38660 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

28See page 39 of Georgia’s Progress Report. 

remainder of the first implementation 

period in 2018, EPA is proposing to 

approve Georgia’s finding that the plan 

elements and strategies in its 

implementation plan are sufficient to 

achieve the RPGs for the Class I area in 

the State and for Class I areas in nearby 

states potentially impacted by sources 

in the State. 

7. Review of Current Monitoring 

Strategy 

Georgia’s Progress Report summarizes 

the existing monitoring network in the 

State to monitor visibility in Georgia’s 

Class I areas and concludes that no 

modifications to the existing visibility 

monitoring strategy are necessary. The 

primary monitoring network for regional 

haze, both nationwide and in Georgia, is 

the IMPROVE network. There are 

currently two IMPROVE sites in 

Georgia. One is located in the Cohutta 

Wilderness Area. The other monitor is 

located in the Okefenokee Wilderness 

area and serves as the monitoring site 

for both the Okefenokee and Wolf Island 

Wilderness Areas. 

The State also explains the 

importance of the IMPROVE monitoring 

network for tracking visibility trends at 

Class I areas in Georgia, noting that 

because IMPROVE monitoring data from 

2000–2004 serve as the baseline for the 

regional haze program, the future 

regional haze monitoring strategy 

should be based on IMPROVE data (or 

data directly comparable to IMPROVE 

data). Georgia also highlights that the 

IMPROVE measurements provide the 

only long-term record available for 

tracking visibility improvement or 

degradation. The Visibility Information 

Exchange Web System Web site has 

been maintained by VISTAS and the 

other Regional Planning Organizations 

to provide ready access to the IMPROVE 

data and data analysis tools. 

EPA proposes to find that Georgia has 

adequately addressed the applicable 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) 

regarding monitoring strategy because 

the State reviewed its visibility 

monitoring strategy and determined that 

no further modifications to the strategy 

are necessary. 

B. Determination of Adequacy of 

Existing Regional Haze Plan 

In its Progress Report, Georgia 

submitted a declaration to EPA that the 

existing regional haze plan requires no 

further substantive revision at this time 

to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas 

affected by the State’s sources. The basis 

for the State’s declaration is the findings 

from the Progress Report, including the 

findings that: The control measures in 

Georgia’s regional haze plan are on track 

to meet their implementation schedules; 

reduction of SO2 emissions continues to 

be the appropriate strategy for 

improvement of visibility in Georgia’s 

Class I areas; EGU SO2 emissions 

dropped from 2002 to 2011 by 325,795 

tons,28 and the actual change in 

visibility through 2010 for Georgia’s 

Class I areas is better than the what the 

State predicted for 2010 and is 

exceeding the uniform rate of progress. 

EPA proposes to find that Georgia has 

adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) 

because the visibility trends at the Class 

I areas in the State and at Class I areas 

outside the State potentially impacted 

by sources within Georgia and the 

emissions trends of the largest emitters 

of visibility-impairing pollutants in the 

State indicate that the relevant RPGs 

will be met. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve Georgia’s 

Regional Haze Progress Report SIP 

revision, submitted by the State on 

January 8, 2014, as meeting the 

applicable regional haze requirements 

set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 

51.308(h). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. 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 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, 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. 2017–17229 Filed 8–14–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0360; FRL–9966–39– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Alabama: 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Updates 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 38661 

1EPA’s regulations governing the implementation 

of New Source Review (NSR) permitting programs 

are contained in 40 CFR 51.160–51.166; 52.21, 

52.24; and part 51, Appendix S. The CAA NSR 

program is composed of three separate programs: 

PSD, NNSR, and Minor NSR. PSD is established in 

part C of title I of the CAA and applies in areas that 

meet the NAAQS—‘‘attainment areas’’—as well as 

areas where there is insufficient information to 

determine if the area meets the NAAQS— 

‘‘unclassifiable areas.’’ The NNSR program is 

established in part D of title I of the CAA and 

applies in areas that are not in attainment of the 

NAAQS—‘‘nonattainment areas.’’ The Minor NSR 

program addresses construction or modification 

activities that do not qualify as ‘‘major’’ and applies 

regardless of the designation of the area in which 

a source is located. Together, these programs are 

referred to as the NSR programs. 

2Airborne particulate matter (PM) with a nominal 

aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (a 

micrometer is one-millionth of a meter, and 2.5 

micrometers is less than one-seventh the average 

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

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

particles in the atmosphere are made up of a 

complex mixture of components including sulfate; 

nitrate; ammonium; elemental carbon; a great 

variety of organic compounds; and inorganic 

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

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

material, although it may contain material from 

other sources. The health effects associated with 

exposure to PM2.5 include potential aggravation of 

respiratory and cardiovascular disease (i.e., lung 

disease, decreased lung function, asthma attacks 

and certain cardiovascular issues). On July 18, 

1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for PM to add new 

standards for fine particles, using PM2.5 as the 

indicator. Previously, EPA used PM10 (inhalable 

particles smaller than or equal to 10 micrometers 

in diameter) as the indicator for the PM NAAQS. 

EPA established health-based (primary) annual and 

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

standard at a level of 15.0 micrograms per cubic 

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

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

primary standards were established, EPA also 

established welfare-based (secondary) standards 

identical to the primary standards. The secondary 

standards are designed to protect against major 

environmental effects of PM2.5, such as visibility 

impairment, soiling, and materials damage. On 

October 17, 2006, EPA revised the primary and 

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

and retained the existing annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 

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

EPA published a final rule revising the annual 

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

3Emissions of CO2 from a stationary source 

directly resulting from the combustion or 

decomposition of biologically-based materials other 

than fossil fuels and mineral sources of carbon (e.g., 

calcium carbonate) and biologically-based material 

(non-fossilized and biodegradable organic material 

originating from plants, animals or microorganisms, including products, by-products, 

residues and waste from agriculture, forestry and 

related industries as well as the non-fossilized and 

biodegradable organic fractions of industrial and 

municipal wastes, including gases and liquids 

recovered from the decomposition of non-fossilized 

and biodegradable organic material). 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

portions of revisions to Alabama’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the State of Alabama, through the 

Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management (ADEM), on May 8, 2013, 

and August 23, 2016. The portions of 

these SIP revisions that EPA proposes to 

approve relate to the State’s Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

permitting program. This action is being 

proposed pursuant to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 14, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No EPA–R04– 

OAR–2017–0360 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: 

Andres Febres of the Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. 

Febres can be reached by telephone at 

(404) 562–8966 or via electronic mail at 

febres-martinez.andres@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What action is the agency taking? 

On May 8, 2013, and August 23, 2016, 

ADEM submitted SIP revisions for 

EPA’s approval that include changes to 

Alabama’s PSD permitting regulations, 

among other changes.1 In this 

document, EPA is proposing to approve 

certain portions of these submittals that 

make changes to ADEM Administrative 

Code Rule 335–3–14–.04—‘‘Air Permits 

Authorizing Construction in Clean 

Areas (Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD),’’ which applies to 

the construction or modification of any 

major stationary source in areas 

designated as attainment or 

unclassifiable as required by part C of 

title I of the CAA. 

Alabama’s May 8, 2013 SIP submittal 

includes changes to Rule 335–3–14–.04 

to address the Federal rule entitled 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5):2 Amendment to the Definition 

of ‘Regulated NSR Pollutant’ Concerning 

Condensable Particulate Matter,’’ 77 FR 

65107 (October 25, 2012) (hereinafter 

referred to as the PM2.5 Condensables 

Correction Rule), and plantwide 

applicability limits (PALs) for 

greenhouse gases (GHGs) as allowed in 

the Federal rule entitled ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3 

and GHG Plantwide Applicability 

Limits,’’ 77 FR 41051 (July 12, 2012) 

(hereinafter referred to as the GHG Step 

3 Rule). In addition, the SIP submittal 

includes changes to the definition of 

GHGs in Rule 335–3–14–.04 and Rule 

335–3–16 (regarding major source 

operating permits) to address EPA’s July 

20, 2011 rule deferring PSD 

requirements for carbon dioxide (CO2) 

emissions from bioenergy and other 

biogenic sources (hereinafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Biomass Deferral Rule’’).3

Alabama’s May 8, 2013 SIP submission 

also includes the following changes to 

other Alabama rules: changes to the 

definition of Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOCs) at Rule 335–3–1– 

.02; changes to the incorporation by 

reference (IBR) of the Federal New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

in Chapter 335–3–10 and National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAPs) in Chapter 335– 

3–11; and changes regarding 

transportation conformity provisions at 

Rule Chapter 335–3–16. 

Alabama’s August 23, 2016 SIP 

submittal includes changes to Rule 335– 

3–14–.04 and Rule Chapter 335–3–16 to 

remove the treatment of GHGs as an air 

pollutant for the specific purpose of 

determining whether a source is a major 

source (or a modification thereof) in 

PSD and title V permitting requirements 

for the reasons discussed in Section 

II.A, below. The submittal also 

withdraws the portion of the State’s 

May 8, 2013 SIP submittal that revises 

Rule 335–3–14–.04 to address the 

Biomass Deferral Rule and makes 

changes to the GHG Step 3 language 

proposed in Alabama’s May 8, 2013 

submittal. 

Currently, EPA is only proposing to 

approve the portions of the May 8, 2013 

submittal that make changes to the GHG 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

38662 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

4 In a May 2, 2011 SIP revision, Alabama 

requested that EPA incorporate the term 

‘‘Particulate matter (PM)’’ emissions into its SIPapproved definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ at 

Rule 335–3–14–.04(2)(ww)5, among other changes. 

Following EPA’s proposed approval of the PM2.5

Condensables Correction Rule, Alabama submitted 

a supplemental letter on June 18, 2012, requesting 

that EPA not approve the proposed change at 335– 

3–14–.04(2)(ww)5 when taking action on the May 

2, 2011, SIP revision. 

5See the rule entitled ‘‘Reconsideration of 

Interpretation of Regulations that Determine 

Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting 

Programs,’’ Final Rule, 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010). 

6CO2e emissions refers to emissions of six 

recognized GHGs other than CO2 which are scaled 

to equivalent CO2 emissions by relative global 

warming potential values, then summed with CO2

to determine a total equivalent emissions value. See 

40 CFR 51.166(48)(ii) and 52.21(49)(ii). 

PAL provisions pursuant to the GHG 

Step 3 rule and the portions of the 

August 23, 2016 submittal that 

discontinue regulation of GHGs as an air 

pollutant for the specific purpose of 

determining whether a source is a major 

source (or a modification thereof) in 

PSD and title V permitting requirements 

and that make changes to the GHG Step 

3 language proposed in Alabama’s May 

8, 2013 submittal. EPA is not acting on 

the remaining portions of these 

submittals for the following reasons: 

• EPA previously acted upon the 

changes to the definition of VOCs at 

Rule 335–3–1–.02. See 81 FR 63701 

(September 16, 2016). 

• The revisions that address the 

Regulated PM2.5 Condensables 

Correction Rule are unnecessary 

because the errors corrected by the Rule 

were never incorporated into Alabama’s 

SIP.4 See 77 FR 59100 (September 26, 

2012). 

• EPA will act on the transportation 

conformity revisions in a separate 

action. 

• In its August 23, 2016 SIP revision, 

Alabama withdrew the portion of its 

May 8, 2013 SIP revision that addressed 

the Biomass Deferral Rule. 

• ADEM Administrative Code 

Chapter 335–3–10—‘‘Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary 

Sources,’’ Chapter 335–3–11—‘‘National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants,’’ and Chapter 335–3–16— 

‘‘Major Source Operating permits,’’ are 

not part of Alabama’s SIP; therefore, 

EPA cannot make the changes to these 

regulations. 

II. Background 

On January 2, 2011, GHG emissions 

were, for the first time, covered by the 

PSD and title V operating permit 

programs.5 To establish a process for 

phasing in the permitting requirements 

for stationary sources of GHGs under the 

CAA PSD and title V programs, on June 

3, 2010, EPA published a final rule 

entitled ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse 

Gas Tailoring Rule’’ (hereinafter referred 

to as the GHG Tailoring Rule). See 75 FR 

31514. In Step 1 of the GHG Tailoring 

Rule, which began on January 2, 2011, 

EPA limited application of PSD and title 

V requirements to sources and 

modifications of GHG emissions, but 

only if they were subject to PSD or title 

V ‘‘anyway’’ due to their emissions of 

pollutants other than GHGs. These 

sources are referred to as ‘‘anyway 

sources.’’ 

In Step 2 of the GHG Tailoring Rule, 

which applied as of July 1, 2011, the 

PSD and title V permitting requirements 

applied to some sources that were 

classified as major sources based solely 

on their GHG emissions or potential to 

emit GHGs. Step 2 also applied PSD 

permitting requirements to 

modifications of otherwise major 

sources that would increase only GHG 

emissions above the level in EPA 

regulations. EPA generally described the 

sources covered by PSD during Step 2 

of the Tailoring Rule as ‘‘Step 2 

sources’’ or ‘‘GHG-only sources.’’ 

Subsequently, EPA published the 

GHG Step 3 Rule on July 12, 2012. See 

77 FR 41051. In this rule, EPA decided 

against further phase-in of the PSD and 

title V requirements for sources emitting 

lower levels of GHG emissions. Thus, 

the thresholds for determining PSD 

applicability based on emissions of 

GHGs remained the same as established 

in Steps 1 and 2 of the Tailoring Rule. 

The GHG PALs portion of the July 12, 

2012 final rule revised EPA regulations 

under 40 CFR part 52 for establishing 

PALs for GHG emissions. A PAL 

establishes a site-specific plantwide 

emission level for a pollutant that 

allows the source to make changes at the 

facility without triggering the 

requirements of the PSD program, 

provided that its actual emissions at the 

facility do not exceed the PAL level. 

Prior to the July 12, 2012 rule, PALs 

were available for non-GHG pollutants 

and for GHGs on a mass basis. EPA’s 

rule revised the PAL regulations to 

allow for GHG PALs to be established 

on a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)6

basis, as well as a mass basis. See 77 FR 

41051 (July 12, 2012). These regulatory 

changes provided sources with 

flexibility in implementing PALs for 

GHGs. 

On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme 

Court addressed the application of 

stationary source permitting 

requirements to GHG emissions in 

Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. 

EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014). The 

Supreme Court upheld EPA’s regulation 

of GHG Step 1—or ‘‘anyway’’ sources— 

but held that EPA may not treat GHGs 

as air pollutants for the purpose of 

determining whether a source is a major 

source (or is undergoing a major 

modification) and thus require the 

source to obtain a PSD or title V permit. 

Therefore, the Court invalidated PSD 

and title V permitting requirements for 

GHG Step 2 sources. 

In accordance with the Supreme 

Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the 

D.C. Circuit issued an Amended 

Judgment vacating the regulations that 

implemented Step 2 of the GHG 

Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations 

that implement Step 1 of the GHG 

Tailoring Rule. Coalition for 

Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, 606 

Fed. Appx. 6, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The 

D.C. Circuit’s Judgment specifically 

vacated the EPA regulations under 

review (including 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(v) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(49)(v)) ‘‘to the extent they 

require a stationary source to obtain a 

PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the 

only pollutant (i) that the source emits 

or has the potential to emit above the 

applicable major source thresholds, or 

(ii) for which there is a significant 

emissions increase from a 

modification.’’ Id. at 7–8. 

EPA promulgated a good cause final 

rule on August 19, 2015, entitled 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Title V Permitting for Greenhouse 

Gases: Removal of Certain Vacated 

Elements.’’ See 80 FR 50199 (August 19, 

2015) (hereinafter referred to as the 

Good Cause GHG Rule). The rule 

removed from the Federal regulations 

the portions of the PSD permitting 

provisions for Step 2 sources that were 

vacated by the D.C. Circuit (i.e., 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(v) and 52.21(b)(49)(v)). 

EPA therefore no longer has the 

authority to conduct PSD permitting for 

Step 2 sources, nor can the Agency 

approve provisions submitted by a state 

for inclusion in their SIP providing this 

authority. In addition, on October 3, 

2016, EPA proposed to revise provisions 

in the PSD permitting regulations 

applicable to GHGs to address the GHG 

applicability threshold for PSD in order 

to fully conform with UARG and the 

Amended Judgment, but those revisions 

have not been finalized. See 81 FR 

68110. 

III. Analysis of the State’s Submittals 

A. Alabama’s May 8, 2013 Submittal 

Alabama’s May 8, 2013 SIP submittal 

seeks to add to the Alabama SIP 

elements of EPA’s July 12, 2012 rule 

implementing Step 3 of the phase-in of 

PSD permitting requirements for GHGs 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 38663 

7As discussed in Section I above, EPA is not 

acting on the remaining portions of this submittal. 

8As discussed in Section I, above, EPA is not 

acting on the remaining portions of this submittal. 

The submittal also withdraws the change proposed 

to Rule 335–3–14–.04(2)(zz) in the State’s May 8, 

2013 SIP submittal to address the Biomass Deferral 

Rule. 

9Subparagraph (2)(zz) defines ‘‘greenhouse 

gases’’ as ‘‘the aggregate of: Carbon dioxide, nitrous 

oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, 

perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.’’ 

10Pursuant to subparagraph (2)(mm), ‘‘significant 

emissions increase means, for a regulated NSR 

pollutant, an increase in emissions that is 

significant (as defined in subparagraph (2)(w) of 

this rule) for that pollutant.’’ 

11As it relates to GHGs, subparagraph (2)(w) 

defines ‘‘significant,’’ in reference to a net 

emissions increase or potential to emit, at a rate of 

75,000 tpy of GHGs on a CO2e basis. This definition 

of ‘‘significant’’ was previously approved by EPA 

on December 29, 2010. See 75 FR 81863. 

described in the GHG Step 3 Rule by 

modifying a PAL provision at Rule 335– 

3–14–.04(23)(b)4.7 As explained in 

Section II above, a PAL establishes a 

site-specific plantwide emission level 

for a pollutant that allows the source to 

make changes to units at the facility 

without triggering the requirements of 

the PSD program, provided that facilitywide emissions do not exceed the PAL. 

The Federal PSD regulations currently 

include PAL provisions that apply to 

GHG-only, or Step 2, sources. However, 

some of these provisions may no longer 

be applicable in light of the Supreme 

Court’s decision in UARG and the D.C. 

Circuit’s Amended Judgment. The 

Supreme Court determined that sources 

and modifications may not be defined as 

‘‘major’’ solely on the basis of GHGs 

emitted or increased, and consequently 

PALs for GHGs may no longer be 

authorized in instances in which a 

source has triggered PSD based on GHG 

emissions alone. EPA has proposed 

action in an October 3, 2016 proposed 

rule to clarify the GHG PAL rules. See 

81 FR 68110. However, PALs for GHGs 

may still have a role to play in 

determining whether a source that is 

already subject to PSD for a pollutant 

other than GHGs should also be subject 

to PSD for GHGs. The existing GHG 

PALs regulations do not add new 

requirements for sources or 

modifications that only emit or increase 

GHGs above the major source threshold, 

or the 75,000 ton per year (tpy) GHG 

level in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(iv), but 

rather provide increased flexibility to 

sources that wish to manage their GHG 

emissions by way of a PAL. 

In its May 8, 2013 SIP submittal, 

Alabama seeks to modify the definition 

of ‘‘major emissions unit’’ in its SIPapproved PAL regulations by adding the 

phrase ‘‘any emissions unit that has the 

potential to emit 100,000 tons per year 

of GHG as CO2e.’’ The State 

subsequently revised this threshold 

from 100,000 tpy to 75,000 tpy as part 

of its August 23, 2016 submittal, as 

discussed below. Given this subsequent 

revision, the text that EPA is proposing 

to add to the SIP-approved definition of 

‘‘major emissions unit’’ at Rule 335–3– 

14–.04(23)(b)4. reads as follows: ‘‘any 

emissions unit that has the potential to 

emit 75,000 tons per year of GHG as 

CO2e’’ into the SIP-approved definition 

of ‘‘major emissions unit’’ at Rule 335– 

3–14–.04(23)(b)4. 

EPA has preliminarily concluded that 

approving these changes into the SIP 

will not interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (as defined 

in section 171), or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. EPA discussed 

the effects of PALs in the Supplemental 

Analysis of the Environmental Impact of 

the 2002 Final NSR Improvement Rules 

(November 21, 2002) (2002 

Supplemental Analysis). The 

Supplemental Analysis explained, 

‘‘[t]he EPA expects that the adoption of 

PAL provisions will result in a net 

environmental benefit. Our experience 

to date is that the emissions caps found 

in PAL-type permits result in real 

emissions reductions, as well as other 

benefits.’’ Supplemental Analysis at 6; 

see also 76 FR 49313, 49315 (August 10, 

2011). EPA further discussed the effects 

of PALs in the GHG Step 3 Rule, 

including the benefits of GHG PALs. See 

77 FR 41059–60. EPA is therefore 

proposing to approve the changes to the 

PAL provisions into the Alabama SIP, as 

amended in the August 23, 2016 

submittal discussed below. 

B. Alabama’s August 23, 2016 Submittal 

Alabama’s August 23, 2016 SIP 

submittal makes further changes to the 

State’s PSD permitting regulation at 

Rule 335–3–14–.04. This submittal 

revises the GHG PALs threshold in Rule 

335–3–14–.04(23)(b)4 proposed in the 

May 8, 2013, submittal from 100,000 tpy 

to 75,000 tpy, as mentioned in section 

III.A above.8 The SIP submittal also 

revises the applicability of PSD for 

GHGs by removing language regulating 

GHG-only (i.e., Step 2) sources in Rules 

335–3–14–.04(1)(k) and 335–3–14– 

.04(2)(a) to align with current federal 

requirements, as discussed below. 

Alabama modifies its applicability 

language for GHGs to regulate only 

‘‘anyway’’ sources. The State revises 

Rule 335–3–14–.04(1)(k) in its PSD 

applicability regulations and the 

definition of ‘‘Major Stationary Source’’ 

at Rule 335–3–14–.04(2)(a) by removing 

language that would subject a source to 

PSD requirements through GHG 

emissions alone. The proposed revision 

to subparagraph (2)(a) removes the 

following text from the definition of 

‘‘major stationary source’’: ‘‘(iii) For 

GHGs, any stationary source which 

emits or has the potential to emit: (I) 

GHGs on a total mass rate in accordance 

with either subparagraph 2(a)1. or 

(2)(a)1.(i), and (II) GHGs of 100,000 tons 

per year or more CO2e.’’ The proposed 

revision to Rule 335–3–14–.04(1)(k) 

replaces subparagraph (k) with the 

following text: 

(k) Greenhouse gases (GHGs) 

1. GHGs, as defined in Subparagraph 

(2)(zz) of this Rule,9 shall not be utilized in 

determining if a source is a major stationary 

source, as defined in Subparagraph (2)(a) of 

this Rule, or in determining if a modification 

is a major modification, as defined in 

Subparagraph (2)(b) of this Rule. 

2. GHGs shall only be subject to the 

requirements of this Rule if: 

(i) A new major stationary source or major 

modification causes a significant emissions 

increase of GHGs, as defined in subparagraph 

(2)(mm) of this rule,10 and a significant net 

emissions increase of GHGs, as defined in 

subparagraphs (2)(c) and (2)(w) of this rule,11

and 

(ii) The new major stationary source or 

major modification is required to obtain a 

permit subject to the requirements of this 

Rule as a result of emissions of regulated 

NSR pollutants other than GHGs. 

Although these proposed changes to 

the Alabama SIP are structured 

differently than EPA’s federal rules, the 

primary practical effect of both is the 

same: PSD requirements do not apply to 

GHG emissions from an ‘‘anyway 

source’’ unless the source emits GHGs at 

or above the 75,000 tpy CO2e threshold. 

EPA has preliminarily concluded that 

proposing approval of these change into 

the SIP will not interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress (as defined in section 171), or 

any other applicable requirement of the 

CAA. Step 2 of the GHG Tailoring Rule 

was invalidated. As mentioned above, 

EPA discussed the effects of PALs in the 

2002 Supplemental Analysis and the 

GHG Step 3 Rule. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In accordance with requirements of 1 

CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing the 

incorporation by reference of ADEM 

Administrative Code Rules 335–3–14– 

.04(1)(k), 335–3–14–.04(2)(a)(ii), and 

335–3–14–.04(b)4, state effective on 

November 25, 2014. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing approval for inclusion of 

these materials in Alabama’s State 

implementation plan. Once final, and 

these materials have been incorporated 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

38664 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

12See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

by reference by EPA into that plan, they 

are fully Federally enforceable under 

sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of 

the effective date of the final rulemaking 

of EPA’s approval, and will be 

incorporated by reference by the 

Director of the Federal Register in the 

next update to the SIP compilation.12

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 the 

portions of Alabama’s May 8, 2013 and 

August 23, 2016 SIP submittals that 

revise the PSD permitting program at 

Rule 335–3–14–.04—‘‘Air Permits 

Authorizing Construction in Clean 

Areas (Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD))’’ by removing 

language regulating GHG-only (i.e., Step 

2) sources and by adding language to the 

PAL provisions. EPA believes that these 

changes are consistent with the 

requirements of the CAA. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely 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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate Matter, 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. 2017–17220 Filed 8–14–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 20 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2015–0073; 

FF09M21200–178–FXMB1231099BPP0] 

RIN 1018–BB06 

Migratory Bird Hunting; Approval of 

Corrosion-Inhibited Copper Shot as 

Nontoxic for Waterfowl Hunting 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of 

draft environmental assessment. 

SUMMARY: Having completed our review 

of the application materials for 

corrosion-inhibited copper shot, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(hereinafter Service or we) proposes to 

approve the shot for hunting waterfowl 

and coots. We have concluded that this 

type of shot left in terrestrial or aquatic 

environments is unlikely to adversely 

affect fish, wildlife, or their habitats. 

Approving this shot formulation would 

increase the nontoxic shot options for 

hunters. 

DATES: Electronic comments on this 

proposal or on the draft environmental 

assessment via http://

www.regulations.gov must be submitted 

by 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on 

September 14, 2017. Comments 

submitted by mail must be postmarked 

no later than September 14, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Document Availability. You 

may view the application and our draft 

environmental assessment by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket 

No. FWS–HQ–MB–2015–0073. 

• Request a copy by contacting the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Written Comments: You may submit 

comments on the proposed rule or the 

associated draft environmental 

assessment by either one of the 

following two methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2015–0073. 

• U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attention: FWS– 

HQ–MB–2015–0073; Division of Policy, 

Performance, and Management 

Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: BPHC, 

Falls Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We will not accept email or faxes. We 

will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information that you provide. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Kokel, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, at 703–358–1967. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 

(Act) (16 U.S.C. 703–712 and 16 U.S.C. 

742 a–j) implements migratory bird 

treaties between the United States and 

Great Britain for Canada (1916 and 

1996, as amended), Mexico (1936 and 

1972, as amended), Japan (1972 and 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS