Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0814-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: State Implementation Plans: Findings of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Posted Date: 2023-02-24T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11842-11865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03575]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0814; FRL-9836-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV79

State Implementation Plans: Findings of Substantial Inadequacy 
and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During 
Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed action.

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

SUMMARY: Consistent with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 
policy interpretation for State Implementation Plan (SIP) provisions 
applying to excess emissions during periods of Startup, Shutdown and 
Malfunction (SSM) as outlined in EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action, the EPA is 
proposing to reinstate its findings of substantial inadequacy and 
associated ``SIP calls'' that were withdrawn in 2020 for the states of 
Texas, North Carolina, and Iowa for SSM provisions in those states' 
SIPs that do not comply with statutory requirements and EPA's SSM 
Policy. The EPA is also proposing to issue new findings of substantial 
inadequacy and SIP calls to the state of Connecticut (CT); the state of 
Maine (ME); Shelby County, Tennessee (TN); the state of North Carolina 
(NC); Buncombe County, NC; Mecklenburg County, NC; the state of 
Wisconsin (WI); and the state of Louisiana (LA), for additional SSM 
provisions identified as deficient by the Agency.

DATES: Comments. Written comments must be received on or before April 
25, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0814. All documents in the docket are listed 
on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential 
Business Information (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 through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the 
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for 
additional availability information. If you need assistance in a 
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities 
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact 
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this proposed 
action, contact Sydney Lawrence, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, C504-05, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC; telephone number: (919) 
541-4768; email address: [email protected].

[[Page 11843]]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to the EPA. For information related to a specific SIP, 
please contact the appropriate EPA Regional office:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Contact for Regional office (person, mailing
      EPA Regional office                   address, and telephone number)                       State
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region 1.......................  Alison Simcox, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square,   CT, ME.
                                  Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109,
                                  [email protected], (617) 918-1684.
Region 4.......................  Brad Akers, EPA Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center,    NC, TN.
                                  61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303,
                                  [email protected], (404) 562-9089.
                                 Joel Huey, EPA Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61
                                  Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303,
                                  [email protected], (404) 562-9104.
Region 5.......................  Michael Leslie, EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson        WI.
                                  Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
                                  [email protected], (312) 353-6680.
Region 6.......................  Alan Shar, EPA Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Suite      LA, TX.
                                  500, Dallas, TX 75270, [email protected], (214)
                                  665-6691.
Region 7.......................  Ashley Keas, EPA Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard,   IA.
                                  Lenexa, Kansas 66219, [email protected], (913)
                                  551-7629.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. General Information

A. How is the preamble organized?

    The information presented in this document is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. How is this preamble organized?
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?
    E. What is the meaning of key terms used in this document?
II. Brief Timeline of Actions Relevant to This Proposed Action
III. Overview of Proposed Action
    A. To which air agencies does this action apply to and why?
    B. What is the EPA proposing for any state that receives a 
finding of substantial inadequacy and a SIP call?
    C. What are potential impacts on affected states and sources?
    D. What happens in an affected state in the interim period 
starting when the EPA promulgates the final SIP call and ending when 
the EPA approves the required SIP revision?
    E. What happens if a state fails to meet the SIP submission 
deadline or if the EPA disapproves the SIP submission?
IV. Is this action in response to any petitions for rulemaking?
V. Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Background
    A. EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action
    B. SSM SIP Call Withdrawals for Texas, North Carolina, and Iowa
    C. 2020 Wheeler Memo and Subsequent Withdrawal via 2021 McCabe 
Memo
VI. Proposed Action To Reinstate Findings of Substantial Inadequacy 
and Issue SIP Calls for North Carolina, Texas, and Iowa
    A. North Carolina
    B. Texas
    C. Iowa
VII. Proposed Action To Issue Additional Findings of Substantial 
Inadequacy and SIP Calls for Connecticut, Maine, North Carolina, 
Including Buncombe and Mecklenburg Counties, Shelby County, 
Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Louisiana
    A. Connecticut
    B. Maine
    C. North Carolina
    D. Tennessee
    E. Wisconsin
    F. Louisiana
VIII. Legal Authority, Process, and Timing for SIP Calls
    A. SIP Call Process Under CAA Section 110(k)(5)
    B. SIP Call Timing Under CAA Section 110(k)(5)
    C. Severability
IX. Environmental Justice Considerations
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Judicial Review
XI. Statutory Authority

B. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this action include states, U.S. 
territories, local authorities and eligible Tribes that are currently 
administering, or may in the future administer, the EPA approved 
implementation plans (``air agencies''). While recognizing similarity 
to (and in some instances overlap with) issues concerning other air 
programs, e.g., concerning SSM provisions in EPA's regulatory programs 
for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) pursuant to section 111 and 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 
pursuant to section 112, the EPA notes that the issues addressed in 
this document are specific to SSM provisions in the SIP program.
    Through this action, the EPA is applying an interpretation 
consistent with the CAA outlined in its 2015 SSM SIP Action \1\ with 
respect to SIP provisions applicable to excess emissions during SSM 
events in general (``SSM Policy''). Applying that interpretation, EPA 
is issuing findings that the SIPs of eight states (10 statewide and 
local jurisdictions) are substantially inadequate to meet CAA 
requirements, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), and thus those states 
(named in sections VI. and VII. of this document) are directly affected 
by this action. This action may also be of interest to the public and 
to owners and operators of industrial facilities that are subject to 
emission limitations in SIPs, because it will require changes to 
certain state rules applicable to excess emissions during SSM events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for 
Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to 
SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend 
Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, 
Shutdown and Malfunction,'' (80 FR 33840, June 12, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0814. Publicly available docket materials are available 
either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard 
copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, William Jefferson Clinton 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The 
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is

[[Page 11844]]

(202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the Office of Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742. For further 
information on EPA Docket Center services and the current status, 
please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the 
EPA through https://www.regulations.gov/. Clearly mark the part or all 
of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any 
digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the 
digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically within 
the digital storage media the specific information that is claimed as 
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments that includes 
information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that 
does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly to the public 
docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions. If you submit 
any digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the outside 
of the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain CBI. 
Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and 
EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked 
as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set 
forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. Our preferred 
method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted electronically using 
email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), or other online file 
sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google Drive). Electronic 
submissions must be transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office using 
the email address, [email protected], and should include clear CBI 
markings as described later. If assistance is needed with submitting 
large electronic files that exceed the file size limit for email 
attachments, and if you do not have your own file sharing service, 
please email [email protected] to request a file transfer link. If 
sending CBI information through the postal service, please send it to 
the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0814. The 
mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any 
CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and 
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and 
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

E. What is the meaning of key terms used in this document? 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The EPA previously defined many of these key terms, which 
can be found in the 2015 SSM SIP Action. See 80 FR 33840 at 33842.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purpose of this document, the following definitions apply 
unless the context indicates otherwise:
    The terms Act or CAA or the statute mean or refer to the Clean Air 
Act.
    The term affirmative defense means, in the context of an 
enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a 
defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and 
the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a 
judicial or administrative proceeding. The term affirmative defense 
provision means more specifically a state law provision in a SIP that 
specifies particular criteria or preconditions that, if met, would 
purport to preclude a court from imposing monetary penalties or other 
forms of relief for violations of SIP requirements in accordance with 
CAA section 113 or CAA section 304.
    The term Agency means or refers to the EPA. When not capitalized, 
this term refers to an agency in general and not specifically to the 
EPA.
    The terms air agency and air agencies mean or refer to states, the 
District of Columbia, U.S. territories, local air permitting 
authorities with delegated authority from the state and Tribal 
authorities with appropriate CAA jurisdiction.
    The term alternative emission limitation means, in this document, 
an emission limitation in a SIP that applies to a source during some 
but not all periods of normal operation (e.g., applies only during a 
specifically defined mode of operation such as startup or shutdown). An 
alternative emission limitation is a component of a continuously 
applicable SIP emission limitation, and it may take the form of a 
control measure such as a design, equipment, work practice or 
operational standard (whether or not numerical). This definition of the 
term is independent of the statutory use of the term ``alternative 
means of emission limitation'' in CAA sections 111(h)(3) and 112(h)(3), 
which pertain to the conditions under which the EPA may, pursuant to 
sections 111 and 112, promulgate emission limitations, or components of 
emission limitations, that are not necessarily in numeric format.
    The term automatic exemption means a generally applicable provision 
in a SIP that would provide that if certain conditions existed during a 
period of excess emissions, then those exceedances would not be 
considered violations of the applicable emission limitations.
    The term director's discretion provision means, in general, a 
regulatory provision that authorizes a state regulatory official 
unilaterally to grant exemptions or variances from otherwise applicable 
emission limitations or control measures, or to excuse noncompliance 
with otherwise applicable emission limitations or control measures, 
which would be binding on the EPA and the public.
    The term EPA refers to the United States Environmental Protection 
Agency.
    The term EPA's SSM Policy refers to EPA's national policy 
interpretation of the CAA in which SIP provisions cannot include 
exemptions from emission limitations for emissions during SSM events. 
In order to be permissible in a SIP, an emission limitation must be 
applicable to the source continuously, i.e., cannot include periods 
during which emissions from the source are legally or functionally 
exempt from regulation. Regardless of its form, a fully approvable SIP 
emission limitation must also meet all substantive requirements of the 
CAA applicable to such a SIP provision, e.g., the statutory requirement 
of CAA section 172(c)(1)

[[Page 11845]]

for imposition of Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) and 
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) on sources located in 
designated nonattainment areas. The EPA clarified its SSM Policy in its 
2015 SSM SIP Action and reiterated that policy interpretation in the 
McCabe memo.
    The term emission limitation means, in the context of a SIP, a 
legally binding restriction on emissions from a source or source 
category, such as a numerical emission limitation, a numerical emission 
limitation with higher or lower levels applicable during specific modes 
of source operation, a specific technological control measure 
requirement, a work practice standard, or a combination of these things 
as components of a comprehensive and continuous emission limitation in 
a SIP provision. In this respect, the term emission limitation is 
defined as in section 302(k) of the CAA. By definition, an emission 
limitation can take various forms or a combination of forms, but in 
order to be permissible in a SIP it must be applicable to the source 
continuously, i.e., cannot include periods during which emissions from 
the source are legally or functionally exempt from regulation. 
Regardless of its form, a fully approvable SIP emission limitation must 
also meet all substantive requirements of the CAA applicable to such a 
SIP provision, e.g., the statutory requirement of CAA section 172(c)(1) 
for imposition of reasonably available control measures and reasonably 
available control technology (RACM and RACT) on sources located in 
certain designated nonattainment areas.
    The term excess emissions means the emissions of air pollutants 
from a source that exceed any applicable SIP emission limitation. In 
particular, this term includes those emissions above the otherwise 
applicable SIP emission limitation that occur during startup, shutdown, 
malfunction or other modes of source operation, i.e., emissions that 
would be considered violations of the applicable emission limitation 
but for an impermissible automatic or discretionary exemption from such 
emission limitation.
    The term malfunction means a sudden and unavoidable breakdown of 
process or control equipment.
    The term McCabe memo refers to the guidance memorandum titled, 
``Withdrawal of the October 9, 2020, Memorandum Addressing Startup, 
Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State Implementation Plans and 
Implementation of the Prior Policy'' issued by EPA Deputy Administrator 
Janet McCabe on September 30, 2021.
    The term NAAQS means national ambient air quality standard or 
standards. These are the national primary and secondary ambient air 
quality standards that the EPA establishes under CAA section 109 for 
criteria pollutants for purposes of protecting public health and 
welfare.
    The term practically enforceable means, in the context of a SIP 
emission limitation, that the limitation is enforceable as a practical 
matter (e.g., contains appropriate averaging times, compliance 
verification procedures and recordkeeping requirements). The term uses 
``practically'' as it means ``in a practical manner'' and not as it 
means ``almost'' or ``nearly.'' In this document, the EPA uses the term 
``practically enforceable'' as interchangeable with the term 
``practicably enforceable.''
    The term shutdown means, generally, the cessation of operation of a 
source for any reason. In this document, the EPA uses this term in the 
generic sense. In individual SIP provisions it may be appropriate to 
include a specifically tailored definition of this term to address a 
particular source category for a particular purpose.
    The term SIP means or refers to a State Implementation Plan. 
Generally, the SIP is the collection of state statutes and regulations 
approved by the EPA pursuant to CAA section 110 that together provide 
for implementation, maintenance and enforcement of a national ambient 
air quality standard (or any revision thereof) promulgated under 
section 109 for any air pollutant in each air quality control region 
(or portion thereof) within a state. In some parts of this document, 
statements about SIPs in general would also apply to tribal 
implementation plans in general even though not explicitly noted.
    The term SIP Call refers to the requirement for a revised SIP in 
response to a finding by the EPA that a SIP is ``substantially 
inadequate'' to meet CAA requirements pursuant to CAA section 
110(k)(5), entitled ``Calls for plan revisions.'' Following such a 
finding, the EPA shall require the State to revise the plan as 
necessary to correct such inadequacies.
    The term 2015 SSM SIP Action refers to the final action taken by 
the EPA in a Federal Register document (80 FR 33840; June 12, 2015) on 
June 12, 2015, which responded to a June 30, 2011, petition filed by 
Sierra Club titled, ``Petition to Find Inadequate and Correct Several 
State Implementation Plans under section 110 of the Clean Air Act Due 
to Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction, and/or Maintenance Provisions,'' 
restated and updated its national policy regarding SSM provisions in 
SIPs, and found pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5) that a number of the 
identified provisions were ``substantially inadequate'' to meet CAA 
requirements, requiring certain states to amend those provisions.
    The term SSM refers to startup, shutdown, or malfunction at a 
source. It does not include periods of maintenance at such a source. An 
SSM event is a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction during which 
there may be exceedances of the applicable emission limitations and 
thus excess emissions.
    The term startup means, generally, the setting in operation of a 
source for any reason. In this document, the EPA uses this term in the 
generic sense. In an individual SIP provision, it may be appropriate to 
include a specifically tailored definition of this term to address a 
particular source category for a particular purpose.
    The term Wheeler memo refers to the guidance memorandum titled 
``Inclusion of Provisions Governing Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and 
Malfunctions in State Implementation Plans'' issued by EPA 
Administrator Andrew Wheeler on October 9, 2020.

II. Brief Timeline of Actions Relevant to This Proposed Action

    This section provides a brief timeline of several relevant past 
actions that provide context for the proposed action included in this 
document. Additional detail about these past actions is provided in 
section V., Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Background of this 
document.
    June 2011: On June 30, 2011, Sierra Club filed a petition for 
rulemaking asking EPA to consider how certain identified air agency 
rules in EPA-approved SIPs treated excess emissions during periods of 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction of industrial process or emission 
control equipment.
    June 2015: On June 12, 2015, following notice and public comment, 
the EPA published a final action that responded to the Sierra Club 
Petition, restated and updated its national policy regarding SSM 
provisions in SIPs, and found pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5) that a 
number of the identified provisions were ``substantially inadequate'' 
to meet CAA requirements, requiring 36 states (45 state and local 
jurisdictions) to amend those provisions.\3\ This action is referred to 
as the 2015 SSM SIP Action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    February 2020: On February 7, 2020, EPA Region 6 published a final 
action that withdrew the SIP call issued to

[[Page 11846]]

Texas as part of the 2015 SSM SIP Action.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 85 FR 7232 (February 7, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    April 2020: On April 28, 2020, Region 4 published a final action 
that withdrew the SIP call issued to North Carolina as part of the 2015 
SSM SIP Action.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 85 FR 23700 (April 28, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    October 2020: On October 9, 2020, then-EPA Administrator Andrew 
Wheeler issued a new guidance memorandum that superseded the guidance 
provided in the 2015 SSM SIP Action on two subjects: exemptions and 
affirmative defense provisions. This memorandum is referred to in this 
document as the ``Wheeler memo.''
    November 2020: On November 17, 2020, EPA Region 7 published a final 
action that withdrew the SIP call issued to Iowa as part of EPA's 2015 
SSM SIP Action.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 85 FR 73218 (November 17, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    September 2021: On September 30, 2021, EPA Deputy Administrator 
Janet McCabe issued a memorandum titled ``Withdrawal of the October 9, 
2020, Memorandum Addressing Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions in 
State Implementation Plans and Implementation of the Prior Policy,'' 
which withdrew the Wheeler memo and reinstated EPA's SSM Policy as 
outlined in the 2015 SSM SIP Action. This memorandum is referred to in 
this document as the ``McCabe memo.''

III. Overview of Proposed Action

    In this document, in accordance with EPA's policy for SIP 
provisions applying to excess emissions during periods of SSM outlined 
in EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA is proposing to reinstate its 
findings of substantial inadequacy and associated SIP calls that were 
withdrawn in 2020 for the states of Texas, North Carolina, and Iowa for 
SSM provisions in those SIPs that do not comply with statutory 
requirements and EPA's SSM Policy. EPA is also proposing to issue new 
findings of substantial inadequacy and SIP calls to the state of 
Connecticut; the state of Maine; the state of North Carolina; Shelby 
County, Tennessee; Buncombe County, North Carolina; Mecklenburg County, 
North Carolina; the state of Wisconsin; and the state of Louisiana for 
additional SSM provisions identified as deficient by the Agency.
    These actions apply interpretations consistent with EPA's SSM SIP 
policy as outlined in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, which explained in 
detail the reasons why the EPA finds certain types of SSM provisions to 
be substantially inadequate as a matter of both law and policy under 
the CAA. Generally, in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, the EPA found that 
these types of provisions, described in section V.A of this document, 
are inconsistent with certain requirements of the CAA, also described 
in more detail in that section. The EPA also described policy 
rationales to support this action. The EPA noted in the 2015 SSM SIP 
Action that the identified types of provisions allow opportunities for 
sources to emit pollutants during SSM periods repeatedly and in 
quantities that could cause unacceptable air pollution in nearby 
communities with no legal pathway within the existing EPA-approved SIP 
for air agencies, the EPA, the public or the courts to require the 
sources to make reasonable efforts to reduce these emissions.\7\ In the 
time since the 2015 SSM SIP Action, the EPA has taken substantial steps 
to address these deficient provisions. Nevertheless, the continued 
existence of impermissible SSM provisions in certain SIPs has the 
potential to lessen the incentive for development of control strategies 
that are effective at reducing emissions during startup and shutdown, 
even though such strategies could become increasingly helpful in 
achieving the primary air quality objectives of the CAA (e.g., 
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and the protection of public 
health and the environment). Accordingly, to ensure that all 
populations across the affected states, including minority, low-income 
and indigenous populations overburdened by pollution, receive the full 
health and environmental protections provided by the CAA, EPA is 
issuing the additional SIP Calls described in this document to address 
additional deficient provisions not identified in the 2015 action, and 
re-issuing certain SIP calls that the Agency erroneously withdrew in 
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 80 FR 33840 at 33843.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. To which air agencies does this action apply to and why?

    This proposed action applies to the states with statewide and/or 
local provisions relevant to excess emissions that the EPA has 
determined are impermissible because they are inconsistent with CAA 
requirements as interpreted by EPA's SSM Policy. Specifically, the EPA 
is proposing to issue findings of substantial inadequacy with respect 
to reinstating the 2015 findings for three states (North Carolina, 
Texas, and Iowa) and issuing new findings with respect to the specific 
existing SIP provisions in six states (Maine, Connecticut, North 
Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Wisconsin) that the EPA is 
proposing to find are inconsistent with the CAA and EPA's SSM Policy. 
The eight states in total (for provisions applicable in 10 statewide 
and local jurisdictions) are listed in Table 1, ``List of States and/or 
Local Jurisdictions with SSM Provisions for Which EPA Proposes to SIP 
Call.''

    Table 1--List of State and/or Local Jurisdictions With SSM Provisions for Which EPA Proposes to SIP Call
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          State/local jurisdiction              EPA region                         Provision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut.................................               1  Connecticut Administrative Code Title 22a Chapter
                                                               174 section 38(c)(11).
Maine.......................................               1  Maine Administrative Code 06-096 Chapter 138
                                                               section 3-O.
                                                              Maine Administrative Code 06-096 Chapter 150
                                                               section 4-C.
North Carolina..............................               4  North Carolina Administrative Code Title 15A
                                                               Chapter 02 Subchapter D section .0535(c) and (g).
                                                              North Carolina Administrative Code Title 15A
                                                               Chapter 02 Subchapter D section 1423(g).
North Carolina (Mecklenburg County).........               4  Mecklenburg County Air Pollution Control Ordinance
                                                               Rule section 2.0535(c).
North Carolina (Buncombe County) \a\........               4  Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency
                                                               Air Code section 1-137(c).
Tennessee (Shelby County)...................               4  Shelby County Air Code 3-17 (City of Memphis Code
                                                               16-83).
Wisconsin...................................               5  Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter NR 431.05(1)-
                                                               (2) and Chapter NR 436.03(2).
Louisiana...................................               6  Louisiana Administrative Code Title 33 Chapter 9
                                                               section 917.
Texas.......................................               6  Texas Administrative Code Title 30 Part 1 Chapter
                                                               101 Subchapter F Division 3 section 101.222(b)-
                                                               (e).

[[Page 11847]]

 
Iowa........................................               7  Iowa Administrative Code Agency 567 Chapter 24
                                                               Rule 24.1(1).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The EPA notes that the local agency formerly referred to as the Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality
  Agency has recently been renamed as the Asheville-Buncombe Air Quality Agency. This program and the
  corresponding portion of the North Carolina SIP, codified at 40 CFR 52.1770(c)(4), covers Buncombe County in
  North Carolina. The version of the code approved into the SIP is codified as the Western North Carolina
  Regional Air Quality Agency (WNCRAQA) Air Code.

B. What is EPA proposing for any state that receives a finding of 
substantial inadequacy and a SIP call?

    If the EPA finalizes a finding of substantial inadequacy and issues 
a SIP call for any state, EPA's final action will establish a deadline 
by which the state must make a SIP submission to rectify the 
deficiency. Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), the EPA has authority to 
set a SIP submission deadline up to 18 months from the date of the 
final finding of substantial inadequacy. Accordingly, the EPA is 
proposing that if it issues a final finding of substantial inadequacy 
and SIP call for a state, the EPA will establish a date 18 months from 
the date of promulgation of the final finding for the state to respond 
to the SIP call. Thereafter, the EPA will review the adequacy of that 
new SIP submission in accordance with the CAA requirements of sections 
110(a), 110(k), 110(l), 113(b), 113(e), 193, and 304, including EPA's 
interpretation of the CAA reflected in the SSM Policy as explained in 
the 2015 SSM SIP Action. Considering the affected air agencies' need to 
develop appropriate regulatory provisions to address the SIP call and 
conduct any required processes for developing a SIP, we are proposing 
the 18-month due date because we believe that states should be provided 
the maximum time allowable under CAA section 110(k)(5) in order to 
ensure they have sufficient time. EPA expects that such a schedule will 
allow for the necessary SIP development process to correct the 
deficiencies yet still achieve the necessary SIP improvements as 
expeditiously as practicable. In light of the potential for public 
health impacts during this time period, we solicit comment on whether 
establishing a shorter time period than 18 months could instead be 
sufficient for the affected air agencies to develop their submittals.

C. What are potential impacts on affected states and sources?

    The issuance of a SIP call would require an affected state \8\ to 
take action to revise its SIP to correct identified deficiencies. That 
action by the state may, in turn, affect sources as described later in 
this document. Any state that receives a SIP call because of SSM 
provisions has options as to exactly how to revise its SIP to correct 
the deficiency. In response to a SIP call, a state retains broad 
discretion concerning how to revise its SIP, so long as that revision 
is consistent with the requirements of the CAA. Some provisions that 
may be identified in a final SIP call--for example, an automatic 
exemption provision--would have to be removed entirely and an affected 
source could no longer depend on the exemption to avoid all liability 
for excess emissions. Some other provisions--for example, a problematic 
enforcement discretion provision or affirmative defense provision--
could either be removed entirely from the SIP or retained if revised 
appropriately, in accordance with EPA's interpretation of the CAA as 
described in EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action. The EPA notes that if a state 
removes a SIP provision that pertains to the state's exercise of 
enforcement discretion, this removal will not affect the ability of the 
state to use discretion in its state enforcement program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For the purposes of this action, the term ``state'' 
generally refers to both state and local air agencies identified in 
this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The legal effect of a final SIP call is to direct the state to 
revise its SIP. Thus, the EPA anticipates that affected states will 
undertake their processes to determine how to resolve the identified 
deficiencies. The EPA further anticipates that the remedy may differ 
depending on what type of provision is implicated in the SIP call. For 
example, where specific emission limits applicable to specific sources 
are implicated, states may choose to consider reassessing particular 
emission limitations to determine whether those limits can be revised 
such that well-managed emissions during planned operations such as 
startup and shutdown would not exceed the revised emission limitation, 
while still protecting air quality. A revision of an emission 
limitation made in response to a SIP call must be submitted to the EPA 
for approval. The EPA would then review the SIP revision for 
consistency with the CAA requirements of sections 110(a), 110(k), 
110(l), 113(b), 113(e), 193, and 304, including EPA's interpretation of 
the CAA reflected in its SSM Policy, as explained in the 2015 SSM SIP 
Action. A state that chooses to revise particular emission limitations, 
in addition to removing the aspect of the existing provision that is 
inconsistent with CAA requirements, could include those revisions in 
the same SIP submission that addresses the SSM provisions identified in 
the SIP call, or it could submit them separately.

D. What happens in an affected state in the interim period starting 
when the EPA promulgates the final SIP call and ending when the EPA 
approves the required SIP revision?

    When the EPA issues a final SIP call to a state, that action alone 
does not cause any automatic change in the legal status of the existing 
affected provision(s) in the SIP or as a matter of state law. The SIP 
revision process typically begins with a state regulatory action to 
revise the underlying state provision. Once that action is completed, 
and consistent with state regulatory processes, a rule may be in effect 
at the state level even before it is submitted to the EPA as part of a 
SIP. Furthermore, the rule may be in effect at the state level during 
the time in which the SIP revision is pending before the EPA for 
review. During the time that the state takes to develop a SIP revision 
in response to the SIP call and the time that the EPA takes to evaluate 
and act upon the resulting SIP submission from the state pursuant to 
CAA section 110(k), the existing affected SIP provision(s) will remain 
in place. The EPA recognizes that in the interim period, there may 
continue to be instances of excess emissions that adversely affect 
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, interfere

[[Page 11848]]

with Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments, 
interfere with visibility and cause other adverse consequences as a 
result of the impermissible provisions. The EPA is particularly 
concerned about the potential for public health impacts in this interim 
period during which states, the EPA, and sources make necessary 
adjustments to rectify deficient SIP provisions and take steps to 
improve source compliance. However, given the need to resolve these 
longstanding SIP deficiencies in a careful and comprehensive fashion, 
the EPA believes that providing sufficient time consistent with 
statutory constraints for these corrections to occur will ultimately be 
the best course to meet the ultimate goal of eliminating the 
inappropriate SIP provisions and replacing them with provisions 
consistent with CAA requirements.

E. What happens if a state fails to meet the SIP submission deadline or 
if the EPA disapproves the SIP submission?

    If, in the future, the EPA finds that a state that is subject to 
this SIP call, should it be finalized, has failed to submit a complete 
SIP revision as required by the final rule, or the EPA disapproves such 
a SIP revision, then the finding or disapproval would trigger an 
obligation for the EPA to impose a federal implementation plan (FIP) 
within 24 months after that date. In addition, if a state fails to make 
the required SIP revision, or if the EPA disapproves the required SIP 
revision, then either event can also trigger mandatory 18-month and 24-
month sanctions clocks under CAA section 179. The two sanctions that 
apply under CAA section 179(b) are the 2-to-1 emission offset 
requirement for all new and modified major sources subject to the 
nonattainment new source review program, and restrictions on highway 
funding in nonattainment areas. More details concerning the timing and 
process of the SIP call, and potential consequences of the SIP call, 
are provided in section VIII. of this document.

IV. Is this action in response to any petitions for rulemaking?

    While the 2015 SSM SIP Action was published in response to a Sierra 
Club petition for rulemaking, this 2023 SSM SIP Call proposed action is 
not intended to serve as a response to any petitions for rulemaking. 
The EPA is aware that the subject matter of this proposed action 
overlaps with two petitions.\9\ If this action is finalized, EPA 
intends to address separately whether any additional action is 
necessary to respond to those petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See ``Petition to Find Inadequate and Correct Wisconsin's 
State Implementation Plan under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act Due 
to Unlawful Startup, Shutdown, and Maintenance Provisions'' filed by 
the Midwest Environmental Defense Center (MEDC) on June 7, 2012, and 
``Petition for Reconsideration and Rulemaking Addressing Startup, 
Shutdown, and Malfunction Loopholes in State Implementation Plans'' 
filed by Sierra Club on April 12, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Background

    This section provides relevant background on EPA's SSM policy under 
the CAA, as outlined in the 2015 SSM SIP Action. It briefly describes 
the 2015 SSM SIP Action and the types of provisions EPA found to be 
deficient in issuing the SIP Calls in 2015. The EPA is applying an 
interpretation consistent with its SSM policy in issuing the notices of 
deficiency in the current action. This section also describes the three 
SIP Call withdrawals made by EPA in 2020 for North Carolina, Texas, and 
Iowa, as further background for the proposal to reinstate them. It also 
provides background on an October 2020 EPA memorandum announcing 
changes to EPA's SSM Policy, the subsequent withdrawal of that 
memorandum in September 2021, and the reinstatement of EPA's SSM Policy 
as outlined in the 2015 SSM SIP Action.
    This section is provided as background and is not intended to 
interpret or alter these previous withdrawal actions. For details, 
consult the original actions using the references provided. We 
emphasize that the SIP calls in the current action are an application 
of existing policy from the 2015 Action that was adopted through notice 
and comment rulemaking, and that the EPA's SSM policy as outlined in 
the 2015 SSM SIP Action remains valid, binding, and in effect. By 
providing these descriptions, the EPA is not reopening its 
interpretation of the CAA regarding SSM provisions in SIPs for comment. 
The Agency had an extensive comment period for the policy 
interpretations underlying the 2015 SSM SIP Action. Any comments on 
EPA's interpretation of the CAA should have been filed in that Action. 
Because the current Proposed Action is simply an application of EPA's 
SSM policy, the EPA is seeking comments only on the applicability of 
the 2015 SSM SIP Action's interpretation of the Act to the states that 
the EPA proposes to SIP call in later sections of this document.

A. EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action

    On June 30, 2011, Sierra Club filed a petition for rulemaking (June 
2011 Sierra Club petition) asking the EPA to consider how identified 
air agency rules in EPA-approved SIPs treated excess emissions during 
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of industrial process or 
emission control equipment. On June 12, 2015, the EPA responded to the 
Sierra Club petition, restated and updated its national policy 
regarding SSM provisions in SIPs, and found pursuant to CAA section 
110(k)(5) that a number of the identified provisions were 
``substantially inadequate'' to meet CAA requirements, requiring 
certain states to amend those provisions. As mentioned previously in 
this document, this action is referred to as the 2015 SSM SIP Action.
    In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, among other things, the EPA clarified 
its position on the following issues.
Emission Limitation
    The term emission limitation is explicitly defined in section 
302(k) of the CAA: ``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 
the context of a SIP, EPA views an emission limitation as a legally 
binding restriction on emissions from a source or source category, such 
as a numerical emission limitation, a numerical emission limitation 
with higher or lower levels applicable during specific modes of source 
operation, a specific technological control measure requirement, a work 
practice standard, or a combination of these things as components of a 
comprehensive and continuous emission limitation in a SIP provision. By 
definition, an emission limitation can take various forms or a 
combination of forms, but in order to be permissible in a SIP it must 
be applicable to the source continuously, i.e., cannot include periods 
during which emissions from the source are legally or functionally 
exempt from regulation. Regardless of its form, a fully approvable SIP 
emission limitation must also meet all substantive requirements of the 
CAA applicable to such a SIP provision, e.g., the statutory requirement 
of CAA section 172(c)(1) for imposition of reasonably available control 
measures and reasonably

[[Page 11849]]

available control technology (RACM and RACT) on sources located in 
certain designated NAAs.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 80 FR 33840 at 33842.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Automatic Exemption Provisions
    Automatic exemption provisions are generally applicable provisions 
in a SIP that would provide that if certain conditions exist during a 
period of excess emissions, then those exceedances would not be 
considered violations of the applicable emission limitations.\11\ In 
the 2015 SSM SIP Action, the EPA stated that automatic exemption 
provisions in SIPs were impermissible in SIPs and, where SIP provisions 
provide an automatic exemption from otherwise applicable emission 
limitations, they are substantially inadequate to meet CAA 
requirements. EPA's longstanding view, as articulated in the 1982 SSM 
Guidance, 1983 SSM Guidance, 1999 SSM Guidance, 2001 SSM Guidance, and 
in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, is that SIP provisions that include 
automatic exemptions for excess emissions during SSM events, such that 
the excess emissions during those events are not considered violations 
of the applicable emission limitations, do not meet CAA 
requirements.\12\ Such exemptions undermine the attainment and 
maintenance of the NAAQS, protection of PSD increments and improvement 
of visibility, and SIP provisions that include such exemptions fail to 
meet these and other fundamental requirements of the CAA. Even where 
exempted SSM emissions are not currently causing or contributing to an 
exceedance of a NAAQS or PSD increment, automatic exemption provisions 
undermine the assurance that affected communities have that this will 
continue to be the case (for example, if emissions increase in the 
future, from SSM events or otherwise). Automatic exemptions also lessen 
incentives for sources to take necessary steps to prevent exempted 
emissions from causing exceedances, and they remove a pathway for EPA 
and the public to remedy such exceedances if they result from exempted 
emissions. In addition, the EPA interprets CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) 
and 110(a)(2)(C) to require that SIPs that contain ``emission 
limitations'' must meet CAA requirements. Pursuant to CAA section 
302(k), those emission limitations must be ``continuous.'' Automatic 
exemptions from otherwise applicable emission limitations thus render 
those limits less than continuous and thereby inconsistent with a 
fundamental requirement of the CAA, specifically sections 302(k), 
110(a)(2)(A) and 110(a)(2)(C). As such, automatic exemption provisions 
are substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and, thus, 
require SIP call under section 110(k)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Id.
    \12\ See 80 FR 33840 at 33849, 33889.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director's Discretion Provisions
    Director's discretion provisions, in general, are regulatory 
provisions that authorize a state regulatory official unilaterally to 
grant exemptions or variances from otherwise applicable emission 
limitations or control measures, or to excuse noncompliance with 
otherwise applicable emission limitations or control measures, which 
would be binding on the EPA and the public.\13\ In the 2015 SSM SIP 
Action, the EPA stated that, for the same reasons as automatic 
exemptions, but for additional reasons as well, unbounded director's 
discretion provisions were impermissible in SIPs, and SIP provisions 
that allow discretionary exemptions from otherwise applicable emission 
limitations are substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements. 
Primarily, director's discretion provisions violate a fundamental 
requirement of the CAA because they serve to create exemptions from 
otherwise applicable emission limitations, which, as is discussed 
above, is inconsistent with the CAA's requirement that such emission 
limitations operate continuously. Director's discretion provisions are 
additionally problematic because, unless it is possible at the time of 
the approval of the SIP provision to anticipate and analyze the impacts 
of the potential exercise of the director's discretion, such provisions 
functionally could allow de facto revisions of the approved emission 
limitations required by the SIP, without complying with the process for 
SIP revisions required by the CAA. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 
CAA impose procedural requirements on states that seek to amend SIP 
provisions. The elements of CAA section 110(a)(2) and other sections of 
the CAA, depending upon the subject of the SIP provision at issue, 
impose substantive requirements that states must meet in a SIP 
revision. Section 110(i) of the CAA prohibits modification of SIP 
requirements for stationary sources by either the state or the EPA, 
except through specified processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 80 FR 33840 at 33842.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2015 document went on to explain that section 110(k) of the CAA 
imposes procedural and substantive requirements on the EPA for action 
upon any SIP revision. Sections 110(l) and 193 of the CAA both impose 
additional procedural and substantive requirements on the state and the 
EPA in the event of a SIP revision. Key among these many requirements 
for a SIP revision would be the necessary demonstration that the SIP 
revision in question would not interfere with any requirement 
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or ``any other 
applicable requirement of'' the CAA to meet the requirements of CAA 
section 110(l). The EPA interprets the statute to prohibit director's 
discretion provisions unless they would be consistent with the 
statutory and regulatory requirements that apply to SIP revisions.\14\ 
A SIP provision that purports to give broad and unbounded director's 
discretion to alter the existing legal requirements of the SIP with 
respect to meeting emission limitations would be tantamount to allowing 
a revision of the SIP without meeting the applicable procedural and 
substantive requirements for such a SIP revision. EPA's approval of a 
SIP provision that purported to allow unilateral revisions of the 
emission limitations in the SIP by the state, without complying with 
the statutory requirements for a SIP revision, would itself be contrary 
to fundamental procedural and substantive requirements of the CAA. The 
2015 document also described EPA's efforts to discourage these 
provisions and to remove existing provisions that it had previously 
approved in error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 
51.104(d) (``In order for a variance to be considered for approval 
as a revision to the [SIP], the State must submit it in accordance 
with the requirements of this section'') and 51.105 (``Revisions of 
a plan, or any portion thereof, will not be considered part of an 
applicable plan until such revisions have been approved by the 
Administrator in accordance with this part.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, discretionary exemptions undermine effective 
enforcement of the SIP by the EPA or through a citizen suit, because 
often there may have been little or no public process concerning the 
exercise of director's discretion to grant the exemptions, or easily 
accessible documentation of those exemptions. Thus, even ascertaining 
the possible existence of such ad hoc exemptions will further burden 
parties who seek to evaluate whether a given source is in compliance or 
to pursue enforcement if it appears that the source is not. Where there 
is little or no public process concerning such ad hoc exemptions, or 
there is inadequate access to relevant documentation of those 
exemptions, enforcement by the EPA or through a citizen suit may be 
severely compromised. As explained in the 1999

[[Page 11850]]

SSM Guidance,\15\ the EPA does not interpret the CAA to allow SIP 
provisions that would allow the exercise of director's discretion 
concerning violations to bar enforcement by the EPA or through a 
citizen suit. The exercise of director's discretion to exempt conduct 
that would otherwise constitute a violation of the SIP would interfere 
with effective enforcement of the SIP. Such provisions are inconsistent 
with and undermine the enforcement structure of the CAA provided in CAA 
sections 113 and 304, which provide independent authority to the EPA 
and citizens to enforce SIP provisions, including emission limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See EPA's 1999 SSM Guidance (Memorandum to EPA Regional 
Administrators, Regions I-X from Steven A. Herman and Robert 
Perciasepe, USEPA, Subject: State Implementation Plans: Policy 
Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and 
Shutdown, dated September 20, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affirmative Defense Provisions
    Affirmative defense provisions, in the context of enforcement 
proceedings, mean that a state law provision in a SIP that specifies 
particular criteria or preconditions that, if met, would purport to 
preclude a court from imposing monetary penalties or other forms of 
relief for violations of SIP requirements in accordance with CAA 
section 113 or CAA section 304.\16\ In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, the EPA 
stated that affirmative defense provisions were impermissible in SIPs, 
and SIP provisions that provide an affirmative defense for excess 
emissions during SSM events are substantially inadequate to meet CAA 
requirements. A typical SIP provision that includes an impermissible 
affirmative defense operates to limit or eliminate the jurisdiction of 
federal courts to assess liability or to impose remedies in an 
enforcement proceeding for exceedances of SIP emission limitations. 
Some affirmative defense provisions apply broadly, whereas others are 
components of specific emission limitations. Some provisions use the 
explicit term ``affirmative defense,'' whereas others are structured as 
such provisions but do not use this specific terminology. All of these 
provisions, however, share the same legal deficiency in that they 
purport to alter the statutory jurisdiction of federal courts under 
section 113 and section 304 to determine liability and to impose 
remedies for violations of CAA requirements, including SIP emission 
limitations. Accordingly, an affirmative defense provision that 
operates to limit or to eliminate the jurisdiction of the federal 
courts would undermine the enforcement structure of the CAA and would 
thus be substantially inadequate to meet fundamental requirements in 
CAA sections 113 and 304. By undermining enforcement, such provisions 
may also be inconsistent with fundamental CAA requirements such as 
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, protection of PSD increments 
and improvement of visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 80 FR 33840 at 33842.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SIP Call Authority Under Section 110(k)(5)
    Finally, the EPA also provided in the 2015 SSM SIP Action a 
description of the SIP Call mechanism that it used to address the 
substantial inadequacies it identified. This is the same mechanism we 
are proposing to use to address the inadequacies identified in this 
document. In 2015, the EPA noted that the CAA provides a mechanism for 
the correction of flawed SIPs, under CAA section 110(k)(5), which 
provides that, ``Whenever the Administrator finds that the applicable 
implementation plan for any area is substantially inadequate . . . or 
to otherwise comply with any requirement of [the Act], the 
Administrator shall require the State to revise the plan as necessary 
to correct such inadequacies.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See CAA section 110(k)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By its explicit terms, this provision authorizes the EPA to find 
that a state's existing SIP is ``substantially inadequate'' to meet CAA 
requirements and, based on that finding, to ``require the State to 
revise the [SIP] as necessary to correct such inadequacies.'' This type 
of action is commonly referred to as a ``SIP call.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The EPA also has other discretionary authority to address 
incorrect SIP provisions, such as the authority in CAA section 
110(k)(6) for the EPA to correct errors in prior SIP approvals. The 
authority in CAA section 110(k)(5) and CAA section 110(k)(6) can 
sometimes overlap and offer alternative mechanisms to address 
problematic SIP provisions. In this instance, the EPA believes that 
the mechanism provided by CAA section 110(k)(5) is the better 
approach, because it may be difficult to avoid eliminating the 
affected emission limitations from the SIP by using the mechanism of 
the CAA section 110(k)(6) error correction, potentially leaving no 
emission limitation in place, whereas the mechanism of the CAA 
section 110(k)(5) SIP call is guaranteed to keep the provisions in 
place during the pendency of the state's revision of the SIP and 
EPA's action on that revision. In the case of provisions that 
include impermissible automatic exemptions or discretionary 
exemptions, the EPA believes that retention of the existing SIP 
provision is preferable to the absence of the provision in the 
interim. In addition, in this particular situation, EPA believes 
that allowing states the flexibility to correct substantial 
inadequacies relating to SSM in their own SIPs, subject to EPA's 
review, is appropriate under the CAA's cooperative federalism 
framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the approach taken in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, 
section 110(k)(5) explicitly authorizes the EPA to issue a SIP call 
``whenever'' the EPA makes a finding that the existing SIP is 
substantially inadequate, thus providing authority for the EPA to take 
action to correct existing inadequate SIP provisions even long after 
their initial approval, or even if the provisions only become 
inadequate due to subsequent events.\19\ The provision gives the EPA 
authority to identify any deficiency in a SIP that currently exists, 
regardless of the fact that the EPA previously approved that particular 
provision in the SIP and regardless of when that approval occurred. CAA 
section 110(k)(5) authorizes the EPA to take action with respect to SIP 
provisions that are substantially inadequate to meet any CAA 
requirements, including requirements relevant to the proper treatment 
of excess emissions during SSM events. As is discussed in detail in the 
sections above, there are serious legal and practical consequences from 
impermissible SSM provisions appearing in SIPs, making it clear to EPA 
that such provisions are appropriately categorized as substantially 
inadequate. Further detail on EPA's SIP Call authority under section 
110(k)(5) can be found in section VIII of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See, e.g., Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000) 
(upholding the ``NOX SIP Call'' to states requiring 
revisions to previously approved SIPs with respect to ozone 
transport and CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)); ``Action to Ensure 
Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 
Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call; Final rule,'' 75 FR 
77698 (December 13, 2010) (the EPA issued a SIP call to 13 states 
because the endangerment finding for GHGs meant that these 
previously approved SIPs were substantially inadequate because they 
did not provide for the regulation of GHGs in the PSD permitting 
programs of these states as required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and 
section 110(a)(2)(J)); ``Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 
Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State Implementation Plan 
Revision,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011) (EPA issued a SIP call to 
rectify SIP provisions dating back to 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. SSM SIP Call Withdrawals for Texas, North Carolina, and Iowa

Texas: Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Title 30 Part 1 Chapter 101 
Subchapter F Division 3 Section 101.222(b)-(e)
    In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, the EPA granted a June 30, 2011, Sierra 
Club petition with respect to 30 TAC 101.222(b)-(e), finding that these 
provisions were substantially inadequate to meet the requirements of 
the CAA and issuing a SIP call for those provisions.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 80 FR 33840 at 33968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In that action, the EPA found 30 TAC 101.222(b)-(e) to be 
substantially

[[Page 11851]]

inadequate to meet the requirements of the Act on the basis that these 
provisions operate to alter or eliminate federal courts' jurisdiction 
to determine penalties for violations of SIP requirements and, 
therefore, undermine Congress's grant of jurisdiction, and are 
inconsistent with CAA requirements.\21\ These provisions provide 
affirmative defenses as to civil penalties for sources of excess 
emissions that occur during upsets (section 101.222(b)), unplanned 
events (section 101.222(c)), upsets with respect to opacity limits 
(section 101.222(d)), and unplanned events with respect to opacity 
limits (section 101.222(e)). These provisions provide a narrowly 
tailored affirmative defense for emissions that exceed applicable 
emissions limitations that occur during upsets and unplanned MSS 
activities. The EPA considers both ``upsets'' and ``unplanned MSS 
activities'' to be functionally equivalent to malfunctions, as 
discussed in the 2015 SSM SIP Action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 80 FR 33840 at 33851-53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 7, 2020, EPA Region 6 published a final action finding 
that 30 TAC 101.222(b)-(e) were permissible affirmative defense 
provisions after seeking the EPA headquarters concurrence to deviate 
from EPA's national policy announced in the 2015 SSM SIP Action.\22\ 
The Region 6 action stated that imposition of a penalty for sudden and 
unavoidable malfunctions caused by circumstances beyond the control of 
the owner or operator may not be appropriate. In the context of 
unplanned events or malfunctions, the Region 6 action indicated that 
even process equipment or a control device that is properly designed, 
maintained, and operated can sometimes fail. At the same time, as 
outlined in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, the EPA has a fundamental 
responsibility under the CAA to ensure that SIPs provide for attainment 
and maintenance of the NAAQS and protection of air quality increments 
in the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. After 
balancing these considerations, the Region 6 action concluded that the 
Texas SIP provisions containing affirmative defenses were appropriately 
narrowly tailored and would not undermine the fundamental requirement 
of attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, or any other requirement of 
the CAA. The Region 6 document determined that 30 TAC 101.222(b), 30 
TAC 101.222(c), 30 TAC 101.222(d), and 30 TAC 101.222(e) were not 
substantially inadequate to meet the requirements of the Act and 
withdrew the SIP call issued to Texas as part of the 2015 SSM SIP 
Action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 85 FR 7232 (February 7, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

North Carolina
    In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, the EPA granted a June 30, 2011, Sierra 
Club petition with respect to provisions 15A NCAC 02D .0535(c) and 15A 
NCAC 02D .0535(g), finding that those provisions were substantially 
inadequate to meet the requirements of the CAA and issuing a SIP call 
for those provisions.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 80 FR 33840 at 33964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In that action, the EPA found 15A NCAC 02D .0535(c) and 15A NCAC 
02D .0535(g) to be substantially inadequate to meet the requirements of 
the Act on the basis that these provisions provide exemptions for 
emissions exceeding otherwise applicable SIP emission limitations at 
the discretion of the state agency during SSM events.
    On April 28, 2020, EPA Region 4 published a final action adopting 
an alternative policy allowing certain automatic exemption provisions 
and director's discretion provisions in SIPs for the state of North 
Carolina.\24\ The Region 4 document interpreted CAA section 
110(a)(2)(A) to allow for ``exemptions from numerical emission limits 
so long as the SIP contains a set of emission limitations, control 
measures or other means or techniques, which, taken as a whole, meet 
the requirements of attaining and maintaining the NAAQS under subpart 
A.'' \25\ After evaluating the SIP as a whole and determining that the 
SIP, collectively, was protective of the NAAQS, the Region 4 document 
concluded that automatic exemption provisions were permissible in the 
NC SIP. Region 4 also found that director's discretion provisions, 
because they are more limited in scope than automatic exemption 
provisions, likewise did not render the SIP inadequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See 85 FR 23700.
    \25\ See Id. at 23705.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the alternative policy regarding automatic exemption 
provisions for North Carolina, Region 4 determined that 15A NCAC 02D 
.0535(c) and 15A NCAC 02D .0535(g) were not substantially inadequate to 
meet the requirements of the Act and withdrew the SIP call issued to 
North Carolina as part of the 2015 SSM SIP Action. Additionally, the 
Region 4 notice approved a SIP revision submitted by the NC Department 
of Air Quality (DAQ), through a letter dated June 5, 2017, which sought 
to change North Carolina's SIP-approved rule regarding nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) emissions from large internal combustion engine 
sources at 15A NCAC 02D .1423, Large Internal Combustion Engines. This 
rule, 15A NCAC 02D.1423, was not included in the 2015 SSM SIP Call 
Action but includes a provision that automatically exempts periods of 
SSM and scheduled maintenance activities from regulation.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See 80 FR at 33880. 15A NCAC 02D .1423 was not included in 
the 2015 SSM SIP Action but is included in this document under 
section VII.C.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iowa
    In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, the EPA granted the Sierra Club's 
petition with respect to IAC 567-24.1(1), finding that the provision 
was substantially inadequate to meet the requirements of the CAA and 
issued a SIP call for that provision.
    In that action, the EPA found IAC 567-24.1(1) to be substantially 
inadequate to meet the requirements of the Act on the basis that this 
provision automatically allows for automatic exemptions from the 
otherwise applicable SIP emission limitations.\27\ This provision 
explicitly states that excess emissions during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and cleaning of control equipment are not violations of the 
emission standard.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See 80 FR 33840 at 33969.
    \28\ The provision does not provide for an exemption during 
periods of malfunction. However, for ease of reference, the EPA 
refers to the provision as an ``SSM'' provision in order to align 
with public comments which regularly reference ``SSM'' events and 
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a June 22, 2020, supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA 
Region 7 articulated the interpretation that the general requirements 
in CAA section 110 to attain and maintain the NAAQS, along with the 
latitude provided to states through the SIP development process, create 
a framework in which a state may be able to ensure attainment and 
maintenance of the NAAQS notwithstanding the presence of SSM exemptions 
in the SIP.\29\ On November 17, 2020, EPA Region 7 published a final 
action that adopted this interpretation.\30\ On October 9, 2020, the 
EPA issued the Wheeler memo to revise SSM policy. Among other things, 
the memo discussed this interpretation in more detail and adopted it as 
agency policy. That memo is described in more detail in the next 
section, section V.C., of this document. In light of this agency 
policy, EPA Region 7 determined IAC 567-24.1(1) was not substantially 
inadequate to meet the requirements of the Act and withdrew the SIP 
call issued to Iowa as part of EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action. In

[[Page 11852]]

finalizing the Iowa SIP call withdrawal, the EPA referred to the 
October 2020 policy memorandum, outlining a new national policy related 
to specific SIP provisions governing excess emissions during SSM 
events.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See 85 FR 37405 (June 22, 2020).
    \30\ See 85 FR 73218 (November 17, 2020).
    \31\ Memorandum from Administrator Wheeler to Regional 
Administrators, dated October 9, 2020, titled, ``Inclusion of 
Provisions Governing Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions 
in State Implementation Plans.'' https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/guidance-inclusion-provisions-governing-periods-startup-shutdown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. 2020 Wheeler Memo and Subsequent Withdrawal via 2021 McCabe Memo

    As mentioned in section V.B. of this document, on October 9, 2020, 
the EPA issued a guidance memorandum outlining a new national policy 
related to specific SIP provisions governing excess emissions during 
SSM events.\32\ The new guidance memorandum superseded the guidance 
provided in the 2015 SSM SIP Action on two subjects: exemptions and 
affirmative defense provisions. Importantly, it did not alter the 
determinations made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that identified specific 
state SIP provisions that were substantially inadequate to meet the 
requirements of the Act. This memorandum was signed by Administrator 
Andrew Wheeler and is referred to in this document as the ``Wheeler 
memo.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Memorandum from Administrator Wheeler to Regional 
Administrators, dated October 9, 2020, titled, ``Inclusion of 
Provisions Governing Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions 
in State Implementation Plans.'' https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/guidance-inclusion-provisions-governing-periods-startup-shutdown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, with regard to exemption provisions, the Wheeler memo 
stated that such provisions--both those referred to as ``automatic 
exemptions'' and those termed ``director discretion provisions'' in the 
2015 SSM SIP Action--may be permissible in SIPs under certain 
circumstances. The EPA stated that the general requirements in CAA 
section 110 to attain and maintain the NAAQS and the latitude provided 
to states through the SIP development process create a framework in 
which a state may be able to ensure attainment and maintenance of the 
NAAQS notwithstanding the presence of SSM exemptions in the SIP. 
Additionally, the EPA stated that it is permissible for a SIP to 
contain SSM exemptions only if the SIP is composed of numerous planning 
requirements that are collectively NAAQS-protective by design. Such 
redundancies, the EPA stated, help to ensure that the NAAQS are both 
attained and maintained, which was Congress's goal in creating the SIP 
development and adoption process. In evaluating whether the 
requirements of a SIP are collectively NAAQS protective despite the 
inclusion of an SSM exemption provision, the guidance memorandum stated 
that the EPA would conduct an in-depth analysis of the SIP, including a 
multifactor, weight-of-evidence exercise that balances many 
considerations. For director's discretion provisions, the EPA stated 
that any such provisions would necessarily be more protective of the 
NAAQS than a similarly-applicable automatic exemption provision, and 
may be appropriate in similar circumstances.
    With respect to affirmative defenses, the Wheeler memo stated that 
affirmative defenses may be permissible in SIPs if they are narrowly 
tailored so as not to undermine the fundamental requirement of 
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, or any other requirement of 
the CAA. The Wheeler memo reflected a policy interpretation previously 
held by the EPA in its 1999 SSM Guidance stating that an affirmative 
defense provision could generally be considered narrowly tailored if it 
provides that a defendant has the burden of demonstrating that 10 
certain factors were met.
    Following the issuance of the Wheeler memo, the EPA initiated a 
review of the policy and rationale described therein. This review 
resulted in the EPA issuing a new memorandum on September 30, 2021, 
signed by Deputy Administrator Janet McCabe, withdrawing the Wheeler 
memo.\33\ This new memorandum is referred to in this document as the 
``McCabe memo.'' The McCabe memo withdrew the Wheeler memo in its 
entirety and reinstated EPA's SSM Policy, as described in the 2015 SSM 
SIP Action, with respect to provisions that had been superseded by the 
Wheeler memo. It also reaffirmed EPA's SSM Policy, as described in the 
2015 SSM SIP Action, with respect to all other provisions not 
superseded. The McCabe memo explained the reasons for the withdrawal of 
the Wheeler memo and reinstatement of EPA's SSM Policy by noting that 
``the statutory interpretations extensively discussed in the 2015 
policy are more consistent with the CAA and relevant case law for the 
reasons explained in the 2015 SSM SIP Action.'' \34\ It noted, for 
example, that the Wheeler memo did not adequately address CAA 
requirements other than NAAQS attainment and maintenance. It also noted 
that the Wheeler memo did not address the 2008 D.C. Circuit holding 
that affirmative defense provisions are beyond the scope of EPA's 
authority to create. The McCabe memo pointed to EPA's SSM Policy's 
analysis of CAA provisions and found that analysis to be more 
consistent with the CAA and relevant case law, for the reasons 
explained in detail in the 2015 SSM SIP Action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Memorandum from Janet McCabe to Regional 
Administrators, dated September 30, 2021, titled ``Withdrawal of the 
October 9, 2020, Memorandum Addressing Startup, Shutdown, and 
Malfunctions in State Implementation Plans and Implementation of the 
Prior Policy.'' https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-09/oar-21-000-6324.pdf.
    \34\ See McCabe memo, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to withdrawing the Wheeler memo and reinstating EPA's 
SSM Policy, the McCabe memo provided information about additional 
related actions that EPA intended to take with respect to the SSM SIP 
issues, specifically: (1) expeditiously revisiting the three state-
specific SSM SIP call withdrawals for NC, TX, and IA and, also through 
notice-and-comment rulemaking, to consider whether any of the findings 
underlying these actions should be retained in light of the Agency's 
reaffirmation of EPA's SSM Policy, and (2) implementing EPA's SSM 
Policy on an ongoing basis through future notice-and-comment actions on 
SIP submissions, including implementing the 2015 SIP call and taking 
additional SIP actions consistent with EPA's SSM Policy. This document 
addresses those intended actions by initiating the notice-and-comment 
action for the NC, TX, and IA withdrawals and also by initiating 
additional SIP calls consistent with EPA's SSM Policy for additional 
deficient SSM provisions of which EPA is aware. Moreover, although not 
related to the current action, EPA notes that it is continuing to 
implement the 2015 SIP calls for the remaining states through separate 
SIP actions.

VI. Proposed Action To Reinstate Findings of Substantial Inadequacy and 
Issue SIP Calls for North Carolina, Texas, and Iowa

A. North Carolina

    As explained in section V.B. of this document, on April 28, 2020, 
EPA Region 4 published a final action adopting an alternative policy 
allowing automatic exemption provisions and director's discretion 
provisions in SIPs for the state of North Carolina.\35\ Consistent with 
EPA's SSM Policy as outlined in the 2015 SSM SIP Action and 2021 McCabe 
memo, the EPA is proposing in this document to reinstate the SIP call 
that was issued to North Carolina for provisions in 15A NCAC 02D 
.0535(c) and (g) in 2015 on the basis

[[Page 11853]]

that they contain impermissible director's discretion provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See 85 FR 23700.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In EPA's 2020 SIP call withdrawal for the state of North Carolina, 
Region 4 determined that it was reasonable to allow automatic exemption 
provisions and director's discretion provisions in the North Carolina 
SIP. The rationale for that determination was based on an evaluation of 
the SIP as a whole and finding the SIP, collectively, to be protective 
of the NAAQS, notwithstanding the existence of SSM provisions in the 
SIP. In that action, Region 4 stated that, although the North Carolina 
SIP contains SSM exemptions for limited periods applicable to discrete 
standards, the SIP is composed of numerous planning requirements that 
are collectively NAAQS-protective. Region 4 determined that the North 
Carolina SIP's overlapping requirements provide additional protection 
of the standards such that the SIP adequately provides for attainment 
and maintenance of the NAAQS, even if the SIP allows exemptions to 
specific emission limits for discrete periods, such as SSM events. 
Region 4 stated that such redundancy helps to ensure attainment and 
maintenance of the NAAQS, one of the goals of Congress when it created 
the SIP adoption and approval process in the CAA. Region 4 also noted 
that North Carolina currently does not have any nonattainment areas for 
any NAAQS and that air quality in the state has steadily improved over 
the years even though the exemption provisions have been included in 
the SIP, concluding that the SSM exemptions have not interfered with 
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Furthermore, in that action, Region 4 found that the alternative 
policy for North Carolina was reasonable because the D.C. Circuit's 
decision in Sierra Club v. Johnson, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008) did 
not, on its face, apply to SIPs and actions taken under CAA section 
110.\36\ In that action, the EPA stated that, while the Sierra Club 
decision did not allow sources to be exempt from complying with CAA 
section 112 emission limitations during periods of SSM, that finding is 
not necessarily binding on CAA section 110 and EPA's consideration of 
SIPs under that section. In contrast to CAA section 112, that action 
stated, the CAA sets out a fundamentally different regime with respect 
to CAA section 110 SIPs, reflecting the principle that SIP development 
and implementation is customizable for each state's circumstances and 
relies on the federal-state partnership.\37\ Region 4 stated that the 
D.C. Circuit's concern that CAA section 112 standards must apply 
``continuously'' to regulate emissions from a particular source does 
not translate directly to the context of CAA section 110, where a 
state's plan may contain a broad range of measures, including limits on 
multiple sources' and source categories' emissions of multiple 
pollutants--all working together to ensure attainment and maintenance 
of an ambient standard that is not itself an applicable requirement for 
individual sources. In the SIP call withdrawal, Region 4 stated that, 
regardless of the measures a state seeks to include in its SIP, those 
measures must collectively work toward compliance with the nationally 
uniform NAAQS.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The reasoning of the court was that exemptions for SSM 
events in the CAA section 112 context are impermissible because they 
contradict the requirement that emission limitations be 
``continuous'' in accordance with the definition of that term in 
section 302(k). Although the court evaluated this issue in the 
context of EPA regulations under section 112, in the 2015 SSM SIP 
Action, the EPA found that this same logic extends to SIP provisions 
under section 110, which similarly must contain emission limitations 
as defined in the CAA. Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA requires 
states to have emission limitations in their SIPs to meet other CAA 
requirements, and any such emission limitations would similarly be 
subject to the definition of that term in CAA section 302(k).
    \37\ See Virginia v. EPA, 108 F.3d at 1408.
    \38\ See 85 FR 23700 at 23704.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its April 28, 2020, action, Region 4 found that its 
interpretation is consistent with the concept that the CAA requires 
that some CAA section 110 standards apply continuously. Specifically, 
CAA 110(a)(2)(A) requires the SIP to include ``enforceable emission 
limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including 
economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of 
emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, 
as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements 
of this Act.'' Region 4 argued that the phrase ``as may be necessary or 
appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of [the] Act'' allows 
the state some flexibility to develop SIP provisions that are best 
suited for their purposes.\39\ In that context, Region 4 found that a 
reasonable interpretation of the CAA section 302(k) definition of the 
terms ``emission limitation'' and ``emission standard'' did not 
preclude North Carolina from adopting provisions that apply 
continuously while also allowing that unavoidable excess emissions that 
occur during certain discrete, time-limited periods of operation may 
not be considered a violation of the rule. Region 4 interpreted CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(A) to mean that a state may provide exemptions from 
numerical emission limits so long as the SIP contains a set of emission 
limitations, control means, or other means or techniques, which, taken 
as a whole, meet the requirements of attaining and maintaining the 
NAAQS under subpart A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Id. at 23705.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, Region 4 evaluated specific overlapping planning 
requirements in the North Carolina SIP that it found to be protective 
of each individual criteria pollutant NAAQS.\40\ After evaluating the 
SIP as a whole and determining that the SIP, collectively, was 
protective of the NAAQS, Region 4 concluded that automatic SSM 
exemptions were allowable in that SIP. Further, relying on the 
alternative policy's interpretation of the relevant CAA provisions, 
together with the specific automatic SSM provisions in the North 
Carolina SIP, Region 4 determined it was reasonable to find that the 
SIP met the applicable requirements of the CAA and, therefore, did not 
mandate a finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Id. at 23705-23707.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reconsidering its prior action, the EPA is now proposing that 
the withdrawal of the SIP call for North Carolina was inappropriate. In 
this action, EPA is proposing to return to its interpretation of the 
Act in the 2015 SSM SIP action, which is consistent with Sierra Club 
\41\ and is thus proposing to reinstate the SIP call for North Carolina 
that was issued in 2015. The statutory interpretations extensively 
discussed in the 2015 SSM SIP Action are the appropriate reading of the 
CAA and relevant case law for the reasons explained in the 2015 SSM SIP 
Action. Specifically, with respect to automatic exemptions from 
emission limitations in SIPs, EPA's longstanding interpretation of the 
CAA is that such exemptions are impermissible because they are 
inconsistent with the fundamental requirements of the CAA. The EPA 
reiterated this interpretation in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, the 2021 
McCabe memo, and is applying that interpretation in this document. By 
exempting emissions that would otherwise constitute violations of the 
applicable emission limitations, such exemptions interfere with the 
primary air quality objectives of the CAA (e.g., attainment and 
maintenance of the NAAQS and the protection of public health and the 
environment),

[[Page 11854]]

undermine the enforcement structure of the CAA (e.g., the requirement 
that all SIP provisions be legally and practically enforceable by 
states, the EPA and parties with standing under the citizen suit 
provision), and eliminate the incentive for emission sources to comply 
at all times, not solely during normal operation (e.g., incentives to 
be properly designed, maintained and operated so as to minimize 
emissions of air pollutants during startup and shutdown or to take 
prompt steps to rectify malfunctions). Even if Region 4's previous 
conclusion--that all of the provisions of the North Carolina SIP work 
together collectively to protect the NAAQS in that state--was correct, 
the EPA is now proposing to find that the exemption provisions in the 
North Carolina SIP are inconsistent with fundamental CAA requirements 
and are thus impermissible. Protection of the NAAQS and public health 
is an important goal of CAA section 110, and SSM exemptions both 
endanger that goal and are impermissible for additional reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Crucially, exemption provisions are impermissible under the CAA 
section 302(k) requirement that emissions limitations must apply ``on a 
continuous basis.'' In Sierra Club, the D.C. Circuit held that, in the 
CAA section 112 context, emission limitations containing SSM exemptions 
were discontinuous and thus impermissible under CAA section 302(k). The 
EPA believes that the best reading of section 110 aligns with the logic 
laid out in Sierra Club, and similarly forecloses states' ability to 
create exemption provisions in SIPs. EPA's 2020 alternative 
interpretation was not consistent with the CAA section 110 requirement 
that standards apply continuously. Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA does 
not provide flexibility in that regard. The phrase ``as may be 
necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of [the] 
Act'' in no way provides for exemptions from emission limitations and 
in no way precludes the CAA section 302(k) definition of the terms 
``emission limitation'' and ``emission standard.'' Moreover, from a 
policy perspective, the EPA notes that the existence of impermissible 
exemptions in SIP provisions has the potential to lessen the incentive 
for development of control strategies that are effective at reducing 
emissions during certain modes of source operation such as startup and 
shutdown, even though such strategies could become increasingly helpful 
for various purposes, including attaining and maintaining the NAAQS and 
protecting public health.
    With respect to discretionary exemptions from emission limitations 
in SIPs, the EPA also has a longstanding interpretation of the CAA that 
prohibits director's discretion provisions in SIPs if they provide 
discretion to allow what would amount to a case-specific revision of 
the SIP without meeting the statutory requirements of the CAA for SIP 
revisions.\42\ In particular, the EPA interprets the CAA to preclude 
SIP provisions that provide director's discretion authority to create 
discretionary exemptions for violations when the CAA would not allow 
such exemptions in the first instance. As with automatic exemptions for 
excess emissions during SSM events, discretionary exemptions for such 
emissions interfere with the primary air quality objectives of the CAA, 
undermine the enforcement structure of the CAA and eliminate the 
incentive for emission sources to minimize emissions of air pollutants 
at all times, including startup and shutdown events. Through this 
action, the EPA is reiterating its position that the best reading of 
the CAA is that it precludes unbounded director's discretion provisions 
in SIPs.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See, e.g., CAA section 110(l).
    \43\ See 80 FR 33840 at 33918.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While this argument was not made explicitly in the EPA's action 
withdrawing the North Carolina SIP call, one could claim that the 
overlapping planning requirements cited to in that action themselves 
constitute an alternative emission limitation that applies during the 
SSM exemptions in North Carolina's otherwise applicable emission 
limitations, creating a single, continuous emission limitation. The EPA 
is proposing that such a claim is not consistent with the Agency's 
interpretation of the requirements of the CAA and the 2015 SSM SIP 
Policy, which lays out a clear set of criteria that the EPA considers 
when assessing whether an alternative emission limitation is 
acceptable.\44\ The overlapping requirements operate more as ``general 
duty'' provisions than specific, enforceable limitations that would be 
appropriate under the best reading of the CAA. EPA explained at length 
in the 2015 SSM SIP Action why such ``general duty'' provisions are 
inappropriate and inconsistent with CAA requirements.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See 80 FR 33840 at 33912-33914.
    \45\ See 80 Fed Reg. 33840 at 33889-33890, 33893, 33903, 33943, 
33979-33980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the EPA correctly determined in its 2015 SSM SIP 
Action that automatic exemption and director's discretion provisions in 
SIPs are impermissible because they violate fundamental requirements of 
the CAA. The EPA reaffirmed that policy position in the McCabe memo 
and, as such, is proposing to reinstate the SIP call for 15A NCAC 02D 
.0535(c) and 15A NCAC 02D .0535(g) as they are substantially inadequate 
to meet the requirements of the Act. The EPA is also proposing to make 
additional findings of substantial inadequacy to be included in the SIP 
call for North Carolina. These provisions and findings of substantial 
inadequacy will be discussed in further detail in section VII.C. of 
this document.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The EPA notes that it maintains the discretion and 
authority to change its CAA interpretation from a prior position. 
FCC v. Fox Television, 556 U.S. 502 (2009). The EPA is aware that 
its proposed action would represent a change in position from the 
interpretations applied in the North Carolina, Texas, and Iowa SIP 
call withdrawal actions, and a return to the Agency's previous 
interpretations as outlined in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, in which the 
Agency issued the original SIP calls to those states. As is 
discussed elsewhere in this document, the interpretations applied in 
the North Carolina, Texas, and Iowa SIP Call withdrawal actions were 
not the best readings of the CAA. As is outlined in detail in this 
document, EPA's return to the original interpretation of the CAA and 
proposed application of that interpretation to the states discussed 
in this document does not represent a change in the factual findings 
underlying that application. Given the fact that the EPA is 
proposing that states will have 18 months to comply with any final 
SIP calls, the EPA also does not believe that this action, if 
finalized, would engender any serious reliance interests. See id. at 
515-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Texas

    As explained in section V.B. of this document, on January 7, 2020, 
EPA Region 6 adopted an alternative policy regarding the permissibility 
of affirmative defense provisions for Texas and subsequently withdrew 
the SIP call that was issued to Texas as part of the 2015 SSM SIP 
Action. In light of EPA's SSM policy as outlined in the 2015 SSM SIP 
Action and McCabe memo, EPA is proposing in this document to reinstate 
the SIP call that was issued to Texas in 2015 on the basis that 
affirmative defense provisions are impermissible in SIPs.
    In EPA's 2020 SIP call withdrawal for Texas, EPA stated that that 
imposition of a penalty for sudden and unavoidable malfunctions caused 
by circumstances beyond the control of the owner or operator may not be 
appropriate. Region 6 concluded that the Texas SIP provisions 
containing affirmative defenses were appropriately narrowly tailored 
and would not undermine the fundamental requirement of attainment and 
maintenance of the NAAQS, or any other requirement of the CAA. Region 6 
explained in that action that the

[[Page 11855]]

differences in scope and relative balance of state and federal 
authority between CAA sections 110 and 112 suggest that the D.C. 
Circuit's reasoning in NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014), 
with respect to limits on EPA's authority under section 110 does not 
address the distinct question of whether a state may include 
affirmative defense provisions as part of an overall strategy for 
inclusion in their SIP submissions under section 110. Given the 
distinction between sections 112 and 110, and in light of the Luminant 
decision, which upheld EPA's previous approval of the Texas affirmative 
defense provisions, EPA determined that the appropriate policy was to 
consider the Texas affirmative defense provisions to be consistent with 
CAA requirements.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Luminant Generation v. EPA, 714 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is now proposing that the withdrawal of the SIP call for 
Texas was inappropriate. In this action, EPA is proposing to return to 
its interpretation of the CAA in the 2015 SSM SIP action, which is more 
consistent with the reasoning of the D.C. Circuit in NRDC and is thus 
proposing to reinstate the SIP call for Texas that was issued in 2015. 
The statutory interpretations extensively discussed in the 2015 SSM SIP 
Action are more consistent with the CAA and relevant case law for the 
reasons explained in the 2015 SSM SIP Action. The CAA clearly states 
that private citizens have the right to sue over violations of SIP-
approved emission limits.\48\ Federal district courts are granted 
exclusive jurisdiction to hear such cases, enforce against violations 
of emission limits, and apply civil penalties as appropriate. These 
courts also have jurisdiction to enforce against emission limitation 
violations and assess civil penalties in civil actions brought by the 
EPA.\49\ As explained in EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action, the enforcement 
structure of the CAA, embodied in CAA section 113 and CAA section 304, 
precludes any affirmative defense provisions that would operate to 
limit a court's jurisdiction or discretion to determine the appropriate 
remedy in an enforcement action. Affirmative defense provisions are not 
appropriate under the CAA, no matter what type of event they apply to, 
what criteria they contain or what forms of remedy they purport to 
limit or eliminate. For these reasons, the EPA is now proposing to 
reinstate the SIP call that was issued to Texas in 2015 and find that 
Texas's affirmative defense provisions are impermissible under the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Id. Sec.  7604(a)(1), (f).
    \49\ Id. Sec.  7413(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further support for EPA's proposal is as follows. Section 113(b) of 
the CAA provides courts with explicit jurisdiction to determine 
liability and to impose remedies of various kinds, including injunctive 
relief, compliance orders and monetary penalties, in judicial 
enforcement proceedings. This grant of jurisdiction comes directly from 
Congress, and the EPA is not authorized to alter or eliminate this 
jurisdiction under the CAA or any other law. With respect to monetary 
penalties, CAA section 113(e) explicitly includes the factors that 
courts and the EPA are required to consider in the event of judicial or 
administrative enforcement for violations of CAA requirements, 
including SIP provisions. Because Congress has already given federal 
courts the jurisdiction to determine what monetary penalties are 
appropriate in the event of judicial enforcement for a violation of a 
SIP provision, neither the EPA nor states can alter or eliminate that 
jurisdiction by superimposing restrictions on that jurisdiction and 
discretion granted by Congress to federal courts. Affirmative defense 
provisions by their nature purport to limit or eliminate the authority 
of federal courts to determine liability or to impose remedies through 
factual considerations that differ from, or are contrary to, the 
explicit grants of authority in CAA section 113(b) and section 113(e). 
Accordingly, pursuant to CAA section 110(k) and section 110(l), the 
approval of affirmative defense provisions in SIPs would be 
inconsistent with the above-articulated interpretations of CAA sections 
113(b) and (e).
    In the 2020 SIP call withdrawal for Texas, Region 6 incorrectly 
relied on a rationale that the 2015 SSM SIP Action inappropriately 
applied the NRDC ruling to section 110 SIPs and that the Luminant, 714 
F.3d 841, decision appropriately upheld EPA's approval of the Texas 
affirmative defense provisions into the SIP.\50\ This was an incorrect 
reading of NRDC. The NRDC court ruled that CAA sections 113 and 304 
preclude the EPA's authority to create affirmative defense provisions 
in the Agency's own regulations imposing emission limits on sources, 
because such provisions purport to alter the jurisdiction of federal 
courts to assess liability and impose penalties for violations of those 
limits in private civil enforcement cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Luminant, 714 F.3d 841.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As is discussed at length in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, and in light 
of the reasoning of the D.C. Circuit in the NRDC decision, the Agency 
believes that the position the EPA advanced before the court in the 
Luminant decision was not the best interpretation of the CAA, and that 
the correct reading of the CAA is that affirmative defense provisions 
are not appropriate in SIPs. In the Luminant decision, the Fifth 
Circuit analyzed EPA's former interpretation of the CAA under step 2 of 
Chevron and found that the Agency's position was reasonable.\51\ The 
Fifth Circuit held that the CAA did not dictate the outcome put forth 
by environmental petitioners in the Luminant case; the court did not 
hold that the Agency could not reasonably interpret the CAA provisions 
at issue to come to the new position articulated in the 2015 SSM SIP 
Action. In fact, the Fifth Circuit upheld EPA's reading of the statute 
to preclude affirmative defense provisions for planned events in the 
same decision as a reasonable interpretation of the CAA. Crucially, the 
Region 6 2020 SIP call withdrawal did not state that the only reading 
of relevant sections of the CAA is that affirmative defense provisions, 
when narrowly tailored, may be appropriate; instead, following the 
Luminant court's example, Region 6's rationale rested on the 
reasonableness of that interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 
837 (1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the D.C. Circuit in the NRDC decision applied its ruling 
narrowly to section 112 of the CAA, the EPA believes the reasoning laid 
out by the court is similarly applicable to section 110. The 
distinctions identified in the 2020 SIP call withdrawal between 
sections 110 and 112 are not relevant; as is discussed at length in the 
2015 SSM SIP Action, the EPA reasonably believes that states, like the 
EPA, have no authority in SIP provisions to alter the jurisdiction of 
federal courts to assess penalties for violations of CAA requirements 
through affirmative defense provisions. While it is true that states 
are accorded discretion under section 110 to determine how to meet CAA 
requirements, they are obligated to develop SIP provisions that meet 
fundamental CAA requirements. The EPA has the responsibility to review 
SIP provisions developed by states to ensure that they in fact meet 
fundamental CAA requirements. Sections 113 and 304 of the CAA apply 
with just as much force to CAA section 110 as CAA section 112.
    In the 2020 SIP call withdrawal for Texas, Region 6 focused on 
whether the affirmative defense provisions at issue were narrowly 
tailored enough to threaten the fundamental requirement of

[[Page 11856]]

attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. However, the EPA's proposed 
finding of substantial inadequacy is based not on those provisions' 
direct impact on attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, but instead 
on a different portion of section 110(k)(5): whether the Texas 
provisions are ``substantially inadequate . . . to otherwise comply 
with any requirement of this chapter.'' In addition, the 2020 SIP call 
withdrawal for Texas relied on the rationale that the cooperative 
federalism framework of the CAA allowed the Agency flexibility in 
determining whether affirmative defense provisions are appropriate 
under the CAA. However, such flexibility is not appropriate here in 
light of the clear statutory language at issue. As discussed earlier 
and at length in the 2015 SSM Action, affirmative defense provisions in 
SIPs alter or eliminate federal court jurisdiction by superimposing 
restrictions on that jurisdiction and discretion granted by Congress to 
the courts. The 2020 Texas SIP call withdrawal action applied an 
impermissible interpretation of the CAA. Even if such an interpretation 
were permissible, the EPA's view is that this formulation of an 
affirmative defense in effect means that there is no emission 
limitation that applies when the criteria are met, i.e., the 
affirmative defense operates to create a conditional exemption for 
emissions from the source during SSM events. As explained in the 2015 
SSM SIP Action, the CAA requires that emission limitations must apply 
continuously and cannot contain exemptions, conditional or otherwise. 
Exemptions for emissions during SSM events, whether automatic or 
conditional based upon the criteria of an affirmative defense, are 
inconsistent with the requirement for continuous controls on 
sources.\52\ Moreover, as described in section III of this document, 
such provisions allow opportunities for sources to emit pollutants 
during SSM periods repeatedly and in quantities that could cause 
unacceptable air pollution in nearby communities with no legal pathway 
within the existing EPA-approved SIP for air agencies, the EPA, the 
public or the courts to require the sources to make reasonable efforts 
to reduce these emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See 80 FR 33840 at 33854-33855, 33981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons noted in the 2015 SSM SIP Action and those 
discussed in this document, the EPA reasonably determined that 
affirmative defense provisions in SIPs are inappropriate. The EPA 
reaffirmed that policy position in the McCabe memo and is proposing to 
apply that policy to Texas's affirmative defense provisions and 
reinstate the SIP call for 30 TAC 101.222(b)-(e) on the basis that 
those provisions are substantially inadequate to meet the requirements 
of the Act.

