[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 14 (Thursday, January 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3292-3294]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00965]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74059; File No. SR-Phlx-2015-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Customer Rebate Program

January 15, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on January 2, 2015, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Customer Rebate Program in
Section B of the Pricing Schedule.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the ``Customer Rebate Program,'' in
Section B of the Pricing Schedule to: (i) Increase certain Category B
rebates; and (ii) increase the additional Category B Tier 2 and 3
rebates paid to Specialists \3\ and Market Makers \4\ that reach the
Monthly Market Maker Cap.\5\ The Exchange believes that the proposed
increased rebates will encourage market participants to direct a
greater number of Customer orders to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an
options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a). An options Specialist
includes a Remote Specialist which is defined as an options
specialist in one or more classes that does not have a physical
presence on an Exchange floor and is approved by the Exchange
pursuant to Rule 501.
    \4\ A ``market maker'' includes Registered Options Traders (Rule
1014(b)(i) and (ii)), which includes Streaming Quote Traders (see
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A)) and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (see Rule
1014(b)(ii)(B)). Directed Participants are also market makers.
    \5\ Specialists and Market Makers are subject to a ``Monthly
Market Maker Cap'' of $550,000 for: (i) Electronic and floor Option
Transaction Charges; (ii) QCC Transaction Fees (as defined in
Exchange Rule 1080(o) and Floor QCC Orders, as defined in 1064(e));
and (iii) fees related to an order or quote that is contra to a PIXL
Order or specifically responding to a PIXL auction. The trading
activity of separate Specialist and Market Maker member
organizations is aggregated in calculating the Monthly Market Maker
Cap if there is Common Ownership between the member organizations.
All dividend, merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion,
jelly roll and box spread strategy executions (as defined in Section
II) are excluded from the Monthly Market Maker Cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange has a Customer Rebate Program consisting of
five tiers that pays Customer rebates on two Categories, A \6\ and
B,\7\ of transactions.\8\ A Phlx member qualifies for a certain rebate
tier based on the percentage of total national customer volume in
multiply-listed options that it transacts monthly on Phlx. The Exchange
calculates Customer volume in Multiply Listed Options by totaling
electronically-delivered and executed volume, excluding volume
associated with electronic Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'')
Orders,\9\ as defined in Exchange Rule 1080(o).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Category A rebates are paid to members executing
electronically-delivered Customer Simple Orders in Penny Pilot
Options and Customer Simple Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Options in
Section II symbols. Rebates are paid on Customer PIXL Orders in
Section II symbols that execute against non-Initiating Order
interest. In the instance where member organizations qualify for
Tier 4 or higher in the Customer Rebate Program, Customer PIXL
Orders that execute against a PIXL Initiating Order will be paid a
rebate of $0.14 per contract.
    \7\ Category B rebates are paid to members executing
electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders in Penny Pilot
Options and Non-Penny Pilot Options in Section II symbols. Rebates
are paid on Customer PIXL Complex Orders in Section II symbols that
execute against non-Initiating Order interest. In the instance where
member organizations qualify for Tier 4 or higher in the Customer
Rebate Program, Customer Complex PIXL Orders that execute against a
Complex PIXL Initiating Order will be paid a rebate of $0.17 per
contract. The Category B Rebate is not paid when an electronically-
delivered Customer Complex Order, including Customer Complex PIXL
Order, executes against another electronically-delivered Customer
Complex Order.
    \8\ See Section B of the Pricing Schedule.
    \9\ A QCC Order is comprised of an order to buy or sell at least
1000 contracts that is identified as being part of a qualified
contingent trade, as that term is defined in Rule 1080(o)(3),
coupled with a contra-side order to buy or sell an equal number of
contracts. The QCC Order must be executed at a price at or between
the National Best Bid and Offer and be rejected if a Customer order
is resting on the Exchange book at the same price. A QCC Order shall
only be submitted electronically from off the floor to the PHLX XL
II System. See Rule 1080(o). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 64249 (April 7, 2011), 76 FR 20773 (April 13, 2011) (SR-
Phlx-2011-47) (a rule change to establish a QCC Order to facilitate
the execution of stock/option Qualified Contingent Trades (``QCTs'')
that satisfy the requirements of the trade through exemption in
connection with Rule 611(d) of the Regulation NMS).
    \10\ Members and member organizations under common ownership may
aggregate their Customer volume for purposes of calculating the
Customer Rebate Tiers and receiving rebates. Common ownership means
members or member organizations under 75% common ownership or
control.

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

    The Exchange pays the following rebates: \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Options overlying SPY are included in the calculation of
Customer volume in Multiply Listed Options that are electronically-
delivered and executed for purposes of the Customer Rebate Program,
however, rebates are not paid for electronic executions in options
overlying SPY.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Percentage thresholds of national
                                              customer volume in multiply-listed
           Customer rebate tiers               equity and ETF options classes,      Category A      Category B
                                               excluding SPY options (monthly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1.....................................  0.00%-0.60%........................           $0.00           $0.00
Tier 2.....................................  Above 0.60%-1.10%..................          * 0.10          * 0.17
Tier 3.....................................  Above 1.10%-1.60%..................          * 0.12          * 0.17
Tier 4.....................................  Above 1.60%-2.50%..................            0.16            0.19
Tier 5.....................................  Above 2.50%........................            0.17            0.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to increase the Tier 4 and 5 Category B
rebates from $0.19 to $0.20 per contract.
    Currently, the Exchange offers Specialists and Market Makers, or
its affiliate under Common Ownership,\12\ that have reached the Monthly
Market Maker Cap \13\ an increased $0.02 per contract Category A and B
rebate in addition to the Tier 2 and 3 rebates. The Exchange proposes
to increase the additional Category B rebate, which is currently paid
in addition to the applicable Tier 2 or 3 rebate, to a Specialist or
Market Maker, or its affiliate under Common Ownership, provided the
Specialist or Market Maker has reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap,
from $0.02 to $0.03 per contract. The Exchange will continue to pay
Specialists and Market Makers, or its affiliate under Common Ownership,
that have reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap an increased $0.02 per
contract Category A rebate in addition to the Tier 2 and 3 rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The term ``Common Ownership'' means members or member
organizations under 75% common ownership or control.
    \13\ See note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\14\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system that the Exchange operates or controls, and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase the Tier 4 and 5 Category B
rebates will encourage market participants to send a greater amount of
Customer liquidity to Phlx. Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attract
Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these
market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may
cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the Tier 4 and
5 Category B rebates is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it will be applied to all market participants in a uniform
matter. All members are eligible to receive the rebate provided they
submit a qualifying number of electronic Customer volume.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to pay an increased $0.03
per contract Category B rebate, in addition to the applicable Tier 2 or
3 rebate, to a Specialist or Market Maker, or its affiliate under
Common Ownership, provided the Specialist or Market Maker has reached
the Monthly Market Maker Cap is reasonable because the Exchange intends
to continue to encourage Specialists and Market Makers to transact
Customer Complex Orders on the Exchange to receive the enhanced rebate.
The Exchange will continue to encourage Specialists and Market Makers
to transact Customer Simple Orders on the Exchange by offering the
additional $0.02 per contract Category A rebate in addition to the
applicable Tier 2 or 3 rebate.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to pay an increased $0.03
per contract Category B rebate, in addition to the applicable Tier 2 or
3 rebate, to a Specialist or Market Maker, or its affiliate under
Common Ownership, provided the Specialist or Market Maker has reached
the Monthly Market Maker Cap is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because unlike other market participants, Specialists
and Market Makers have burdensome quoting obligations \16\ to the
market that do not apply to Customers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-
Dealers. Specialists and Market Makers serve an important role on the
Exchange with regard to order interaction and they provide liquidity in
the marketplace. Additionally, Specialists and Market Makers incur
costs unlike other market participants including, but not limited to,
PFOF and other costs associated with market making activities,\17\
which results in a higher average cost per execution as compared to
Firms, Broker-Dealers and Professionals. The proposed differentiation
as between Specialists and Market Makers as compared to other market
participants recognizes the differing contributions made to the trading
environment on the Exchange by these market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Rule 1014 titled ``Obligations and Restrictions
Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders.''
    \17\ Specialists and Market Makers pay for certain data feeds
including the SQF Port Fee. SQF Port Fees are listed in the
Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Section VII. SQF is an interface that
allows Specialists and Market Makers to connect and send quotes into
Phlx XL and assists them in responding to auctions and providing
liquidity to the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to pay Specialists and Market
Makers different rebates for transacting Simple versus Complex Orders.
Today, the Exchange pays different Category A (Simple Order) and
Category B (Complex Order) rebates. The Exchange also differentiates
pricing for Simple and Complex Orders transaction fees in Section I as
do other options exchanges.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose an undue burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
Customer Rebate Program will continue to encourage Customer order flow
to be directed to the Exchange. Certain market participants will
receive higher Tier 4 and 5 Category B rebates for transacting the same
Customer order flow as today. The Exchange believes that the

Customer Rebate Program will continue to encourage Customer order flow
to be directed to the Exchange. By incentivizing members to route
Customer orders, the Exchange desires to attract liquidity to the
Exchange, which in turn benefits all market participants. All market
participants are eligible to qualify for a Customer Rebate. The
Exchange believes this pricing amendment does not impose a burden on
competition but rather that the proposed rule change will continue to
promote competition on the Exchange.
    The Exchange does not believe that offering Specialists and Market
Makers an enhanced Category B rebate of $0.03 per contract in addition
to the applicable Tier 2 or 3 rebate creates an undue burden on
competition because Specialists and Market Makers have burdensome
quoting obligations \18\ to the market that do not apply to Customers,
Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers. Specialists and Market Makers
serve an important role on the Exchange with regard to order
interaction and they provide liquidity in the marketplace. In addition,
paying different rebates for Simple and Complex Orders is not novel.
Other options exchanges today similarly differentiate rebates.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See note 16.
    \19\ See the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.'s Fees
Schedule and the International Securities Exchange, LLC's Schedule
of Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
twelve options exchanges, in which market participants can easily and
readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate.
Accordingly, the fees that are assessed and the rebates paid by the
Exchange described in the above proposal are influenced by these robust
market forces and therefore must remain competitive with fees charged
and rebates paid by other venues and therefore must continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that opt to direct
orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\20\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2015-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2015-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2015-01 and should be
submitted on or before February 12, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00965 Filed 1-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57544-57554]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20139]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0425; FRL-9951-15-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; GA; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission,
submitted by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), Environmental Protection Division (EPD), on
December 14, 2015, to demonstrate that the State meets the
infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the
2012 Annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt
and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of
each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure'' SIP. EPD certified that the Georgia SIP contains
provisions to ensure the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS is
implemented, enforced, and maintained in Georgia. EPA is proposing to
determine that portions of Georgia's infrastructure submission,
submitted to EPA on December 14, 2015, satisfy certain required
infrastructure elements for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 22,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2014-0425 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Bell can be reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
I. Background and Overview

    On December 14, 2012 (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013), EPA
promulgated a revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The
standard was strengthened from 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\) to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA,
states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements
of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe.
Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as
requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal
authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs for the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14, 2015.\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). Throughout this rulemaking, unless otherwise
indicated, the term ``State rules'' or ``State regulations''
indicate that the cited regulation has been approved into Georgia's
federally-approved SIP. The term ``Georgia Air Quality Act''
indicates cited Georgia State statutes, which are not a part of the
SIP unless otherwise indicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rulemaking is proposing to approve portions of Georgia's
PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submissions \2\ for the applicable
requirements of the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, with the
exception of the interstate transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), for which EPA is not
proposing any action in this rulemaking regarding these requirements.
For the aspects of Georgia's submittal proposed for approval in this
rulemaking, EPA notes that the Agency is not approving any specific
rule, but rather proposing that Georgia's already approved SIP meets
certain CAA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Georgia's 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure
SIP submission dated December 14, 2015, is referred to as
``Georgia's PM2.5 infrastructure SIP'' in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such
NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the
data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and
submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affect 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.
    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related
to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned previously, these
requirements include basic SIP elements such as requirements for
monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The
requirements are summarized later on in this preamble and in EPA's
September 13, 2013, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not
governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area
controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the time the nonattainment
area plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These
requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C)
to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required
in part D, title I of the CAA; and (2) submissions required by
section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. This proposed rulemaking
does not address infrastructure elements related to section
110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of
110(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials,
Public Notification, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
and Visibility Protection
     110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of
Modeling Data
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected
Local Entities

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

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from Georgia that addresses
the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)
for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement for states
to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section
110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP
submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach
such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of
the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit program submissions to
address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\6\ EPA therefore believes
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous,
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular,
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2)
requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of
requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the
Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\7\
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b)
requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for
certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation
of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two
years, or in some cases three years, for such designations to be
promulgated.\8\ This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all
the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense,
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable
for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single
SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a
single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a
plan'' to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow
states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make
such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP
requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either
individually or in a larger combined action.\9\ Similarly, EPA
interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts
of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given
NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For example,
EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various

elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP
submission.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable
requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan
SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that
pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA,
because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is
designated nonattainment and is thus subject to part D planning
requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission
may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\12\ EPA
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013 (2013 Guidance).\13\ EPA developed this document to provide states
with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised
NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make
infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP
requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of
section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure
SIP submissions.\14\ The guidance also discusses the substantively
important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section
110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address
certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews
each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the applicable
statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
    \13\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \14\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations. On
March 17, 2016, EPA released a memorandum titled, ``Information on
the Interstate Transport `Good Neighbor' Provision for the 2012 Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards under
Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' to provide guidance to
states for interstate transport requirements specific to the
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's
implementation plan appropriately addresses the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's
interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can
appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements,
depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or
enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are
approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency).
However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements
of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of
infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section
128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions
with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program
requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural
PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD
program to address all regulated sources and new source review (NSR)
pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By

contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions
that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are
merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to
provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to
the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter
optional provisions are types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in
the context of an infrastructure SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a
state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the
state's implementation plan meets basic structural requirements. For
example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement
that states have a program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA
evaluates whether the state has an EPA-approved minor NSR program and
whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In
the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA
does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every
provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in
the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and
EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's
policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR
Reform''). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP
submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\15\ It is important to
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all
requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP
submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA
to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with
respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's implementation
plan is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to
mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\16\
Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions,
such as past approvals of SIP submissions.\17\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting
on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Georgia 2012 Annual PM2.5 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:
Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that each implementation plan include
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or
techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable
permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and
timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet
the applicable requirements. Several regulations within Georgia's SIP
are relevant to air quality control regulations. The following State
regulations include enforceable emission limitations and other control
measures: 391-3-1-.01, ``Definitions. Amended.'', 391-3-1-.02,
``Provisions. Amended.'', and 391-3-1-.03, ``Permits. Amended.'' These
regulations collectively establish enforceable emissions limitations
and other control measures, means or techniques for activities that
contribute to PM2.5 concentrations in the ambient air, and
provide authority for EPD to establish such limits and measures as well
as schedules for compliance through SIP-approved permits to meet the
applicable requirements of the CAA. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that the provisions contained in these State rules are
adequate to satisfy section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 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 SSM
operations at a facility. EPA believes that a number of states have SSM
provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance,
``State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown'' (September 20, 1999), and the
Agency is addressing such state regulations in a separate action.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ On June 12, 2015, EPA published a final action entitled,
``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking;
Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs;
Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend
Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup,
Shutdown, and Malfunction.'' See 80 FR 33840.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's
discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states
have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to
take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or
variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to
take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
    2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System: Section
110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to provide for establishment and operation
of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to:
(i) Monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and (ii)
upon request, make such data available to the Administrator. Georgia's
authority to monitor ambient air quality is found in the Georgia Air
Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-6(b)(13)).
Annually, states develop and submit to EPA for approval statewide
ambient monitoring network plans consistent with the requirements of 40
CFR parts 50, 53, and 58. The annual network plan involves an
evaluation of any proposed changes to the monitoring network, includes
the annual ambient monitoring network design plan, and includes a
certified evaluation of the agency's ambient monitors and auxiliary
support equipment.\20\ On June 15, 2015, EPA received Georgia's plan
for FY 2016. On October 13, 2015, EPA approved Georgia's monitoring
network plan. Georgia's approved monitoring network plan can be
accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-
0425. This State statute, along with Georgia's Ambient Air Monitoring
Network Plan, provide for the establishment and operation of ambient
air quality monitors, the compilation and analysis of ambient air
quality data, and the submission of these data to EPA upon request. EPD
states that no specific statutory or regulatory authority is necessary
for EPD to authorize data analysis or the submission of such data to
EPA, or to provide data submissions in response to federal regulations.
EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and
practices are adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and data
system requirements related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    3. 110(a)(2)(C) Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and
for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources: This element
consists of three sub-elements: Enforcement, state-wide regulation of
new and modified minor sources and minor modifications of major
sources, and preconstruction permitting of major sources and major
modifications in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the
subject NAAQS as required by CAA title I part C (i.e., the major source
PSD program).
    Enforcement: Georgia's Enforcement Program covers mobile and
stationary sources, consumer products, and fuels. The enforcement
requirements are met through two Georgia Rules for Air Quality: 391-3-
1-.07--``Inspections and Investigations. Amended.'' and 391-3-1-.09--
``Enforcement. Amended.'' Georgia also cites to enforcement authority
found in Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A.
Section 12-9-13) in its submittal. Collectively, these regulations and
State statute provide for enforcement of PM2.5 emission
limits and control measures.
    PSD Permitting for Major Sources: EPA interprets the PSD sub-
element to require that a state's infrastructure SIP submission for a
particular NAAQS demonstrate that the state has a complete PSD
permitting program in place covering the structural PSD requirements
for all regulated NSR pollutants. A state's PSD permitting program is
complete for this sub-element (and prong 3 of D(i) and J related to
PSD) if EPA has already approved or is simultaneously approving the
state's implementation plan with respect to all structural PSD
requirements that are due under the EPA regulations or the CAA on or
before the date of the EPA's proposed action on the infrastructure SIP
submission. The following Georgia Rules for Air Quality collectively
establish a preconstruction, new source permitting program in the State
that meets the PSD requirements of the CAA for PM2.5
emissions sources: 391-3-1-.02.--``Provisions. Amended,'' which
includes PSD requirements under 391-3-1-.02(7), and 391-3-1-.03.--
``Permits. Amended,'' which includes NNSR requirements under 391-3-
l-.03(8)(c) and (g). Georgia's infrastructure SIP demonstrates that new
major sources and major modifications in areas of the State designated
attainment or unclassifiable for the specified NAAQS are subject to a
federally-approved PSD permitting program meeting all the current
structural requirements of part C of title I of the CAA to satisfy the
infrastructure SIP PSD elements.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Regulation of minor sources and modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C)
also requires the SIP to include provisions that govern the minor
source program that regulates emissions of the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. Georgia's SIP approved Air Quality Control Rule
391-3-1-.03(1)--``Construction (SIP) Permit.'' governs the
preconstruction permitting of modifications, construction of minor
stationary sources, and minor modifications of major stationary
sources. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP
is adequate for program enforcement of control measures, PSD permitting
for major sources, and regulation of new minor sources and
modifications related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
    4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) Interstate Pollution Transport:
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Each of these components has two subparts
resulting in four distinct components, commonly referred to as
``prongs,'' that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions.
The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment
of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 1''), and interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 2''). The third and
fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are
provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from
interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration
of air quality in another state (``prong 3''), or to protect visibility
in another state (``prong 4'').
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--prongs 1 and 2: EPA is not proposing any action
related to the 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'') of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2). EPA will consider
these requirements in relation to Georgia's 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure submission in a separate
rulemaking.
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 3: With regard to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the PSD element, referred to as prong 3, this
requirement may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure
SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the
state are subject to: A PSD program meeting all the current structural
requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, or (if the state contains
a nonattainment area that has the potential to impact PSD in another
state) to a NNSR program. As discussed in more detail previously under
section 110(a)(2)(C), Georgia's SIP contains provisions for the State's
PSD program that reflects the required structural PSD requirements to
satisfy the requirement of prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Georgia addresses prong 3 through rules 391-3-1-.02.--``Provisions.
Amended,'' and 391-3-1-.03.--``Permits. Amended,'' which include the
PSD and NNSR requirements, respectively. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Georgia's SIP is adequate for interstate transport
for PSD permitting of major sources and major modifications related to
the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
(prong 3).
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 4: EPA is not proposing any action in
this rulemaking related to provisions pertaining to visibility
protection in other states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4) and
will consider this requirement in relation to Georgia's 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure submission in a separate
rulemaking.
    5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate Pollution Abatement and
International Air Pollution: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to
include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the
Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement. The
following two Georgia Rules for Air Quality provide Georgia the
authority to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure
element: 391-3-1-.02(7) for the State's PSD regulation and 391-3-1-.03
for the State's permitting regulations. As described previously,
Georgia Rules for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02.--``Provisions. Amended,''
and 391-3-1-.03.--``Permits. Amended,'' collectively require any new
major source or major modification to undergo PSD or nonattainment new
source review (NNSR) permitting and thereby provide notification to
other potentially affected Federal, state, and local government
agencies.
    Additionally, Georgia does not have any pending obligation under
section 115 and 126 of the CAA. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Georgia's SIP and practices are adequate for
ensuring compliance with the applicable requirements relating to
interstate and international pollution abatement for the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    6. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of
Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies:
Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that each implementation plan provide:
(i) Necessary assurances that the state will have adequate personnel,
funding, and authority under state law to carry out its implementation
plan, (ii) that the state comply with the requirements respecting state
boards pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and (iii) necessary
assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or regional
government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any
plan provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate
implementation of such plan provisions. EPA's analysis of sub-elements
110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii), and (iii) is described below.
    In support of EPA's proposal to approve sub-elements
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), Georgia's infrastructure SIP demonstrates
that it is responsible for promulgating rules and regulations for the
NAAQS, emissions standards and general policies, a system of permits,
fee schedules for the review of plans, and other planning needs. In its
SIP submittal, Georgia describes its authority for section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) as the CAA section 105 grant process, the Georgia Air
Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12-9-10), and Georgia Rule
for Air Quality 391-3-1-.03(9) which establishes Georgia's Air Permit
Fee System. For section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii), the State does not rely on
localities in Georgia for specific SIP implementation. As evidence of
the adequacy of EPD's resources with respect to sub-elements (i) and
(iii), EPA submitted a letter to Georgia on April 19, 2016, outlining
CAA section 105 grant commitments and the current status of these
commitments for fiscal year 2015. The letter EPA submitted to EPD can
be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2014-0425. Annually, states update these grant commitments based on
current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable
requirements related to the NAAQS. There were no outstanding issues in
relation to the SIP for fiscal year 2015, therefore, EPD's grants were
finalized and closed out. In addition, the requirements of
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) are evaluated when EPA performs a
completeness determination for each SIP submittal. This determination
ensures that each submittal includes information addressing the
adequacy of personnel, funding, and legal authority under state law
used to carry out the state's implementation plan and related

issues. Georgia's authority is included in all prehearing and final SIP
submittal packages for approval by EPA. EPD is responsible for
submitting all revisions to the Georgia SIP to EPA for approval. EPA
has made the preliminary determination that Georgia has adequate
resources for implementation of the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that the state comply with
section 128 of the CAA. Section 128 requires that the SIP provide: (1)
The majority of members of the state board or body which approves
permits or enforcement orders represent the public interest and do not
derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to
permitting or enforcement orders under the CAA; and (2) any potential
conflicts of interest by such board or body, or the head of an
executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed. With
respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) pertaining the
state board requirements of CAA section 128, Georgia's infrastructure
SIP submission cites Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality
(O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-5) Powers and duties of Board of Natural
Resources as to air quality generally) which provides the powers and
duties of the Board of Natural Resources as to air quality and provides
that at least a majority of members of this board represent the public
interest and not derive any significant portion of income from persons
subject to permits or enforcement orders and that potential conflicts
of interest will be adequately disclosed. This provision has been
incorporated into the federally-approved SIP.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that the State has
adequately addressed the requirements of section 128(a), and
accordingly has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with
respect to infrastructure SIP requirements. Therefore, EPA is proposing
to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission as meeting the
requirements of sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii) and (iii).
    7. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting: Section
110(a)(2)(F) requires SIPs to meet applicable requirements addressing:
(i) The installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and
the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of
stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii)
periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions
related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports
by the state agency with any emission limitations or standards
established pursuant to this section, which reports shall be available
at reasonable times for public inspection. Georgia's SIP submission
identifies how the major source and minor source emission inventory
programs collect emission data throughout the State and ensure the
quality of such data. These data are used to compare against current
emission limits and to meet requirements of EPA's Air Emissions
Reporting Rule (AERR). The following State rules enable Georgia to meet
the requirements of this element: Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-
1-.02(3)--``Sampling.''; \22\ 391-3-1-.02(6)(b)--``Source
Monitoring.''; 391-3-1-.02(7)--``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality.''; 391-3-1-.02(8)--``New Source
Performance Standards.''; 391-3-1-.02(9)--``Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants.''; 391-3-1-.02(11)--``Compliance Assurance
Monitoring.''; and 391-3-1-.03--``Permits. Amended.'' Also, the Georgia
Air Quality Act Article I: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12-9-5(b)(6)) provides
the State with the authority to conduct actions regarding stationary
source emissions monitoring and reporting in support of this
infrastructure element. These rules collectively require emissions
monitoring and reporting for activities that contribute to
PM2.5 concentrations in the air, including requirements for
the installation, calibration, maintenance, and operation of equipment
for continuously monitoring or recording emissions, and provide
authority for EPD to establish such emissions monitoring and reporting
requirements through SIP-approved permits and require reporting of 2012
Annual PM2.5 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Additionally, Georgia is required to submit emissions data to EPA
for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is
EPA's central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the AERR
on December 5, 2008, which modified the requirements for collecting and
reporting air emissions data (73 FR 76539). The AERR shortened the time
states had to report emissions data from 17 to 12 months, giving states
one calendar year to submit emissions data. All states are required to
submit a comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and report
emissions for certain larger sources annually through EPA's online
Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions data for the six
criteria pollutants and their associated precursors--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 December 12, 2014. EPA compiles the emissions data,
supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the general public
through the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html.
EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and
practices are adequate for the stationary source monitoring systems
related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is
proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with
respect to section 110(a)(2)(F).
    Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(3), ``Sampling,'' \23\
specifically, in ``Procedures for Testing and Monitoring Sources of Air
Pollutants'' under Compliance with Standards and Maintenance
Requirements allows the use of all available information to determine
compliance, and EPA is unaware of any provision preventing the use of
credible evidence in the Georgia SIP.\24\ EPA is unaware of any
provision preventing the use of credible evidence in the Georgia SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    8. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency Powers: Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the Act
requires that states demonstrate authority comparable with section 303
of the CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.
Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission cites air pollution emergency
episodes and preplanned abatement strategies in the Georgia Air Quality
Act: Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Sections 12-9-2 Declaration of
public policy, 12-9-6 Powers and duties of director as to air quality
generally, 12-9-12 Injunctive relief, 12-9-13 Proceedings for
enforcement, and 12-9-14 Powers of director in situations involving
imminent and substantial danger to public health), and Rule 391-3-1-.04
``Air Pollution Episodes.'' O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-2 provides ``[i]t is
declared to be the public policy of the state of Georgia to preserve,
protect, and improve air quality . . . to attain and

maintain ambient air quality standards so as to safeguard the public
health, safety, and welfare.'' O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-6(b)(10) provides
the Director of EPD authority to ``issue orders as may be necessary to
enforce compliance with [the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air
Quality (O.C.G.A)] and all rules and regulations of this article.''
O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-12 provides that ``[w]henever in the judgment of
the director any person has engaged in or is about to engage in any act
or practice which constitutes or will constitute an unlawful action
under [the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A)],
he may make application to the superior court of the county in which
the unlawful act or practice has been or is about to be engaged in, or
in which jurisdiction is appropriate, for an order enjoining such act
or practice or for an order requiring compliance with this article.
Upon a showing by the director that such person has engaged in or is
about to engage in any such act or practice, a permanent or temporary
injunction, restraining order, or other order shall be granted without
the necessity of showing lack of an adequate remedy of law.'' O.C.G.A.
Section 12-19-13 specifically pertains to enforcement proceedings when
the Director of EPD has reason to believe that a violation of any
provision of the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality
(O.C.G.A), or environmental rules, regulations or orders have occurred.
O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-14 also provides that the Governor may issue
orders as necessary to protect the health of persons who are, or may
be, affected by a pollution source or facility after ``consult[ation]
with local authorities in order to confirm the correctness of the
information on which action proposed to be taken is based and to
ascertain the action which such authorities are or will be taking.''
    Rule 391-3-1-.04 ``Air Pollution Episodes'' provides that the
Director of EPD ``will proclaim that an Air Pollution Alert, Air
Pollution Warning, or Air Pollution Emergency exists when the
meteorological conditions are such that an air stagnation condition is
in existence and/or the accumulation of air contaminants in any place
is attaining or has attained levels which could, if such levels are
sustained or exceeded, lead to a substantial threat to the health of
persons in the specific area affected.'' Collectively the cited
provisions provide that Georgia demonstrates authority comparable with
section 303 of the CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such
authority in the State. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Georgia's SIP, and State laws are adequate for emergency powers related
to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is
proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with
respect to section 110(a)(2)(G).
    9. 110(a)(2)(H) SIP Revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H), in summary,
requires each SIP to provide for revisions of such plan: (i) As may be
necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or
secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved
or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and (ii)
whenever the Administrator finds that the plan is substantially
inadequate to attain the NAAQS or to otherwise comply with any
additional applicable requirements. EPD is responsible for adopting air
quality rules and revising SIPs as needed to attain or maintain the
NAAQS in Georgia. The State has the ability and authority to respond to
calls for SIP revisions, and has provided a number of SIP revisions
over the years for implementation of the NAAQS. Initially, eight areas
in Georgia were designated deferred for the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. See 80 FR 2205 (January 15, 2015). As of March
31, 2015, five areas in Georgia were designated unclassifiable/
attainment. See 80 FR 18535 (April 7, 2015). Currently, based on early
quality-assured, certified air quality monitoring data for 2013-2015,
it appears that the remaining areas are attaining the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    The Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A.
Section 12-9-6(b)(12) and 12-9-6(b)(13)) provide Georgia the authority
to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure element.
Section 12-9-6(b)(12) of the Georgia Air Quality Act requires EPD to
submit SIP revisions whenever revised air quality standards are
promulgated by EPA. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Georgia adequately demonstrates a commitment to provide future SIP
revisions related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS when
necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS with respect to section 110(a)(2)(H).
    10. 110(a)(2)(J) Consultation With Government Officials, Public
Notification, and PSD and Visibility Protection: EPA is proposing to
approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in
section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the SIP that complies with
the applicable consultation requirements of section 121, the public
notification requirements of section 127, PSD and visibility
protection. EPA's rationale for applicable consultation requirements of
section 121, the public notification requirements of section 127, PSD,
and visibility is described below.
    Consultation with government officials (121 consultation): Section
110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires states to provide a process for
consultation with local governments, designated organizations, and
Federal Land Managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS implementation
requirements pursuant to section 121 relative to consultation. The
following State rules and statutes, as well as the State's Regional
Haze Implementation Plan (which allows for consultation between
appropriate state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies as
well as the corresponding FLMs), provide for consultation with
government officials whose jurisdictions might be affected by SIP
development activities: Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality
(O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-5(b)(17)); Georgia Administrative Procedures Act
(O.C.G.A. Sec.  50-13-4); and Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(7) as it relates
to Class I areas. Section 12-9-5(b)(17) of the Georgia Air Quality Act
states that the DNR Board is to ``establish satisfactory processes of
consultation and cooperation with local governments or other designated
organizations of elected officials or federal agencies for the purpose
of planning, implementing, and determining requirements under this
article to the extent required by the federal act.''
    Additionally, Georgia adopted state-wide consultation procedures
for the implementation of transportation conformity which includes the
development of mobile inventories for SIP development.\25\ Required
partners covered by Georgia's consultation procedures include federal,
state and local transportation and air quality agency officials. EPA
has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices
adequately demonstrate consultation with government officials related
to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly,
EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission
with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) consultation with government
officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Public notification (127 public notification): EPD has public
notice

mechanisms in place to notify the public of instances or areas
exceeding the NAAQS along with associated health effects through the
Air Quality Index reporting system in required areas. EPD's Ambient
Monitoring Web page (www.georgiaair.org/amp) provides information
regarding current and historical air quality across the State. Daily
air quality forecasts may be disseminated to the public in Atlanta
through the Georgia Department of Transportation's electronic
billboards. In its SIP submission, Georgia also notes that the non-
profit organization in Georgia, ``Clean Air Campaign,'' disseminates
statewide air quality information and ways to reduce air pollution.
Georgia rule 391-3-1-.04 ``Air Pollution Episodes'' enables the State
to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure element.
In addition, the following State statutes provide Georgia the authority
to make public declarations about air pollution episodes in support of
this infrastructure element. OCGA 12-9-6(b)(8) provides authority to
the Georgia Board of Natural Resources ``To collect and disseminate
information and to provide for public notification in matters relating
to air quality . . .''. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Georgia's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability
to provide public notification related to the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section
110(a)(2)(J) public notification.
    PSD: With regard to the PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J), this
requirement is met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure SIP
submission that it has a SIP-approved PSD program meeting all the
current structural requirements of part C of title I of the CAA for all
regulated NSR pollutants. As discussed in more detail previously in
this preamble under section 110(a)(2)(C), Georgia's SIP contains
provisions for the State's PSD program that reflect the required
structural PSD requirements to satisfy the PSD element of section
110(a)(2)(J). EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's
SIP and practices are adequate for the 2012 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS for the PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J).
    Visibility protection: EPA's 2013 Guidance notes that it does not
treat the visibility protection aspects of section 110(a)(2)(J) as
applicable for purposes of the infrastructure SIP approval process. EPA
recognizes that states are subject to visibility protection and
regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act (which
includes sections 169A and 169B). However, there are no newly
applicable visibility protection obligations after the promulgation of
a new or revised NAAQS. Thus, EPA has determined that states do not
need to address the visibility component of 110(a)(2)(J) in
infrastructure SIP submittals to fulfill its obligations under section
110(a)(2)(J). As such, EPA has made the preliminary determination that
it does not need to address the visibility protection element of
section 110(a)(2)(J) in Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission related
to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
    11. 110(a)(2)(K) Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling
Data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires that SIPs provide for
performing air quality modeling so that effects on air quality of
emissions from NAAQS pollutants can be predicted and submission of such
data to the EPA can be made. The Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air
Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-6(b)(13)) provides EPD the authority to
conduct modeling actions and to submit air quality modeling data to EPA
in support of this element. EPD maintains personnel with training and
experience to conduct source-oriented dispersion modeling with models
such as AERMOD that would likely be used for modeling PM2.5
emissions from sources. The State also notes that its SIP-approved PSD
program, which includes specific (dispersion) modeling provisions,
provides further support of Georgia's ability to address this element.
All such modeling is conducted in accordance with the provisions of 40
CFR part 51, Appendix W, ``Guideline on Air Quality Models.''
    Additionally, Georgia supports a regional effort to coordinate the
development of emissions inventories and conduct regional modeling for
several NAAQS, including the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, for
the Southeastern states. Taken as a whole, Georgia's air quality
regulations and practices demonstrate that Georgia has the authority to
provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on
ambient air quality of the 2012 Annual PM2.5 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 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing
to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to
section 110(a)(2)(K).
    12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting Fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires the
owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the
permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under the
CAA, a fee sufficient to cover: (i) The reasonable costs of reviewing
and acting upon any application for such a permit, and (ii) if the
owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable
costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any
such permit (not including any court costs or other costs associated
with any enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded
with respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval of a fee
program under title V.
    Georgia's PSD and NNSR permitting programs are funded with title V
fees. The Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.03(9) ``Permit Fees.''
incorporates the EPA-approved title V fee program and fees for
synthetic minor sources. Georgia's authority to mandate funding for
processing PSD and NNSR permits is found in Georgia Air Quality Act
Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12-9-10). The State notes that these
title V operating program fees cover the reasonable cost of
implementation and enforcement of PSD and NNSR permits after they have
been issued. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's
SIP and practices adequately provide for permitting fees related to the
2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is
proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with
respect to section 110(a)(2)(L).
    13. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/participation by affected local
entities: Section 110(a)(2)(M) of the Act requires states to provide
for consultation and participation in SIP development by local
political subdivisions affected by the SIP. Consultation and
participation by affected local entities is authorized by the Georgia
Air Quality Act: Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12-9-5(b)(17)) and
the Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.15--``Transportation
Conformity'', which defines the consultation procedures for areas
subject to transportation conformity. Furthermore, EPD has demonstrated
consultation with, and participation by, affected local entities
through its work with local political subdivisions during the
developing of its Transportation Conformity SIP and has worked with the
FLMs as a requirement of the regional haze rule. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices adequately
demonstrate consultation with affected local entities related to the
2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary.

V. Proposed Action

    With the exception of interstate transport provisions pertaining to
the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in
other states and visibility protection requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), EPA is proposing to
approve Georgia's December 14, 2015, SIP submission, for the 2012
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the above described infrastructure
SIP requirements. EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure
SIP submission for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS because the
submission is consistent with section 110 of the CAA.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: August 9, 2016.
 Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2016-20139 Filed 8-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P