[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6200-6210]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02303]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0152; FRL-9941-95-Region 4]

Air Quality Plans; Georgia; Infrastructure Requirements for the
2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission,
submitted by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD), on
October 22, 2013, and supplemented on July 25, 2014, to demonstrate
that the State meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2)
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The CAA requires that
each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance
and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly
referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP. GAEPD certified that the
Georgia SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in
Georgia. EPA is proposing to determine that Georgia's infrastructure
submission, submitted on October 22, 2013, and supplemented on July 25,
2014, addresses certain required infrastructure elements for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2015-0152, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.

    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0152,'' Air Regulatory Management
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2015-0152. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Overview
II. What elements are required under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP
submissions?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Georgia addressed the elements of
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``Infrastructure'' Provisions?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Overview

    On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a revised primary
SO2 NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts per billion
(ppb) based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour
daily maximum concentrations. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA,
states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements
of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe.
Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as
requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal
authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 22, 2013.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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. In addition, certain federally-approved, non-SIP regulations
may also be appropriate for demonstrating compliance with sections
110(a)(1) and (2). Georgia's existing SIP consists largely of
Georgia's Rule for Air Quality rules adopted by GAEPD and approved
by EPA through the SIP revision process. However, there are some
state regulations that are not part of the Georgia federally-
approved SIP. Throughout this rulemaking, unless otherwise
indicated, the term ``State rules'' or ``State regulations''
indicate that the cited regulation has been approved into Georgia's
federally-approved SIP. The term ``Georgia Air Quality Act''
indicates cited Georgia State statutes, which are not a part of the
SIP unless otherwise indicated. The Georgia Air Quality Act is
located at http://epd.georgia.gov/existing-rules-and-corresponding-laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action is proposing to approve portions of Georgia's
infrastructure SIP submissions \2\ for the applicable requirements of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, with the exception of the
interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
(II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), for which EPA is not proposing any action
today regarding these requirements. For the aspects of Georgia's
submittal proposed for approval today, EPA notes that the Agency is not
approving any specific rule, but rather proposing that Georgia's
already approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Georgia's 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure
SIP submissions dated October 22, 2013, and supplemented on July 25,
2014, are also collectively referred to as ``Georgia's
SO2 infrastructure SIP'' in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related
to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these
requirements include basic SIP elements such as requirements for
monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The
requirements are summarized below and in EPA's September 13, 2013,
memorandum entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2).'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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 are due at the time the nonattainment
area plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These
requirements are: (1) submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C)
to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required
in part D, title I of the CAA; and (2) Submissions required by
section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. This proposed rulemaking
does not address infrastructure elements related to section
110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of
110(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System
     110(a)(2)(C): Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures
and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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 \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As mentioned above, this element is not relevant to this
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials,
Public Notification, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
and Visibility Protection
     110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of
Modeling Data
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected
Local Entities

III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP
submissions?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Georgia that address
the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The requirement for states to
make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1).
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions
``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may
prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air
quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and these SIP submissions
are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement''
of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make
these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is
not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a
new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of
the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit program submissions to
address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\6\ EPA therefore believes
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous,
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular,
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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.\7\
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b)
requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for
certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation
of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two
years, or in some cases three years, for such designations to be
promulgated.\8\ This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all
the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense,
EPA must determine

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular
infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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)).
    \8\ 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.\9\ Similarly, EPA
interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts
of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given
NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For example,
EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements
and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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).
    \10\ 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.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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 is thus subject to part D planning
requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission
may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\12\ EPA
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013 (2013 Guidance). \13\ EPA developed this document to provide
states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or
revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states
to make infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP
requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of
section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure
SIP submissions.\14\ The guidance also discusses the substantively
important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section
110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address
certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews
each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the applicable
statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 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.
    \13\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \14\ 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 DC Circuit
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, inter alia, the requirement
that states have a program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA
evaluates whether the state has an EPA-approved minor NSR program and
whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In
the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA
does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every
provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in
the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and
EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's
policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR
Reform''). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP
submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\15\ It is important to
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all
requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP
submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA
to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with
respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's implementation
plan is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to
mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\16\
Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions,
such as past approvals of SIP submissions.\17\

Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on a state's
infrastructure SIP submission is not the appropriate time and place to
address all potential existing SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's
subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the
basis for action to correct those deficiencies at a later time. For
example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state to
eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion provisions
in the course of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA
believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases
that EPA relies upon in the course of addressing such deficiency in a
subsequent action.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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).
    \17\ 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).
    \18\ 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 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Georgia addressed the elements of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``Infrastructure'' provisions?

    The Georgia 2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure submissions
address the provisions of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described
below.
    1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures:
Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that each implementation plan include
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or
techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable
permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and
timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet
the applicable requirements. Several regulations within Georgia's SIP
are relevant to air quality control regulations. The following State
regulations include enforceable emission limitations and other control
measures: 391-3-1-.01, ``Definitions. Amended.'', 391-3-1-.02,
``Provisions. Amended.'', and 391-3-1-.03, ``Permits. Amended.'' These
regulations collectively establish enforceable emissions limitations
and other control measures, means or techniques for activities that
contribute to SO2 concentrations in the ambient air, and
provide authority for GAEPD to establish such limits and measures as
well as schedules for compliance through SIP-approved permits to meet
the applicable requirements of the CAA.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that the provisions
contained in these State rules are adequate to protect the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in the State.
    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing state provisions with regard to excess emissions during start
up, shut down, and malfunction (SSM) operations at a facility. EPA
believes that a number of states have SSM provisions which are contrary
to the CAA and existing EPA guidance, ``State Implementation Plans:
Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and
Shutdown'' (September 20, 1999), and the Agency is addressing such
state regulations in a separate action.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 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: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-6(b)(13)).
Annually, states develop and submit to EPA for approval statewide
ambient monitoring network plans consistent with the requirements of 40
CFR parts 50, 53, and 58. The annual network plan involves an
evaluation of any proposed changes to the monitoring network, includes
the annual ambient monitoring network design plan, and includes a
certified evaluation of the agency's ambient monitors and auxiliary
support equipment.\20\ On June 15, 2015, EPA received Georgia's plan
for 2015. On October 13, 2015, EPA approved Georgia's monitoring
network plan. Georgia's approved monitoring network plan can be
accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-
0152. This State statute, along with Georgia's Ambient Air Monitoring
Network Plan, provide for the establishment and operation of ambient
air quality monitors, the compilation and analysis of ambient air
quality data, and the submission of these data to EPA upon request. No
specific statutory or regulatory authority is necessary for GAEPD to
authorize data analysis or the submission of such data to EPA, and to
provide data submissions in response to Federal regulations. EPA has
made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices are
adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and data system
requirements related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 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) Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and
for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources: This element
consists of three sub-elements: enforcement, state-wide regulation of
new and modified minor sources and minor modifications of major
sources, and preconstruction permitting of major sources and major
modifications in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the
subject NAAQS as required by CAA title I part C (i.e., the major source
PSD program).
    Enforcement: GAEPD's Enforcement Program covers mobile and
stationary sources, consumer products, and fuels. The enforcement
requirements are met through two Georgia Rules for Air Quality: 391-3-
1-.07--``Inspections and Investigations. Amended.'' and 391-3-1-.09--
``Enforcement. Amended.'' Georgia also cites to enforcement authority
found in Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A.
Section 12-9-13) in its submittal. Collectively, these regulations and
State statute provide for enforcement of SO2 emission limits
and control measures.
    PSD Permitting for Major Sources: EPA interprets the PSD sub-
element to require that a state's infrastructure SIP submission for a
particular NAAQS demonstrate that the state has a complete PSD
permitting program in place covering the structural PSD

requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. A state's PSD permitting
program is complete for this sub-element (and prong 3 of D(i) and J
related to PSD) if EPA has already approved or is simultaneously
approving the state's implementation plan with respect to all
structural PSD requirements that are due under the EPA regulations or
the CAA on or before the date of the EPA's proposed action on the
infrastructure SIP submission. The following Georgia Rules for Air
Quality collectively establish a preconstruction, new source permitting
program in the State that meets the PSD requirements of the CAA for
SO2 emissions sources: 391-3-1-.02.--``Provisions.
Amended,'' which includes PSD requirements under 391-3-1-.02(7), and
391-3-1-.03.--``Permits. Amended,'' which includes Nonattainment New
Source Review (NNSR) requirements under 391-3-1-.03(8)(c) and (g).
Georgia's infrastructure SIP demonstrates that new major sources and
major modifications in areas of the State designated attainment or
unclassifiable for the specified NAAQS are subject to a federally-
approved PSD permitting program meeting all the current structural
requirements of part C of title I of the CAA to satisfy the
infrastructure SIP PSD elements.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ For more information on the structural PSD program
requirements that are relevant to EPA's review of infrastructure
SIPs in connection with the current PSD-related infrastructure SIP
requirements, see the technical support document in the docket for
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulation of minor sources and modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C)
also requires the SIP to include provisions that govern the minor
source program that regulates emissions of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. Georgia's SIP approved Air Quality Control Rule
391-3-1-.03(1)--``Construction (SIP) Permit.'' governs the
preconstruction permitting of modifications, construction of minor
stationary sources, and minor modifications of major stationary
sources.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP is
adequate for program enforcement of control measures, PSD permitting
for major sources, and regulation of new and modified minor sources
related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) Interstate Pollution Transport:
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Each of these components has two subparts
resulting in four distinct components, commonly referred to as
``prongs,'' that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions.
The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment
of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 1''), and interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 2''). The third and
fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are
provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from
interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration
of air quality in another state (``prong 3''), or to protect visibility
in another state (``prong 4'').
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--prongs 1 and 2: EPA is not proposing any action
in this rulemaking related to the interstate transport provisions
pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance in other states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and
2) because Georgia's 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure
submissions did not address prongs 1 and 2.
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 3: With regard to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the PSD element, referred to as prong 3, this
requirement may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure
SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the
state are subject to: a PSD program meeting all the current structural
requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, or (if the state contains
a nonattainment area that has the potential to impact PSD in another
state) to a NNSR program. As discussed in more detail above under
section 110(a)(2)(C), Georgia's SIP contains provisions for the State's
PSD program that reflects the relevant SIP revisions pertaining to the
required structural PSD requirements to satisfy the requirement of
prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Georgia addresses prong 3
through rules 391-3-1-.02.--``Provisions. Amended,'' and 391-3-1-.03.--
``Permits. Amended,'' which include the PSD and NNSR requirements,
respectively. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's
SIP is adequate for interstate transport for PSD permitting of major
sources and major modifications related to the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3).
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 4: EPA is not proposing any action in
this rulemaking related to the interstate transport provisions
pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance in other states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4)
and will consider these requirements in relation to Georgia's 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure submissions in a separate
rulemaking.
    5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and
International Air Pollution: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to
include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the
Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement. The
following two Georgia Rules for Air Quality provide Georgia the
authority to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure
element: 391-3-1-.02(7) for the State's PSD regulation and 391-3-1-.03
for the State's permitting regulations. As described above, Georgia
Rules for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02.--``Provisions. Amended,'' and 391-3-
1-.03.--``Permits. Amended,'' collectively require any new major source
or major modification to undergo PSD or NNSR permitting and thereby
provide notification to other potentially affected Federal, state, and
local government agencies.
    Additionally, Georgia does not have any pending obligation under
section 115 and 126 of the CAA. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Georgia's SIP and practices are adequate for
ensuring compliance with the applicable requirements relating to
interstate and international pollution abatement for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
    6. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of
Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies:
Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that each implementation plan provide (i)
necessary assurances that the state will have adequate personnel,
funding, and authority under state law to carry out its implementation
plan, (ii) that the state comply with the requirements respecting state
boards pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and (iii) necessary
assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or regional
government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any
plan provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate
implementation of such plan provisions. EPA's analysis of sub-elements
110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii), and (iii) is described below.
    In support of EPA's proposal to approve sub-elements
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), GAEPD's infrastructure SIP demonstrates that
it is responsible for promulgating rules and regulations for the NAAQS,
emissions standards and general policies, a system of permits, fee
schedules for the review of plans, and other planning needs. In its SIP
submittal, Georgia describes its authority for Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i)
as the CAA section l05 grant process, the

Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12-9-10), and
Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.03(9) which establishes Georgia's
Air Permit Fee System. For Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii), the State does
not rely on localities in Georgia for specific SIP implementation.
Georgia's authority for this infrastructure element relating to local
or regional implementation of SIP provisions is found in Georgia Air
Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-5(b)(17)). As
evidence of the adequacy of GAEPD's resources with respect to sub-
elements (i) and (iii), EPA submitted a letter to Georgia on March 20,
2015, outlining CAA section 105 grant commitments and the current
status of these commitments for fiscal year 2014. The letter EPA
submitted to GAEPD can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket
ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0152. Annually, states update these grant
commitments based on current SIP requirements, air quality planning,
and applicable requirements related to the NAAQS. There were no
outstanding issues in relation to the SIP for fiscal year 2014,
therefore, GAEPD's grants were finalized and closed out. In addition,
the requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) are met when EPA performs
a completeness determination for each SIP submittal. This determination
ensures that each submittal provides evidence that adequate personnel,
funding, and legal authority under state law has been used to carry out
the state's implementation plan and related issues. GAEPD's authority
is included in all prehearing and final SIP submittal packages for
approval by EPA. GAEPD is responsible for submitting all revisions to
the Georgia SIP to EPA for approval. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Georgia has adequate resources for implementation of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that the state comply with
section 128 of the CAA. Section 128 requires that the SIP provide: (1)
the majority of members of the state board or body which approves
permits or enforcement orders represent the public interest and do not
derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to
permitting or enforcement orders under the CAA; and (2) any potential
conflicts of interest by such board or body, or the head of an
executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed. With
respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) pertaining the
state board requirements of CAA section 128, Georgia's infrastructure
SIP submission cites Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality
(O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-5) Powers and duties of Board of Natural
Resources as to air quality generally) which provides the powers and
duties of the Board of Natural Resources as to air quality and provides
that at least a majority of members of this board represent the public
interest and not derive any significant portion of income from persons
subject to permits or enforcement orders and that potential conflicts
of interest will be adequately disclosed. This provision has been
incorporated into the federally approved SIP.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that the State has
adequately addressed the requirements of section 128(a), and
accordingly has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with
respect to infrastructure SIP requirements. Therefore, EPA is proposing
to approve GAEPD's infrastructure SIP submissions as meeting the
requirements of sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii) and (iii).
    7. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting: Section
110(a)(2)(F) requires SIPs to meet applicable requirements addressing:
(i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and
the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of
stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii)
periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions
related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports
by the state agency with any emission limitations or standards
established pursuant to this section, which reports shall be available
at reasonable times for public inspection. GAEPD's SIP submissions
identify how the major source and minor source emission inventory
programs collect emission data throughout the State and ensure the
quality of such data. These data are used to compare against current
emission limits and to meet requirements of EPA's Air Emissions
Reporting Rule (AERR). The following State rules enable Georgia to meet
the requirements of this element: Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-
1-.02(3)--``Sampling.'' \22\; 391-3-1-.02(6)(b)--``Source
Monitoring.''; 391-3-1-.02(7)--``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality.''; 391-3-1-.02(8)--``New Source
Performance Standards.''; 391-3-1-.02(9)--``Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants.''; 391-3-1-.02(11)--``Compliance Assurance
Monitoring.''; and 391-3-1-.03--``Permits. Amended.'' Also, the Georgia
Air Quality Act Article I: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12-9-5(b)(6)) provides
the State with the authority to conduct actions regarding stationary
source emissions monitoring and reporting in support of this
infrastructure element. These rules collectively require emissions
monitoring and reporting for activities that contribute to
SO2 concentrations in the air, including requirements for
the installation, calibration, maintenance, and operation of equipment
for continuously monitoring or recording emissions, or provide
authority for GAEPD to establish such emissions monitoring and
reporting requirements through SIP-approved permits and require
reporting of SO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(3)--``Sampling.''
is not approved into Georgia's federally-approved SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Georgia is required to submit emissions data to EPA
for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is
EPA's central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the AERR
on December 5, 2008, which modified the requirements for collecting and
reporting air emissions data (73 FR 76539). The AERR shortened the time
states had to report emissions data from 17 to 12 months, giving states
one calendar year to submit emissions data. All states are required to
submit a comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and report
emissions for certain larger sources annually through EPA's online
Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions data for the six
criteria pollutants and their associated precursors--NOX,
SO2, ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and
volatile organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report
emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Georgia made its latest update
to the 2011 NEI on December 12, 2014. EPA compiles the emissions data,
supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the general public
through the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html.
EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and
practices are adequate for the stationary source monitoring systems
related to the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is
proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with
respect to section 110(a)(2)(F).
    Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(3), ``Sampling,'' \23\
addresses the use

of credible evidence.\24\ EPA is unaware of any provision preventing
the use of credible evidence in the Georgia SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(3)--``Sampling.''
is not approved into Georgia's federally-approved SIP.
    \24\ ``Credible Evidence,'' makes allowances for owners and/or
operators to utilize ``any credible evidence or information
relevant'' to demonstrate compliance with applicable requirements if
the appropriate performance or compliance test had been performed,
for the purpose of submitting compliance certification, and can be
used to establish whether or not an owner or operator has violated
or is in violation of any rule or standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency Powers: Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the Act
requires that states demonstrate authority comparable with section 303
of the CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.
Georgia's infrastructure SIP submissions cite air pollution emergency
episodes and preplanned abatement strategies in the Georgia Air Quality
Act: Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Sections 12-9-2 Declaration of
public policy, 12-9-6 Powers and duties of director as to air quality
generally, 12-9-12 Injunctive relief, 12-9-13 Proceedings for
enforcement, and 12-9-14 Powers of director in situations involving
imminent and substantial danger to public health), and Rule 391-3-1-.04
``Air Pollution Episodes.'' O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-2 provides ``[i]t is
declared to be the public policy of the state of Georgia to preserve,
protect, and improve air quality . . . to attain and maintain ambient
air quality standards so as to safeguard the public health, safety, and
welfare.'' O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-6(b)(10) provides the Director of
GAEPD authority to ``issue orders as may be necessary to enforce
compliance with [the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality
(O.C.G.A)] and all rules and regulations of this article.'' O.C.G.A.
Section 12-9-12 provides that ``[w]henever in the judgment of the
director any person has engaged in or is about to engage in any act or
practice which constitutes or will constitute an unlawful action under
[the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A)], he may
make application to the superior court of the county in which the
unlawful act or practice has been or is about to be engaged in, or in
which jurisdiction is appropriate, for an order enjoining such act or
practice or for an order requiring compliance with this article. Upon a
showing by the director that such person has engaged in or is about to
engage in any such act or practice, a permanent or temporary
injunction, restraining order, or other order shall be granted without
the necessity of showing lack of an adequate remedy of law.'' O.C.G.A.
Section 12-19-13 specifically pertains to enforcement proceedings when
the Director of GAEPD has reason to believe that a violation of any
provision of the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality
(O.C.G.A), or environmental rules, regulations or orders have occurred.
O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-14 also provides that the Governor may issue
orders as necessary to protect the health of persons who are, or may
be, affected by a pollution source or facility after ``consult[ation]
with local authorities in order to confirm the correctness of the
information on which action proposed to be taken is based and to
ascertain the action which such authorities are or will be taking.''
    Rule 391-3-1-.04 ``Air Pollution Episodes'' provides that the
Director of GAEPD ``will proclaim that an Air Pollution Alert, Air
Pollution Warning, or Air Pollution Emergency exists when the
meteorological conditions are such that an air stagnation condition is
in existence and/or the accumulation of air contaminants in any place
is attaining or has attained levels which could, if such levels are
sustained or exceeded, lead to a substantial threat to the health of
persons in the specific area affected.'' Collectively the cited
provisions provide that GAEPD demonstrates authority comparable with
section 303 of the CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such
authority in the State. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Georgia's SIP, and State laws are adequate for emergency powers related
to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing
to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to
section 110(a)(2)(G).
    9. 110(a)(2)(H) SIP Revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H), in summary,
requires each SIP to provide for revisions of such plan (i) as may be
necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or
secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved
or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and (ii)
whenever the Administrator finds that the plan is substantially
inadequate to attain the NAAQS or to otherwise comply with any
additional applicable requirements. GAEPD is responsible for adopting
air quality rules and revising SIPs as needed to attain or maintain the
NAAQS in Georgia. The State has the ability and authority to respond to
calls for SIP revisions, and has provided a number of SIP revisions
over the years for implementation of the NAAQS. Georgia has no areas
that have been designated as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. See 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013).
    The Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A.
Section 12-9-6(b)(12) and 12-9-6(b)(13)) provide Georgia the authority
to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure element.
Section 12-9-6(b)(l2) of the Georgia Air Quality Act requires GAEPD to
submit SIP revisions whenever revised air quality standards are
promulgated by EPA. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Georgia adequately demonstrates a commitment to provide future SIP
revisions related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS when
necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
with respect to section 110(a)(2)(H).
    10. 110(a)(2)(J) Consultation with Government Officials, Public
Notification, and PSD and Visibility Protection: EPA is proposing to
approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section
110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the SIP that complies with the
applicable consultation requirements of section 121, the public
notification requirements of section 127, PSD and visibility
protection. EPA's rationale for applicable consultation requirements of
section 121, the public notification requirements of section 127, PSD,
and visibility is described below.
    Consultation with government officials (121 consultation): Section
110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires states to provide a process for
consultation with local governments, designated organizations, and
Federal Land Managers carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements
pursuant to section 121 relative to consultation. The following State
rules and statutes, as well as the State's Regional Haze Implementation
Plan (which allows for consultation between appropriate state, local,
and tribal air pollution control agencies as well as the corresponding
Federal Land Managers), provide for consultation with government
officials whose jurisdictions might be affected by SIP development
activities: Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A.
Section 12-9-5(b)(17)); Georgia Administrative Procedures Act (O.C.G.A.
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.\25\ These
consultation procedures were developed in coordination with the
transportation partners in the State and are consistent with the
approaches used for development of mobile inventories for SIPs.
Required partners covered by Georgia's consultation procedures include
Federal, state and local transportation and air quality agency
officials. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's
SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation with government
officials related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS when
necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's
infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J)
consultation with government officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Georgia rule 391-3-1-.15, Georgia Transportation Conformity
and Consultation Interagency Rule, is approved into the State's SIP.
See 77 FR 35866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public notification (127 public notification): GAEPD has public
notice mechanisms in place to notify the public of instances or areas
exceeding the NAAQS along with associated health effects through the
Air Quality Index reporting system in required areas. GAEPD's Ambient
Monitoring Web page (www.georgiaair.org/amp) provides information
regarding current and historical air quality across the State. Daily
air quality forecasts may be disseminated to the public in Atlanta
through the Georgia Department of Transportation's electronic
billboards. In its SIP submission, Georgia also notes that the non-
profit organization in Georgia, ``Clean Air Campaign,'' disseminates
statewide air quality information and ways to reduce air pollution.
Georgia rule 391-3-1-.04 ``Air Pollution Episodes'' enables the State
to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure element.
In addition, the following State statutes provide Georgia the authority
to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure element.
OCGA 12-9-6(b)(8) provides authority to the Georgia Board of Natural
Resources ``To collect and disseminate information and to provide for
public notification in matters relating to air quality. . .''. EPA has
made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices
adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide public
notification related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS when
necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's
infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J)
public notification.
    PSD: With regard to the PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J), this
requirement may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure
SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the
state are subject to a PSD program meeting all the current structural
requirements of part C of title I of the CAA. As discussed in more
detail above under section 110(a)(2)(C), Georgia's SIP contains
provisions for the State's PSD program that reflect the relevant SIP
revisions pertaining to the required structural PSD requirements to
satisfy the requirement of the PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA
has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices
are adequate PSD permitting of major sources and major modifications
related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the PSD element of
section 110(a)(2)(J).
    Visibility protection: EPA's 2013 Guidance notes that it does not
treat the visibility protection aspects of section 110(a)(2)(J) as
applicable for purposes of the infrastructure SIP approval process. EPA
recognizes that states are subject to visibility protection and
regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act (which
includes sections 169A and 169B). However, there are no newly
applicable visibility protection obligations after the promulgation of
a new or revised NAAQS. Thus, EPA has determined that states do not
need to address the visibility component of 110(a)(2)(J) in
infrastructure SIP submittals to fulfill its obligations under section
110(a)(2)(J). As such, EPA has made the preliminary determination that
it does not need to address the visibility protection element of
section 110(a)(2)(J) in Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission related
to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    11. 110(a)(2)(K) Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling
Data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires that SIPs provide for
performing air quality modeling so that effects on air quality of
emissions from NAAQS pollutants can be predicted and submission of such
data to the EPA can be made. The Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air
Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-6(b)(13)) provides GAEPD the authority
to conduct modeling actions and to submit air quality modeling data to
EPA in support of this element. GAEPD maintains personnel with training
and experience to conduct source-oriented dispersion modeling with
models such as AERMOD that would likely be used for modeling
SO2 emissions from sources. The State also notes that its
SIP-approved PSD program, which includes specific (dispersion) modeling
provisions, provides further support of GAEPD's ability to address this
element. All such modeling is conducted in accordance with the
provisions of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, ``Guideline on Air Quality
Models.''
    Additionally, Georgia supports a regional effort to coordinate the
development of emissions inventories and conduct regional modeling for
several NAAQS, including the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, for the
Southeastern states. Taken as a whole, Georgia's air quality
regulations and practices demonstrate that GAEPD has the authority to
provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on
ambient air quality of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA has made
the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices
adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide for air quality
and modeling, along with analysis of the associated data, related to
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section
110(a)(2)(K).
    12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting Fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires the
owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the
permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under the
CAA, a fee sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable costs of reviewing
and acting upon any application for such a permit, and (ii) if the
owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable
costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any
such permit (not including any court costs or other costs associated
with any enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded
with respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval of a fee
program under title V.
    Georgia's PSD and NNSR permitting programs are funded with title V
fees. The Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.03(9) ``Permit Fees.''
incorporates the EPA-approved title V fee program and fees for
synthetic minor sources. Georgia's authority to mandate funding for
processing PSD and NNSR permits is found in Georgia Air Quality Act
Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12-9-10). The State notes that these
title V operating program fees cover the reasonable cost of
implementation and enforcement of PSD and NNSR permits after they have
been issued. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's
SIP and practices adequately provide for permitting fees related to the

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is
proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with
respect to section 110(a)(2)(L).
    13. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/participation by affected local
entities: Section 110(a)(2)(M) of the Act requires states to provide
for consultation and participation in SIP development by local
political subdivisions affected by the SIP. Consultation and
participation by affected local entities is authorized by the Georgia
Air Quality Act: Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12-9-5(b)(17)) and
the Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.15--``Transportation
Conformity'', which defines the consultation procedures for areas
subject to transportation conformity. Furthermore, GAEPD has
demonstrated consultation with, and participation by, affected local
entities through its work with local political subdivisions during the
developing of its Transportation Conformity SIP and has worked with the
Federal Land Managers as a requirement of the regional haze rule. EPA
has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices
adequately demonstrate consultation with affected local entities
related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS when necessary.

V. Proposed Action

    With the exception of interstate transport provisions pertaining to
the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in
other states and visibility protection requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), EPA is proposing to
approve Georgia's October 22, 2013, SIP submission as supplemented on
July 25, 2014, for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the above
described infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is proposing to approve
Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS because the submission is consistent with section
110 of the CAA.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 12, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2016-02303 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23268-23270]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08310]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2011-0197]

Occupational Safety and Health State Plans; Extension of the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information
Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its request to extend
OMB's approval of information collection regarding the State Plans
program and regulations for the development and enforcement of state
occupational safety and health standards.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
June 21, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments, including
attachments, electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some
information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to
read or download through the website. All submissions, including
copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA
Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY
(877) 889-5627) for

assistance in locating docket submissions.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
OSHA docket number for this Federal Register notice (OSHA-2017-0012).
OSHA will place comments, including personal information, in the public
docket, which may be available online. Therefore, OSHA cautions
interested parties about submitting personal information such as Social
Security numbers and birthdates. For further information on submitting
comments, see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of
this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seleda Perryman or Theda Kenney,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of a continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., the State plans) burden, conducts a
preclearance process to provide the public with an opportunity to
comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements
in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the
desired format, the reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, the
collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of
the information collection burden is accurate. OSHA is soliciting
comments concerning the extension of the information collection
requirements contained in the series of regulations establishing
requirements for the submission, initial approval, continuing approval,
final approval, monitoring, and evaluation of OSHA-approved State
Plans:
     29 CFR part 1902, State Plans for the Development and
Enforcement of State Standards;
     29 CFR part 1953, Changes to State Plans for the
Development and Enforcement of State Standards;
     29 CFR part 1954, Procedures for the Evaluation and
Monitoring of Approved State Plans; and
     29 CFR part 1956, State Plans for the Development and
Enforcement of State Standards Applicable to State and Local Government
Employees in States Without Approved Private Employee Plans.
    Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C.
667) offers an opportunity to the states to assume responsibility for
the development and enforcement of state standards through the
mechanism of an OSHA-approved State Plan. Absent an approved plan,
states are precluded from enforcing occupational safety and health
standards in the private sector with respect to any issue for which
Federal OSHA has promulgated a standard. Once approved and operational,
the state adopts standards and provides most occupational safety and
health enforcement and compliance assistance in the state under the
authority of its plan, instead of Federal OSHA. States also must extend
their jurisdiction to cover state and local government employees and
may obtain approval of State Plans limited in scope to these workers.
To obtain and maintain State Plan approval, a state must submit various
documents to OSHA describing program structure and operation, including
any modifications thereto as they occur, in accordance with the
identified regulations. OSHA funds 50 percent of the costs required to
be incurred by an approved State Plan, with the state at least matching
and providing additional funding at its discretion.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply--
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    The agency is requesting an adjustment decrease to adjust the
number of burden hours associated with the developmental steps
necessary for certain states in the developmental process, including
Maine, Illinois, and Virgin Islands. In addition, the number of CASPAs
and State Plan Changes was modified to depict more realistically the
current trends in these numbers. As a result, the total burden hours
have decreased slightly from 11,369 to 11,055 (a decrease of 314 burden
hours).
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Occupational Safety and Health Plans.
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0247.
    Affected Public: Designated state government agencies that are
seeking or have submitted and obtained approval for State Plans for the
development and enforcement of occupational safety and health
standards.
    Number of Respondents: 28.
    Frequency: On occasion; Quarterly; Annually.
    Average Time per Response: Various.
    Estimated Total Number of Responses: 1,255.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 11,055.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. Please
note: While OSHA's Docket Office is continuing to accept and process
submissions by regular mail, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Docket
Office is closed to the public and not able to receive submissions to
the docket by hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the agency name
and the OSHA docket number for this ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2011-0861).
You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or a facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify electronic comments by
your name, date, and the docket number so the agency can attach them to
your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments.
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information, such as their social security number
and date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download from this
website. All

submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
    Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov website to
submit comments and access the docket is available at the website's
``User Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information
about materials not available from the website and for assistance in
using the internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on April 11, 2022.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2022-08310 Filed 4-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 25, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73339-73340]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25710]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-5444; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANE-1]

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Falmouth, MA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final rule published in the Federal
Register of September 23, 2016, amending Class D and E airspace. Class
E airspace designated as an extension at Cape Cod Coast Guard Air
Station, (formerly Otis ANGB), Falmouth, MA is corrected by

adjusting the radials of the Class E surface extensions to coincide
with the FAA's aeronautical database. Also, Falmouth Airpark is added
to the Class E extension airspace description.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 10, 2016. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The Federal Register published a final rule amending Class D and E
airspace at Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, Falmouth, MA (81 FR
65532, September 23, 2016) Docket No. FAA-2016-5444. In the Class E
airspace designated as an extension, further review revealed the
surface area extension radials for Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station
were given in magnetic values, instead of true values. Also, Falmouth
Airpark, previously excluded from this Class E airspace is included in
the description.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs
5000, 6004, and 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document
will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

Correction to Final Rule

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the Federal
Register of September 23, 2016 (81 FR 65532) FR Doc. 22748, Amendment
of Class D and E Airspace for Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station,
Falmouth, MA, is corrected as follows:

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

AEA MD E4 Falmouth, MA [Corrected]

    On page 65533, column 2, add the following:
    after line 39, add ``Falmouth Airpark (lat. 41[deg]35'08'' N.,
long. 70[deg]32'25'' W.)'',
    and on line 41, remove ``55[deg]'', and add in its place,
``39[deg]'',
    and on line 45, remove ``143[deg]'', and add in its place,
``127[deg]'',
    and on line 49, remove ``234[deg]'', and add in its place,
``219[deg]'',
    and on line 51, after ``airport,'' add ``excluding that airspace
within a 1-mile
    radius of Falmouth Airpark'',
    and on line 52, remove ``323[deg]'', and add in its place,
``307[deg]''.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 18, 2016.
Paul Lore,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2016-25710 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 27746]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12642]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1222]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations for Iron County, Utah and
Incorporated Areas

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing
its proposed rule concerning proposed flood elevation determinations
for Iron County, Utah and Incorporated Areas.

DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn as of June 14, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1222 to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected];

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 6, 2011, FEMA published a
proposed rule at 76 FR 62014 and 76 FR 62015, proposing flood elevation
determinations along one or more flooding sources in Iron County, Utah
and Incorporated Areas. FEMA is withdrawing the proposed rule.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.

David I. Maurstad,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation (Acting),
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-12642 Filed 6-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P