[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 124 (Friday, June 26, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38319-38320]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13531]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0306; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-13]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of VOR Federal Airway V-52 in the Vicinity of Bowling
Green, KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal
airway V-52 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of
the Bowling Green, KY, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigation
aid (NAVAID). The Bowling Green VOR is being decommissioned in support
of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (VOR MON) program.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, September 10, 2020. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to
preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National
Airspace System.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Docket
No. FAA-2020-0306 in the Federal Register (85 FR 17792; March 31,
2020), amending VOR Federal airway V-52 in the vicinity of Bowling
Green, KY, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the
Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal. No comments were received.
    Subsequent to the NPRM, the FAA published a rule for Docket No.
FAA-2020-0008 in the Federal Register (85 FR 26601; May 5, 2020),
amending VOR Federal airway V-52 by removing the airway segment between
the Pocket City, IN, VORTAC and the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC. That
airway amendment, effective July 16, 2020, is included in this rule.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order
7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airway
listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

The Rule
    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 to modify VOR Federal airway V-52 due to the planned
decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC.
The VOR Federal airway action is described below.
    V-52: V-52 extends between the Des Moines, IA, VORTAC and the
Pocket City, IN, VORTAC; and between the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC and
the Livingston, TN, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME). The
airway segment between the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC and the
Livingston, TN, VOR/DME is removed. The unaffected portions of the
existing airway remain as charted.
    The NAVAID radials listed in the V-52 description below are
unchanged and stated in True degrees.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of modifying VOR Federal
airway V-52, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of
the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC, qualifies for categorical exclusion
under the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing
regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order
1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-
6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact
review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace
areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71,
Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic
Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not
expected to result in any potentially significant environmental
impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding
Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for
factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded
action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further
analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances
exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-52 [Amended]

    From Des Moines, IA; Ottumwa, IA; Quincy, IL; St. Louis, MO;
Troy, IL; INT Troy 099[deg] and Pocket City, IN, 311[deg] radials;
to Pocket City.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 17, 2020.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-13531 Filed 6-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                             Dimethenamid (129051)
                     Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)
                            Date: January 15, 2016

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?
 Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.
 Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.
What does it contain?
 Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.
 Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used on.
 Available pesticide usage information from states that produce 80% of crop acres planted in the United States, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases, depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.
 Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural crop.
 Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).
What assumptions can I make about the reported data?
 Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all observations, then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated values between 500 & <1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.  Estimated values of 1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)
 Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, & rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.  If the estimated value is less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.
 Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.
What are the data sources used?
 United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS)  -  pesticide usage data from 2005 to 2014.  NASS data are based on surveys that focus on the top-producing states that together account for the majority of U.S. acres or production of the surveyed commodity.  NASS aims to cover at a minimum 80 percent of the targeted fruit, vegetable, and field crop acres planted in the United States. Farm level data are combined during summary and, pending compliance with disclosure rules, published at the state and national levels.  NASS collects agricultural usage data for various crops on a rotating schedule.
 Private pesticide market research  -  pesticide usage data from 2005 to 2013.  The Private Pesticide Market Research data is also a survey that covers pesticide usage on agricultural crops.  The survey data accounts for at least 80 percent of US acres/production of the surveyed commodities.  Surveys are conducted annually.
 California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) data for 2005 to 2012. The PUR database contains detailed records and summaries of agricultural applications of pesticides on crops that are obtained from a census and published annually.
What are the limitations to the data?
 Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).
 Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply zero usage.
 Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the SLUA.
 Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control, etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to receive these estimates.
 Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).
                               January 15, 2016

    Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Dimethenamid (129501)
             Sorted Alphabetically  -  Reporting Time:  2005-2014
                                     Crop
                               Average Lbs. A.I.
                               Applied per Year
                             Percent Crop Treated

                                    Average
                                    Maximum
                                       1
Corn
                                   1,600,000
                                    <2.5
                                       5
                                       2
Dry Beans/Peas
                                     4,000
                                     <1
                                    <2.5
                                       3
Onions, Dry
                                     4,000
                                       5
                                       5
                                       5
Peanuts
                                     3,000
                                     <1
                                    <2.5
                                       7
Potatoes
                                    20,000
                                       5
                                       5
                                       8
Sorghum
                                    200,000
                                       5
                                      10
                                       9
Soybeans
                                     7,000
                                     <1
                                    <2.5
                                      10
Sweet Corn
                                     7,000
                                    <2.5
                                    <2.5
  All numbers rounded.
                                                                        <500
Less than 500 pounds of active ingredient
                                                                        <2.5
Less than 2.5 percent of crop treated
                                                                          <1
Less than 1 percent of crop treated

  SLUA data sources include:
       USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)
Private Pesticide Market Research

  These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are releasable to the public.


[Federal Register: September 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 178)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55973-55975]
[DOCID:fr15se10-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0786]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Illinois River, Mile 000.5 to 001.5

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all waters of the Illinois River, Mile 000.5 to 001.5, extending the
entire width of the river. This safety zone is needed to protect
persons and vessels from safety hazards associated with a land based
firework display occurring on the Illinois River. Entry into this zone
will be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the
Port Upper Mississippi River or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m. on September
18, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0786 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0786 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Lieutenant (LT) Rob McCaskey, Sector
Upper Mississippi River Response Department at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' The Coast Guard finds that it would be impracticable to
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this
rule because the event would occur before the rulemaking process could
be completed.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Publishing a NPRM and delaying its
effective date would be impracticable because immediate action is
needed to protect vessels and mariners from the safety hazards
associated with a land based fireworks display.

Basis and Purpose

    On September 18, 2010 the City of Grafton will be conducting a land
based fireworks display at mile 001.0 on the Illinois River. This event
presents safety hazards to the navigation of vessels between mile 000.5
and mile 001.5, extending the entire width of the river. A safety zone
around the launch site is

necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the
hazards associated with the fireworks. The Captain of the Port Upper
Mississippi River will inform the public of all safety zone changes
through broadcast notice to mariners.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone for all waters of the
Illinois River, Mile 000.5 to 001.5, extending the entire width of the
river. Entry into this zone will be prohibited to all vessels and
persons except participants and those persons and vessels specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River. This
rule will be effective from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m. CDT on September 18,
2010. The Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River will inform the
public through broadcast notice to mariners of all safety zone changes
and enforcement periods.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by
the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant
because of the very brief duration of the effective period of the zone.
Furthermore, the local waterway users will be notified via public
Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in
minimum impact.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities for the following reasons: (1) This rule will only be in
effect for a limited period of time; and (2) the local waterway users
will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are

technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance,
design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related
management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction. This rule involves establishing, disestablishing, or
changing Regulated Navigation Areas and security or safety zones.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and
160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0786 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0786  Safety Zone; Illnois River, Mile 000.5 to 001.5.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all waters of
the Illinois River, Mile 000.5 to 001.5 extending the entire width of
the waterway.
    (b) Effective date. This rule is effective from 9 p.m. until 10
p.m. CDT on September 18, 2010.
    (c) Periods of Enforcement. This rule will be enforced from 9 p.m.
until 10 p.m. CDT on September 18, 2010. The Captain of the Port Upper
Mississippi River will inform the public through broadcast notice to
mariners of all safety zone changes and enforcement periods.
    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River or a
designated representative.
    (2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the
zone must request permission from the Captain of the Port Upper
Mississippi River or a designated representative. The Captain of the
Port Upper Mississippi River representative may be contacted at 314-
269-2332.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River or their designated
representative. Designated Captain of the Port representatives include
United States Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of
the U.S. Coast Guard.

    Dated: August 23, 2010.
S.L. Hudson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River.
[FR Doc. 2010-23007 Filed 9-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Microbial ICR Addendum 1 November 28, 2001 Addendum to the Information Collection Request for the Microbial Rules dated August 16, 2001 The August 16, 2001, Microbial Rules Information Collection Request ( ICR) requested the following burden hours and corresponding cost:

8,198,417 total respondent hours ( 6,621,176 PWS hours + 1,577,241 primacy agency hours) 5,385 total EPA hours $ 287,356k total respondent cost ($ 241,792k for PWS + $ 45,564k for primacy agencies) $ 432k total EPA cost The August 16, 2001, Microbial ICR includes burden for the Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Program for Analysis of Cryptosporidium in Water ( Lab QA Program). The Lab QA Program narrative, burden, and cost should be removed from the Microbial ICR.

[ A total of 5,217 hours ( 5,217 PWS hours + 0 primacy agency hours) should be removed from the total respondent burden hours requested in the August 16, 2001, Microbial ICR. The total respondent cost should be reduced by $ 275k ($ 275k for PWS + $ 0 for primacy agencies). Note that no primacy agency burden or cost was estimated for the Lab QA Program in the August 16, 2001, Microbial ICR.]

In addition, all Agency ( EPA) burden and cost estimates should be removed from the Microbial ICR. In the August 16, 2001, Microbial ICR, Agency burden was estimated for the Lab QA Program only. Since the burden for the Lab QA Program will be removed from the Microbial ICR, no rule specific Agency burden or cost will be associated with the Microbial ICR. EPA burden and costs for on going general activities for all EPA drinking water regulations are accounted for under the PWSS Program ICR.

[ A total of 5,385 hours and $ 432k should be removed from the total annual respondent plus Agency burden and cost.] Microbial ICR Addendum 2 November 28, 2001 Revised burden estimates for the Microbial Rules are outlined in the exhibit below. This exhibit could be used to replace Exhibit 5 in the August 16, 2001, Microbial ICR.

Exhibit 5 Bottom Line Annual Burden and Cost 2002 2004 Number of Annual Respondents 167,894 = 167,837 + 57 Existing PWSs Primacy agencies Total Annual Responses 22,602,022 = 20,465,421 + 2,136,601 PWS responses Primacy agency responses Number of Responses per Respondent 134.6 = 22,602,022 / 167,894 Total annual responses from above Total number of respondents from above Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours 8,193,200 = 6,615,959 + 1,577,241 PWS hours Primacy agency hours Hours per Response 0.36 = 8,193,200 / 22,602,022 Total respondent burden hours from above Total annual responses from above Total Annual Respondent Cost $ 287,081k = $ 241,517k + $ 45,564k For PWSs For primacy agencies


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44005-44013]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18096]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2014-0442, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zuri Farngalo, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Farngalo can be
reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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

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

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

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

    \13\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \14\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16,
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3,
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \15\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21,
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76
FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

section 128 of the Act, and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the
State has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or
instrumentality for the implementation of any plan provision, the State
has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan
provisions. EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's SIP as meeting the
requirements of sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i),(ii), and (iii). EPA's
rationale for today's proposals respecting each sub-element is
described in turn below.
    In support of EPA's proposal to approve sub-elements
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), EPA notes that EPD is responsible for
promulgating rules and regulations for the NAAQS, emissions standards
general policies, a system of permits, and fee schedules for the review
of plans, and other planning needs. As evidence of the adequacy of
EPD's resources, EPA submitted a letter to Georgia on March 26, 2014,
outlining 105 grant commitments and the current status of these
commitments for fiscal year 2013. The letter EPA submitted to Georgia
can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2014-0442. Annually, states update these grant commitments based on
current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable
requirements related to the NAAQS. Georgia satisfactorily met all
commitments agreed to in the Air Planning Agreement for fiscal year
2013, therefore Georgia's grants were finalized and closed out.
Additionally, to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E),
Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission cites Georgia Air Quality Act
Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Sections 12-9-10 and Rule 391-3-
1-.03(9) ``Georgia Air Permit Fee System'' which provides the State's
adequate funding and authority and rules for permit fees.
    Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section
12-9-5) provides the powers and duties of the Board of Natural
Resources as to air quality and provides that at least a majority of
members of this board represent the public interest and not derive any
significant portion of income from persons subject to permits or
enforcement orders and that potential conflicts of interest will be
adequately disclosed. This provision has been incorporated into
Georgia's federally approved SIP. Collectively, these rules and
commitments provide evidence that GA EPD has adequate personnel,
funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out the state's
implementation plan and related issues. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Georgia has adequate resources and authority to
satisfy sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii), and (iii) of the 2008 Lead
NAAQS.
    6. 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary source monitoring and reporting:
Georgia's infrastructure submission describes how the State establishes
requirements for emissions compliance testing and utilizes emissions
sampling and analysis. It further describes how the State ensures the
quality of its data through observing emissions and monitoring
operations. EPD uses these data to track progress towards maintaining
the NAAQS, develop control and maintenance strategies, identify sources
and general emission levels, and determine compliance with emission
regulations and additional EPA requirements. These requirements are
provided in the Georgia Air Quality Act: \19\ Article 1: Air Quality
(O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-5(b)(6)), Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-
1-.02(3)--Sampling, Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(6)(b)
General Monitoring and Reporting Requirements, Georgia Rule for Air
Quality 391-3-1-.02(6)--Source Monitoring, Georgia Rule for Air Quality
391-3-1-.02(7)--Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality,
Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(8)--New Source Performance
Standards, Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(9)--Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Georgia Rule for Air Quality
391-3-1-.02(11)--Compliance Assurance Monitoring, and, Georgia Rule for
Air Quality 391-3-1-.03--Permits. Amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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