Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52701 

the transaction has been reported, 

paragraph (d)(1) shall not be construed 

as prohibiting: 

(A) The disclosure by an investment 

adviser, or any director, officer, 

employee, or agent of an investment 

adviser of: 

(1) A SAR, or any information that 

would reveal the existence of a SAR, to 

FinCEN or any Federal, State, or local 

law enforcement agency, or any Federal 

regulatory authority that examines the 

investment adviser for compliance with 

the Bank Secrecy Act; or 

(2) The underlying facts, transactions, 

and documents upon which a SAR is 

based, including but not limited to 

disclosures to another financial 

institution, or any director, officer, 

employee, or agent of a financial 

institution, for the preparation of a joint 

SAR; or 

(B) The sharing by an investment 

adviser, or any director, officer, 

employee, or agent of the investment 

adviser, of a SAR, or any information 

that would reveal the existence of a 

SAR, within the investment adviser’s 

corporate organizational structure for 

purposes consistent with Title II of the 

Bank Secrecy Act as determined by 

regulation or in guidance. 

(2) Prohibition on disclosures by 

government authorities. A Federal, 

State, local, territorial, or tribal 

government authority, or any director, 

officer, employee, or agent of any of the 

foregoing, shall not disclose a SAR, or 

any information that would reveal the 

existence of a SAR, except as necessary 

to fulfill official duties consistent with 

Title II of the Bank Secrecy Act. For 

purposes of this section, official duties 

shall not include the disclosure of a 

SAR, or any information that would 

reveal the existence of a SAR, to a nongovernmental entity in response to a 

request for disclosure of non-public 

information or a request for use in a 

private legal proceeding, including a 

request pursuant to 31 CFR 1.11. 

(e) Limitation on liability. An 

investment adviser, and any director, 

officer, employee, or agent of any 

investment adviser, that makes a 

voluntary disclosure of any possible 

violation of law or regulation to a 

government agency or makes a 

disclosure pursuant to this section or 

any other authority, including a 

disclosure made jointly with another 

institution, shall be protected from 

liability for any such disclosure, or for 

failure to provide notice of such 

disclosure to any person identified in 

the disclosure, or both, to the full extent 

provided by 31 U.S.C. 5318(g)(3). 

(f) Compliance. Investment advisers 

shall be examined by FinCEN or its 

delegates under the terms of the Bank 

Secrecy Act, for compliance with this 

section. Failure to satisfy the 

requirements of this section may be a 

violation of the Bank Secrecy Act and of 

this part. 

(g) Applicability date. This section 

applies to transactions occurring after 

full implementation of an anti-money 

laundering program required by 

§ 1031.210. 

Subpart D—Records Required To Be 

Maintained by Investment Advisers 

§ 1031.400 General. 

Investment advisers are subject to the 

recordkeeping requirements set forth 

and cross referenced in this subpart. 

Investment advisers should also refer to 

subpart D of part 1010 of this chapter for 

recordkeeping requirements contained 

in that subpart which apply to 

investment advisers. 

§ 1031.410 Recordkeeping. 

Refer to § 1010.410 of this chapter. 

Subpart E—Special Information 

Sharing Procedures To Deter Money 

Laundering and Terrorist Activity 

§ 1031.500 General. 

Investment advisers are subject to the 

special information sharing procedures 

to deter money laundering and terrorist 

activity requirements set forth and cross 

referenced in this subpart. Investment 

advisers should also refer to subpart E 

of part 1010 of this chapter for special 

information sharing procedures to deter 

money laundering and terrorist activity 

contained in that subpart which apply 

to investment advisers. 

§ 1031.520 Special information sharing 

procedures to deter money laundering and 

terrorist activity for investment advisers. 

(a) Refer to § 1010.520 of this chapter. 

(b) [Reserved] 

§ 1031.530 [Reserved] 

§ 1031.540 Voluntary information sharing 

among financial institutions. 

(a) Refer to § 1010.540 of this chapter. 

(b) [Reserved] 

Subpart F—Special Standards of 

Diligence; Prohibitions; and Special 

Measures for Investment Advisers 

§ 1031.600 [Reserved] 

§ 1031.610 [Reserved] 

§ 1031.620 [Reserved] 

§ 1031.630 [Reserved] 

§ 1031.640 [Reserved] 

§ 1031.670 [Reserved] 

Dated: August 24, 2015. 

Jennifer Shasky Calvery 

Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network. 

[FR Doc. 2015–21318 Filed 8–31–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–02–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0079; FRL–9933–31– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Alabama: 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

portions of a revision to the Alabama 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the Alabama Department 

of Environmental Management (ADEM) 

to EPA on May 2, 2011. The proposed 

SIP revision modifies Alabama’s 

nonattainment new source review 

(NNSR) regulations in their entirety to 

be consistent with the federal new 

source review (NSR) regulations for the 

implementation of the criteria pollutant 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). EPA is proposing approval of 

portions of the NNSR rule changes in 

Alabama’s May 2, 2011, SIP revision 

because the Agency has preliminarily 

determined that the changes are 

consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) and federal regulations regarding 

NNSR permitting. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 1, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0079, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-ARMS@epa.gov. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

52702 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1The original submittal, found at Docket ID No. 

EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0079, proposed changes to 

Alabama regulations pertaining to NSR and general 

and transportation conformity found at ADEM 

Administrative Code Chapter 335–3–14—Permits 

(including general permits, prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) and NNSR) and Chapter 335–3– 

17 Conformity of Federal Actions to State 

Implementation Plans, respectively. The first two 

portions of the submittal regarding conformity and 

PSD were acted on by EPA on September 26, 2012 

(See 77 FR 59100). 

2EPA’s regulations governing the implementation 

of NSR permitting programs are contained in 40 

CFR 51.160–.166; 52.21, .24; and part 51, appendix 

S. The CAA NSR program is composed of three 

separate programs: PSD, NNSR, and Minor NSR. 

PSD is established in part C of title I of the CAA 

and applies in areas that meet the NAAQS— 

‘‘attainment areas’’—as well as areas where there is 

insufficient information to determine if the area 

meets the NAAQS—‘‘unclassifiable areas.’’ The 

NNSR program is established in part D of title I of 

the CAA and applies in areas that are not in 

attainment of the NAAQS—‘‘nonattainment areas.’’ 

The Minor NSR program addresses construction or 

modification activities that do not qualify as 

‘‘major’’ and applies regardless of the designation 

of the area in which a source is located. Together, 

these programs are referred to as the NSR programs. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0079,’’ Air Regulatory Management 

Section (formerly Regulatory 

Development Section), Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0079. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information regarding the 

Alabama SIP, contact Mr. 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 by phone at (404) 

562–9089 or via electronic mail at 

akers.brad@epa.gov. For information 

regarding NSR, contact Ms. Yolanda 

Adams, Air Permits Section, at the same 

address above. Telephone number: (404) 

562–9214; email address: 

adams.yolanda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What is EPA’s proposed action for 

changes to Alabama’s NNSR rules? 

On May 2, 2011, ADEM submitted a 

SIP revision to EPA for approval that 

involves changes to Alabama’s 

regulations needed to make them 

consistent with federal requirements for 

general and transportation conformity 

and NSR permitting.1 In this action, 

EPA is proposing to approve the portion 

of Alabama’s May 2, 2011 submission 

that makes changes to Alabama’s NNSR 

program, set forth at ADEM 

Administrative Code, Division 3, 

Chapter 14, Subchapter .05 (ADEM Rule 

335–3–14-.05), which applies to the 

construction and modification of any 

major stationary source in or near a 

nonattainment area (NAA) as required 

by part D of title I of the CAA. 

Alabama’s NNSR regulations at ADEM 

Rule 335–3–14-.05 were originally 

approved into the SIP on November 26, 

1979 (See 44 FR 67375), with periodic 

revisions approved through December 8, 

2000 (See 65 FR 76938). Subsequent 

revisions to Alabama’s NNSR 

regulations have not yet been 

incorporated into Alabama’s SIP. 

Alabama’s May 2, 2011, SIP revision 

replaces the State’s NNSR regulations in 

their entirety with a new version that 

reflects changes to the federal NNSR 

regulations at 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 51.165,2 including 

provisions promulgated in the following 

federal rules: (1) ‘‘Requirements for 

Preparation, Adoption and Submittal of 

Implementation Plans; Approval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans; 

Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources,’’ Final Rule, 57 FR 

32314 (July 21, 1992) (hereafter referred 

to as the Wisconsin Electric Power 

Company (WEPCO) Rule); (2) 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NSR): Baseline Emissions 

Determination, Actual-to-Future-Actual 

Methodology, Plantwide Applicability 

Limitations, Clean Units, Pollution 

Control Projects,’’ Final Rule, 67 FR 

80186 (December 31, 2002) (hereafter 

referred to as the NSR Reform Rule); (3) 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Non-Attainment New Source 

Review (NSR): Reconsideration,’’ Final 

Rule, 68 FR 63021 (November 7, 2003) 

(hereafter referred to as the 

Reconsideration Rule); (4) ‘‘Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Non-Attainment New Source Review 

(NSR): Removal of Vacated Elements,’’ 

Final Rule, 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) 

(hereafter referred to as the Vacated 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52703 

3Airborne particulate matter (PM) with a nominal 

aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (a 

micrometer is one-millionth of a meter, and 2.5 

micrometers is less than one-seventh the average 

width of a human hair) are considered to be ‘‘fine 

particles’’ and are also known as PM2.5. Fine 

particles in the atmosphere are made up of a 

complex mixture of components including sulfate; 

nitrate; ammonium; elemental carbon; a great 

variety of organic compounds; and inorganic 

material (including metals, dust, sea salt, and other 

trace elements) generally referred to as ‘‘crustal’’ 

material, although it may contain material from 

other sources. The health effects associated with 

exposure to PM2.5 include potential aggravation of 

respiratory and cardiovascular disease (i.e., lung 

disease, decreased lung function, asthma attacks 

and certain cardiovascular issues). On July 18, 

1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for PM to add new 

standards for fine particles, using PM2.5 as the 

indicator. Previously, EPA used PM10 (inhalable 

particles smaller than or equal to 10 micrometers 

in diameter) as the indicator for the PM NAAQS. 

EPA established health-based (primary) annual and 

24-hour standards for PM2.5, setting an annual 

standard at a level of 15.0 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) and a 24-hour standard at a level of 

65 mg/m3. See 62 FR 38652. At the time the 1997 

primary standards were established, EPA also 

established welfare-based (secondary) standards 

identical to the primary standards. The secondary 

standards are designed to protect against major 

environmental effects of PM2.5, such as visibility 

impairment, soiling, and materials damage. On 

October 17, 2006, EPA revised the primary and 

secondary 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 to 35 mg/m3

and retained the existing annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 

15.0 mg/m3. See 71 FR 61236. On January 15, 2013, 

EPA published a final rule revising the annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 mg/m3. See 78 FR 3086. 

4The D.C. Circuit vacated the portions of the 

PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule addressing the 

SMC and SILs (and remanded the SILs portion to 

EPA for further consideration) for PSD, but left the 

PM2.5 SILs in place for the NNSR program in the 

table in section 51.165(b)(2). See Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 705 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

5Alabama’s changes to its NNSR regulations (at 

335–3–14–.05(1)(k)) exclude ‘‘chemical process 

plants’’ that produce ethanol through a natural 

fermentation process from the NSR major source 

permitting requirement as promulgated in the 

Ethanol Rule (as amended at 40 CFR 51.165). See 

72 FR 24060 (May 1, 2007). However, due to a 

petition by Natural Resources Defense Council to 

reconsider the rule, EPA is not proposing to take 

action to approve this provision into the Alabama 

SIP at this time. Pending final resolution, EPA will 

make a final determination on action regarding this 

portion of Alabama’s SIP revision. 

6On January 22, 2013, D.C. Circuit granted a 

request from EPA to vacate and remand to the 

Agency the portions of the October 20, 2010 rule 

addressing the SILs for PM2.5, except for the parts 

codifying the PM2.5 SILs in the NNSR rule at 40 CFR 

51.165(b)(2), so that the EPA could voluntarily 

correct an error in the provisions. See Sierra Club 

v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458 at 463–66 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The 

Court also vacated parts of the PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC Rule establishing the PM2.5

SMC, finding that the Agency had exceeded its 

statutory authority with respect to these provisions. 

Id at 469. On December 9, 2013, EPA issued a final 

rulemaking to remove the vacated and remanded 

PM2.5 SILs and the vacated PM2.5 SMC provisions 

from the Federal regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and 

52.21. See 78 FR 73698. 

Elements Rule); (4) ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and 

Nonattainment New Source Review: 

Reasonable Possibility in 

Recordkeeping,’’ Final Rule, 72 FR 

72607 (December 21, 2007), (hereafter 

referred to as the Reasonable Possibility 

Rule); (5) ‘‘Final Rule To Implement the 

8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule 

To Implement Certain Aspects of the 

1990 Amendments Relating to New 

Source Review and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration as They Apply 

in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter 

and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for 

Reformulated Gasoline,’’ Final Rule, 70 

FR 71612 (November 29, 2005) 

(hereafter referred to as the Phase 2 

Rule); (6) ‘‘Implementation of the New 

Source Review (NSR) Program for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5),3’’ Final Rule, 73 

FR 28321 (May 16, 2008) (hereafter 

referred to as the NSR PM2.5 Rule); (7) 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 

2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC),’’ Final Rule, 75 FR 64864 

(October 20, 2010) (hereafter referred to 

as the PM2.5 PSD Increments-SILs-SMC 

Rule 4); and (8) ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

(NSR): Reconsideration of Inclusion of 

Fugitive Emissions; Interim Rule; Stay 

and Revisions’’, Interim Rule, 76 FR 

17548 (March 30, 2011) (hereafter 

referred to as the Fugitive Emissions 

Interim Rule). 

EPA is not, however, proposing to 

approve into the Alabama SIP ADEM 

Rule 335–3–14–.05(1)(k), which 

Alabama promulgated pursuant to the 

federal rule entitled ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration, 

Nonattainment New Source Review, and 

Title V: Treatment of Certain Ethanol 

Production Facilities Under the ‘Major 

Emitting Facility’ Definition’’, Final 

Rule, 72 FR 24060 (May 1, 2007) (or the 

Ethanol Rule).5 EPA is also not acting 

on the provision at Rule 335–3–14– 

.05(2)(c)3 that excludes fugitive 

emissions from the determinion of 

creditable emission increases and 

decreases. (See Sections II.F. and III.F. 

of this notice for details). Finally, EPA 

is not proposing to approve ADEM’s 

rules regarding the PM2.5 significant 

impact levels (SILs) for PSD at Rule 

335–3–14–.04(8)(h)1., the NNSR 

interpollutant offset ratios at ADEM 

Rule 335–3–14-.05(3)(g), or the ‘‘actualto-potential’’ NNSR applicability test at 

ADEM Rule 335–3–14–.05(1)(h), all of 

which ADEM withdrew from EPA’s 

consideration subsequent to the May 2, 

2011 submittal. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

This proposed action to revise the 

NNSR regulations in Alabama’s SIP 

relates to EPA’s WEPCO Rule, 2002 NSR 

Reform Rule (and associated 

Reconsideration Rule and Vacated 

Elements Rule), Reasonable Possibility 

Rule, Phase 2 Rule, NSR PM2.5 Rule, 

PM2.5 PSD Increments-SILs-SMC Rule, 

and Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule. 

Together these rules address the NSR 

permitting requirements needed to 

implement the NAAQS in NAAs. The 

State’s May 2, 2011, revision adopts into 

the Alabama SIP the NNSR 

requirements promulgated in these rules 

to be consistent with federal regulations. 

A brief summary of the abovementioned 

rules as well as details of Alabama’s 

May 2, 2011, SIP submission is 

discussed below. 

Originally, Alabama included PM2.5

SILs and NNSR interpollutant offset 

ratios in the May 2, 2011, SIP 

submission, consistent with the PM2.5

PSD Increments-SILs-SMC Rule. 

However, EPA cannot act on SIL 

provisions for PSD due to the January 

22, 2013, decision by the D.C. Circuit 

vacating and remanding to EPA the SILs 

portion of the PM2.5 PSD IncrementsSILs-SMC Rule for further 

consideration.6 See Sierra Club v. EPA, 

705 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Nor can 

EPA approve the interpollutant offset 

ratios for PM2.5 and selected precursors 

included in the May 2, 2011 

submission, which adopted the EPA 

presumptive ratios from the May 16, 

2008, preamble to the NSR PM2.5

Implementation Rule. After publication, 

these ratios were the subject of a 

petition for reconsideration, which the 

Administrator granted, and are no 

longer presumptively approvable. 

Accordingly, ADEM has since submitted 

a letter to EPA dated October 9, 2014, 

requesting that the PM2.5 SILs 

provisions for PSD and the 

interpollutant trading ratios for NNSR 

be withdrawn from the May 2, 2011, 

submission; therefore these provisions 

are no longer before EPA for 

consideration. ADEM still intends to 

adopt the NNSR interpollutant trading 

policy itself, however, and therefore the 

letter only requested the withdrawal of 

the presumptive ratios. The letter can be 

found in Docket ID: EPA–R04–OAR– 

2012–0079. 

The May 2, 2011, submittal also 

included an ‘‘actual-to-potential’’ NNSR 

applicability test for projects involving 

only existing emissions units at ADEM 

Rule 335–3–14–.05(1)(h). This test, 

which is not contained in the federal 

regulations, utilizes the definition of 

‘‘actual emissions’’ at ADEM Rule 335– 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

52704 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

7The definition of ‘‘actual emissions’’ at ADEM 

Rule 335–3–14–.05(2)(u) is based on the definition 

of ‘‘actual emissions’’ in the federal NNSR 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xii). However, 

the federal regulations expressly state that ‘‘this 

definition shall not apply for calculating whether a 

significant emissions increase has occurred.’’ 40 

CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xii)(A). 

8On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 parts per million—also 

referred to as the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On 

April 30, 2004, EPA designated areas as 

unclassifiable/attainment, nonattainment and 

unclassifiable for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

In addition, on April 30, 2004, as part of the 

framework to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, EPA promulgated an implementation rule 

in two phases (Phase I and II). The Phase I Rule 

(effective on June 15, 2004), provided the 

implementation requirements for designating areas 

under subpart 1 and subpart 2 of the CAA. See 69 

FR 23951. 

3–14-.05(2)(u) for determining whether 

a change to an existing emissions unit 

would result in a significant emissions 

increase that triggers NNSR 

applicability.7 To be consistent with the 

NNSR provisions at 40 CFR 51.165, 

ADEM submitted a letter to EPA on June 

5, 2015, withdrawing the ‘‘actual-topotential’’ applicability test at ADEM 

Rule 335–3–14–.05(1)(h) from the May 

2, 2011, SIP revision. This letter is 

included in the docket for this proposed 

action (Docket ID: EPA–R04–OAR– 

2012–0079). 

A. WEPCO Rule 

On July 21, 1992, EPA finalized the 

WEPCO Rule, which put forward 

regulations arising out of the decision in 

the WEPCO case. See Wisconsin Electric 

Power Co. v. Reilly, 893 F.2d 901 (7th 

Cir. 1990). The WEPCO Rule made 

changes to the NNSR and PSD 

regulations found at 40 CFR 51.165, 

51.166 and 52.21. Relevant to this 

proposed rulemaking, EPA established 

definitions in the WEPCO Rule for 

electric utility steam generating unit 

(EGU), clean coal technology (CCT), 

CCT demonstration project, temporary 

CCT demonstration project, and 

repowering. In addition, the rule 

exempted CCT demonstration projects 

(that constitute repowering) from PSD or 

NNSR requirements (major 

modification), providing the projects do 

not cause an increase in potential to 

emit of a regulated NSR pollutant 

emitted by the unit. 

B. NSR Reform and Reasonable 

Possibility 

On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), 

EPA published final rule changes to 40 

CFR parts 51 and 52 regarding the 

CAA’s PSD and NNSR programs. On 

November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA 

published a notice of final action on the 

reconsideration of the December 31, 

2002, final rule changes. The December 

31, 2002, and the November 7, 2003, 

final actions are collectively referred to 

as the ‘‘2002 NSR Reform Rules.’’ The 

2002 NSR Reform Rules made changes 

to five areas of the NSR programs. In 

summary, the 2002 NSR Reform Rules: 

(1) Provide a new method for 

determining baseline actual emissions; 

(2) adopt an actual-to-projected-actual 

methodology for determining whether a 

major modification has occurred; (3) 

allow major stationary sources to 

comply with plant-wide applicability 

limits (PALs) to avoid having a 

significant emissions increase that 

triggers the requirements of the major 

NSR program; (4) provide a new 

applicability provision for emissions 

units that are designated clean units; 

and (5) exclude pollution control 

projects (PCPs) from the definition of 

‘‘physical change or change in the 

method of operation.’’ On November 7, 

2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA published a 

notice of final action on its 

reconsideration of the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules, which added a definition for 

‘‘replacement unit’’ and clarified an 

issue regarding PALs. For additional 

information on the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules, see 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 

2002) and http://www.epa.gov/nsr/

actions.html#2002. 

After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules 

were finalized and effective (March 3, 

2003), industry, state, and 

environmental petitioners challenged 

numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR 

Reform Rules, along with portions of 

EPA’s 1980 NSR Rules. See 45 FR 52676 

(August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit) issued a decision on the 

challenges to the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules: New York v. U.S. EPA, 413 F.3d 

3 (D.C. Cir. 2005). In summary, the D.C. 

Circuit vacated portions of the rules 

pertaining to clean units and PCPs, 

remanded a portion of the rules 

regarding recordkeeping and the term 

‘‘reasonable possibility’’ found in 40 

CFR 52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) 

and 51.166(r)(6), and either upheld or 

did not comment on the other 

provisions included as part of the 2002 

NSR Reform Rules. On June 13, 2007 (72 

FR 32526), EPA took final action to 

revise the 2002 NSR Reform Rules to 

remove from federal law all provisions 

pertaining to clean units and the PCP 

exemption that were vacated by the D.C. 

Circuit. 

With regard to the remanded portions 

of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules related to 

recordkeeping, the D.C. Circuit 

remanded these provisions to EPA 

either to provide an acceptable 

explanation for its ‘‘reasonable 

possibility’’ standard, or to devise an 

appropriate alternative. To satisfy the 

court, the EPA published the 

Reasonable Possibility Rule, thereby 

taking action to clarify that a 

‘‘reasonable possibility’’ applies where 

source emissions equal or exceed 50 

percent of the CAA NSR significance 

levels for any pollutant. See 72 FR 

72607 (December 21, 2007). The 

Reasonable Possibility Rule identified, 

for sources and reviewing authorities, 

the circumstances under which a major 

stationary source undergoing a 

modification that does not trigger major 

NSR must keep records. EPA’s 

December 21, 2007, final rule on the 

recordkeeping and reporting provisions 

also explained state obligations with 

regard to the reasonable possibilityrelated rule changes. 

C. Phase 2 Rule 

Part of Alabama’s May 2, 2011, SIP 

submittal to revise its NNSR rules 

relates to EPA’s 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS Implementation Rule NSR 

Update or Phase 2 Rule. On November 

29, 2005, EPA published the Phase 2 

Rule, which addressed control and 

planning requirements as they applied 

to areas designated nonattainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 8 such as 

reasonably available control technology, 

reasonably available control measures, 

reasonable further progress, modeling 

and attainment demonstrations, NSR, 

and the impact to reformulated gas for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

transition. See 70 FR 71612. The NSR 

permitting requirements established in 

the rule included the following 

provisions: (1) Recognized NOX as an 

ozone precursor for PSD purposes; (2) 

changes to the NNSR rules establishing 

major stationary thresholds (marginal, 

moderate, serious, severe, and extreme 

NAA classifications); and significant 

emission rates for the 8-hour ozone, 

PM10 and carbon monoxide NAAQS; 

and (3) revised the criteria for crediting 

emission reductions credits from 

operation shutdowns and curtailments 

as offsets, and changes to offset ratios 

for marginal, moderate, serious, severe, 

and extreme ozone NAA. For additional 

information on provisions in the Phase 

2 Rule see the November 29, 2005, final 

rule (70 FR 71612). 

D. NSR PM2.5 Rule 

On May 16, 2008, EPA finalized the 

NSR PM2.5 Rule to implement the PM2.5

NAAQS for the NSR permitting 

program. See 73 FR 28321. The NSR 

PM2.5 Rule revised the federal NSR 

program requirements to establish the 

framework for implementing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52705 

9The Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra 

Club, American Lung Association, and Medical 

Advocates for Healthy Air challenged before the 

D.C. Circuit EPA’s April 25, 2007 Rule entitled 

‘‘Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule’’ (72 

FR 20586), which established detailed 

implementation regulations to assist states with the 

development of SIPs to demonstrate attainment for 

the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the 

separate May 16, 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule (which is 

considered in this proposed rulemaking). This 

proposed rulemaking only pertains to the impacts 

of the Court’s decision on the May 16, 2008 NSR 

PM2.5 Rule and not the April 25, 2007 

implementation rule as the State’s May 2, 2011 SIP 

revision adopts the NSR permitting provisions 

established in the NSR PM2.5 Rule. 10This rule is entitled ‘‘Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule,’’ Final Rule, 72 FR 20586 

(hereafter referred to as the 2007 Rule). 

11The rule is entitled ‘‘Identification of 

Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for 

Submission of State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particle (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS’’, Final Rule, 79 FR 31566 

(June 2, 2014). This final rule also identifies the 

initial classification of current 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

nonattainment areas as moderate and the EPA 

guidance and relevant rulemakings that are 

currently available regarding implementation of 

subpart 4 requirements. 

12EPA designated the Birmingham multi-county 

area and Chattanooga TN–GA–AL area as 

nonattainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944) as supplemented on 

April 14, 2005 (70 FR 19844). 

13The Georgia portion of the Chattanooga TN– 

GA–AL nonattainment area for 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS has been redesignated in the December 19, 

2014 final rule (79 FR 75748). Tennessee submitted 

a redesignation request for the Tennessee portion of 

the Chattanooga TN–GA–AL NAA on November 11, 

2014, but the redesignation has not yet been 

proposed. 

preconstruction permit review for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS in both attainment and 

NAA. Specifically, the NSR PM2.5 Rule 

established the following NSR 

provisions to implement the PM2.5

NAAQS: (1) Required NSR permits to 

address directly-emitted PM2.5 and 

certain precursor pollutants; (2) 

established significant emission rates for 

direct PM2.5 and precursor pollutants 

(including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX)); (3) established 

NNSR PM2.5 emission offsets; (4) 

required states to account for gases that 

condense to form particles 

(condensables) in PM2.5 and PM10

applicability determinations and 

emission limits in PSD and NNSR 

permits; and (5) provided a 

grandfathering provision in the federal 

program for certain pending PM2.5

permit applications. Additionally, the 

NSR PM2.5 Rule authorized states to 

adopt provisions in their NNSR rules 

that would allow interpollutant offset 

trading. Alabama’s May 2, 2011 SIP 

revision addresses the effective portions 

of the NNSR provisions established in 

EPA’s May 16, 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule. 

Two key issues described in greater 

detail below include the NSR PM2.5

litigation and interpollutant trading 

ratios for the NNSR program. 

1. PM2.5 Implementation Rule(s) 

Litigation 

On January 4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit 

issued a judgment 9 that remanded 

EPA’s April 25, 2007 10 and May 16, 

2008 PM2.5 implementation rules 

implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

See Natural Resources Defense Council 

v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

The Court found that because the 

statutory definition of PM10 (see section 

302(t) of the CAA) included particulate 

matter with an aerodynamic diameter 

less than or equal to 10 micrometers, it 

necessarily includes PM2.5. EPA had 

developed the 2007 and 2008 (or NSR 

PM2.5 Rule) Rules consistent with the 

general NAA requirements of subpart 1 

of Part D, title I, of the CAA. Relative to 

subpart 1, subpart 4 of Part D, title I 

includes additional provisions that 

apply to PM10 NAA and is more specific 

about what states must do to bring areas 

into attainment. In particular, subpart 4 

includes section 189(e) of the CAA, 

which requires the control of major 

stationary sources of PM10 precursors 

(and hence under the court decision, 

PM2.5 precursors) ‘‘except where the 

Administrator determines that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM10 levels which exceed the 

standard in the area.’’ The court ordered 

EPA to repromulgate the 

implementation rules pursuant to 

subpart 4. 

On June 2, 2014, EPA published a 

final rule 11 which, in part, set a 

December 31, 2014 deadline for states to 

make any remaining required 

attainment-related and NNSR SIP 

submissions, pursuant to and 

considering the application of subpart 4. 

See 79 FR 31566. Requirements under 

subpart 4 for a moderate NAA are 

generally comparable to subpart 1, 

including: (1) CAA section 189(a)(1)(A) 

(NNSR permit program); (2) section 

189(a)(1)(B) (attainment demonstration 

or demonstration that attainment by the 

applicable attainment date is 

impracticable); (3) section 189(a)(1)(C) 

(reasonably available control measures 

and reasonably available control 

technology (RACT); and (4) section 

189(c) (reasonable further progress and 

quantitative milestones). The additional 

requirements pursuant to subpart 4 as 

opposed to subpart 1 correspond to 

section 189(e) (precursor requirements 

for major stationary sources). Further 

additional SIP planning requirements 

are introduced by subpart 4 in the case 

that a moderate NAA is reclassified to 

a serious NAA, or in the event that the 

moderate NAA needs additional time to 

attain the NAAQS. The additional 

requirements under subpart 4 are not 

applicable for the purposes of CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E) in any area that has 

submitted a complete redesignation 

request prior to the due date for those 

requirements; therefore, EPA is not 

required to consider subpart 4 

requirements for moderate NAA that 

have submitted a redesignation request 

prior to December 31, 2014. See 79 FR 

at 31570. 

Two areas were initially designated 

moderate nonattainment for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS in Alabama: The 

Birmingham area and the Chattanooga 

multi-state area.12 On May 2, 2011, 

ADEM submitted a redesignation 

request for the Birmingham NAA for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This request 

was granted, and the area was 

redesignated on January 22, 2013. See 

78 FR 4341. On December 22, 2014, the 

Jackson County, Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga NAA was successfully 

redesignated to attainment for the 1997 

PM2.5 annual NAAQS based on an April 

23, 2013 request for redesignation by 

ADEM.13 See 79 FR 76235. Because 

these counties in Alabama have been 

redesignated, Alabama has no other 

PM2.5 NAA for the annual 1997 NAAQS, 

the 24-hour 1997 NAAQS, nor the 24- 

hour 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, the 

additional NNSR SIP requirements 

pursuant to subpart 4 do not apply to 

the State. 

2. Interpollutant Trading Ratios 

The NSR PM2.5 Rule authorized states 

to adopt provisions in their NNSR rules 

that would allow major stationary 

sources and major modifications 

locating in areas designated 

nonattainment for PM2.5 to offset 

emissions increases of direct PM2.5

emissions or PM2.5 precursors with 

reductions of either direct PM2.5

emissions or PM2.5 precursors in 

accordance with offset ratios contained 

in the approved SIP for the applicable 

NAA. The inclusion, in whole or in 

part, of the interpollutant trading offset 

provisions for PM2.5 is discretionary on 

the part of the states. In the preamble to 

the NSR PM2.5 Rule, EPA included 

preferred offset ratios applicable to 

specific PM2.5 precursors that states may 

adopt in conjunction with the new 

interpollutant trading offset provisions 

for PM2.5, and for which the state could 

rely on the EPA’s technical work to 

demonstrate the adequacy of the ratios 

for use in any PM2.5 NAA. Alternatively, 

the preamble indicated that states may 

adopt their own ratios, subject to the 

EPA’s approval, that would have to be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

52706 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

14Although the SMC provisions were approved 

into the Alabama SIP in a September 26, 2012, final 

rule (77 FR 59100), the January 22, 2013, D.C. 

Circuit decision vacated the SMCs on the basis that 

EPA did not have the authority to use SMCs to 

exempt permit applicants from the statutory 

requirement in section 165(e)(2) of the CAA that 

ambient monitoring data for PM2.5 be included in 

all PSD permit applications. EPA accordingly 

removed the PM2.5 SMC of 4 mg/m3 from federal 

PSD regulations on December 9, 2013 (See 78 FR 

73693), and advised states to remove the PM2.5

provisions from their state PSD regulations and 

SIPs. For more information on states with approved 

SMC provisions in their SIPs, see the December 9, 

2013, final rule. 

15Pursuant to CAA section 302(j), examples of 

these industry sectors include oil refineries, 

Portland cement plants, and iron and steel mills. 

16On April 24, 2009, EPA agreed to reconsider 

the approach to handling fugitive emissions and 

granted a 3-month administrative stay of the 

Fugitive Emissions Rule. The administrative stay of 

the Fugitive Emissions Rule became effective on 

September 30, 2009. EPA put an additional threemonth stay in place from December 31, 2009, until 

March 31, 2010. 

substantiated by modeling or other 

technical demonstrations of the net air 

quality benefit for ambient PM2.5

concentrations. 

The preferred ratios were 

subsequently the subject of a petition for 

reconsideration which the EPA 

Administrator granted in 2009. As a 

result of the reconsideration, on July 21, 

2011, EPA issued a memorandum 

entitled ‘‘Revised Policy to Address 

Reconsideration of Interpollutant 

Trading Provisions for Fine Particles 

(PM2.5)’’ (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Interpollutant Trading 

Memorandum’’). The Interpollutant 

Trading Memorandum indicated that 

the existing preferred offset ratios are no 

longer considered presumptively 

approvable and that any precursor offset 

ratio submitted as part of the NSR SIP 

for a PM2.5 NAA must be accompanied 

by a technical demonstration showing 

the net air quality benefits of such ratio 

for the PM2.5 NAA in which it will be 

applied. Alabama’s May 2, 2011, SIP 

revision adopts the interpollutant 

trading offset provisions, and originally 

adopted the preferred ratios included in 

the May 16, 2008, preamble. However, 

ADEM has since withdrawn these ratios 

in a letter dated October 9, 2014 (See 

Docket ID: EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0079). 

EPA’s analysis of Alabama’s May 2, 

2011, SIP revision regarding 

interpollutant trading is provided below 

in Section III. 

E. PM2.5 PSD-Increment-SILs-SMC Rule 

The October 20, 2010, final 

rulemaking established the following: 

(1) PM2.5 increments pursuant to section 

166(a) of the CAA to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in areas 

meeting the NAAQS; (2) PM2.5 SILs for 

PSD and NNSR; and (3) SMC for PSD 

purposes. See 75 FR 64864. EPA 

approved the provisions for PM2.5 PSD 

increments and SMC into the Alabama 

SIP on September 26, 2012 (77 FR 

59100).14 Though ADEM had submitted 

PM2.5 SILs for PSD purposes, EPA did 

not take action on them in the 

September 26, 2012 rulemaking. 

Subsequently, in response to a challenge 

to the PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions of 

the PM2.5 PSD-Increment-SILs-SMC 

Rule filed by the Sierra Club, the D.C. 

Circuit vacated and remanded to EPA 

for further consideration the portions of 

the rule addressing PM2.5 SILs, except 

for the PM2.5 SILs promulgated in EPA’s 

NNSR rules at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2). See 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458, 469 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). The D.C. Circuit also 

vacated the parts of the rule establishing 

a PM2.5 SMC for PSD purposes. Id. EPA 

removed these vacated provisions in a 

December 9, 2013 final rule (78 FR 

73693). In a letter dated October 9, 2014, 

ADEM withdrew the PM2.5 SILs set forth 

in Alabama’s PSD regulations from 

EPA’s consideration for incorporation 

into Alabama’s SIP. 

This action pertains only to the PM2.5

SILs promulgated in EPA’s NNSR 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2), 

which were not vacated by the D.C. 

Circuit. Unlike the SILs promulgated in 

the PSD regulations (40 CFR 51.166, 

52.21), the SILs promulgated in the 

NNSR regulations at 40 CFR 

51.165(b)(2) do not serve to exempt a 

source from conducting a cumulative air 

quality analysis. Rather, the SILs 

promulgated at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2) 

establish levels at which a proposed 

new major source or major modification 

locating in an area designated as 

attainment or unclassifiable for any 

NAAQS would be considered to cause 

or contribute to a violation of a NAAQS 

in any area. For this reason, the D.C. 

Circuit left the PM2.5 SILs at 40 CFR 

51.165(b)(2) in place, and EPA can 

consider ADEM’s request that these SILs 

be approved as part of Alabama’s NNSR 

program. 

F. Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule 

On December 19, 2008, EPA issued a 

final rule revising the requirements of 

the NSR permitting program regarding 

the treatment of fugitive emissions. See 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NSR): Reconsideration of 

Inclusion of Fugitive Emissions,’’ Final 

Rule, 73 FR 77882 (the ‘‘Fugitive 

Emissions Rule’’). The final rule 

required fugitive emissions to be 

included in determining whether a 

physical or operational change results in 

a major modification only for sources in 

industries that have been designated 

through rulemaking under section 

302(j) 15 of the CAA. As a result of EPA 

granting the Natural Resource Defense 

Council’s petition for reconsideration on 

the Fugitive Emissions Rule 16 on March 

31, 2010, EPA stayed the rule for 18 

months to October 3, 2011. The stay 

allowed the Agency time to propose, 

take comment and issue a final action 

regarding the inclusion of fugitive 

emissions in NSR applicability 

determinations. On March 30, 2011 (76 

FR 17548), EPA proposed an interim 

rule (the ‘‘Fugitive Emissions Interim 

Rule’’) which superseded the March 31, 

2010, stay and clarified and extended 

the stay of the Fugitive Emission Rule 

until EPA completes its reconsideration. 

The Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule 

simply reverts the CFR text back to the 

language that existed prior to the 

Fugitive Emissions Rule changes in the 

December 19, 2008, rulemaking. EPA 

plans to issue a final rule affirming the 

interim rule as final. The Fugitive 

Emissions Interim Rule will remain in 

effect until EPA completes its 

reconsideration. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of ADEM’s 

SIP revision? 

Alabama currently has a SIP-approved 

NSR program for new and modified 

stationary sources found in ADEM 

regulations at Chapter 335–3–14. 

ADEM’s NNSR preconstruction 

regulations are found at Chapter 335–3– 

14–.05, and apply to major stationary 

sources or modifications constructed in 

or impacting upon a nonattainment area 

as required under part D of title I of the 

CAA with respect to the NAAQS. The 

revisions to Chapter 335–3–14–.05 that 

EPA is now proposing to approve into 

the SIP were provided to update the 

existing provisions to be consistent with 

the current federal NNSR rules, 

including the WEPCO Rule, 2002 NSR 

Reform Rule (and associated 

Reconsideration Rule and Vacated 

Elements Rule), Phase 2 Rule, NSR 

PM2.5 Rule, PM2.5 PSD-Increment-SILsSMC Rule, and Fugitive Emissions 

Interim Rule. These changes to ADEM’s 

regulations became state effective on 

May 23, 2011. EPA is proposing to 

approve the changes to Chapter 335–3– 

14–.05, with certain exceptions noted 

below, into Alabama’s SIP to be 

consistent with federal NNSR 

regulations (at 40 CFR 51.165) and the 

CAA. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52707 

17On June 21, 2006, Alabama submitted a SIP 

revision which adopted the PSD provisions 

established in the Phase 2 Rule (at 40 CFR 51.166) 

recognizing NOX as an ozone precursor. EPA took 

final action to approve this SIP revision on May 1, 

2008 (73 FR 23957). 

18See Section II for a discussion of why the 

additional requirements of subpart 4 of the Act do 

not apply to Alabama’s May 2, 2011 SIP submittal 

for revisions to the NNSR program. 

A. WEPCO Rule 

As stated in Section II, the WEPCO 

Rule made several changes to NNSR 

regulations located at 40 CFR 51.165. 

The definitions established in the 

WEPCO Rule that persist through the 

most recent CFR, including those for 

EGU, CCT, CCT demonstration project, 

temporary CCT demonstration project, 

and repowering are all included in the 

May 2, 2011 ADEM SIP submittal at 

Chapter 335–3–14–.05. The SIP 

submittal also adopts exemptions for 

temporary CCT demonstration projects 

from NNSR requirements as 

promulgated in the WEPCO Rule. EPA 

has preliminarily determined that the 

May 2, 2011 submittal is consistent with 

the federal regulations for NNSR 

promulgated in the WEPCO Rule. 

B. NSR Reform 

Some of the changes to Alabama’s 

NNSR rules that EPA is now proposing 

to approve into the Alabama SIP were 

established to update Alabama’s 

existing NNSR program to meet the 

requirements of the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rule (and associated Reconsideration 

Rule and Vacated Elements Rule) and 

the 2007 Reasonable Possibility Rule 

(collectively, the ‘‘NSR Reform Rules’’). 

On May 1, 2008, EPA approved 

Alabama’s June 16, 2006, SIP 

submission to adopt PSD provisions 

consistent with the requirements of the 

NSR Reform Rules. See 73 FR 23957. 

Alabama’s May 2, 2011, SIP revision 

adopts NNSR changes pursuant to the 

NSR Reform Rules regarding the 

following definitions, revisions and 

provisions at Chapter 335–3–14 .05: 

Regulated NSR pollutant; major 

modification; net emissions increase; 

credit for increases and decreases in 

actual emissions; emissions unit; actual 

emissions; lowest achievable emission 

rate; construction; pollution prevention; 

significant emissions increase; projected 

actual emissions; major NNSR program; 

continuous emissions monitoring 

system; predictive emissions monitoring 

system; continuous parameter 

monitoring system; continuous 

emissions rate monitoring system; 

baseline actual emissions; project; best 

available control technology; federal 

land manager; PSD permit; NNSR 

applicability procedures; actual-toprojected-actual applicability tests; and 

PAL and recordkeeping provisions. 

As noted above, the submittal 

originally included an ‘‘actual-topotential’’ applicability test (ADEM 

Rule 335–3–14–.05(1)(h)) that was 

inconsistent with the federal rules at 40 

CFR 51.165. However, on June 5, 2015, 

ADEM submitted a letter to EPA 

formally withdrawing the ‘‘actual-topotential’’ applicability test from the 

May 2, 2011 SIP revision (See Docket 

No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0079). 

Therefore, this applicability test is no 

longer before EPA for consideration and 

will not be incorporated into Alabama’s 

SIP. 

State agencies may meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 51, and the 

NSR Reform Rules, with different-butequivalent regulations. More 

information on regulations developed 

by ADEM which are different-butequivalent to federal rules are included 

in Section III.G below. EPA has 

preliminarily determined that the 

proposed SIP revisions to adopt the NSR 

Reform Rules, including those which 

differ from the federal rule, are 

consistent with program requirements 

for the preparation, adoption and 

submittal of implementation plans for 

NNSR set forth at 40 CFR 51.165, 

including the changes to the federal 

NNSR regulations promulgated in the 

NSR Reform Rules. 

C. Phase 2 Rule 

The Phase 2 Rule established the NSR 

requirements needed to implement the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and made 

changes to federal NNSR regulations. 

Pursuant to these requirements, states 

were required to submit SIP revisions 

adopting the relevant federal 

requirements of the Phase 2 Rule (at 40 

CFR 51.165 and 51.166) into their SIP 

no later than June 15, 2007.17 Alabama’s 

May 2, 2011, SIP revision adopts the 

following relevant NNSR provisions 

promulgated in the Phase 2 Rule (at 40 

CFR 51.165) into the Alabama SIP at 

Chapter 335–3–14–.05 to be consistent 

with federal NNSR permitting 

regulations: (1) Thresholds to establish 

a major stationary source (as codified at 

40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1)–(3); (2) 

provisions establishing that significant 

net increases for NOX are considered 

significant for ozone, and that 

significant emissions of ozone 

precursors include NOX (as codified at 

40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(E) and (a)(1)(x)); 

(3) provisions that provide offset credits 

for shutting down or curtailing 

operation of existing sources (as 

codified at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)); 

(4) a provision establishing that the 

requirements applicable to major 

stationary sources and major 

modifications of VOC shall apply to 

NOX emissions from major stationary 

sources and major modifications of NOX

in an ozone transport region or in any 

ozone nonattainment area (as codified at 

40 CFR 51.165(a)(8)); and (5) a provision 

establishing that requirements 

applicable to major stationary sources 

and major modifications of PM10 shall 

apply to major stationary sources and 

major modifications of PM10 precursors 

(as codified at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(10)). 

EPA has preliminarily determined that 

the May 2, 2011 submittal is consistent 

with the federal NNSR regulations 

promulgated in the Phase 2 Rule. 

D. NSR PM2.5 Rule 

ADEM’s May 2, 2011, SIP revision 

establishes that the State’s existing NSR 

permitting program requirements for 

NNSR apply to the PM2.5 NAAQS and 

certain precursors. Specifically, the SIP 

revision adopts the following NSR PM2.5

Rule NNSR provisions into the Alabama 

SIP: (1) The requirement for NNSR 

permits to address directly emitted 

PM2.5 and precursor pollutants (e.g., SO2

and NOX, as codified at 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(C)); (2) the 

significant emission rates for direct 

PM2.5 and precursor pollutants (SO2 and 

NOX, as codified at 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(x)(A)); (3) clarification of 

the NNSR PM2.5 (and general criteria air 

pollutant) emission offsets (pursuant to 

51.165(a)(9)); (4) the NNSR requirement 

that condensable PM10 and PM2.5

emissions be accounted for in 

applicability determinations and 

emission limits for permitting (as 

codified at 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(D)); and (5) the 

basic interpollutant trading policy for 

PM2.5 precursors (as codified at 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(11)). For the reasons discussed 

below, the EPA is proposing to approve 

these revisions into the Alabama SIP. 

ADEM’s submission of revisions to its 

NNSR regulations at Chapter 335–3–14– 

.05 identify SO2 as a PM2.5 precursor 

and NOX as a presumed PM2.5 precursor 

while VOCs and ammonia are presumed 

not to be PM2.5 precursors for a PM2.5

NAA. These revisions are consistent 

with the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule as 

developed pursuant to subpart 1 of the 

Act.18

Alabama’s May 2, 2011, SIP revision 

originally adopted into the SIP at 

Chapter 335–3–14.05(3)(g) the elective 

interpollutant trading policy, set forth at 

40 CFR 51.165(a)(11), and the preferred 

trading ratios, provided in the preamble 

to the NSR PM2.5 Rule, for the purpose 

of offsets under the PM2.5 NNSR 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

52708 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

program. As established in EPA’s July 

21, 2011, Interpollutant Trading 

Memorandum, the preferred precursor 

trading ratios and technical 

demonstration included in the NSR 

PM2.5 Rule are no longer considered 

presumptively approvable. Therefore 

any precursor trading ratios submitted 

to EPA for approval, as part of the NSR 

SIP for a PM2.5 NAA must be 

accompanied by a technical 

demonstration showing the suitability of 

the ratios for that particular NAA. 

Consequently, prior to approving a 

request by a major stationary source or 

source with a major modification in 

Alabama to obtain offsets through 

interpollutant trading, the State of 

Alabama would first be required, 

pursuant to 51.165(a)(11), to revise its 

SIP to adopt appropriate trading ratios. 

ADEM would need to submit to EPA a 

technical demonstration showing how 

either the preferred ratios established in 

the NSR PM2.5 Rule or the State’s own 

ratios are appropriate for the state’s 

particular PM2.5 nonattainment areas as 

well as a revision to the NSR program 

adopting the ratios into the SIP. EPA 

would then have to approve the 

demonstration and ratios into the 

Alabama SIP prior to any major 

stationary source or major modification 

obtaining offsets through the 

interpollutant trading policy. 

Alabama’s May 2, 2011, SIP revision 

relied on EPA’s technical demonstration 

in the NSR PM2.5 Rule for the preferred 

ratios, which, as explained above, the 

Agency has now deemed unapprovable. 

However, on October 9, 2014, ADEM 

submitted a letter to EPA formally 

withdrawing the offset ratios (or 

interpollutant trading ratios) from the 

May 2, 2011 SIP revision (See Docket 

No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0079). 

Therefore, these ratios are no longer 

before EPA for consideration, while the 

interpollutant trading provisions 

themselves remain before EPA. The 

Agency continues to support the basic 

policy that sources may offset increases 

in emissions of direct PM2.5 or of any 

PM2.5 precursor in a PM2.5 NAA with 

actual emissions reductions in direct 

PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursor, respectively, 

in accordance with offset ratios as 

approved in the SIP for the applicable 

NAA. Alabama’s adoption of the 

interpollutant trading policy without 

trading ratios does not in any way allow 

a new major stationary source or major 

modification in the state to obtain 

offsets through interpollutant trading, 

nor does it affect the approvability of 

ADEM’s May 2, 2011, SIP revision. EPA 

has preliminarily determined that the 

May 2, 2011 submittal is consistent with 

the federal regulations for NNSR 

promulgated in the NSR PM2.5 Rule. 

E. PM2.5 PSD-Increment-SILs-SMC Rule 

The only portion of the October 20, 

2010, PM2.5 PSD-Increment-SILs-SMC 

Rule concerning NNSR considered for 

this proposed rulemaking is the table 

modified to include SILs for PM2.5, 

promulgated at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2). See 

75 FR 64864. As discussed above, these 

SILs are used to determine whether a 

new major stationary source or major 

modification that would be located in 

an area designated as in attainment or 

unclassifiable would cause or contribute 

to a NAAQS violation in any locality. 

These SILs were not affected by Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d at 458, which 

addressed PSD SILs that served to 

exempt a source from conducting a 

cumulative air quality analysis. 

Accordingly, Alabama’s May 2, 2011 

submittal revises the definition of 

‘‘Significant Impact’’ at ADEM Rule 

335–3–14.05(2)(aaa) to incorporate the 

PM2.5 SILs from 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2). An 

additional revision to ADEM Rule 335– 

3–14–.05(2)(aaa)—unrelated to the PM2.5

PSD-Increment-SILs-SMC Rule— 

eliminates the annual PM10 SIL of 1 mg/ 

m3, which had previously been 

approved into the Alabama SIP. 

However, the annual PM10 SIL of 1 mg/ 

m3 is separately included in ADEM Rule 

335–3–14–.03(1)(g), ‘‘Standards for 

Granting Permits.’’ ADEM Rule 335–3– 

14–.03(1)(g) incorporates the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.165(b) and 

has been approved by EPA as part of 

Alabama’s SIP. 77 FR 59101, 59105 

(Sept. 26, 2012) (identifying ADEM Rule 

335–3–14–.03, State effective date May 

23, 2011, as part of Alabama’s SIP). 

Therefore, the removal of the annual 

PM10 SIL from ADEM Rule 335–3– 

14.05(2)(aaa) does not interfere with 

Alabama’s compliance with 40 CFR 

51.165(b). EPA proposes to approve the 

aforementioned revisions to the SILs in 

ADEM’s May 2, 2011 SIP submittal. 

F. Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule 

Due to the March 30, 2011, Fugitive 

Emissions Interim Rule (See 76 FR 

17548), the CFR has been converted 

back to the language that existed prior 

to the Fugitive Emissions Rule changes 

in the December 19, 2008, rulemaking. 

Many of the affected rules are entirely 

new to the ADEM NNSR Chapter. For 

example, the definition of fugitive 

emissions (40 CFR 51.165(a)(ix)) is 

added, not revised, at Chapter 335–3– 

14–.05(2)(t). Alabama’s May 2, 2011, SIP 

submittal, having been submitted after 

the Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule, 

adopts revisions regarding fugitive 

emissions that are mostly consistent 

with the current CFR. One provision 

included in the May 2, 2011, submittal 

at ADEM Rule 335–3–14–.05(2)(c)3, 

regarding the exclusion of fugitive 

emissions from the determination of 

creditable emission increases and 

decreases in the definition of ‘‘net 

emissions increase,’’ was stayed 

indefinitely in the Fugitive Emissions 

Interim Rule. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to approve Alabama’s 

adoption of regulations affecting fugitive 

emissions at ADEM Rule 335–3–14-.05, 

except the provision at ADEM Rule 

335–3–14–.05(2)(c)3. For more 

background on the Fugitive Emissions 

Interim Rule, see Section II above, or the 

March 30, 2011, rulemaking. 

G. Different-but-Equivalent Regulations 

Alabama currently has a SIP-approved 

nonattainment NSR program for new 

and modified stationary sources. EPA is 

now proposing to approve revisions to 

Alabama’s existing NNSR program in 

the SIP. State agencies may meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 51, 

including the changes made by the NSR 

Reform Rules, with different-butequivalent regulations. The May 2, 

2011, submission to revise the Alabama 

SIP contains several rules that EPA has 

determined are different-but-equivalent 

regulations. The Agency’s analysis for 

each of these items is included below. 

1. ‘‘Reasonable Possibility’’ Provisions 

The ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ standard 

identifies, for sources and reviewing 

authorities, the circumstances under 

which a major stationary source 

undergoing a physical or operational 

change that is not projected to result in 

an emissions increase above NSR 

applicability thresholds must keep postchange emissions records. EPA’s 

December 2007 action clarified the 

meaning of the term ‘‘reasonable 

possibility’’ through changes to the 

federal rule language in 40 CFR parts 51 

and 52. EPA’s December 2007 rule also 

acknowledged that State and local 

authorities may adopt or maintain NSR 

program elements that have the effect of 

making their regulations more stringent 

than the federal rules and instructed 

those State and local authorities to 

submit notice to EPA to acknowledge 

that their regulations fulfill the 

requirements of the federal regulations. 

Unlike the federal rules, which only 

require those projects that have a 

reasonable possibility that the project 

may result in a significant emissions 

increase to keep records, ADEM’s rules 

require all projects that use the actualto-projected-actual applicability test to 

keep records. Therefore, all projects 

undergo agency review. If ADEM 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52709 

determines that there is a reasonable 

possibility that the project may result in 

a significant emissions increase, then 

the owner or operator must submit those 

records to the Director, must monitor 

and maintain a record of annual 

emissions for 5 years (or 10 years 

depending upon the specific 

circumstances), and must submit annual 

reports. These recordkeeping, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

apply to all facilities—EGUs and nonEGUs. Although the changes to the 

reasonable possibility provisions 

identified above are different than the 

federal rules, ADEM’s approach is at 

least as stringent as the federal rules and 

is approvable. 

2. PAL Provisions 

Alabama’s actuals PAL provisions in 

ADEM Rule 335–3–14–.05(23) differ 

from the federal regulations in several 

ways. First, at subparagraph (23)(a)2., 

ADEM omitted the provision which 

allows facilities utilizing a PAL to 

remove previously set emissions 

limitations that the major stationary 

source used to avoid NNSR program 

applicability. Similarly, at subparagraph 

(23)(i)5., ADEM added the provision 

that sources must comply with any State 

or federal applicable requirements that 

may have applied during the PAL 

effective period, including those 

emission limitations that the source 

used to avoid NNSR applicability. 

According to Alabama’s submittal, it is 

ADEM’s intent that previously set limits 

(e.g., BACT, RACT, NSPS, synthetic 

minor limit, etc.) remain intact during 

the PAL effective period and after its 

expiration. EPA concludes that ADEM’s 

approach in these regulatory provisions 

is at least as stringent as the federal 

regulations and therefore is approvable. 

ADEM’s method of setting a PAL at 

subparagraph (23)(f) also differs slightly 

from the federal rules. The federal rules 

state at 40 CFR 51.165(f)(6)(ii) that 

emissions from units on which actual 

construction began after the 24-month 

period chosen for setting the PAL ‘‘must 

be added to the PAL level in an amount 

equal to the potential to emit of the 

units.’’ ADEM’s rule differs in that it 

limits inclusion of emissions based on 

a unit’s potential to emit to only those 

units that began operation less than 24 

months prior to the submittal of the PAL 

application. Under ADEM’s rule, 

baseline actual emissions from units on 

which actual construction began after 

the beginning of the 24-month period 

and that commenced operation 24 

months or more prior to the submittal of 

the PAL application must be added to 

the PAL based upon actual emissions 

during any 24-month period since the 

unit commenced operation. According 

to Alabama’s SIP submittal, it is 

ADEM’s intent that the PAL be based 

upon true actual emissions, and ADEM 

considers units that have been operating 

more than 24 months to be existing 

units that should be included in the 

PAL based on their actual emissions 

rather than their potential to emit. EPA 

concludes that ADEM’s approach to this 

provision is at least as stringent as the 

federal regulations and is therefore 

approvable. 

At subparagraph (23)(n)1., ADEM has 

omitted the requirement in the federal 

regulations to submit a semi-annual 

report within 30 days of the end of the 

PAL reporting period. Because the 

facility’s title V permit would require 

these reports to be submitted, its 

inclusion in the NNSR regulations is not 

necessary. EPA’s concludes that 

ADEM’s approach to PAL reporting 

requirements is at least as stringent as 

the federal rules and is approvable. 

Finally, Alabama’s PAL rules differ 

from the federal rules in that they do not 

expressly state that a PAL permit must 

require that emissions calculations for 

PAL compliance purposes include 

‘‘malfunction’’ emissions. Compare 

ADEM Rule 335–3–14–.05(23)(g)4 to 40 

CFR 51.165(f)(7)(iv). However, EPA does 

not read Alabama’s rules as authorizing 

sources to exclude malfunction 

emissions from PAL compliance 

calculations. Rather, consistent with 40 

CFR 51.165(f)(7)(iv), EPA interprets 

Alabama’s rules to mean that startup 

and shutdown emissions must be 

included in emission calculations for 

PAL compliance purposes in addition to 

emissions that occur during normal 

operations and malfunctions. EPA 

Region 4 and ADEM discussed this 

issue via conference call on January 27, 

2015. ADEM agreed with this 

interpretation of ADEM Rule 335–3–14– 

.05(23)(g)4 during the call and 

confirmed that ADEM would require 

sources to include malfunction 

emissions in emission calculations for 

PAL compliance purposes, just as 

compliance is determined with respect 

to other enforceable limits. In a 

document attached to an email dated 

February 3, 2015, ADEM provided 

written clarification of several items as 

a follow-up to the January 27, 2015 

conference call, including the treatment 

of malfunction emissions in 

nonattainment PALs. A memo 

summarizing the call and ADEM’s 

February 3, 2015 email and attachment 

are in the Docket for this proposed 

rulemaking. Therefore, EPA concludes 

that while the wording of ADEM Rule 

335–3–14–.05(23)(g)4 differs from the 

federal rule, ADEM’s approach is at 

least as stringent as the federal rules and 

is approvable. 

3. Emissions Associated With 

Malfunctions 

One notable difference from the 

federal rules is that the Alabama rules 

do not contain provisions accounting for 

‘‘malfunction’’ emissions in the 

calculation of ‘‘baseline actual 

emissions’’ and ‘‘projected actual 

emissions’’ (ADEM Rule 334–3–14– 

.05(2)(nn) and (uu)). Alabama states that 

it will rely only on quantifiable 

emissions that can be verified so as to 

provide a more accurate estimation of 

the emissions increases associated with 

a project. Because Alabama will be 

consistently applying this approach for 

both ‘‘projected actual emissions’’ and 

‘‘baseline actual emissions’’ and because 

this approach will not prevent 

malfunctions from being considered as 

exceedances of applicable standards, 

EPA has determined that this difference 

does not make Alabama’s NNSR 

program less stringent than the federal 

program. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this action, 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, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

portions of ADEM Regulation Chapter 

335–3–14–.05 entitled ‘‘Air Permits 

Authorizing Construction in or Near 

Non-Attainment Areas,’’ effective May 

23, 2011, with revisions and additions 

to applicability, definitions, permitting 

requirements, offset rules, area 

classifications, air quality models, 

control technology review, air quality 

monitoring, source information, source 

obligation, innovative control 

technology, and actuals PALs, and with 

administrative changes throughout. EPA 

has made, and will continue to make, 

these documents generally available 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate EPA office (see 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

for more information). 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

portion of Alabama’s May 2, 2011 

submission that makes changes to 

Alabama’s SIP-approved NNSR 

regulations set forth at ADEM Rule 335– 

3–14–.05, with the exceptions noted 

above. ADEM submitted the proposed 

changes to its NNSR SIP to be consistent 

with amendments to the federal 

regulations made by the WEPCO Rule, 

the 2002 NSR Reform Rule (and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

52710 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

associated Reconsideration Rule and 

Vacated Elements Rule), Phase 2 Rule, 

NSR PM2.5 Rule, PM2.5 PSD IncrementSILs-SMC Rule, and the Fugitive 

Emissions Interim Rule. The Agency has 

made the preliminary determination 

that the proposed changes to Alabama’s 

NNSR SIP are approvable because they 

are consistent with section 110 of the 

CAA and EPA regulations. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• 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 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Nitrogen oxides, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: August 20, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–21537 Filed 8–31–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0289; FRL 9933–19– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Imperial County 

Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Imperial County Air 

Pollution Control District (ICAPCD or 

the District) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). We 

propose to approve the following SIP 

demonstration from ICAPCD: Final 2009 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology State Implementation Plan, 

July 13, 2010. This demonstration 

addresses the 1997 8-hour National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for ozone. This submitted SIP 

revision contains ICAPCD’s negative 

declarations for volatile organic 

compound (VOC) source categories. We 

propose to approve the submitted 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) SIP revision under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking 

comments on this proposal and plan to 

follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

October 1, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2015–0289, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and the EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send 

email directly to the EPA, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105–3901. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Shears, EPA Region IX, (213) 

244–1810, shears.james@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS