39090 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

11See Section I and Section II.C. of this proposed 

rule for additional detail. 

and its updated provisions into the SIP, 

pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with the 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

South Carolina Regulation 61–62.1, 

Section II—‘‘Permit Requirements,’’ 

effective June 24, 2016,11 which revises 

the federally enforceable minor source 

construction and operating permit 

program. EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these materials 

generally available through 

www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA 

Region 4 office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve portions 

of revisions to the South Carolina SIP 

submitted by SC DHEC to EPA on 

October 1, 2007, July 18, 2011, June 17, 

2013, August 8, 2014, January 20, 2016, 

and July 27, 2016. Specifically, EPA is 

proposing to approve the changes to 

S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61–62.1, Section 

II—‘‘Permit Requirements,’’ as 

discussed above, pursuant to CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C), section 110(l), and 

40 CFR 51.160—164. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely proposes to approve state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• 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 (Public Law 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule for South 

Carolina does not have Tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on an Indian 

Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation 

Reservation is located within the state of 

South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba 

Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code 

Ann. 27–16–120, ‘‘all state and local 

environmental laws and regulations 

apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] 

and Reservation and are fully 

enforceable by all relevant state and 

local agencies and authorities.’’ EPA 

notes this action will not 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, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: August 7, 2017. 

V. Anne Heard, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17345 Filed 8–16–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0104; FRL–9966–18– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Regional 

Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for 

the 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 

and 2008 Ozone NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to take the 

following four actions regarding the 

Alabama State Implementation Plan 

(SIP), contingent upon a final 

determination from the Agency that a 

state’s participation in the Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) continues to 

meet the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)’s 

criteria to qualify as an alternative to the 

application of Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART): Approve the 

portion of Alabama’s October 26, 2015, 

SIP submittal seeking to change reliance 

from the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR) to CSAPR for certain regional 

haze requirements; convert EPA’s 

limited approval/limited disapproval of 

Alabama’s July 15, 2008, regional haze 

SIP to a full approval; approve the 

visibility prong of Alabama’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals for the 

2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), 

2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), and 2010 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); and 

convert EPA’s disapproval of the 

visibility portion of Alabama’s 

infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 

Ozone NAAQS to an approval. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 18, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No EPA–R04– 

OAR–2017–0104 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules 39091 

1CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to 

reduce SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states 

(and the District of Columbia), including Alabama, 

that contributed to downwind nonattainment or 

interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

2CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their 

statewide emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to 

mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully 

impacting other states’ ability to attain or maintain 

four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms 

of maximum statewide ‘‘budgets’’ for emissions of 

annual SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX

by each covered state’s large EGUs. The CSAPR 

state budgets are implemented in two phases of 

generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 

budgets applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 

and the Phase 2 budgets applying to emissions in 

2017 and later years. 

3Legal challenges to the CSAPR-Better-thanBART rule from state, industry, and other 

petitioners are pending. Utility Air Regulatory 

Group v. EPA, No. 12–1342 (D.C. Cir. filed August 

6, 2012). 4EPA has promulgated FIPs relying on CSAPR 

participation for BART purposes for Georgia, 

Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, 

and West Virginia, 77 FR at 33654, and Nebraska, 

77 FR 40150, 40151 (July 6, 2012). EPA has 

approved Minnesota’s and Wisconsin’s SIPs relying 

on CSAPR participation for BART purposes. See 77 

FR 34801, 34806 (June 12, 2012) for Minnesota and 

77 FR 46952, 46959 (August 7, 2012) for Wisconsin. 

submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 

Notarianni can be reached by telephone 

at (404) 562–9031 or via electronic mail 

at notarianni.michele@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Regional Haze SIPs and Their 

Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR 

Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act) requires states to 

submit regional haze SIPs that contain 

such measures as may be necessary to 

make reasonable progress towards the 

natural visibility goal, including a 

requirement that certain categories of 

existing major stationary sources built 

between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, 

and operate BART as determined by the 

state. Under the RHR, states are directed 

to conduct BART determinations for 

such ‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may 

be anticipated to cause or contribute to 

any visibility impairment in a Class I 

area. Rather than requiring sourcespecific BART controls, states also have 

the flexibility to adopt an emissions 

trading program or other alternative 

program as long as the alternative 

provides greater reasonable progress 

towards improving visibility than 

BART. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA 

provided states with this flexibility in 

the RHR, adopted in 1999, and further 

refined the criteria for assessing whether 

an alternative program provides for 

greater reasonable progress in two 

subsequent rulemakings. See 64 FR 

35714 (July 1, 1999); 70 FR 39104 (July 

6, 2005); 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 

2006). 

EPA demonstrated that CAIR would 

achieve greater reasonable progress than 

BART in revisions to the regional haze 

program made in 2005.1 See 70 FR 

39104. In those revisions, EPA amended 

its regulations to provide that states 

participating in the CAIR cap-and-trade 

programs pursuant to an EPA-approved 

CAIR SIP or states that remain subject 

to a CAIR Federal Implementation Plan 

(FIP) need not require affected BARTeligible electric generating units (EGUs) 

to install, operate, and maintain BART 

for emissions of SO2 and nitrogen 

oxides (NOX). As a result of EPA’s 

determination that CAIR was ‘‘betterthan-BART,’’ a number of states in the 

CAIR region, including Alabama, relied 

on the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as 

an alternative to BART for EGU 

emissions of SO2 and NOX in designing 

their regional haze SIPs. These states 

also relied on CAIR as an element of a 

long-term strategy (LTS) for achieving 

their reasonable progress goals (RPGs) 

for their regional haze programs. 

However, in 2008, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) 

remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur 

to preserve the environmental benefits 

provided by CAIR. North Carolina v. 

EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), 

acting on the D.C. Circuit’s remand, EPA 

promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR 

and issued FIPs to implement the rule 

in CSAPR-subject states.2

Implementation of CSAPR was 

scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, 

when CSAPR would have superseded 

the CAIR program. 

Due to the D.C. Circuit’s 2008 ruling 

that CAIR was ‘‘fatally flawed’’ and its 

resulting status as a temporary measure 

following that ruling, EPA could not 

fully approve regional haze SIPs to the 

extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy 

the BART requirement and the 

requirement for a LTS sufficient to 

achieve the state-adopted RPGs. On 

these grounds, EPA finalized a limited 

disapproval of Alabama’s regional haze 

SIP on June 7, 2012, triggering the 

requirement for EPA to promulgate a 

FIP unless Alabama submitted and EPA 

approved a SIP revision that corrected 

the deficiency. See 77 FR 33642. EPA 

finalized a limited approval of 

Alabama’s regional haze SIP on June 28, 

2012, as meeting the remaining 

applicable regional haze requirements 

set forth in the CAA and the RHR. See 

77 FR 38515. 

In the June 7, 2012, limited 

disapproval action, EPA also amended 

the RHR to provide that participation by 

a state’s EGUs in a CSAPR trading 

program for a given pollutant—either a 

CSAPR federal trading program 

implemented through a CSAPR FIP or 

an integrated CSAPR state trading 

program implemented through an 

approved CSAPR SIP revision— 

qualifies as a BART alternative for those 

EGUs for that pollutant.3 See 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(4). Since EPA promulgated 

this amendment, numerous states 

covered by CSAPR have come to rely on 

the provision through either SIPs or 

FIPs.4

Numerous parties filed petitions for 

review of CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit, 

and on August 21, 2012, the court 

issued its ruling, vacating and 

remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering 

continued implementation of CAIR. 

EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. 

EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The 

D.C. Circuit’s vacatur of CSAPR was 

reversed by the United States Supreme 

Court on April 29, 2014, and the case 

was remanded to the D.C. Circuit to 

resolve remaining issues in accordance 

with the high court’s ruling. EPA v. EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 

1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. 

Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most 

respects, but invalidated without 

vacating some of the CSAPR budgets as 

to a number of states. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 

(D.C. Cir. 2015). The remanded budgets 

include the Phase 2 SO2 emissions 

budgets for Alabama, Georgia, South 

Carolina, and Texas and the Phase 2 

ozone-season NOX budgets for 11 states. 

This litigation ultimately delayed 

implementation of CSAPR for three 

years, from January 1, 2012, when 

CSAPR’s cap-and-trade programs were 

originally scheduled to replace the CAIR 

cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 

2015. Thus, the rule’s Phase 2 budgets 

that were originally promulgated to 

begin on January 1, 2014, began on 

January 1, 2017. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
39092 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

5 Georgia’s rulemaking to adopt the Phase 2 

annual NOX and SO2 budgets became state effective 

on July 20, 2017, and the State will submit a SIP 

revision to EPA in the near future. South Carolina 

submitted a SIP revision to EPA for parallel 

processing on May 26, 2017, to adopt the Phase 2 

annual NOX and SO2 budgets. 

6On August 31, 2016 (81 FR 59869), EPA 

approved portions of the October 26, 2015, SIP 

submission incorporating into Alabama’s SIP the 

State’s regulations requiring Alabama EGUs to 

participate in CSAPR state trading programs for 

annual NOX and SO2 emissions integrated with the 

CSAPR federal trading programs and thus replacing 

the corresponding FIP requirements. In the August 

31, 2016, action, EPA did not take any action 

regarding Alabama’s request in this October 26, 

2015, SIP submission to revise the State’s regional 

haze SIP nor regarding the prong 4 for the 2008 

lead, 2008 8-hour ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2, and 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

7 In its regional haze SIP, Alabama concluded and 

EPA found acceptable the State’s determination that 

no additional controls beyond CAIR are reasonable 

for SO2 for affected Alabama EGUs for the first 

implementation period. See 77 FR 11949 (February 

28, 2012). 

8See 82 FR 9512 (February 7, 2017). 9The other portions of Alabama’s April 23 2013, 

SO2 infrastructure submission have been addressed 

in a previous EPA action. See 82 FR 3637 (January 

12, 2017). 10The other portions for Alabama’s April 23 

2013, and December 9, 2015, NO2 infrastructure 

submissions have been addressed in previous EPA 

actions. See 81 FR 83142 (November 21, 2016); 80 

FR 14019 (March 18, 2015). 

On November 10, 2016, EPA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) explaining the 

Agency’s belief that the potentially 

material changes to the scope of CSAPR 

coverage resulting from the D.C. 

Circuit’s remand will be limited to the 

withdrawal of the FIP provisions 

providing SO2 and annual NOX budgets 

for Texas and ozone-season NOX

budgets for Florida. This is due, in part, 

to EPA’s approval of the portion of 

Alabama’s October 26, 2015, SIP 

submittal adopting Phase 2 annual NOX

and SO2 budgets equivalent to the 

federally-developed budgets and to 

commitments from Georgia and South 

Carolina to submit SIP revisions 

adopting Phase 2 annual NOX and SO2

budgets equal to or more stringent than 

the federally-developed budgets. See 81 

FR 78954. Since publication of the 

NPRM, Georgia and South Carolina have 

submitted these SIP revisions to EPA.5

In the NPRM, EPA also proposed to 

determine that the limited changes to 

the scope of CSAPR coverage do not 

alter EPA’s conclusion that CSAPR 

remains ‘‘better-than-BART;’’ that is, 

that participation in CSAPR remains 

available as an alternative to BART for 

EGUs covered by the trading program. 

At this time, EPA has not finalized this 

proposed determination. 

Alabama’s October 26, 2015, SIP 

submittal also seeks to correct the 

deficiencies identified in the June 7, 

2012, limited disapproval of its regional 

haze SIP by replacing reliance on CAIR 

with reliance on CSAPR.6 Specifically, 

Alabama requests that EPA amend the 

State’s regional haze SIP by replacing its 

reliance on CAIR with CSAPR to satisfy 

SO2 and NOX BART requirements and 

SO2 reasonable progress requirements 

for EGUs formerly subject to CAIR,7 and 

to support the RPGs for the Sipsey 

Wilderness Area in Alabama for the first 

planning period. EPA is proposing to 

take these actions in this action. 

B. Infrastructure SIPs 

By statute, SIPs meeting the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the CAA are to be submitted by 

states within three years (or less, if the 

Administrator so prescribes) after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the new or revised 

NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to 

these SIP submissions made for the 

purpose of satisfying the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states 

to address basic SIP elements such as 

for monitoring, basic program 

requirements, and legal authority that 

are designed to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the newly established or 

revised NAAQS. More specifically, 

section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

infrastructure SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) 

lists specific elements that states must 

meet for the infrastructure SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. The 

contents of an infrastructure SIP 

submission may vary depending upon 

the data and analytical tools available to 

the state, as well as the provisions 

already contained in the state’s 

implementation plan at the time in 

which the state develops and submits 

the submission for a new or revised 

NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two 

components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

includes four distinct components, 

commonly referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that 

must be addressed in infrastructure SIP 

submissions. The first two prongs, 

which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that 

prohibit any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

state (prong 1) and from interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state (prong 2). The third and fourth 

prongs, which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that 

prohibit emissions activity in one state 

from interfering with measures required 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in another state (prong 3) or 

from interfering with measures to 

protect visibility in another state (prong 

4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs 

to include provisions ensuring 

compliance with sections 115 and 126 

of the Act, relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement. 

Through this action, EPA is proposing 

to approve the prong 4 portion of 

Alabama’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions for the 2010 1-hour NO2, 

2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, and to convert EPA’s 

disapproval of the prong 4 portion of 

Alabama’s infrastructure SIP submission 

for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to an 

approval, as discussed in section IV of 

this notice.8 All other applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements for these 

SIP submissions have been or will be 

addressed in separate rulemakings. A 

brief background regarding the NAAQS 

relevant to this proposal is provided 

below. For comprehensive information 

on these NAAQS, please refer to the 

Federal Register notices cited in the 

following subsections. 

1. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS 

On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the 1- 

hour primary SO2 NAAQS to an hourly 

standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) 

based on a 3-year average of the annual 

99th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 

35520 (June 22, 2010). States were 

required to submit infrastructure SIP 

submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2, 

2013. Alabama submitted an 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on April 23, 

2013. This proposed action only 

addresses the prong 4 element of that 

submission.9

2. 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS 

On January 22, 2010, EPA 

promulgated a new 1-hour primary 

NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 ppb, 

based on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of the yearly distribution of 1- 

hour daily maximum concentrations. 

See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). 

States were required to submit 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no 

later than January 22, 2013. Alabama 

submitted infrastructure SIP 

submissions for the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS on April 23, 2013, and 

December 9, 2015. This proposed action 

only addresses the prong 4 element of 

those submissions.10


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules 39093 

11The other portions of Alabama’s December 9, 

2015, PM2.5 infrastructure submission are being 

addressed in separate actions. 

12The other portions of Alabama’s March 12, 

2008, ozone infrastructure SIP submission have 

been addressed in previous EPA actions. See 80 FR 

14019 (March 3, 2015); 80 FR 17689 (April 2, 2015). 

13For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides 

that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of 

Title I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides 

that states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

14See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport 

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air 

Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; 

Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 

25162, at 25163–65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 

relationship between timing requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)). 

15EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 

110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various 

subparts of part D set specific dates for submission 

of certain types of SIP submissions in designated 

nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, 

e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates 

for submission of emissions inventories for the 

ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are 

necessarily later than three years after promulgation 

of the new or revised NAAQS. 

16See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to 

the New Source Review (NSR) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR 

4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action 

approving the structural PSD elements of the New 

Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to 

meet the requirements of EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ 78 FR 

4337 (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action on the 

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

3. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

On December 14, 2012, EPA revised 

the annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3). 

See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). 

States were required to submit 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than 

December 14, 2015. Alabama submitted 

an infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on December 9, 

2015. This proposed action only 

addresses the prong 4 element of that 

submission.11

4. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 

8-hour Ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per 

million. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 

2008). States were required to submit 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to EPA no 

later than March 12, 2011. Alabama 

submitted an infrastructure SIP for the 

2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS on August 

20, 2012. On February 7, 2017, EPA 

disapproved the prong 4 element of 

Alabama’s 2008 8-hour Ozone 

infrastructure submission. See 82 FR 

9512. This proposed action addresses 

that disapproval and proposes to 

convert it to a full approval for prong 

4.12

II. What is EPA’s approach to the 

review of infrastructure SIP 

submissions? 

The requirement for states to make a 

SIP submission of this type arises out of 

section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 

110(a)(1), states must make SIP 

submissions ‘‘within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may 

prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and 

these SIP submissions are to provide for 

the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

EPA’s taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘each such plan’’ 

submission must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (2) as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

submissions. Although the term 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ does not appear in 

the CAA, EPA uses the term to 

distinguish this particular type of SIP 

submission from submissions that are 

intended to satisfy other SIP 

requirements under the CAA, such as 

‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or ‘‘attainment 

plan SIP’’ submissions to address the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D of Title I of the CAA, ‘‘regional 

haze SIP’’ submissions required by EPA 

rule to address the visibility protection 

requirements of section 169A of the 

CAA, and nonattainment new source 

review (NSR) permit program 

submissions to address the permit 

requirements of CAA, Title I, part D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.13 EPA 

therefore believes that while the timing 

requirement in section 110(a)(1) is 

unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, EPA believes that the list of 

required elements for infrastructure SIP 

submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

The following examples of 

ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 

to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and 

section 110(a)(2) requirements with 

respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions for a given new or revised 

NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is 

that section 110(a)(2) requires that 

‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the 

list of requirements therein, while EPA 

has long noted that this literal reading 

of the statute is internally inconsistent 

and would create a conflict with the 

nonattainment provisions in part D of 

Title I of the CAA, which specifically 

address nonattainment SIP 

requirements.14 Section 110(a)(2)(I) 

pertains to nonattainment SIP 

requirements and part D addresses 

when attainment plan SIP submissions 

to address nonattainment area 

requirements are due. For example, 

section 172(b) requires EPA to establish 

a schedule for submission of such plans 

for certain pollutants when the 

Administrator promulgates the 

designation of an area as nonattainment, 

and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to 

two years or in some cases three years, 

for such designations to be 

promulgated.15 This ambiguity 

illustrates that rather than apply all the 

stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) 

in a strict literal sense, EPA must 

determine which provisions of section 

110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Another example of ambiguity within 

section 110(a)(1) and (2) with respect to 

infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether 

states must meet all of the infrastructure 

SIP requirements in a single SIP 

submission, and whether EPA must act 

upon such SIP submission in a single 

action. Although section 110(a)(1) 

directs states to submit ‘‘a plan’’ to meet 

these requirements, EPA interprets the 

CAA to allow states to make multiple 

SIP submissions separately addressing 

infrastructure SIP elements for the same 

NAAQS. If states elect to make such 

multiple SIP submissions to meet the 

infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA 

can elect to act on such submissions 

either individually or in a larger 

combined action.16 Similarly, EPA 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
39094 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

17On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, 

through the Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA 

demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action 

for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on 

January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action 

on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 

2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 

42997), EPA took separate proposed and final 

actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007, 

submittal. 

18For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

19EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA 

requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate 

regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The 

CAA directly applies to states and requires the 

submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, 

regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance 

or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA 

elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 

states, as appropriate. 

20 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ 

Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 

2013. 

21EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not 

make recommendations with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly 

after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the 

D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 

7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of 

the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA 

elected not to provide additional guidance on the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that 

time. As the guidance is neither binding nor 

required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide 

guidance on a particular section has no impact on 

a state’s CAA obligations. 

interprets the CAA to allow it to take 

action on the individual parts of one 

larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP 

submission for a given NAAQS without 

concurrent action on the entire 

submission. For example, EPA has 

sometimes elected to act at different 

times on various elements and subelements of the same infrastructure SIP 

submission.17

Ambiguities within section 110(a)(1) 

and (2) may also arise with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submission 

requirements for different NAAQS. 

Thus, EPA notes that not every element 

of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, 

or as relevant, or relevant in the same 

way, for each new or revised NAAQS. 

The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP 

submissions for each NAAQS therefore 

could be different. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that a state 

might need to meet in its infrastructure 

SIP submission for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for 

different pollutants, because the content 

and scope of a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission to meet this element might 

be very different for an entirely new 

NAAQS than for a minor revision to an 

existing NAAQS.18

EPA notes that interpretation of 

section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when 

EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submissions required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submissions, EPA also has to identify 

and interpret the relevant elements of 

section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to 

these other types of SIP submissions. 

For example, section 172(c)(7) requires 

attainment plan SIP submissions 

required by part D to meet the 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ of section 

110(a)(2); thus, attainment plan SIP 

submissions must meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 

regarding enforceable emission limits 

and control measures and section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency 

resources and authority. By contrast, it 

is clear that attainment plan SIP 

submissions required by part D would 

not need to meet the portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) program required in part C of 

Title I of the CAA, because PSD does 

not apply to a pollutant for which an 

area is designated nonattainment and 

thus subject to part D planning 

requirements. As this example 

illustrates, each type of SIP submission 

may implicate some elements of section 

110(a)(2) but not others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in 

some of the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) 

in the context of acting on a particular 

SIP submission. In other words, EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 

intended that each and every SIP 

submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 

question or the history of SIP 

development for the relevant pollutant, 

would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, EPA has adopted an 

approach under which it reviews 

infrastructure SIP submissions against 

the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), 

but only to the extent each element 

applies for that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use 

guidance documents to make 

recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements.19 EPA most 

recently issued guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 

2013 (2013 Guidance).20 EPA developed 

this document to provide states with upto-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs 

for any new or revised NAAQS. Within 

this guidance, EPA describes the duty of 

states to make infrastructure SIP 

submissions to meet basic structural SIP 

requirements within three years of 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. EPA also made 

recommendations about many specific 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are 

relevant in the context of infrastructure 

SIP submissions.21 The guidance also 

discusses the substantively important 

issues that are germane to certain 

subsections of section 110(a)(2). EPA 

interprets sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

such that infrastructure SIP submissions 

need to address certain issues and need 

not address others. Accordingly, EPA 

reviews each infrastructure SIP 

submission for compliance with the 

applicable statutory provisions of 

section 110(a)(2), as appropriate. 

As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

is a required element of section 

110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP 

submissions. Under this element, a state 

must meet the substantive requirements 

of section 128, which pertain to state 

boards that approve permits or 

enforcement orders and heads of 

executive agencies with similar powers. 

Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP 

submissions to ensure that the state’s 

SIP appropriately addresses the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

and section 128. The 2013 Guidance 

explains EPA’s interpretation that there 

may be a variety of ways by which states 

can appropriately address these 

substantive statutory requirements, 

depending on the structure of an 

individual state’s permitting or 

enforcement program (e.g., whether 

permits and enforcement orders are 

approved by a multi-member board or 

by a head of an executive agency). 

Regardless of how they are addressed by 

the state, the substantive requirements 

of section 128 are necessarily included 

in EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure SIP 

submissions because section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that 

the state satisfy the provisions of section 

128. 

As another example, EPA’s review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions with 

respect to the PSD program 

requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the 

structural PSD program requirements 

contained in part C and EPA’s PSD 

regulations. Structural PSD program 

requirements include provisions 

necessary for the PSD program to 

address all regulated sources and NSR 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules 39095 

22Subsequent to issuing the 2013 Guidance, 

EPA’s interpretation of the CAA with respect to the 

approvability of affirmative defense provisions in 

SIPs has changed. See ‘‘State Implementation Plans: 

Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement 

and Update of EPA’s SSM Policy Applicable to 

SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP 

Calls To Amend Provisions Applying to Excess 

Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and 

Malfunction,’’ 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015). As a 

result, EPA’s 2013 Guidance (p. 21 & n.30) no 

longer represents the EPA’s view concerning the 

validity of affirmative defense provisions, in light 

of the requirements of section 113 and section 304. 

23By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to 

include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that contained a legal deficiency, such 

as a new exemption or affirmative defense for 

excess emissions during SSM events, then EPA 

would need to evaluate that provision for 

compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA 

requirements in the context of the action on the 

infrastructure SIP. 

24For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to 

address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to 

the treatment of excess emissions during SSM 

events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639 

(April 18, 2011). 

25EPA has used this authority to correct errors in 

past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD 

programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 

82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously 

used its authority under section 110(k)(6) of the 

CAA to remove numerous other SIP provisions that 

the Agency determined it had approved in error. 

See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 

34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American 

Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada 

SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004 (corrections 

to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 

2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

pollutants, including greenhouse gases. 

By contrast, structural PSD program 

requirements do not include provisions 

that are not required under EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are 

merely available as an option for the 

state, such as the option to provide 

grandfathering of complete permit 

applications with respect to the PM2.5

NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter 

optional provisions are types of 

provisions EPA considers irrelevant in 

the context of an infrastructure SIP 

action. 

For other section 110(a)(2) elements, 

however, EPA’s review of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission focuses 

on assuring that the state’s SIP meets 

basic structural requirements. For 

example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, 

inter alia, the requirement that states 

have a program to regulate minor new 

sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether 

the state has an EPA-approved minor 

NSR program and whether the program 

addresses the pollutants relevant to that 

NAAQS. In the context of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, however, 

EPA does not think it is necessary to 

conduct a review of each and every 

provision of a state’s existing minor 

source program (i.e., already in the 

existing SIP) for compliance with the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, 

EPA does not believe that an action on 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission is 

necessarily the appropriate type of 

action in which to address possible 

deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. 

These issues include: (i) Existing 

provisions related to excess emissions 

from sources during periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that 

may be contrary to the CAA and EPA’s 

policies addressing such excess 

emissions; 22 (ii) existing provisions 

related to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or 

‘‘director’s discretion’’ that may be 

contrary to the CAA because they 

purport to allow revisions to SIPapproved emissions limits while 

limiting public process or not requiring 

further approval by EPA; and (iii) 

existing provisions for PSD programs 

that may be inconsistent with current 

requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final NSR 

Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR Reform). 

Thus, EPA believes that it may approve 

an infrastructure SIP submission 

without scrutinizing the totality of the 

existing SIP for such potentially 

deficient provisions and may approve 

the submission even if it is aware of 

such existing provisions.23 It is 

important to note that EPA’s approval of 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission 

should not be construed as explicit or 

implicit re-approval of any existing 

potentially deficient provisions that 

relate to the three specific issues just 

described. 

EPA’s approach to review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions is to 

identify the CAA requirements that are 

logically applicable to that submission. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

review of a particular infrastructure SIP 

submission is appropriate, because it 

would not be reasonable to read the 

general requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 

section 110(a)(2) as requiring review of 

each and every provision of a state’s 

existing SIP against all requirements in 

the CAA and EPA regulations merely for 

purposes of assuring that the state in 

question has the basic structural 

elements for a functioning SIP for a new 

or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 

grown by accretion over the decades as 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

under the CAA have evolved, they may 

include some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts. These provisions, 

while not fully up to date, nevertheless 

may not pose a significant problem for 

the purposes of ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a 

new or revised NAAQS when EPA 

evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 

SIP submission. EPA believes that a 

better approach is for states and EPA to 

focus attention on those elements of 

section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely 

to warrant a specific SIP revision due to 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or other factors. 

For example, EPA’s 2013 Guidance 

gives simpler recommendations with 

respect to carbon monoxide than other 

NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon 

monoxide does not affect visibility. As 

a result, an infrastructure SIP 

submission for any future new or 

revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide 

need only state this fact in order to 

address the visibility prong of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach with respect to infrastructure 

SIP requirements is based on a 

reasonable reading of section 110(a)(1) 

and (2) because the CAA provides other 

avenues and mechanisms to address 

specific substantive deficiencies in 

existing SIPs. These other statutory tools 

allow EPA to take appropriately tailored 

action, depending upon the nature and 

severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. 

Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to 

issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the Agency 

determines that a state’s implementation 

plan is substantially inadequate to attain 

or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or to otherwise 

comply with the CAA.24 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.25

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission is not the appropriate time 

and place to address all potential 

existing SIP deficiencies does not 

preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action to correct those 

deficiencies at a later time. For example, 

although it may not be appropriate to 

require a state to eliminate all existing 

inappropriate director’s discretion 

provisions in the course of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, EPA 

believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be 

among the statutory bases that EPA 

relies upon in the course of addressing 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
39096 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

26See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 

(July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s 

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 

2011) (final disapproval of such provisions). 

27See Alabama’s October 26, 2015, SIP submittal, 

Part H—Proposed Revisions to Alabama Regional 

Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

such deficiency in a subsequent 

action.26

III. What are the Prong 4 requirements? 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

requires a state’s implementation plan 

to contain provisions prohibiting 

sources in that state from emitting 

pollutants in amounts that interfere 

with any other state’s efforts to protect 

visibility under part C of the CAA 

(which includes sections 169A and 

169B). The 2013 Guidance states that 

these prong 4 requirements can be 

satisfied by approved SIP provisions 

that EPA has found to adequately 

address any contribution of that state’s 

sources that impacts the visibility 

program requirements in other states. 

The 2013 Guidance also states that EPA 

interprets this prong to be pollutantspecific, such that the infrastructure SIP 

submission need only address the 

potential for interference with 

protection of visibility caused by the 

pollutant (including precursors) to 

which the new or revised NAAQS 

applies. 

The 2013 Guidance lays out how a 

state’s infrastructure SIP may satisfy 

prong 4. One way that a state can meet 

the requirements is via confirmation in 

its infrastructure SIP submission that 

the state has an approved regional haze 

SIP that fully meets the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 

and 51.309 specifically require that a 

state participating in a regional planning 

process include all measures needed to 

achieve its apportionment of emission 

reduction obligations agreed upon 

through that process. A fully approved 

regional haze SIP will ensure that 

emissions from sources under an air 

agency’s jurisdiction are not interfering 

with measures required to be included 

in other air agencies’ plans to protect 

visibility. 

Alternatively, in the absence of a fully 

approved regional haze SIP, a state may 

meet the requirements of prong 4 

through a demonstration in its 

infrastructure SIP submission that 

emissions within its jurisdiction do not 

interfere with other air agencies’ plans 

to protect visibility. Such an 

infrastructure SIP submission would 

need to include measures to limit 

visibility-impairing pollutants and 

ensure that the reductions conform with 

any mutually agreed regional haze RPGs 

for mandatory Class I areas in other 

states. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Alabama addressed Prong 4 and 

regional haze? 

Alabama’s August 20, 2012, 2008 8- 

hour Ozone infrastructure SIP 

submission; April 23, 2013, and 

December 9, 2015, 2010 1-hour NO2

submissions; April 23, 2013, 2010 1- 

hour SO2 submission; and December 9, 

2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 submission 

rely on the State having a fully 

approved regional haze SIP to satisfy its 

prong 4 requirements. However, EPA 

has not fully approved Alabama’s 

regional haze SIP, as the Agency issued 

a limited disapproval of the State’s 

original regional haze plan on June 7, 

2012, due to its reliance on CAIR. To 

correct the deficiencies in its regional 

haze SIP and obtain approval of the 

aforementioned infrastructure SIPs that 

rely on the regional haze SIP, the State 

submitted a SIP revision on October 26, 

2015, to replace reliance on CAIR with 

reliance on CSAPR. 27

EPA is proposing to approve the 

regional haze portion of the State’s 

October 26, 2015, SIP revision and 

convert EPA’s previous action on 

Alabama’s regional haze SIP from a 

limited approval/limited disapproval to 

a full approval because final approval of 

this portion of the SIP revision would 

correct the deficiencies that led to EPA’s 

limited approval/limited disapproval of 

the State’s regional haze SIP. 

Specifically, EPA’s approval of this 

portion of Alabama’s October 26, 2015, 

SIP revision would satisfy the SO2 and 

NOx BART requirements and SO2

reasonable progress requirements for 

EGUs formerly subject to CAIR and the 

requirement that a LTS include 

measures as necessary to achieve the 

State-adopted RPGs. Because a state 

may satisfy prong 4 requirements 

through a fully approved regional haze 

SIP, EPA is therefore also proposing to 

approve the prong 4 portion of 

Alabama’s April 23, 2013, and 

December 9, 2015, 2010 1-hour NO2

infrastructure submissions; the April 23, 

2013, 2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure 

submission; and the December 9, 2015, 

2012 annual PM2.5 submission; and to 

convert EPA’s February 7, 2017, 

disapproval of the prong 4 portions of 

Alabama’s August 20, 2012, 2008 8-hour 

Ozone infrastructure submission to an 

approval. However, as noted above, EPA 

proposed in November 2016 to find that 

CSAPR remains ‘‘better than BART’’ 

given the changes to CSAPR’s scope in 

response to the D.C. Circuit’s remand, 

but the Agency has not finalized this 

national rulemaking. Therefore, EPA 

will not finalize the proposed approvals 

of Alabama’s regional haze and prong 4 

submissions described above unless it 

has finalized the CSAPR remains 

‘‘better-than-BART’’ rulemaking or 

otherwise determined that participation 

in CSAPR remains a viable alternative to 

BART. 

V. Proposed Action 

As described above, EPA is proposing 

to take the following actions, contingent 

upon a final determination that CSAPR 

continues to qualify as an alternative to 

the application of BART under the RHR: 

(1) Approve the regional haze portion of 

Alabama’s October 26, 2015, SIP 

submission to change reliance from 

CAIR to CSAPR; (2) convert EPA’s 

limited approval/limited disapproval of 

Alabama’s July 15, 2008, regional haze 

SIP to a full approval; (3) approve the 

prong 4 portion of Alabama’s April 23, 

2013, and December 9, 2015, 2010 1- 

hour NO2 submissions; April 23, 2013, 

2010 1-hour SO2 submission; and 

December 9, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5

submission; and (4) convert EPA’s 

February 7, 2017, disapproval of the 

prong 4 portion of Alabama’s August 20, 

2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone submission to 

an approval. All other applicable 

infrastructure requirements for the 

infrastructure SIP submissions have 

been or will be addressed in separate 

rulemakings. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, these proposed 

actions merely propose to approve state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and do not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, these 

proposed actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ 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); 

• do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules 39097 

• are 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.); 

• do 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); 

• do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• do 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, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

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

Dated: August 4, 2017. 

V. Anne Heard, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17346 Filed 8–16–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2007–0085; FRL–9966–23– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; NC; Air Curtain 

Burners 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

portions of revisions to the North 

Carolina State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submitted by the State of North 

Carolina through the North Carolina 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(formerly the North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources (NCDENR)), Division of Air 

Quality (DAQ), on October 14, 2004, 

March 24, 2006, and January 31, 2008. 

The proposed revisions are changes to 

the air curtain burner regulation of the 

North Carolina SIP and are part of North 

Carolina’s strategy to meet and maintain 

the national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). EPA has taken or 

will take action with respect to all other 

portions of these SIP revisions. This 

action is being taken pursuant to the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and its 

implementing regulations. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 18, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2007–0085 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman or Nacosta C. Ward, 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. 

Lakeman can be reached via telephone 

at (404) 562–9043 or via electronic mail 

at lakeman.sean@epa.gov. Ms. Ward can 

be reached via telephone at (404) 562– 

9140, or via electronic mail at 

ward.nacosta@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this document. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this 

document should do so at this time. 

Dated: August 4, 2017 

V. Anne Heard, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17243 Filed 8–16–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0382; FRL–9966–30– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Revisions To Implement the 

Revocation of the 1997 Ozone NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the 

state implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Virginia which includes revised 

provisions of the State Air Pollution 

Control Board’s Regulations for the 

Control and Abatement of Air Pollution 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS