Document ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0002-0096
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Alabama;Error Correction and Disapproval of Revisions to the Visible Emissions Rule
Posted Date: 2014-02-13T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8645-8656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02938]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0002; FRL-9906-38-Region-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Alabama: Error 
Correction and Disapproval of Revisions to the Visible Emissions Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
correct, pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), its erroneous 
approval of revisions to Alabama's State Implementation Plan (SIP) that 
amended the visible emissions rule applicable to certain stationary 
sources. The State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of 
Environmental Management (ADEM), submitted the SIP revisions in 
question to EPA on September 11, 2003, and August 22, 2008. EPA took 
final action approving these SIP revisions on October 15, 2008. EPA is 
now reconsidering its previous approval and is proposing to determine 
that EPA's October 2008 approval of these SIP revisions was in error. 
Consequently, EPA is also proposing to disapprove the aforementioned 
SIP revisions.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2005-AL-0002, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0002, Regulatory Development Section, 
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are 
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. 
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through 
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2005-AL-0002.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through 
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI 
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without 
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning 
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you 
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to

[[Page 8646]]

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: Mr. Joel Huey, Regulatory Development 
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management 
Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth 
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 
562-9104. Mr. Huey can also be reached via electronic mail at 
huey.joel@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background for these Proposed Actions
II. Errors that EPA Made in the October 15, 2008, Rulemaking 
Approving Alabama's Visible Emissions SIP Revisions
III. Basis of EPA's Proposal to Disapprove Alabama's SIP Revisions 
Related to Visible Emissions
IV. Proposed Actions
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for These Proposed Actions

    The State of Alabama, through ADEM, submitted SIP revisions to EPA 
on September 11, 2003, and August 22, 2008, to revise Alabama's SIP-
approved visible emissions rule. EPA took final action approving 
Alabama's September 11, 2003, and August 22, 2008, SIP revisions 
(hereafter also referred to as the ``Submittals'') on October 15, 2008. 
See 73 FR 60957. Subsequently, on April 6, 2011, EPA took final action 
to disapprove Alabama's Submittals. See 76 FR 18870. EPA's disapproval 
action was later vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Eleventh Circuit (hereafter also referred to as the ``Court'' or the 
``Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals''). See below for more details on 
the Court's decision. A copy of this decision is in the docket \1\ for 
this proposed rulemaking. The Court decision put back in effect EPA's 
October 2008, approval action. Today, EPA is reconsidering its October 
2008 approval action, and is proposing to determine, pursuant to 
section 110(k)(6) of the CAA, that EPA's October 2008 approval of 
Alabama's SIP revisions (submitted September 11, 2003, and August 22, 
2008) to change its EPA-approved visible emission rule (referred to 
hereafter as the ``previous rule'') was in error. Consequently, EPA is 
also proposing to disapprove the aforementioned SIP revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA notes that while the docket for today's action includes 
the most recent previous EPA actions (and other information) related 
to Alabama's changes to its visible emissions rule, EPA is not 
reopening comment on issues related to those previous actions, and 
is only taking comment on issues proposed in today's rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More detail on EPA's rationale for today's proposed actions is 
provided below. Specifically, Section II, below, outlines EPA's basis 
for proposing to determine that EPA erred in October 2008 when it 
approved the Submittals and thus the current, or ``revised,'' SIP rule. 
Section III provides the basis for EPA's proposed disapproval of the 
Submittals. Today's proposed disapproval action is consistent with the 
analysis that EPA laid out in the April 6, 2011, final disapproval 
action for these Submittals but is more specific than that action with 
regard to the errors EPA has determined were made by the 2008 approval 
action.

A. Background on Court Decision Related to EPA's Previous Actions on 
Alabama's Visible Emission Rule Changes

    As mentioned above, EPA took action on October 15, 2008, to approve 
changes to Alabama's visible emissions rule that were submitted in SIP 
revisions on September 11, 2003, and August 22, 2008. See 73 FR 60957. 
Subsequently, on April 6, 2011, EPA took final action to disapprove 
Alabama's Submittals. See 76 FR 18870. EPA's April 6, 2011, final 
action was challenged in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals by 
Alabama Power Company (joined through intervention by the State of 
Alabama). This case was ultimately consolidated with the pending but 
stayed challenges by the Alabama Environmental Council (AEC) and others 
to EPA's October 2008 approval of the Submittals. Following briefing 
and oral argument, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 
decision on March 6, 2013, vacating EPA's April 2011 disapproval action 
and affirming EPA's October 2008 approval action. See Alabama 
Environmental Council v. EPA, 711 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2013). The 
majority opinion found that CAA section 110(k)(6) permits EPA to revise 
a SIP provision approved ``in error'' without any further submission 
from the State, so long as EPA provides the State and the public with 
its error determination and the basis thereof. See 711 F3d at 1287. 
Specifically, the Court explained: ``Thus, if the EPA chooses to invoke 
Section 110(k)(6) to revise a prior action, Congress has required the 
EPA to articulate an `error' and provide `the basis' of its 
determination that an error occurred.'' Id. Today, EPA is reconsidering 
its action in October 2008 to approve Alabama's Submittals, and is now 
proposing to determine pursuant to CAA 110(k)(6), that EPA's October 
15, 2008, approval of Alabama's September 11, 2003, and August 22, 
2008, SIP revisions related to visible emissions was in error, 
consistent with section 110(k)(6). Today, EPA is initiating a comment 
period regarding issues presented in this notice for the following 
reasons: (1) to provide the public with the basis of EPA's 
determination of what errors occurred; and (2) to outline EPA's 
rationale for disapproval of Alabama's Submittals. An overview of EPA's 
previous actions and other relevant background is provided below.

B. Background on Error Corrections Under CAA Section 110(k)(6)

    Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA provides EPA with the authority to 
make corrections to actions that are subsequently found to be in error. 
The key provisions of section 110(k)(6) for present purposes are that 
the Administrator has the authority to ``determine[]'' when a SIP 
approval was ``in error,'' and when the Administrator does so, may then 
revise the SIP approval ``as appropriate,'' in the same manner as the 
prior action, and do so without requiring any further submission from 
the State. As mentioned above, the Eleventh Circuit Court affirmed 
EPA's authority to use section 110(k)(6) to revise a prior action 
related to a state's implementation plan. See 711 F3d at 1287. While 
CAA section 110(k)(6) provides EPA with the authority to correct its 
own ``error,'' nowhere does this provision or any other provision in 
the CAA define what qualifies as ``error.'' Thus, EPA believes that the 
term should be given its plain language, everyday meaning, which 
includes all unintentional, incorrect or wrong actions or mistakes.
    Additionally, the legislative history of CAA section 110(k)(6) is 
silent regarding the definition of error, but the timing of the 
enactment of the provision suggests a broad interpretation. The 
provision was enacted shortly after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Third Circuit (hereafter referred to as the ``Third Circuit Court'') 
decision in Concerned Citizens of Bridesburg v. U.S. EPA (hereafter 
referred to as ``Bridesburg''), 836 F.2d 777 (3rd Cir. 1987). In 
Bridesburg, the Third Circuit Court adopted a narrow interpretation of 
EPA's authority to correct errors unilaterally. The Third Circuit Court 
stated that such authority was limited to typographical and other 
similar errors, and stated that any other change to a SIP must be 
accomplished through a SIP revision. Id. at 786.
    In Bridesburg, EPA determined that it lacked authority to include 
odor regulations as part of a SIP unless the

[[Page 8647]]

odor regulations had a significant relationship to achieving a national 
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), and so the Agency directly acted 
to remove the 13-year-old odor provisions from the Pennsylvania SIP. 
Id. at 779-80. Specifically, EPA found the previous approval of the 
odor provisions into the SIP was an inadvertent error, and thus used 
its ``inherent authority to correct an inadvertent mistake'' to 
withdraw its prior approval of the odor regulations without seeking 
approval of the change from Pennsylvania. Id. at 779-80, 785. After 
noting that Congress had not contemplated the need for revision on the 
grounds cited by EPA, id. at 780, the Third Circuit Court found that 
EPA's ``inherent authority to correct an inadvertent mistake'' was 
limited to corrections such as ``typographical errors,'' and that 
instead EPA was required to use the SIP revision process to remove the 
odor provision from the SIP. Id. at 785-86.
    When the Third Circuit Court made its determination in Bridesburg 
in 1987, there was no provision explicitly addressing EPA's error 
correction authority under the CAA. In 1990, Congress added section 
110(k)(6) to the CAA. The legislative history of the CAA says little 
about the provision, and does not mention Bridesburg. Even so, the 
terms of the provision make it evident that Congress authorized EPA to 
undertake a broader set of revisions when correcting errors than the 
Bridesburg court read the pre-existing CAA to authorize, and that 
Congress did not intend to codify the holding of the Bridesburg 
decision. This is apparent because CAA section 110(k)(6) both: (1) 
authorizes EPA to correct SIP approvals and other actions that were 
``in error,'' which, as noted previously, broadly covers any mistake, 
and thereby contrasts with the holding in the Bridesburg decision that 
EPA's pre-section 110(k)(6) authority was limited to correction of 
typographical or similar mistakes; and (2) provides that the error 
correction need not be accomplished via the SIP revision or SIP call 
process, which also contrasts with the holding of the Bridesburg 
decision requiring a SIP revision. By the same token, because the 
Bridesburg decision stood for the proposition that EPA could not 
correct anything more than a narrow range of typographical errors, had 
Congress intended to codify the decision in Bridesburg, it is logical 
that Congress would have described the type of error that EPA was 
authorized to correct in the same limited way that the decision did. In 
this manner, the fact that Congress adopted CAA section 110(k)(6) 
against the backdrop of the Bridesburg case confirms that the provision 
cover a broad range of errors.
    EPA has used CAA section 110(k)(6) as authority to make substantive 
corrections to remove a variety of provisions from federally-approved 
SIPs that are not related to the attainment or maintenance of NAAQS or 
any other CAA requirement. See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of 
Implementation Plans; Kentucky: Approval of Revisions to the State 
Implementation Plan,'' 75 FR 2440 (January 15, 2010) (correcting the 
SIP by removing a provision, approved in 1982, used to address 
hazardous or toxic air pollutants); ``Approval and Promulgation of 
Implementation Plans; New York,'' 73 FR 21546 (April 22, 2008) (issuing 
a direct final rule to correct a prior SIP correction from 1998 that 
removed general duties from the SIP but neglected to remove a reference 
to ``odor'' in the definition of ``air contaminant or air pollutant''); 
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York,'' 63 FR 
65557 (November 27, 1998) (issuing direct final rule to correct SIP by 
removing a general duty ``nuisance provision'' that had been approved 
in 1984); ``Correction of Implementation Plans; American Samoa, 
Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada State Implementation Plans,'' 
63 FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (correcting five SIPs by deleting a variety 
of administrative provisions concerning variances, hearing board 
procedures, and fees that had been approved during the 1970s).
    CAA section 110(k)(6), by its terms--specifically, the use of the 
terms ``[w]henever'' and ``may''--authorizes, but does not require, EPA 
to make the specified finding. As a result, EPA has discretion in 
determining whether and when to make the specified finding and to 
utilize authority of section 110(k)(6). See New York Public Interest 
Research Group v. Whitman, 321 F.3d 316, 330-31 (2d Cir. 2003) (opening 
phrase ``Whenever the Administrator makes a determination'' in CAA 
section 502(i)(1) grants EPA ``discretion whether to make a 
determination''); Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario v. EPA, 912 
F.2d 1525, 1533 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (``whenever'' in CAA section 115(a) 
``impl[ied] a degree of discretion'' in whether EPA had to make a 
finding). In addition, EPA has used CAA section 110(k)(6) authority to 
correct errors of a non-technical nature. Most recently, EPA withdrew 
its approval of SIP prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) 
programs in 24 states to the extent they apply PSD to Greenhouse Gas-
emitting sources below the thresholds in the final Tailoring Rule.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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) (Narrowing Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Differences Between Alabama's Previous SIP Opacity Rule and the 
Revised Rule Requested in Alabama's 2003 and 2008 Submittals

    Under both the pre-existing opacity restrictions in Alabama's SIP 
and the changes requested in Alabama's 2003 and 2008 submittals, the 
maximum number of six-minute periods \3\ above the general 20 percent 
opacity limit allowed per day is the same--24. The maximum ``average 
daily opacity'' allowed under the previous rule is the same as the 
specific cap under the submittals--22 percent. On a quarterly basis, 
the total of exempt opacity exceedances allowed under the previous rule 
is 10 percent of operating time but is specifically capped under the 
submittals at 2 percent of operating time, while the maximum ``average 
quarterly opacity'' allowed is approximately the same--22 percent under 
the previous rule, and 21.6 percent under the submittals.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Unless otherwise noted, this notice refers to exempt periods 
other than those provided by the previous rule for startup, 
shutdown, load change and rate change (or other short intermittent 
periods upon terms approved by ADEM's Director and included in a 
State-issued permit), which were part of the existing SIP-approved 
rule and remained unchanged under the October 15, 2008, final action 
rule.
    \4\ See previous rule AAC 335-3-4-.01(1)(b) and current rule AAC 
335-3-4-.01(4) and 335-3-4-.01(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, there are two significant differences \5\ between the 
previous rule and the revised rule. The first significant difference is 
that the revised rule allows for maximum visible emissions of up to 100 
percent opacity during 24 six-minute periods per day, while the 
previous rule allowed for maximum visible emissions of up to only 40 
percent opacity during 24 six-minute periods per day. See Alabama 
Administrative Code (AAC) 335-3-4-.01(4) (revised rule). The second 
significant difference is that the revised rule allows opacity above 
the general 20 percent SIP standard for up to 2.4 consecutive hours 
(i.e., an aggregate of 24 six-minute periods per calendar day), while 
the previous rule allowed

[[Page 8648]]

exceedances of the 20 percent SIP standard for intervals of only 0.1 
consecutive hours (i.e., one six-minute period per hour).\6\ A critical 
consideration, therefore, is whether the significant increase of the 
maximum allowable opacity from 40 percent to 100 percent for up to 2.4 
consecutive hours per day could result in more PM emissions were 
sources to take advantage of the changed limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ One of the technical support documents (TSDs) provided for 
this action explains in detail the differences between the current 
and prior visible emissions rules. EPA considered all the 
differences in reaching its decision today. EPA is simply 
identifying two significant differences that are particularly 
relevant to the analysis of the submittal. See EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-
0002-0093.
    \6\ See previous rule AAC 335-3-4-.01(1)(b) and current rule AAC 
335-3-4-.01(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Background on Alabama's Visible Emission Rule and EPA's Previous 
Action on Alabama's Submittals Related to Visible Emissions

    EPA first approved Alabama's visible emissions rule into the 
Alabama SIP in 1972. See 37 FR 10842, 10847 (May 31, 1972). The State 
submitted the visible emissions rule as part of its SIP for attainment 
and maintenance of the total suspended particulates (TSP) NAAQS (the 
predecessor to the Particulate Matter (PM) NAAQS). The State has 
revised its visible emission rule three times in support of those 
goals.
    Historically, Alabama has had areas with attainment problems for 
the various PM NAAQS. Originally, EPA designated some areas in Alabama 
as nonattainment for the TSP NAAQS. In 1987, EPA replaced the TSP NAAQS 
with the PM10 NAAQS, and all areas of Alabama were 
designated as attainment for those NAAQS. See 56 FR 11101 and 58 FR 
67734. All areas of Alabama remain designated attainment for the 
PM10 NAAQS. In 1997, EPA promulgated new annual and 24-hour 
particulate matter NAAQS, using PM2.5 as the indicator. 
Effective April 5, 2005, EPA designated portions of Alabama, in the 
Birmingham and Chattanooga areas, as nonattainment for the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS.7 8 The Chattanooga nonattainment 
area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS included a portion of Jackson 
County, Alabama. See 70 FR 944. Alabama's visible emissions rules at 
AAC 335-3-4-.01(4) continue to be a part of the Alabama SIP for 
attainment and maintenance of the PM NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ On January 22, 2013, EPA redesignated the Birmingham Area to 
attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, so this area is 
currently a ``maintenance'' area for the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS. See 78 FR 4341.
    \8\ In 2006, EPA promulgated new PM2.5 NAAQS, 
significantly tightening the 24-hour standards. Effective December 
14, 2009, the Birmingham area was designated nonattainment for the 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, as revised in 2006. In 2013, EPA 
redesignated the Birmingham Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR 5306, January 25, 2013). A portion of 
Jackson County, Alabama in association with the Chattanooga area 
remains designated as nonattainment for the 1997 Annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is currently evaluating Alabama's 
request for EPA to redesignate the portion of Jackson County, 
Alabama that is nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 Annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the State's associate maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned above, Alabama submitted SIP revisions on September 
11, 2003, and August 22, 2008, with changes to its visible emission 
rule. Specifically, the Submittals affect the applicable visible 
emissions limits at approximately 19 stationary source facilities.\9\ 
These 19 facilities include older coal-fired utilities, cement 
manufacturing facilities, and pulp and paper facilities, among others. 
Five of these facilities are located in or near areas (e.g., 
Birmingham) that as of 2008 exceeded applicable PM2.5 
NAAQS.\10\ In addition, Widows Creek Fossil Plant, operated by the 
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)), is located in the Chattanooga 
nonattainment area for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Other 
facilities affected by Alabama's visible emissions rule may also impact 
these or other areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ At this time, it is EPA's understanding that the rule at 
issue applies to 19 facilities. Due to the applicability portions of 
the rule, the rule could apply to fewer facilities over time, but 
likely will not apply to any more.
    \10\ As noted later in this rulemaking and above, EPA is 
proposing to determine that the Agency made an error in approving 
Alabama's visible emission rule changes in the October 15, 2008, 
rulemaking. EPA notes that based on the most recently quality-
assured data for Alabama that some areas of Alabama, including 
Birmingham, exceed the 2012 PM2.5 Annual NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Opacity may be defined as the degree to which emissions reduce the 
transmission of light and obscure the view of an object in the 
background. See 40 CFR 60.2. ``Visible emissions'' are pollutant 
discharges from a source that can be seen with the naked eye and are 
commonly measured as a percent of opacity. Opacity is an important 
emissions reduction tool because it provides information regarding 
pollutants leaving an emissions source and the effectiveness of the 
control equipment designed to capture those pollutants. In general, the 
more particles which scatter or absorb light that pass through an 
emissions point, the more light will be blocked, thus increasing the 
opacity percentage of the emissions plume. However, variables such as 
the size, number, and composition of the particles in the emissions can 
result in variations in the percentage of opacity.
    Historically, visible emissions have been an important tool for 
implementation of PM NAAQS and, in particular, for the implementation 
and enforcement of PM limits on sources to help attain the NAAQS. The 
monitoring of visible emissions remains a useful technique for 
indicating the overall operation and maintenance of a facility and its 
emissions control devices and was employed even before modern 
instruments that measure PM on a direct, continuous basis existed. 
Observation of greater than normal visible emissions, particularly on a 
recurring basis, indicates that incomplete combustion or other changes 
to the process or the control device is or was occurring; such changes 
frequently lead to increased PM emissions. Although opacity is not a 
criteria pollutant, opacity standards continue to be used as an 
indicator of the effectiveness of emission controls for PM emissions, 
or to assist with implementation and enforcement of PM emission 
standards for purposes of attaining PM NAAQS. Further, well-maintained 
and well-operated sources should be able to achieve visible emissions 
that comply with opacity limits. For example, data submitted by one 
previous commenter to EPA's actions on Alabama's visible emission rule 
show routine source operation with opacity of about five percent.\11\ 
Conversely, visible emissions at much higher percentages (such as those 
allowed by Alabama's revised rule), particularly on a recurring basis, 
may indicate that a source is emitting more PM and may be in violation 
of applicable SIP or permit PM mass limits as well. Alabama's 
Submittals would authorize sources to emit visible emissions of up to 
100 percent opacity (the previous maximum opacity was 40 percent) for 
up to 2.4 consecutive hours per day \12\ (the previous consecutive 
maximum time for sources to exceed the generally applicable 20 percent 
opacity standard was 6 minutes per hour). To be approvable, these 
changes must be consistent with CAA sections 110(l) and 193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Alabama Power Company in Attachment T from the docket 
(Docket No. EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0002-0082.1) shows that over a 
three-year period its units did not exceed 5 percent opacity for 
55.4 percent of the operating time, 10 percent opacity for 89 
percent of the operating time, and 15 percent opacity for 97.6 
percent of the operating time. In addition, the U.S. District Court 
for the Northern District of Alabama found in 2009 that at TVA's 
Plant Colbert, Units 1-4 typical baseline opacity measured about 5-8 
percent during normal unit operation, and Unit 5 was projected to 
operate below 5 percent opacity even with a partially malfunctioning 
control device and below 10 percent ``under extreme conditions that 
are unlikely to ever occur.'' Sierra Club v. TVA, 592 F. Supp. 2d 
1357, 1367 (N.D. AL 2009).
    \12\ The Submittals allow up to 2.4 hours per day of operation 
at opacity levels in excess of 20 percent, provided that the total 
of such periods do not exceed 2 percent of operating time in a 
quarter, excluding periods of startup, shutdown, load change and 
rate change (or other short intermittent periods upon terms approved 
by ADEM's Director and included in a State-issued permit).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 15, 2008, EPA took final action to incorporate into the 
Alabama

[[Page 8649]]

SIP, the changes to Alabama's visible emissions rule included in the 
Submittals. See 73 FR 60957. EPA's rationale for its approval is 
discussed in that final action. EPA's approval of the SIP revisions 
relied on two main findings: ``(1) the revision would not increase the 
allowable average opacity levels; and (2) the relationship between 
changes in opacity and increases or decreases in ambient 
PM2.5 levels cannot be quantified readily for the sources 
subject to this SIP revision, and is particularly uncertain for short-
term analyses.'' See 73 FR 60959. EPA's October 15, 2008, final action 
was effective on November 14, 2008 (by its terms, the Alabama rule 
change became effective, and thus applicable to sources, on May 14, 
2009).
    Following the October 2008 final action, EPA received two petitions 
for reconsideration submitted on behalf of AEC and other parties 
(Petitioners), one on December 12, 2008, and one on February 25, 2009. 
EPA considered these petitions under section 553(e) of the 
Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the CAA. The first petition for 
reconsideration raised procedural and substantive concerns with EPA's 
October 2008 final action.\13\ EPA denied the December 12, 2008, 
petition via letter on January 15, 2009. The second petition 
incorporated by reference the issues raised in the first petition and 
also identified additional substantive and procedural concerns not 
included in the first petition.\14\ EPA granted the second petition for 
reconsideration of the October 2008 final action via letter on April 3, 
2009. In that letter, EPA explained that it anticipated initiating a 
new rulemaking process to provide additional opportunities for public 
comment on issues raised in the petition for reconsideration. On 
December 12, 2008, Petitioners filed a lawsuit in the Eleventh Circuit 
Court of Appeals challenging EPA's October 2008 final action. The Court 
subsequently stayed the litigation pending the conclusion of EPA's 
reconsideration process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Petitioners raised eight main issues: (1) EPA was 
arbitrary and capricious in failing to reopen the public comment 
period when ADEM made changes to the rule after the close of the 
public comment period; (2) EPA was arbitrary and capricious in 
deviating from rulemaking policy regarding documentation of post-
comment period meetings between EPA and ADEM and failing to meet 
with Petitioners in addition to ADEM; (3) EPA was arbitrary and 
capricious in proposing to approve a SIP revision before the rule 
had even been developed at the State level; (4) EPA failed to comply 
with rulemaking procedures by failing to complete the docket prior 
to finalizing the rulemaking package; (5) The rule should not have 
been approved because it does not represent reasonably available 
control technology requirements for SIPs because Alabama has 
nonattainment areas for PM2.5; (6) EPA's approval of the 
rule is not consistent with either section 110(l) or 193 of the CAA 
due to likely increases in short-term particulate matter emissions; 
(7) EPA's final action is not consistent with EPA policies on excess 
emissions and director's discretion; and (8) The final rule does not 
comply with 40 CFR part 51 because it is not an ``appropriate'' 
visible emission limitation.
    \14\ The Petitioners specifically highlighted two new issues: 
(1) the DC Circuit's decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 
(D.C. Cir. 2008) (Start up, Shut Down (SSM) Maximum Available 
Control Technology (decision) made the Agency's action on the SIP 
revision untenable; and (2) new documents added to the docket show 
that throughout the consideration of this matter, EPA acted in an 
arbitrary and duplicitous manner in failing to re-notice the 
rulemaking for public comment given the differences between what EPA 
required of Alabama in the April 12, 2007, proposal and what Alabama 
actually submitted for approval in its August 22, 2008, submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 2, 2009, EPA proposed to initiate a new rulemaking 
process to reconsider its prior action on the Submittals. See 74 FR 
50930. In that proposal, EPA articulated two alternative options and 
sought public comment on both. One option was to affirm the October 
2008 final action (thus approving Alabama's SIP revisions) and the 
other was to amend the October 2008 final action (thus disapproving 
Alabama's SIP revisions). The bases for each alternative were described 
in detail in the October 2, 2009, proposed rulemaking. See 74 FR 50932-
50934. EPA thus undertook full notice and comment again on the 
substantive issues relevant to the SIP revisions. EPA received numerous 
comments on its October 2, 2009, proposed rule.
    In EPA's April 6, 2011, final action, EPA explained the basis of 
its determination that the Submittals were not approvable. EPA began by 
explaining: ``In light of the fact that this SIP revision would apply 
statewide, including nonattainment areas, EPA has concluded that it 
cannot approve the SIP revision under section 110(l) if it would worsen 
air quality by allowing increased emissions of criteria pollutants or 
precursors to such criteria pollutants.'' See 76 FR 18871. EPA then 
discussed the role of visible emissions in NAAQS attainment and 
maintenance, highlighting that historically, visible emissions have 
been an important tool for implementation of the PM NAAQS and, in 
particular, for the implementation and enforcement of PM limits on 
sources to help attain, and maintain, the NAAQS. See 76 FR 18872. EPA 
explained that while sources submitted data during the comment period 
on the October 2009 proposal that suggested routine source operation of 
about five percent opacity, visible emissions at much higher 
percentages such as those allowed by the Submittals (which allow for 
opacity of up to 100 percent), particularly on a recurring basis, may 
indicate that a source is in violation of particulate matter emission 
limits in the SIP or individual source permits. See 76 FR 18872.
    Though EPA's October 2009 Federal Register notice requested 
specific data on the correlation between opacity and particulate matter 
emissions, EPA received no such data obtained from any of the 19 
sources that would be affected by the Submittals. See 76 FR 18872 and 
74 FR 50934. As EPA explained in the April 6, 2011, final action, the 
Submittals included two key rule changes to the existing EPA-approved 
opacity standards that effectively allowed for increases in opacity 
emissions from the 19 older facilities which may not have state-of-the-
art control equipment but which are subject to the rule. The first 
significant change was the allowance of maximum visible emissions of 
100 percent opacity during certain periods while the previous rule 
allowed for maximum visible emissions of only 40 percent opacity. See 
76 FR 18874. The second significant change was that the revised rule 
allowed for opacity to increase up to 100 percent for 2.4 consecutive 
hours, which Petitioners referred to as the ``bundling'' of high 
opacity periods, whereas the previous visible emissions standard did 
not allow for such bundling and restricted the opacity increases to six 
minutes per hour. Id.
    As discussed in more detail above, EPA's April 6, 2011, final 
action was challenged in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals by 
Alabama Power Company (joined through intervention by the State of 
Alabama). In a 2-1 decision on March 6, 2013, the Court vacated EPA's 
April 2011 disapproval action and affirming EPA's October 2008 approval 
action. Alabama Environmental Council v. EPA, 711 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 
2013). The majority opinion found that CAA section 110(k)(6) permits 
EPA to revise a SIP provision approved ``in error'' without any further 
submission from the State, so long as EPA provides the state and the 
public with its error determination and the basis thereof. See 711 F.3d 
at 1281. Specifically, the Court explained: ``Thus, if the EPA chooses 
to invoke Section 110(k)(6) to revise a prior action, Congress has 
required the EPA to articulate an `error' and provide `the basis' of 
its determination that an error occurred.'' Id. at 1287.
    When EPA took action on Alabama's visible emission rule changes in 
2008, the Birmingham Area was designated nonattainment for the 1997 
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and EPA was in the

[[Page 8650]]

process of designating this same area as nonattainment for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Additionally, a portion of Jackson County 
(in association with the Chattanooga area) was designated nonattainment 
for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The geographic location of 
affected sources covered by the visible emission rules in the EPA-
approved SIP is relevant. This is because (as is discussed more fully 
below) EPA interprets section 110(l) to prohibit approval of SIP 
revisions that would increase emissions of pollutants for which an area 
is designated nonattainment, in the absence of offsetting emission 
reductions or an attainment demonstration addressing the rule changes 
at issue. Further, under section 193 (which was not considered in the 
October 2008 approval--a matter that EPA is now proposing to determine 
was an error), an evaluation of the impacts of changes to Alabama's 
visible emissions rule was required for the nonattainment areas because 
the rule was in place prior to the 1990 amendments to the CAA.

II. Errors That EPA Made in the October 15, 2008 Rulemaking Approving 
Alabama's Visible Emissions SIP Revisions

    EPA is proposing to determine, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(6), 
that its 2008 approval of Alabama's 2003 and 2008 SIP submittals was in 
error. EPA is providing the specific error determinations and the basis 
for each determination below.

A. EPA Erred in Interpreting CAA Section 110(l) as Allowing EPA To 
Approve a SIP Revision That Relaxes Existing SIP Requirements Based on 
Uncertainty Regarding Whether the Revision Will Worsen Air Quality

    In its 2008 action approving Alabama's 2003 and 2008 SIP 
submittals, EPA conceded that ``modeling presented by commenters 
show[ed] the possibility of an impact on the NAAQS under a worst-case 
scenario.'' See 73 FR 60962. EPA noted, however, that ``the modeling 
does not convincingly demonstrate the impact of the rule change on the 
NAAQS because the level of PM emissions while operating at 100 percent 
opacity, and the source-specific relationship between opacity and PM 
emissions, are uncertain and are not demonstrated in the public 
record.'' Id. (emphasis added). EPA further explained that ``the 
relationship between changes in opacity and increases or decreases in 
ambient PM2.5 levels cannot be quantified readily for the 
sources subject to this SIP revision, and is particularly uncertain for 
short-term analysis.'' See 73 FR 60959 (emphasis added). Based in part 
on this finding of uncertainty regarding the actual air quality impacts 
of the requested SIP revisions and EPA's interpretation of CAA section 
110(l) as only barring EPA's approval of a requested SIP revision if 
``the agency finds it will make air quality worse'' (see 73 FR 60960), 
EPA concluded that the proposed revisions satisfied the requirements of 
CAA section 110(l) with respect to the 24-hour PM NAAQS. See 73 FR 
60959. In other words, under EPA's 2008 interpretation of section 
110(l), a SIP relaxation ``would interfere'' with NAAQS attainment and 
maintenance only where EPA is able to determine that it is more likely 
than not that the revision would worsen air quality. Because EPA 
concluded that data uncertainty prevented it from making that 
determination with respect to Alabama's SIP revisions, EPA concluded 
that it was approvable under section 110(l). As explained below, EPA 
now proposes to conclude that the interpretation of section 110(l) that 
EPA relied on for purposes of its 2008 approval of Alabama's requested 
SIP revisions was erroneous. Because EPA's 2008 final action depended 
on that erroneous statutory interpretation, EPA's approval of Alabama's 
requested SIP revisions was itself in error.
    EPA's proposed conclusion that it erred in interpreting CAA section 
110(l) as barring EPA's approval of a SIP relaxation only where EPA is 
able to conclude that it is more likely than not that the relaxation 
will make air quality worse is based on its view that this 
interpretation does not adequately implement section 110(l) in light of 
the CAA's purpose ``to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's 
air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the 
productive capacity of its population,'' CAA section 101(b)(1). 
Specifically, given the technical complexity of assessing how a 
particular SIP revision will impact air quality, it may be difficult--
or even impossible--to determine in advance whether a requested SIP 
revision will make air quality worse. Thus, an interpretation of the 
phrase ``would interfere'' in CAA section 110(l) that allows EPA to 
approve a SIP revision that relaxes existing SIP requirements despite 
significant uncertainty regarding whether the change will worsen air 
quality could well result in EPA approving SIP revisions that actually 
do worsen air quality, which would be contrary to the express purpose 
and requirements of section 110(l). While EPA could then attempt to 
remedy the problem by issuing a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5), 
compliance with SIP call procedures typically takes more than a year, 
and sometimes much longer. In the meantime, the public would be exposed 
to elevated air pollution levels. Thus, EPA finds that its 2008 
approach of approving a SIP relaxation despite significant uncertainty 
as to whether the relaxation ultimately will worsen air quality was in 
error because such interpretation is inconsistent with section 110(l) 
and with EPA's responsibility under CAA section 101(b)(1) ``to protect 
and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote 
the public health and welfare.''
    EPA now concludes that it should assume that a SIP revision that 
relaxes an existing SIP requirement ``would interfere'' with NAAQS 
attainment and maintenance in the absence of record evidence 
demonstrating that it would not. This assumption makes sense given that 
States adopt (and EPA approves) SIP requirements for the purpose of 
attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. Thus, it should be assumed that 
any existing SIP requirement is needed for that purpose, and if a State 
wishes to revise or remove a SIP requirement, such request must be 
accompanied by a demonstration that the revision would not interfere 
with NAAQS attainment or maintenance.
    EPA's interpretation of CAA section 110(l) does not mean that a 
small possibility that a SIP revision might allow increased pollution 
that would interfere with NAAQS attainment or maintenance necessitates 
EPA's disapproval. EPA recognizes that attainment planning generally 
requires a high degree of technical judgment and often involves some 
degree of uncertainty. Thus, under EPA's interpretation of CAA section 
110(l), EPA can approve a SIP relaxation if the State demonstrates 
either that it is unlikely that the revision would allow increased 
pollution or that any increases allowed by the revision would not be 
enough to interfere with NAAQS attainment or maintenance. Where data 
uncertainty prevents such a demonstration, however, EPA will assume 
that that the relaxation would interfere with NAAQS attainment or 
maintenance. EPA cannot, as it did in its 2008 action approving 
Alabama's 2003 and 2008 SIP submittals, rely on uncertainty regarding 
whether a SIP relaxation would make air quality worse as the basis for 
concluding that a revision is approvable under CAA section 110(l).

[[Page 8651]]

B. Even Applying EPA's 2008 Interpretation of CAA Section 110(l), EPA 
Erred in Determining That the Record Was Insufficient To Demonstrate 
That the Requested Revisions Would Interfere With NAAQS Attainment and 
Maintenance

    Even applying its 2008 interpretation of CAA section 110(l)--which 
EPA now concedes was erroneous--EPA proposes to conclude that it erred 
in finding that uncertainty regarding the precise relationship between 
changes in opacity levels and increases or decreases in PM emissions 
meant that the record was insufficient to support a finding that the 
requested SIP revisions would interfere with attainment and maintenance 
of the PM NAAQS (see 73 FR 60959). While information in the record was 
insufficient to quantify the precise impact that the requested 
revisions would have on PM emissions, EPA now proposes to find that 
available information was sufficient to conclude that Alabama's SIP 
revisions would allow longer periods of elevated opacity that would, in 
some circumstances, allow increased PM emissions and would interfere 
with NAAQS attainment and maintenance.
    Under EPA's 2008 interpretation of CAA section 110(l), a 
determination that Alabama's requested SIP revisions would more likely 
than not allow a PM emissions increase would have precluded EPA's 
approval absent other information demonstrating that such an emissions 
increase would not interfere with NAAQS attainment and maintenance. 
However, EPA determined that the uncertainty as to whether the SIP 
revisions would allow a PM emissions increase was so great that no 
likelihood could be estimated and found that this uncertainty made the 
revisions approvable under section 110(l). As discussed below, after 
reconsidering information in the record, EPA's judgment is that there 
is a relationship between opacity and PM emissions that supports a 
finding that Alabama's requested SIP revisions would, more likely than 
not, authorize increased PM emissions in some cases that would 
interfere with attainment and maintenance of the PM NAAQS.
    First, EPA observes that there is a general relationship between 
opacity and PM emissions such that an increase in opacity means the 
concentration of smaller particles, larger particles, or both, 
increases. See, e.g., Malm, William C., ``Introduction to Visibility,'' 
Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, May 1999 at Chap. 
2, p. 8. See also Comments of the Utility Air Regulatory Group on EPA's 
Proposed Approval of Revisions to the Visible Emissions Portion of the 
Alabama Implementation Plan (Docket I.D EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0002-0012), 
at 4 (noting that ``an increase in opacity can be a good indication 
that PM emissions at the stack also are increasing''). Because 
increases in the quantity of smaller particles may be accompanied by 
decreases in the quantity of larger particles, and vice versa, opacity 
increases do not always reflect corresponding increases in the mass of 
PM emissions. Furthermore, while source-specific relationships between 
opacity and PM emissions may be obtained through testing, they can be 
influenced by a variety of circumstances such as fuel composition and 
types of equipment malfunction that may occur. However, uncertainty 
about the precise correlation between PM mass emissions and opacity as 
a general matter does not mean that opacity increases never represent 
concurrent increases in the mass of PM emissions from a source. To the 
contrary, given the large increases in maximum allowable opacity and 
for the periods of time at issue in the SIP revisions contemplated in 
Alabama's 2003 and 2008 submittals, EPA proposes to conclude that it is 
likely that the requested SIP revisions would allow increased PM 
emissions.
    Second, EPA notes that Alabama's SIP revisions likely would allow 
PM emission increases because the revisions authorize higher opacity 
levels for longer periods than allowed under the existing SIP opacity 
rule. In EPA's experience, a longer period of high opacity (e.g., 100 
percent opacity or other high opacity levels over a time period of an 
hour or longer) is more likely to indicate a problem with a control 
device--and, therefore, to correlate with an emission increase--than 
high opacity over a shorter period (e.g., 20 percent to 40 percent 
opacity over six minutes). Yet under Alabama's requested SIP revisions, 
a control device could temporarily shut down or malfunction, resulting 
in 100 percent opacity for up to 2.4 hours in a single day without 
causing any violation of the opacity standard. As a result, Alabama's 
requested SIP revisions undermine one of the primary purposes of 
opacity limits: To ensure that sources properly maintain and operate 
their PM control devices.
    In contrast, Alabama's previous SIP opacity limit, by requiring 
consistent compliance at 20 percent and allowing only one excursion of 
six minutes per hour of up to 40 percent opacity, provides a greater 
incentive for sources to control their PM emissions with properly 
maintained and operated control devices. In EPA's judgment, based on 
experience, a source equipped with properly maintained and operated PM 
control devices is capable of consistently achieving low opacity 
levels. This conclusion is supported by the experience with the Colbert 
plant in Alabama, where the TVA undertook improvements to minimize 
opacity that included such items as training personnel, tracking 
opacity more closely, and upgrading equipment. See Sierra Club v. 
Tennessee Valley Authority, 592 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (N.D. Ala. 2009). A 
district court concluded that as a result of these changes, ``Colbert 
Unit 5 is capable of operating with essentially no non-exempt COMS 
[Continuous Opacity Monitoring System] readings over 20%.'' Id. at 
1369. The district court further observed that once TVA became aware 
that it needed to comply with the opacity limit during all non-exempt 
periods, ``it immediately and consistently came into compliance with 
the 20% opacity limit in the SIP.'' Id. at 1370.
    While various entities provided EPA with modeling results to aid in 
assessing the impact that Alabama's requested SIP revisions would have 
on ambient air quality, EPA proposes to conclude that none of the 
models reliably demonstrates the likely impact of the requested changes 
to Alabama's visible emissions rule on PM emissions. Significantly, the 
utility of all of the modeling data is undermined by the lack of 
source-specific data on the mass-opacity relationship. The docket for 
this action includes a TSD summarizing the modeling that EPA received 
and some of the key assumptions and other issues that impacted the 
utility of the modeling. Because of the weaknesses of the underlying 
data and assumptions used in the modeling, none of the modeling results 
are sufficient to rebut the information described above suggesting that 
Alabama's requested revisions to SIP opacity restrictions would 
correlate with increased PM emissions.
    Taken together, the observations described above lead EPA to 
conclude there is a relationship between opacity and PM emissions such 
that the opacity increases allowed by Alabama's requested SIP revisions 
would more likely than not be associated with increased PM emissions in 
some cases, thereby worsening air quality. Under EPA's longstanding 
interpretation of section 110(l), a SIP relaxation that likely would 
result in increased emissions, particularly in areas that are not 
attaining the NAAQS, cannot be approved absent a contemporaneous 
attainment demonstration or other air

[[Page 8652]]

quality analyses demonstrating that the revision will not interfere 
with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    For example, in 2005, EPA proposed to disapprove a SIP revision 
submitted by Ohio that would have relaxed opacity limitations for 
sources that utilize a continuous opacity monitoring system. See 70 FR 
36901 (June 27, 2005). Specifically, Ohio's proposed SIP revision would 
have expanded the time that such sources could operate with opacity 
levels above the generally applicable standard in the existing SIP. See 
70 FR 36902. Under the revision, the time of such additional excess 
opacity values could represent up to 1.1 percent of a source's 
operating time per quarter. Id. In proposing to disapprove Ohio's 
requested revision, EPA explained that though the revision would not 
increase the total allowable time of excess opacity, ``the revised 
rules allow excess opacity on occasions that excess opacity is 
currently prohibited, without any compensating prohibitions of 
emissions that are currently allowed.'' See 70 FR 36903. Based on that 
observation, EPA concluded that ``the revised rule clearly allows 
emissions that are prohibited by the current SIP.'' Id. Noting that CAA 
section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving a SIP revision that would 
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or any 
other applicable CAA requirement, EPA explained: ``Ohio provided no 
analysis or demonstration that the emissions that are allowed by its 
revised rule but are prohibited by the current SIP would not interfere 
with attainment or other applicable requirements. Therefore, EPA must 
disapprove this revised rule.'' \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ EPA has not yet finalized this proposal. EPA notes that 
there is also an ongoing error correction process to address whether 
an unrelated action erroneously approved the SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As in the case of Ohio's requested relaxation of SIP opacity 
limits, the record for Alabama's requested SIP revisions lacks 
additional information sufficient to rebut the presumption that the 
relaxation of Alabama's SIP opacity requirements would interfere with 
attainment and maintenance of the PM NAAQS. Following reconsideration 
and a complete review of the record, EPA proposes to conclude that 
available information was, in fact, sufficient to support a conclusion 
that Alabama's requested SIP revisions would interfere with attainment 
and maintenance of the PM NAAQS. Thus, EPA's 2008 determination that 
Alabama's requested SIP revisions were approvable under section 110(l) 
and its action approving the relaxation based on that conclusion were 
erroneous.

C. EPA Erred by Relying on Its Determination That the Requested SIP 
Revisions Would Not Change Average Quarterly and Daily Opacity Levels 
to Support Its Finding That the Revisions Would Not Interfere With 
Attainment and Maintenance of the Annual and 24-Hour PM NAAQS

    Aside from uncertainty, EPA also based its 2008 approval of 
Alabama's 2003 and 2008 SIP revisions, in part, on its determination 
that a source's allowable daily average and quarterly average opacity 
levels would not change as a result of the revisions. See 73 FR 60959. 
With respect to average daily opacity, this conclusion was based on a 
provision in Alabama's requested SIP revisions providing that a 
source's average daily opacity may not exceed 22 percent, excluding 
periods of startup, shutdown, load change and rate change (or other 
short intermittent periods upon terms approved by ADEM's Director and 
included in a State-issued permit). Id. Though Alabama's Submittals did 
not include a similar limit on average quarterly opacity, EPA 
``calculated the `average quarterly opacity' allowed under both the 
existing SIP and the proposed revisions and showed that the proposed 
revision, with changes specified in the notice [of proposed 
rulemaking], would result in no greater average quarterly opacity 
allowed than what is allowed under the current standard.'' See 73 FR 
60959. As explained below, EPA now proposes to conclude that it erred 
by relying on average daily and quarterly opacity as a means for 
evaluating whether the requested SIP revisions would interfere with 
attainment or maintenance of the annual and 24-hour PM NAAQS.
    As discussed above, a primary purpose of opacity limits is to 
ensure that sources properly maintain and operate their PM control 
devices. Moreover, longer periods of high opacity are more likely than 
shorter periods to indicate a control device problem. Under Alabama's 
requested SIP revisions, a control device could temporarily shut down 
or malfunction, resulting in 100 percent opacity for up to 2.4 hours, 
yet the source could still be in compliance with the 22 percent average 
daily limit (and experience no change in its average quarterly opacity 
level). For example, in one day, a source that has 24 consecutive six-
minute periods of 100 percent opacity but remains below an average of 
13 percent opacity for the remaining 216 six-minute periods in the day 
would meet the 22 percent average daily opacity limit.\16\ By 
``averaging away'' such long periods of high opacity, Alabama's revised 
rule allows high opacity to be excused during precisely those periods 
that are expected to be associated with increased PM emissions. Thus, 
determining that Alabama's requested SIP revisions would not allow a 
source to increase its average quarterly or average daily opacity 
levels provides no basis for determining that the revisions will not 
allow a source to increase its PM emissions. Because EPA erroneously 
relied in part on its finding that average quarterly and average daily 
allowable opacity levels would not be affected by Alabama's requested 
SIP revisions in finding that the revisions were approvable under 
section 110(l), EPA proposes to conclude that its 2008 approval action 
was itself erroneous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Assuming no excluded periods of startup, shutdown, load 
change and rate change (or other short intermittent periods upon 
terms approved by ADEM's Director and included in a State-issued 
permit), there are 240 six-minute periods in a 24-hour day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. EPA Erred in Concluding That Alabama's Requested SIP Revisions Did 
Not Establish an Automatic Exemption From an Emission Limitation in 
Violation of CAA Section 302(k)

    In approving Alabama's requested SIP revisions in 2008, EPA also 
erred by failing to recognize that Alabama's requested SIP revisions 
functionally established an automatic exemption from an emission 
limitation in violation of CAA section 302(k), 42 U.S.C. 7602(k). If 
EPA had correctly identified this issue, EPA would not have taken the 
2008 action approving Alabama's 2003 and 2008 SIP submittals, nor would 
it have been authorized to do so. See CAA section 110(l) (``The 
Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision 
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment 
and reasonable further progress . . . or any other applicable 
requirement of this chapter.'' (emphasis added). Therefore, EPA 
proposes to conclude that its failure to recognize that Alabama's 
requested SIP revisions violated section 302(k) rendered its 2008 
approval action erroneous and in need of correction under CAA section 
110(k)(6).
    The section 302(k) violation arises from the provision in Alabama's 
requested SIP revisions that authorizes, for sources that meet the 
revised rule's criteria, up to 24 six-minute averages of 100 percent 
opacity per calendar day.\17\

[[Page 8653]]

See AAC Chapter 335-3-4-.01(4). Because 100 percent opacity is the 
maximum level of opacity possible, the allowance of up to 24 six-minute 
averages of 100 percent opacity per calendar day functionally equates 
to an exemption from the otherwise applicable SIP emission limitation 
for those periods.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Whether a source could take advantage of the full 
allocation of 24 six-minute averages per day of 100 percent opacity 
depends on its operating hours; under the revised rule, periods of 
opacity above 20 percent are limited to a total of 2.0 percent of 
the source calendar quarter operating hours for which the opacity 
standard is applicable and for which the COMS is indicating valid 
data.
    \18\ Regulatory provisions previously incorporated into 
Alabama's SIP (under Alabama rule 335-3-4-.01(1)(c) and (d)) 
authorize ADEM's Director to approve source-specific exceptions to 
the opacity standard for startup, shutdown, load change, and rate 
change or other short, intermittent periods of time upon terms 
approved by the Director and made part of a source's permit. Because 
Alabama's 2003 and 2008 SIP submittals did not request a revision to 
these provisions, EPA did not address these provisions in its 2008 
approval action. See 73 FR 60958 n. 1. Nothing in this notice should 
be construed as a determination by EPA that these provisions are 
consistent with CAA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 302(k) defines ``emission limitation'' for CAA purposes, in 
relevant part, as ``a requirement . . . which limits the quantity, 
rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous 
basis. . . .'' \19\ Alabama's opacity rule is incorporated into 
Alabama's SIP to satisfy CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), which requires that 
each SIP include ``enforceable emission limitations and other control 
measures, means, or techniques . . . as may be necessary or appropriate 
to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.'' (emphasis 
added). Thus, Alabama's opacity rule constitutes an ``emission 
limitation'' under the CAA and is subject to that term's definition in 
CAA section 302(k). By functionally carving out an exemption from the 
opacity limitation for up to 24 six-minute averages per day, Alabama's 
requested SIP revisions contravene section 302(k)'s unambiguous 
requirement that an emission limitation restrict emissions ``on a 
continuous basis.'' See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1027-
1028 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (vacating an exemption for startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction periods contained in federal regulations issued under CAA 
section 112 on the basis that ``[w]hen sections 112 and 302(k) are read 
together,'' the CAA ``require[es] that some section 112 standard apply 
continuously.''); US Magnesium, LLC v. EPA, 690 F.3d 1157, 1170 (10th 
Cir. 2012) (denying a petition for review challenging EPA's issuance of 
a section 110(k)(5) SIP call requiring Utah to revise its SIP to 
eliminate a provision that automatically exempted sources from SIP 
compliance during unavoidable equipment breakdowns; the SIP call was 
based, inter alia, on section 302(k)'s requirement that emission 
limitations apply on a continuous basis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In full, CAA section 302(k) defines ``emission limitation 
as ``a requirement established by the State or the Administrator 
which limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of 
air pollutants on a continuous basis, including any requirement 
relating to the operation or maintenance of a source to assure 
continuous emission reduction and any design, equipment, work 
practice or operational standard promulgated under this chapter.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a recent proposed rulemaking, EPA explained as a technical, 
legal and policy matter why rules that authorize automatic exemptions 
from emissions limits are inconsistent with the CAA and thus, unlawful. 
78 FR 12460 (February 22, 2013) (``State Implementation Plans: Response 
to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; SIP 
Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods 
of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,'' referred to as the ``SSM 
proposal''). Although the SSM proposal provides a useful synopsis of 
the applicable requirements under the CAA, EPA's position that the CAA 
prohibits automatic exemptions from SIP emission limitations has 
remained unchanged since at least 1982. See 78 FR 12489. The rationale 
provided in the SSM proposal for why SSM exemptions are contrary to the 
CAA's language and purpose applies equally to Alabama's requested 
opacity exemption.
    When approving Alabama's requested SIP revisions in 2008, EPA 
responded to a public comment asserting that EPA's approval of 
Alabama's revised rule would violate section 302(k) in that it ``would 
be approving an `automatic exemption' from certain emission limitations 
that must function on a `continuous basis.''' See 73 FR 60960. At the 
time, EPA responded that rather than creating an exemption from the 
rule, Alabama's SIP submittal involved ``revisions to the rule 
itself.'' Id. EPA contended that ``[a] source that meets the 
requirements of the revised standard will be in continuous compliance 
with the standard.'' Id. EPA also stated: ``The provisions of the CAA 
and its implementing regulations cited by the commenters do not require 
that all SIP measures require compliance with the same numerical 
emission limitation at all times.'' Id. Based on that analysis, EPA 
contended Alabama's requested SIP revisions did not violate section 
302(k). See 73 FR 60960. EPA now proposes to conclude that its 2008 
analysis of whether Alabama's requested SIP revisions violated section 
302(k) was erroneous. First, EPA's argument in 2008 that Alabama's 
revised rule allowing periods of 100 percent opacity is lawful because 
the amended regulatory language appears in ``the rule itself'' is 
contrary to CAA section 302(k)'s plain language, which expressly 
requires that the ``emission limitation'' itself limit emissions on a 
continuous basis. Section 302(k) is not satisfied simply by requiring 
continuous compliance with a standard that does not itself apply on a 
continuous basis. Second, while EPA continues to agree with its 
statement in 2008 that SIP measures need not ``require compliance with 
the same numerical emission limitation at all times'' (emphasis added), 
EPA disagrees with the implication in EPA's 2008 response that 
Alabama's allowance of 100 percent opacity for up to 24 six-minute 
averages per day constitutes a ``numerical emission limitation'' at 
all. Rather, as explained above, because 100 percent opacity is the 
maximum opacity level possible, the revised rule's allowance of up to 
24 six-minute averages of 100 percent opacity per calendar day 
functionally equates to an exemption from the emission limitation for 
those periods. As a result, many opacity exceedances that would have 
been violations of the previous rule are now exempted under the revised 
rule. Thus, EPA now proposes to conclude that the SIP revision 
requested in Alabama's 2003 and 2008 submittals do, in fact, violate 
section 302(k), and therefore, that EPA's 2008 action approving 
Alabama's requested SIP revisions was erroneous.

E. EPA Erred by Failing To Evaluate Whether Alabama's Requested SIP 
Revisions Complied With CAA Section 193

    In approving Alabama's requested SIP revisions in 2008, EPA also 
erred by failing to consider whether the requested revision was 
consistent with CAA section 193. Section 193 provides: ``No control 
requirement in effect . . . before November 15, 1990, in any area which 
is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant may be modified after 
November 15, 1990, in any manner unless the modification insures 
equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.'' See 
42 U.S.C. 7515. Congress added this provision in the 1990 Amendments as 
part of an effort to ensure adequate support for NAAQS attainment and 
maintenance. Consistent with the provision's plain text, Congress' 
intent in adopting this provision was to provide a `back-up' anti-
backsliding provision for nonattainment areas

[[Page 8654]]

beyond what was provided by 110(l).\20\ Because Alabama's 2003 and 2008 
SIP submittals proposed to revise a ``control requirement'' that was 
``in effect before November 15, 1990'' and that applied to PM 
nonattainment areas (see section I.D. above), EPA's 2008 action should 
have included an analysis for why Alabama's requested SIP revisions did 
not contravene CAA section 193. Because such an analysis is a critical 
prerequisite to approving any modification to a pre-1990 control 
requirement, EPA proposes to conclude that the lack of such an analysis 
made EPA's 2008 approval of Alabama's 2003 and 2008 SIP submittals 
erroneous.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, e.g., Senate Debate on the 1990 Amendments to the CAA 
Conference Report (Oct. 26, 1990), 1990 CAA Legis. Hist. 1097, 1126-
1127 (Comments of Senator Chafee, R-RI, primary drafter of CAA 
Amendments of 1990).
    \21\ In EPA's 2011 final action disapproving Alabama's 2003 and 
2008 SIP submittals under CAA section 110(l), which the 11th Circuit 
subsequently vacated, EPA noted that it did not complete a section 
193 analysis because the Submittals already were not approvable. EPA 
also noted that if Alabama's requested SIP revisions did not 
interfere with NAAQS attainment and maintenance it was unlikely to 
interfere with other requirements of the Act. However, even assuming 
for the sake of argument that such statement would suffice as a 
section 193 analysis had it been included in the 2008 final notice, 
it was not included in that notice and therefore cannot serve as a 
basis for the 2008 approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Basis of EPA's Proposal To Disapprove Alabama's SIP Revisions 
Related to Visible Emissions

    Upon reconsideration of available information, and in light of the 
errors in EPA's 2008 analysis described above, EPA now proposes 
pursuant to its error correction authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) 
to disapprove Alabama's 2003 and 2008 SIP revisions.

A. Alabama's Requested SIP Revisions Are Not Approvable Under CAA 
Section 110(l)

    As explained above, upon reconsideration of the available 
information, EPA now proposes to conclude that Alabama's requested SIP 
revisions would interfere with attainment and maintenance of the PM 
NAAQS and are therefore not approvable under CAA section 110(l). 
Specifically, in EPA's technical judgment, the increased opacity levels 
authorized by Alabama's revised rule would, more likely than not, be 
associated with increased PM emissions in some cases. Under 
circumstances such as this where EPA concludes that a SIP revision 
would allow increased emissions, EPA assumes that the relaxation would 
interfere with NAAQS attainment and maintenance in the absence of a 
contemporaneous attainment demonstration or other air quality analyses 
demonstrating that the relaxation will not, in fact, interfere with 
NAAQS attainment and maintenance. Because Alabama made no such 
demonstration, EPA proposes to conclude that Alabama's 2003 and 2008 
SIP revisions are not approvable under CAA section 110(l). Therefore, 
pursuant to its error correction authority under CAA section 110(k)(6), 
EPA now proposes to disapprove Alabama's 2003 and 2008 Submittals.
    EPA's proposed conclusion that Alabama's requested SIP revisions 
``would interfere'' with PM NAAQS attainment and maintenance and 
therefore is not approvable under CAA section 110(l) remains the same 
regardless of whether EPA applies its current interpretation of CAA 
section 110(l) or its 2008 interpretation. The fundamental difference 
between these two interpretations pertains to how they address 
uncertainty regarding whether a SIP relaxation would allow increased 
emissions. Under the 2008 interpretation, EPA assumed that a SIP 
relaxation would not interfere with NAAQS attainment and maintenance 
unless available information demonstrated that, more likely than not, 
the relaxation would allow increased emissions. Under EPA's current 
interpretation, EPA assumes that a SIP relaxation would allow increased 
emissions, and thereby interfere with NAAQS attainment and maintenance, 
unless available information indicates that, more likely than not, the 
revision will not allow increased emissions. In other words, in the 
face of uncertainty, EPA's current interpretation of CAA section 110(l) 
errs on the side of protecting air quality. However, in EPA's technical 
judgment, available information is sufficient to demonstrate that, more 
likely than not, Alabama's 2003 and 2008 Submittals would allow 
increased PM emissions in some circumstances. Thus, even under EPA's 
less protective 2008 interpretation, EPA now proposes to conclude that 
Alabama's 2003 and 2008 Submittals are not approvable under CAA section 
110(l).
    In addition to interfering with attainment and maintenance of the 
PM NAAQS, EPA proposes to conclude that Alabama's requested SIP 
revisions are not approvable under CAA section 110(l) because it 
interferes with the requirements of CAA section 302(k). Specifically, 
as explained earlier in this notice, CAA section 302(k) requires that 
any ``emission limitation'' adopted under the CAA apply ``on a 
continuous basis,'' and Alabama's SIP opacity rule constitutes an 
``emission limitation'' that must meet CAA section 302(k)'s 
requirements. By authorizing emissions with up to 100 percent opacity 
for up to 24 six-minute averages per day, Alabama's revised opacity 
rule effectively exempts sources from compliance with opacity 
restrictions during those periods. As a result, the revised opacity 
rule would not apply to sources ``on a continuous basis,'' in 
contravention of CAA section 302(k). For this additional reason, EPA 
proposes to conclude that Alabama's 2003 and 2008 SIP submittals are 
not approvable under CAA section 110(l).

B. Alabama's Requested SIP Revisions Are Not Approvable Under CAA 
Section 193

    Under CAA section 193, ``[n]o control requirement in effect . . . 
before November 15, 1990, in any area which is a nonattainment area for 
any air pollutant may be modified after November 15, 1990, in any 
manner unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission 
reductions of such air pollutant.'' As discussed above, because 
Alabama's opacity requirements were incorporated into the SIP well 
before November 15, 1990, and because the requested opacity revision 
applied in nonattainment areas, EPA should have evaluated whether 
Alabama's 2003 and 2008 Submittals complied with CAA section 193 prior 
to its 2008 approval action. EPA notes that when correcting an error 
pursuant to section 110(k)(6), we must evaluate whether there was an 
error in light of the circumstances that existed at the time of the 
original action. Subsequent to its 2008 approval action, EPA 
redesignated most of Alabama's PM nonattainment areas to attainment. 
Nonetheless, one Alabama area continues to be designated nonattainment 
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: the Jackson County portion of the 
Chattanooga nonattainment area.\22\ Section 193 is applicable for 
nonattainment areas until such time that EPA takes final action to 
redesignate an area to attainment.\23\ Thus, whether evaluated under 
the facts and circumstances of 2008 or today,

[[Page 8655]]

Alabama's requested SIP revisions must satisfy section 193 to be 
approvable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ While Alabama submitted a SIP revision to EPA that proposes 
a maintenance plan and a request to redesignate the Jackson County 
nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS, this SIP revision is still under review.
    \23\ EPA previously determined that this Area met the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS based on air quality data at the time, and 
also made the determination that this Area attainment the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS by its attainment date. See 76 FR 31239 (May 
31, 2011) and 76 FR 55774 (September 8, 2011). However, these 
determinations do not constitute a redesignation of the Area from 
nonattainment to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given EPA's conclusion that the opacity increases authorized by 
Alabama's requested SIP revision would, more likely than not, be 
associated with increased PM emissions in some cases, CAA section 193 
bars EPA's approval unless the State demonstrates that its 2003 and 
2008 SIP revisions offset such PM increases with equivalent or greater 
emission reductions. Nothing in the record for this action indicates 
that the Submittals include any mechanism to obtain such offsetting PM 
emission reductions. Therefore, EPA proposes to conclude that Alabama's 
2003 and 2008 Submittals do not meet section 193's requirements and, as 
a result, must be disapproved.

IV. Proposed Actions

    Today, EPA is proposing to take action to reconsider its previous 
approval of Alabama's visible emission rule in October 2008. In 
summary, EPA is proposing to determine, pursuant to CAA section 
110(k)(6), that it erred in approving the Submittals (dated September 
11, 2003, and August 22, 2008) in 2008 for the reasons outlined in 
Section II of this proposed rulemaking. Consequently, EPA is also 
proposing to disapprove the Submittals. Should this proposed action be 
finalized, the version of Alabama's visible emissions rule that was 
approved in the SIP prior to EPA's October 15, 2008, final action will 
be the ``current'' SIP-approved rule.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a significant regulatory action and is therefore 
not subject to Office of Management and Budget review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose any new information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq., and therefore is not subject to these requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that 
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because SIP disapprovals under 
section 110 of the CAA do not create any new requirements. Therefore, 
because the Federal SIP disapproval does not create any new 
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, 
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the CAA, 
preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry 
into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA 
to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric 
Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 US 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Unfunded Mandates Act), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 
prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final 
rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs 
to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the 
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must 
select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory 
requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for 
informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly 
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the disapproval action proposed does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to 
disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and 
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, 
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from 
this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA 
consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the 
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
states, on the relationship between the national government and the 
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, 
because it merely proposes to disapprove a state rule implementing a 
federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the 
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. 
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply 
to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not 
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This 
proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal 
governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 
13175 does not apply to this rule.

[[Page 8656]]

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the 
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the 
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because 
it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health 
or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it 
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 24, 2014.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2014-02938 Filed 2-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P