[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 18, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64797-64803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27357]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0544; FRL-9988-02-Region 4]


Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
State of Alabama through the Alabama Department of Environmental 
Management (ADEM) with a letter dated June 26, 2018. Alabama's SIP 
revision (Progress Report) addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that require each state to submit periodic 
reports describing progress towards reasonable

[[Page 64798]]

progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination 
of the adequacy of the State's existing SIP addressing regional haze 
(regional haze plan). EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's 
determination that the State's regional haze plan is adequate to meet 
these RPGs for the first implementation period covering through 2018 
and requires no substantive revision at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 8, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0544 at http://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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Brad Akers, 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. Mr. Akers can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9089 or 
electronic mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a1b111f08095418081b1e3a1f0a1b541d150c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b6d7ddd3c4c598d4c4d7d2f6d3c6d798d1d9c0">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    States are required to submit progress reports that evaluate 
progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I federal area \1\ 
(Class I area) within the state and for each Class I area outside the 
state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. See 40 
CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require 
states to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress 
reports, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing 
regional haze plan. The first progress report is due five years after 
submittal of the initial regional haze plan and must be submitted as a 
SIP revision. Alabama submitted its regional haze plan on July 15, 
2008, as later amended in a SIP revision submitted on October 26, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)). 
Listed at 40 CFR part 81 Subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like many other states subject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule 
(CAIR), Alabama relied on CAIR in its regional haze plan to meet 
certain requirements of EPA's Regional Haze Rule, including best 
available retrofit technology (BART) requirements for emissions of 
sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) and nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) 
from certain electric generating units (EGUs) in the State.\2\ This 
reliance was consistent with EPA's regulations at the time that Alabama 
developed its regional haze plan. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). 
However, in 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur 
to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR. North Carolina 
v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 
48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace CAIR and issued Federal 
Implementation Plans (FIPs) to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject 
states.\3\ Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1, 
2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR program. However, 
numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR, and at the end of 
2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order staying CSAPR pending resolution 
of the petitions and directing EPA to continue to administer CAIR. 
Order of December 30, 2011, in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 
D.C. Cir. No. 11-1302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CAIR required certain states, including Alabama, to reduce 
emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> that significantly 
contribute to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) and ozone. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
    \3\ CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from EGUs in 27 states in the Eastern 
United States that significantly contribute to downwind 
nonattainment of the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and ozone NAAQS, 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38515), EPA finalized a limited approval of 
Alabama's regional haze plan as meeting some of the applicable regional 
haze requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and 
in 40 CFR 51.300-308. Separately, in a June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), 
action, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of Alabama's regional haze 
plan because of deficiencies arising from the State's reliance on CAIR 
to satisfy certain regional haze requirements. Also on June 7, 2012, 
EPA promulgated FIPs to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR 
to address deficiencies in CAIR-dependent regional haze plans of 
several states, including Alabama's regional haze plan. Following 
additional litigation and the lifting of the stay, EPA began 
implementation of CSAPR on January 1, 2015.
    Certain CSAPR Phase 2 emissions budgets were remanded to EPA for 
reconsideration.\4\ However, the CSAPR trading programs remained in 
effect and all CSAPR emissions budgets likewise remained in effect 
while EPA addressed the remands. The remanded budgets included the 
CSAPR Phase 2 SO<INF>2</INF> emissions budget applicable to Alabama 
units under the federal CSAPR SO<INF>2</INF> Group 2 Trading Program. 
On October 26, 2015, Alabama submitted a SIP revision to EPA which 
sought to adopt CSAPR at the state level and to change reliance from 
CAIR to CSAPR for certain regional haze requirements. This submittal 
also adopted the remanded SO<INF>2</INF> Phase 2 budget for the State. 
EPA approved portions of the October 26, 2015, submittal on August 31, 
2016 (81 FR 59869), including the adoption of CSAPR unit requirements 
for SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading programs, thereby 
replacing the FIP obligations in the State for these two programs.\5\ 
The August 31, 2016, final rule also approved Alabama's adoption of the 
remanded federal SO<INF>2</INF> Phase 2 budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 138 
(D.C. Cir. 2015).
    \5\ Large EGUs in Alabama were subject to additional CSAPR FIP 
provisions requiring them to participate in the federal CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading program. While Alabama's October 
26, 2015, SIP submittal also sought to replace the CSAPR FIP 
requirements addressing Alabama units' ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions, EPA did not act on that portion of the SIP submittal 
until October 6, 2017, when it acted on Alabama's May 19, 2017 SIP 
revision. See 82 FR 46674.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, on May 19, 2017, Alabama submitted a SIP revision to 
address additional requirements for the NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season 
requirements for CSAPR. On October 6, 2017 (82 FR 46674), EPA approved 
Alabama's adoption of a state allowance trading program to replace 
federal NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season requirements under CSAPR, thereby 
replacing the remainder of the CSAPR FIP. On October 12, 2017, EPA

[[Page 64799]]

approved the regional haze portion of Alabama's October 26, 2015 (82 FR 
47393), SIP submission to change reliance from CAIR to CSAPR for 
certain regional haze requirements and converted EPA's limited 
approval/limited disapproval to a full approval.
    On June 27, 2018,\6\ Alabama submitted its Progress Report which, 
among other things, details the progress made in the first period 
toward implementation of the long term strategy outlined in the State's 
regional haze plan; the visibility improvement measured at the Sipsey 
Wilderness Area (the only Class I area within Alabama); and a 
determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze 
plan. EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's June 26, 2018, Progress 
Report for the reasons discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA notes that the cover letter was dated June 26, 2018. The 
submittal date is the date of receipt, which was June 27, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Evaluation of Alabama's Progress Report and Adequacy 
Determination

A. Regional Haze Progress Report

    This section includes EPA's analysis of Alabama's Progress Report 
and an explanation of the basis for the Agency's proposed approval.
1. Control Measures
    In its Progress Report, Alabama summarizes the status of the 
emissions reduction measures that were relied upon by the State in its 
regional haze plan and included in the final iteration of the 
Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast 
(VISTAS) regional haze emissions inventory and RPG modeling used by the 
State in developing its regional haze plan. The measures include, among 
other things, applicable federal programs (e.g., mobile source rules, 
Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards), federal consent 
agreements, and federal control strategies for EGUs. Alabama also 
reviewed the status of BART requirements for the two BART-subject 
sources for NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> in the State--Solutia, 
Inc., Decatur facility and International Paper Company, Courtland 
facility--and described several court decisions addressing CAIR and 
CSAPR.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Progress Report, pp. 9-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section I of this notice, a number of states, 
including Alabama, submitted regional haze plans that relied on CAIR to 
meet certain regional haze requirements. EPA finalized a limited 
disapproval of Alabama's 2008 regional haze plan due to this reliance 
and promulgated a FIP to replace the State's reliance on CAIR with 
reliance on CSAPR. Although a number of parties challenged the legality 
of CSAPR and the D.C. Circuit initially vacated and remanded CSAPR to 
EPA in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 
2012), the United States Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's 
decision on April 29, 2014, and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit 
to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the high court's ruling. 
EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On 
remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects, and CSAPR is 
now in effect. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 
(D.C. Cir. 2015). Because CSAPR should result in greater emissions 
reductions of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> than CAIR throughout 
the affected region, EPA expects Alabama to maintain and continue its 
progress towards its RPGs for 2018 through continued, and additional, 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> reductions. See generally 76 FR 48208 
(August 8, 2011).
    In the State's 2008 regional haze plan and Progress Report, Alabama 
focuses its assessment on SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from EGUs because of 
VISTAS' findings that ammonium sulfate accounted for 69-87 percent of 
the visibility-impairing pollution in the VISTAS states and roughly 75 
percent of the visibility-impairing pollution at the Sipsey Wilderness 
Area on the 20 percent worst visibility days. Alabama determined in its 
2008 regional haze plan that no additional controls for sources in the 
State were needed to make reasonable progress for SO<INF>2</INF> during 
the first implementation period.\8\ In its regional haze plan, Alabama 
identified 19 Alabama EGUs at six facilities located in the area of 
influence of Alabama's Class I area using the State's methodology for 
determining sources eligible for a reasonable progress control 
determination. Because these 19 EGUs were subject to CAIR and the 
Sipsey Wilderness Area was projected to exceed the uniform rate of 
progress during the first implementation period, ADEM opted not to 
require any additional emissions reductions for reasonable progress for 
the first implementation period.\9\ Alabama's Progress Report indicates 
that SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from all in-state EGUs have decreased by 
approximately 71 percent from 2002 to 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 77 FR 11937, 11946 (February 28, 2012).
    \9\ See 77 FR 11949 and Section 7.6 of Alabama's 2008 regional 
haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because many states had not yet defined their criteria for 
identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress at the time 
Alabama was developing the State's 2008 regional haze plan, Alabama 
initially applied the State's criteria for identifying emissions units 
eligible for a reasonable progress control analysis as a screening tool 
to identify Class I areas outside of the State potentially impacted by 
Alabama sources. Alabama identified the following Class I areas as 
potentially impacted by Alabama sources: Cohutta Wilderness Area in 
Georgia; Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area in North Carolina; St. 
Marks Wilderness Area in Florida; and Breton Wilderness Area in 
Louisiana.\10\ Additionally, North Carolina identified an Alabama 
source (Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)--Widows Creek) as meeting 
North Carolina's threshold for a reasonable progress control evaluation 
at one of its Class I areas (Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area). 
Alabama determined that there were no additional controls that would be 
reasonable to require of this source for the first implementation 
period. Alabama also consulted with Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana and 
concluded that no Alabama sources were identified by these states as 
meeting their criteria for a reasonable progress control 
evaluation.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 77 FR 11956.
    \11\ See 77 FR 11956 and Appendix J of Alabama's 2008 regional 
haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that Alabama has adequately addressed the 
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the 
implementation status of control measures because the State described 
the implementation of measures within Alabama, including BART at BART-
subject sources for NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>.
2. Emissions Reductions
    As discussed in Section II.A.1. of this notice, Alabama focused its 
assessment in its regional haze plan and Progress Report on 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from EGUs because of VISTAS' findings that 
ammonium sulfate is the primary component of visibility-impairing 
pollution in the VISTAS states. In its Progress Report, Alabama 
provides 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011, and 2012 SO<INF>2</INF> emissions data 
from EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) for EGUs in the State. 
Actual SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reductions from 2002-2012 for these 
Alabama EGUs (319,428 tons) have already exceeded the projected 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reductions from 2002 to 2018 estimated in 
Alabama's regional haze plan for these EGUs (312,397 tons).\12\ Alabama 
also includes cumulative

[[Page 64800]]

volatile organic compounds (VOC), fine particulate matter 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>), coarse particulate matter (PM<INF>10</INF>), 
ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>), SO<INF>2</INF>, and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
data from 2002, 2007, and 2011 for point sources. For the five-year 
period covered by the Progress Report, the 2011 National Emissions 
Inventory (NEI) was the latest available inventory.\13\ This data shows 
a decline in these emissions over this time period and shows that the 
SO<INF>2</INF> reductions are greater than those estimated for these 
units between 2002-2018 in the State's regional haze plan. The 
emissions reductions identified by Alabama are due, in part, to the 
implementation of measures included in the State's regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Progress Report, Figure 4, p. 14.
    \13\ See the EPA's website for additional data and documentation 
for the 2011 version of the NEI (https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2011-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that Alabama has adequately addressed the 
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions 
reductions because the State identifies SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
reductions from EGUs in Alabama, the largest sources of SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions in the State.
3. Visibility Conditions
    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) require that states with 
Class I areas within their borders provide information on current 
visibility conditions and the difference between current visibility 
conditions and baseline visibility conditions expressed in terms of 
five-year averages of these annual values.
    Alabama's Progress Report provides visibility monitoring data for 
the Sipsey Wilderness Area. Alabama reported current visibility 
conditions as the 2009-2013 five-year time period and used the 2000-
2004 baseline period for the State's Class I area.\14\ Alabama also 
provided 20 percent worst day and 20 percent best day visibility data 
for each year from 2004-2013 in terms of five-year averages. Table 1 
shows the visibility conditions for the 2009-2013 five-year time 
period, the difference between the current visibility conditions and 
baseline visibility conditions, and the RPGs for the Sipsey Wilderness 
Area in the State's 2008 regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For the first regional haze plans, ``baseline'' conditions 
were represented by the 2000-2004 time period. See 64 FR 35730 (July 
1, 1999).

              Table 1--Baseline Visibility, RPGs, and Current Visibility in Alabama's Class I Area
                                                   [Deciviews]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Baseline (2000-                 Current (2009-
                          Class I area                                 2004)        RPGs (2018)        2013)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              20 Percent Best Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sipsey Wilderness Area..........................................            15.6           14.22           12.82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              20 Percent Worst Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sipsey Wilderness Area..........................................            29.0           23.53           22.91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 1, the Sipsey Wilderness Area saw an improvement 
in visibility between baseline and the 2009-2013 time period.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Progress Report, Table 3, p. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that Alabama has adequately addressed the 
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding visibility 
conditions because the State provided baseline visibility conditions, 
visibility conditions for the 2009-2013 five-year time period, the 
difference between these sets of visibility conditions, and five-year 
visibility averages at the Sipsey Wilderness Area from 2004-2013.
4. Emissions Tracking
    In its Progress Report, Alabama presents data from a statewide 
actual emissions inventory for 2007, developed through the Southeastern 
Modeling, Analysis and Planning (SEMAP) partnership and compares this 
data to the baseline emissions inventory for 2002 (actual emissions). 
The pollutants inventoried include: VOC, NH<INF>3</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, and SO<INF>2</INF>. 
The emissions inventories include the following source classifications: 
Point, area, biogenic (e.g., VOC from vegetation, emissions from 
fires), non-road mobile, and on-road mobile sources. As discussed in 
Section II.A.2, above, Alabama also presented 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011, 
and 2012 SO<INF>2</INF> data for EGUs in Alabama and 2011 emissions for 
point sources in Alabama.
    SEMAP estimated on-road mobile source emissions in the 2007 
inventory using EPA's MOVES model. This model tends to estimate higher 
emissions for NO<INF>X</INF> and particulate matter than its previous 
counterpart, EPA's MOBILE6.2 model, used by the State to estimate on-
road mobile source emissions for the 2002 inventories. Due in part to 
the change in methodology, there are increases in NO<INF>X</INF>, 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF>, in the 2007 actual on-road 
emissions, while VOC, NH<INF>3</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> mobile 
emissions show decreases from the actual 2002 emissions, as can be seen 
when comparing Tables 2 and 3. Apart from this, decreases in total 
pollutant emissions can be seen for each pollutant potentially 
impacting visibility.
    Additionally, ADEM included the 2011 point source actual emissions 
inventory from the 2011 NEI, Version 2, included in Table 4, below. The 
actual point source emissions in 2011 showed significant reductions for 
all pollutants when compared to both the 2002 and 2007 inventories. 
These point source emissions have already exceeded the reductions 
expected in the 2018 projected year inventory, which can be seen in 
Table 5, below.

                                              Table 2--2002 Actual Emissions Inventory Summary for Alabama
                                                                          [tpy]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Source category                            VOC             NOX            PM2.5           PM10             NH3             SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................          49,323         238,007          23,353          33,084           2,121         520,217
Area....................................................         209,200          34,900         101,442         444,259          60,275          54,812

[[Page 64801]]

 
On-Road Mobile..........................................         137,086         170,047           3,006           4,188           5,968           7,386
Non-Road Mobile.........................................          60,487          65,366           4,526           4,949              33           7,584
Biogenic................................................       1,751,809          14,873               0               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................       2,207,904         523,191         132,328         486,481          68,397         590,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                              Table 3--2007 Actual Emissions Inventory Summary for Alabama
                                                                          [tpy]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Source category                            VOC             NOX            PM2.5           PM10             NH3             SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................          38,877         197,963          24,930          34,776           2,191         526,620
Area....................................................          79,030           3,940          41,587         349,981          62,426             431
On-Road Mobile..........................................          77,078         172,668           5,887           7,861           2,823           1,509
Non-Road Mobile.........................................          52,230          63,588           4,121           4,424              46           3,469
Biogenic................................................       1,745,263           9,785               0               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................       1,992,478         447,944          76,525         397,042          67,486         532,029
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                      Table 4--2011 Actual Emissions Inventory Summary of Point Sources for Alabama
                                                                       [tpy] \16\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Source category                            VOC             NOX            PM2.5           PM10             NH3             SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................          26,077         121,962          11,124          17,093           1,874         245,802
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 Table 5--2018 Projected Actual Emissions Inventory Summary of Point Sources for Alabama
                                                                       [tpy] 17 18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Source category                            VOC             NOX            PM2.5           PM10             NH3             SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................          57,243         142,676          27,366          37,746           3,536         249,075
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to find that Alabama adequately addressed the 
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions tracking because the 
State compared the most recent updated emission inventory data for the 
five-year period covered by the Progress Report with the baseline 
emissions used in the modeling for the regional haze plan. Furthermore, 
Alabama evaluated EPA Air Markets Program Data \19\ SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions data from 2002-2012 for EGUs in the State because ammonium 
sulfate is the primary component of visibility-impairing pollution in 
the VISTAS states, and EGUs are the largest source of SO<INF>2</INF> in 
the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ADEM included the entire 2011 emissions inventory summary 
in Appendix A of its Progress Report. This inventory shows decreases 
in total emissions for all pollutants since 2002 and 2007.
    \17\ See Section 7 of Alabama's 2008 regional haze plan and page 
18 of the Progress Report for the complete inventory.
    \18\ The Progress Report lists SO<INF>2</INF> projected 2018 
point source emissions as 418,486 tpy. This is an error in carrying 
over information from the 2008 Alabama regional haze plan. The 
correct value is provided in Table 5. See Table 7.2.3-2 of the 2008 
regional haze plan, p. 52 and 77 FR 11945.
    \19\ EPA Air Markets Program Data is available at: https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
    In its Progress Report, Alabama documented that sulfates, which are 
formed from SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, continue to be the biggest single 
contributor to regional haze for the Sipsey Wilderness Area, and 
therefore focused its analysis on large SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from 
point sources.\20\ In its 2008 regional haze plan, Alabama notes that 
sulfates account for 75 percent of the visibility impairment on the 20 
percent worst days and 50 percent of visibility impairment on the 20 
percent best days over the 2000-2004 period. In addressing the 
requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), Alabama shows in the Progress 
Report that the overall contribution of sulfates toward visibility 
impairment has been reduced to 64 percent over the 2008-2012 period for 
the 20 percent worst days and remained approximately the same for the 
20 percent best days. Alabama also examines other potential pollutants 
of concern affecting visibility at the Sipsey Wilderness Area. 
Furthermore, the Progress Report shows that visibility averages for the 
five-year period 2009-2013 are better than the 2018 RPGs for the Sipsey 
Wilderness Area and that SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reductions from 2002-
2012 for EGUs in Alabama have exceeded the projected reductions from 
2002-2018 in the regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Figures 9 and 10 in the Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that Alabama has adequately addressed the 
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding an assessment of significant 
changes in anthropogenic emissions for the reasons discussed above.
6. Assessment of Current Strategy
    Alabama believes that it is on track to meet the 2018 RPGs for the 
Sipsey Wilderness Area, and that the State's sources will not impede 
Class I areas outside of Alabama from meeting their RPGs based on the 
trends in visibility and emissions presented in its Progress Report. 
Alabama notes that the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 
Environments (IMPROVE)

[[Page 64802]]

visibility readings for 2009-2013 generally show greater improvements 
in visibility than projected by the State in establishing the 2018 RPGs 
for the Sipsey Wilderness Area and that SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from 
coal-fired EGUs in the State have decreased from 2002-2012 by more than 
the predicted decline in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from these sources 
for the first implementation period in Alabama's 2008 regional haze 
plan. Alabama expects that these emissions will continue to decrease 
through the first regional haze implementation period.
    As discussed above, Alabama identified the following Class I areas 
as potentially impacted by Alabama sources: Cohutta Wilderness Area in 
Georgia; Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area in North Carolina; St. 
Marks Wilderness Area in Florida; and Breton Wilderness Area in 
Louisiana. In its Progress Report, Alabama notes that it has evaluated 
IMPROVE monitoring data from 2009-2013 for these Class I areas and that 
the trend for each of these areas is at or below the glidepath.\21\ The 
State concludes that given expected continued emission reductions, the 
trends for those areas should continue, and no additional controls are 
needed at this time to meet RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The ``glidepath'' is the rate of progress needed to reach 
natural visibility conditions by 2064 (also referred to as the 
``uniform rate of progress''). See 77 FR 11940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alabama notes that it consulted with other states during the 
development of its 2008 regional haze plan, including Florida, Georgia, 
Louisiana, and North Carolina. Of these states, North Carolina 
identified one unit in Alabama--TVA Widows Creek--as meeting North 
Carolina's criteria for a reasonable progress control evaluation and 
asked Alabama to share its reasonable progress control evaluation for 
this unit. Alabama determined that because this unit was subject to 
CAIR and had a scrubber installed, no additional controls were 
reasonable for this period. See 77 FR 11956. The State reiterates that 
after consultation with each of these states, Alabama was not requested 
to further evaluate any source relative to a regional Class I area. 
Additionally, the State did not request any out-of-state source to 
evaluate impacts on the Sipsey Wilderness Area because no source met 
the State's criteria for a reasonable progress analysis.
    The State notes that, considering the trends in visibility in the 
IMPROVE network, and given SO<INF>2</INF> reductions achieved, it is 
reasonable to assume that these conclusions still stand for the 
purposes of the Progress Report.
    As discussed above, CAIR was implemented during the time period 
evaluated by ADEM for its Progress Report, CAIR has been replaced by 
CSAPR, and the requirements of CSAPR apply to sources in Alabama 
through the State's implementation plan. Alabama's fully approved 
regional haze plan, which now relies on CSAPR rather than CAIR, 
accordingly contains sufficient provisions to ensure that the RPGs of 
Class I areas in nearby states will be achieved.
    EPA proposes to find that Alabama has adequately addressed the 
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the strategy assessment. In 
its Progress Report, Alabama describes the improving visibility trends 
using data from the IMPROVE network and the downward emissions trends 
in key pollutants, with a focus on SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from EGUs 
in the State. ADEM determined that its regional haze plan is sufficient 
to meet the RPGs for its own Class I area and the Class I areas outside 
the State potentially impacted by the emissions from Alabama. EPA 
preliminarily finds that Alabama's conclusion regarding the sufficiency 
of its regional haze plan is appropriate because CAIR was in effect in 
Alabama through 2014, providing the emission reductions relied upon in 
Alabama's regional haze plan through that date. CSAPR is now being 
implemented, and by 2018, the end of the first regional haze 
implementation period, CSAPR will reduce emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> 
and NO<INF>X</INF> from EGUs in Alabama by the same amount assumed by 
EPA when the Agency originally issued the FIP for the State in June 
2012, replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. Because CSAPR, 
now adopted and implemented at the state level, will ensure the control 
of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions relied upon 
by Alabama and other states in setting their RPGs beginning in January 
2015 at least through the remainder of the first implementation period 
in 2018, EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's finding that the plan 
elements and strategies in its implementation plan are sufficient to 
achieve the RPGs for the Class I area in the State and for Class I 
areas in nearby states potentially impacted by sources in the State.
7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy
    In its Progress Report, Alabama summarizes the existing monitoring 
network in the State to monitor visibility at the Sipsey Wilderness 
Area and concludes that no modifications to the existing visibility 
monitoring strategy are necessary. The primary monitoring network for 
regional haze, both nationwide and in Alabama, is the IMPROVE network. 
There is currently one IMPROVE site located in the Sipsey Wilderness 
Area.
    The State explains the importance of the IMPROVE monitoring network 
for tracking visibility trends at the Class I area in Alabama. ADEM 
states that data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network will be 
used for preparing the regional haze progress reports and SIP 
revisions, and thus, the monitoring data from the IMPROVE sites needs 
to be readily accessible and to be kept up to date. The Visibility 
Information Exchange Web System website has been maintained by VISTAS 
and the other Regional Planning Organizations to provide ready access 
to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools.
    In addition, ADEM operates a PM<INF>2.5</INF> network of filter-
based federal reference method monitors and filter-based speciation 
monitors. These PM<INF>2.5</INF> measurements help ADEM characterize 
air pollution levels in areas across the State, and therefore aid in 
the analysis of visibility improvement in and near the Sipsey 
Wilderness Area.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Figure 11 in the Progress Report, p. 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that Alabama has adequately addressed the 
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the monitoring 
strategy because the State reviewed its visibility monitoring strategy 
and determined that no further modifications to the strategy are 
necessary.

B. Determination of Adequacy of the Existing Regional Haze Plan

    In its Progress Report, ADEM submitted a negative declaration to 
EPA that the existing regional haze plan requires no further 
substantive revision at this time to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas 
affected by the State's sources. The State's negative declaration is 
based on the findings from the Progress Report, including the findings 
that: Visibility has already improved at the Sipsey Wilderness Area in 
Alabama such that the visibility averages for the five-year period 
2009-2013 are better than the RPGs for 2018; actual SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions reductions from coal-fired EGUs in Alabama exceed the 
predicted reductions in ADEM's 2008 regional haze plan; additional EGU 
control measures not relied upon in the State's 2008 regional haze plan 
have occurred or will occur during the first implementation period that 
will further reduce SO<INF>2</INF> emissions; and emissions of 
SO<INF>2</INF> from EGUs in Alabama are expected to continue to trend 
downward.

[[Page 64803]]

    EPA proposes to conclude that Alabama has adequately addressed 40 
CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility trends at the Sipsey Wilderness 
Area and at Class I areas outside of the State potentially impacted by 
sources within Alabama and the emissions trends of the largest emitters 
of visibility-impairing pollutants in the State indicate that the 
relevant RPGs will be met.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's June 26, 2018, Regional Haze 
Progress Report as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements 
set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This 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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 6, 2018.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-27357 Filed 12-17-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>