Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 44005-44013 [2015-18096]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to
include in a final rule regulatory text
that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
the rules listed in Table 1 of this
preamble, except for the portion of each
rule that incorporates Step 2 of the GHG
Tailoring Rule at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v).
The EPA has made, and will continue
to make, these documents generally
available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard
copy at the appropriate office of the EPA
(see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble for more information).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: July 7, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015–18081 Filed 7–23–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0442; FRL–9931–14Region 4]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Georgia;
Infrastructure Requirements for the
2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44005
requires that each state adopt and
submit a SIP for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of each
NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is
commonly referred to as an
‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. EPD certified that
the Georgia SIP contains provisions that
ensure the 2008 Lead NAAQS is
implemented, enforced, and maintained
in Georgia. With the exception of
provisions pertaining to prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD)
permitting, EPA is proposing to
determine that Georgia’s infrastructure
SIP submission, provided to EPA on
March 6, 2012, addresses the required
infrastructure elements for the 2008
Lead NAAQS.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before August 24, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2014–0442, by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: R4-ARMS@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2014–
0442,’’ Air Regulatory Management
Section (formerly the Regulatory
Development Section), Air Planning and
Implementation Branch (formerly the
Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae
Benjamin, Chief, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2014–
0442. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email,
information that you consider to be CBI
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
44006
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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 https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zuri
Farngalo, Air Regulatory Management
Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The
telephone number is (404) 562–9152.
Mr. Farngalo can be reached via
electronic mail at farngalo.zuri@
epa.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. What elements are required under sections
110(a)(1) and (2)?
III. What is EPA’s approach to the review of
infrastructure SIP submissions?
IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how Georgia
addressed the elements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2) ‘‘infrastructure’’
provisions?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On October 5, 1978, EPA promulgated
a primary and secondary NAAQS for
lead under section 109 of the Act. See
43 FR 46246. Both the primary and
secondary standards were set at a level
of 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/
m3), measured as lead in total
suspended particulate matter (Pb-TSP),
not to be exceeded by the maximum
arithmetic mean concentration averaged
over a calendar quarter. This standard
was based on the 1977 Air Quality
Criteria for Lead (USEPA, August 7,
1977). On November 12, 2008 (75 FR
81126), EPA issued a final rule to revise
the primary and secondary lead
NAAQS. The revised primary and
secondary lead NAAQS were revised to
0.15 mg/m3. By statute, SIPs meeting the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) are to be submitted by states within
three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) require states to address basic
SIP requirements, including emissions
inventories, monitoring, and modeling
to assure attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS. States were required to
submit such SIPs to EPA no later than
October 15, 2011, for the 2008 Lead
NAAQS.1
Today’s action is proposing to
approve Georgia’s infrastructure
submission for the applicable
requirements of the Lead NAAQS, with
the exception of preconstruction PSD
permitting requirements for major
sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3
of D(i), and (J). On March 18, 2015, EPA
approved Georgia’s March 6, 2012,
infrastructure SIP submission regarding
1 In these infrastructure SIP submissions states
generally certify evidence of compliance with
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA through a
combination of state regulations and statutes, some
of which have been incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. In addition, certain federallyapproved, non-SIP regulations may also be
appropriate for demonstrating compliance with
sections 110(a)(1) and (2). Unless otherwise
indicated, the Georgia Rules for Air Quality cited
throughout this rulemaking have been approved
into Georgia’s federally-approved SIP. The Georgia
Air Quality Act Article 1cited throughout this
rulemaking, however, are not approved into the
Georgia SIP unless otherwise indicated.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
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).
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under
Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the
2008 lead (Pb) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2011
Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance.)
• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and
other control measures.
• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality
monitoring/data system.
• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for
enforcement, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and new source
review (NSR).3
• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate and
international transport provisions.
• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate personnel,
funding, and authority.
• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source
monitoring and reporting.
• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with
government officials; public
notification; and PSD and visibility
protection.
• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/
data.
• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/
participation by affected local entities.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
3 This rulemaking only addresses requirements
for this element as they relate to attainment areas.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
type of SIP submission from
submissions that are intended to satisfy
other SIP requirements under the CAA,
such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or
‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to
address the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D of title I of the
CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions
required by EPA rule to address the
visibility protection requirements of
CAA section 169A, and nonattainment
new source review permit program
submissions to address the permit
requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing
and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions, and
section 110(a)(2) provides more details
concerning the required contents of
these submissions. The list of required
elements provided in section 110(a)(2)
contains a wide variety of disparate
provisions, some of which pertain to
required legal authority, some of which
pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain
to requirements for both authority and
substantive program provisions.4 EPA
therefore believes that while the timing
requirement in section 110(a)(1) is
unambiguous, some of the other
statutory provisions are ambiguous. In
particular, EPA believes that the list of
required elements for infrastructure SIP
submissions provided in section
110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for
inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission.
The following examples of
ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and
section 110(a)(2) requirements with
respect to infrastructure SIP
submissions for a given new or revised
NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is
that section 110(a)(2) requires that
‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the
list of requirements therein, while EPA
has long noted that this literal reading
of the statute is internally inconsistent
and would create a conflict with the
nonattainment provisions in part D of
title I of the Act, which specifically
address nonattainment SIP
requirements.5 Section 110(a)(2)(I)
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.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44007
pertains to nonattainment SIP
requirements and part D addresses
when attainment plan SIP submissions
to address nonattainment area
requirements are due. For example,
section 172(b) requires EPA to establish
a schedule for submission of such plans
for certain pollutants when the
Administrator promulgates the
designation of an area as nonattainment,
and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to
two years, or in some cases three years,
for such designations to be
promulgated.6 This ambiguity illustrates
that rather than apply all the stated
requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a
strict literal sense, EPA must determine
which provisions of section 110(a)(2)
are applicable for a particular
infrastructure SIP submission.
Another example of ambiguity within
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with
respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to
whether states must meet all of the
infrastructure SIP requirements in a
single SIP submission, and whether EPA
must act upon such SIP submission in
a single action. Although section
110(a)(1) directs states to submit ‘‘a
plan’’ to meet these requirements, EPA
interprets the CAA to allow states to
make multiple SIP submissions
separately addressing infrastructure SIP
elements for the same NAAQS. If states
elect to make such multiple SIP
submissions to meet the infrastructure
SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act
on such submissions either individually
or in a larger combined action.7
Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to
allow it to take action on the individual
parts of one larger, comprehensive
infrastructure SIP submission for a
given NAAQS without concurrent
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.
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).
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
44008
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
action on the entire submission. For
example, EPA has sometimes elected to
act at different times on various
elements and sub-elements of the same
infrastructure SIP submission.8
Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) may also arise with
respect to infrastructure SIP submission
requirements for different NAAQS.
Thus, EPA notes that not every element
of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant,
or as relevant, or relevant in the same
way, for each new or revised NAAQS.
The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP
submissions for each NAAQS therefore
could be different. For example, the
monitoring requirements that a state
might need to meet in its infrastructure
SIP submission for purposes of section
110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for
different pollutants because the content
and scope of a state’s infrastructure SIP
submission to meet this element might
be very different for an entirely new
NAAQS than for a minor revision to an
existing NAAQS.9
EPA notes that interpretation of
section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when
EPA reviews other types of SIP
submissions required under the CAA.
Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP
submissions, EPA also has to identify
and interpret the relevant elements of
section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to
these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires
that attainment plan SIP submissions
required by part D have to meet the
‘‘applicable requirements’’ of section
110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment
plan SIP submissions must meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
regarding enforceable emission limits
and control measures and section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency
resources and authority. By contrast, it
is clear that attainment plan SIP
submissions required by part D would
not need to meet the portion of section
110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD
program required in part C of title I of
the CAA, because PSD does not apply
to a pollutant for which an area is
designated nonattainment and thus
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.
9 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM
2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of
new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new
indicator species for the new NAAQS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
subject to part D planning requirements.
As this example illustrates, each type of
SIP submission may implicate some
elements of section 110(a)(2) but not
others.
Given the potential for ambiguity in
some of the statutory language of section
110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA
believes that it is appropriate to
interpret the ambiguous portions of
section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2)
in the context of acting on a particular
SIP submission. In other words, EPA
assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP
submission, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP
development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or
meet each of them in the same way.
Therefore, EPA has adopted an
approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submissions against
the list of elements in section 110(a)(2),
but only to the extent each element
applies for that particular NAAQS.
Historically, EPA has elected to use
guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for
infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on
newly arising issues and in some cases
conveying interpretations that have
already been developed and applied to
individual SIP submissions for
particular elements.10 EPA issued the
Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance on
October 14, 2011.11 EPA developed this
document to provide states with up-todate guidance for the 2008 Lead
infrastructure SIPs. Within this
guidance, EPA describes the duty of
states to make infrastructure SIP
submissions to meet basic structural SIP
requirements within three years of
promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. EPA also made
recommendations about many specific
subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are
relevant in the context of infrastructure
SIP submissions. The guidance also
discusses the substantively important
issues that are germane to certain
subsections of section 110(a)(2).
Significantly, EPA interprets sections
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that
infrastructure SIP submissions need to
address certain issues and need not
address others. Accordingly, EPA
reviews each infrastructure SIP
submission for compliance with the
applicable statutory provisions of
section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.12
EPA’s approach to review of
infrastructure SIP submissions is to
identify the CAA requirements that are
logically applicable to that submission.
EPA believes that this approach to the
review of a particular infrastructure SIP
submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the
general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in
110(a)(2) as requiring review of each
and every provision of a state’s existing
SIP against all requirements in the CAA
and EPA regulations merely for
purposes of assuring that the state in
question has the basic structural
elements for a functioning SIP for a new
or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as
statutory and regulatory requirements
under the CAA have evolved, they may
include some outmoded provisions and
historical artifacts. These provisions,
while not fully up to date, nevertheless
may not pose a significant problem for
the purposes of ‘‘implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a
new or revised NAAQS when EPA
evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure
SIP submission. EPA believes that a
better approach is for states and EPA to
focus attention on those elements of
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely
to warrant a specific SIP revision due to
the promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS or other factors.
Finally, EPA believes that its
approach with respect to infrastructure
SIP requirements is based on a
reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides
other avenues and mechanisms to
address specific substantive deficiencies
in existing SIPs. These other statutory
tools allow EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the
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.
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
regulations described below have been
federally approved into the Georgia SIP
and include enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures.
Georgia Rules for Air Quality 391–3–1–
.01—Definitions. Amended, 391–3–1–
.02—Provisions. Amended, and 391–3–
1–.03—Permits. Amended, establish
emission limits for lead and address the
required control measures, means, and
techniques for compliance with the
2008 Lead NAAQS. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that the
provisions contained in these rules are
adequate to protect the 2008 Lead
NAAQS in the State.
In this action, EPA is not proposing to
approve or disapprove any existing
State provisions with regard to excess
emissions during startup, shutdown and
malfunction (SSM) of operations at a
facility. EPA believes that a number of
states have SSM provisions which are
contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
guidance, ‘‘State Implementation Plans:
Policy Regarding Excess Emissions
During Malfunctions, Startup, and
Shutdown’’ (September 20, 1999), and
the Agency plans to address such state
regulations in a separate action.16 In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state
having a deficient SSM provision to take
steps to correct it as soon as possible.
Additionally, in this action, EPA is
not proposing to approve or disapprove
any existing State rules with regard to
director’s discretion or variance
provisions. EPA believes that a number
of states have such provisions which are
contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24,
1987)), and the Agency plans to take a
separate action to address such state
regulations. In the meantime, EPA
encourages any state having a director’s
discretion or variance provision which
is contrary to the CAA and EPA
guidance to take steps to correct the
deficiency as soon as possible.
2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient air quality
monitoring/data system: SIPs are
required to provide for the
establishment and operation of ambient
air quality monitors; the compilation
and analysis of ambient air quality data;
and the submission of these data to EPA
upon request. the Georgia Air Quality
Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A.
Section 12–9–6 (b)(13)), along with the
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
https://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/
emissions.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44009
Georgia Network Description and
Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan
provides for an ambient air quality
monitoring system in the State.
Annually, States develop and submit to
EPA for approval statewide ambient
monitoring network plans consistent
with the requirements of 40 CFR parts
50, 53, and 58. The annual network plan
involves an evaluation of any proposed
changes to the monitoring network,
includes the annual ambient monitoring
network design plan and a certified
evaluation of the agency’s ambient
monitors and auxiliary support
equipment.17 On June 1, 2014, Georgia
submitted its plan to EPA. On
November 7, 2014, EPA approved
Georgia’s monitoring network plan as
related to lead. Georgia’s approved
monitoring network plan can be
accessed at www.regulations.gov using
Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2014–
0442. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Georgia’s SIP and
practices are adequate for the ambient
air quality monitoring and data system
related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
3. 110(a)(2)(C) Program for
enforcement, prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) and new source
review (NSR): This element consists of
three sub-elements; enforcement, statewide regulation of new and modified
minor sources and minor modifications
of major sources; and preconstruction
permitting of major sources and major
modifications in areas designated
attainment or unclassifiable for the
subject NAAQS as required by CAA title
I part C (i.e., the major source PSD
program). In this action EPA is
proposing to approve Georgia’s
infrastructure SIP submission for the
2008 Lead NAAQS with respect to the
general requirement of 110(a)(2)(C) to
include a program in the SIP that
provides for enforcement of emission
limits and control measures and
regulation of minor sources and minor
modifications as well as the
enforcement of lead emission limits to
assist in the protection of air quality in
nonattainment, attainment or
unclassifiable areas. This is established
in Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air
Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12–9, et seq.
Georgia Rule 391–3–1-.07—Inspections
and Investigations. Amended, and
Georgia Rule 391–3–1–.09—
Enforcement. Amended. EPA’s analysis
of each sub-element is provided below.
Enforcement: Georgia Air Quality Act
Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section
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.
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
44010
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
concludes that sources in Georgia are
unlikely to contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in
neighboring states. Therefore, EPA has
made the preliminary determination
that Georgia’s SIP meets the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With
respect to Georgia’s infrastructure SIP
submission related to the interstate
transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 3, EPA
approved this sub-element on March 18,
2015, (See 80 FR 14019), and thus is not
proposing any action today regarding
these requirements.
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4: With
regard to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the
visibility sub-element, referred to as
prong 4, significant visibility impacts
from stationary source lead emissions
are expected to be limited to short
distances from the source. See the 2011
Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance. Lead
stationary sources in Georgia are located
at distances from Class I areas such that
visibility impacts are negligible. Georgia
has 3 Class 1 areas, Cohutta Wilderness
Area, Okefenokee Wilderness Area, and
Wolf Island Wilderness Area and none
of these are within 2 miles of a lead
source that emits more than .5 tons per
year. EPA has preliminarily determined
that the Georgia SIP meets the relevant
visibility requirements.
110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—Interstate and
International transport provisions: EPA
is unaware of any pending obligations
for the State of Georgia pursuant to
sections 115 and 126. Georgia’s SIPapproved PSD requirements under
Georgia Rules for Air Quality 391–3–1–
.02(7).—Prevention of Significant
Deterioration provides how Georgia will
notify neighboring states of potential
impacts from new or modified sources
proposed to locate in attainment or
unclassifiable areas. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that
Georgia’s SIP and practices are adequate
for insuring compliance with the
applicable requirements relating to
interstate and international pollution
abatement for the 2008 Lead NAAQS
5. 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate personnel,
funding, and authority. Section
110(a)(2)(E) requires that each
implementation plan provide (i)
necessary assurances that the State will
have adequate personnel, funding, and
authority under state law to carry out its
implementation plan, (ii) that the State
comply with the requirements
respecting State Boards pursuant to
source-oriented Pb monitor be placed near the
facility.
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules
section 128 of the Act, and (iii)
necessary assurances that, where the
State has relied on a local or regional
government, agency, or instrumentality
for the implementation of any plan
provision, the State has responsibility
for ensuring adequate implementation
of such plan provisions. EPA is
proposing to approve Georgia’s SIP as
meeting the requirements of subelements 110(a)(2)(E)(i),(ii), and (iii).
EPA’s rationale for today’s proposals
respecting each sub-element is
described in turn below.
In support of EPA’s proposal to
approve sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and
(iii), EPA notes that EPD is responsible
for promulgating rules and regulations
for the NAAQS, emissions standards
general policies, a system of permits,
and fee schedules for the review of
plans, and other planning needs. As
evidence of the adequacy of EPD’s
resources, EPA submitted a letter to
Georgia on March 26, 2014, outlining
105 grant commitments and the current
status of these commitments for fiscal
year 2013. The letter EPA submitted to
Georgia can be accessed at
www.regulations.gov using Docket ID
No. EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0442.
Annually, states update these grant
commitments based on current SIP
requirements, air quality planning, and
applicable requirements related to the
NAAQS. Georgia satisfactorily met all
commitments agreed to in the Air
Planning Agreement for fiscal year 2013,
therefore Georgia’s grants were finalized
and closed out. Additionally, to satisfy
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E),
Georgia’s infrastructure SIP submission
cites Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1:
Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Sections 12–9–10
and Rule 391–3–1–.03(9) ‘‘Georgia Air
Permit Fee System’’ which provides the
State’s adequate funding and authority
and rules for permit fees.
Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air
Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12–9–5)
provides the powers and duties of the
Board of Natural Resources as to air
quality and provides that at least a
majority of members of this board
represent the public interest and not
derive any significant portion of income
from persons subject to permits or
enforcement orders and that potential
conflicts of interest will be adequately
disclosed. This provision has been
incorporated into Georgia’s federally
approved SIP. Collectively, these rules
and commitments provide evidence that
GA EPD has adequate personnel,
funding, and legal authority under state
law to carry out the state’s
implementation plan and related issues.
EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Georgia has adequate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
resources and authority to satisfy
sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii), and (iii) of
the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
6. 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary source
monitoring and reporting: Georgia’s
infrastructure submission describes how
the State establishes requirements for
emissions compliance testing and
utilizes emissions sampling and
analysis. It further describes how the
State ensures the quality of its data
through observing emissions and
monitoring operations. EPD uses these
data to track progress towards
maintaining the NAAQS, develop
control and maintenance strategies,
identify sources and general emission
levels, and determine compliance with
emission regulations and additional
EPA requirements. These requirements
are provided in the Georgia Air Quality
Act: 19 Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A.
Section 12–9–5(b)(6)), Georgia Rule for
Air Quality 391–3–1–.02(3)—Sampling,
Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391–3–1–
.02(6)(b) General Monitoring and
Reporting Requirements, Georgia Rule
for Air Quality 391–3–1–.02(6)—Source
Monitoring, Georgia Rule for Air Quality
391–3–1–.02(7)—Prevention of
Significant Deterioration of Air Quality,
Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391–3–1–
.02(8)—New Source Performance
Standards, Georgia Rule for Air Quality
391–3–1–.02(9)—Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Georgia
Rule for Air Quality 391–3–1–.02(11)—
Compliance Assurance Monitoring, and,
Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391–3–1–
.03—Permits. Amended.
Additionally, Georgia is required to
submit emissions data to EPA for
purposes of the National Emissions
Inventory (NEI). The NEI is EPA’s
central repository for air emissions data.
EPA published the Air Emissions
Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5,
2008, which modified the requirements
for collecting and reporting air
emissions data (73 FR 76539). The
AERR shortened the time states had to
report emissions data from 17 to 12
months, giving states one calendar year
to submit emissions data. All states are
required to submit a comprehensive
emissions inventory every three years
and report emissions for certain larger
sources annually through EPA’s online
Emissions Inventory System. States
report emissions data for the six criteria
pollutants and the precursors that form
them—nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide,
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44011
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 https://
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
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
44012
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules
practice, a permanent or temporary
injunction, restraining order, or other
order shall be granted without the
necessity of showing lack of an adequate
remedy of law.’’ O.C.G.A. Section 12–
19–13 specifically pertains to
enforcement proceedings when the
Director of EPD has reason to believe
that a violation of any provision of the
Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air
Quality (O.C.G.A), or environmental
rules, regulations or orders have
occurred. O.C.G.A. Section 12–9–14 also
provides that the Governor, may issue
orders as necessary to protect the health
of persons who are, or may be, affected
by a pollution source or facility after
‘‘consultation with local authorities in
order to confirm the correctness of the
information on which action proposed
to be taken is based and to ascertain the
action which such authorities are or will
be taking.’’
Rule 391–3–1–.04 ‘‘Air Pollution
Episodes’’ provides that the Director of
EPD ‘‘will proclaim that an Air
Pollution Alert, Air Pollution Warning,
or Air Pollution Emergency exists when
the meteorological conditions are such
that an air stagnation condition is in
existence and/or the accumulation of air
contaminants in any place is attaining
or has attained levels which could, if
such levels are sustained or exceeded,
lead to a substantial threat to the health
of persons in the specific area affected.’’
Collectively the cited provisions
provide that Georgia EPD demonstrate
authority comparable with section 303
of the CAA and adequate contingency
plans to implement such authority in
the State. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Georgia’s SIP and
practices are adequate for emergency
powers related to the 2008 Lead
NAAQS.
8. 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP revisions:
EPD is responsible for adopting air
quality rules and revising SIPs as
needed to attain or maintain the
NAAQS in Georgia. Georgia Air Quality
Act: Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A.
Section 12–9, and EPD is required by
12–9–6(b)(12) and (13) grants EPD the
broad authority to implement the CAA,
which authorizes EPD to adopt a
comprehensive program for the
prevention, control, and abatement of
pollution of the air of the state, and from
time to time review and modify such
programs as necessary. EPD has the
ability and authority to respond to calls
for SIP revisions, and has provided a
number of SIP revisions over the years
for implementation of the NAAQS.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
approve Georgia’s infrastructure SIP
submission with respect to section
110(a)(2)(H) for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
9. 110(a)(2)(J): EPA is proposing to
approve Georgia’s infrastructure SIP for
the 2008 Lead NAAQS with respect to
the general requirement in section
110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the
SIP that provides for meeting the
applicable consultation requirements of
section 121, the public notification
requirements of section 127; and the
PSD and visibility protection
requirements of part C of the Act. With
respect to Georgia’s infrastructure SIP
submission related to the
preconstruction PSD permitting
requirements, EPA approved this subelement of 110(a)(2)(J) on March 18,
2015, and thus is not proposing any
action today regarding these
requirements. See 80 FR 14019. EPA’s
rationale for applicable consultation
requirements of section 121, the public
notification requirements of section 127,
and visibility is described below.
110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation)
Consultation with government officials:
Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires
states to provide a process for
consultation with local governments,
designated organizations and federal
land managers (FLMs) carrying out
NAAQS implementation requirements
pursuant to section 121 relative to
consultation. The Georgia Air Quality
Act: Article I: Air Quality (O.C.G.A.
Section 12–9(b)(17)), Georgia
Administrative Procedures Act
(O.C.G.A. § 50–13–4), and Georgia Rule
391–3–1–.02(7) as it relates to Class I
areas provide for consultation with
government officials whose jurisdictions
might be affected by SIP development
activities. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that
Georgia’s SIP and practices adequately
demonstrate consultation with
government officials related to the 2008
Lead NAAQS, when necessary.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
approve Georgia’s infrastructure SIP
submission with respect to section
110(a)(2)(J) consultation with
government officials.
110(a)(2)(J) (127 public notification)
Public notification: Georgia Air Quality
Act: Article I: Air Quality (O.C.G.A.
Section 12–9), Georgia Administrative
Procedures Act (O.C.G.A. § 50–13–4),
and Georgia Rule 391–3–1–.02(7) as it
relates to Class I areas also include
public notice requirements.
Additionally, notification to the public
of instances or areas exceeding the
NAAQS and associated health effects is
provided through implementation of the
Air Quality Index reporting system in
all required areas. Accordingly, EPA is
proposing to approve Georgia’s
infrastructure SIP submission with
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jul 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
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);
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44013
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), nor will it impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, and Recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 14, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2015–18096 Filed 7–23–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0842; A–1–FRL–
9927–33–Region 1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut; Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Nonattainment New
Source Review
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
certain revisions to the State of
Connecticut State Implementation Plan
(SIP) relating to regulation of fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions
within the context of EPA’s Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
regulations. EPA is also proposing to
approve clarifications to the
applicability section of Connecticut’s
Nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR) regulations. These revisions
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
]]>Agencies
[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: R4-ARMS@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0442,'' Air Regulatory Management
Section (formerly the Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning and
Implementation Branch (formerly the Air Planning Branch), Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Air
Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch,
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2014-0442. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI
[[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 https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zuri Farngalo, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9152. Mr. Farngalo can be
reached via electronic mail at farngalo.zuri@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP
submissions?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Georgia addressed the elements of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``infrastructure'' provisions?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On October 5, 1978, EPA promulgated a primary and secondary NAAQS
for lead under section 109 of the Act. See 43 FR 46246. Both the
primary and secondary standards were set at a level of 1.5 micrograms
per cubic meter ([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 https://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 https://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
