Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Carolina Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 69082-69090 [2014-27504]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69082-69090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27504]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0444; FRL-9919-49-Region 4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Carolina 
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 20, 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 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. NCDAQ certified that the 
North Carolina SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2008 Lead 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 and state boards requirements, EPA is 
proposing to determine that North Carolina's infrastructure SIP 
submission, provided to EPA on July 20, 2012, addresses the required 
infrastructure elements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 22, 
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2014-0444, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0444,'' Regulatory Development Section, 
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, Regulatory 
Development Section, Air Planning 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-
2014-0444. 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 https://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 Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning 
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, Regulatory Development 
Section, Air Planning 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.

[[Page 69083]]


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?
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 46246. Both primary and 
secondary standards were set at a level of 1.5 micrograms per cubic 
meter ([mu]g/m\3\), 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 revised primary and secondary Lead NAAQS were 
revised to 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\. 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In these infrastructure SIP submissions states generally 
certify evidence of compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of 
the CAA through a combination of state regulations and statutes, 
some of which have been incorporated into the federally-approved 
SIP. In addition, certain federally-approved, non-SIP regulations 
may also be appropriate for demonstrating compliance with sections 
110(a)(1) and (2). Unless otherwise indicated, the Title 15A 
regulations of the North Carolina Administrative Code (``15A NCAC'') 
cited throughout this rulemaking have either been approved, or 
submitted for approval into North Carolina's federally-approved SIP. 
The North Carolina General Statutes (``NCGS'') cited throughout this 
rulemaking, however, are not approved into the North Carolina SIP 
unless otherwise indicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's action is proposing to approve North Carolina's 
infrastructure submission for the applicable requirements of the Lead 
NAAQS, with the exception of preconstruction PSD permitting 
requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of 
D(i), and (J) and the state board requirements of 110(E)(ii). With 
respect to North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission related to 
the provisions pertaining to the PSD permitting requirements for major 
sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J), and the 
state board requirements complying with section 128 of the CAA for 
110(a)(2)(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. This action 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 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not 
governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) 
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area 
controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new 
or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area 
plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These 
requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) 
to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required 
in part D Title I of the CAA, and (2) submissions required by 
section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning 
requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today's proposed 
rulemaking does not address infrastructure elements related to 
section 110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of 
110(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement, prevention of 
significant deterioration (PSD) and new source review (NSR).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element 
as they relate to attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate and international transport 
provisions.
     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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As mentioned above, this element is not relevant to today's 
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials, 
public notification, and PSD and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/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 North Carolina 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,

[[Page 69084]]

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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states 
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority 
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) 
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address 
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and 
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority 
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements 
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or 
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) 
requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of 
requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal 
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a 
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the 
Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\6\ 
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and 
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address 
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) 
requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for 
certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation 
of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two 
years, or in some cases three years, for such designations to be 
promulgated.\7\ This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all 
the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, 
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable 
for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine 
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions 
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; 
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) 
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \7\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is 
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific 
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in 
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., 
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of 
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific 
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of 
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether 
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single 
SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a 
single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a 
plan'' to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow 
states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing 
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make 
such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP 
requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either 
individually or in a larger combined action.\8\ Similarly, EPA 
interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts 
of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given 
NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For example, 
EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements 
and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State 
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR 
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural 
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately 
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule), 
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013) 
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \9\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the 
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP 
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for 
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On 
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA 
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14, 
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise 
with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for 
different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 
110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same 
way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant 
infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be 
different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might 
need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of 
section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants 
because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP 
submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely 
new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure 
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also 
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required 
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA 
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. 
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP 
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable 
requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment

[[Page 69085]]

plan SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 
regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By 
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by 
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that 
pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA, 
because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is 
designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning 
requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission 
may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language 
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is 
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) 
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP 
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have 
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-to-date 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to 
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP 
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the 
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether 
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such 
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 
states, as appropriate.
    \12\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) Elements 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.
    \13\ Although 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address 
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of 
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial 
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \15\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past 
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation 
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation 
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has 
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove 
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had 
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, 
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \16\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from 
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's 
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 
FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).

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

[[Page 69086]]

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. 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. In addition, 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.'' EPA has made the preliminary determination that these 
provisions and North Carolina's practices are adequate to protect the 
2008 Lead 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 the future.\17\ In 
the meantime, EPA encourages any state having a deficient SSM provision 
to take steps to correct it as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ On 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.'' 78 FR 12459.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 
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 lead 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.'' 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.\18\ The latest monitoring network plan approved 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-2014-0444. 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 Lead NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ On occasion, proposed changes to the monitoring network are 
evaluated outside of the network plan approval process in accordance 
with 40 CFR Part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. 110(a)(2)(C) Program for enforcement, prevention of significant 
deterioration (PSD) and new source review (NSR): Section 110(a)(2)(C) 
requires that the SIPs include a program to provide for the enforcement 
of the measures described in section 110(a)(2)(A), and regulation of 
the modification and construction of any stationary source within the 
areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient 
air quality standards are achieved, including a permit program. In this 
action, EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's infrastructure SIP 
submission for the 2008 Lead 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, the regulation of minor sources and modifications, and the 
enforcement of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs) emission limits to assist in the protection of air 
quality in nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable areas. 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. EPA will be acting on the 
preconstruction PSD permitting program requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(C) in a separate action.
    Enforcement: NCDAQ's above-described, SIP-approved regulations 
provide for enforcement of 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 pre-construction program that regulates emissions of the 2008 
Lead 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

[[Page 69087]]

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)(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) requires SIPs to include provisions insuring 
compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate 
and international pollution abatement.
    With respect to North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission 
related to the interstate transport requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3), EPA is not proposing any action today 
regarding this requirement and instead will act on this portion of the 
submission in a separate action.
    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 tpy generally appear unlikely to 
contribute significantly to the nonattainment in another state. North 
Carolina has one lead source that has emissions which exceed 0.5 tons 
per year (tpy), however, the source is located approximately 45 miles 
from the State border.\19\ 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 North 
Carolina's SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The one facility in North Carolina that has lead emissions 
greater than 0.5 tpy is the Saint Gobain Containers facility located 
at 2201 Firestone Pkwy Ne, Wilson, NC 27893. The lead emissions from 
this facility are .53 tpy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Prong 3: With respect to North Carolina's 
infrastructure SIP submission related to the interstate transport 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 3, EPA is not 
proposing any action today regarding these requirements and will act on 
this portion of the submission in a separate action.
    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. Lead 
stationary sources in North Carolina are located distances from Class I 
areas such that visibility impacts are negligible. 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. EPA 
therefore 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)(D)(i)(II) as a result of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. Accordingly, 
EPA has preliminarily determined that the North Carolina 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: Regulations 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. In addition, North Carolina does not have any pending 
obligation under sections 115 and 126 of the CAA. 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 Lead NAAQS.
    6. 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 
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 separate 
action. EPA's rationale for today's proposal respecting sub-element (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 regulation 15A 
NCAC 2Q. 0200 ``Permit Fees,'' which 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-2014-0444. Annually, states update these grant 
commitments based on current SIP requirements, air quality planning, 
and applicable requirements related to the

[[Page 69088]]

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.
    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.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that North Carolina has 
adequate resources for implementation of sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 
(iii) of the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
    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. These 
requirements are incorporated into the SIP at 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.'' In addition, North Carolina 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. 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 https://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 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. 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 providing the means to 
implement emergency air pollution episode measures. 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 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 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 
https://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 Lead NAAQS.
    8. 110(a)(2)(H) Future 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) grant NCDAQ the broad authority to implement the CAA, and 
as such, provides NCDAQ the authority to prepare and develop, after 
proper study, a comprehensive plan for the prevention of air pollution. 
These statutes also provide NCDAQ 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 North Carolina'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 North Carolina'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 North Carolina's infrastructure 
SIP submission related to the preconstruction PSD permitting 
requirements, 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 applicable consultation 
requirements of section 121, the public notification requirements of 
section 127, and visibility is described below.
    110(a)(2)(J)(121 consultation) Consultation with government 
officials: 15A NCAC 2D.1600 ``General Conformity;'' 15A NCAC 2D .2000 
``Transportation Conformity;'' and15A NCAC 2D .0531 ``Sources in 
Nonattainment Areas,'' along with the Regional Haze SIP Plan (which 
allows for consultation between appropriate state, local, and tribal 
air pollution control agencies as well as the

[[Page 69089]]

corresponding Federal Land Managers), 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. 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 Lead NAAQS when necessary.
    110(a)(2)(J) (127 public notification) Public notification: 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. For example, 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 15A 
NCAC 02Q .0300. 15A NCAC 02Q. 306 provides for public notice for 
comments with an opportunity to request a public hearing on the draft 
permits required pursuant to 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 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 https://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 Lead NAAQS when necessary.
    110(a)(2)(J) PSD and 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. 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, and as such, EPA is 
proposing to approve section 110(a)(2)(J) of NC DENR's infrastructure 
SIP submission as it relates to visibility protection.
    10. 110(a)(2)(K) Air quality and modeling/data: 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 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, North Carolina 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, 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 Lead 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 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, 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 at 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 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. 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. EPA has made the preliminary determination that North 
Carolina'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 of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of (D)(i), and (J), and the 
state board requirements of section 110(a)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to 
approve that NCDAQ's infrastructure SIP submission, submitted June 20, 
2012, for the 2008 Lead NAAQS meets the above described infrastructure 
SIP requirements. EPA is proposing to approve these portions of North 
Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission for the Lead NAAQS

[[Page 69090]]

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).
    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, Intergovernmental 
relations, Lead, and Recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: November 7, 2014.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2014-27504 Filed 11-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P