57544 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

25The most recent quality-assured design values 

for each NAAQS are publicly available at https:// 

www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values. 

appropriate operational changes needed 

to expeditiously to prevent any future 

violation of the NAAQS. Explicit 

measures addressed in Florida’s April 3, 

2015, SIP submittal are: 

• Fuel switching to reduce or 

eliminate the use of sulfur-containing 

fuels; 

• combustion air system 

enhancement; 

• vent gas scrubber enhancement; 

• white liquor scrubber enhancement; 

and/or 

• physical or operational reduction of 

production capacity. 

Florida may consider other options 

for additional controls if these measures 

are not deemed to be the most 

appropriate to address air quality issues 

in the Area. 

Florida would implement the most 

appropriate control strategy to address 

the exceedances. If a permit 

modification might be required to 

conform to applicable air quality 

standards, Florida will make use of the 

State’s authority in Rule 62–4.080, 

F.A.C. to require permittees to comply 

with new or additional conditions. This 

authority would allow Florida to work 

directly with the source(s) expeditiously 

to make changes to permits. 

Subsequently, Florida would submit 

any relevant permit change to EPA as a 

source-specific SIP revision to make the 

change permanent and enforceable. EPA 

recognizes this strategy as an acceptable 

additional step, but according to CAA 

section 172(c)(9), a measure requiring 

further action by FL DEP or EPA (e.g., 

necessitating a revised permit and SIP 

revision) could not serve as the primary 

contingency measure. 

EPA is proposing to find that Florida’s 

April 3, 2015, SIP submittal includes a 

comprehensive program to 

expeditiously identify the source of any 

violation of the SO2 NAAQS and for 

aggressive follow-up. Therefore, EPA 

proposes that the contingency measures 

submitted by Florida follow the 2014 

SO2 Nonattainment Guidance and meet 

the section 172(c)(9) . EPA notes that 

Florida has further committed to pursue 

additional actions that may require a 

SIP revision if needed to address the 

exceedances. 

G. Attainment Date 

Florida’s modeling indicates that the 

Nassau Area will begin attaining the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS by January 1, 2018, 

once the control strategy is completely 

implemented. This modeling does not 

provide for an attaining three-year 

design value by the proposed attainment 

date of October 4, 2018. However, 

expeditious implementation of RACM/ 

RACT for the Rayonier source, coupled 

with actual emissions from the 

WestRock source, has already provided 

for an attaining design value of 58 ppb 

considering 2013–2015 data, and in fact 

exhibited attaining data since 2011– 

2013 with a design value of 70 ppb.25

The recent design value is well under 

the NAAQS, and the ongoing 

compliance schedule for WestRock 

control measures will help to assure that 

the area maintains the NAAQS in the 

future. Therefore, the area is expected to 

attain the NAAQS by the attainment 

date. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s 

SO2 attainment plan for the Nassau 

Area. EPA has preliminarily determined 

that the SIP meets the applicable 

requirements of the CAA. Specifically, 

EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s 

April 3, 2015, SIP submission, which 

includes the base year emissions 

inventory, a modeling demonstration of 

SO2 attainment, an analysis of RACM/ 

RACT, a RFP plan, and contingency 

measures for the Nassau Area. 

Additionally, EPA is proposing to 

approve into the Florida SIP specific 

SO2 emission limits and compliance 

parameters established for the two SO2

point sources impacting the Nassau 

Area. 

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). 

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, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

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

Dated: August 15, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–20119 Filed 8–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 57545 

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). 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. 

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. 

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. 

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 (404) 

562–9088 or via electronic mail at 

bell.tiereny@epa.gov. 

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 (mg/ 

m3) to 12.0 mg/m3. 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

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. 

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

• 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


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
57546 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

5As mentioned previously, 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. 

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). 

• 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 

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. 

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 57547 

10For 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. 

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 

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. 

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 upto-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 

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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
57548 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 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, 

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). 

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. 

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

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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 57549 

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. 

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 

Continued 

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 SIPapproved 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

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. 

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 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 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 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


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
57550 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 57551 

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. 

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. 

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 federallyapproved 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 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. 

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 SIPapproved permits and require reporting 

of 2012 Annual PM2.5 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—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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
57552 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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. § 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 statewide 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. 

Public notification (127 public 

notification): EPD has public notice 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 57553 

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. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
57554 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Part 402, 420, and, 455 

[CMS–6074–NC] 

RIN 0938–ZB31 

Request for Information: Inappropriate 

Steering of Individuals Eligible for or 

Receiving Medicare and Medicaid 

Benefits to Individual Market Plans 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: This request for information 

seeks public comment regarding 

concerns about health care providers 

and provider-affiliated organizations 

steering people eligible for or receiving 

Medicare and/or Medicaid benefits to an 

individual market plan for the purpose 

of obtaining higher payment rates. CMS 

is concerned about reports of this 

practice and is requesting comments on 

the frequency and impact of this issue 

from the public. We believe this practice 

not only could raise overall health 

system costs, but could potentially be 

harmful to patient care and service 

coordination because of changes to 

provider networks and drug formularies, 

result in higher out-of-pocket costs for 

enrollees, and have a negative impact on 

the individual market single risk pool 

(or the combined risk pool in states that 

have chosen to merge their risk pools). 

We are seeking input from stakeholders 

and the public regarding the frequency 

and impact of this practice, and options 

to limit this practice. 

DATES: To be assured consideration, 

comments must be received at one of 

the addresses provided below, no later 

than 5 p.m. on September 22, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: In commenting, refer to file 

code CMS–6074–NC. Because of staff 

and resource limitations, we cannot 

accept comments by facsimile (FAX) 

transmission. 

You may submit comments in one of 

four ways (please choose only one of the 

ways listed): 

1. Electronically. You may submit 

electronic comments on this regulation 

to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the ‘‘Submit a comment’’ instructions. 

2. By regular mail. You may mail 

written comments to the following 

address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Attention: 

CMS–6074–NC, P.O. Box 8010, 

Baltimore, MD 21244–8010. 

Please allow sufficient time for mailed 

comments to be received before the 

close of the comment period. 

3. By express or overnight mail. You 

may send written comments to the 

following address ONLY: Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Attention: CMS–6074–NC, 

Mail Stop C4–26–05, 7500 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850. 

4. By hand or courier. Alternatively, 

you may deliver (by hand or courier) 

your written comments ONLY to the 

following addresses: 

a. For delivery in Washington, DC— 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Room 445–G, Hubert 

H. Humphrey Building, 200 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20201. 

(Because access to the interior of the 

Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not 

readily available to persons without 

Federal government identification, 

commenters are encouraged to leave 

their comments in the CMS drop slots 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS