6200 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

(1) An operational Draft Information 

System (DIS) approved by a member of 

the International Association of 

Classification Societies (IACS) as 

compliant with the Implementation 

Specifications found at www.greatlakesseaway.com and having on board: 

(i) An operational AIS with accuracy 

= 1 (DGPS); and 

(ii) Up-to-date electronic navigational 

charts; and 

(iii) Up-to-date charts containing high 

resolution bathymetric data; and 

(2) The DIS Tool Display shall be 

located close to the primary conning 

position, be visible and legible; and 

equipped with a pilot plug, if using a 

portable DIS. 

(i) Verification document of the DIS 

must be kept on board the vessel at all 

times and made available for inspection. 

(ii) A company letter attesting to 

officer training on use of the DIS must 

be kept on board and made available for 

inspection. 

(iii) In every navigation season, a 

vessel intending to use the DIS must 

notify the Manager of the Corporation in 

writing at least 24 hours prior to the 

commencement of its initial transit in 

the System with the DIS. 

(iv) If for any reason the DIS or AIS 

becomes inoperable, malfunctions or is 

not used while the vessel is transiting at 

a draft greater than the maximum 

permissible draft prescribed under 

§ 401.29(b) in effect at the time, the 

vessel must notify the Manager or the 

Corporation immediately. 

■ 8. In § 401.37, revise paragraph (b) as 

follows: 

§ 401.37 Mooring at tie-up walls. 

* * * * * 

(b) Crew members being put ashore on 

landing booms and handling mooring 

lines on tie-up walls shall wear 

approved personal flotation devices. 

■ 9. Revise § 401.44 as follows: 

§ 401.44 Mooring in locks. 

(a) Mooring lines shall only be placed 

on mooring posts as directed by the 

officer in charge of the mooring 

operation. 

(b) No winch from which a mooring 

line runs shall be operated until the 

officer in charge of a mooring operation 

has signaled that the line has been 

placed on a mooring post. 

(c) Once the mooring lines are on the 

mooring posts, lines shall be kept slack 

until the ‘‘all clear’’ signal is given by 

the lock personnel. When casting off 

signal is received, mooring lines shall be 

kept slack until the ‘‘all clear’’ signal is 

given by the lock personnel. 

(d) Vessels being moored by ‘‘Hands 

Free Mooring’’ system (HFM) shall have 

a minimum of 2 well rested crew 

members on deck during the lockage. 

■ 10. Revise § 401.45 as follows: 

§ 401.45 Emergency procedure. 

When the speed of a vessel entering 

a lock chamber has to be checked, the 

master shall take all necessary 

precautions to stop the vessel in order 

to avoid contact with lock structures. At 

no time shall the vessel deploy its 

anchors to stop the vessel when entering 

a lock chamber. 

■ 11. Revise § 401.47 as follows: 

§ 401.47 Leaving a lock. 

(a) Mooring lines shall only be cast off 

as directed by the officer in charge of a 

mooring operation. 

(b) No vessel shall proceed out of a 

lock until the exit gates, ship arresters 

and the bridge, if any, are in a fully 

open position. 

(c) When ‘‘Hands Free Mooring 

system (HFM) is used, no vessel shall 

use its engine(s) until the lock operator 

provides the ‘‘all clear’’ instruction. 

■ 12. In § 401.79 revise paragraph (a) as 

follows: 

§ 401.79 Advance notice of arrival, vessels 

requiring inspection. 

(a) Advance notice of arrival. All 

foreign flagged vessels of 300 GRT or 

above intending to transit the Seaway 

shall submit a completed electronic 

Notice of Arrival (NOA) prior to 

entering at call in point 2 (CIP2) as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

■ 13. In § 401.80 add a new paragraph 

(c) as follows: 

§ 401.80 Reporting dangerous cargo. 

* * * * * 

(c) Vessels carrying ‘‘Certain 

Dangerous Cargo (CDC) as defined in the 

Transport Canada ‘‘Marine 

Transportation Security Regulations’’ 

(MTSR’s) and the United States Coast 

Guard regulations under the Marine 

Transportation Security Act shall report 

the ‘‘Certain Dangerous Cargo’’ to the 

nearest Seaway station prior to a 

Seaway transit. 

■ 14. In Part 401, Subpart A, Appendix 

1, revise the Caution statement to read 

as follows: 

Appendix 1 

Ship Dimensions 

* * * * * 

Caution: Masters must take into account 

the ballast draft of the vessel when verifying 

the maximum permissible dimensions. 

Bridge wings, antennas, masts and, in some 

cases, the samson posts or store cranes could 

be outside the limits of the block diagram 

and could override the lock wall. Masters 

and pilots must take this into consideration 

and exercise extreme caution when entering 

or exiting locks to ensure that the vessel does 

not contact any of the structures on the lock. 

* * * * * 

Issued at Washington, DC, on February 1, 

2016. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 

Corporation. 

Carrie Lavigne, 

Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02168 Filed 2–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–61–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0152; FRL–9941–95– 

Region 4] 

Air Quality Plans; Georgia; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

portions of the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the 

State of Georgia, through the Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources (DNR), 

Environmental Protection Division 

(GAEPD), on October 22, 2013, and 

supplemented on July 25, 2014, to 

demonstrate that the State meets the 

infrastructure requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1- 

hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

The CAA requires that each state adopt 

and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. GAEPD certified 

that the Georgia SIP contains provisions 

that ensure the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and 

maintained in Georgia. EPA is 

proposing to determine that Georgia’s 

infrastructure submission, submitted on 

October 22, 2013, and supplemented on 

July 25, 2014, addresses certain required 

infrastructure elements for the 2010 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 7, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2015–0152, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6201 

1 In these infrastructure SIP submissions states 

generally certify evidence of compliance with 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA through a 

combination of state regulations and statutes, some 

of which have been incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. In addition, certain federallyapproved, non-SIP regulations may also be 

appropriate for demonstrating compliance with 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2). Georgia’s existing SIP 

consists largely of Georgia’s Rule for Air Quality 

rules adopted by GAEPD and approved by EPA 

through the SIP revision process. However, there 

are some state regulations that are not part of the 

Georgia federally-approved SIP. Throughout this 

rulemaking, unless otherwise indicated, the term 

‘‘State rules’’ or ‘‘State regulations’’ indicate that the 

cited regulation has been approved into Georgia’s 

federally-approved SIP. The term ‘‘Georgia Air 

Quality Act’’ indicates cited Georgia State statutes, 

which are not a part of the SIP unless otherwise 

indicated. The Georgia Air Quality Act is located 

at http://epd.georgia.gov/existing-rules-andcorresponding-laws. 

2 Georgia’s 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

infrastructure SIP submissions dated October 22, 

2013, and supplemented on July 25, 2014, are also 

collectively referred to as ‘‘Georgia’s SO2

infrastructure SIP’’ in this action. 

2. Email: R4–ARMS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2015– 

0152,’’ Air Regulatory Management 

Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Air Regulatory Management 

Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2015– 

0152. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://www.

epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 

Notarianni can be reached via electronic 

mail at notarianni.michele@epa.gov or 

via telephone at (404) 562–9031. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Overview 

II. What elements are required under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

III. What is EPA’s approach to the review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how Georgia 

addressed the elements of Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) ‘‘Infrastructure’’ 

Provisions? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Overview 

On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA 

promulgated a revised primary SO2

NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 

parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-year 

average of the annual 99th percentile of 

1-hour daily maximum concentrations. 

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit SIPs 

meeting the applicable requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or within such shorter period 

as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) 

requires states to address basic SIP 

elements such as requirements for 

monitoring, basic program requirements 

and legal authority that are designed to 

assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. States were required to 

submit such SIPs for the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 

22, 2013.1

This action is proposing to approve 

portions of Georgia’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions 2 for the applicable 

requirements of the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS, with the exception of the 

interstate transport requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 

1, 2, and 4), for which EPA is not 

proposing any action today regarding 

these requirements. For the aspects of 

Georgia’s submittal proposed for 

approval today, EPA notes that the 

Agency is not approving any specific 

rule, but rather proposing that Georgia’s 

already approved SIP meets certain 

CAA requirements. 

II. What elements are required under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of such NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the 

obligation upon states to make a SIP 

submission to EPA for a new or revised 

NAAQS, but the contents of that 

submission may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. In 

particular, the data and analytical tools 

available at the time the state develops 

and submits the SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS affects the content of the 

submission. The contents of such SIP 

submissions may also vary depending 

upon what provisions the state’s 

existing SIP already contains. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6202 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

3Two 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). 

4This rulemaking only addresses requirements 

for this element as they relate to attainment areas. 

5As mentioned above, this element is not 

relevant to this proposed rulemaking. 

6For 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. 

7See, 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)). 

8EPA 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. 

More specifically, section 110(a)(1) 

provides the procedural and timing 

requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) 

lists specific elements that states must 

meet for ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. As 

mentioned above, these requirements 

include basic SIP elements such as 

requirements for monitoring, basic 

program requirements and legal 

authority that are designed to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. The requirements are 

summarized below and in EPA’s 

September 13, 2013, memorandum 

entitled ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).’’ 3

• 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

• 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

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

Government Officials, Public 

Notification, and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Visibility Protection 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling 

and Submission of Modeling Data 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and 

Participation by Affected Local Entities 

III. What is EPA’s approach to the 

review of infrastructure SIP 

submissions? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submissions from Georgia that address 

the infrastructure requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The 

requirement for states to make a SIP 

submission of this type arises out of 

CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to 

section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP 

submissions ‘‘within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may 

prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and 

these SIP submissions are to provide for 

the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

EPA’s taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A, and nonattainment 

new source review (NNSR) permit 

program submissions to address the 

permit requirements of CAA, title I, part 

D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.6 EPA 

therefore believes that while the timing 

requirement in section 110(a)(1) is 

unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, EPA believes that the list of 

required elements for infrastructure SIP 

submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6203 

9See, 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). 

10On 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. 

11For 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. 

12EPA 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. 

14EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not 

make recommendations with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly 

after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the 

DC Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 

(D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of 

the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA 

elected not to provide additional guidance on the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that 

time. As the guidance is neither binding nor 

required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide 

guidance on a particular section has no impact on 

a state’s CAA obligations. 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

are applicable for a particular 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Another example of ambiguity within 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with 

respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to 

whether states must meet all of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements in a 

single SIP submission, and whether EPA 

must act upon such SIP submission in 

a single action. Although section 

110(a)(1) directs states to submit ‘‘a 

plan’’ to meet these requirements, EPA 

interprets the CAA to allow states to 

make multiple SIP submissions 

separately addressing infrastructure SIP 

elements for the same NAAQS. If states 

elect to make such multiple SIP 

submissions to meet the infrastructure 

SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act 

on such submissions either individually 

or in a larger combined action.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

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

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6204 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

15By 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. 

16For 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). 

17EPA 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, 

boards that approve permits or 

enforcement orders and heads of 

executive agencies with similar powers. 

Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP 

submissions to ensure that the state’s 

implementation plan appropriately 

addresses the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 

2013 Guidance explains EPA’s 

interpretation that there may be a 

variety of ways by which states can 

appropriately address these substantive 

statutory requirements, depending on 

the structure of an individual state’s 

permitting or enforcement program (e.g., 

whether permits and enforcement 

orders are approved by a multi-member 

board or by a head of an executive 

agency). However they are addressed by 

the state, the substantive requirements 

of section 128 are necessarily included 

in EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure SIP 

submissions because section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that 

the state satisfy the provisions of section 

128. 

As another example, EPA’s review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions with 

respect to the PSD program 

requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the 

structural PSD program requirements 

contained in part C and EPA’s PSD 

regulations. Structural PSD program 

requirements include provisions 

necessary for the PSD program to 

address all regulated sources and new 

source review (NSR) pollutants, 

including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By 

contrast, structural PSD program 

requirements do not include provisions 

that are not required under EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are 

merely available as an option for the 

state, such as the option to provide 

grandfathering of complete permit 

applications with respect to the 2012 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. 

Accordingly, the latter optional 

provisions are types of provisions EPA 

considers irrelevant in the context of an 

infrastructure SIP action. 

For other section 110(a)(2) elements, 

however, EPA’s review of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission focuses 

on assuring that the state’s 

implementation plan meets basic 

structural requirements. For example, 

section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, 

the requirement that states have a 

program to regulate minor new sources. 

Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state 

has an EPA-approved minor NSR 

program and whether the program 

addresses the pollutants relevant to that 

NAAQS. In the context of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, however, 

EPA does not think it is necessary to 

conduct a review of each and every 

provision of a state’s existing minor 

source program (i.e., already in the 

existing SIP) for compliance with the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, 

EPA does not believe that an action on 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission is 

necessarily the appropriate type of 

action in which to address possible 

deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. 

These issues include: (i) Existing 

provisions related to excess emissions 

from sources during periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions 

(‘‘SSM’’); (ii) existing provisions related 

to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or ‘‘director’s 

discretion’’ that may be contrary to the 

CAA because they purport to allow 

revisions to SIP-approved emissions 

limits while limiting public process or 

not requiring further approval by EPA; 

and (iii) existing provisions for PSD 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final 

NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). Thus, EPA believes it may 

approve an infrastructure SIP 

submission without scrutinizing the 

totality of the existing SIP for such 

potentially deficient provisions and may 

approve the submission even if it is 

aware of such existing provisions.15 It is 

important to note that EPA’s approval of 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission 

should not be construed as explicit or 

implicit re-approval of any existing 

potentially deficient provisions that 

relate to the three specific issues just 

described. 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6205 

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). 

18See, 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). 

19On 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. 

20On occasion, proposed changes to the 

monitoring network are evaluated outside of the 

network plan approval process in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58. 

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

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Georgia addressed the elements of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

‘‘Infrastructure’’ provisions? 

The Georgia 2010 1-hour SO2

infrastructure submissions address the 

provisions of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

as described below. 

1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and 

Other Control Measures: Section 

110(a)(2)(A) requires that each 

implementation plan include 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or 

techniques (including economic 

incentives such as fees, marketable 

permits, and auctions of emissions 

rights), as well as schedules and 

timetables for compliance, as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements. Several 

regulations within Georgia’s SIP are 

relevant to air quality control 

regulations. The following State 

regulations include enforceable 

emission limitations and other control 

measures: 391–3–1-.01, ‘‘Definitions. 

Amended.’’, 391–3–1-.02, ‘‘Provisions. 

Amended.’’, and 391–3–1-.03, ‘‘Permits. 

Amended.’’ These regulations 

collectively establish enforceable 

emissions limitations and other control 

measures, means or techniques for 

activities that contribute to SO2

concentrations in the ambient air, and 

provide authority for GAEPD to 

establish such limits and measures as 

well as schedules for compliance 

through SIP-approved permits to meet 

the applicable requirements of the CAA. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that the provisions 

contained in these State rules are 

adequate to protect the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS in the State. 

In this action, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing state 

provisions with regard to excess 

emissions during start up, shut down, 

and malfunction (SSM) operations at a 

facility. EPA believes that a number of 

states have SSM provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance, ‘‘State Implementation Plans: 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions 

During Malfunctions, Startup, and 

Shutdown’’ (September 20, 1999), and 

the Agency is addressing such state 

regulations in a separate action.19

Additionally, in this action, EPA is 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

any existing state rules with regard to 

director’s discretion or variance 

provisions. EPA believes that a number 

of states have such provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 

1987)), and the Agency plans to take 

action in the future to address such state 

regulations. In the meantime, EPA 

encourages any state having a director’s 

discretion or variance provision which 

is contrary to the CAA and EPA 

guidance to take steps to correct the 

deficiency as soon as possible. 

2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring/Data System: Section 

110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to provide for 

establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems, 

and procedures necessary to (i) monitor, 

compile, and analyze data on ambient 

air quality, and (ii) upon request, make 

such data available to the 

Administrator. Georgia’s authority to 

monitor ambient air quality is found in 

the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: 

Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12–9– 

6(b)(13)). Annually, states develop and 

submit to EPA for approval statewide 

ambient monitoring network plans 

consistent with the requirements of 40 

CFR parts 50, 53, and 58. The annual 

network plan involves an evaluation of 

any proposed changes to the monitoring 

network, includes the annual ambient 

monitoring network design plan, and 

includes a certified evaluation of the 

agency’s ambient monitors and auxiliary 

support equipment.20 On June 15, 2015, 

EPA received Georgia’s plan for 2015. 

On October 13, 2015, EPA approved 

Georgia’s monitoring network plan. 

Georgia’s approved monitoring network 

plan can be accessed at 

www.regulations.gov using Docket ID 

No. EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0152. This 

State statute, along with Georgia’s 

Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan, 

provide for the establishment and 

operation of ambient air quality 

monitors, the compilation and analysis 

of ambient air quality data, and the 

submission of these data to EPA upon 

request. No specific statutory or 

regulatory authority is necessary for 

GAEPD to authorize data analysis or the 

submission of such data to EPA, and to 

provide data submissions in response to 

Federal regulations. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Georgia’s SIP and practices are adequate 

for the ambient air quality monitoring 

and data system requirements related to 

the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

3. 110(a)(2)(C) Programs for 

Enforcement of Control Measures and 

for Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources: This element 

consists of three sub-elements: 

enforcement, state-wide regulation of 

new and modified minor sources and 

minor modifications of major sources, 

and preconstruction permitting of major 

sources and major modifications in 

areas designated attainment or 

unclassifiable for the subject NAAQS as 

required by CAA title I part C (i.e., the 

major source PSD program). 

Enforcement: GAEPD’s Enforcement 

Program covers mobile and stationary 

sources, consumer products, and fuels. 

The enforcement requirements are met 

through two Georgia Rules for Air 

Quality: 391–3–1–.07—‘‘Inspections and 

Investigations. Amended.’’ and 391–3– 

1–.09—‘‘Enforcement. Amended.’’ 

Georgia also cites to enforcement 

authority found in Georgia Air Quality 

Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 

Section 12–9–13) in its submittal. 

Collectively, these regulations and State 

statute provide for enforcement of SO2

emission limits and control measures. 

PSD Permitting for Major Sources: 

EPA interprets the PSD sub-element to 

require that a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for a particular NAAQS 

demonstrate that the state has a 

complete PSD permitting program in 

place covering the structural PSD 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6206 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

21For 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. 

requirements for all regulated NSR 

pollutants. A state’s PSD permitting 

program is complete for this subelement (and prong 3 of D(i) and J 

related to PSD) if EPA has already 

approved or is simultaneously 

approving the state’s implementation 

plan with respect to all structural PSD 

requirements that are due under the 

EPA regulations or the CAA on or before 

the date of the EPA’s proposed action on 

the infrastructure SIP submission. The 

following Georgia Rules for Air Quality 

collectively establish a preconstruction, 

new source permitting program in the 

State that meets the PSD requirements 

of the CAA for SO2 emissions sources: 

391–3–1–.02.—‘‘Provisions. Amended,’’ 

which includes PSD requirements under 

391–3–1–.02(7), and 391–3–1–.03.— 

‘‘Permits. Amended,’’ which includes 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

(NNSR) requirements under 391–3–1– 

.03(8)(c) and (g). Georgia’s infrastructure 

SIP demonstrates that new major 

sources and major modifications in 

areas of the State designated attainment 

or unclassifiable for the specified 

NAAQS are subject to a federallyapproved 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

Regulation of minor sources and 

modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C) also 

requires the SIP to include provisions 

that govern the minor source program 

that regulates emissions of the 2010 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS. Georgia’s SIP 

approved Air Quality Control Rule 391– 

3–1–.03(1)—‘‘Construction (SIP) 

Permit.’’ governs the preconstruction 

permitting of modifications, 

construction of minor stationary 

sources, and minor modifications of 

major stationary sources. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Georgia’s SIP is 

adequate for program enforcement of 

control measures, PSD permitting for 

major sources, and regulation of new 

and modified minor sources related to 

the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) Interstate 

Pollution Transport: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components: 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

Each of these components has two 

subparts resulting in four distinct 

components, commonly referred to as 

‘‘prongs,’’ that must be addressed in 

infrastructure SIP submissions. The first 

two prongs, which are codified in 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions 

that prohibit any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

state (‘‘prong 1’’), and interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state (‘‘prong 2’’). The third and fourth 

prongs, which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that 

prohibit emissions activity in one state 

from interfering with measures required 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in another state (‘‘prong 3’’), or 

to protect visibility in another state 

(‘‘prong 4’’). 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2: 

EPA is not proposing any action in this 

rulemaking related to the interstate 

transport provisions pertaining to the 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in other 

states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

(prongs 1 and 2) because Georgia’s 2010 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure 

submissions did not address prongs 1 

and 2. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With 

regard to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the 

PSD element, referred to as prong 3, this 

requirement may be met by a state’s 

confirmation in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that new major sources and 

major modifications in the state are 

subject to: a PSD program meeting all 

the current structural requirements of 

part C of title I of the CAA, or (if the 

state contains a nonattainment area that 

has the potential to impact PSD in 

another state) to a NNSR program. As 

discussed in more detail above under 

section 110(a)(2)(C), Georgia’s SIP 

contains provisions for the State’s PSD 

program that reflects the relevant SIP 

revisions pertaining to the required 

structural PSD requirements to satisfy 

the requirement of prong 3 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Georgia addresses 

prong 3 through rules 391–3–1–.02.— 

‘‘Provisions. Amended,’’ and 391–3–1– 

.03.—‘‘Permits. Amended,’’ which 

include the PSD and NNSR 

requirements, respectively. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that Georgia’s SIP is adequate for 

interstate transport for PSD permitting 

of major sources and major 

modifications related to the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS for section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3). 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4: EPA is not 

proposing any action in this rulemaking 

related to the interstate transport 

provisions pertaining to the 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in other 

states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 

4) and will consider these requirements 

in relation to Georgia’s 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS infrastructure submissions in a 

separate rulemaking. 

5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution 

Abatement and International Air 

Pollution: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

requires SIPs to include provisions 

ensuring compliance with sections 115 

and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate 

and international pollution abatement. 

The following two Georgia Rules for Air 

Quality provide Georgia the authority to 

conduct certain actions in support of 

this infrastructure element: 391–3–1– 

.02(7) for the State’s PSD regulation and 

391–3–1–.03 for the State’s permitting 

regulations. As described above, Georgia 

Rules for Air Quality 391–3–1–.02.— 

‘‘Provisions. Amended,’’ and 391–3–1– 

.03.—‘‘Permits. Amended,’’ collectively 

require any new major source or major 

modification to undergo PSD or NNSR 

permitting and thereby provide 

notification to other potentially affected 

Federal, state, and local government 

agencies. 

Additionally, Georgia does not have 

any pending obligation under section 

115 and 126 of the CAA. EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that 

Georgia’s SIP and practices are adequate 

for ensuring compliance with the 

applicable requirements relating to 

interstate and international pollution 

abatement for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. 

6. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate Resources 

and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and 

Oversight of Local Governments and 

Regional Agencies: Section 110(a)(2)(E) 

requires that each implementation plan 

provide (i) necessary assurances that the 

state will have adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority under state law 

to carry out its implementation plan, (ii) 

that the state comply with the 

requirements respecting state boards 

pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and 

(iii) necessary assurances that, where 

the state has relied on a local or regional 

government, agency, or instrumentality 

for the implementation of any plan 

provision, the state has responsibility 

for ensuring adequate implementation 

of such plan provisions. EPA’s analysis 

of sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii), and 

(iii) is described below. 

In support of EPA’s proposal to 

approve sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 

(iii), GAEPD’s infrastructure SIP 

demonstrates that it is responsible for 

promulgating rules and regulations for 

the NAAQS, emissions standards and 

general policies, a system of permits, fee 

schedules for the review of plans, and 

other planning needs. In its SIP 

submittal, Georgia describes its 

authority for Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) as 

the CAA section l05 grant process, the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6207 

22 Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391–3–1–.02(3)— 

‘‘Sampling.’’ is not approved into Georgia’s 

federally-approved SIP. 

23 Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391–3–1–.02(3)— 

‘‘Sampling.’’ is not approved into Georgia’s 

federally-approved SIP. 

Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air 

Quality (O.C.G.A. 12–9–10), and Georgia 

Rule for Air Quality 391–3–1–.03(9) 

which establishes Georgia’s Air Permit 

Fee System. For Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii), 

the State does not rely on localities in 

Georgia for specific SIP implementation. 

Georgia’s authority for this 

infrastructure element relating to local 

or regional implementation of SIP 

provisions is found in Georgia Air 

Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality 

(O.C.G.A. Section 12–9–5(b)(17)). As 

evidence of the adequacy of GAEPD’s 

resources with respect to sub-elements 

(i) and (iii), EPA submitted a letter to 

Georgia on March 20, 2015, outlining 

CAA section 105 grant commitments 

and the current status of these 

commitments for fiscal year 2014. The 

letter EPA submitted to GAEPD can be 

accessed at www.regulations.gov using 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2015– 

0152. Annually, states update these 

grant commitments based on current SIP 

requirements, air quality planning, and 

applicable requirements related to the 

NAAQS. There were no outstanding 

issues in relation to the SIP for fiscal 

year 2014, therefore, GAEPD’s grants 

were finalized and closed out. In 

addition, the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) are met when 

EPA performs a completeness 

determination for each SIP submittal. 

This determination ensures that each 

submittal provides evidence that 

adequate personnel, funding, and legal 

authority under state law has been used 

to carry out the state’s implementation 

plan and related issues. GAEPD’s 

authority is included in all prehearing 

and final SIP submittal packages for 

approval by EPA. GAEPD is responsible 

for submitting all revisions to the 

Georgia SIP to EPA for approval. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that Georgia has adequate resources for 

implementation of the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that 

the state comply with section 128 of the 

CAA. Section 128 requires that the SIP 

provide: (1) the majority of members of 

the state board or body which approves 

permits or enforcement orders represent 

the public interest and do not derive 

any significant portion of their income 

from persons subject to permitting or 

enforcement orders under the CAA; and 

(2) any potential conflicts of interest by 

such board or body, or the head of an 

executive agency with similar powers be 

adequately disclosed. With respect to 

the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) pertaining the state board 

requirements of CAA section 128, 

Georgia’s infrastructure SIP submission 

cites Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: 

Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12–9–5) 

Powers and duties of Board of Natural 

Resources as to air quality generally) 

which provides the powers and duties 

of the Board of Natural Resources as to 

air quality and provides that at least a 

majority of members of this board 

represent the public interest and not 

derive any significant portion of income 

from persons subject to permits or 

enforcement orders and that potential 

conflicts of interest will be adequately 

disclosed. This provision has been 

incorporated into the federally approved 

SIP. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that the State has 

adequately addressed the requirements 

of section 128(a), and accordingly has 

met the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect to 

infrastructure SIP requirements. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve 

GAEPD’s infrastructure SIP submissions 

as meeting the requirements of subelements 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii) and (iii). 

7. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary Source 

Monitoring and Reporting: Section 

110(a)(2)(F) requires SIPs to meet 

applicable requirements addressing: (i) 

the installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources, (ii) periodic reports 

on the nature and amounts of emissions 

and emissions related data from such 

sources, and (iii) correlation of such 

reports by the state agency with any 

emission limitations or standards 

established pursuant to this section, 

which reports shall be available at 

reasonable times for public inspection. 

GAEPD’s SIP submissions identify how 

the major source and minor source 

emission inventory programs collect 

emission data throughout the State and 

ensure the quality of such data. These 

data are used to compare against current 

emission limits and to meet 

requirements of EPA’s Air Emissions 

Reporting Rule (AERR). The following 

State rules enable Georgia to meet the 

requirements of this element: Georgia 

Rule for Air Quality 391–3–1–.02(3)— 

‘‘Sampling.’’ 22; 391–3–1–.02(6)(b)— 

‘‘Source Monitoring.’’; 391–3–1–.02(7)— 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

of Air Quality.’’; 391–3–1–.02(8)—‘‘New 

Source Performance Standards.’’; 391– 

3–1–.02(9)—‘‘Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants.’’; 391–3–1– 

.02(11)—‘‘Compliance Assurance 

Monitoring.’’; and 391–3–1–.03— 

‘‘Permits. Amended.’’ Also, the Georgia 

Air Quality Act Article I: Air Quality 

(O.C.G.A. 12–9–5(b)(6)) provides the 

State with the authority to conduct 

actions regarding stationary source 

emissions monitoring and reporting in 

support of this infrastructure element. 

These rules collectively require 

emissions monitoring and reporting for 

activities that contribute to SO2

concentrations in the air, including 

requirements for the installation, 

calibration, maintenance, and operation 

of equipment for continuously 

monitoring or recording emissions, or 

provide authority for GAEPD to 

establish such emissions monitoring 

and reporting requirements through SIPapproved permits and require reporting 

of SO2 emissions. 

Additionally, Georgia is required to 

submit emissions data to EPA for 

purposes of the National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI). The NEI is EPA’s 

central repository for air emissions data. 

EPA published the AERR on December 

5, 2008, which modified the 

requirements for collecting and 

reporting air emissions data (73 FR 

76539). The AERR shortened the time 

states had to report emissions data from 

17 to 12 months, giving states one 

calendar year to submit emissions data. 

All states are required to submit a 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

every three years and report emissions 

for certain larger sources annually 

through EPA’s online Emissions 

Inventory System. States report 

emissions data for the six criteria 

pollutants and their associated 

precursors—NOX, SO2, ammonia, lead, 

carbon monoxide, particulate matter, 

and volatile organic compounds. Many 

states also voluntarily report emissions 

of hazardous air pollutants. Georgia 

made its latest update to the 2011 NEI 

on December 12, 2014. EPA compiles 

the emissions data, supplementing it 

where necessary, and releases it to the 

general public through the Web site 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/

eiinformation.html. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Georgia’s SIP and practices are adequate 

for the stationary source monitoring 

systems related to the 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing 

to approve Georgia’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(F). 

Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391–3–1– 

.02(3), ‘‘Sampling,’’ 23 addresses the use 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6208 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

of credible evidence.24 EPA is unaware 

of any provision preventing the use of 

credible evidence in the Georgia SIP. 

8. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency Powers: 

Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the Act requires 

that states demonstrate authority 

comparable with section 303 of the CAA 

and adequate contingency plans to 

implement such authority. Georgia’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions cite air 

pollution emergency episodes and 

preplanned abatement strategies in the 

Georgia Air Quality Act: Article 1: Air 

Quality (O.C.G.A. Sections 12–9–2 

Declaration of public policy, 12–9–6 

Powers and duties of director as to air 

quality generally, 12–9–12 Injunctive 

relief, 12–9–13 Proceedings for 

enforcement, and 12–9–14 Powers of 

director in situations involving 

imminent and substantial danger to 

public health), and Rule 391–3–1–.04 

‘‘Air Pollution Episodes.’’ O.C.G.A. 

Section 12–9–2 provides ‘‘[i]t is 

declared to be the public policy of the 

state of Georgia to preserve, protect, and 

improve air quality . . . to attain and 

maintain ambient air quality standards 

so as to safeguard the public health, 

safety, and welfare.’’ O.C.G.A. Section 

12–9–6(b)(10) provides the Director of 

GAEPD authority to ‘‘issue orders as 

may be necessary to enforce compliance 

with [the Georgia Air Quality Act 

Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A)] and all 

rules and regulations of this article.’’ 

O.C.G.A. Section 12–9–12 provides that 

‘‘[w]henever in the judgment of the 

director any person has engaged in or is 

about to engage in any act or practice 

which constitutes or will constitute an 

unlawful action under [the Georgia Air 

Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality 

(O.C.G.A)], he may make application to 

the superior court of the county in 

which the unlawful act or practice has 

been or is about to be engaged in, or in 

which jurisdiction is appropriate, for an 

order enjoining such act or practice or 

for an order requiring compliance with 

this article. Upon a showing by the 

director that such person has engaged in 

or is about to engage in any such act or 

practice, a permanent or temporary 

injunction, restraining order, or other 

order shall be granted without the 

necessity of showing lack of an adequate 

remedy of law.’’ O.C.G.A. Section 12– 

19–13 specifically pertains to 

enforcement proceedings when the 

Director of GAEPD has reason to believe 

that a violation of any provision of the 

Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air 

Quality (O.C.G.A), or environmental 

rules, regulations or orders have 

occurred. O.C.G.A. Section 12–9–14 also 

provides that the Governor may issue 

orders as necessary to protect the health 

of persons who are, or may be, affected 

by a pollution source or facility after 

‘‘consult[ation] with local authorities in 

order to confirm the correctness of the 

information on which action proposed 

to be taken is based and to ascertain the 

action which such authorities are or will 

be taking.’’ 

Rule 391–3–1–.04 ‘‘Air Pollution 

Episodes’’ provides that the Director of 

GAEPD ‘‘will proclaim that an Air 

Pollution Alert, Air Pollution Warning, 

or Air Pollution Emergency exists when 

the meteorological conditions are such 

that an air stagnation condition is in 

existence and/or the accumulation of air 

contaminants in any place is attaining 

or has attained levels which could, if 

such levels are sustained or exceeded, 

lead to a substantial threat to the health 

of persons in the specific area affected.’’ 

Collectively the cited provisions 

provide that GAEPD demonstrates 

authority comparable with section 303 

of the CAA and adequate contingency 

plans to implement such authority in 

the State. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Georgia’s SIP, and 

State laws are adequate for emergency 

powers related to the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing 

to approve Georgia’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(G). 

9. 110(a)(2)(H) SIP Revisions: Section 

110(a)(2)(H), in summary, requires each 

SIP to provide for revisions of such plan 

(i) as may be necessary to take account 

of revisions of such national primary or 

secondary ambient air quality standard 

or the availability of improved or more 

expeditious methods of attaining such 

standard, and (ii) whenever the 

Administrator finds that the plan is 

substantially inadequate to attain the 

NAAQS or to otherwise comply with 

any additional applicable requirements. 

GAEPD is responsible for adopting air 

quality rules and revising SIPs as 

needed to attain or maintain the 

NAAQS in Georgia. The State has the 

ability and authority to respond to calls 

for SIP revisions, and has provided a 

number of SIP revisions over the years 

for implementation of the NAAQS. 

Georgia has no areas that have been 

designated as nonattainment for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 78 FR 

47191 (August 5, 2013). 

The Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: 

Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12–9– 

6(b)(12) and 12–9–6(b)(13)) provide 

Georgia the authority to conduct certain 

actions in support of this infrastructure 

element. Section 12–9–6(b)(l2) of the 

Georgia Air Quality Act requires GAEPD 

to submit SIP revisions whenever 

revised air quality standards are 

promulgated by EPA. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that Georgia 

adequately demonstrates a commitment 

to provide future SIP revisions related to 

the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS when 

necessary. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve Georgia’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS with respect 

to section 110(a)(2)(H). 

10. 110(a)(2)(J) Consultation with 

Government Officials, Public 

Notification, and PSD and Visibility 

Protection: EPA is proposing to approve 

Georgia’s infrastructure SIP submission 

for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS with 

respect to the general requirement in 

section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a program 

in the SIP that complies with the 

applicable consultation requirements of 

section 121, the public notification 

requirements of section 127, PSD and 

visibility protection. EPA’s rationale for 

applicable consultation requirements of 

section 121, the public notification 

requirements of section 127, PSD, and 

visibility is described below. 

Consultation with government 

officials (121 consultation): Section 

110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires states to 

provide a process for consultation with 

local governments, designated 

organizations, and Federal Land 

Managers carrying out NAAQS 

implementation requirements pursuant 

to section 121 relative to consultation. 

The following State rules and statutes, 

as well as the State’s Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan (which allows for 

consultation between appropriate state, 

local, and tribal air pollution control 

agencies as well as the corresponding 

Federal Land Managers), provide for 

consultation with government officials 

whose jurisdictions might be affected by 

SIP development activities: Georgia Air 

Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality 

(O.C.G.A. Section 12–9–5(b)(17)); 

Georgia Administrative Procedures Act 

(O.C.G.A. § 50–13–4); and Georgia Rule 

391–3–1–.02(7) as it relates to Class I 

areas. Section 12–9–5(b)(l7) of the 

Georgia Air Quality Act states that the 

DNR Board is to ‘‘establish satisfactory 

processes of consultation and 

cooperation with local governments or 

other designated organizations of 

elected officials or federal agencies for 

the purpose of planning, implementing, 

and determining requirements under 

this article to the extent required by the 

federal act.’’ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6209 

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. 

Additionally, Georgia adopted statewide consultation procedures for the 

implementation of transportation 

conformity which includes the 

development of mobile inventories for 

SIP development.25 These consultation 

procedures were developed in 

coordination with the transportation 

partners in the State and are consistent 

with the approaches used for 

development of mobile inventories for 

SIPs. Required partners covered by 

Georgia’s consultation procedures 

include Federal, state and local 

transportation and air quality agency 

officials. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Georgia’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate 

consultation with government officials 

related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve Georgia’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) 

consultation with government officials. 

Public notification (127 public 

notification): GAEPD has public notice 

mechanisms in place to notify the 

public of instances or areas exceeding 

the NAAQS along with associated 

health effects through the Air Quality 

Index reporting system in required 

areas. GAEPD’s Ambient Monitoring 

Web page (www.georgiaair.org/amp) 

provides information regarding current 

and historical air quality across the 

State. Daily air quality forecasts may be 

disseminated to the public in Atlanta 

through the Georgia Department of 

Transportation’s electronic billboards. 

In its SIP submission, Georgia also notes 

that the non-profit organization in 

Georgia, ‘‘Clean Air Campaign,’’ 

disseminates statewide air quality 

information and ways to reduce air 

pollution. Georgia rule 391–3–1–.04 

‘‘Air Pollution Episodes’’ enables the 

State to conduct certain actions in 

support of this infrastructure element. 

In addition, the following State statutes 

provide Georgia the authority to 

conduct certain actions in support of 

this infrastructure element. OCGA 12– 

9–6(b)(8) provides authority to the 

Georgia Board of Natural Resources ‘‘To 

collect and disseminate information and 

to provide for public notification in 

matters relating to air quality. . .’’. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that Georgia’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate the State’s 

ability to provide public notification 

related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve Georgia’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) public 

notification. 

PSD: With regard to the PSD element 

of section 110(a)(2)(J), this requirement 

may be met by a state’s confirmation in 

an infrastructure SIP submission that 

new major sources and major 

modifications in the state are subject to 

a PSD program meeting all the current 

structural requirements of part C of title 

I of the CAA. As discussed in more 

detail above under section 110(a)(2)(C), 

Georgia’s SIP contains provisions for the 

State’s PSD program that reflect the 

relevant SIP revisions pertaining to the 

required structural PSD requirements to 

satisfy the requirement of the PSD 

element of section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that Georgia’s SIP and practices are 

adequate PSD permitting of major 

sources and major modifications related 

to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the 

PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J). 

Visibility protection: EPA’s 2013 

Guidance notes that it does not treat the 

visibility protection aspects of section 

110(a)(2)(J) as applicable for purposes of 

the infrastructure SIP approval process. 

EPA recognizes that states are subject to 

visibility protection and regional haze 

program requirements under part C of 

the Act (which includes sections 169A 

and 169B). However, there are no newly 

applicable visibility protection 

obligations after the promulgation of a 

new or revised NAAQS. Thus, EPA has 

determined that states do not need to 

address the visibility component of 

110(a)(2)(J) in infrastructure SIP 

submittals to fulfill its obligations under 

section 110(a)(2)(J). As such, EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that it does not need to address the 

visibility protection element of section 

110(a)(2)(J) in Georgia’s infrastructure 

SIP submission related to the 2010 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS. 

11. 110(a)(2)(K) Air Quality Modeling 

and Submission of Modeling Data: 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires 

that SIPs provide for performing air 

quality modeling so that effects on air 

quality of emissions from NAAQS 

pollutants can be predicted and 

submission of such data to the EPA can 

be made. The Georgia Air Quality Act 

Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 

12–9–6(b)(13)) provides GAEPD the 

authority to conduct modeling actions 

and to submit air quality modeling data 

to EPA in support of this element. 

GAEPD maintains personnel with 

training and experience to conduct 

source-oriented dispersion modeling 

with models such as AERMOD that 

would likely be used for modeling SO2

emissions from sources. The State also 

notes that its SIP-approved PSD 

program, which includes specific 

(dispersion) modeling provisions, 

provides further support of GAEPD’s 

ability to address this element. All such 

modeling is conducted in accordance 

with the provisions of 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix W, ‘‘Guideline on Air Quality 

Models.’’ 

Additionally, Georgia supports a 

regional effort to coordinate the 

development of emissions inventories 

and conduct regional modeling for 

several NAAQS, including the 2010 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS, for the Southeastern 

states. Taken as a whole, Georgia’s air 

quality regulations and practices 

demonstrate that GAEPD has the 

authority to provide relevant data for 

the purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of the 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Georgia’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate the 

State’s ability to provide for air quality 

and modeling, along with analysis of the 

associated data, related to the 2010 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve Georgia’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(K). 

12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting Fees: 

Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires the owner 

or operator of each major stationary 

source to pay to the permitting 

authority, as a condition of any permit 

required under the CAA, a fee sufficient 

to cover (i) the reasonable costs of 

reviewing and acting upon any 

application for such a permit, and (ii) if 

the owner or operator receives a permit 

for such source, the reasonable costs of 

implementing and enforcing the terms 

and conditions of any such permit (not 

including any court costs or other costs 

associated with any enforcement 

action), until such fee requirement is 

superseded with respect to such sources 

by the Administrator’s approval of a fee 

program under title V. 

Georgia’s PSD and NNSR permitting 

programs are funded with title V fees. 

The Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391– 

3–1–.03(9) ‘‘Permit Fees.’’ incorporates 

the EPA-approved title V fee program 

and fees for synthetic minor sources. 

Georgia’s authority to mandate funding 

for processing PSD and NNSR permits is 

found in Georgia Air Quality Act Article 

1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12–9–10). The 

State notes that these title V operating 

program fees cover the reasonable cost 

of implementation and enforcement of 

PSD and NNSR permits after they have 

been issued. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Georgia’s SIP and practices adequately 

provide for permitting fees related to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6210 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, when 

necessary. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve Georgia’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(L). 

13. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/

participation by affected local entities: 

Section 110(a)(2)(M) of the Act requires 

states to provide for consultation and 

participation in SIP development by 

local political subdivisions affected by 

the SIP. Consultation and participation 

by affected local entities is authorized 

by the Georgia Air Quality Act: Article 

1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12–9–5(b)(17)) 

and the Georgia Rule for Air Quality 

391–3–1–.15—‘‘Transportation 

Conformity’’, which defines the 

consultation procedures for areas 

subject to transportation conformity. 

Furthermore, GAEPD has demonstrated 

consultation with, and participation by, 

affected local entities through its work 

with local political subdivisions during 

the developing of its Transportation 

Conformity SIP and has worked with 

the Federal Land Managers as a 

requirement of the regional haze rule. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Georgia’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate 

consultation with affected local entities 

related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

when necessary. 

V. Proposed Action 

With the exception of interstate 

transport provisions pertaining to the 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in other 

states and visibility protection 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), EPA is 

proposing to approve Georgia’s October 

22, 2013, SIP submission as 

supplemented on July 25, 2014, for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the above 

described infrastructure SIP 

requirements. EPA is proposing to 

approve Georgia’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS because the submission is 

consistent with section 110 of the CAA. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved to 

apply on any Indian reservation land or 

in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: January 12, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02303 Filed 2–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 300 and 600 

[Docket No. 150507434–5999–01] 

RIN 0648–BF09 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act; 

Seafood Import Monitoring Program 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA), this proposed 

rule would establish filing and 

recordkeeping procedures relating to the 

importation of certain fish and fish 

products, in order to implement the 

MSA’s prohibition on the import and 

trade, in interstate or foreign commerce, 

of fish taken, possessed, transported or 

sold in violation of any foreign law or 

regulation. The information to be filed 

is proposed to be collected at the time 

of entry, and makes use of an electronic 

single window consistent with the 

Safety and Accountability for Every 

(SAFE) Port Act of 2006 and other 

applicable statutes. Specifically, NMFS 

proposes to integrate collection of catch 

and landing documentation for certain 

fish and fish products within the 

government-wide International Trade 

Data System (ITDS) and require 

electronic information collection 

through the Automated Commercial 

Environment (ACE) maintained by the 

Department of Homeland Security, 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 

Under these procedures, NMFS would 

require an annually renewable 

International Fisheries Trade Permit 

(IFTP) and specific data for certain fish 

and fish products to be filed and 

retained as a condition of import to 

enable the United States to exclude the 

entry into commerce of products of 

illegal fishing activities. The 

information to be collected and retained 

will help authorities verify that the fish 

or fish products were lawfully acquired 

by providing information that traces 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS