Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 45469 

2. Comments are due no later than 

August 31, 2015. Reply comments are 

due no later than September 15, 2015. 

3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the 

Commission appoints James F. Callow 

to serve as officer of the Commission 

(Public Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in this 

docket. 

4. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Ruth Ann Abrams, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–18666 Filed 7–29–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0443; FRL–9931–34– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Kentucky 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the July 17, 2012, State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky, Energy 

and Environment Cabinet, Department 

for Environmental Protection, through 

the Kentucky Division for Air Quality 

(KY DAQ) for inclusion into the 

Kentucky SIP. This proposal pertains to 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) 

infrastructure requirements for the 2008 

Lead 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 submission.’’ KY 

DAQ certified that the Kentucky SIP 

contains provisions that ensure the 2008 

Lead NAAQS is implemented, enforced, 

and maintained in Kentucky. With the 

exception of provisions pertaining to 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) permitting, EPA is proposing to 

determine that Kentucky’s infrastructure 

SIP submission, provided to EPA on 

July 17, 2012, satisfies the required 

infrastructure elements for the 2008 

Lead NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 31, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2014–0443, 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– 

0443,’’ 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– 

0443. 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: Zuri 

Farngalo, 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) 562–9152. 

Mr. Farngalo can be reached via 

electronic mail at farngalo.zuri@

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 Kentucky 

addressed the elements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

provisions? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On October 5, 1978, EPA promulgated 

primary and secondary NAAQS for lead 

under section 109 of the Act. See 43 FR 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45470 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1 In these infrastructure SIP submissions states 

generally certify evidence of compliance with 

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

combination of state regulations and statutes, some 

of which have been incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. 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 of the Kentucky 

Administrative Regulation (‘‘KAR’’) cited 

throughout this rulemaking have been approved 

into Kentucky’s federally-approved SIP. The 

Kentucky Revised Statutes (‘‘KRS’’) cited 

throughout this rulemaking, however, are not 

approved into the Kentucky 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. 

46246. Both primary and secondary 

standards were set at a level of 1.5 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), 

measured as lead in total suspended 

particulate matter (Pb-TSP), not to be 

exceeded by the maximum arithmetic 

mean concentration averaged over a 

calendar quarter. This standard was 

based on the August 7, 1977 Air Quality 

Criteria for Lead. On November 12, 2008 

(75 FR 81126), EPA issued a final rule 

to revise the primary and secondary 

Lead NAAQS. The primary and 

secondary Lead NAAQS were revised to 

0.15 mg/m3. By statute, SIPs meeting the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) are to be submitted by states within 

three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) require states to address basic 

SIP requirements, including emissions 

inventories, monitoring, and modeling 

to assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. States were required to 

submit such SIPs to EPA no later than 

October 15, 2011, for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS.1

This action is proposing to approve 

Kentucky’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the applicable 

requirements of the 2008 Lead NAAQS, 

with the exception of preconstruction 

PSD permitting requirements for major 

sources contained in sections 

110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J). On 

March 18, 2015, EPA approved 

Kentucky’s July 17, 2012, infrastructure 

SIP submission regarding the PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

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

of D(i) and (J) for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. See 80 FR 14019. Therefore, 

EPA is not proposing any action today 

pertaining to the PSD permitting 

requirements for major sources of 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), 

and (J) for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. For 

the aspects of Kentucky’s submittal 

proposed for approval today, EPA notes 

that the Agency is not approving any 

specific rule, but rather proposing that 

Kentucky’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 Lead NAAQS, states 

typically have met the basic program 

elements required in section 110(a)(2) 

through earlier SIP submissions in 

connection with the 1978 Lead 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 SIP infrastructure elements 

such as modeling, monitoring, and 

emissions inventories that are designed 

to assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. The requirements that are 

the subject of this proposed rulemaking 

are listed below 2 and in EPA’s October 

14, 2011, memorandum entitled 

‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements 

Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)’’ (2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP 

Guidance). 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement, prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD), and new source 

review (NSR).3

• 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate transport 

provisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and 

International Transport. 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring and reporting. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes. 

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(I): Nonattainment area 

plan or plan revision under Part D.4

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials, public 

notification, PSD and visibility 

protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/

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 Kentucky that 

addresses the infrastructure 

requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

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 ‘‘each 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 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 45471 

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. 

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 

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. 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45472 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

11EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA 

requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate 

regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The 

CAA directly applies to states and requires the 

submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, 

regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance 

or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA 

elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 

states, as appropriate. 

12 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required 

under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ Memorandum 

from Stephen D. Page, October 14, 2001. 

13Although not intended to provide guidance for 

purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS, EPA notes that, following the 

2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance, EPA issued 

the ‘‘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. This 2013 guidance provides 

recommendations for air agencies’ development and 

the EPA’s review of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 

ozone primary and secondary NAAQS, the 2010 

primary nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS, the 2010 

primary sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS, and the 2012 

primary fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS, as 

well as infrastructure SIPs for new or revised 

NAAQS promulgated in the future. 

14For 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). 

15EPA 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). 

16See, 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). 

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 issued the 

Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance on 

October 14, 2011.12 EPA developed this 

document to provide states with up-todate guidance for the 2008 Lead 

infrastructure SIPs. 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. 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.13

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. 

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.14 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.15

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.16

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Kentucky addressed the elements of 

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

‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? 

The Kentucky 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 Kentucky’s 

regulations that provide KY DAQ with 

the necessary authority to adopt and 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 45473 

17There are various chapters from the Kentucky 

submittal cited to throughout this document as 

showing that Kentucky meets the infrastructure 

requirements. To see exactly what sections 

Kentucky cited in each chapter, refer to the 

submittal which can be accessed at 

www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA– 

R04–OAR–2014–0443. 

18On May 22, 2015, the EPA Administrator 

signed 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.’’ The 

prepublication version of this rule is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/

emissions.html. 

19On occasion, proposed changes to the 

monitoring network are evaluated outside of the 

network plan approval process in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58. 

enforce air quality controls, which 

include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures. 

Some sections but not all of the 

following chapters,17 provide the state 

the necessary authority; 401 KAR 

Chapter 50 General Administrative 

Procedures 401 KAR 51 Attainment and 

Maintenance of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards, 401 KAR 52 

Permits, Registrations, and Prohibitory 

Rules, and 401 KAR 53 Ambient Air 

Quality. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that these provisions and 

Kentucky’s practices are adequate to 

protect the 2008 Lead NAAQS in the 

Commonwealth. 

In this action, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing 

Kentucky provisions with regard to 

excess emissions during startup, 

shutdown and malfunction (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 is addressing 

such state regulations in a separate 

action.18 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 

any existing State rules with regard to 

director’s discretion or variance 

provisions. 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. 401 KAR 50:050 

Monitoring and KRS 224.10–100(22) 

along with the Kentucky Annual 

Monitoring Network Plan, provide for 

an ambient air quality monitoring 

system in the State, which includes the 

monitoring of lead at appropriate 

locations throughout the state using the 

EPA approved Federal Reference 

Method or equivalent monitors. 401 

KAR Chapter 50 General Administrative 

Procedures also provides Kentucky 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.’’ The monitors are all 

part of the Air Quality Systems (AQS) 

and identification numbers. 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.19 The latest monitoring 

network plan for Kentucky was 

submitted to EPA on June 30, 2014, and 

on October 30, 2014, EPA approved this 

plan. Kentucky’s approved monitoring 

network plan can be accessed at 

www.regulations.gov using Docket ID 

No. EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0443. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that Kentucky’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for the ambient air quality 

monitoring and data system related to 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

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

enforcement, PSD, and NSR: 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, Kentucky cited 

regulations 401 KAR 50:060. The 

enforcement aspect of 110(a)(2)(C) 

provides for enforcement of the terms 

and conditions of permits and 

compliance schedules, and 401 KAR 52 

Permits, Registrations, and Prohibitory 

Rules, which pertain to the construction 

of new stationary sources or any project 

at an existing stationary source. In this 

action, EPA is only proposing to 

approve the enforcement and the 

regulation of minor sources and minor 

modifications aspects of Kentucky’s 

section 110(a)(2)(C) infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

Enforcement: KY DAQ’s abovedescribed, SIP-approved regulations 

provide for enforcement of lead 

emission limits and control measures 

and construction permitting for new or 

modified stationary sources. 

Preconstruction PSD Permitting for 

Major Sources: With respect to 

Kentucky’s July 17, 2012, infrastructure 

SIP submission related to the 

preconstruction PSD permitting 

requirements for major sources of 

section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA took final 

action to approve these provisions for 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS on March 18, 

2015. See 80 FR 14019. 

Regulation of minor sources and 

modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C) also 

requires the SIP to include provisions 

that govern the minor source preconstruction program that regulates 

emissions of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

Regulation 401 KAR 52:030 governs the 

preconstruction permitting of 

modifications and construction of minor 

stationary sources. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Kentucky’s SIP and 

practices are adequate for enforcement 

of control measures and regulation of 

minor sources and modifications related 

to the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and (ii) Interstate 

and International transport provisions: 

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’’). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45474 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

20The one facility in Kentucky that has lead 

emissions greater than 0.5 tpy is the EnerSys facility 

located at 761 Eastern Bypass Richmond, KY 40475. 

The lead emissions from this facility are 0.55 tpy. 

requires SIPs to include provisions 

insuring compliance with sections 115 

and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate 

and international pollution abatement. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2: 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires 

infrastructure SIP submissions to 

include provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from contributing 

significantly to nonattainment in, or 

interfering with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in another state. The physical 

properties of lead prevent lead 

emissions from experiencing that same 

travel or formation phenomena as PM2.5

and ozone for interstate transport as 

outlined in prongs 1 and 2. More 

specifically, there is a sharp decrease in 

the lead concentrations, at least in the 

coarse fraction, as the distance from a 

lead source increases. EPA believes that 

the requirements of prongs 1 and 2 can 

be satisfied through a state’s assessment 

as to whether a lead source located 

within its State in close proximity to a 

state border has emissions that 

contribute significantly to the 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in the 

neighboring state. For example, EPA’s 

experience suggests that sources located 

more than two miles from the state 

border or that sources that emit less 

than 0.5 tons per year (tpy) generally 

appear unlikely to contribute 

significantly to the nonattainment in 

another state. Kentucky has one lead 

source that has emissions which exceed 

0.5 tpy, however, the source is located 

about 50 miles from the border.20 As a 

result of its distance to the border, EPA 

believes it is unlikely to contribute 

significantly to the nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in another state. Therefore, EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that Kentucky’s SIP meets the 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Prong 3: With 

respect to Kentucky’s July 17, 2012 

infrastructure SIP submission related to 

the interstate transport requirements for 

PSD of prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 

EPA took final action to approve this 

portion of Kentucky’s submission for 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS on March 18, 

2015. See 80 FR 14019. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4: With regard 

to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the 

visibility sub-element, referred to as 

prong 4, significant visibility impacts 

from stationary source lead emissions 

are expected to be limited to short 

distances from the source. The 2011 

Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance notes 

that the lead constituent of PM would 

likely not travel far enough to affect 

Class 1 areas and that the visibility 

provisions of the CAA do not directly 

regulate lead. Lead stationary sources in 

Kentucky are located distances from 

Class I areas such that visibility impacts 

are negligible. Accordingly, EPA has 

preliminarily determined that the 

Kentucky SIP meets the relevant 

visibility requirements of prong 4 of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate and 

International transport provisions: With 

regard to section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), section 

6 of KAR Chapter 52:100, Public, 

Affected State, and US EPA Review, 

outlines how Kentucky will notify 

neighboring states of potential impacts 

from new or modified sources. Further, 

EPA is unaware of any pending 

obligations for the Commonwealth 

pursuant to sections 115 or 126 of the 

CAA. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Kentucky DAQ’s SIP 

and practices are adequate for insuring 

compliance with the applicable 

requirements relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement for 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS. Accordingly, 

EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). 

5. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority: 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 Kentucky’s SIP as 

meeting the requirements of subelements 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii) and (iii). 

EPA’s rationale for this proposal 

respecting sub-element (i), (ii),and(iii) is 

described in turn below. 

To satisfy the requirements of sections 

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

infrastructure SIP submission cites 

regulation 401 KAR 50:038 Air 

Emissions Fee, which provides the 

assessment fees necessary to fund the 

state Title V permit program. EPA 

submitted a letter to Kentucky on 

February 27, 2014, outlining 105 grant 

commitments and the current status of 

these commitments for fiscal year 2013. 

The letter EPA submitted to Kentucky 

can be accessed at www.regulations.gov 

using Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2014–0443. Annually, states update 

these grant commitments based on 

current SIP requirements, air quality 

planning, and applicable requirements 

related to the NAAQS. Kentucky 

satisfactorily met all commitments 

agreed to in the Air Planning Agreement 

for fiscal year 2013, therefore 

Kentucky’s grants were finalized and 

closed out. 

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

Kentucky comply with section 128 of 

the CAA. Section 128 requires that: (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. 

KY DAQ’s infrastructure SIP 

submission adequately demonstrated 

that Kentucky’s SIP meets the 

applicable section 128 requirements 

pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

For purposes of section 128(a)(1), 

Kentucky has no boards or bodies with 

authority over air pollution permits or 

enforcement actions. Such matters are 

instead handled by the Director of the 

KY DAQ. As such, a ‘‘board or body’’ is 

not responsible for approving permits or 

enforcement orders in Kentucky, and 

the requirements of section 128(a)(1) are 

not applicable. For purposes of section 

128(a)(2), Kentucky’s SIP has been 

updated. On October 3, 2012, EPA 

finalized approval of KY DAQ’s July 17, 

2012, SIP revision requesting 

incorporation of KRS Chapters 11A.020, 

11A.030, 11A.040 and Chapters 224.10– 

020 and 224.10–100 into the SIP to 

address sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). See 

77 FR 60307. With the incorporation of 

these regulations into the Kentucky SIP, 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that the Commonwealth 

has adequately addressed the 

requirements of section 128(a)(2), and 

accordingly has met the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to approve KY DAQ’s SIP as 

meeting the requirements of subelements 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii) and (iii). 

6. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary source 

monitoring system: KY DAQ’s 

infrastructure SIP submission describes 

how the State establishes requirements 

for emissions compliance testing and 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 45475 

utilizes emissions sampling and 

analysis. It further describes how the 

State ensures the quality of its data 

through observing emissions and 

monitoring operations. KY DAQ 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. KY DAQ meets these 

requirements through KY DAQ 401 KAR 

50:050 Monitoring. These requirements 

are incorporated into the SIP at Chapter 

50 General Administrative Procedures 

allows for the use of credible evidence 

in the event that the KY DAQ 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 

Kentucky SIP. 

In addition, Kentucky is required to 

submit emissions data to EPA for 

purposes of the National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI). The NEI is EPA’s 

central repository for air emissions data. 

EPA published the Air Emissions 

Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 

2008, which modified the requirements 

for collecting and reporting air 

emissions data. 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. 

Kentucky made its latest update to the 

2013 NEI on November 11, 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 

Kentucky’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for the stationary source 

monitoring systems obligations for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS. 

7. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency episodes: 

This section requires that states 

demonstrate authority comparable with 

section 303 of the CAA and adequate 

contingency plans to implement such 

authority. Kentucky’s infrastructure SIP 

submission cites 401 KAR Chapter 55 

Emergency Episodes as identifying air 

pollution emergency episodes and 

preplanned abatement strategies, and 

providing the means to implement 

emergency air pollution episode 

measures. Conditions justifying the 

proclamation of an air pollution alert, 

air pollution warning, or air pollution 

emergency shall be deemed to exist 

whenever the cabinet determines that 

the accumulation of air contaminants in 

any place is attaining or has attained 

levels which could, if such levels are 

sustained or exceeded, present a threat 

to the health of the public. The intent 

of this administrative regulation is to 

provide for the curtailment or reduction 

of processes or operations which emit 

an air contaminant or an air 

contaminant precursor whose criteria 

has been reached and are located in the 

affected area for which an episode level 

has been declared. This rule defines 

what an episodic criteria is and the 

procedure for an episode declaration. In 

addition, KRS 224.10–410 provides: 

‘‘Notwithstanding any inconsistent 

provisions of law, whenever the 

Secretary of the Energy and 

Environment Cabinet finds, after 

investigation, that any person or 

combination of persons is causing, 

engaging in or maintaining a condition 

or activity which, in his judgment, 

presents a danger to the health or 

welfare of the people of the state or 

results in or is likely to result in damage 

to natural resources, and relates to the 

prevention and abatement powers of the 

secretary and it therefore appears to be 

prejudicial to the interests of the people 

of the state to delay action until an 

opportunity for a hearing can be 

provided, the secretary may, without 

prior hearing, order such person or 

combination of persons by notice, in 

writing wherever practicable or in such 

other form as in the secretary’s 

judgment will reasonably notify such 

person or combination of persons whose 

practices are intended to be proscribed, 

to discontinue, abate or alleviate such 

condition or activity, and thereupon 

such person or combination of persons 

shall immediately discontinue, abate or 

alleviate such condition or activity. As 

soon as possible thereafter, not to 

exceed ten (10) days, the secretary shall 

provide the person or combination of 

persons an opportunity to be heard and 

to present proof that such condition or 

activity does not violate the provisions 

of this section. The secretary shall adopt 

any other appropriate rules and 

regulations prescribing the procedure to 

be followed in the issuance of such 

orders. The secretary shall immediately 

notify the Governor of any order issued 

pursuant to this section.’’ EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that 

Kentucky’s SIP and practices are 

adequate to satisfy the emergency 

powers obligations of the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. 

8. 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP revisions: 

KY DAQ is responsible for adopting air 

quality rules and revising SIPs as 

needed to attain or maintain the 

NAAQS in Kentucky. 401 KAR Chapter 

53 Ambient Air Quality and Chapter 51 

Attainment and Maintenance of the 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards grant KY DAQ the broad 

authority to implement the CAA, and as 

such, provides KY DAQ the authority to 

prepare and develop, after proper study, 

a comprehensive plan for the prevention 

of air pollution. These statutes also 

provide KY DAQ 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. 

Accordingly, EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Kentucky’s SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate a commitment to provide 

future SIP revisions related to the 2008 

Lead NAAQS, when necessary. 

9. 110(a)(2)(J): EPA is proposing to 

approve Kentucky’s infrastructure SIP 

for the 2008 Lead NAAQS with respect 

to the general requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the 

SIP that provides for meeting the 

applicable consultation requirements of 

section 121, the public notification 

requirements of section 127, and 

visibility protection. With respect to 

Kentucky’s infrastructure SIP 

submission related to the 

preconstruction PSD permitting 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), EPA 

took final action to approve Kentucky’s 

July 17, 2012, 2008 Lead infrastructure 

SIP for these requirements on March 18, 

2015. See 80 FR 14019. EPA’s rationale 

for applicable consultation requirements 

of section 121, the public notification 

requirements of section 127, 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 

(FLMs) carrying out NAAQS 

implementation requirements pursuant 

to section 121 relative to consultation. 

401 KAR 52 Permits, Registrations, and 

Prohibitory Rules along with the 

Regional Haze SIP Plan (which allows 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45476 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

for consultation between appropriate 

state, local, and tribal air pollution 

control agencies as well as the 

corresponding FLMs), provide for 

consultation with government officials 

whose jurisdictions might be affected by 

SIP development activities. 

Implementation of transportation 

conformity as outlined in the 

consultation procedures requires KY 

DAQ to consult with federal, state and 

local transportation and air quality 

agency officials on the development of 

motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that Kentucky’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate that the State 

meets applicable requirements related to 

consultation with government officials 

for the 2008 Lead NAAQS when 

necessary. 

Public notification (127 public 

notification): To meet the public 

notification requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(J), statutes 401 KAR 51 

Attainment and Maintenance of the 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards and 401 KAR 52 Permits, 

Registrations provides Kentucky with 

the authority to declare an emergency 

and notify the public accordingly when 

it finds t a generalized condition of 

water or air pollution which is causing 

imminent danger to the health or safety 

of the public. For example, 401 KAR 

52:100. Public, Affected State, and U.S. 

EPA Review of the Kentucky 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. EPA also notes that KY DAQ 

maintains a Web site that provides the 

public with notice of the health hazards 

associated with Lead 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://air.ky.gov/Pages/default.aspx. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Kentucky’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate the 

State’s ability to provide public 

notification related to the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS when necessary. 

Visibility Protection: The 2011 Lead 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance notes that 

EPA does not generally 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, in the event of the 

establishment of a new primary 

NAAQS, the visibility protection and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C do not change. EPA thus 

does not expect states to address 

visibility in lead infrastructure 

submittals. Thus, EPA concludes there 

are no new applicable visibility 

protection obligations under section 

110(a)(2)(J) as a result of the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing 

to approve section 110(a)(2)(J) of KY 

DAQ’s infrastructure SIP submission 

with respect to visibility. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Kentucky’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate the 

State’s ability to meet the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a 

program in the SIP that provides for 

meeting the applicable requirements of 

section 121 (consultation), section 127 

public notification, and visibility 

protection. 

10. 110(a)(2)(K) Air quality 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. 401 KAR Chapter 50 

General Administrative Procedures 

require that air modeling be conducted 

in accordance with 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix W ‘‘Guideline on Air Quality 

Models.’’ These regulations demonstrate 

that Kentucky has the authority to 

perform air quality modeling and to 

provide relevant data for the purpose of 

predicting the effect on ambient air 

quality of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

Additionally, Kentucky supports a 

regional effort to coordinate the 

development of emissions inventories 

and conduct regional modeling for 

several NAAQS, including the 2008 

Lead NAAQS, for the Southeastern 

states. Taken as a whole, Kentucky’s air 

quality regulations demonstrate that KY 

DAQ has the authority to provide 

relevant data for the purpose of 

predicting the effect on ambient air 

quality of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that Kentucky’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 Lead 

NAAQS when necessary. 

11. 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, 

Kentucky Regulation 401 KAR 50:038 

Air Emissions Fee, and the Title V 

Operating Permit Program 

Implementation Protocol dated August 

13, 1999, is how KY DAQ collects 

adequate emission fees related to the 

cost of administering the air quality 

program mandated under Title V of the 

CAA Amendments of 1990 (Public Law 

101–549, as amended). Funds collected 

in support of the program are used in 

support of review, implementation, and 

enforcement of PSD/NNSR permits. The 

Title V program takes over for the PSD/ 

NNSR permit once the source begin 

operating. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Kentucky’s practices adequately provide 

for permitting fees related to the 2008 

Lead NAAQS, when necessary. 

12. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/

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. 401 

KAR 52 Permits, Registrations authorize 

and require KY DAQ 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. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that Kentucky’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate consultation 

with affected local entities related to the 

2008 Lead NAAQS, when necessary. 

V. Proposed Action 

With the exception of the PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

sources contained in sections 

110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of (D)(i), and (J), 

EPA is proposing to approve that KY 

DAQ’s infrastructure SIP submission, 

submitted July 17, 2012, for the 2008 

Lead NAAQS meets the above described 

infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is 

proposing to approve these portions of 

Kentucky’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2008 Lead NAAQS 

because these aspects of the submission 

are consistent with section 110 of the 

CAA. 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 45477 

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. 

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 Clean Air Act; 

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 Kentucky 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, 

Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: July 14, 2015. 

Heather Mc Teer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–18613 Filed 7–29–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0323; FRL–9931–15– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Oregon: Grants 

Pass Second 10-Year PM10 Limited 

Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the limited maintenance plan submitted 

by the State of Oregon on April 22, 

2015, for the Grants Pass maintenance 

area for particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10). 

The plan explains how this area will 

continue to meet the PM10 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for a 

second 10-year period through 2025. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 31, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2015–0323, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: edmondson.lucy@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Lucy Edmondson, U.S. EPA 

Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, AWT–150, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 

Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 

900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Lucy 

Edmondson, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, AWT–150. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Please see the direct final rule which is 

located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lucy Edmondson at telephone number: 

(360) 753–9082, email address: 

edmondson.lucy@epa.gov, or the above 

EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information, please see the 

direct final action, of the same title, 

which is located in the Rules section of 

this Federal Register. The EPA is 

simultaneously approving the State’s 

SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the EPA 

views this as a noncontroversial SIP 

revision and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the preamble to 

the direct final rule. If the EPA receives 

no adverse comments, the EPA will not 

take further action on this proposed 

rule. 

If the EPA receives adverse 

comments, the EPA will withdraw the 

direct final rule and it will not take 

effect. The EPA will address all public 

comments in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. The EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this action. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. Please note 

that if we receive adverse comment on 

an amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

the EPA may adopt as final those 

provisions of the rule that are not the 

subject of an adverse comment. 

Dated: July 8, 2015. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2015–18349 Filed 7–29–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0279; FRL–9930–98– 

Region 9] 

Air Plan Approval; California; 

Mammoth Lakes; Redesignation 

Request; PM10 Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS