Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 41905 

Bridge. The safety zone is encompassed 

by the following coordinates: 

Corner Latitude Longitude 

SW ........ 41°41.40′ N. 7°11.15′ W. 

NW ........ 41°41.48′ N. 71°11.1′ W. 

SE ......... 41°42.33′ N. 71° 09.40′ W. 

NE ......... 41°42.42′ N. 71°09.47′ W. 

(b) Enforcement Period. Vessels will 

be prohibited from entering this safety 

zone, when enforced, during the Fall 

River Grand Prix marine event between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. from Saturday, August 

27, 2016 to Sunday, August 28, 2016. 

(c) Definitions. The following 

definitions apply to this section: 

(1) Designated Representative. A 

‘‘designated representative’’ is any Coast 

Guard commissioned, warrant or petty 

officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has 

been designated by the Captain of the 

Port, Sector Southeastern New England 

(COTP), to act on his or her behalf. The 

designated representative may be on an 

official patrol vessel or may be on shore 

and will communicate with vessels via 

VHF–FM radio or loudhailer. In 

addition, members of the Coast Guard 

Auxiliary may be present to inform 

vessel operators of this regulation. 

(2) Official Patrol Vessels. Official 

patrol vessels may consist of any Coast 

Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or 

local law enforcement vessels assigned 

or approved by the COTP. 

(3) Patrol Commander. The Coast 

Guard may patrol each safety zone 

under the direction of a designated 

Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The 

Patrol Commander may be contacted on 

Channel 16 VHF–FM (156.8 MHz) by 

the call sign ‘‘PATCOM.’’ 

(4) Spectators. All persons and vessels 

not registered with the event sponsor as 

participants or official patrol vessels. 

(d) Regulations. (1) The general 

regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23 

as well as the following regulations 

apply to the safety zone established in 

conjunction with the Fall River Grand 

Prix, Taunton River, vicinity of Fall 

River, MA. These regulations may be 

enforced for the duration of the event. 

(2) No later than 8 a.m. each day of 

the event, the Coast Guard will 

announce via Safety Marine Information 

Broadcasts and local media the times 

and duration of each race scheduled for 

that day, and the precise area(s) of the 

safety zone that will be enforced. 

(3) Vessels may not transit through or 

within the safety zone during periods of 

enforcement without Patrol Commander 

approval. Vessels permitted to transit 

must operate at a no-wake speed, in a 

manner which will not endanger 

participants or other crafts in the event. 

(4) Spectators or other vessels shall 

not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the 

movement of event participants or 

official patrol vessels in the safety zone 

unless authorized by an official patrol 

vessel. 

(5) The Patrol Commander may 

control the movement of all vessels in 

the safety zone. When hailed or signaled 

by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall 

come to an immediate stop and comply 

with the lawful directions issued. 

Failure to comply with a lawful 

direction may result in expulsion from 

the area, citation for failure to comply, 

or both. 

(6) The Patrol Commander may delay 

or terminate the Fall River Grand Prix 

at any time to ensure safety. Such action 

may be justified as a result of weather, 

traffic density, spectator operation or 

participant behavior. 

Dated: June 14, 2016. 

Richard J. Shultz, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Southeastern New England. 

[FR Doc. 2016–15331 Filed 6–27–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0250; FRL–9948–40– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; GA Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen 

Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

portions of the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the 

State of Georgia, through the Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources (DNR), 

Environmental Protection Division 

(GAEPD), on March 25, 2013, to 

demonstrate that the State meets the 

infrastructure requirements of the Clean 

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

hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 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 NO2

NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and 

maintained in Georgia. EPA is 

proposing to determine that portions of 

Georgia’s infrastructure submission, 

submitted on March 25, 2013, addresses 

certain required infrastructure elements 

for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 28, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2015–0250 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: 

Richard Wong, 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. Mr. Wong 

can be reached via telephone at (404) 

562–8726 or via electronic mail at 

wong.richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Overview 

On February 9, 2010, EPA 

promulgated a new 1-hour primary 

NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts 

per billion, based on a 3-year average of 

the 98th percentile of the yearly 

distribution of 1-hour daily maximum 

concentrations. See 75 FR 6474. 

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

CAA, states are required to submit SIPs 

meeting the requirements of section 

110(a)(2) within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) requires 

states to address basic SIP requirements, 

including emissions inventories, 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41906 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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. Additionally, 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 

‘‘Georgia Rule’’ indicates that the cited regulation 

has been approved into Georgia’s federallyapproved SIP. The term ‘‘Georgia statute’’ indicates 

cited statutes in Georgia Air Quality Act, Official 

Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) Section 12– 

9, et seq., which are not a part of the SIP unless 

otherwise indicated. 

2Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are 

not governed by the three year submission deadline 

of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating 

necessary local nonattainment area controls are not 

due within three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the 

nonattainment area plan requirements are due 

pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (1) 

Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the 

extent that subsection refers to a permit program as 

required in part D Title I of the CAA; and (2) 

submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which 

pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements 

of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today’s proposed 

rulemaking does not address infrastructure 

elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

110(a)(2)(C). 

3This rulemaking only addresses requirements 

for this element as they relate to attainment areas. 

4As mentioned above, this element is not 

relevant to today’s proposed rulemaking. 

monitoring, and modeling to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. States were required to submit 

such SIPs for the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS to EPA no later than January 

22, 2013.1

Today’s action is proposing to 

approve Georgia’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the applicable 

requirements of the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS, with the exception of the PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 

of D(i), and (J) and the interstate 

transport requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, 

and 4). On March 18, 2015, EPA 

approved Georgia’s March 25, 2013, 

infrastructure SIP submission regarding 

the PSD permitting requirements for 

major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

prong 3 of D(i), and (J) for the 2010 1- 

hour NO2 NAAQS. See 80 FR 14019. 

Therefore, EPA is not proposing any 

action pertaining to these requirements. 

EPA is not proposing any action today 

regarding the interstate transport 

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

and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4). 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. In the 

case of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, 

states typically have met the basic 

program elements required in section 

110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 

submissions in connection with 

previous 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 

modeling, monitoring, and emissions 

inventories that are designed to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. The requirements that are the 

subject of this proposed rulemaking are 

listed below 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).’’ 2

• 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 3

• 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 4

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

Government Officials, Public 

Notification, and 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 

2010 1-hour NO2 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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 41907 

5For 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. 

6See, 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)). 

7EPA 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. 

8See, 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). 

9On 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. 10For 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. 

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.5 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.6 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.7 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.8

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.9

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.10

EPA notes that interpretation of 

section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when 

EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submissions required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submissions, EPA also has to identify 

and interpret the relevant elements of 

section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to 

these other types of SIP submissions. 

For example, section 172(c)(7) requires 

that attainment plan SIP submissions 

required by part D have to meet the 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ of section 

110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment 

plan SIP submissions must meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 

regarding enforceable emission limits 

and control measures and section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency 

resources and authority. By contrast, it 

is clear that attainment plan SIP 

submissions required by part D would 

not need to meet the portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD 

program required in part C of title I of 

the CAA, because PSD does not apply 

to a pollutant for which an area is 

designated nonattainment and thus 

subject to part D planning requirements. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

elements of section 110(a)(2) but not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in 

some of the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) 

in the context of acting on a particular 

SIP submission. In other words, EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41908 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

11EPA 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. 

12 ‘‘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. 

13EPA’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. 

14By 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. 

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.11 EPA most 

recently issued guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 

2013 (2013 Guidance).12 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.13 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 

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, among 

other things, 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.14 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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 41909 

15For 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). 

16EPA 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). 

17See, 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 (January 26, 

2011) (final disapproval of such provisions). 

18On 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. 

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.15 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.16

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.17

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Georgia addressed the elements of the 

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

‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? 

Georgia’s infrastructure submission 

addresses the provisions of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) as described below. 

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

other control measures: Section 

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

implementation plan include 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or 

techniques (including economic 

incentives such as fees, marketable 

permits, and auctions of emissions 

rights), as well as schedules and 

timetables for compliance, as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements. Several 

regulations within Georgia’s SIP are 

relevant to air quality control 

regulations. The following State 

regulations include enforceable 

emission limitations and other control 

measures: 391–3–1–.01, Definitions. 

Amended.; 391–3–1–.02, Provisions. 

Amended.; and 391–3–1–.3, Permits. 

Amended. These regulations 

collectively establish enforceable 

emissions limitations and other control 

measures, means or techniques for 

activities that contribute to NO2

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 cited provisions 

are adequate to protect the 2010 1-hour 

NO2 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.18

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: 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41910 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

19On occasion, proposed changes to the 

monitoring network are evaluated outside of the 

network plan approval process in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58. 

Air Quality, Powers and duties of 

director as to air quality generally 

(O.C.G.A. Section 12–9–6). 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.19 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. The 

Georgia 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 to 

submit such data to EPA, and that data 

submissions are provided 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 NO2 NAAQS. 

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

Enforcement of Control Measures and 

for Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources: Section 110(a)(2)(C) 

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 NO2 emission limits and 

control measures. 

Preconstruction PSD Permitting for 

Major Sources: With respect to Georgia’s 

March 25, 2013, infrastructure SIP 

submission related to the PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA took 

final action to approve these provisions 

for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS on 

March 18, 2015. See 80 FR 14019. 

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 NO2 NAAQS. Georgia’s federally 

approved SIP contains its minor NSR 

permitting program at Georgia Rule 

391–3–1–.03(1), Construction 

(SIP)Permit, which 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 and 

practices are adequate for program 

enforcement of control measures and 

regulation of minor sources and 

modifications related to the 2010 1-hour 

NO2 NAAQS. 

4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 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 have two subparts resulting 

in four distinct components, commonly 

referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that must be 

addressed in infrastructure SIP 

submissions. The first two prongs, 

which are codified in section 

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

prohibit any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

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

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

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

prongs, which are codified in section 

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

prohibit emissions activity in one state 

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 NO2 NAAQS infrastructure 

submissions did not address prongs 1 

and 2. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With 

respect to Georgia’s infrastructure SIP 

submission related to the interstate 

transport requirements for PSD of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3), EPA 

took final action to approve Georgia’s 

March 25, 2013, infrastructure SIP 

submission regarding prong 3 of D(i) for 

the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS on March 

18, 2015. See 80 FR 14019. 

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 visibility 

protection 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 NO2 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 related to 

PSD and permitting regulations. 

Specifically, 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 NO2

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 41911 

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

Sampling is not approved into Georgia’s federallyapproved SIP. 

21 ‘‘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. 

regional government, agency, or 

instrumentality for the implementation 

of any plan provision, the State has 

responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of such plan provisions. 

EPA is proposing to approve Georgia’s 

SIP as meeting the requirements of 

sections 110(a)(2)(E). EPA’s rationale for 

today’s proposals respecting each 

section of 110(a)(2)(E) is described in 

turn 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 

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 

GAEPD’s resources with respect to subelements (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 GAEPD can 

be accessed at www.regulations.gov 

using Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2015–0520. 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, GAEPD’s 

grants were finalized and closed out. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Georgia has adequate 

resources for implementation of the 

2010 1-hour NO2 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 system: 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 infrastructure 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; 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 NO2 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 SIP-approved permits and 

require reporting of NO2 emissions. 

Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391–3–1– 

.02(3), ‘‘Sampling,’’ 20 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,21 and EPA is 

unaware of any provision preventing the 

use of credible evidence in the Georgia 

SIP. 

Additionally, Georgia is required to 

submit emissions data to EPA for 

purposes of the National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI). The NEI is EPA’s 

central repository for air emissions data. 

EPA published the Air Emissions 

Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 

2008, which modified the requirements 

for collecting and reporting air 

emissions data (73 FR 76539). The 

AERR shortened the time states had to 

report emissions data from 17 to 12 

months, giving states one calendar year 

to submit emissions data. All states are 

required to submit a comprehensive 

emissions inventory every three years 

and report emissions for certain larger 

sources annually through EPA’s online 

Emissions Inventory System. States 

report emissions data for the six criteria 

pollutants and the precursors that form 

them—nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 

ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, 

particulate matter, and volatile organic 

compounds. Many states also 

voluntarily report emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants. Georgia made 

its latest update to the 2011 NEI on 

December 12, 2014. EPA compiles the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41912 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing 

to approve Georgia’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(F). 

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

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

that states demonstrate authority 

comparable with section 303 of the CAA 

and adequate contingency plans to 

implement such authority. Georgia’s 

infrastructure SIP submission cites air 

pollution emergency episodes and 

preplanned abatement strategies in the 

Georgia Air Quality Act: Article 1: Air 

Quality (O.C.G.A. Sections 12–9–2 

Declaration of public policy, 12–9–6 

Powers and duties of director as to air 

quality generally, 12–9–12 Injunctive 

relief, 12–9–13 Proceedings for 

enforcement, and 12–9–14 Powers of 

director in situations involving 

imminent and substantial danger to 

public health), and Rule 391–3–1–.04 

‘‘Air Pollution Episodes.’’ O.C.G.A. 

Section 12–9–2 provides ‘‘[i]t is 

declared to be the public policy of the 

state of Georgia to preserve, protect, and 

improve air quality . . . to attain and 

maintain ambient air quality standards 

so as to safeguard the public health, 

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

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

EPD authority to ‘‘issue orders as may 

be necessary to enforce compliance with 

[the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: 

Air Quality (O.C.G.A)] and all rules and 

regulations of this article.’’ O.C.G.A. 

Section 12–9–12 provides that 

‘‘[w]henever in the judgment of the 

director any person has engaged in or is 

about to engage in any act or practice 

which constitutes or will constitute an 

unlawful action under [the Georgia Air 

Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality 

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

the superior court of the county in 

which the unlawful act or practice has 

been or is about to be engaged in, or in 

which jurisdiction is appropriate, for an 

order enjoining such act or practice or 

for an order requiring compliance with 

this article. Upon a showing by the 

director that such person has engaged in 

or is about to engage in any such act or 

practice, a permanent or temporary 

injunction, restraining order, or other 

order shall be granted without the 

necessity of showing lack of an adequate 

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

19–13 specifically pertains to 

enforcement proceedings when the 

Director of EPD has reason to believe 

that a violation of any provision of the 

Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air 

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

rules, regulations or orders have 

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

provides that the Governor, may issue 

orders as necessary to protect the health 

of persons who are, or may be, affected 

by a pollution source or facility after 

‘‘consult[ation] with local authorities in 

order to confirm the correctness of the 

information on which action proposed 

to be taken is based and to ascertain the 

action which such authorities are or will 

be taking.’’ 

Rule 391–3–1–.04 ‘‘Air Pollution 

Episodes’’ provides that the Director of 

EPD ‘‘will proclaim that an Air 

Pollution Alert, Air Pollution Warning, 

or Air Pollution Emergency exists when 

the meteorological conditions are such 

that an air stagnation condition is in 

existence and/or the accumulation of air 

contaminants in any place is attaining 

or has attained levels which could, if 

such levels are sustained or exceeded, 

lead to a substantial threat to the health 

of persons in the specific area affected.’’ 

Collectively the cited provisions 

provide that Georgia EPD demonstrate 

authority comparable with section 303 

of the CAA and adequate contingency 

plans to implement such authority in 

the state. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Georgia’s SIP, and 

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) Future 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 NO2 NAAQS. See 77 FR 

9532 (February 17, 2012). 

The Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: 

Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12–9– 

6(b)(12) 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 NO2

NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, 

EPA is proposing to approve Georgia’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2010 1-hour NO2 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 NO2 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, and 

visibility protection. With respect to 

Georgia’s infrastructure SIP submission 

related to the preconstruction PSD 

permitting requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(J), EPA took final action to 

approve Georgia’s March 25, 2013, 2010 

1-hour NO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP 

for these requirements on March 18, 

2015. See 80 FR 14019. EPA’s rationale 

for its proposed action regarding 

applicable consultation requirements of 

section 121, the public notification 

requirements of section 127, and 

visibility protection requirements 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 41913 

22 Georgia rule 391–3–1–.15, Georgia 

Transportation Conformity and Consultation 

Interagency Rule, is approved into the State’s SIP. 

See 77 FR 35866. 

23Title V program regulations are federallyapproved but not incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. 

(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.’’ 

Additionally, Georgia adopted statewide consultation procedures for the 

implementation of transportation 

conformity which includes the 

development of mobile inventories for 

SIP development.22 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 NO2 NAAQS 

when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve Georgia’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

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

notification. 

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) related to Georgia’s 

infrastructure SIP submission related to 

the 2010 1-hour NO2 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)(2)) 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 NO2

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 participates in 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 NO2

NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Georgia’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate the 

State’s ability to provide for air quality 

modeling, along with analysis of the 

associated data, related to the 2010 1- 

hour NO2 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. 

Georgia Rule 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). Additionally, 

Georgia’s approved title V operating 

permit program at 391–3–1–.03(10), 

Title V Operating Permits,23 covers the 

cost of implementation and enforcement 

of PSD and NNSR permits after they 

have been issued. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Georgia’s SIP and practices adequately 

provide for permitting fees related to the 

2010 NO2 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41914 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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 NO2 NAAQS 

when necessary. 

V. Proposed Action 

With the exception of the 

preconstruction PSD permitting 

requirements for major sources of 

section 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of 

(110(a)(2)D(i) and 110(a)(2)(J), and the 

interstate transport provisions 

pertaining to the contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance in other states and 

visibility of prongs 1, 2, and 4 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA is proposing to 

approve that Georgia’s March 25, 2013, 

SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS has met the above-described 

infrastructure SIP requirements because 

these aspects of the submission are 

consistent with section 110 of the CAA. 

This proposed action, however, does not 

include the preconstruction PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 

of (D)(i), and (J), which have been 

approved in a separate action, or the 

interstate transport provisions 

pertaining to the contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance in other states of prongs 1, 

2 and 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which 

will be addressed by EPA in a separate 

action. 

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, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 10, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–15136 Filed 6–27–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2016–0294; FRL–9948–41– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Alabama; CrossState Air Pollution Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

portions of the October 26, 2015, State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal 

from Alabama concerning the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 

Under CSAPR, large electricity 

generating units (EGUs) in Alabama are 

subject to Federal Implementation Plans 

(FIPs) requiring the units to participate 

in CSAPR’s federal trading program for 

annual emissions of nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) and one of CSAPR’s two federal 

trading programs for annual emissions 

of sulfur dioxide (SO2). This action 

would approve into Alabama’s SIP the 

state’s regulations requiring Alabama 

EGUs to participate in new CSAPR state 

trading programs for annual NOX and 

SO2 emissions integrated with the 

CSAPR federal trading programs, 

replacing the corresponding FIP 

requirements. These CSAPR state 

trading programs are substantively 

identical to the CSAPR federal trading 

programs except with regard to the 

provisions allocating emission 

allowances among Alabama units. EPA 

is proposing to approve the portions of 

the SIP revision concerning these 

CSAPR state trading programs because 

these portions of the SIP revision meet 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act) and EPA’s regulations for 

approval of a CSAPR full SIP revision 

replacing the requirements of a CSAPR 

FIP. Under the CSAPR regulations, 

approval of these portions of the SIP 

revision would automatically eliminate 

Alabama units’ obligations to participate 

in CSAPR’s federal trading programs for 

annual NOX and SO2 emissions under 

the corresponding CSAPR FIPs 

addressing interstate transport 

requirements for the 1997 and 2006 Fine 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

Approval of these portions of the SIP 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS