Air Plan Approvals; GA and NC; Prevention of Significant Deterioration Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS, 7695-7698 [2020-02609]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules • 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). 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. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: January 28, 2020. Mary S. Walker, Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 2020–02607 Filed 2–10–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Feb 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R04–OAR–2019–0503; FRL–10005– 09–Region 4] Air Plan Approvals; GA and NC; Prevention of Significant Deterioration Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to conditionally approve portions of the Georgia and North Carolina infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions for the 2015 8hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) provided to EPA on September 24, 2018, and September 27, 2018, respectively. Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each such NAAQS, commonly referred to as an ‘‘infrastructure SIP.’’ Specifically, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the portions of the Georgia and North Carolina infrastructure SIP submissions related to the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) infrastructure elements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. SUMMARY: Comments must be received on or before March 12, 2020. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA–R04– OAR–2019–0503, at https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, DATES: PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 7695 information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward of 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. Ms. Ward can be reached by telephone at (404) 562–9140 or via electronic mail at ward.nacosta@ epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On October 1, 2015, EPA promulgated a revised primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone, revising the 8-hour ozone standards from 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to a new more protective level of 0.070 ppm. See 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIP revisions meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. This particular type of SIP is commonly referred to as an ‘‘infrastructure SIP.’’ States were required to submit such SIP revisions for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than October 1, 2018.1 EPA is proposing to conditionally approve 2 the portions of Georgia’s September 24, 2018, SIP revision provided to EPA through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) and North Carolina’s September 1 In 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 SIP. In addition, certain federally-approved, non-SIP regulations may also be appropriate for demonstrating compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2). 2 Under CAA section 110(k)(4), EPA may conditionally approve a SIP revision based on a commitment from a state to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than one year from the date of approval. If the state fails to meet the commitment within one year of the final conditional approval, the conditional approval automatically becomes a disapproval on that date and EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM 11FEP1 7696 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules 27, 2018,3 SIP revision provided to EPA through the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) that address the PSD-related infrastructure SIP requirements under sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prohibiting interference with PSD in other states), and 110(a)(2)(J) (also referred to as infrastructure elements C, D(i) prong 3, and J, respectively) of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These provisions are discussed in further detail in Section III, below. All other applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. With respect to the PSD elements of 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), EPA interprets the CAA to require each state to make, for each new or revised NAAQS, an infrastructure SIP submission that demonstrates that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for all regulated new source review (NSR) pollutants. The requirements of element 110(D)(i)(II) (prong 3) may also be satisfied by demonstrating that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program correctly addressing all regulated NSR pollutants. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS II. What is EPA’s approach to the review of infrastructure SIP submissions? As discussed above, whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section 110(a)(1) requires states to submit infrastructure SIPs that meet the various requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), as applicable. Due to ambiguity in some of the language of CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret these provisions in the specific context of acting on infrastructure SIP submissions. EPA has previously provided comprehensive guidance on the application of these provisions through a guidance document for infrastructure SIP submissions and through regional actions on infrastructure submissions.4 Unless otherwise noted below, EPA is following that existing approach in 3 The September 27, 2018, SIP submission provided by NC DEQ’s Division of Air Quality was received by EPA on October 10, 2018. 4 EPA explains and elaborates on these ambiguities and its approach to address them in its September 13, 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance (available at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/ urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_ Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_ FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf), as well as in numerous agency actions, including EPA’s prior actions on Georgia and North Carolina infrastructure SIPs to address the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS. See 81 FR 41905 (June 28, 2016) and 81 FR 47115 (July 20, 2016), respectively. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Feb 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 acting on these submissions. In addition, in the context of acting on such infrastructure submissions, EPA evaluates the submitting state’s implementation plan for facial compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, not for the state’s implementation of its SIP.5 EPA has other authority to address any issues concerning a state’s implementation of the rules, regulations, consent orders, etc. that comprise its SIP. III. What are the infrastructure requirements for sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (Prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J) for Georgia and North Carolina? Section 110(a)(2)(C) has three components that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions: Enforcement, state-wide regulation of new and modified minor sources and minor modifications of major sources, and PSD permitting of new major sources and major modifications in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the subject NAAQS as required by the CAA title I part C (i.e., the major source PSD program). 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)(J) has four components related to: (1) Consultation with government officials, (2) public notification, (3) PSD, and (4) visibility protection. This proposed rulemaking relates only to the PSD-related requirements of sections 110(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J) which as previously described, require that the SIP contain adequate provisions to provide for the 5 See Mont. Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. Thomas, 902 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2018). PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 preconstruction PSD permitting for major sources, and prohibit emissions activity in one state interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state. More information on these requirements and EPA’s rationale for this proposal that Georgia and North Carolina are conditionally meeting these requirements for purposes of the 2015 8hour ozone NAAQS is provided below. All other applicable infrastructure requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS associated with these States have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how Georgia and North Carolina addressed relevant portions of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (Prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J)? 110(a)(2)(C) Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources: For the major source PSD program sub-element of section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA interprets the CAA to require that a state’s infrastructure SIP submission for a particular NAAQS demonstrate that the state has a complete PSD permitting program in place covering the PSD requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants.6 A state’s PSD permitting program is complete for this sub-element (and prong 3 of D(i) and J related to PSD) if EPA has already approved or is simultaneously approving the state’s implementation plan with respect to all PSD requirements that are due under EPA regulations or the CAA on or before the date of EPA’s proposed action on the infrastructure SIP submission. Georgia’s and North Carolina’s 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submissions cite a number of SIP provisions to address the major source PSD program sub-element of section 110(a)(2)(C) as described below. Georgia Georgia’s infrastructure SIP submission cites the following rules to meet the PSD program requirements of 110(a)(2)(C): Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control 391–3–1–.02— ‘‘Provisions. Amended,’’ including PSD requirements under Rule 391–3–1– .02(7)—‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration,’’ 391–3–1-.03—‘‘Permits. Amended,’’ including 391–3–1–.03(1)— ‘‘Construction (SIP) Permit,’’ and 391– 3–1–.03—‘‘Permits. Amended,’’ 6 See EPA’s September 13, 2013, memorandum entitled ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).’’ E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM 11FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS including 391–3–1–.03(2)—‘‘Operating (SIP) Permit.’’ North Carolina North Carolina’s infrastructure SIP submission cites the following rules to meet the PSD program requirements of 110(a)(2)(C): 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 2D .0500—‘‘Emission Control Standards’’ and 15A NCAC 2D .0530—‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration.’’ These SIP-approved regulations were submitted to EPA by Georgia and North Carolina to provide that new major sources and major modifications in areas of the State designated attainment or unclassifiable for any given NAAQS are subject to a federally-approved PSD permitting program meeting all the current structural requirements of part C of title I of the CAA. However, the Georgia and North Carolina SIPs do not contain or reference the most recent version of EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models, codified at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W.7 EPA’s PSD regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(l) require that modeling be conducted in accordance with Appendix W. As detailed in EPA’s September 2013 infrastructure SIP guidance, approval of element C requires a fully approved PSD permitting program, which requires application of Appendix W consistent with EPA’s PSD implementing regulations, and approval of elements D(i)(II) and J is contingent on an approvable PSD program. Therefore, Georgia and North Carolina have committed to update their PSD regulations to reference the most current version of Appendix W and submit SIP revisions containing the revised regulations. These commitments are discussed in more detail later in this section. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With regard to prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), a state may meet this requirement by a confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the state are subject to a PSD program meeting current structural requirements of part C, or (if the state contains a nonattainment area that has the potential to impact PSD in another state) a nonattainment NSR program. To meet prong 3, Georgia cites Rule 391–3–1– .02(7)—‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration’’ and North Carolina cites 15A NCAC 2D .0530—‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration.’’ 110(a)(2)(J) PSD: With regard to the PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J), this 7 EPA approved the most recent version of Appendix W on January 17, 2017, at 82 FR 5182. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Feb 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 requirement is met by a state’s confirmation in an infrastructure SIP submission that the state has a SIPapproved PSD program meeting all the current requirements of part C of title I of the CAA for all NSR regulated pollutants. To meet element J, Georgia cites Rule 391–3–1–.02(7)—‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration’’ and North Carolina cites 15A NCAC 2D .0530— ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration.’’ As mentioned above, Georgia and North Carolina cite to several regulations to demonstrate that their respective SIPs meet the PSD-related requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (Prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J), but their SIP-approved PSD programs do not contain or reference the most recent version of Appendix W. On November 14, 2019, and December 16, 2019, GA EPD and NC DEQ, respectively, submitted commitment letters to EPA requesting conditional approval of the PSD-related requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (Prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J) of the aforementioned infrastructure SIP revisions. In these letters, Georgia and North Carolina make commitments to satisfy the PSD program requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (Prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS by revising their PSD regulations to reflect the most recent version of Appendix W and submitting SIP revisions containing these revised rules within one year of final conditional approval.8 If Georgia and North Carolina meet their respective commitments within one year of final conditional approval, the aforementioned PSD-related requirements of the conditionally approved portions of the infrastructure SIP submissions will remain a part of the SIP until EPA takes final action approving or disapproving the new SIP revision(s). However, if either of the States fail to submit these revisions within the one-year timeframe, the conditional approval will automatically become a disapproval one year from EPA’s final conditional approval and EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. EPA is not required to propose the finding of disapproval. If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval, the final disapproval 8 See Georgia and North Carolina’s letters dated November 14, 2019, and December 16, 2019, respectively, for a detailed description and schedule of adoption for the rules being modified. These letters are contained in the docket for this proposed action. PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 7697 triggers the FIP requirement under CAA section 110(c). V. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the portions of Georgia’s and North Carolina’s September 24, 2018, and September 27, 2018, 2015 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP submissions, respectively, that address the PSDrelated requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (Prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J). All other outstanding applicable infrastructure requirements for these SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. 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 proposes to approve 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); • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866; • 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); E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM 11FEP1 7698 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules • 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. [EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0230; FRL–9998–74] several comments, the Agency is reproposing this action in order to clarify its proposed rulemaking. In addition, since the publication of the initial proposal, the registrant has requested that the Agency establish tolerances for additional commodities. The Agency is undertaking this action under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 13, 2020. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification number EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0230, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. • Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001. • Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at https:// www.epa.gov/dockets/where-sendcomments-epa-dockets. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at https:// www.epa.gov/dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Overstreet, Deputy Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001; main telephone number: (703) 305–7090; email address: BPPDFRNotices@ epa.gov. RIN 2070–ZA16 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: January 28, 2020. Mary S. Walker, Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 2020–02609 Filed 2–10–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 Banda de Lupinus Albus Doce (BLAD); Proposal To Revoke Exemption and Establish Pesticide Tolerances Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency). ACTION: Proposed rule; reproposal. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS AGENCY: On May 29, 2015, EPA proposed to revoke the current exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of banda de Lupinus albus doce (BLAD) in or on all food commodities and to establish tolerances for residues of BLAD in or on almonds, grapes, strawberries, and tomatoes. Following the receipt of SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Feb 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD–ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets#tips. II. This Proposal A. What is the authority for this action? EPA is taking this action under section 408(e) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), which allows EPA to issue regulations, including establishing tolerances and revoking exemptions, on its own initiative. Under FFDCA section 408(e), the Agency applies the same standards for establishing tolerances and revoking exemptions found in FFDCA section 408(b) and (c), 21 U.S.C. 346a(b) and (c). FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.’’ This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM 11FEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7695-7698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02609]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0503; FRL-10005-09-Region 4]


Air Plan Approvals; GA and NC; Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
conditionally approve portions of the Georgia and North Carolina 
infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions for the 2015 
8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) provided to 
EPA on September 24, 2018, and September 27, 2018, respectively. 
Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, the Clean Air Act (CAA 
or Act) requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the 
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each such NAAQS, 
commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP.'' Specifically, EPA is 
proposing to conditionally approve the portions of the Georgia and 
North Carolina infrastructure SIP submissions related to the prevention 
of significant deterioration (PSD) infrastructure elements for the 2015 
8-hour ozone NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 12, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-
OAR-2019-0503, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment 
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward of 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. Ms. Ward can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9140 or 
via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    On October 1, 2015, EPA promulgated a revised primary and secondary 
NAAQS for ozone, revising the 8-hour ozone standards from 0.075 parts 
per million (ppm) to a new more protective level of 0.070 ppm. See 80 
FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, 
states are required to submit SIP revisions meeting the applicable 
requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation 
of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may 
prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP 
elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program 
requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure 
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. This particular type of SIP is 
commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP.'' States were required 
to submit such SIP revisions for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS to EPA no 
later than October 1, 2018.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 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 SIP. In addition, certain 
federally-approved, non-SIP regulations may also be appropriate for 
demonstrating compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to conditionally approve \2\ the portions of 
Georgia's September 24, 2018, SIP revision provided to EPA through the 
Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) and North Carolina's 
September

[[Page 7696]]

27, 2018,\3\ SIP revision provided to EPA through the North Carolina 
Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) that address the PSD-
related infrastructure SIP requirements under sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prohibiting interference with PSD in other 
states), and 110(a)(2)(J) (also referred to as infrastructure elements 
C, D(i) prong 3, and J, respectively) of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 
These provisions are discussed in further detail in Section III, below. 
All other applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP 
submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Under CAA section 110(k)(4), EPA may conditionally approve a 
SIP revision based on a commitment from a state to adopt specific 
enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than one year 
from the date of approval. If the state fails to meet the commitment 
within one year of the final conditional approval, the conditional 
approval automatically becomes a disapproval on that date and EPA 
will issue a finding of disapproval.
    \3\ The September 27, 2018, SIP submission provided by NC DEQ's 
Division of Air Quality was received by EPA on October 10, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the PSD elements of 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), EPA 
interprets the CAA to require each state to make, for each new or 
revised NAAQS, an infrastructure SIP submission that demonstrates that 
the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program meeting the 
current requirements for all regulated new source review (NSR) 
pollutants. The requirements of element 110(D)(i)(II) (prong 3) may 
also be satisfied by demonstrating that the air agency has a complete 
PSD permitting program correctly addressing all regulated NSR 
pollutants.

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

    As discussed above, whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised 
NAAQS, CAA section 110(a)(1) requires states to submit infrastructure 
SIPs that meet the various requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), as 
applicable. Due to ambiguity in some of the language of CAA section 
110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret these 
provisions in the specific context of acting on infrastructure SIP 
submissions. EPA has previously provided comprehensive guidance on the 
application of these provisions through a guidance document for 
infrastructure SIP submissions and through regional actions on 
infrastructure submissions.\4\ Unless otherwise noted below, EPA is 
following that existing approach in acting on these submissions. In 
addition, in the context of acting on such infrastructure submissions, 
EPA evaluates the submitting state's implementation plan for facial 
compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, not for the 
state's implementation of its SIP.\5\ EPA has other authority to 
address any issues concerning a state's implementation of the rules, 
regulations, consent orders, etc. that comprise its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA explains and elaborates on these ambiguities and its 
approach to address them in its September 13, 2013 Infrastructure 
SIP Guidance (available at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf), as well as in numerous agency actions, including EPA's prior 
actions on Georgia and North Carolina infrastructure SIPs to address 
the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS. See 81 FR 41905 (June 28, 2016) and 
81 FR 47115 (July 20, 2016), respectively.
    \5\ See Mont. Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. Thomas, 902 F.3d 971 (9th 
Cir. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What are the infrastructure requirements for sections 
110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (Prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J) for 
Georgia and North Carolina?

    Section 110(a)(2)(C) has three components that must be addressed in 
infrastructure SIP submissions: Enforcement, state-wide regulation of 
new and modified minor sources and minor modifications of major 
sources, and PSD permitting of new major sources and major 
modifications in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the 
subject NAAQS as required by the CAA title I part C (i.e., the major 
source PSD program).
    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)(J) has four components related to: (1) 
Consultation with government officials, (2) public notification, (3) 
PSD, and (4) visibility protection.
    This proposed rulemaking relates only to the PSD-related 
requirements of sections 110(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3), and 
110(a)(2)(J) which as previously described, require that the SIP 
contain adequate provisions to provide for the preconstruction PSD 
permitting for major sources, and prohibit emissions activity in one 
state interfering with measures required to prevent significant 
deterioration of air quality in another state. More information on 
these requirements and EPA's rationale for this proposal that Georgia 
and North Carolina are conditionally meeting these requirements for 
purposes of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS is provided below. All other 
applicable infrastructure requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
associated with these States have been or will be addressed in separate 
rulemakings.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Georgia and North Carolina addressed 
relevant portions of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (Prong 
3), and 110(a)(2)(J)?

    110(a)(2)(C) Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and for 
Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources: For the major 
source PSD program sub-element of section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA interprets 
the CAA to require that a state's infrastructure SIP submission for a 
particular NAAQS demonstrate that the state has a complete PSD 
permitting program in place covering the PSD requirements for all 
regulated NSR pollutants.\6\ A state's PSD permitting program is 
complete for this sub-element (and prong 3 of D(i) and J related to 
PSD) if EPA has already approved or is simultaneously approving the 
state's implementation plan with respect to all PSD requirements that 
are due under EPA regulations or the CAA on or before the date of EPA's 
proposed action on the infrastructure SIP submission. Georgia's and 
North Carolina's 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submissions 
cite a number of SIP provisions to address the major source PSD program 
sub-element of section 110(a)(2)(C) as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See EPA's September 13, 2013, memorandum entitled ``Guidance 
on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under 
Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Georgia

    Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission cites the following rules 
to meet the PSD program requirements of 110(a)(2)(C): Georgia Rules for 
Air Quality Control 391-3-1-.02--``Provisions. Amended,'' including PSD 
requirements under Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)--``Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration,'' 391-3-1-.03--``Permits. Amended,'' including 391-3-
1-.03(1)--``Construction (SIP) Permit,'' and 391-3-1-.03--``Permits. 
Amended,''

[[Page 7697]]

including 391-3-1-.03(2)--``Operating (SIP) Permit.''

North Carolina

    North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission cites the following 
rules to meet the PSD program requirements of 110(a)(2)(C): 15A North 
Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 2D .0500--``Emission Control 
Standards'' and 15A NCAC 2D .0530--``Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration.''
    These SIP-approved regulations were submitted to EPA by Georgia and 
North Carolina to provide that new major sources and major 
modifications in areas of the State designated attainment or 
unclassifiable for any given NAAQS are subject to a federally-approved 
PSD permitting program meeting all the current structural requirements 
of part C of title I of the CAA. However, the Georgia and North 
Carolina SIPs do not contain or reference the most recent version of 
EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models, codified at 40 CFR part 51, 
Appendix W.\7\ EPA's PSD regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(l) require that 
modeling be conducted in accordance with Appendix W. As detailed in 
EPA's September 2013 infrastructure SIP guidance, approval of element C 
requires a fully approved PSD permitting program, which requires 
application of Appendix W consistent with EPA's PSD implementing 
regulations, and approval of elements D(i)(II) and J is contingent on 
an approvable PSD program. Therefore, Georgia and North Carolina have 
committed to update their PSD regulations to reference the most current 
version of Appendix W and submit SIP revisions containing the revised 
regulations. These commitments are discussed in more detail later in 
this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA approved the most recent version of Appendix W on 
January 17, 2017, at 82 FR 5182.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 3: With regard to prong 3 of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), a state may meet this requirement by a 
confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that new major 
sources and major modifications in the state are subject to a PSD 
program meeting current structural requirements of part C, or (if the 
state contains a nonattainment area that has the potential to impact 
PSD in another state) a nonattainment NSR program. To meet prong 3, 
Georgia cites Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)--``Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration'' and North Carolina cites 15A NCAC 2D .0530--
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration.''
    110(a)(2)(J) PSD: With regard to the PSD element of section 
110(a)(2)(J), this requirement is met by a state's confirmation in an 
infrastructure SIP submission that the state has a SIP-approved PSD 
program meeting all the current requirements of part C of title I of 
the CAA for all NSR regulated pollutants. To meet element J, Georgia 
cites Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)--``Prevention of Significant Deterioration'' 
and North Carolina cites 15A NCAC 2D .0530--``Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration.''
    As mentioned above, Georgia and North Carolina cite to several 
regulations to demonstrate that their respective SIPs meet the PSD-
related requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 
(Prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J), but their SIP-approved PSD programs do not 
contain or reference the most recent version of Appendix W. On November 
14, 2019, and December 16, 2019, GA EPD and NC DEQ, respectively, 
submitted commitment letters to EPA requesting conditional approval of 
the PSD-related requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (Prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J) of the aforementioned 
infrastructure SIP revisions. In these letters, Georgia and North 
Carolina make commitments to satisfy the PSD program requirements of 
sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (Prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J) 
for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS by revising their PSD regulations to 
reflect the most recent version of Appendix W and submitting SIP 
revisions containing these revised rules within one year of final 
conditional approval.\8\ If Georgia and North Carolina meet their 
respective commitments within one year of final conditional approval, 
the aforementioned PSD-related requirements of the conditionally 
approved portions of the infrastructure SIP submissions will remain a 
part of the SIP until EPA takes final action approving or disapproving 
the new SIP revision(s). However, if either of the States fail to 
submit these revisions within the one-year timeframe, the conditional 
approval will automatically become a disapproval one year from EPA's 
final conditional approval and EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. 
EPA is not required to propose the finding of disapproval. If the 
conditional approval is converted to a disapproval, the final 
disapproval triggers the FIP requirement under CAA section 110(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Georgia and North Carolina's letters dated November 14, 
2019, and December 16, 2019, respectively, for a detailed 
description and schedule of adoption for the rules being modified. 
These letters are contained in the docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the portions of Georgia's 
and North Carolina's September 24, 2018, and September 27, 2018, 2015 
8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP submissions, respectively, that address 
the PSD-related requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (Prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J). All other outstanding 
applicable infrastructure requirements for these SIP submissions have 
been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings.

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 proposes to approve 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     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);

[[Page 7698]]

     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, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 28, 2020.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2020-02609 Filed 2-10-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.