[[Page 6203]]

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular 
infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine 
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions 
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,'' 
70 FR 25162, at 25163--65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining relationship 
between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 
110(a)(2)(I)).
    \8\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is 
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific 
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in 
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., 
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of 
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific 
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of 
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether 
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single 
SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a 
single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a 
plan'' to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow 
states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing 
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make 
such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP 
requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either 
individually or in a larger combined action.\9\ 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State 
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR 
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural 
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately 
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule), 
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013) 
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \10\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the 
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP 
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for 
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On 
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA 
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14, 
2007, submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise 
with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for 
different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 
110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same 
way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant 
infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be 
different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might 
need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of 
section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants 
because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP 
submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely 
new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure 
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also 
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required 
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA 
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. 
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP 
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable 
requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan 
SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 
regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By 
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by 
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that 
pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA, 
because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is 
designated nonattainment and is 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.\12\ EPA 
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 
2013 (2013 Guidance). \13\ EPA developed this document to provide 
states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or 
revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states 
to make infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP 
requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised 
NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of 
section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure 
SIP submissions.\14\ 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 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.
    \13\ ``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.
    \14\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make 
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to 
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly 
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the DC Circuit 
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had 
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light 
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to 
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding 
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a 
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of 
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this 
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, 
which pertain to state

[[Page 6204]]

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 new source review (NSR) 
pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). 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 
fine particulate matter (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 implementation plan meets basic structural requirements. For 
example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement 
that states have a program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA 
evaluates whether the state has an EPA-approved minor NSR 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.\15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a 
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a 
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions 
during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision 
for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in 
the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to 
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that 
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a 
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it 
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of 
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all 
requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of 
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements 
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory 
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded 
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully 
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the 
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new 
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP 
submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA 
to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA 
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation 
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with 
respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the 
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon 
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP 
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need 
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to 
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of 
sections 110(a)(1) 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 implementation 
plan is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to 
mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\16\ 
Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, 
such as past approvals of SIP submissions.\17\

[[Page 6205]]

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.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Georgia 2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure submissions 
address the provisions of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described 
below.
    1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures: 
Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that each implementation plan include 
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or 
techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable 
permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and 
timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet 
the applicable requirements. Several regulations within Georgia's SIP 
are relevant to air quality control regulations. The following State 
regulations include enforceable emission limitations and other control 
measures: 391-3-1-.01, ``Definitions. Amended.'', 391-3-1-.02, 
``Provisions. Amended.'', and 391-3-1-.03, ``Permits. Amended.'' These 
regulations collectively establish enforceable emissions limitations 
and other control measures, means or techniques for activities that 
contribute to SO2 concentrations in the ambient air, and 
provide authority for GAEPD to establish such limits and measures as 
well as schedules for compliance through SIP-approved permits to meet 
the applicable requirements of the CAA.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that the provisions 
contained in these State rules are adequate to protect the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 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 start 
up, shut down, and malfunction (SSM) 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.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ On June 12, 2015, EPA published 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.'' See 80 FR 33840.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: Section 
110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to provide for establishment and operation 
of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to 
(i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and (ii) 
upon request, make such data available to the Administrator. Georgia's 
authority to monitor ambient air quality is found in the Georgia Air 
Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-6(b)(13)). 
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 includes a 
certified evaluation of the agency's ambient monitors and auxiliary 
support equipment.\20\ On June 15, 2015, EPA received Georgia's plan 
for 2015. On October 13, 2015, EPA approved Georgia's monitoring 
network plan. Georgia's approved monitoring network plan can be 
accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-
0152. This State statute, along with Georgia's Ambient Air Monitoring 
Network Plan, 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. No 
specific statutory or regulatory authority is necessary for GAEPD to 
authorize data analysis or the submission of such data to EPA, and to 
provide data submissions in response to Federal regulations. EPA has 
made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices are 
adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and data system 
requirements related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ On occasion, proposed changes to the monitoring network are 
evaluated outside of the network plan approval process in accordance 
with 40 CFR part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. 110(a)(2)(C) Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and 
for Construction or Modification of Stationary 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).
    Enforcement: GAEPD's Enforcement Program covers mobile and 
stationary sources, consumer products, and fuels. The enforcement 
requirements are met through two Georgia Rules for Air Quality: 391-3-
1-.07--``Inspections and Investigations. Amended.'' and 391-3-1-.09--
``Enforcement. Amended.'' Georgia also cites to enforcement authority 
found in Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 
Section 12-9-13) in its submittal. Collectively, these regulations and 
State statute provide for enforcement of SO2 emission limits 
and control measures.
    PSD Permitting for Major Sources: EPA interprets the PSD sub-
element to require that a state's infrastructure SIP submission for a 
particular NAAQS demonstrate that the state has a complete PSD 
permitting program in place covering the structural PSD

[[Page 6206]]

requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. A state's PSD permitting 
program is complete for this sub-element (and prong 3 of D(i) and J 
related to PSD) if EPA has already approved or is simultaneously 
approving the state's implementation plan with respect to all 
structural PSD requirements that are due under the EPA regulations or 
the CAA on or before the date of the EPA's proposed action on the 
infrastructure SIP submission. The following Georgia Rules for Air 
Quality collectively establish a preconstruction, new source permitting 
program in the State that meets the PSD requirements of the CAA for 
SO2 emissions sources: 391-3-1-.02.--``Provisions. 
Amended,'' which includes PSD requirements under 391-3-1-.02(7), and 
391-3-1-.03.--``Permits. Amended,'' which includes Nonattainment New 
Source Review (NNSR) requirements under 391-3-1-.03(8)(c) and (g). 
Georgia's infrastructure SIP demonstrates that new major sources and 
major modifications in areas of the State designated attainment or 
unclassifiable for the specified NAAQS are subject to a federally-
approved PSD permitting program meeting all the current structural 
requirements of part C of title I of the CAA to satisfy the 
infrastructure SIP PSD elements.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ For more information on the structural PSD program 
requirements that are relevant to EPA's review of infrastructure 
SIPs in connection with the current PSD-related infrastructure SIP 
requirements, see the technical support document in the docket for 
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS. Georgia's SIP approved Air Quality Control Rule 
391-3-1-.03(1)--``Construction (SIP) Permit.'' governs the 
preconstruction permitting of modifications, construction of minor 
stationary sources, and minor modifications of major stationary 
sources.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP is 
adequate for program enforcement of control measures, PSD permitting 
for major sources, and regulation of new and modified minor sources 
related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 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)(i)(II). Each of these components has 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'').
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--prongs 1 and 2: EPA is not proposing any action 
in this rulemaking related to the interstate transport provisions 
pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with 
maintenance in other states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 
2) because Georgia's 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure 
submissions did not address prongs 1 and 2.
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 3: With regard to section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the PSD element, referred to as prong 3, this 
requirement may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure 
SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the 
state are subject to: a PSD program meeting all the current structural 
requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, or (if the state contains 
a nonattainment area that has the potential to impact PSD in another 
state) to a NNSR program. As discussed in more detail above under 
section 110(a)(2)(C), Georgia's SIP contains provisions for the State's 
PSD program that reflects the relevant SIP revisions pertaining to the 
required structural PSD requirements to satisfy the requirement of 
prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Georgia addresses prong 3 
through rules 391-3-1-.02.--``Provisions. Amended,'' and 391-3-1-.03.--
``Permits. Amended,'' which include the PSD and NNSR requirements, 
respectively. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's 
SIP is adequate for interstate transport for PSD permitting of major 
sources and major modifications related to the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3).
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 4: EPA is not proposing any action in 
this rulemaking related to the interstate transport provisions 
pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with 
maintenance in other states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4) 
and will consider these requirements in relation to Georgia's 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure submissions in a separate 
rulemaking.
    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. The 
following two Georgia Rules for Air Quality provide Georgia the 
authority to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure 
element: 391-3-1-.02(7) for the State's PSD regulation and 391-3-1-.03 
for the State's permitting regulations. As described above, Georgia 
Rules for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02.--``Provisions. Amended,'' and 391-3-
1-.03.--``Permits. Amended,'' collectively require any new major source 
or major modification to undergo PSD or NNSR permitting and thereby 
provide notification to other potentially affected Federal, state, and 
local government agencies.
    Additionally, Georgia does not have any pending obligation under 
section 115 and 126 of the CAA. 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 2010 1-hour 
SO2 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's analysis of sub-elements 
110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii), and (iii) is described below.
    In support of EPA's proposal to approve sub-elements 
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), GAEPD's infrastructure SIP demonstrates that 
it is responsible for promulgating rules and regulations for the NAAQS, 
emissions standards and general policies, a system of permits, fee 
schedules for the review of plans, and other planning needs. In its SIP 
submittal, Georgia describes its authority for Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) 
as the CAA section l05 grant process, the

[[Page 6207]]

Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12-9-10), and 
Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.03(9) which establishes Georgia's 
Air Permit Fee System. For Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii), the State does 
not rely on localities in Georgia for specific SIP implementation. 
Georgia's authority for this infrastructure element relating to local 
or regional implementation of SIP provisions is found in Georgia Air 
Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-5(b)(17)). As 
evidence of the adequacy of GAEPD's resources with respect to sub-
elements (i) and (iii), EPA submitted a letter to Georgia on March 20, 
2015, outlining CAA section 105 grant commitments and the current 
status of these commitments for fiscal year 2014. The letter EPA 
submitted to GAEPD can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket 
ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0152. Annually, states update these grant 
commitments based on current SIP requirements, air quality planning, 
and applicable requirements related to the NAAQS. There were no 
outstanding issues in relation to the SIP for fiscal year 2014, 
therefore, GAEPD's grants were finalized and closed out. In addition, 
the requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) are met when EPA performs 
a completeness determination for each SIP submittal. This determination 
ensures that each submittal provides evidence that adequate personnel, 
funding, and legal authority under state law has been used to carry out 
the state's implementation plan and related issues. GAEPD's authority 
is included in all prehearing and final SIP submittal packages for 
approval by EPA. GAEPD is responsible for submitting all revisions to 
the Georgia SIP to EPA for approval. EPA has made the preliminary 
determination that Georgia has adequate resources for implementation of 
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that the state comply with 
section 128 of the CAA. Section 128 requires that the SIP provide: (1) 
the majority of members of the state board or body which approves 
permits or enforcement orders represent the public interest and do not 
derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to 
permitting or enforcement orders under the CAA; and (2) any potential 
conflicts of interest by such board or body, or the head of an 
executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed. 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 SIP.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that the State has 
adequately addressed the requirements of section 128(a), and 
accordingly has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with 
respect to infrastructure SIP requirements. Therefore, EPA is proposing 
to approve GAEPD's infrastructure SIP submissions as meeting the 
requirements of sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii) and (iii).
    7. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting: Section 
110(a)(2)(F) requires SIPs to meet applicable requirements addressing: 
(i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and 
the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of 
stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) 
periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions 
related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports 
by the state agency with any emission limitations or standards 
established pursuant to this section, which reports shall be available 
at reasonable times for public inspection. GAEPD's SIP submissions 
identify how the major source and minor source emission inventory 
programs collect emission data throughout the State and ensure the 
quality of such data. These data are used to compare against current 
emission limits and to meet requirements of EPA's Air Emissions 
Reporting Rule (AERR). The following State rules enable Georgia to meet 
the requirements of this element: Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-
1-.02(3)--``Sampling.'' \22\; 391-3-1-.02(6)(b)--``Source 
Monitoring.''; 391-3-1-.02(7)--``Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration of Air Quality.''; 391-3-1-.02(8)--``New Source 
Performance Standards.''; 391-3-1-.02(9)--``Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants.''; 391-3-1-.02(11)--``Compliance Assurance 
Monitoring.''; and 391-3-1-.03--``Permits. Amended.'' Also, the Georgia 
Air Quality Act Article I: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12-9-5(b)(6)) provides 
the State with the authority to conduct actions regarding stationary 
source emissions monitoring and reporting in support of this 
infrastructure element. These rules collectively require emissions 
monitoring and reporting for activities that contribute to 
SO2 concentrations in the air, including requirements for 
the installation, calibration, maintenance, and operation of equipment 
for continuously monitoring or recording emissions, or provide 
authority for GAEPD to establish such emissions monitoring and 
reporting requirements through SIP-approved permits and require 
reporting of SO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(3)--``Sampling.'' 
is not approved into Georgia's federally-approved SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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 their associated precursors--NOX, 
SO2, 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 December 12, 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 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is 
proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with 
respect to section 110(a)(2)(F).
    Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(3), ``Sampling,'' \23\ 
addresses the use

[[Page 6208]]

of credible evidence.\24\ EPA is unaware of any provision preventing 
the use of credible evidence in the Georgia SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(3)--``Sampling.'' 
is not approved into Georgia's federally-approved SIP.
    \24\ ``Credible Evidence,'' makes allowances for owners and/or 
operators to utilize ``any credible evidence or information 
relevant'' to demonstrate compliance with applicable requirements if 
the appropriate performance or compliance test had been performed, 
for the purpose of submitting compliance certification, and can be 
used to establish whether or not an owner or operator has violated 
or is in violation of any rule or standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency Powers: Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the Act 
requires that states demonstrate authority comparable with section 303 
of the CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. 
Georgia's infrastructure SIP submissions cite 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 
GAEPD 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 GAEPD 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 GAEPD ``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 GAEPD demonstrates 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 State laws are adequate for emergency powers related 
to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing 
to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to 
section 110(a)(2)(G).
    9. 110(a)(2)(H) SIP Revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H), in summary, 
requires each SIP to provide for revisions of such plan (i) as may be 
necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or 
secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved 
or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and (ii) 
whenever the Administrator finds that the plan is substantially 
inadequate to attain the NAAQS or to otherwise comply with any 
additional applicable requirements. GAEPD is responsible for adopting 
air quality rules and revising SIPs as needed to attain or maintain the 
NAAQS in Georgia. The State 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. Georgia has no areas 
that have been designated as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS. See 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013).
    The Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 
Section 12-9-6(b)(12) and 12-9-6(b)(13)) provide Georgia the authority 
to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure element. 
Section 12-9-6(b)(l2) of the Georgia Air Quality Act requires GAEPD to 
submit SIP revisions whenever revised air quality standards are 
promulgated by EPA. EPA has made the preliminary determination that 
Georgia adequately demonstrates a commitment to provide future SIP 
revisions related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS when 
necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's 
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 
with respect to section 110(a)(2)(H).
    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 submission for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 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, PSD and visibility 
protection. EPA's rationale for applicable consultation requirements of 
section 121, the public notification requirements of section 127, PSD, 
and visibility 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 carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements 
pursuant to section 121 relative to consultation. The following State 
rules and statutes, as well as the State's Regional Haze Implementation 
Plan (which allows for consultation between appropriate state, local, 
and tribal air pollution control agencies as well as the corresponding 
Federal Land Managers), provide for consultation with government 
officials whose jurisdictions might be affected by SIP development 
activities: Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 
Section 12-9-5(b)(17)); Georgia Administrative Procedures Act (O.C.G.A. 
Sec.  50-13-4); and Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(7) as it relates to Class 
I areas. Section 12-9-5(b)(l7) of the Georgia Air Quality Act states 
that the DNR Board is to ``establish satisfactory processes of 
consultation and cooperation with local governments or other designated 
organizations of elected officials or federal agencies for the purpose 
of planning, implementing, and determining requirements under this 
article to the extent required by the federal act.''

[[Page 6209]]

    Additionally, Georgia adopted state-wide consultation procedures 
for the implementation of transportation conformity which includes the 
development of mobile inventories for SIP development.\25\ 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. 
Required partners covered by Georgia's consultation procedures include 
Federal, state and local transportation and air quality agency 
officials. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's 
SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation with government 
officials related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Georgia rule 391-3-1-.15, Georgia Transportation Conformity 
and Consultation Interagency Rule, is approved into the State's SIP. 
See 77 FR 35866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public notification (127 public notification): GAEPD has public 
notice mechanisms in place to notify the public of instances or areas 
exceeding the NAAQS along with associated health effects through the 
Air Quality Index reporting system in required areas. GAEPD's Ambient 
Monitoring Web page (www.georgiaair.org/amp) provides information 
regarding current and historical air quality across the State. Daily 
air quality forecasts may be disseminated to the public in Atlanta 
through the Georgia Department of Transportation's electronic 
billboards. In its SIP submission, Georgia also notes that the non-
profit organization in Georgia, ``Clean Air Campaign,'' disseminates 
statewide air quality information and ways to reduce air pollution. 
Georgia rule 391-3-1-.04 ``Air Pollution Episodes'' enables the State 
to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure element. 
In addition, the following State statutes provide Georgia the authority 
to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure element. 
OCGA 12-9-6(b)(8) provides authority to the Georgia Board of Natural 
Resources ``To collect and disseminate information and to provide for 
public notification in matters relating to air quality. . .''. EPA has 
made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices 
adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide public 
notification related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS when 
necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's 
infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) 
public notification.
    PSD: With regard to the PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J), this 
requirement may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure 
SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the 
state are subject to a PSD program meeting all the current structural 
requirements of part C of title I of the CAA. As discussed in more 
detail above under section 110(a)(2)(C), Georgia's SIP contains 
provisions for the State's PSD program that reflect the relevant SIP 
revisions pertaining to the required structural PSD requirements to 
satisfy the requirement of the PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA 
has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices 
are adequate PSD permitting of major sources and major modifications 
related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the PSD element of 
section 110(a)(2)(J).
    Visibility protection: EPA's 2013 Guidance notes that it does not 
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, there are no newly 
applicable visibility protection obligations after the promulgation of 
a new or revised NAAQS. Thus, EPA has determined that states do not 
need to address the visibility component of 110(a)(2)(J) in 
infrastructure SIP submittals to fulfill its obligations under section 
110(a)(2)(J). As such, EPA has made the preliminary determination that 
it does not need to address the visibility protection element of 
section 110(a)(2)(J) in Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission related 
to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    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 EPA can be made. The Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air 
Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-6(b)(13)) provides GAEPD the authority 
to conduct modeling actions and to submit air quality modeling data to 
EPA in support of this element. GAEPD maintains personnel with training 
and experience to conduct source-oriented dispersion modeling with 
models such as AERMOD that would likely be used for modeling 
SO2 emissions from sources. The State also notes that its 
SIP-approved PSD program, which includes specific (dispersion) modeling 
provisions, provides further support of GAEPD's ability to address this 
element. All such modeling is conducted in accordance with the 
provisions of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, ``Guideline on Air Quality 
Models.''
    Additionally, Georgia supports a regional effort to coordinate the 
development of emissions inventories and conduct regional modeling for 
several NAAQS, including the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, for the 
Southeastern states. Taken as a whole, Georgia's air quality 
regulations and practices demonstrate that GAEPD has the authority to 
provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on 
ambient air quality of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA has made 
the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices 
adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide for air quality 
and modeling, along with analysis of the associated data, related to 
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 
approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 
110(a)(2)(K).
    12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting Fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires 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's PSD and NNSR permitting programs are funded with title V 
fees. The Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.03(9) ``Permit Fees.'' 
incorporates the EPA-approved title V fee program and fees for 
synthetic minor sources. Georgia's authority to mandate funding for 
processing PSD and NNSR permits is found in Georgia Air Quality Act 
Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12-9-10). The State notes that these 
title V operating program fees cover the reasonable 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

[[Page 6210]]

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is 
proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with 
respect to section 110(a)(2)(L).
    13. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/participation by affected local 
entities: Section 110(a)(2)(M) of the Act requires states to provide 
for consultation and participation in SIP development by local 
political subdivisions affected by the SIP. Consultation and 
participation by affected local entities is authorized by the Georgia 
Air Quality Act: Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12-9-5(b)(17)) and 
the Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.15--``Transportation 
Conformity'', which defines the consultation procedures for areas 
subject to transportation conformity. Furthermore, GAEPD 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 has worked with the 
Federal Land Managers as a requirement of the regional haze rule. EPA 
has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices 
adequately demonstrate consultation with affected local entities 
related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS when necessary.

V. Proposed Action

    With the exception of interstate transport provisions pertaining to 
the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in 
other states and visibility protection requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), EPA is proposing to 
approve Georgia's October 22, 2013, SIP submission as supplemented on 
July 25, 2014, for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the above 
described infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is proposing to approve 
Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS because the submission is consistent with section 
110 of the CAA.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 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: January 12, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2016-02303 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P