13312 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 49 / Friday, March 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Such notifications will include the date 

and times of enforcement, along with 

any pre-determined conditions of entry. 

(d) Regulations. (1) The general 

regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23, 

as well as the following regulations, 

apply. 

(2) During periods of enforcement, all 

persons and vessels must comply with 

all orders and directions from the COTP 

or a COTP’s designated representative. 

(3) During periods of enforcement, 

upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard 

vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or 

other means, the operator of the vessel 

must proceed as directed. 

Dated: March 3, 2015. 

G. Loebl, 

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

Port New York. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05800 Filed 3–12–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0795; FRL–9924–28- 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Carolina 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

portions of the November 2, 2012, State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, 

provided by the North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources (NC DENR), Division of Air 

Quality (NCDAQ) for inclusion into the 

North Carolina SIP. This proposal 

pertains to the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

the Act) infrastructure requirements for 

the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient 

air quality standards (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. NCDAQ certified 

that the North Carolina SIP contains 

provisions that ensure the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS is implemented, 

enforced, and maintained in North 

Carolina (hereafter referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure SIP submission’’). With 

the exception of provisions pertaining to 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) permitting, interstate transport, 

and state boards requirements, EPA is 

proposing to approve North Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission provided 

to EPA on November 2, 2012, as 

satisfying the required infrastructure 

elements for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 3, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2014–0795, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–ARMS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2014– 

0795,’’ Air Regulatory Management 

Section, (formerly the Regulatory 

Development Section), Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, (formerly the 

Air Planning 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, Chief, 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–2014– 

0795. 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: 

Nacosta C. Ward, 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. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9140. 

Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic 

mail at ward.nacosta@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

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 North 

Carolina addressed the elements of 

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

‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 49 / Friday, March 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 13313 

1 In these infrastructure SIP submissions states 

generally certify evidence of compliance with 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA through a 

combination of state regulations and statutes, some 

of which have been incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. In addition, certain federallyapproved, non-SIP regulations may also be 

appropriate for demonstrating compliance with 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2). Unless otherwise 

indicated, the Title 15A regulations (also referred to 

as rules) of the North Carolina Administrative Code 

(‘‘15A NCAC’’) cited throughout this rulemaking 

have been approved into North Carolina’s federallyapproved SIP. The North Carolina General Statutes 

(‘‘NCGS’’) cited throughout this rulemaking, 

however, are not approved into the North Carolina 

SIP unless otherwise indicated. 

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

not governed by the three year submission deadline 

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

necessary local nonattainment area controls are not 

due within three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the 

nonattainment area plan requirements are due 

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

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

extent that subsection refers to a permit program as 

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

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

pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements 

of part D, Title I of the CAA. 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). 

3This rulemaking only addresses requirements 

for this element as they relate to attainment areas. 

4As mentioned above, this element is not 

relevant to this proposed rulemaking. 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated 

a revised NAAQS for ozone based on 8- 

hour average concentrations. EPA 

revised the level of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million. See 

77 FR 16436. 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 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS to EPA no later than March 

2011.1

This action is proposing to approve 

North Carolina’s infrastructure 

submission for the applicable 

requirements of the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, with the exception of the PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

sources of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), 

the interstate transport requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 

1 through 4), and the state board 

requirements of 110(E)(ii). With respect 

to North Carolina’s infrastructure SIP 

submission related to provisions 

pertaining to the PSD permitting 

requirements for major sources of 

sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the 

interstate transport requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II), and the 

state board requirements of 110(E)(ii), 

EPA is not proposing any action today 

regarding these requirements. EPA will 

act on these portions of North Carolina’s 

submission in a separate action. For the 

aspects of North Carolina’s submittal 

proposed for approval today, EPA notes 

that the Agency is not approving any 

specific rule, but rather proposing that 

North Carolina’s already approved SIP 

meets certain CAA requirements. 

II. What elements are required under 

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

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of such NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the 

obligation upon states to make a SIP 

submission to EPA for a new or revised 

NAAQS, but the contents of that 

submission may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. In 

particular, the data and analytical tools 

available at the time the state develops 

and submits the SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS affects the content of the 

submission. The contents of such SIP 

submissions may also vary depending 

upon what provisions the state’s 

existing SIP already contains. In the 

case of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

states typically have met the basic 

program elements required in section 

110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 

submissions in connection with the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

More specifically, section 110(a)(1) 

provides the procedural and timing 

requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) 

lists specific elements that states must 

meet for ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. As 

mentioned above, these requirements 

include basic SIP elements such as 

requirements for monitoring, basic 

program requirements and legal 

authority that are designed to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. The requirements of section 

110(a)(2) 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).’’ 2

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and 

Other Control Measures 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring/Data System 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for 

Enforcement of Control Measures and 

for Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources 3

• 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate 

Pollution Transport 

• 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution 

Abatement and International Air 

Pollution 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and 

Authority, Conflict of Interest, and 

Oversight of Local Governments and 

Regional Agencies 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source 

Monitoring and Reporting 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers 

• 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions 

• 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for 

Nonattainment Areas 4

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

Government Officials, Public 

Notification, and PSD and Visibility 

Protection 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling 

and Submission of Modeling Data 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and 

Participation by Affected Local 

Entities 

III. What is EPA’s approach to the 

review of infrastructure SIP 

submissions? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submission from North Carolina that 

addresses the infrastructure 

requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
13314 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 49 / Friday, March 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

5For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides 

that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title 

I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that 

states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

6See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport 

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air 

Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; 

Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 

25162, at 25163–65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 

relationship between timing requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)). 

7EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 

110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various 

subparts of part D set specific dates for submission 

of certain types of SIP submissions in designated 

nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, 

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

for submission of emissions inventories for the 

ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are 

necessarily later than three years after promulgation 

of the new or revised NAAQS. 

8See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to 

the New Source Review (NSR) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR 

4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action 

approving the structural PSD elements of the New 

Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to 

meet the requirements of EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ (78 FR 

4337) (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action on the 

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

9On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, 

through the Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA 

demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action 

for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on 

January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action 

on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 

2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 

42997), EPA took separate proposed and final 

actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007 

submittal. 

10For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

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 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.5 EPA 

therefore believes that while the timing 

requirement in section 110(a)(1) is 

unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, EPA believes that the list of 

required elements for infrastructure SIP 

submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

The following examples of 

ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 

to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and 

section 110(a)(2) requirements with 

respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions for a given new or revised 

NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is 

that section 110(a)(2) requires that 

‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the 

list of requirements therein, while EPA 

has long noted that this literal reading 

of the statute is internally inconsistent 

and would create a conflict with the 

nonattainment provisions in part D of 

title I of the Act, which specifically 

address nonattainment SIP 

requirements.6 Section 110(a)(2)(I) 

pertains to nonattainment SIP 

requirements and part D addresses 

when attainment plan SIP submissions 

to address nonattainment area 

requirements are due. For example, 

section 172(b) requires EPA to establish 

a schedule for submission of such plans 

for certain pollutants when the 

Administrator promulgates the 

designation of an area as nonattainment, 

and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to 

two years, or in some cases three years, 

for such designations to be 

promulgated.7 This ambiguity illustrates 

that rather than apply all the stated 

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

strict literal sense, EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

are applicable for a particular 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Another example of ambiguity within 

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

respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to 

whether states must meet all of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements in a 

single SIP submission, and whether EPA 

must act upon such SIP submission in 

a single action. Although section 

110(a)(1) directs states to submit ‘‘a 

plan’’ to meet these requirements, EPA 

interprets the CAA to allow states to 

make multiple SIP submissions 

separately addressing infrastructure SIP 

elements for the same NAAQS. If states 

elect to make such multiple SIP 

submissions to meet the infrastructure 

SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act 

on such submissions either individually 

or in a larger combined action.8

Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to 

allow it to take action on the individual 

parts of one larger, comprehensive 

infrastructure SIP submission for a 

given NAAQS without concurrent 

action on the entire submission. For 

example, EPA has sometimes elected to 

act at different times on various 

elements and sub-elements of the same 

infrastructure SIP submission.9

Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) may also arise with 

respect to infrastructure SIP submission 

requirements for different NAAQS. 

Thus, EPA notes that not every element 

of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, 

or as relevant, or relevant in the same 

way, for each new or revised NAAQS. 

The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP 

submissions for each NAAQS therefore 

could be different. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that a state 

might need to meet in its infrastructure 

SIP submission for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for 

different pollutants because the content 

and scope of a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission to meet this element might 

be very different for an entirely new 

NAAQS than for a minor revision to an 

existing NAAQS.10

EPA notes that interpretation of 

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

EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submissions required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submissions, EPA also has to identify 

and interpret the relevant elements of 

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

these other types of SIP submissions. 

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

that attainment plan SIP submissions 

required by part D have to meet the 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ of section 

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

plan SIP submissions must meet the 

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

regarding enforceable emission limits 

and control measures and section 

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

resources and authority. By contrast, it 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 49 / Friday, March 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 13315 

11EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA 

requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate 

regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The 

CAA directly applies to states and requires the 

submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, 

regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance 

or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA 

elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 

states, as appropriate. 

12 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ 

Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 

2013. 

13EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not 

make recommendations with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly 

after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the 

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. 

is clear that attainment plan SIP 

submissions required by part D would 

not need to meet the portion of section 

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

program required in part C of title I of 

the CAA, because PSD does not apply 

to a pollutant for which an area is 

designated nonattainment and thus 

subject to part D planning requirements. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

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

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in 

some of the statutory language of section 

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

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

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

in the context of acting on a particular 

SIP submission. In other words, EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 

intended that each and every SIP 

submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 

question or the history of SIP 

development for the relevant pollutant, 

would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, EPA has adopted an 

approach under which it reviews 

infrastructure SIP submissions against 

the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), 

but only to the extent each element 

applies for that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use 

guidance documents to make 

recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements.11 EPA most 

recently issued guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 

2013 (2013 Guidance).12 EPA developed 

this document to provide states with upto-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs 

for any new or revised NAAQS. Within 

this guidance, EPA describes the duty of 

states to make infrastructure SIP 

submissions to meet basic structural SIP 

requirements within three years of 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. EPA also made 

recommendations about many specific 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are 

relevant in the context of infrastructure 

SIP submissions.13 The guidance also 

discusses the substantively important 

issues that are germane to certain 

subsections of section 110(a)(2). 

Significantly, EPA interprets sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that 

infrastructure SIP submissions need to 

address certain issues and need not 

address others. Accordingly, EPA 

reviews each infrastructure SIP 

submission for compliance with the 

applicable statutory provisions of 

section 110(a)(2), as appropriate. 

As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

is a required element of section 

110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP 

submissions. Under this element, a state 

must meet the substantive requirements 

of section 128, which pertain to state 

boards that approve permits or 

enforcement orders and heads of 

executive agencies with similar powers. 

Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP 

submissions to ensure that the state’s 

implementation plan appropriately 

addresses the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 

2013 Guidance explains EPA’s 

interpretation that there may be a 

variety of ways by which states can 

appropriately address these substantive 

statutory requirements, depending on 

the structure of an individual state’s 

permitting or enforcement program (e.g., 

whether permits and enforcement 

orders are approved by a multi-member 

board or by a head of an executive 

agency). However they are addressed by 

the state, the substantive requirements 

of section 128 are necessarily included 

in EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure SIP 

submissions because section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that 

the state satisfy the provisions of section 

128. 

As another example, EPA’s review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions with 

respect to the PSD program 

requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the 

structural PSD program requirements 

contained in part C and EPA’s PSD 

regulations. Structural PSD program 

requirements include provisions 

necessary for the PSD program to 

address all regulated sources and NSR 

pollutants, including greenhouse gases. 

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 

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 SIP meets 

basic structural requirements. For 

example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, 

among other things, the requirement 

that states have a program to regulate 

minor new sources. Thus, EPA 

evaluates whether the state has an EPAapproved minor new source review 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
13316 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 49 / Friday, March 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

14By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to 

include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that contained a legal deficiency, such 

as a new exemption for excess emissions during 

SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that 

provision for compliance against the rubric of 

applicable CAA requirements in the context of the 

action on the infrastructure SIP. 

15For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to 

address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to 

the treatment of excess emissions during SSM 

events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639 

(April 18, 2011). 

16EPA has used this authority to correct errors in 

past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD 

programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 

82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously 

used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to 

remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See, 

e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 

(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 

FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to 

California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 

2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

17See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 

(July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s 

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) 

(final disapproval of such provisions). 

18State rules 15A NCAC 2D .1600 ‘‘General 

Conformity,’’ and 15A NCAC 2D .2200 ‘‘Special 

Orders,’’ are state-approved rules and not 

incorporated into the federally approved SIP. 

19On February 22, 2013, EPA published a 

proposed action in the Federal Register entitled, 

‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition 

for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial 

Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions 

Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; Proposed 

Rule.’’ See 78 FR 12459. 

potentially deficient provisions and may 

approve the submission even if it is 

aware of such existing provisions.14 It is 

important to note that EPA’s approval of 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission 

should not be construed as explicit or 

implicit re-approval of any existing 

potentially deficient provisions that 

relate to the three specific issues just 

described. 

EPA’s approach to review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions is to 

identify the CAA requirements that are 

logically applicable to that submission. 

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 SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or to otherwise 

comply with the CAA.15 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.16

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission is not the appropriate time 

and place to address all potential 

existing SIP deficiencies does not 

preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action to correct those 

deficiencies at a later time. For example, 

although it may not be appropriate to 

require a state to eliminate all existing 

inappropriate director’s discretion 

provisions in the course of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, EPA 

believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be 

among the statutory bases that EPA 

relies upon in the course of addressing 

such deficiency in a subsequent 

action.17

IV. What is EPA’s Analysis of How 

North Carolina addressed the elements 

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

‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? 

The North Carolina infrastructure 

submission addresses the provisions of 

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

below. 

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

other control measures: There are 

several provisions within the North 

Carolina General Statutes (NCGS) and 

the North Carolina Administrative Code 

(NCAC) that provide NCDAQ with the 

necessary authority to adopt and enforce 

air quality controls, which include 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures. NCGS 143– 

215.107(a)(5), ‘‘Air quality standards 

and classifications,’’ provides North 

Carolina with the authority to ‘‘develop 

and adopt emission control standards as 

in the judgment of the Commission may 

be necessary to prohibit, abate, or 

control air pollution commensurate 

with established air quality standards.’’ 

Rules 15A NCAC 2D .0600 ‘‘Monitoring: 

Recordkeeping: Reporting,’’ 15A NCAC 

2D .1600 ‘‘General Conformity,’’ 15A 

NCAC 2D .2200 ‘‘Special Orders,’’ and, 

15A NCAC 2D .2600 ‘‘Source Testing,’’ 

provide enforceable emission limits and 

other control measures, means, and 

techniques.18 EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that the 

provisions contained in these statutes 

and regulations and North Carolina’s 

practices are adequate to protect the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the State. 

In this action, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing 

State provisions with regard to excess 

emissions during SSM of 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 plans to address such state 

regulations in a separate action.19 In the 

meantime, EPA encourages any state 

having a deficient SSM provision to take 

steps to correct it as soon as possible. 

Additionally, in this action, EPA is 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 49 / Friday, March 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 13317 

20On occasion, proposed changes to the 

monitoring network are evaluated outside of the 

network plan approval process in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58. 

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: SIPs are 

required to 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. NCGS 143–215.107(a)(2), 

‘‘Air quality standards and 

classifications,’’ along with the North 

Carolina Annual Monitoring Network 

Plan, provide for an ambient air quality 

monitoring system in the State, which 

includes the monitoring of ozone at 

appropriate locations throughout the 

state using the EPA approved Federal 

Reference Method or equivalent 

monitors. NCGS 143–215.107(a)(2) also 

provides North Carolina with the 

statutory authority to ‘‘determine by 

means of field sampling and other 

studies, including the examination of 

available data collected by any local, 

State or federal agency or any person, 

the degree of air contamination and air 

pollution in the State and the several 

areas of the State.’’ 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 a certified evaluation of 

the agency’s ambient monitors and 

auxiliary support equipment.20 The 

latest monitoring network plan for 

North Carolina was submitted to EPA on 

July 2, 2013, and on November 25, 2013, 

EPA approved this plan. North 

Carolina’s approved monitoring network 

plan can be accessed at 

www.regulations.gov using Docket ID 

No. EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0795. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that North Carolina’s SIP and practices 

are adequate for the ambient air quality 

monitoring and data system related to 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

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

enforcement of control measures 

including review of proposed new 

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). To meet these obligations, 

North Carolina cited regulations 15A 

NCAC 2D. 0500 ‘‘Emissions Control 

Standards;’’ 2D. 0530 ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration;’’ and, 2D. 

0531 ‘‘Sources in Nonattainment Area,’’ 

each of which pertain to the 

construction of any new major 

stationary source or any project at an 

existing major stationary source in an 

area designated as attainment or 

unclassifiable and 15A NCAC 2Q .0300 

‘‘Construction Operation Permits,’’ 

which pertains to the regulation of 

minor stationary sources. In this action, 

EPA is only proposing to approve North 

Carolina’s infrastructure SIP submission 

for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with 

respect to the general requirement in 

section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a 

program in the SIP that provides for the 

enforcement of emission limits and 

control measures such as oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and the regulation 

of minor sources and modifications to 

assist in the protection of air quality in 

nonattainment, attainment or 

unclassifiable areas. 

Enforcement: NCDAQ’s abovedescribed, SIP-approved regulations 

provide for enforcement of ozone 

precursor (VOC and NOX) emission 

limits and control measures and 

construction permitting for new or 

modified stationary sources. 

Preconstruction PSD Permitting for 

Major Sources: With respect to North 

Carolina’s infrastructure SIP submission 

related to the preconstruction PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

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

not proposing any action today 

regarding these requirements and 

instead will act on this portion of the 

submission in a separate action. 

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 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. Regulation 15A 

NCAC 2Q .0300 ‘‘Construction 

Operation Permits,’’ governs the 

preconstruction permitting of 

modifications and construction of minor 

stationary sources. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that North Carolina’s SIP 

and practices are adequate for 

enforcement of control measures and 

regulation of minor sources and 

modifications related to the 2008 8-hour 

ozone 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 have two 

subparts resulting in four distinct 

components, commonly referred to as 

‘‘prongs,’’ that must be addressed in 

infrastructure SIP submissions. The first 

two prongs, which are codified in 

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

that prohibit any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

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

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

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

prongs, which are codified in section 

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

prohibit emissions activity in one state 

interfering with measures required to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in another state (‘‘prong 3’’), or 

to protect visibility in another state 

(‘‘prong 4’’). With respect to North 

Carolina’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions related to the interstate 

transport requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

(prongs 1 through 4), EPA is not 

proposing any action today regarding 

these requirements and instead will act 

on these portions of the submissions in 

a separate action. 

5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate Pollution 

Abatement and International Air 

Pollution: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

requires SIPs to include provisions 

insuring compliance with sections 115 

and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate 

and international pollution abatement. 

15A NCAC 2D .0530 ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration’’ and 15A 

NCAC 2D .0531 ‘‘Sources of 

Nonattainment Areas’’ provide how 

NCDAQ will notify neighboring states of 

potential impacts from new or modified 

sources consistent with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.166. This 

regulation requires NCDAQ to provide 

an opportunity for a public hearing to 

the public, which includes State or local 

air pollution control agencies, ‘‘whose 

lands may be affected by emissions from 

the source or modification’’ in North 

Carolina. In addition, North Carolina 

does not have any pending obligation 

under sections 115 and 126 of the CAA. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
13318 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 49 / Friday, March 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Accordingly, EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that North 

Carolina’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for insuring compliance with 

the applicable requirements relating to 

interstate and international pollution 

abatement for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

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 is proposing to approve North 

Carolina’s SIP as meeting the 

requirements of sub-elements 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii). EPA will act on 

sub-element (ii) in a separate action. 

EPA’s rationale for this proposal 

respecting sub-elements (i) and (iii) is 

described in turn below. 

To satisfy the requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), North Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission cites 

several regulations. Rule 15A NCAC 2Q. 

0200 ‘‘Permit Fees,’’ provides the 

mechanism by which stationary sources 

that emit air pollutants pay a fee based 

on the quantity of emissions emitted. 

State statutes NCGS 143–215.3 ‘‘General 

powers of Commission and Department: 

auxiliary powers,’’ and NCGS 143– 

215.107(a)(1) ‘‘Air quality standards and 

classifications’’ provide NCDAQ with 

the statutory authority ‘‘[t]o prepare and 

develop, after proper study, a 

comprehensive plan or plans for the 

prevention, abatement and control of air 

pollution in the State or in any 

designated area of the State.’’ As further 

evidence of the adequacy of NCDAQ’s 

resources, EPA submitted a letter to 

North Carolina on February 28, 2014, 

outlining 105 grant commitments and 

the current status of these commitments 

for fiscal year 2013. The letter EPA 

submitted to North Carolina can be 

accessed at www.regulations.gov using 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2014– 

0795. Annually, states update these 

grant commitments based on current SIP 

requirements, air quality planning, and 

applicable requirements related to the 

NAAQS. North Carolina satisfactorily 

met all commitments agreed to in the 

Air Planning Agreement for fiscal year 

2013, therefore North Carolina’s grants 

were finalized and closed out. 

Collectively, these rules and 

commitments provide evidence that 

NCDAQ has adequate personnel, 

funding, and legal authority to carry out 

the state’s implementation plan and 

related issues. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that North 

Carolina has adequate resources and 

authority to satisfy sections 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) of the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. 

With respect to North Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission related to 

the state board requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is not proposing 

any action today regarding this 

requirement and will act on this portion 

of the submission in a separate action. 

7. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary Source 

Monitoring and Reporting: North 

Carolina’s infrastructure SIP submission 

describes how the State establishes 

requirements for emissions compliance 

testing and utilizes emissions sampling 

and analysis. It further describes how 

the State ensures the quality of its data 

through observing emissions and 

monitoring operations. NCDAQ uses 

these data to track progress towards 

maintaining the NAAQS, develop 

control and maintenance strategies, 

identify sources and general emission 

levels, and determine compliance with 

emission regulations and additional 

EPA requirements. North Carolina meets 

these requirements through 15A NCAC 

2D .0604 ‘‘Exceptions to Monitoring and 

Reporting Requirements,’’ 15A NCAC 

2D .0605 ‘‘General Recordkeeping and 

Reporting Requirements,’’ 15A NCAC 

2D .0611 ‘‘Monitoring Emissions from 

Other Sources,’’ 15A NCAC 2D .0612 

‘‘Alternative Monitoring and Reporting 

Procedures,’’ 15A NCAC 2D .0613 

‘‘Quality Assurance Program,’’ and, 15A 

NCAC 2D .0614 ‘‘Compliance Assurance 

Monitoring.’’ In addition, Rule 15A 

NCAC 2D .0605(c) ‘‘General 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements,’’ allows for the use of 

credible evidence in the event that the 

NCDAQ Director has evidence that a 

source is violating an emission standard 

or permit condition, the Director may 

require that the owner or operator of any 

source submit to the Director any 

information necessary to determine the 

compliance status of the source. In 

addition, EPA is unaware of any 

provision preventing the use of credible 

evidence in the North Carolina SIP. 

Stationary sources are required to 

submit periodic emissions reports to the 

State by Rule 15A NCAC 2Q .0207 

‘‘Annual Emissions Reporting.’’ North 

Carolina is also required to submit 

emissions data to EPA for purposes of 

the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). 

The NEI is EPA’s central repository for 

air emissions data. EPA published the 

Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) 

on December 5, 2008, which modified 

the requirements for collecting and 

reporting air emissions data. See 73 FR 

76539. The AERR shortened the time 

states had to report emissions data from 

17 to 12 months, giving states one 

calendar year to submit emissions data. 

All states are required to submit a 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

every three years and report emissions 

for certain larger sources annually 

through EPA’s online Emissions 

Inventory System. States report 

emissions data for the six criteria 

pollutants and the precursors that form 

them—NOx, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, 

lead, carbon monoxide, particulate 

matter, and volatile organic compounds. 

Many states also voluntarily report 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants. 

North Carolina made its latest update to 

the 2011 NEI on June 3, 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 

North Carolina’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for the stationary source 

monitoring systems obligations for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

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

This section requires that states 

demonstrate authority comparable with 

section 303 of the CAA and adequate 

contingency plans to implement such 

authority. North Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission cites 15A 

NCAC 2D .0300 ‘‘Air Pollution 

Emergencies’’ as identifying air 

pollution emergency episodes and 

preplanned abatement strategies, and 

provides the means to implement 

emergency air pollution episode 

measures. If NC DENR finds that such 

a ‘‘condition of . . . air pollution exists 

and that it creates an emergency 

requiring immediate action to protect 

the public health and safety or to protect 

fish and wildlife, the Secretary of the 

Department [NC DENR] with the 

concurrence of the Governor, shall order 

persons causing or contributing to the 

. . . air pollution in question to reduce 

or discontinue immediately the 

emission of air contaminants or the 

discharge of wastes. In addition, NCGS 

143–215.3(a)(12) provides NC DENR 

with the authority to declare an 

emergency when it finds that a 

generalized condition of water or air 

pollution which is causing imminent 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 49 / Friday, March 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 13319 

danger to the health or safety of the 

public. This statute also allows, in the 

absence of a generalized condition of air 

pollution, should the Secretary find 

‘‘that the emissions from one or more air 

contaminant sources . . . is causing 

imminent danger to human health and 

safety or to fish and wildlife, he may 

with the concurrence of the Governor 

order the person or persons responsible 

for the operation or operations in 

question to immediately reduce or 

discontinue the emissions of air 

contaminants . . . or to take such other 

measures as are, in his judgment, 

necessary.’’ EPA also notes that NCDAQ 

maintains a Web site that provides the 

public with notice of the health hazards 

associated with ozone NAAQS 

exceedances, measures the public can 

take to help prevent such exceedances, 

and the ways in which the public can 

participate in the regulatory process. 

See http://www.ncair.org/news/. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that North Carolina’s SIP and practices 

are adequate to satisfy the emergency 

powers obligations of the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

9. 110(a)(2)(H) SIP revisions: NCDAQ 

is responsible for adopting air quality 

rules and revising SIPs as needed to 

attain or maintain the NAAQS in North 

Carolina. Statutes NCGS 143– 

215.107(a)(1) and (a)(10) grants NCDAQ 

the authority to implement the CAA, 

and as such, provide NCDAQ the 

authority to prepare and develop, after 

proper study, a comprehensive plan for 

the prevention of air pollution. These 

provisions also provide NCDAQ the 

ability and authority to respond to calls 

for SIP revisions, and North Carolina 

has provided a number of SIP revisions 

over the years for implementation of the 

NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that 

North Carolina’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate a commitment 

to provide future SIP revisions related to 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, when 

necessary. 

10. 110(a)(2)(J) Consultation with 

Government Officials, Public 

Notification, and PSD and Visibility 

Protection: EPA is proposing to approve 

North Carolina’s infrastructure SIP for 

the 2008 8-hour ozone 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, and the public notification 

requirements of section 127. With 

respect to North Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission related to 

the preconstruction PSD permitting, 

EPA is not proposing any action today 

regarding these requirements and 

instead will act on these portions of the 

submission in a separate action. EPA’s 

rationale for its proposed action 

regarding applicable consultation 

requirements of section 121 and the 

public notification requirements of 

section 127 is described below. 

Consultation with government 

officials (121 consultation): Section 

110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires states to 

provide a process for consultation with 

local governments, designated 

organizations and federal land managers 

(FLMs) carrying out NAAQS 

implementation requirements pursuant 

to section 121 relative to consultation. 

15A NCAC 2D.1600 ‘‘General 

Conformity,’’ 15A NCAC 2D .2000 

‘‘Transportation Conformity,’’ and 15A 

NCAC 2D .0531 ‘‘Sources in 

Nonattainment Areas,’’ along with the 

Regional Haze SIP Plan provide for 

consultation with government officials 

whose jurisdictions might be affected by 

SIP development activities. 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. Implementation of transportation 

conformity as outlined in the 

consultation procedures requires 

NCDAQ to consult with federal, state 

and local transportation and air quality 

agency officials on the development of 

motor vehicle emissions budgets. The 

Regional Haze SIP provides for 

consultation between appropriate state, 

local, and tribal air pollution control 

agencies as well as the corresponding 

Federal Land Managers. EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that 

North Carolina’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate that the State 

meets applicable requirements related to 

consultation with government officials 

for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS when 

necessary. 

Public notification (127 public 

notification): Rule 15A NCAC 2D .0300 

‘‘Air Pollution Emergencies’’ provides 

North Carolina with the authority to 

declare an emergency and notify the 

public accordingly when it finds that a 

generalized condition of water or air 

pollution which is causing imminent 

danger to the health or safety of the 

public. In addition, the North Carolina 

SIP process affords the public an 

opportunity to participate in regulatory 

and other efforts to improve air quality 

by holding public hearings for 

interested persons to appear and submit 

written or oral comments. Rule 15A 

NCAC 2D .0530 ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration,’’ requires the 

owners and operators of major 

stationary sources and major 

modifications to apply for and receive, 

as appropriate, a permit as described in 

Rule 15A NCAC 02Q .0300. Rule 15A 

NCAC 02Q. 0306 provides for public 

notice for comments with an 

opportunity to request a public hearing 

on the draft permits required pursuant 

to Rule 15A NCAC 2D. 0530. EPA also 

notes that NCDAQ maintains a Web site 

that provides the public with notice of 

the health hazards associated with 

ozone NAAQS exceedances, measures 

the public can take to help prevent such 

exceedances, and the ways in which the 

public can participate in the regulatory 

process. See http://www.ncair.org/ 

news/. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that North Carolina’s SIP 

and practices adequately demonstrate 

the State’s ability to provide public 

notification related to the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS when necessary. 

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. 

NC DENR referenced its regional haze 

program as germane to the visibility 

component of section 110(a)(2)(J). 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 so NC DENR does not need 

to rely on its regional haze program to 

fulfill its obligations under section 

110(a)(2)(J). As such, EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that the 

visibility protection element of section 

110(a)(2)(J) does not need to be 

addressed in North Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP related to the 2008 8- 

hour ozone 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 USEPA 

can be made. 15A NCAC 2D .0530 

‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration’’ and 15A NCAC 2D .0531 

‘‘Sources in Nonattainment Areas,’’ 

require that air modeling be conducted 

in accordance with 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix W ‘‘Guideline on Air Quality 

Models.’’ These regulations demonstrate 

that North Carolina has the authority to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
13320 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 49 / Friday, March 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

perform air quality modeling and to 

provide relevant data for the purpose of 

predicting the effect on ambient air 

quality of the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Additionally, North Carolina 

supports a regional effort to coordinate 

the development of emissions 

inventories and conduct regional 

modeling for several NAAQS, including 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, for the 

Southeastern states. Taken as a whole, 

North Carolina’s air quality regulations 

demonstrate that NCDAQ has the 

authority to provide relevant data for 

the purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that North 

Carolina’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 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS when necessary. 

12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting fees: This 

element necessitates that the SIP require 

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. 

To satisfy these requirements, North 

Carolina’s infrastructure SIP submission 

cites NCGS 143–215.3 ‘‘General powers 

of Commission and Department; 

auxiliary Powers,’’ which directs 

NCDAQ to require a processing fee in an 

amount sufficient for the reasonable cost 

of reviewing and acting upon PSD and 

NNSR permits. Regulation 15A NCAC 

2Q .0200 ‘‘Permit Fees,’’ implements 

this directive and 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 sufficient fee to cover the 

costs of the permitting program. 

Additionally, North Carolina has a fully 

approved title V operating permit 

program that covers the cost of 

implementation and enforcement of 

PSD and NNSR permits after they have 

been issued. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that North 

Carolina’s practices adequately provide 

for permitting fees related to the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, when necessary. 

13. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation and 

Participation by Affected Local Entities: 

This element requires states to provide 

for consultation and participation in SIP 

development by local political 

subdivisions affected by the SIP. North 

Carolina 15A NCAC 2D .0530 

‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration,’’ and NCGS 150B–21.1 

and –21.2 authorize and require NCDAQ 

to advise, consult, cooperate and enter 

into agreements with other agencies of 

the state, the Federal Government, other 

states, interstate agencies, groups, 

political subdivisions, and industries 

affected by the provisions of this act, 

rules, or policies of the Department. 

Furthermore, NCDAQ 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, Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan, and the 8-Hour 

Ozone Attainment Demonstration for 

the North Carolina portion of the 

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill NC-SC 

nonattainment area. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that North 

Carolina’s SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate consultation with affected 

local entities related to the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, when necessary. 

V. Proposed Action 

With the exception of the PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

sources of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), 

the interstate transport requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 

1 through 4), and the state board 

requirements of section 110(a)(E)(ii), 

EPA is proposing to approve that 

NCDAQ’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions, submitted November 2, 

2012, for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

have met the above described 

infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is 

proposing to approve these portions of 

North Carolina’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS because these aspects of the 

submission are consistent with section 

110 of the CAA. EPA will address those 

portions of North Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission not acted 

upon through this notice in a separate 

action. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 49 / Friday, March 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 13321 

In addition, the North Carolina 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: February 20, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05647 Filed 3–12–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS