81 FR 41905 - Air Plan Approval; GA Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 124 (June 28, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 124 (June 28, 2016)
| Page Range | 41905-41914 | |
| FR Document | 2016-15136 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 28, 2016)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 41905-41914] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-15136] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [email protected]. 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, [[Page 41906]] 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ In these infrastructure SIP submissions States generally certify evidence of compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA through a combination of state regulations and statutes, some of which have been incorporated into the federally-approved SIP. Additionally, certain federally-approved, non-SIP regulations may also be appropriate for demonstrating compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2). Throughout this rulemaking, unless otherwise indicated, the term ``Georgia Rule'' indicates that the cited regulation has been approved into Georgia's federally-approved 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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).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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element as they relate to attainment areas. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate Pollution Transport 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and International Air Pollution 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers 110(a)(2)(H): SIP Revisions 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas \4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ As mentioned above, this element is not relevant to today's proposed rulemaking. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. [[Page 41907]] 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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 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)). \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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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 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). \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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and 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 [[Page 41908]] 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 up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions.\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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submission. [[Page 41909]] 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: [[Page 41910]] 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [[Page 41911]] 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 sub-elements (i) and (iii), EPA submitted a letter to Georgia on April 19, 2016, outlining CAA section 105 grant commitments and the current status of these commitments for fiscal year 2015. The letter EPA submitted to 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 sub-elements 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(3) Sampling is not approved into Georgia's federally-approved 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [[Page 41912]] 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 [[Page 41913]] (O.C.G.A. Sec. 50-13-4); and Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(7) as it relates to Class I areas. Section 12-9-5(b)(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 state-wide 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ Title V program regulations are federally-approved but not incorporated into the federally-approved SIP. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [[Page 41914]] 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
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 41905
Bridge. The safety zone is encompassed (4) Spectators or other vessels shall NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and
by the following coordinates: not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the maintained in Georgia. EPA is
movement of event participants or proposing to determine that portions of
Corner Latitude Longitude official patrol vessels in the safety zone Georgia’s infrastructure submission,
unless authorized by an official patrol submitted on March 25, 2013, addresses
SW ........ 41°41.40′ N. 7°11.15′ W. vessel. certain required infrastructure elements
NW ........ 41°41.48′ N. 71°11.1′ W.
(5) The Patrol Commander may for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.
SE ......... 41°42.33′ N. 71° 09.40′ W.
NE ......... 41°42.42′ N. 71°09.47′ W. control the movement of all vessels in DATES: Written comments must be
the safety zone. When hailed or signaled received on or before July 28, 2016.
(b) Enforcement Period. Vessels will by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
be prohibited from entering this safety come to an immediate stop and comply identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
zone, when enforced, during the Fall with the lawful directions issued. OAR–2015–0250 at http://
River Grand Prix marine event between Failure to comply with a lawful www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. from Saturday, August direction may result in expulsion from instructions for submitting comments.
27, 2016 to Sunday, August 28, 2016. the area, citation for failure to comply, Once submitted, comments cannot be
(c) Definitions. The following or both. edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
definitions apply to this section: (6) The Patrol Commander may delay EPA may publish any comment received
(1) Designated Representative. A or terminate the Fall River Grand Prix to its public docket. Do not submit
‘‘designated representative’’ is any Coast at any time to ensure safety. Such action electronically any information you
Guard commissioned, warrant or petty may be justified as a result of weather, consider to be Confidential Business
officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has traffic density, spectator operation or Information (CBI) or other information
been designated by the Captain of the participant behavior. whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Port, Sector Southeastern New England Dated: June 14, 2016. Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
(COTP), to act on his or her behalf. The Richard J. Shultz, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
designated representative may be on an Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the comment. The written comment is
official patrol vessel or may be on shore Port Southeastern New England. considered the official comment and
and will communicate with vessels via [FR Doc. 2016–15331 Filed 6–27–16; 8:45 am] should include discussion of all points
VHF–FM radio or loudhailer. In BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
you wish to make. EPA will generally
addition, members of the Coast Guard not consider comments or comment
Auxiliary may be present to inform contents located outside of the primary
vessel operators of this regulation. submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION other file sharing system). For
(2) Official Patrol Vessels. Official
AGENCY additional submission methods, the full
patrol vessels may consist of any Coast
Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or 40 CFR Part 52 EPA public comment policy,
local law enforcement vessels assigned information about CBI or multimedia
or approved by the COTP. [EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0250; FRL–9948–40– submissions, and general guidance on
(3) Patrol Commander. The Coast Region 4] making effective comments, please visit
Guard may patrol each safety zone http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
Air Plan Approval; GA Infrastructure
under the direction of a designated commenting-epa-dockets.
Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen
Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality
Patrol Commander may be contacted on Richard Wong, Air Regulatory
Standard
Channel 16 VHF–FM (156.8 MHz) by Management Section, Air Planning and
the call sign ‘‘PATCOM.’’ AGENCY: Environmental Protection Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
(4) Spectators. All persons and vessels Agency. and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
not registered with the event sponsor as ACTION: Proposed rule. Environmental Protection Agency,
participants or official patrol vessels. Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
(d) Regulations. (1) The general SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. Wong
regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23 Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve can be reached via telephone at (404)
as well as the following regulations portions of the State Implementation 562–8726 or via electronic mail at
apply to the safety zone established in Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the wong.richard@epa.gov.
conjunction with the Fall River Grand State of Georgia, through the Georgia SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Prix, Taunton River, vicinity of Fall Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
River, MA. These regulations may be Environmental Protection Division I. Background and Overview
enforced for the duration of the event. (GAEPD), on March 25, 2013, to On February 9, 2010, EPA
(2) No later than 8 a.m. each day of demonstrate that the State meets the promulgated a new 1-hour primary
the event, the Coast Guard will infrastructure requirements of the Clean NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts
announce via Safety Marine Information Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1- per billion, based on a 3-year average of
Broadcasts and local media the times hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national the 98th percentile of the yearly
and duration of each race scheduled for ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). distribution of 1-hour daily maximum
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
that day, and the precise area(s) of the The CAA requires that each state adopt concentrations. See 75 FR 6474.
safety zone that will be enforced. and submit a SIP for the Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the
(3) Vessels may not transit through or implementation, maintenance and CAA, states are required to submit SIPs
within the safety zone during periods of enforcement of each NAAQS meeting the requirements of section
enforcement without Patrol Commander promulgated by EPA, which is 110(a)(2) within three years after
approval. Vessels permitted to transit commonly referred to as an promulgation of a new or revised
must operate at a no-wake speed, in a ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. GAEPD certified NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) requires
manner which will not endanger that the Georgia SIP contains provisions states to address basic SIP requirements,
participants or other crafts in the event. that ensure the 2010 1-hour NO2 including emissions inventories,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:04 Jun 27, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM 28JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_42029/page/1.svg)
![41906 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules
monitoring, and modeling to assure NAAQS affects the content of the • 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for
attainment and maintenance of the submission. The contents of such SIP Nonattainment Areas 4
NAAQS. States were required to submit submissions may also vary depending • 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with
such SIPs for the 2010 1-hour NO2 upon what provisions the state’s Government Officials, Public
NAAQS to EPA no later than January existing SIP already contains. In the Notification, and PSD and Visibility
22, 2013.1 case of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, Protection
Today’s action is proposing to states typically have met the basic • 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling
approve Georgia’s infrastructure SIP program elements required in section and Submission of Modeling Data
submission for the applicable 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP • 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting Fees
requirements of the 2010 1-hour NO2 submissions in connection with • 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and
NAAQS, with the exception of the PSD previous NAAQS. Participation by Affected Local
permitting requirements for major More specifically, section 110(a)(1) Entities
sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 provides the procedural and timing
of D(i), and (J) and the interstate requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) III. What is EPA’s approach to the
transport requirements of section lists specific elements that states must review of infrastructure SIP
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, meet for ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP submissions?
and 4). On March 18, 2015, EPA requirements related to a newly EPA is acting upon the SIP
approved Georgia’s March 25, 2013, established or revised NAAQS. As submission from Georgia that addresses
infrastructure SIP submission regarding mentioned above, these requirements the infrastructure requirements of CAA
the PSD permitting requirements for include basic SIP elements such as sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the
major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), modeling, monitoring, and emissions 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. The
prong 3 of D(i), and (J) for the 2010 1- inventories that are designed to assure requirement for states to make a SIP
hour NO2 NAAQS. See 80 FR 14019. attainment and maintenance of the submission of this type arises out of
Therefore, EPA is not proposing any NAAQS. The requirements that are the CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to
action pertaining to these requirements. subject of this proposed rulemaking are
EPA is not proposing any action today section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP
listed below and in EPA’s September 13, submissions ‘‘within 3 years (or such
regarding the interstate transport 2013, memorandum entitled ‘‘Guidance
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) shorter period as the Administrator may
on Infrastructure State Implementation prescribe) after the promulgation of a
and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4). For the Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act
aspects of Georgia’s submittal proposed national primary ambient air quality
Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).’’ 2 standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and
for approval today, EPA notes that the
• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and these SIP submissions are to provide for
Agency is not approving any specific
Other Control Measures the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and
rule, but rather proposing that Georgia’s
• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The
already approved SIP meets certain
Monitoring/Data System statute directly imposes on states the
CAA requirements. • 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for duty to make these SIP submissions,
II. What elements are required under Enforcement of Control Measures and and the requirement to make the
sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? for Construction or Modification of submissions is not conditioned upon
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires Stationary Sources 3 EPA’s taking any action other than
states to submit SIPs to provide for the • 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
implementation, maintenance, and Pollution Transport Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
enforcement of a new or revised • 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such
NAAQS within three years following Abatement and International Air plan’’ submission must address.
the promulgation of such NAAQS, or Pollution EPA has historically referred to these
within such shorter period as EPA may • 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and SIP submissions made for the purpose
prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the Authority, Conflict of Interest, and of satisfying the requirements of CAA
obligation upon states to make a SIP Oversight of Local Governments and sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as
submission to EPA for a new or revised Regional Agencies ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions.
• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’
NAAQS, but the contents of that
Monitoring and Reporting does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses
submission may vary depending upon
• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers the term to distinguish this particular
the facts and circumstances. In
• 110(a)(2)(H): SIP Revisions type of SIP submission from
particular, the data and analytical tools
available at the time the state develops 2 Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are
submissions that are intended to satisfy
and submits the SIP for a new or revised not governed by the three year submission deadline
other SIP requirements under the CAA,
of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or
1 In these infrastructure SIP submissions States necessary local nonattainment area controls are not ‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to
generally certify evidence of compliance with due within three years after promulgation of a new address the nonattainment planning
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA through a or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the
nonattainment area plan requirements are due
requirements of part D of title I of the
combination of state regulations and statutes, some
of which have been incorporated into the federally- pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (1) CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions
required by EPA rule to address the
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
approved SIP. Additionally, certain federally- Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the
approved, non-SIP regulations may also be extent that subsection refers to a permit program as visibility protection requirements of
appropriate for demonstrating compliance with required in part D Title I of the CAA; and (2)
submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which
CAA section 169A, and nonattainment
sections 110(a)(1) and (2). Throughout this
rulemaking, unless otherwise indicated, the term pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements new source review (NNSR) permit
‘‘Georgia Rule’’ indicates that the cited regulation of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today’s proposed program submissions to address the
has been approved into Georgia’s federally- rulemaking does not address infrastructure permit requirements of CAA, title I, part
approved SIP. The term ‘‘Georgia statute’’ indicates elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the
nonattainment planning requirements of
D.
cited statutes in Georgia Air Quality Act, Official
Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) Section 12– 110(a)(2)(C).
9, et seq., which are not a part of the SIP unless 3 This rulemaking only addresses requirements 4 As mentioned above, this element is not
otherwise indicated. for this element as they relate to attainment areas. relevant to today’s proposed rulemaking.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:20 Jun 27, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM 28JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_42029/page/2.svg)
![41912 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules
emissions data, supplementing it where 19–13 specifically pertains to 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. See 77 FR
necessary, and releases it to the general enforcement proceedings when the 9532 (February 17, 2012).
public through the Web site http:// Director of EPD has reason to believe The Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1:
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ that a violation of any provision of the Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12–9–
eiinformation.html. EPA has made the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air 6(b)(12) provide Georgia the authority to
preliminary determination that Quality (O.C.G.A), or environmental conduct certain actions in support of
Georgia’s SIP and practices are adequate rules, regulations or orders have this infrastructure element. Section 12–
for the stationary source monitoring occurred. O.C.G.A. Section 12–9–14 also 9–6(b)(l2) of the Georgia Air Quality Act
systems related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 provides that the Governor, may issue requires GAEPD to submit SIP revisions
NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing orders as necessary to protect the health whenever revised air quality standards
to approve Georgia’s infrastructure SIP of persons who are, or may be, affected are promulgated by EPA. EPA has made
submission with respect to section by a pollution source or facility after the preliminary determination that
110(a)(2)(F). ‘‘consult[ation] with local authorities in Georgia adequately demonstrates a
8. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency Powers: order to confirm the correctness of the commitment to provide future SIP
Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the Act requires information on which action proposed revisions related to the 2010 1-hour NO2
that states demonstrate authority to be taken is based and to ascertain the NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly,
comparable with section 303 of the CAA action which such authorities are or will EPA is proposing to approve Georgia’s
and adequate contingency plans to be taking.’’ infrastructure SIP submission for the
implement such authority. Georgia’s Rule 391–3–1–.04 ‘‘Air Pollution 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS with respect
Episodes’’ provides that the Director of to section 110(a)(2)(H).
infrastructure SIP submission cites air
EPD ‘‘will proclaim that an Air 10. 110(a)(2)(J) Consultation with
pollution emergency episodes and
Pollution Alert, Air Pollution Warning, Government Officials, Public
preplanned abatement strategies in the Notification, and PSD and Visibility
Georgia Air Quality Act: Article 1: Air or Air Pollution Emergency exists when
Protection: EPA is proposing to approve
Quality (O.C.G.A. Sections 12–9–2 the meteorological conditions are such
Georgia’s infrastructure SIP submission
Declaration of public policy, 12–9–6 that an air stagnation condition is in
for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS with
Powers and duties of director as to air existence and/or the accumulation of air
respect to the general requirement in
quality generally, 12–9–12 Injunctive contaminants in any place is attaining
section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a program
relief, 12–9–13 Proceedings for or has attained levels which could, if
in the SIP that complies with the
enforcement, and 12–9–14 Powers of such levels are sustained or exceeded,
applicable consultation requirements of
director in situations involving lead to a substantial threat to the health
section 121, the public notification
imminent and substantial danger to of persons in the specific area affected.’’
requirements of section 127, and
public health), and Rule 391–3–1–.04 Collectively the cited provisions visibility protection. With respect to
‘‘Air Pollution Episodes.’’ O.C.G.A. provide that Georgia EPD demonstrate Georgia’s infrastructure SIP submission
Section 12–9–2 provides ‘‘[i]t is authority comparable with section 303 related to the preconstruction PSD
declared to be the public policy of the of the CAA and adequate contingency permitting requirements of section
state of Georgia to preserve, protect, and plans to implement such authority in 110(a)(2)(J), EPA took final action to
improve air quality . . . to attain and the state. EPA has made the preliminary approve Georgia’s March 25, 2013, 2010
maintain ambient air quality standards determination that Georgia’s SIP, and 1-hour NO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP
so as to safeguard the public health, State laws are adequate for emergency for these requirements on March 18,
safety, and welfare.’’ O.C.G.A. Section powers related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 2015. See 80 FR 14019. EPA’s rationale
12–9–6(b)(10) provides the Director of NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing for its proposed action regarding
EPD authority to ‘‘issue orders as may to approve Georgia’s infrastructure SIP applicable consultation requirements of
be necessary to enforce compliance with submission with respect to section section 121, the public notification
[the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: 110(a)(2)(G). requirements of section 127, and
Air Quality (O.C.G.A)] and all rules and 9. 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP Revisions: visibility protection requirements is
regulations of this article.’’ O.C.G.A. Section 110(a)(2)(H), in summary, described below.
Section 12–9–12 provides that requires each SIP to provide for Consultation with government
‘‘[w]henever in the judgment of the revisions of such plan (i) as may be officials (121 consultation): Section
director any person has engaged in or is necessary to take account of revisions of 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires states to
about to engage in any act or practice such national primary or secondary provide a process for consultation with
which constitutes or will constitute an ambient air quality standard or the local governments, designated
unlawful action under [the Georgia Air availability of improved or more organizations, and Federal Land
Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality expeditious methods of attaining such Managers carrying out NAAQS
(O.C.G.A)], he may make application to standard, and (ii) whenever the implementation requirements pursuant
the superior court of the county in Administrator finds that the plan is to section 121 relative to consultation.
which the unlawful act or practice has substantially inadequate to attain the The following State rules and statutes,
been or is about to be engaged in, or in NAAQS or to otherwise comply with as well as the State’s Regional Haze
which jurisdiction is appropriate, for an any additional applicable requirements. Implementation Plan (which allows for
order enjoining such act or practice or GAEPD is responsible for adopting air consultation between appropriate state,
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
for an order requiring compliance with quality rules and revising SIPs as local, and tribal air pollution control
this article. Upon a showing by the needed to attain or maintain the agencies as well as the corresponding
director that such person has engaged in NAAQS in Georgia. The State has the Federal Land Managers), provide for
or is about to engage in any such act or ability and authority to respond to calls consultation with government officials
practice, a permanent or temporary for SIP revisions, and has provided a whose jurisdictions might be affected by
injunction, restraining order, or other number of SIP revisions over the years SIP development activities: Georgia Air
order shall be granted without the for implementation of the NAAQS. Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality
necessity of showing lack of an adequate Georgia has no areas that have been (O.C.G.A. Section 12–9–5(b)(17));
remedy of law.’’ O.C.G.A. Section 12– designated as nonattainment for the Georgia Administrative Procedures Act
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:20 Jun 27, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM 28JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_42029/page/8.svg)
![41914 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules
participation in SIP development by action merely approves state law as Dated: June 10, 2016.
local political subdivisions affected by meeting Federal requirements and does Heather McTeer Toney,
the SIP. Consultation and participation not impose additional requirements Regional Administrator, Region 4.
by affected local entities is authorized beyond those imposed by state law. For [FR Doc. 2016–15136 Filed 6–27–16; 8:45 am]
by the Georgia Air Quality Act: Article that reason, this proposed action: BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12–9–5(b)(17)) • Is not a significant regulatory action
and the Georgia Rule for Air Quality subject to review by the Office of
391–3–1–.15, Transportation Management and Budget under ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Conformity, which defines the Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, AGENCY
consultation procedures for areas October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
subject to transportation conformity. January 21, 2011); 40 CFR Part 52
Furthermore, GAEPD has demonstrated • Does not impose an information
[EPA–R04–OAR–2016–0294; FRL–9948–41–
consultation with, and participation by, collection burden under the provisions Region 4]
affected local entities through its work of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
with local political subdivisions during U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Cross-
the developing of its Transportation • Is certified as not having a State Air Pollution Rule
Conformity SIP and has worked with significant economic impact on a
the Federal Land Managers as a substantial number of small entities AGENCY: Environmental Protection
requirement of the regional haze rule. under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Agency (EPA).
EPA has made the preliminary U.S.C. 601 et seq.); ACTION: Proposed rule.
determination that Georgia’s SIP and • Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
practices adequately demonstrate Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
consultation with affected local entities affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act portions of the October 26, 2015, State
related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal
when necessary. of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism from Alabama concerning the Cross-
V. Proposed Action implications as specified in Executive State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR).
With the exception of the Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, Under CSAPR, large electricity
preconstruction PSD permitting 1999); generating units (EGUs) in Alabama are
requirements for major sources of • Is not an economically significant subject to Federal Implementation Plans
section 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of regulatory action based on health or (FIPs) requiring the units to participate
(110(a)(2)D(i) and 110(a)(2)(J), and the safety risks subject to Executive Order in CSAPR’s federal trading program for
interstate transport provisions 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); annual emissions of nitrogen oxides
pertaining to the contribution to • Is not a significant regulatory action (NOX) and one of CSAPR’s two federal
nonattainment or interference with subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR trading programs for annual emissions
maintenance in other states and 28355, May 22, 2001); of sulfur dioxide (SO2). This action
visibility of prongs 1, 2, and 4 of section • Is not subject to requirements of would approve into Alabama’s SIP the
110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA is proposing to Section 12(d) of the National state’s regulations requiring Alabama
approve that Georgia’s March 25, 2013, Technology Transfer and Advancement EGUs to participate in new CSAPR state
SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour NO2 Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because trading programs for annual NOX and
NAAQS has met the above-described application of those requirements would SO2 emissions integrated with the
infrastructure SIP requirements because be inconsistent with the CAA; and CSAPR federal trading programs,
these aspects of the submission are • Does not provide EPA with the replacing the corresponding FIP
consistent with section 110 of the CAA. discretionary authority to address, as requirements. These CSAPR state
This proposed action, however, does not appropriate, disproportionate human trading programs are substantively
include the preconstruction PSD health or environmental effects, using identical to the CSAPR federal trading
permitting requirements for major practicable and legally permissible programs except with regard to the
sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 methods, under Executive Order 12898 provisions allocating emission
of (D)(i), and (J), which have been (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). allowances among Alabama units. EPA
approved in a separate action, or the The SIP is not approved to apply on is proposing to approve the portions of
interstate transport provisions any Indian reservation land or in any the SIP revision concerning these
pertaining to the contribution to other area where EPA or an Indian tribe CSAPR state trading programs because
nonattainment or interference with has demonstrated that a tribe has these portions of the SIP revision meet
maintenance in other states of prongs 1, jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian the requirements of the Clean Air Act
2 and 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which country, the rule does not have tribal (CAA or Act) and EPA’s regulations for
will be addressed by EPA in a separate implications as specified by Executive approval of a CSAPR full SIP revision
action. Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, replacing the requirements of a CSAPR
2000), nor will it impose substantial FIP. Under the CSAPR regulations,
VI. Statutory and Executive Order direct costs on tribal governments or approval of these portions of the SIP
Reviews preempt tribal law. revision would automatically eliminate
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Under the CAA, the Administrator is List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Alabama units’ obligations to participate
required to approve a SIP submission in CSAPR’s federal trading programs for
that complies with the provisions of the Environmental protection, Air annual NOX and SO2 emissions under
Act and applicable Federal regulations. pollution control, Incorporation by the corresponding CSAPR FIPs
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). reference, Intergovernmental relations, addressing interstate transport
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and requirements for the 1997 and 2006 Fine
EPA’s role is to approve state choices, recordkeeping requirements, Volatile Particulate Matter (PM2.5) national
provided that they meet the criteria of organic compounds. ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Approval of these portions of the SIP
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:20 Jun 27, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM 28JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_42029/page/10.svg)
Document Created: 2016-06-28 00:53:47
Document Modified: 2016-06-28 00:53:47
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Written comments must be received on or before July 28, 2016. | |
| 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 [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 41905 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR