Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47393 

Tribe because, as noted above, this 

action is not approving any specific 

rule, but rather approving a SIP revision 

that evaluates the sufficiency of South 

Carolina’s already approved regional 

haze plan in meeting certain CAA 

requirements. EPA notes today’s action 

will not impose substantial direct costs 

on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by December 11, 2017. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: September 29, 2017. 

Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart PP—South Carolina 

■ 2. Section 52.2120(e) is amended by 

adding an entry for ‘‘December 2012 

Regional Haze Progress Report’’ at the 

end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.2120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED SOUTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

December 2012 Regional Haze Progress Report .. 12/28/2012 10/12/2017 [Insert citation of publication] 

[FR Doc. 2017–21948 Filed 10–11–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0104; FRL–9969– 

21—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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking the following 

four actions regarding the Alabama State 

Implementation Plan (SIP): Approving 

the portion of Alabama’s October 26, 

2015, SIP submittal seeking to change 

reliance from the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) to the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for certain 

regional haze requirements; converting 

EPA’s limited approval/limited 

disapproval of Alabama’s July 15, 2008, 

regional haze SIP to a full approval; 

approving 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 converting EPA’s 

disapproval of the visibility portion of 

Alabama’s infrastructure SIP submittal 

for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS to an 

approval. 

DATES: This rule will be effective 

November 13, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2017–0104. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information may not be publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Regulatory Management Section, 

Air Planning and Implementation 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
47394 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

5The pre-publication version of this rule is 

available at: https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/ 

interstate-transport-fine-particulate-matter-revisionfederal-implementation-plan. 

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 Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) as determined by 

the state. In revisions to the regional 

haze program made in 2005, EPA 

amended its regulations to provide that 

states participating in the CAIR cap-andtrade programs 1 pursuant to an EPAapproved CAIR SIP or states that remain 

subject to a CAIR Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) need not 

require affected BART-eligible electric 

generating units (EGUs) to install, 

operate, and maintain BART for 

emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides 

(NOx). See 70 FR 39104. As a result of 

EPA’s determination that CAIR was 

‘‘better-than-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 Regional 

Haze Rule (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. 

On September 21, 2017, the EPA 

Administrator signed a final rule 

affirming the continued validity of 

EPA’s 2012 determination that CSAPR 

meets the RHR’s criteria for a BART 

alternative. EPA determined that 

changes to CSAPR’s geographic scope 

resulting from the actions that the 

Agency has taken or expects to take in 

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

not affect the continued validity of 

participation in CSAPR as a BART 

alternative.5

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, 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47395 

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. 

A state can meet prong 4 requirements 

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. 

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. EPA is approving 

the regional haze portion of the State’s 

October 26, 2015, SIP revision and 

converting 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 also approving 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 

converting 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. 

In a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) published on August 17, 2017 

(82 FR 39090), EPA proposed to take the 

following actions regarding Alabama’s 

October 26, 2015, SIP submittal, 

contingent upon the now 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. The details of Alabama’s 

submission and the rationale for EPA’s 

actions are explained in the NPRM. 

Comments on the proposed rulemaking 

were due on or before September 18, 

2017. EPA received no adverse 

comments on the proposed action. 

II. Final Actions 

As described above, EPA is taking the 

following actions: (1) Approving the 

regional haze portion of Alabama’s 

October 26, 2015, SIP submission to 

change reliance from CAIR to CSAPR; 

(2) converting EPA’s limited approval/ 

limited disapproval of Alabama’s July 

15, 2008, regional haze SIP to a full 

approval; (3) approving 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) converting 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. 

III. 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 Act. Accordingly, these actions 

merely approve state law as meeting 

federal requirements and do not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

these 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.); 

• 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 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
47396 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing these actions and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. These actions are not 

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

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

petitions for judicial review of these 

actions must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by December 11, 

2017. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of these actions for the purposes of 

judicial review nor does it extend the 

time within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. These actions may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: September 29, 2017. 

Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart B—Alabama 

■ 2. Section 52.50(e) is amended by 

adding new entries for ‘‘110(a)(1) and 

(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS’’, ‘‘110(a)(1) 

and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 

the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS’’, 

‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2012 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS’’ and ‘‘Regional Haze Plan 

Revision’’ at the end of the table to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.50 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED ALABAMA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic 

or nonattainment 

area 

State submittal 

date/effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2010.

1-hour NO2 NAAQS ...................

Alabama ...................... 12/9/2015 10/12/2017, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Addressing Prong 4 of Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) only. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2010.

1-hour SO2 NAAQS ...................

Alabama ...................... 4/23/2013 10/12/2017, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Addressing Prong 4 of Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) only. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2012.

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS ................

Alabama ...................... 12/9/2015 10/12/2017, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Addressing Prong 4 of Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) only. 

Regional Haze Plan Revision .... Alabama ...................... 10/26/2015 10/12/2017, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

■ 3. Section 52.53 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (e) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.53 Approval status. 

* * * * * 

(e) [Reserved] 

§ 52.61 [Removed and reserved] 

■ 4. Section 52.61 is removed and 

reserved. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21954 Filed 10–11–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0143; FRL–9969– 

14—Region 7] 

Air Plan Approval; Iowa; Amendment 

to the Administrative Consent Order, 

Grain Processing Corporation, 

Muscatine, Iowa; Withdrawal of Direct 

Final Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: Due to an adverse comment, 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) is withdrawing the direct final 

rule for ‘‘Air Plan Approval; Iowa; 

Amendment to the Administrative 

Consent Order, Grain Processing 

Corporation, Muscatine, Iowa,’’ 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 25, 2017. 

DATES: The direct final rule published at 

82 FR 40491, August 25, 2017, is 

withdrawn effective October 12, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heather Hamilton, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 

913–551–7039, or by email at 

Hamilton.heather@epa.gov. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES