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

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 (NO 2) 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 NO 2 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 NO 2 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 NO 2 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,


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

3 This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element as they relate to attainment areas. 4 As 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 NO 2 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 NO 2 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 NO 2 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 NO 2 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 NO 2 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.


### 41907 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules

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

6 See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program;

Revisions to the NO X 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)). 7 EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note,

e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates

for submission of emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of the new or revised NAAQS.

8 See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR 4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action approving the structural PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to meet the requirements of EPA’s 2008 PM 2.5 NSR rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS,’’ (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action on the

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS).

9 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.

10 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM 2.5 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


### 41908 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules

11 EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist states, as appropriate.

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.

13 EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not make recommendations with respect to

infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the

D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to provide additional guidance on the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a particular section has no impact on a state’s CAA obligations. 14 By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions during
SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in the context of the

action on the infrastructure SIP. 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 developedthis 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 (PM 2.5 ) 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.


### 41909 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules

15 For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of excess emissions during SSM events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).

16 EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had approved in error. See,

e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).

17 See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission from Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director’s discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions). 18 On June 12, 2015, EPA published a final action entitled, ‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA’s SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.’’

See 80 FR 33840. 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 NO 2 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

NO 2 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:


### 41910 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules

19 On 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 NO 2 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 NO 2 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 NO 2 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 NO 2 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

NO 2 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 NO 2 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 NO 2 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 NO 2 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 NO 2 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


### 41911 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules

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 ofGAEPD’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 NO 2 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 submissionsas 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 NO 2 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 NO 2 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


### 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 NO 2 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 SO 2 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 NO 2 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 NO 2 NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia’s

infrastructure SIP submission for the

2010 1-hour NO 2 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 NO 2 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 NO 2 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


### 41913 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules

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. 23 Title 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 SO 2 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 NO 2 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 NO 2 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 NO 2 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 SO 2 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 NO 2 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 NO 2 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 NO 2 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


### 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 NO 2 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 NO 2 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; Cross**

**State 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) submittalfrom 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 (NO X) and one of CSAPR’s two federal trading programs for annual emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO 2). 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 NO X and

SO 2 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 NO X and SO 2 emissions under the corresponding CSAPR FIPs addressing interstate transport requirements for the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 ) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Approval of these portions of the SIP