Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 38515 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

K. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by August 27, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

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: June 13, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 52.2120 (e) is amended by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Regional Haze 

Plan’’ at the end of the table to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED SOUTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Regional haze plan .................................................................... 12/17/2007 6/28/2012 [Insert citation of publication]. 

■ 3. Section 52.2132 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.2132 Visibility protection. 

(a) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–15465 Filed 6–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0782; FRL–9691–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Alabama; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval of a revision to the Alabama 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the State of Alabama 

through the Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management (ADEM) on 

July 15, 2008. Alabama’s July 15, 2008, 

SIP revision addresses regional haze for 

the first implementation period. 

Specifically, this SIP revision addresses 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act) and EPA’s rules that 

require states to prevent any future and 

remedy any existing anthropogenic 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas (national parks and 

wilderness areas) caused by emissions 

of air pollutants from numerous sources 

located over a wide geographic area 

(also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze 

program’’). States are required to assure 

reasonable progress toward the national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas. EPA is 

finalizing a limited approval of 

Alabama’s July 15, 2008, SIP revision to 

implement the regional haze 

requirements for Alabama on the basis 

that this SIP revision, as a whole, 

strengthens the Alabama SIP. 

Additionally, EPA is rescinding the 

federal regulations previously approved 

into the Alabama SIP on November 24, 

1987, and approving the provisions in 

Alabama’s July 15, 2008, SIP submittal 

to meet the long-term strategy (LTS) 

requirements for reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment (RAVI). In a 

separate action published on June 7, 

2012, EPA finalized a limited 

disapproval of this same SIP revision 

because of the deficiencies in the State’s 

regional haze SIP revision arising from 

the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC 

Circuit) to EPA of the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR). 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be 

effective July 30, 2012, except for the 

amendment to § 52.61, which is 

effective on August 7, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2009–0782. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

for further information. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michele Notarianni, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
38516 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1 In a separate action, published on June 7, 2012 

(77 FR 33642), EPA finalized a limited disapproval 

of the Alabama regional haze SIP because of 

deficiencies in the State’s regional haze SIP 

submittal arising from the State’s reliance on CAIR 

to meet certain regional haze requirements. This 

final limited disapproval triggers a 24-month clock 

by which a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) or 

EPA-approved SIP must be in place to address the 

deficiencies. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Michele 

Notarianni can be reached at telephone 

number (404) 562–9031 and by 

electronic mail at 

notarianni.michele@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for this final 

action? 

II. What is EPA’s response to comments 

received on this action? 

III. What is the effect of this final action? 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this final 

action? 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particles (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, 

organic carbon, elemental carbon, and 

soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), and in some cases, ammonia and 

volatile organic compounds. Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) which impairs visibility 

by scattering and absorbing light. 

Visibility impairment reduces the 

clarity, color, and visible distance that 

one can see. PM2.5 can also cause 

serious health effects and mortality in 

humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

which impairment results from 

manmade air pollution.’’ On December 

2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to 

address visibility impairment in Class I 

areas that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to 

a single source or small group of 

sources, i.e., ‘‘reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment.’’ See 45 FR 

80084. These regulations represented 

the first phase in addressing visibility 

impairment. EPA deferred action on 

regional haze that emanates from a 

variety of sources until monitoring, 

modeling, and scientific knowledge 

about the relationships between 

pollutants and visibility impairment 

were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999 

(64 FR 35713), the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR). The RHR revised the existing 

visibility regulations to integrate into 

the regulation provisions addressing 

regional haze impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 states, the District 

of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. 40 

CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit 

the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. 

On July 15, 2008, ADEM submitted a 

revision to Alabama’s SIP to address 

regional haze in the State’s and other 

states’ Class I areas. On February 28, 

2012, EPA published an action 

proposing a limited approval of 

Alabama’s July 15, 2008, SIP revision to 

address the first implementation period 

for regional haze.1 See 77 FR 11937. EPA 

proposed a limited approval of 

Alabama’s July 15, 2008, SIP revision to 

implement the regional haze 

requirements for Alabama on the basis 

that this revision, as a whole, 

strengthens the Alabama SIP. See 

section II of this rulemaking for a 

summary of the comments received on 

the proposed actions and EPA’s 

responses to these comments. Detailed 

background information and EPA’s 

rationale for the proposed action is 

provided in EPA’s February 28, 2012, 

proposed rulemaking. See 77 FR 11937. 

Following the remand of CAIR, EPA 

issued a new rule in 2011 to address the 

interstate transport of NOX and SO2 in 

the eastern United States. See 76 FR 

48208 (August 8, 2011) (‘‘the Transport 

Rule,’’ also known as the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR)). On December 

30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the 

trading programs in the Transport Rule 

would achieve greater reasonable 

progress towards the national goal of 

achieving natural visibility conditions 

than would best available retrofit 

technology (BART) in the states in 

which the Transport Rule applies 

(including Alabama). See 76 FR 82219. 

Based on this proposed finding, EPA 

also proposed to revise the RHR to allow 

states to substitute participation in the 

trading programs under the Transport 

Rule for source-specific BART. EPA 

finalized this finding and RHR revision 

on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642). 

Also on December 30, 2011, the DC 

Circuit stayed the Transport Rule 

(including the provisions that would 

have sunset CAIR and the CAIR FIPs) 

and instructed the EPA to continue to 

administer CAIR pending the outcome 

of the court’s decision on the petitions 

for review challenging the Transport 

Rule. EME Homer City v. EPA, No. 11– 

1302. 

II. What is EPA’s response to comments 

received on this action? 

EPA received two sets of comments 

on the February 28, 2012, rulemaking 

proposing a limited approval of 

Alabama’s July 15, 2008, regional haze 

SIP revision. Specifically, the comments 

were received from the Sierra Club and 

ADEM. Full sets of the comments 

provided by all of the aforementioned 

entities (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the 

Commenter’’) are provided in the docket 

for today’s final action. A summary of 

the comments and EPA’s responses are 

provided below. 

Comment 1: The Commenter does not 

believe that ADEM can rely on CAIR or 

the Transport Rule to exempt the eight 

power plants with BART-eligible 

electric generating units (EGUs) from an 

SO2 and NOX BART analysis. The 

Commenter enclosed letters that it 

submitted to EPA on February 28, 2012, 

with its comments on the Agency’s 

proposed December 30, 2011, 

rulemaking to find that the Transport 

Rule is ‘‘better than BART’’ and to use 

the Transport Rule as an alternative to 

BART for Alabama and other states 

subject to the Transport Rule. See 76 FR 

82219. The Commenter incorporates the 

comments in this letter by reference and 

repeats a subset of those comments, 

including the following: The Transport 

Rule cannot serve as a BART alternative 

for the regional haze SIP process in 

Alabama; EPA has not demonstrated 

that the Transport Rule assures greater 

reasonable progress than source-specific 

BART; EPA failed to account for the 

geographical and temporal uncertainties 

in emissions reductions inherent in a 

cap-and-trade program such as the 

Transport Rule; EPA underestimated the 

visibility improvements from BART 

using ‘‘presumptive BART, rather than 

actual BART;’’ ‘‘case specific BART 

determinations for SO2 emissions from 

EGUs in Alabama would almost 

certainly ensure greater progress than 

would be achieved by CSAPR;’’ and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 38517 

2 In a final action published on July 6, 2005, EPA 

addressed similar comments related to CAIR and 

determined that CAIR makes greater reasonable 

progress than BART for certain EGUs and pollutants 

(70 FR 39138). EPA did not reopen comment on 

that issue through this rulemaking. 

3See EPA, Response to Comments Document, 

Regional Haze: Revisions to Provisions Governing 

Alternatives to Source-Specific Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, 

Limited SIP Disapprovals, and Federal 

Implementation Plans (76 FR 82219; December 30, 

2011), Docket Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729 

(May 30, 2012), pages 49–51 (noting that EPA 

‘‘disagree[s] with comments that we cannot evaluate 

the BART requirements in isolation from the 

reasonable progress requirements. We have on 

several occasions undertaken evaluations of a 

state’s BART determination or promulgated a FIP 

separately from our evaluation of whether the SIP 

as a whole will ensure reasonable progress.’’). 

4Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for 

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

Determinations, EPA Memorandum from Joseph 

Paisie, Group Leader, Geographic Strategies Group, 

OAQPS, to Kay Prince, Branch Chief, EPA Region 

4, July 19, 2006, located at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

visibility/pdfs/memo_2006_07_19.pdf. 

EPA has not accounted for the 

differences in averaging time under 

BART, the Transport Rule, and in 

measuring visibility impacts. 

Response 1: These comments are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. In 

today’s rule, EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval of Alabama’s regional haze 

SIP. EPA did not propose to find that 

participation in the Transport Rule is an 

alternative to BART in this action nor 

did EPA reopen discussions on the 

CAIR provisions as they relate to 

BART.2 As noted above, EPA proposed 

to find that the Transport Rule is ‘‘Better 

than BART’’ and to use the Transport 

Rule as an alternative to BART for 

Alabama in a separate action on 

December 30, 2011, and the Commenter 

is merely reiterating and incorporating 

its comments on that separate action. 

EPA addressed these comments 

concerning the Transport Rule as a 

BART alternative in a final action that 

was published on June 7, 2012, and has 

determined that they do not affect the 

Agency’s ability to finalize a limited 

approval of Alabama’s regional haze 

SIP. EPA’s responses to these comments 

can be found in Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0729 at 

www.regulations.gov. 

Comment 2: The Commenter asserts 

that because ‘‘the BART component of 

Alabama’s RH SIP is an essential 

element to the state’s LTS for achieving 

it RPGs, Alabama’s treatment of CAIR 

(and now EPA’s proposed substitution 

of CSAPR for CAIR) as an acceptable 

BART-alternative must be addressed in 

this present comment process. 

Separating the BART analysis from the 

remaining portion of the RH SIP would 

result in an inadequate SIP.’’ The 

Commenter supports its position by 

repeating statements made in its 

February 28, 2012, comments on the 

Agency’s proposed December 30, 2011, 

rulemaking to find that the Transport 

Rule is ‘‘Better than BART’’ and to use 

the Transport Rule as an alternative to 

BART for Alabama and other states 

subject to the Transport Rule. For 

example, the Commenter states that 

‘‘EPA cannot exempt sources from the 

RHR’s BART requirements without full 

consideration of how that exemption 

would affect the overarching reasonable 

progress mandate.’’ 

Response 2: As discussed in the 

response to Comment 1, today’s action 

does not address reliance on CAIR or 

CSAPR to satisfy BART requirements. 

Comments related to the approvability 

of CAIR or CSAPR for the Alabama 

regional haze SIP are therefore beyond 

the scope of this rulemaking and were 

addressed by EPA in a separate action 

published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 

33642). EPA addressed the Commenter’s 

repeated statements regarding the 

interrelatedness of BART, the LTS, and 

RPGs in that final rulemaking action 

and those responses support this limited 

approval action.3

EPA believes the Commenter 

overstates the overarching nature of the 

changes due to CAIR or CSAPR. The 

reliance on CAIR in the Alabama 

submittal was consistent with EPA 

policy at the time the submittal was 

prepared. CSAPR is a replacement for 

CAIR, addressing the same regional EGU 

emissions, with many similar regulatory 

attributes. The need to address changes 

to the LTS resulting from the 

replacement of CAIR with CSAPR was 

acknowledged in the proposal, and as 

stated in the proposal, EPA believes that 

the five-year progress report is the 

appropriate time to address any changes 

to the RPG demonstration and, if 

necessary, the LTS. EPA expects that 

this demonstration will address the 

impacts on the RPG due to the 

replacement of CAIR with CSAPR as 

well as other adjustments to the 

projected 2018 emissions due to 

updated information on the emissions 

for other sources and source categories. 

If this assessment determines an 

adjustment to the regional haze plan is 

necessary, EPA regulations require a SIP 

revision within a year of the five-year 

progress report. 

Comment 3: The Commenter believes 

that Alabama should have considered 

the cumulative impacts of the 

particulate matter (PM) emissions from 

the State’s PM BART-eligible EGUs 

when performing BART exemption 

modeling and that the State should not 

have modeled these sources in isolation 

of one another or without regard to PM 

emissions from sources in other states 

which impact the Sipsey Wilderness 

Area (Sipsey) or any Class I area. The 

Commenter also believes that ADEM 

should have considered both filterable 

and condensable PM when conducting 

this modeling. 

Response 3: As discussed in the 

proposal, (see section IV.C.6.B.2, 

February 28, 2012, 77 FR 11950–11951), 

Alabama adequately justified its 

contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview. 

While states have the discretion to set 

an appropriate contribution threshold 

considering the number of emissions 

sources affecting the Class I area at issue 

and the magnitude of the individual 

sources’ impacts, the states’ analysis 

must be consistent with the CAA, the 

RHR, and EPA’s Guidelines for BART 

Determinations Under the Regional 

Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 

51 (BART Guidelines). Consistent with 

the regulations and EPA’s guidance, 

‘‘the contribution threshold should be 

used to determine whether an 

individual source is reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment. You should not aggregate 

the visibility effects of multiple sources 

and compare their collective effects 

against your contribution threshold 

because this would inappropriately 

create a ‘contribution to contribution’ 

test.’’ See also 70 FR 39121. Alabama’s 

analysis in the regional haze SIP 

revision was consistent with EPA’s 

regulations and guidance on the issue of 

cumulative analyses. 

It is unclear what condensable PM 

emissions the Commenter believes that 

the State should have included in its 

visibility modeling. Each of the units 

evaluated for BART in Alabama’s 

regional haze SIP followed the Visibility 

Improvement State and Tribal 

Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) 

modeling protocol and considered the 

contribution of total PM10 and PM2.5 (as 

a subset of the total PM10) as well as 

condensable PM (primarily sulfuric acid 

mist) (see Appendix H.9 of Alabama’s 

regional haze SIP). Regarding modeling 

in Alabama’s submittal that uses PM 

only for its BART-eligible EGUs, EPA 

previously determined that this 

approach is appropriate for EGUs where 

the State proposed to rely on CAIR to 

satisfy the BART requirements for SO2

and NOX.4

Comment 4: The Commenter 

disagrees with ADEM’s BART analyses 

for the five BART eligible-units at the 

Solutia, Inc., facility in Decatur, 

Alabama, as well as its analyses for the 

seven BART-eligible units at 

International Paper’s Courtland, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
38518 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

5EPA’s BART Guidelines at 70 FR 39164. 

6 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals 

Under the Regional Haze Program, July 1, 2007, 

memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10 

(‘‘EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), page 4–2. 

Alabama, facility (International Paper). 

In particular, the Commenter states that 

Alabama’s BART analyses failed to 

consider all available retrofit 

technologies. The Commenter identified 

combustion controls that ‘‘should be 

considered for NOX BART’’ including: 

flue gas recirculation, overfire air, low 

NOX burners, and ultra low NOX

burners; as well as post-combustion 

controls such as: selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) and selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR). Regarding 

SO2 BART, the Commenter believes that 

ADEM should have considered 

additional controls such as: ‘‘a number 

of post-combustion flue gas 

desulfurization options’’ (e.g., dry 

sorbent injection, spray dryer absorbers, 

wet scrubbers, circulating dry scrubbers) 

as well as fuel switching (e.g., switching 

from coal to oil). For PM BART, the 

Commenter identifies the following 

controls for consideration: changing the 

operation of any air pre-heaters; 

installing fabric filters or baghouses; 

installing or upgrading electrostatic 

precipitators (ESPs); switching to wet 

ESPs; upgrading electrodes (e.g., 

possibly changing from wire to rigid 

discharge electrode); switching to ‘‘a 

lower sulfur coal or a different sort or 

blend of fuel;’’ addition of a trona 

injection system; installation of 

scrubbers; and upgrading any existing 

scrubbers. The Commenter believes that 

Alabama should have considered all of 

the above-mentioned control options 

when conducting its BART analyses, 

regardless of their comparative costs. 

The Commenter also contends that 

ADEM: Ignored less costly yet equally 

efficient controls; should have fully 

considered options for improving 

existing controls instead of just those 

involving a complete replacement of 

control devices (e.g., ESP upgrade 

options);’’ should have evaluated 

different combinations of controls in 

making its BART determinations; and 

must ensure that current controls are 

actually operating at BART levels where 

ADEM concluded that those controls are 

BART. Finally, the Commenter believes 

that it is not possible to determine if the 

proper costing methodology was 

followed by these sources ‘‘without 

supporting data in the docket.’’ 

Response 4: As stated in EPA’s BART 

Guidelines, available retrofit control 

options are those air pollution control 

technologies with a practical potential 

for application to the emissions unit and 

the regulated pollutant under 

evaluation. In identifying ‘‘all’’ options, 

a state must identify the most stringent 

option and a reasonable set of options 

for analysis that reflects a 

comprehensive list of available 

technologies. It is not necessary to list 

all permutations of available control 

levels that exist for a given technology; 

the list is complete if it includes the 

maximum level of control that each 

technology is capable of achieving.5

Attachment H–6 to Appendix H of the 

State’s regional haze SIP submittal 

summarizes the State’s assessment of 

the available strategies evaluated at each 

facility for BART, including many of the 

control options that the Commenter 

believes were ignored by ADEM; 

assesses the five statutory BART factors, 

including ADEM’s estimates of the costs 

of control sufficient to identify and 

evaluate the cost methodology 

employed; and describes ADEM’s basis 

for accepting or rejecting each measure 

as BART. For example, ADEM notes in 

Appendix H that Solutia has already 

installed a rotating opposed fired air 

combustion control system to reduce 

NOX formation from Boiler No. 7. 

ADEM identified SNCR and SCR as 

available post-combustion control 

options for this unit and noted that 

modeling for all of the NOX control 

options evaluated indicated relatively 

small to no reduction in visibility 

impacts, even with the maximum 

additional NOX control. In considering 

the five BART statutory factors for this 

unit, ADEM relied most heavily on the 

lack of visibility improvement at any 

federal Class I areas as the basis for its 

BART determination. Modeling lesser 

options would not have changed this 

result. Similar analyses and similar 

results were attained for all the BARTsubject units at this facility and at 

International Paper. EPA has reviewed 

ADEM’s analyses and concluded they 

were conducted in a manner that is 

consistent with EPA’s BART Guidelines 

and reflect a reasonable application of 

EPA’s guidance to these sources. 

Emissions limits for these operations are 

contained in the State’s title V permits 

for these facilities. 

Comment 5: The Commenter 

disagrees with ADEM’s methodology for 

identifying pollutants and sources 

subject to a reasonable progress 

analysis. The concerns identified by the 

Commenter include an ‘‘incomplete 

identification of emissions units likely 

to have the largest impacts on visibility’’ 

at federal Class I areas; improper 

reliance on CAIR to exempt out-of-state 

EGUs from conducting reasonable 

progress analyses; and a failure to 

identify and consider all proposed 

major new sources or major 

modifications to sources within and 

outside of the State. 

Regarding in-state sources, the 

Commenter notes that ADEM’s SO2 area 

of influence (AOI) methodology 

captured only 55 percent of the total 

point source SO2 contribution to 

visibility impairment in Sipsey and only 

61–73 percent of the total contribution 

at federal Class I areas in neighboring 

states. The Commenter believes that, 

due to cumulative impacts, the 

reasonable progress analysis should 

have encompassed a greater number of 

units with SO2 emissions that impact 

the State’s Class I area and that 

Alabama’s LTS should have further 

considered reducing NOX and ammonia 

emissions. 

For the out-of-state CAIR EGUs that 

impact Alabama’s Class I area, the 

Commenter believes that ADEM must 

conduct reasonable progress control 

analyses in order to determine which 

emissions control measures would be 

needed at these EGUs to make 

reasonable progress toward improving 

visibility at Sipsey and reiterates 

statements made in its aforementioned 

February 28, 2012, comment letter 

regarding EPA’s December 30, 2011, 

proposed rule. 

Regarding proposed major new 

sources or major modifications new 

sources, the Commenter states that there 

is no evidence that Alabama’s regional 

haze SIP submittal complies with the 

requirement in 40 CFR 51.306(d) that 

the LTS provides for review of the 

impacts from any new major stationary 

source or major modifications on 

visibility in any mandatory Class I area 

in accordance with 40 CFR 51.307, 

51.166, 51.160 and any binding 

guidance insofar as these provisions 

pertain to protection of visibility. 

According to the Commenter, ADEM 

should have identified these sources 

and any increases in emissions resulting 

from installation and operation of new 

pollution controls (e.g., increased 

ammonia emissions from new SCRs and 

SNCRs) and considered them in a 

cumulative impact analysis for Sipsey. 

Response 5: Concerning the State’s 

AOI methodology for the identification 

of emission units for reasonable 

progress evaluation, as noted in EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance 6 and 

discussed further in EPA’s February 28, 

2012, proposal action on the Alabama 

regional haze SIP submittal (77 FR 

11949), the RHR gives states wide 

latitude to determine additional control 

requirements, and there are many ways 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 38519 

7EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance, pages 

4–1, 4–2. 

to approach identifying additional 

reasonable measures as long as they 

consider the four statutory factors. 

Further, states have considerable 

flexibility in how to take these factors 

into consideration. EPA’s Reasonable 

Progress Guidance recognizes that there 

are numerous ways to approach 

development of the LTS and to focus on 

those source categories that may have 

the greatest impact on visibility at Class 

1 areas, considering the statutory factors 

at a minimum.7 Significant control 

programs are being implemented 

nationally and across the southeast 

during the first implementation period, 

as described in chapter 7 of Alabama’s 

regional haze SIP submittal. The impact 

of programs such as CAIR, CSAPR, and 

the NOX SIP Call are being realized 

regionally, and the implementation of 

these programs in Alabama will 

significantly reduce emissions and 

improve visibility at Sipsey and at 

federal Class I areas outside Alabama. 

Regarding its reliance on CAIR, the 

State took into account emissions 

reductions expected from CAIR to 

determine the 2018 reasonable progress 

goals (RPGs) for its Class I areas. This 

approach was fully consistent with EPA 

guidance at the time of SIP 

development. ADEM determined that no 

additional SO2 controls beyond CAIR 

are reasonable for its EGUs in the first 

implementation period based on the 

State’s review of the statutory factors 

(i.e., the costs of compliance, the time 

necessary for compliance, the energy 

and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance, and the 

remaining useful life of any potentially 

affected sources) as evaluated by EPA 

for CAIR, and that CAIR is expected to 

reduce EGU SO2 emissions by 

approximately 70 percent. 

Regarding the consideration of new 

sources and major modifications, the 

Alabama regional haze SIP revisions 

subject to this rulemaking address the 

regional haze requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308 whereas the regulation cited by 

the Commenter, 40 CFR 51.306(d), 40 

CFR 51.307, 51.166, and 51.160, are 

specific to the new source review (NSR) 

requirements for RAVI. Furthermore, as 

identified in footnote 19 of EPA’s the 

February 28, 2012, proposed rulemaking 

77 FR 11955, Alabama has already 

addressed the NSR requirements for 

visibility (40 CFR 51.307) and RAVI LTS 

(40 CFR 51.306) in its SIP. New sources 

and major modifications are also 

explicitly part of the emissions 

inventory used to project future 

conditions. 

The projected inventories for 2009 

and 2018 account for post-2002 

emissions reductions from promulgated 

and proposed federal, state, local, and 

site-specific control programs and 

account for expected growth in 

emissions from new sources. For EGUs, 

the Integrated Planning Model was run 

to estimate emissions of the proposed 

and existing units in 2009 and 2018. 

These results were adjusted based on 

state and local air agencies’ knowledge 

of planned emissions controls at 

specific EGUs. For non-EGUs, VISTAS 

used recently updated growth and 

control data consistent with the data 

used in EPA’s CAIR analyses 

supplemented by state and local air 

agencies’ data and updated forecasts 

from the U.S. Department of Energy. 

These updates are documented in the 

MACTEC emissions inventory report 

‘‘Documentation of the 2002 Base Year 

and 2009 and 2018 Projection Year 

Emission Inventories for VISTAS’’ dated 

February 2007 (Appendix D of 

Alabama’s regional haze SIP submittal). 

The technical information provided in 

the record demonstrates that the 

emissions inventory in the SIP 

adequately reflects projection 2018 

conditions and that the LTS meets the 

requirements of the RHR and is 

approvable. EPA finds that these 

inventories provide a reasonable 

assessment of future emissions from 

North Carolina sources. 

Comment 6: The Commenter believes 

that ADEM improperly exempted 

several sources from a reasonable 

progress evaluation for SO2 even though 

the State determined that these sources 

were above its minimum threshold for 

performing such an analysis and 

reiterates statements made in its 

aforementioned February 28, 2012, 

comment letters regarding EPA’s 

December 30, 2011, proposed rule. The 

Commenter disagrees with ADEM’s 

decision to exempt EGUs subject to 

CAIR from conducting reasonable 

progress analyses. As for non-EGUs 

subject to BART, the Commenter 

accepts ADEM’s conclusion that the 

BART determinations satisfy 

requirements under the RHR’s 

reasonable progress provisions for 

International Paper and Solutia; 

however, the Commenter disagrees with 

Alabama’s BART determinations for 

these units. 

Response 6: See the response to 

Comment 5 regarding the State’s 

determination that no additional SO2

controls beyond CAIR are reasonable for 

its EGUs in the first implementation 

period. Regarding the BART 

determinations for non-EGUs, EPA has 

reviewed the ADEM analyses and 

concluded they were conducted in a 

manner that is consistent with EPA’s 

BART Guidelines and reflect a 

reasonable application of EPA’s 

guidance to these sources (see response 

to Comment 4). 

Comment 7: According to the 

Commenter, the cost effectiveness 

analysis used to make the reasonable 

progress determination for the Cargill, 

Inc. facility (Cargill) was flawed, and 

therefore, EPA cannot approve 

Alabama’s proposed SIP. The 

Commenter contends that the inputs 

used for the efficiency of the pollution 

controls analyzed and the costs 

attributed to those controls were 

improper. 

Response 7: Cargill shut down 

operations of this facility in 2009 and 

sold the site to DeBruce Grain in August 

2010. DeBruce Grain plans to operate a 

grain handling, shipping, and storage 

facility and is no longer expected to be 

a main contributor to regional haze. 

Comment 8: The Commenter states 

that ADEM improperly estimated 

emissions reductions for 2018 and that 

Alabama’s projection of future visibility 

conditions for 2018 is based on 

‘‘uncertain federal and state pollution 

control projects, including, in large part, 

on the emissions reductions anticipated 

from CAIR.’’ The Commenter also 

believes that anticipated emissions 

reductions resulting from the other 

control programs considered by 

Alabama (e.g., Industrial Boiler MACT, 

the Atlanta/Birmingham/Northern 

Kentucky 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area SIP) are just as 

uncertain as those resulting under CAIR 

and the Transport Rule, and that 

Alabama ‘‘need[s] to base its LTS on 

concrete, definite SO2 emissions 

reductions.’’ Because of the alleged 

uncertainty of the actual reductions 

predicted under the pollution control 

programs identified by the Commenter, 

the Commenter believes that additional 

SO2 reductions are necessary at this 

time to ensure that Alabama’s RPGs are 

met. The Commenter requests that, at a 

minimum, EPA should ensure that 

ADEM follows through on its 

commitment to re-evaluate its ability to 

meet its RPGs in the five-year progress 

review. While the Commenter 

acknowledges that the RPGs exceed the 

uniform rate of progress and are 

projected to be met, it contends that the 

State should ‘‘go beyond the URP 

[uniform rate of progress] analysis in 

establishing RPGs and do everything it 

can to ensure visibility impacts to 

affected Class I areas are reduced.’’ 

Response 8: The technical 

information provided in the record 

demonstrates that the emissions 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
38520 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

inventory in the SIP adequately reflects 

projected 2018 conditions and should 

be approved. Alabama’s 2018 

projections are based on the State’s 

technical analysis of the anticipated 

emissions rates and level of activity for 

EGUs, other point sources, nonpoint 

sources, on-road sources, and off-road 

sources based on their emissions in the 

2002 base year, considering growth and 

additional emissions controls to be in 

place and federally enforceable by 2018. 

The emissions inventory used in the 

regional haze technical analyses that 

was developed by VISTAS with 

assistance from Alabama projected 2002 

emissions (the latest region-wide 

inventory available at the time the 

submittal was being developed) and 

applied reductions expected from 

federal and state regulations affecting 

the emissions of volatile organic 

compounds and the visibility impairing 

pollutants NOX, PM, and SO2.

To minimize the differences between 

the 2018 projected emissions used in 

the Alabama regional haze submittal 

and what actually occurs in 2018, the 

RHR requires that the five-year review 

address any expected significant 

differences due to changed 

circumstances from the initial 2018 

projected emissions, provide updated 

expectations regarding emissions for the 

implementation period, and evaluate 

the impact of these differences on RPGs. 

It is expected that individual projections 

within a statewide inventory will vary 

from actual emissions over a 16-year 

period. For example, some facilities 

shut down whereas others expand 

operations. Furthermore, economic 

projections and population changes 

used to estimate growth often differ 

from actual events; new rules are 

modified, changing their expected 

effectiveness; and methodologies to 

estimate emissions improve, modifying 

emissions estimates. The five-year 

review is a mechanism to assure that 

these expected differences from 

projected emissions are considered and 

their impact on the 2018 RPGs is 

evaluated. In the regional haze program, 

uncertainties associated with modeled 

emissions projections into the future are 

addressed through the requirement 

under the RHR to submit periodic 

progress reports in the form of a SIP 

revision. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.308(g) 

requires each state to submit a report 

every five years evaluating progress 

toward the RPGs for each mandatory 

Class I area located in the state and for 

each Class I area outside the state that 

may be affected by emissions from the 

state. Since this five-year progress reevaluation is a mandatory requirement, 

it is unnecessary for EPA to take 

additional measures to ‘‘ensure’’ that the 

State meets its reporting obligation. In 

the specific instances of uncertainty of 

future reductions cited by the 

Commenter, the State’s analysis of 

projected emissions and its reliance on 

these projections to establish its RPGs 

meets the requirements of the regional 

haze regulations and EPA guidance. 

Regarding the need to go beyond the 

URP analysis when establishing RPGs, 

EPA affirmed in the RHR that the URP 

is not a ‘‘presumptive target;’’ rather, it 

is an analytical requirement for setting 

RPGs. See 64 FR 35731. In determining 

RPGs for Alabama’s Class I area, the 

State identified sources through its AOI 

methodology for reasonable progress 

control evaluation and described those 

evaluations in its SIP. Thus, the State 

went beyond the URP to identify and 

evaluate sources for potential control 

under reasonable progress in accordance 

with EPA regulations and guidance. 

Comment 9: The Commenter contends 

that Alabama’s regional haze SIP must 

require revisions to address RAVI 

within three years of a Federal Land 

Manager (FLM) certifying visibility 

impairment and that the State’s 

commitment to address RAVI, should a 

FLM certify visibility impairment, is not 

enough. 

Response 9: The SIP revisions do not 

address RAVI requirements since this 

was the subject of previous rulemakings. 

EPA’s visibility regulations direct states 

to coordinate their RAVI LTS provisions 

with those for regional haze and the 

RAVI portion of a SIP must address any 

integral vistas identified by the FLMs. 

However, as stated in the February 28, 

2012, proposed rulemaking, the FLMs 

have not identified any integral vistas in 

Alabama, the Class I area in Alabama is 

not experiencing RAVI, and no Alabama 

sources are affected by the RAVI 

provisions. Thus, the July 15, 2008, 

Alabama regional haze SIP revision did 

not explicitly address the coordination 

of the regional haze with the RAVI LTS 

although Alabama made a commitment 

to address RAVI should the FLM certify 

visibility impairment from an 

individual source. EPA finds that 

Alabama’s regional haze SIP 

appropriately supplements and 

augments the State’s RAVI visibility 

provisions to address regional haze by 

updating the LTS provisions as Alabama 

has done. The commitments in 

Alabama’s SIP are consistent with the 

regulatory requirements for this 

provision. 

Comment 10a: The Commenter claims 

that Alabama’s regional haze SIP does 

not explain how monitoring data and 

other information is used to determine 

the contribution of emissions from 

within the State to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

within and outside Alabama. Therefore, 

the Commenter believes that EPA must 

disapprove Alabama’s regional haze SIP. 

Comment 10b: The Commenter states 

that the SIP must clearly state the 

method by which the State intends to 

report visibility monitoring to the EPA. 

Additionally, the Commenter states that 

if Alabama plans to rely on the 

referenced Visibility Information 

Exchange Web System (VIEWS) Web 

site for reporting, the SIP must clearly 

state that Alabama intends to use the 

Web site as its way of reporting 

visibility monitoring data. ‘‘If Alabama 

intends to use another method of 

reporting visibility, the proposal needs 

to explain that. If Alabama intends to 

use VIEWS for reporting, it is not 

sufficient for Alabama to ‘encourage’ 

VISTAS to maintain the Web site.’’ The 

Commenter also states that the Alabama 

SIP needs to have an enforceable 

mechanism to transmit the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) data to EPA 

as well as an enforceable mechanism to 

ensure that the IMPROVE data is 

continually gathered. The ‘‘SIP must 

include an enforceable requirement that 

the data is gathered by Alabama unless 

it is gathered by other entities such as 

VISTAS and the National Park Service.’’ 

The Commenter concludes by stating 

that ‘‘[b]ecause such an enforceable 

requirement is missing, EPA must 

disapprove the SIP submittal in this 

regard.’’ 

Responses 10a, 10b: As noted by the 

Commenter, the primary monitoring 

network for regional haze in Alabama is 

the IMPROVE network, and there is 

currently one IMPROVE site in 

Alabama, within the Bankhead National 

Forest and managed by the FLM, which 

serves as the monitoring site for Sipsey. 

IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000– 

2004 serves as the baseline for the 

regional haze program, and is relied 

upon in the Alabama regional haze 

submittal and in providing annual 

visibility data to EPA. Monitoring data 

is different from emissions data or 

analyses conducted to attribute 

contribution. These analyses are part of 

the ten-year implementation period 

updates conducted by the states. 

In its SIP revision, Alabama states its 

intention to rely on the IMPROVE 

network for complying with the regional 

haze monitoring requirement in EPA’s 

RHR for the current and future regional 

haze implementation periods. Data 

produced by the IMPROVE monitoring 

network will be used nearly 

continuously for preparing the five-year 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 38521 

progress reports and the 10-year SIP 

revisions, each of which relies on 

analysis of the preceding five years of 

data. The VIEWS Web site has been 

maintained by VISTAS and the other 

regional planning organizations (RPOs) 

to provide ready access to the IMPROVE 

data and data analysis tools. Alabama is 

encouraging VISTAS and the other 

RPOs to maintain VIEWS or a similar 

data management system to facilitate 

analysis of the IMPROVE data. Alabama 

cannot legally bind federal and state 

legislatures to continue to fund the 

monitoring program for regional haze. 

Alabama’s SIP adequately addresses this 

provision and explains how monitoring 

data and other information has been and 

will be used to determine the 

contribution of emissions from within 

the State to regional haze visibility 

impairment at federal Class I areas. 

Comment 11: The Commenter 

believes that EPA should fully approve 

the State’s implementation plan as it 

applies to regional haze since it is likely 

that either CAIR or the Transport Rule 

will be in effect in the future. 

Response 11: Today, EPA is finalizing 

action on a limited approval of 

Alabama’s regional haze SIP that results 

in an approval of the entire regional 

haze submission and all of its elements, 

preserving the visibility benefits offered 

by the SIP. EPA has the authority to 

issue a limited approval and believes 

that it is appropriate and necessary to 

promulgate a limited approval of 

Alabama’s regional haze SIP. On 

December 30, 2011, EPA proposed a 

limited disapproval for Alabama’s 

regional haze SIP and explained that 

EPA cannot fully approve regional haze 

SIP revisions that rely on CAIR for 

emissions reduction measures for the 

reasons discussed in that action. 

Comments on the disapproval are 

therefore beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. EPA finalized the limited 

disapproval of Alabama’s regional haze 

SIP in a final action published June 7, 

2012 (77 FR 33642). 

Comment 12: The Commenter 

expressed concern with EPA’s proposed 

approach of adopting FIPs at the time of 

disapproval to replace reliance on CAIR 

in the regional haze SIPs with reliance 

on the Transport Rule. The Commenter 

believes that states should be given 

every opportunity provided by the Act 

to make revisions to correct SIP 

deficiencies before EPA acts by 

imposing a FIP. 

Response 12: As discussed in the 

response to Comment 11, today’s action 

addresses the limited approval, and EPA 

finalized a limited disapproval in a 

separate action published on June 7, 

2012. In that same action, EPA did not 

finalize a FIP for Alabama. EPA’s 

response to comments on the final 

disapproval can be found in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729 at 

www.regulations.gov. 

III. What is the effect of this final 

action? 

Under CAA sections 301(a) and 

110(k)(6) and EPA’s long-standing 

guidance, a limited approval results in 

approval of the entire SIP revision, even 

of those parts that are deficient and 

prevent EPA from granting a full 

approval of the SIP revision. Today, 

EPA is finalizing a limited approval of 

Alabama’s July 15, 2008, regional haze 

SIP revision. This limited approval 

results in approval of Alabama’s entire 

regional haze submission and all its 

elements. EPA is taking this approach 

because Alabama’s SIP will be stronger 

and more protective of the environment 

with the implementation of those 

measures by the State and having 

federal approval and enforceability than 

it would without those measures being 

included in its SIP. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is finalizing a limited approval of 

a revision to the Alabama SIP submitted 

by the State of Alabama on July 15, 

2008, 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. Also in this 

action, EPA is rescinding the federal 

regulations in 40 CFR 52.61 that were 

approved into the Alabama SIP on 

November 24, 1987, and approving the 

provisions in Alabama’s July 15, 2008, 

SIP submittal to meet the monitoring 

and LTS requirements for RAVI at 40 

CFR 51.306. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must 

approve all ‘‘collections of information’’ 

by EPA. The Act defines ‘‘collection of 

information’’ as a requirement for 

answers to ‘‘* * * identical reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements imposed on 

ten or more persons * * *’’. 44 U.S.C. 

3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction 

Act does not apply to this action. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to conduct a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

unless the agency certifies that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Small entities include small 

businesses, small not-for-profit 

enterprises, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the CAA do not create any new 

requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because the federal 

SIP approval does not create any new 

requirements, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

federal-state relationship under the 

CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis 

would constitute federal inquiry into 

the economic reasonableness of state 

action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 

U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 

7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Under sections 202 of the UMRA of 

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), 

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 

must prepare a budgetary impact 

statement to accompany any proposed 

or final rule that includes a federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs to state, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate; or to the 

private sector, of $100 million or more. 

Under section 205, EPA must select the 

most cost-effective and least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule and is 

consistent with statutory requirements. 

Section 203 requires EPA to establish a 

plan for informing and advising any 

small governments that may be 

significantly or uniquely impacted by 

the rule. 

EPA has determined that today’s 

action does not include a federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

state, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

federal action approves pre-existing 

requirements under state or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
38522 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

state, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have Federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has Federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by state and local 

governments, or EPA consults with state 

and local officials early in the process 

of developing the proposed regulation. 

EPA also may not issue a regulation that 

has Federalism implications and that 

preempts state law unless the Agency 

consults with state and local officials 

early in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves a state rule 

implementing a federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

applies to any rule that: (1) Is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it does not involve 

decisions intended to mitigate 

environmental health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 

requires federal agencies to evaluate 

existing technical standards when 

developing a new regulation. To comply 

with NTTAA, EPA must consider and 

use ‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ 

(VCS) if available and applicable when 

developing programs and policies 

unless doing so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. 

EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

K. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by August 27, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

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: June 14, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart B—Alabama 

■ 2. Section 52.50 (e) is amended by 

adding a new entry for ‘‘Regional Haze 

Plan’’ at the end of the table to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.50 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 38523 

EPA APPROVED ALABAMA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date/effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Regional haze plan ...................... Statewide ............................... 7/15/2008 6/28/2012 [Insert citation of publication]. 

■ 3. Section 52.61 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.61 Visibility protection. 

(a) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–15475 Filed 6–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 141 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2012–0288; FRL–9693–4] 

Expedited Approval of Alternative Test 

Procedures for the Analysis of 

Contaminants Under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act; Analysis and Sampling 

Procedures 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action announces the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA’s) approval of alternative testing 

methods for use in measuring the levels 

of contaminants in drinking water and 

determining compliance with national 

primary drinking water regulations. The 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 

authorizes EPA to approve the use of 

alternative testing methods through 

publication in the Federal Register. EPA 

is using this streamlined authority to 

make 10 additional methods available 

for analyzing drinking water samples 

required by regulation. This expedited 

approach provides public water 

systems, laboratories, and primacy 

agencies with more timely access to new 

measurement techniques and greater 

flexibility in the selection of analytical 

methods, thereby reducing monitoring 

costs while maintaining public health 

protection. 

DATES: This action is effective June 28, 

2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Safe 

Drinking Water Hotline (800) 426–4791 

or Glynda Smith, Technical Support 

Center, Standards and Risk Management 

Division, Office of Ground Water and 

Drinking Water (MS 140), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 26 

West Martin Luther King Drive, 

Cincinnati, OH 45268; telephone 

number: (513) 569–7652; email address: 

smith.glynda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Public water systems are the regulated 

entities required to measure 

contaminants in drinking water 

samples. In addition, EPA Regions as 

well as States and Tribal governments 

with authority to administer the 

regulatory program for public water 

systems under SDWA may also measure 

contaminants in water samples. When 

EPA sets a monitoring requirement in its 

national primary drinking water 

regulations for a given contaminant, the 

Agency also establishes in the 

regulations standardized test procedures 

for analysis of the contaminant. This 

action makes alternative testing 

methods available for particular 

drinking water contaminants beyond the 

testing methods currently established in 

the regulations. EPA is providing public 

water systems required to test water 

samples with a choice of using either a 

test procedure already established in the 

existing regulations or an alternative test 

procedure that has been approved in 

this action or in prior expedited 

approval actions. Categories and entities 

that may ultimately be affected by this 

action include: 

Category Examples of potentially regulated 

entities NAICS1

State, Local, & Tribal Governments.States, local and Tribal governments that analyze water samples on behalf of public water systems required to conduct such analysis; States, local and Tribal governments that themselves operate community and non-transient non-community water systems required to monitor.924110 

Industry ...................................... Private operators of community and non-transient non-community water systems required to 

monitor.

221310 

Municipalities .............................. Municipal operators of community and non-transient non-community water systems required to 

monitor.

924110 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding 

entities likely to be affected by this 

action. This table lists the types of 

entities that EPA is now aware could 

potentially be affected by this action. 

Other types of entities not listed in the 

table could also be impacted. To 

determine whether your facility is 

affected by this action, you should 

carefully examine the applicability 

language in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 141.2 

(definition of public water system). If 

you have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

Docket. EPA established a docket for 

this action under Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OW–2012–0288. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Water Docket in the EPA Docket 

Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES