45636 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this rule, no further activity 

is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this 

document. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this document should 

do so at this time. 

Dated: July 22, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–18757 Filed 7–30–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0816; FRL–9931–63– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Disapproval; Georgia: 

Disapproval of Automatic Rescission 

Clause 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

disapprove a portion of a revision to the 

Georgia State Implementation Plan 

(SIP), submitted through the Georgia’s 

Department of Natural Resources 

Environmental Protection Division 

(EPD), on January 13, 2011, that would 

allow for the automatic rescission of 

federal permitting-related requirements 

in certain circumstances. EPA is 

proposing to disapprove Georgia’s 

automatic rescission provision because 

the Agency has preliminarily 

determined that this provision is not 

consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) or federal regulations related to 

SIPs. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 31, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2010–0816, 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–2010– 

0816,’’ Air Regulatory Management 

Section (formerly Regulatory 

Development Section), Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, 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–2010– 

0816. 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 

may not be 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: 

Sean Lakeman, 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) 562–9043. 

Mr. Lakeman can be reached via 

electronic mail at lakeman.sean@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background for EPA’s Proposed 

Action 

On September 8, 2011, EPA took final 

action to approve portions of a 

requested revision to the Georgia SIP, 

submitted by EPD on January 13, 2011. 

See 76 FR 55572. Specifically, the 

portions of Georgia’s January 13, 2011, 

SIP submittal that EPA approved 

incorporated two updates to the State’s 

air quality regulations under Georgia’s 

New Source Review (NSR) Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. 

First, the SIP revision established 

appropriate emission thresholds for 

determining which new stationary 

sources and modification projects 

become subject to Georgia’s PSD 

permitting requirements for their 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

Second, the SIP revision incorporated 

provisions for implementing the PSD 

program for the fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). EPA noted in its 

September 8, 2011, final rule approving 

portions of Georgia’s January 13, 2011, 

SIP submittal that the Agency was still 

evaluating the portion of the SIP 

submittal related to a provision (at 391– 

3–1–.02(7)(a)(2)(iv)) that would 

automatically rescind portions of 

Georgia’s SIP in the wake of certain 

court decisions or other triggering 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 2015 / Proposed Rules 45637 

1On November 12, 2014, EPD submitted a SIP 

package that included, among other things, an 

additional change to Georgia’s PSD rules at 391–3– 

1–.02(7)(a)(2)(iv), which is the provision at issue in 

this notice. The revised version of Georgia Rule 

391–3–1–.02(7)(a)(2)(iv) continues to include the 

automatic rescission clause at issue in today’s 

notice. However, in its cover letter and subsequent 

explanations of revisions, EPD did not address the 

change made to 391–3–1–.02(7)(a)(2)(iv), nor did 

EPD ask the EPA to approve any revision to this 

provision. Therefore, EPA does not consider the 

change to 391–3–1–.02(7)(a)(2)(iv) included in the 

November 12, 2014, submittal to be part of an 

official SIP revision package. 

events (the automatic rescission clause), 

and consequently was not taking action 

on that provision in that final action. 

See 76 FR at 55573. Today, EPA is 

proposing to disapprove the automatic 

rescission clause at 391–3–1– 

.02(7)(a)(2)(iv) in Georgia’s January 13, 

2011, SIP submittal.1 More detail on 

EPA’s analysis of Georgia’s automatic 

rescission clause is provided below. 

II. EPA’s Analysis of Georgia’s 

Submission Related to the Automatic 

Rescission Clause 

As mentioned above, Georgia’s 

January 13, 2011, SIP revision included 

a provision that allowed for the 

automatic rescission of federal 

permitting-related requirements under 

certain circumstances. Specifically, at 

391–3–1–.02(7)(a)(2)(iv), Georgia’s rules 

read as follows: ‘‘The definition and use 

of the term ‘subject to regulation’ in 40 

CFR, Part 52.21, as amended June 3, 

2010, is hereby incorporated by 

reference; provided, however, that in 

the event all or any portion of 40 CFR, 

Part 52.21 containing that term is: (I) 

Declared or adjudged to be invalid or 

unconstitutional or stayed by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 

Circuit or for the District of Columbia 

Circuit; or (II) withdrawn, repealed, 

revoked or otherwise rendered of no 

force and effect by the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Congress, or Presidential Executive 

Order. Such action shall render the 

regulation as incorporated herein, or 

that portion thereof that may be affected 

by such action, as invalid, void, stayed, 

or otherwise without force and effect for 

purposes of this rule upon the date such 

action becomes final and effective; 

provided, further, that such declaration, 

adjudication, stay, or other action 

described herein shall not affect the 

remaining portions, if any, of the 

regulation as incorporated herein, 

which shall remain of full force and 

effect as if such portion so declared or 

adjudged invalid or unconstitutional or 

stayed or otherwise invalidated or 

effected were not originally a part of this 

rule. The Board declares that it would 

[not] have incorporated the remaining 

parts of the federal regulation if it had 

known that such portion thereof would 

be declared or adjudged invalid or 

unconstitutional or stayed or otherwise 

rendered of no force and effect.’’ 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

portion of Georgia’s January 13, 2011, 

SIP submittal that would add the 

automatic rescission clause at Georgia 

Rule 391–3–1–.02(7)(a)(2)(iv) to the SIP. 

In assessing the approvability of this 

clause, EPA considered two key factors: 

(1) Whether the public will be given 

reasonable notice of any change to the 

SIP that occurs as a result of the 

automatic rescission clause; and (2) 

whether any future change to the SIP 

that occurs as a result of the automatic 

rescission clause would be consistent 

with EPA’s interpretation of the effect of 

the triggering action (e.g., the extent of 

an administrative or judicial stay) on 

federal permitting requirements at 40 

CFR 52.21. These criteria are derived 

from the SIP revision procedures set 

forth in the CAA and federal 

regulations. 

Regarding public notice, CAA section 

110(l) provides that any revision to a 

SIP submitted by a State to EPA for 

approval ‘‘shall be adopted by such 

State after reasonable notice and public 

hearing.’’ See 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). Under 

Georgia’s proposed automatic rescission 

clause, the SIP would automatically be 

revised as a result of a triggering action 

without public notice. To the extent that 

there is any ambiguity regarding how a 

court order or other triggering action 

impacts the federal permitting 

requirements at 40 CFR 52.21, that 

ambiguity will lead to ambiguity 

regarding the extent to which the 

triggering action results in a SIP revision 

(and indeed, whether a particular court 

ruling or other action in fact triggers an 

automatic SIP revision under Georgia’s 

automatic rescission clause). EPA 

preliminarily concludes that Georgia’s 

proposed automatic rescission clause 

would not provide reasonable public 

notice of a SIP revision as required by 

CAA 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). 

EPA’s consideration of whether any 

SIP change resulting from the proposed 

automatic rescission clause would be 

consistent with EPA’s interpretation of 

the effect of the triggering action on 

federal permitting requirements at 40 

CFR 52.21 is based on 40 CFR 51.105. 

Under 40 CFR 51.105, ‘‘[r]evisions of a 

plan, or any portion thereof, will not be 

considered part of an applicable plan 

until such revisions have been approved 

by the Administrator in accordance with 

this part.’’ However, the Georgia 

rescission clause takes effect 

immediately upon certain triggering 

actions without any EPA intervention. 

The effect of this is that EPA is not 

given the opportunity to determine the 

effect and extent of the triggering court 

order or federal law change on the 

federal permitting requirements at 40 

CFR 52.21; instead, the SIP is modified 

without EPA’s approval. EPA 

preliminarily concludes that Georgia’s 

proposed automatic rescission clause is 

inconsistent with 40 CFR 51.105. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

provision in Georgia’s January 13, 2011, 

SIP submittal (at Georgia Rule 391–3–1– 

.02(7)(a)(2)(iv)) that would 

automatically rescind permitting-related 

federal requirements in certain 

circumstances. Previously, EPA 

approved the remainder of Georgia’s 

January 13, 2011, SIP revision, which 

related to PSD requirements for GHGemitting sources and for the PM2.5

NAAQS. See 76 FR 55572 (September, 

8, 2011). Today’s action does not change 

what EPA previously approved. EPA 

notes that the State has the option to 

withdraw the portion of the January 13, 

2011, SIP submittal that is the subject of 

this disapproval action prior to EPA 

taking final action. Also, EPA notes that 

this disapproval action does not trigger 

a requirement for a Federal 

Implementation Plan because this 

provision is not a necessary or required 

element for the SIP. 

IV. 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 disapproves a state law as 

not 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.); 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45638 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Greenhouse gases, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: July 22, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–18754 Filed 7–30–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS