Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 64797 

Therefore, this rule must implement 

RACT. In addition, the rule was 

evaluated to ensure it met the 

commitment made by the AVAQMD 

that served as the basis for the partial 

conditional approval of the AVAQMD 

2006 and 2015 RACT SIPs with respect 

to Rule 462 (82 FR 46923). 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we used to evaluate enforceability, 

revision/relaxation and rule stringency 

requirements for the applicable criteria 

pollutants include the following: 

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 

13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 

(April 28, 1992). 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

4. ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic 

Emissions from Bulk Gasoline Plants,’’ 

EPA–450/2–77–035, December 1977. 

5. ‘‘Control of Hydrocarbons from 

Tank Truck Gasoline Loading 

Terminals,’’ EPA–450/2–77–026, 

October 1977. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

This rule is consistent with CAA 

requirements and relevant guidance 

regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP 

revisions, and meets the District’s 

commitment to remedy the Rule 462 

deficiency identified in the RACT SIP 

conditional approval (82 FR 46923). The 

TSD has more information on our 

evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rule 

The TSD describes additional rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agency modifies the 

rule. 

D. Public Comment and Proposed 

Action 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, the EPA proposes to fully 

approve the submitted rule because it 

fulfills all relevant requirements. We 

will accept comments from the public 

on this proposal until January 17, 2019. 

If we take final action to approve the 

submitted rule, our final action will 

incorporate this rule into the federally 

enforceable SIP. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the AVAQMD rule described in Table 1 

of this preamble. The EPA has made, 

and will continue to make, these 

materials available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region IX Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. 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); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the 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 and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: November 30, 2018. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27362 Filed 12–17–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
64798 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1Areas 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. 

2CAIR required certain states, including 

Alabama, to reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX that 

significantly contribute to downwind 

nonattainment of the 1997 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) and ozone. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 

2005). 

3CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO2

and NOX emissions from EGUs in 27 states in the 

Eastern United States that significantly contribute 

to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5 and 

ozone NAAQS, 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

4EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 

F.3d 118, 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015). 

5Large EGUs in Alabama were subject to 

additional CSAPR FIP provisions requiring them to 

participate in the federal CSAPR NOX 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 NOX 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. 

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 akers.brad@

epa.gov. 

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. 

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 (SO2) and nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) 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 CrossState 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. 

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 SO2

emissions budget applicable to Alabama 

units under the federal CSAPR SO2

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 

SO2 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 SO2 and 

NOX 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 SO2 Phase 2 budget. 

Subsequently, on May 19, 2017, 

Alabama submitted a SIP revision to 

address additional requirements for the 

NOX 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 NOX ozone 

season requirements under CSAPR, 

thereby replacing the remainder of the 

CSAPR FIP. On October 12, 2017, EPA 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 64799 

6EPA notes that the cover letter was dated June 

26, 2018. The submittal date is the date of receipt, 

which was June 27, 2018. 

7Progress Report, pp. 9–11. 

8See 77 FR 11937, 11946 (February 28, 2012). 

9See 77 FR 11949 and Section 7.6 of Alabama’s 

2008 regional haze plan. 

10See 77 FR 11956. 

11See 77 FR 11956 and Appendix J of Alabama’s 

2008 regional haze plan. 

12Progress Report, Figure 4, p. 14. 

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. 

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 NOX and SO2 in the State— 

Solutia, Inc., Decatur facility and 

International Paper Company, Courtland 

facility—and described several court 

decisions addressing CAIR and CSAPR.7

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 

SO2 and NOX than CAIR throughout the 

affected region, EPA expects Alabama to 

maintain and continue its progress 

towards its RPGs for 2018 through 

continued, and additional, SO2 and NOX

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 SO2 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 visibilityimpairing 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 SO2 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 SO2

emissions from all in-state EGUs have 

decreased by approximately 71 percent 

from 2002 to 2012. 

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 KilmerSlickrock 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

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 NOX

and SO2. 

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 SO2 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 SO2

emissions data from EPA’s Clean Air 

Markets Division (CAMD) for EGUs in 

the State. Actual SO2 emissions 

reductions from 2002–2012 for these 

Alabama EGUs (319,428 tons) have 

already exceeded the projected SO2

emissions reductions from 2002 to 2018 

estimated in Alabama’s regional haze 

plan for these EGUs (312,397 tons).12

Alabama also includes cumulative 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
64800 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

13See 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). 

14For the first regional haze plans, ‘‘baseline’’ 

conditions were represented by the 2000–2004 time 

period. See 64 FR 35730 (July 1, 1999). 

15Progress Report, Table 3, p. 15. 

volatile organic compounds (VOC), fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5), coarse 

particulate matter (PM10), ammonia 

(NH3), SO2, and NOX 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 

SO2 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. 

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 SO2 emissions 

reductions from EGUs in Alabama, the 

largest sources of SO2 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 fiveyear 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. 

TABLE 1—BASELINE VISIBILITY, RPGS, AND CURRENT VISIBILITY IN ALABAMA’S CLASS I AREA

[Deciviews] 

Class I area Baseline 

(2000–2004) 

RPGs 

(2018) 

Current 

(2009–2013) 

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

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, NH3, NOX, 

PM2.5, PM10, and SO2. The emissions 

inventories include the following source 

classifications: Point, area, biogenic 

(e.g., VOC from vegetation, emissions 

from fires), non-road mobile, and onroad mobile sources. As discussed in 

Section II.A.2, above, Alabama also 

presented 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011, and 

2012 SO2 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 

NOX and particulate matter than its 

previous counterpart, EPA’s MOBILE6.2 

model, used by the State to estimate onroad mobile source emissions for the 

2002 inventories. Due in part to the 

change in methodology, there are 

increases in NOX, PM2.5 and PM10, in 

the 2007 actual on-road emissions, 

while VOC, NH3 and SO2 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 64801 

16ADEM 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. 

17See Section 7 of Alabama’s 2008 regional haze 

plan and page 18 of the Progress Report for the 

complete inventory. 

18The Progress Report lists SO2 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. 

19EPA Air Markets Program Data is available at: 

https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/. 20See Figures 9 and 10 in the Progress Report. 

TABLE 2—2002 ACTUAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR ALABAMA—Continued 

[tpy] 

Source category VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

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 SO2 emissions data 

from 2002–2012 for EGUs in the State 

because ammonium sulfate is the 

primary component of visibilityimpairing pollution in the VISTAS 

states, and EGUs are the largest source 

of SO2 in the State. 

5. Assessment of Changes Impeding 

Visibility Progress 

In its Progress Report, Alabama 

documented that sulfates, which are 

formed from SO2 emissions, continue to 

be the biggest single contributor to 

regional haze for the Sipsey Wilderness 

Area, and therefore focused its analysis 

on large SO2 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 

SO2 emissions reductions from 2002– 

2012 for EGUs in Alabama have 

exceeded the projected reductions from 

2002–2018 in the regional haze plan. 

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) 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
64802 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

21The ‘‘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. 22See Figure 11 in the Progress Report, p. 24. 

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 SO2

emissions from coal-fired EGUs in the 

State have decreased from 2002–2012 by 

more than the predicted decline in SO2

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. 

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 SO2 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 SO2

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 SO2 and NOX

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 SO2 and NOX 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 PM2.5

network of filter-based federal reference 

method monitors and filter-based 

speciation monitors. These PM2.5

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

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 SO2

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 SO2 emissions; and emissions of 

SO2 from EGUs in Alabama are expected 

to continue to trend downward. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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: 

• 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); 

• 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, 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 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Children and 

Families 

45 CFR Parts 302, 303, 307, and 309 

RIN 0970–AC50 

Child Support Technical Corrections 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Office of Child Support 

Enforcement (OCSE), Administration for 

Children and Families (ACF), 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

delay of compliance date. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Child Support 

Enforcement proposes to eliminate 

regulations rendered outdated or 

unnecessary and make technical 

amendments to the Flexibility, 

Efficiency, and Modernization in Child 

Support Enforcement (FEM) final rule, 

published on December 20, 2016, 

including proposing to amend the 

compliance date for review and 

adjustment of child support orders. We 

are also proposing conforming 

amendments to the regulations as a 

result of Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, 

Public Law 115–123. 

DATES: In order to be considered, we 

must receive written comments on this 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

on or before January 17, 2019. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by [docket number and/or 

Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 

number], by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Written comments may be 

submitted to: Office of Child Support 

Enforcement, Attention: Director of 

Policy and Training, 330 C Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20201. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or RIN for this 

rulemaking. All comments received will 

be posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tricia John, Division of Policy and 

Training, OCSE, telephone (202) 260– 

7143. Email inquiries to ocse.dpt@

acf.hhs.gov. Deaf and hearing impaired 

individuals may call the Federal Dual 

Party Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339 

between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. Eastern 

Standard Time. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Submission of Comments 

Comments should be specific, address 

issues raised by the proposed rule, 

propose alternatives where appropriate, 

explain reasons for any objections or 

recommended changes, and reference 

the specific action of the proposed rule 

that is being addressed. Additionally, 

we will be interested in comments that 

indicate agreement with changed or new 

proposals. We will not acknowledge 

receipt of the comments we receive. 

However, we will review and consider 

all comments that are germane and are 

received during the comment period. 

We will respond to these comments in 

the preamble to the Final Rule. 

Statutory Authority 

This NPRM is published under the 

authority granted to the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services by section 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1