[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44005-44013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18096]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0442; FRL-9931-14-Region 4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia; 
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve the March 6, 2012, State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, 
submitted by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Department of 
Natural Resources' Environmental Protection Division (EPD), 
demonstrating that the State meets the requirements of sections 
110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) for the 2008 
lead national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires 
that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is 
commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP. EPD certified that 
the Georgia SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2008 Lead NAAQS is 
implemented, enforced, and maintained in Georgia. With the exception of 
provisions pertaining to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) 
permitting, EPA is proposing to determine that Georgia's infrastructure 
SIP submission, provided to EPA on March 6, 2012, addresses the 
required infrastructure elements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2014-0442, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected].
    3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0442,'' Air Regulatory Management 
Section (formerly the Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning and 
Implementation Branch (formerly the Air Planning Branch), Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Air 
Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, 
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional 
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding 
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2014-0442. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or 
email, information that you consider to be CBI

[[Page 44006]]

or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without 
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and 
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you 
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zuri Farngalo, Air Regulatory 
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9152. Mr. Farngalo can be 
reached via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Background

    On October 5, 1978, EPA promulgated a primary and secondary NAAQS 
for lead under section 109 of the Act. See 43 FR 46246. Both the 
primary and secondary standards were set at a level of 1.5 micrograms 
per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\), measured as lead in total suspended 
particulate matter (Pb-TSP), not to be exceeded by the maximum 
arithmetic mean concentration averaged over a calendar quarter. This 
standard was based on the 1977 Air Quality Criteria for Lead (USEPA, 
August 7, 1977). On November 12, 2008 (75 FR 81126), EPA issued a final 
rule to revise the primary and secondary lead NAAQS. The revised 
primary and secondary lead NAAQS were revised to 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\. By 
statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 
are to be submitted by states within three years after promulgation of 
a new or revised NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to 
address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, 
monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the 
NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs to EPA no later than 
October 15, 2011, for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Today's action is proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure 
submission for the applicable requirements of the Lead NAAQS, with the 
exception of preconstruction PSD permitting requirements for major 
sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J). On March 18, 
2015, EPA approved Georgia's March 6, 2012, infrastructure SIP 
submission regarding the PSD permitting requirements for major sources 
of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and (J) for the 2008 Lead 
NAAQS. See 80 FR 14019. This action is not approving any specific rule, 
but rather proposing that Georgia's already approved SIP meets certain 
CAA requirements.

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

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide 
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or 
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such 
NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to 
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may 
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the 
data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and 
submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the 
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary 
depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already 
contains. In the case of the 2008 Lead NAAQS, states typically have met 
the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through 
earlier SIP submissions in connection with the 1978 lead NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements 
for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must 
meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related to a newly 
established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these requirements 
include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling, monitoring, and 
emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and 
maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements that are the subject of this 
proposed rulemaking are listed below \2\ and in EPA's October 14, 2011, 
memorandum entitled ``Guidance on

[[Page 44007]]

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under 
Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 lead (Pb) National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' (2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP 
Guidance.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement, Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and new source review (NSR).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate and international transport 
provisions.
     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate personnel, funding, and authority.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials; 
public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local 
entities.

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

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from Georgia that addresses 
the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 
for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must 
make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the 
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national 
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and 
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly 
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the 
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's 
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``each such 
plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the 
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term 
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to 
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions 
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such 
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to 
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of 
the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to 
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and 
nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address 
the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for 
infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more 
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list 
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide 
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required 
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program 
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both 
authority and substantive program provisions.\4\ EPA therefore believes 
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, 
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, 
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP 
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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.\5\ 
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and 
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address 
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) 
requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for 
certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation 
of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two 
years, or in some cases three years, for such designations to be 
promulgated.\6\ This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all 
the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, 
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable 
for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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)).
    \6\ 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.\7\ Similarly, EPA 
interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts 
of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given 
NAAQS without concurrent

[[Page 44008]]

action on the entire submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected 
to act at different times on various elements and sub-elements of the 
same infrastructure SIP submission.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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).
    \8\ 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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure 
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also 
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required 
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA 
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. 
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP 
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable 
requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan 
SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 
regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By 
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by 
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that 
pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA, 
because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is 
designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning 
requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission 
may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language 
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is 
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) 
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP 
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have 
intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, 
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same 
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews 
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that 
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make 
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some 
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and 
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\10\ EPA 
issued the Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance on October 14, 2011.\11\ 
EPA developed this document to provide states with up-to-date guidance 
for the 2008 Lead infrastructure SIPs. Within this guidance, EPA 
describes the duty of states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to 
meet basic structural SIP requirements within three years of 
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations 
about many specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant 
in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions. The guidance also 
discusses the substantively important issues that are germane to 
certain subsections of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets 
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP 
submissions need to address certain issues and need not address others. 
Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for 
compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of section 
110(a)(2), as appropriate.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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.
    \11\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) Elements Required under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, October 14, 
2001.
    \12\ Although not intended to provide guidance for purposes of 
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, EPA notes, 
that following the 2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance, EPA issued 
the ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).'' 
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013. This 2013 
guidance provides recommendations for air agencies' development and 
the EPA's review of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone primary 
and secondary NAAQS, the 2010 primary nitrogen dioxide 
(NO2) NAAQS, the 2010 primary sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) NAAQS, and the 2012 primary fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) NAAQS, as well as infrastructure SIPs for new or 
revised NAAQS promulgated in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to 
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that 
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a 
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it 
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of 
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all 
requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of 
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements 
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory 
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded 
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully 
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the 
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new 
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP 
submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA 
to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA 
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation 
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to 
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of 
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues 
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing 
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately 
tailored action, depending upon the

[[Page 44009]]

nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) 
authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP call'' whenever the Agency determines 
that a state's SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain 
the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply 
with the CAA.\13\ Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in 
past actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions.\14\ 
Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on a state's 
infrastructure SIP submission is not the appropriate time and place to 
address all potential existing SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's 
subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the 
basis for action to correct those deficiencies at a later time. For 
example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state to 
eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion provisions 
in the course of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA 
believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases 
that EPA relies upon in the course of addressing such deficiency in a 
subsequent action.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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).
    \14\ 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).
    \15\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from 
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's 
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 
FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Georgia infrastructure submission addresses the provisions of 
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below.
    1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures: There 
are several rules and regulations within Georgia's SIP that are 
relevant to air quality control regulations. The regulations described 
below have been federally approved into the Georgia SIP and include 
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures. Georgia 
Rules for Air Quality 391-3-1-.01--Definitions. Amended, 391-3-1-.02--
Provisions. Amended, and 391-3-1-.03--Permits. Amended, establish 
emission limits for lead and address the required control measures, 
means, and techniques for compliance with the 2008 Lead NAAQS. EPA has 
made the preliminary determination that the provisions contained in 
these rules are adequate to protect the 2008 Lead NAAQS in the State.
    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any 
existing State provisions with regard to excess emissions during 
startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) of operations at a facility. 
EPA believes that a number of states have SSM provisions which are 
contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance, ``State Implementation 
Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, 
and Shutdown'' (September 20, 1999), and the Agency plans to address 
such state regulations in a separate action.\16\ In the meantime, EPA 
encourages any state having a deficient SSM provision to take steps to 
correct it as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ On May 22, 2015, the EPA Administrator signed a final 
action entitled, ``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition 
for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy 
Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP 
Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During 
Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.'' The prepublication 
version of this rule is available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/emissions.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or 
disapprove any existing State rules with regard to director's 
discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states 
have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 
guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to 
take a separate action to address such state regulations. In the 
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or 
variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to 
take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
    2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: SIPs 
are required to provide for the establishment and operation of ambient 
air quality monitors; the compilation and analysis of ambient air 
quality data; and the submission of these data to EPA upon request. the 
Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-6 
(b)(13)), along with the Georgia Network Description and Ambient Air 
Monitoring Network Plan provides for an ambient air quality monitoring 
system in the State. Annually, States develop and submit to EPA for 
approval statewide ambient monitoring network plans consistent with the 
requirements of 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58. The annual network plan 
involves an evaluation of any proposed changes to the monitoring 
network, includes the annual ambient monitoring network design plan and 
a certified evaluation of the agency's ambient monitors and auxiliary 
support equipment.\17\ On June 1, 2014, Georgia submitted its plan to 
EPA. On November 7, 2014, EPA approved Georgia's monitoring network 
plan as related to lead. Georgia's approved monitoring network plan can 
be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2014-0442. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's 
SIP and practices are adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring 
and data system related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ On occasion, proposed changes to the monitoring network are 
evaluated outside of the network plan approval process in accordance 
with 40 CFR part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. 110(a)(2)(C) Program for enforcement, prevention of significant 
deterioration (PSD) and new source review (NSR): 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). In 
this action EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP 
submission for the 2008 Lead NAAQS with respect to the general 
requirement of 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that 
provides for enforcement of emission limits and control measures and 
regulation of minor sources and minor modifications as well as the 
enforcement of lead emission limits to assist in the protection of air 
quality in nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable areas. This is 
established in Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 
Section 12-9, et seq. Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.07--Inspections and 
Investigations. Amended, and Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.09--Enforcement. 
Amended. EPA's analysis of each sub-element is provided below.
    Enforcement: Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality 
(O.C.G.A. Section

[[Page 44010]]

12-9, et seq. Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.07--Inspections and Investigations. 
Amended, and Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.09--Enforcement. Amended in 
Georgia's SIP approved regulations provide for enforcement of lead 
emission limits and control measures and construction permitting for 
new or modified stationary lead sources.
    Preconstruction PSD Permitting for Major Sources: With respect to 
Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission related to the preconstruction 
PSD permitting requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), 
prong 3, EPA approved this sub-element on March 18, 2015, and thus is 
not proposing any action today regarding these requirements. See 80 FR 
14019.
    Regulation of minor sources and modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C) 
also requires the SIP to include the regulation of new and modified 
minor sources and minor modifications provisions that govern the minor 
source pre-construction program. Georgia has a SIP-approved minor NSR 
permitting program at Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality 
(O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-7 and 12-9-13, et seq.), Georgia Rules for Air 
Quality 391-3-1-.02.--Provisions. Amended, Georgia Rules for Air 
Quality 391-3-1-.03(1).--Construction Permit, that regulates the 
preconstruction of modifications and construction of minor stationary 
sources.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and 
practices are adequate for enforcement of control measures and 
regulation of minor sources and modifications related to the 2008 Lead 
NAAQS.
    4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II), and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--Interstate 
and International transport provisions: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two 
components; 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Each of these 
components have two subparts resulting in four distinct components, 
commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed in 
infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are 
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit 
any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from 
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 
state (``prong 1''), and interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in 
another state (``prong 2''). The third and fourth prongs, which are 
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit 
emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required 
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state 
(``prong 3''), or to protect visibility in another state (``prong 4''). 
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Intestate and International transport 
provisions requires SIPs to include provisions insuring compliance with 
sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate and 
international pollution abatement.
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)and (ii)-- Interstate and International transport 
provisions: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) provides for infrastructure SIPs to 
include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions 
activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment, 
or interfering with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The 
preceding requirements, from subsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 
respectively refer to what may be called prongs 1 and 2.
    The physical properties of lead prevent lead emission from 
experiencing that same travel or formation phenomena as 
PM2.5 and ozone for interstate transport as outlined in 
prongs 1 and 2. More specifically, there is a sharp decrease in the 
lead concentrations, at least in the coarse fraction, as the distance 
from a lead source increases. EPA believes that the requirements of 
prongs 1 and 2 can be satisfied through a state's assessment as to 
whether a lead source located within its State in close proximity to a 
state border has emissions that contribute significantly to the 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in the 
neighboring state. For example, EPA's experience with the initial lead 
designations suggests that sources that emit less than 0.5 tons per 
year (tpy) generally appear unlikely to contribute significantly to the 
nonattainment in another state. EPA's experience also suggests that 
sources located more than two miles from the state border generally 
appear unlikely to contribute significantly to the nonattainment in 
another state. Georgia has three lead sources that have emissions of 
lead over 0.5 tpy. The sources are located beyond two miles from the 
State border.\18\ Thus, EPA concludes that sources in Georgia are 
unlikely to contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the NAAQS in neighboring states. Therefore, EPA has made 
the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP meets the requirements 
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ There are three facilities in Georgia that have lead 
emissions greater than 0.5 tpy. The facilities are Gerdau Ameristeel 
Cartersville Steel Mill, Georgia Power Plant Bowen (both in 
Cartersville, Bartow County), and Exide Technologies in Columbus, 
Muscogee County. Gerdau Ameristeel (1.41 tpy) is located at least 37 
miles from the state border. Plant Bowen (0.77 tpy) is located at 
least 35 miles from the state border. Exide Technologies located in 
the Columbus Area which is in Muscogee County, Georgia, and is about 
three miles from the Alabama-Georgia border. Exide owns and operates 
a lead-acid battery and lead oxide manufacturing facility co-located 
with a lead recycling plant. The facility-wide actual emissions are 
0.66 tpy, which is above the 0.5 tpy threshold, requiring that a 
source-oriented Pb monitor be placed near the facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 3: With respect to Georgia's 
infrastructure SIP submission related to the interstate transport 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 3, EPA approved this 
sub-element on March 18, 2015, (See 80 FR 14019), and thus is not 
proposing any action today regarding these requirements.
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 4: With regard to section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the visibility sub-element, referred to as prong 
4, significant visibility impacts from stationary source lead emissions 
are expected to be limited to short distances from the source. See the 
2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance. Lead stationary sources in 
Georgia are located at distances from Class I areas such that 
visibility impacts are negligible. Georgia has 3 Class 1 areas, Cohutta 
Wilderness Area, Okefenokee Wilderness Area, and Wolf Island Wilderness 
Area and none of these are within 2 miles of a lead source that emits 
more than .5 tons per year. EPA has preliminarily determined that the 
Georgia SIP meets the relevant visibility requirements.
    110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--Interstate and International transport 
provisions: EPA is unaware of any pending obligations for the State of 
Georgia pursuant to sections 115 and 126. Georgia's SIP-approved PSD 
requirements under Georgia Rules for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(7).--
Prevention of Significant Deterioration provides how Georgia will 
notify neighboring states of potential impacts from new or modified 
sources proposed to locate in attainment or unclassifiable areas. EPA 
has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices 
are adequate for insuring compliance with the applicable requirements 
relating to interstate and international pollution abatement for the 
2008 Lead NAAQS
    5. 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate personnel, funding, and authority. 
Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that each implementation plan provide (i) 
necessary assurances that the State will have adequate personnel, 
funding, and authority under state law to carry out its implementation 
plan, (ii) that the State comply with the requirements respecting State 
Boards pursuant to

[[Page 44011]]

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 sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i),(ii), and (iii). EPA's 
rationale for today's proposals respecting each sub-element is 
described in turn below.
    In support of EPA's proposal to approve sub-elements 
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), EPA notes that EPD is responsible for 
promulgating rules and regulations for the NAAQS, emissions standards 
general policies, a system of permits, and fee schedules for the review 
of plans, and other planning needs. As evidence of the adequacy of 
EPD's resources, EPA submitted a letter to Georgia on March 26, 2014, 
outlining 105 grant commitments and the current status of these 
commitments for fiscal year 2013. The letter EPA submitted to Georgia 
can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2014-0442. Annually, states update these grant commitments based on 
current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable 
requirements related to the NAAQS. Georgia satisfactorily met all 
commitments agreed to in the Air Planning Agreement for fiscal year 
2013, therefore Georgia's grants were finalized and closed out. 
Additionally, to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E), 
Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission cites Georgia Air Quality Act 
Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Sections 12-9-10 and Rule 391-3-
1-.03(9) ``Georgia Air Permit Fee System'' which provides the State's 
adequate funding and authority and rules for permit fees.
    Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 
12-9-5) provides the powers and duties of the Board of Natural 
Resources as to air quality and provides that at least a majority of 
members of this board represent the public interest and not derive any 
significant portion of income from persons subject to permits or 
enforcement orders and that potential conflicts of interest will be 
adequately disclosed. This provision has been incorporated into 
Georgia's federally approved SIP. Collectively, these rules and 
commitments provide evidence that GA EPD has adequate personnel, 
funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out the state's 
implementation plan and related issues. EPA has made the preliminary 
determination that Georgia has adequate resources and authority to 
satisfy sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii), and (iii) of the 2008 Lead 
NAAQS.
    6. 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary source monitoring and reporting: 
Georgia's infrastructure submission describes how the State establishes 
requirements for emissions compliance testing and utilizes emissions 
sampling and analysis. It further describes how the State ensures the 
quality of its data through observing emissions and monitoring 
operations. EPD uses these data to track progress towards maintaining 
the NAAQS, develop control and maintenance strategies, identify sources 
and general emission levels, and determine compliance with emission 
regulations and additional EPA requirements. These requirements are 
provided in the Georgia Air Quality Act: \19\ Article 1: Air Quality 
(O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-5(b)(6)), Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-
1-.02(3)--Sampling, Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(6)(b) 
General Monitoring and Reporting Requirements, Georgia Rule for Air 
Quality 391-3-1-.02(6)--Source Monitoring, Georgia Rule for Air Quality 
391-3-1-.02(7)--Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, 
Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(8)--New Source Performance 
Standards, Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(9)--Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Georgia Rule for Air Quality 
391-3-1-.02(11)--Compliance Assurance Monitoring, and, Georgia Rule for 
Air Quality 391-3-1-.03--Permits. Amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ When ``Georgia Air Quality Act'' is referenced it refers to 
rules that the state relies on but are not in the federally approved 
SIP. While on the other hand when ``Georgia Rule for Air Quality'' 
is used refers to rules that are in the federally-approved SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Georgia is required to submit emissions data to EPA 
for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is 
EPA's central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the Air 
Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the 
requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR 
76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data 
from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit 
emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive 
emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain 
larger sources annually through EPA's online Emissions Inventory 
System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants 
and the precursors that form them--nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 
ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile 
organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants. Georgia made its latest update to the 2011 
NEI on June 10, 2014. EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it 
where necessary, and releases it to the general public through the Web 
site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made the 
preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices are adequate 
for the stationary source monitoring systems related to the 2008 Lead 
NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's 
infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(F).
    7. 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency episodes: This section requires that 
states demonstrate authority comparable with section 303 of the CAA and 
adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. Georgia's 
infrastructure SIP submission cites air pollution emergency episodes 
and preplanned abatement strategies in the Georgia Air Quality Act: 
Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Sections 12-9-2 Declaration of public 
policy, 12-9-6 Powers and duties of director as to air quality 
generally, 12-9-12 Injunctive relief, 12-9-13 Proceedings for 
enforcement, and 12-9-14 Powers of director in situations involving 
imminent and substantial danger to public health), and Rule 391-3-1-.04 
``Air Pollution Episodes.'' O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-2 provides ``it is 
declared to be the public policy of the state of Georgia to preserve, 
protect, and improve air quality to attain and maintain ambient air 
quality standards so as to safeguard the public health, safety, and 
welfare.'' O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-6(b)(10) provides the Director of EPD 
authority to ``issue orders as may be necessary to enforce compliance 
with the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A) and 
all rules and regulations of this article.'' O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-12 
provides that ``whenever in the judgment of the director any person has 
engaged in or is about to engage in any act or practice which 
constitutes or will constitute an unlawful action under the Georgia Air 
Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A), he may make application 
to the superior court of the county in which the unlawful act or 
practice has been or is about to be engaged in, or in which 
jurisdiction is appropriate, for an order enjoining such act or 
practice or for an order requiring compliance with this article. Upon a 
showing by the director that such person has engaged in or is about to 
engage in any such act or

[[Page 44012]]

practice, a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or 
other order shall be granted without the necessity of showing lack of 
an adequate remedy of law.'' O.C.G.A. Section 12-19-13 specifically 
pertains to enforcement proceedings when the Director of EPD has reason 
to believe that a violation of any provision of the Georgia Air Quality 
Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A), or environmental rules, 
regulations or orders have occurred. O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-14 also 
provides that the Governor, may issue orders as necessary to protect 
the health of persons who are, or may be, affected by a pollution 
source or facility after ``consultation with local authorities in order 
to confirm the correctness of the information on which action proposed 
to be taken is based and to ascertain the action which such authorities 
are or will be taking.''
    Rule 391-3-1-.04 ``Air Pollution Episodes'' provides that the 
Director of EPD ``will proclaim that an Air Pollution Alert, Air 
Pollution Warning, or Air Pollution Emergency exists when the 
meteorological conditions are such that an air stagnation condition is 
in existence and/or the accumulation of air contaminants in any place 
is attaining or has attained levels which could, if such levels are 
sustained or exceeded, lead to a substantial threat to the health of 
persons in the specific area affected.'' Collectively the cited 
provisions provide that Georgia EPD demonstrate authority comparable 
with section 303 of the CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement 
such authority in the State. EPA has made the preliminary determination 
that Georgia's SIP and practices are adequate for emergency powers 
related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
    8. 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP revisions: EPD is responsible for 
adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as needed to attain or 
maintain the NAAQS in Georgia. Georgia Air Quality Act: Article 1: Air 
Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9, and EPD is required by 12-9-6(b)(12) 
and (13) grants EPD the broad authority to implement the CAA, which 
authorizes EPD to adopt a comprehensive program for the prevention, 
control, and abatement of pollution of the air of the state, and from 
time to time review and modify such programs as necessary. EPD has the 
ability and authority to respond to calls for SIP revisions, and has 
provided a number of SIP revisions over the years for implementation of 
the NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's 
infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(H) for 
the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
    9. 110(a)(2)(J): EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's 
infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Lead NAAQS with respect to the general 
requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the SIP 
that provides for meeting the applicable consultation requirements of 
section 121, the public notification requirements of section 127; and 
the PSD and visibility protection requirements of part C of the Act. 
With respect to Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission related to the 
preconstruction PSD permitting requirements, EPA approved this sub-
element of 110(a)(2)(J) on March 18, 2015, and thus is not proposing 
any action today regarding these requirements. See 80 FR 14019. EPA's 
rationale for applicable consultation requirements of section 121, the 
public notification requirements of section 127, and visibility is 
described below.
    110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation) Consultation with government 
officials: Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires states to provide a 
process for consultation with local governments, designated 
organizations and federal land managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS 
implementation requirements pursuant to section 121 relative to 
consultation. The Georgia Air Quality Act: Article I: Air Quality 
(O.C.G.A. Section 12-9(b)(17)), Georgia Administrative Procedures Act 
(O.C.G.A. Sec.  50-13-4), and Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(7) as it relates 
to Class I areas provide for consultation with government officials 
whose jurisdictions might be affected by SIP development activities. 
EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and 
practices adequately demonstrate consultation with government officials 
related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS, when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is 
proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with 
respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) consultation with government officials.
    110(a)(2)(J) (127 public notification) Public notification: Georgia 
Air Quality Act: Article I: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9), 
Georgia Administrative Procedures Act (O.C.G.A. Sec.  50-13-4), and 
Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(7) as it relates to Class I areas also include 
public notice requirements. Additionally, notification to the public of 
instances or areas exceeding the NAAQS and associated health effects is 
provided through implementation of the Air Quality Index reporting 
system in all required areas. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve 
Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 
110(a)(2)(J) public notification.
    110(a)(2)(J) (PSD)--PSD: With respect to Georgia's infrastructure 
SIP submission related to the PSD requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), 
EPA addressed this requirement in a separate action. Specifically, on 
March 18, 2015, EPA approved Georgia's March 6, 2012, infrastructure 
SIP submission regarding the PSD permitting requirements for section 
110(a)(2) (J) for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. See 80 FR 14019.
    110(a)(2)(J)--Visibility Protection: The 2011 Lead Infrastructure 
SIP Guidance notes that EPA does not generally treat the visibility 
protection aspects of section 110(a)(2)(J) as applicable for purposes 
of the infrastructure SIP approval process. EPA recognizes that states 
are subject to visibility protection and regional haze program 
requirements under Part C of the Act (which includes sections 169A and 
169B). However, in the event of the establishment of a new primary 
NAAQS, the visibility protection and regional haze program requirements 
under part C do not change. Thus, EPA concludes there are no new 
applicable visibility protection obligations under section 110(a)(2)(J) 
as a result of the 2008 Lead NAAQS, and as such, EPA is proposing to 
approve section 110(a)(2)(J) of Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission 
as it relates to visibility protection.
    10. 110(a)(2)(K)--Air quality and modeling/data: Section 
110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires that SIPs provide for performing air 
quality modeling so that effects on air quality of emissions from NAAQS 
pollutants can be predicted and submission of such data to the EPA can 
be made. Georgia Air Quality Act: Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 
Section 12-9), specifies that air modeling be conducted in accordance 
with 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W ``Guideline on Air Quality Models.'' 
These regulations demonstrate that Georgia has the authority to provide 
relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air 
quality of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. Additionally, Georgia supports a 
regional effort to coordinate the development of emissions inventories 
and conduct regional modeling for several NAAQS, including the 2008 
Lead NAAQS, for the Southeastern states. Taken as a whole, Georgia's 
air quality regulations demonstrate that EPD has the authority to 
provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on 
ambient air quality of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. EPA has made the 
preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices adequately 
demonstrate the State's ability to provide for air quality and

[[Page 44013]]

modeling, along with analysis of the associated data, related to the 
2008 Lead NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 
approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 
110(a)(2)(K).
    11. 110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting fees: This element necessitates that 
the SIP require the owner or operator of each major stationary source 
to pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit 
required under the CAA, a fee sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable 
costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit, 
and (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, 
the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and 
conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs or other 
costs associated with any enforcement action), until such fee 
requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the 
Administrator's approval of a fee program under title V.
    Georgia Air Quality Act: Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 
12-9-10, and Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.03(9)--Permit Fees 
requires the collection of permitting fees through the title V Fee 
Program, which EPD ensures is sufficient for the reasonable cost of 
reviewing and acting upon PSD and NNSR permits. Additionally, Georgia 
has a fully approved title V operating permit program at Georgia Rule 
for Air Quality 391-3-1-.03(9)--Permit Fees that covers the cost of 
implementation and enforcement of PSD and NNSR permits after they have 
been issued. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's 
SIP and practices adequately provide for permitting fees related to the 
2008 Lead NAAQS, when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 
approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 
110(a)(2)(L).
    12. 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/participation by affected local 
entities: This element requires states to provide for consultation and 
participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions 
affected by the SIP. Georgia Air Quality Act: Article I: Air Quality 
(O.C.G.A. Section 12-9) authorizes EPD to advise, consult, cooperate 
and enter into agreements with other agencies of the state, the Federal 
Government, other states, interstate agencies, groups, political 
subdivisions, and industries affected by the provisions of this act, 
rules, or policies of the department. EPA has made the preliminary 
determination that Georgia's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate 
consultation with affected local entities related to the 22008 Lead 
NAAQS, when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve 
Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 
110(a)(2)(M).

V. Proposed Action

    With the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major 
sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of (D)(i), and (J), EPA is 
proposing to approve Georgia's March 6, 2012, SIP submittal to address 
infrastructure requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. EPA is proposing 
to take this action because the Agency has made the preliminary 
determination that Georgia's infrastructure SIP revision is consistent 
with section 110 and EPA's 2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and would not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does 
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, and Recordkeeping 
requirements.

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

    Dated: July 14, 2015.
 Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2015-18096 Filed 7-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P