C. Iowa

    As explained in section V.B. of this action, on December 17, 2020, 
EPA Region 7 issued a final action that withdrew the SIP call issued to 
Iowa as part of EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action. In light of EPA's SSM policy 
as outlined in the 2015 SSM SIP Action and McCabe memo, the EPA is 
proposing in this document to reinstate the SIP call that was issued to 
Iowa in 2015 on the basis that automatic exemption provisions are 
impermissible in SIPs. The statutory interpretations extensively 
discussed in the 2015 SSM SIP Action are more consistent with the CAA 
and relevant case law for the reasons explained in the 2015 SSM SIP 
Action.
    In the 2020 SIP call withdrawal for Iowa, EPA Region 7 applied a 
policy regarding SSM provisions that was consistent with EPA's national 
policy at that time, as outlined in the Wheeler memo. As noted in 
section V.C. of this action, on October 9, 2020, the EPA issued the 
Wheeler Memo which outlined a new national policy related to specific 
SIP provisions governing excess emissions during SSM events. In light 
of that policy and EPA's evaluation of Iowa's SIP, Region 7 withdrew 
the SIP call issued to Iowa as part of the 2015 SSM SIP Action.
    In the Wheeler memo, consistent with the rationale presented by 
Region 4 in the North Carolina action, the EPA expressed that exemption 
provisions may be permissible in SIPs under certain circumstances. 
Specifically, the Wheeler memo stated that the general requirements in 
CAA section 110 to attain and maintain the NAAQS and the latitude 
provided to states through the SIP development process create a 
framework in which a state may be able to ensure attainment and 
maintenance of the NAAQS notwithstanding the presence of SSM exemptions 
in the SIP. The Wheeler memo stated that it is permissible for a SIP to 
contain SSM exemptions only if the SIP is composed of numerous planning 
requirements that are collectively NAAQS-protective by design. Such 
redundancy helps to ensure that the NAAQS are both attained and 
maintained, which was Congress's goal in creating the SIP development 
and adoption process. In evaluating whether the requirements of a SIP 
are collectively NAAQS protective despite the inclusion of an SSM 
exemption provision, the Wheeler memo stated that the EPA would conduct 
an in-depth analysis of the SIP, including a multifactor, weight-of-
evidence exercise that balances many considerations. If the SIP 
contains limitations on whether SSM events are considered emission 
standard violations or requires that source owners or operators limit 
the duration and severity of SSM events, it may be reasonable to 
conclude that such a provision, when considered alongside other 
factors, would not jeopardize a state's ability to attain and maintain 
the NAAQS.
    Accordingly, Region 7 evaluated the Iowa SIP and identified 
numerous provisions in the SIP that, when taken as a whole, led Region 
7 to conclude that the SIP in its entirety is protective of the NAAQS. 
Specifically, Region 7 found that the Iowa SIP includes a series of 
overlapping requirements that provide for testing, reporting, and 
accountability for sources, including during periods of excess 
emissions. Region 7 argued that such overlapping requirements enable 
Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) to implement the NAAQS, 
allowing IDNR to maintain oversight, work with sources to maintain 
compliant operation, and, if necessary, enforce against sources. The 
specific Iowa provision that was SIP called in 2015 does allow for an 
exemption during excess emissions, but Region 7 stated that it also 
provides for two backstops that protect air quality and help to ensure 
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS: (1) startup, shutdown and 
cleaning is to be accomplished expeditiously; and, (2) startup, 
shutdown, and cleaning is to be accomplished in a way that is 
consistent with good practice for minimizing emissions. In light of 
EPA's 2020 national policy, as outlined in the Wheeler Memo, and 
informed by a weight-of-evidence analysis of the Iowa SIP, Region 7 
withdrew the SIP call that was issued to Iowa.
    The EPA is now proposing that the withdrawal of the SIP call for 
Iowa was inappropriate. In this action, EPA is proposing to return to 
its interpretation of the Act in the 2015 SSM SIP action, which is 
consistent with Sierra Club \53\ and is thus proposing to reinstate the 
SIP call for Iowa that was issued in 2015. Specifically, the McCabe 
memo noted that, ``the statutory interpretations extensively discussed 
in the 2015 policy are more consistent with the CAA and relevant case 
law for the reasons explained in the 2015 SSM SIP Action.'' The Wheeler 
memo, for example, did not adequately address CAA requirements other 
than NAAQS

[[Page 11857]]

attainment and maintenance. These include, but are not limited to, CAA 
section 110(l)'s procedural requirements governing SIP revisions. 
Additionally, the Wheeler memo did not address CAA section 302(k)'s 
requirement that all emission limitations apply on a ``continuous'' 
basis. As a legal matter, the SIP called provision specifically allows 
for an exemption from the applicable emission limitations. This is 
impermissible under EPA's reading of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) alongside 
CAA section 302(k). Emission limitations must apply at all times and 
exemptions from those limitations are contrary to the statute and 
inappropriate.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    \54\ The rationale laid out in section VI.A. of this document as 
to the inappropriate nature of the North Carolina provisions is also 
relevant to the Iowa provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The backstops identified by Region 7 in its weight-of-evidence 
analysis of the Iowa SIP in its SIP call withdrawal points to a number 
of provisions that lack meaningful measures and means for ensuring the 
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The two specific backstops in 
the originally SIP called provision, IAC 567-24.1(1,) are vague and 
unenforceable, and certainly would not constitute alternative emissions 
limitations that would appropriately fill the gap left by Iowa's 
automatic exemption. The provision lays out the two cited backstops by 
stating that excess emissions during SSM periods are not violations if 
the startup and shutdown events are accomplished ``expeditiously and in 
a manner consistent with good practice for minimizing emissions.'' This 
terminology is not defined in the Iowa SIP and is not practically 
enforceable. Practically speaking, a source could be excused from an 
applicable emission limit for a long period during which the EPA would 
have absolutely no assurance that the NAAQS is being attained or 
maintained (not to mention assurance of compliance with all of the 
other requirements of the Act).
    For those reasons, the reasons laid out in section VI.A of this 
action, and the reasons laid out in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, the EPA 
correctly determined in its 2015 SSM SIP Action that automatic 
exemption provisions in SIPs are impermissible because they are 
inconsistent with fundamental requirements of the CAA. The EPA 
reaffirmed that policy position in the McCabe memo and, as such, is 
proposing to find that IAC 567-24.1(1) is substantially inadequate to 
comply with CAA requirements, and thus is reinstating the SIP call for 
IAC 567-24.1(1).

VII. Proposed Action To Issue Additional Findings of Substantial 
Inadequacy and SIP Calls for Connecticut, Maine, North Carolina, 
Including Buncombe and Mecklenburg Counties, Shelby County, Tennessee, 
Wisconsin, and Louisiana

A. Connecticut

CT Sec. 22a-174-38(c)(11)
    The EPA is proposing in this document to make a finding of 
substantial inadequacy and issue a SIP call to Connecticut for CT Sec. 
22a-174-38(c)(11) on the basis that it constitutes an impermissible 
automatic exemption. As explained earlier in this document, EPA's 
position is that the best reading of the CAA is that it does not allow 
for exemptions from otherwise applicable SIP emission limitations, 
whether automatic or through the exercise of a state official's 
discretion. In accordance with the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(A), emission limitations that appear in SIPs must be 
continuous, in accordance with the definition of ``emission 
limitations'' in CAA section 302(k). Thus, any excess emissions above 
the level of the applicable emission limitation must be considered 
violations, whether or not the state elects to exercise its enforcement 
discretion. SIP provisions that create exemptions such that the excess 
emissions during startup, shutdown, or malfunctions are not violations 
are inconsistent with the fundamental requirements of the CAA with 
respect to emission limitations in SIPs.
    CT Sec. 22a-174-38(c)(11), which applies to municipal waste 
combustors (MWCs), states, ``The emission limits and operating 
requirements of this section shall apply at all times except during 
periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction provided in this 
subdivision: (A) For determining compliance with an applicable carbon 
monoxide emissions limit, if a loss of boiler water level control or a 
loss of combustion air control is determined to be a malfunction, the 
duration of the malfunction period shall be limited to fifteen (15) 
hours per occurrence. Otherwise, the duration of each startup, shutdown 
or malfunction period shall be limited to three hours per occurrence 
for all MWC units; (B) For the purpose of compliance with the opacity 
emission limits, during each period of startup, shutdown or 
malfunction, the opacity limits shall not be exceeded during more than 
five (5) 6-minute arithmetic average measurements; and (C) During 
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, monitoring data shall be 
excluded from calculations of compliance with the emission limits and 
operating requirements of this subdivision but shall be recorded and 
reported in accordance with subsections (k) and (l) of this section.''
    The EPA proposes to find that this provision is impermissible even 
though the state has imposed some time limitations on its potential 
scope. For example, CT Sec. 22a-174-38(c)(11)(A) limits malfunction 
periods to ``fifteen (15) hours per occurrence'' and the duration of 
SSM periods to: three hours per occurrence for all MWC units.'' CT Sec. 
22a-174-38(c)(11)(B) limits opacity limit exceedances during SSM events 
to ``five (5) 6-minute arithmetic measurements.'' Although the CAA does 
allow for alternative emission limitations or other enforceable control 
measures or techniques that apply during startup or shutdown, the CT 
SIP provision does not comply with the CAA's requirements as 
interpreted in EPA's SSM policy \55\ because the provision still 
contains periods of time when no limit (numerical or otherwise) 
applies. There are no other provisions in the CT SIP that could act as 
alternative emission limits to fill those periods of time. In addition, 
the provision does not adequately explain how the time limitations will 
be legally and practically enforceable. This provision thus appears to 
provide for an automatic exemption from the emission limitations that 
would otherwise apply to municipal waste combustors in the Connecticut 
SIP and is substantially inadequate to comply with CAA requirements 
under sections 110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(C), and 302(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action, 80 FR 33913-33917, for a 
discussion of EPA's policy regarding alternative emission 
limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Maine

ME 06-096 Chapter 138-3-O
    The EPA is proposing in this document to make a finding of 
substantial inadequacy and issue a SIP call to Maine for provision ME 
06-096 Chapter 138-3-O on the basis that it constitutes an 
impermissible automatic exemption. As explained earlier in this 
document, EPA's position is that the best reading of the CAA is that it 
does not allow for exemptions from otherwise applicable SIP emission 
limitations, whether automatic or through the exercise of a state 
official's discretion. In accordance with the requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(A), emission limitations that appear in SIPs must be 
continuous, in accordance with the definition of

[[Page 11858]]

``emission limitations'' in CAA section 302(k). Thus, any excess 
emissions above the level of the applicable emission limitation must be 
considered violations, whether or not the state elects to exercise its 
enforcement discretion. SIP provisions that create exemptions such that 
the excess emissions during startup, shutdown, or malfunctions are not 
violations are inconsistent with the fundamental requirements of the 
CAA with respect to emission limitations in SIPs.
    This provision, which applies to Reasonably Available Control 
Technology (RACT) standards for stationary sources of Nitrogen Oxides 
(NOX), states, ``For any source that employs the use of a 
continuous emissions monitoring system, periods of startup, shutdown, 
equipment malfunction and fuel switching shall not be included in 
determining 24-hour daily block arithmetic average emission rates 
provided that operating records are available to demonstrate that the 
facility was being operated to minimize emissions.'' EPA proposes to 
find that the inclusion of this exemption from otherwise applicable SIP 
emission limitations is thus a substantial inadequacy and renders this 
specific SIP provision impermissible.
    The EPA proposes to find that this exemption is impermissible even 
though the state has imposed some factual limitations on its potential 
scope: the requirement to provide operating records ``to demonstrate 
that the facility was being operated to minimize emissions.'' While the 
CAA does allow for alternative emission limitations or other 
enforceable control measures or techniques that apply during startup or 
shutdown, this SIP provision does not comply with the Act's 
requirements for an alternative emission limit as interpreted in EPA's 
SSM policy. The provision does not adequately address emissions 
limitations during SSM events. Instead, it only explains how facilities 
will ensure that emissions are ``minimized.'' In addition, similar to 
the Iowa provision discussed above, such a vague requirement is not 
legally and practically enforceable, as it does not provide a 
meaningful and objective standard for a court to assess. This provision 
thus appears to provide for an automatic exemption from the emission 
limitations that would otherwise apply to RACT standards for stationary 
sources of NOX in the Maine SIP without meaningful 
restrictions and is substantially inadequate to comply with CAA 
requirements under sections 110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(C), and 302(k).
ME 06-096 Chapter 150-4-C
    The EPA is proposing in this document to make a finding of 
substantial inadequacy and issue a SIP call to Maine for provision ME 
06-0096 Chapter 150-4-C on the basis that it constitutes an 
impermissible automatic exemption. As explained earlier in this 
document, EPA's position is that the best reading of the CAA is that it 
does not allow for exemptions from otherwise applicable SIP emission 
limitations, whether automatic or through the exercise of a state 
official's discretion. In accordance with the requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(A), emission limitations that appear in SIPs must be 
continuous, in accordance with the definition of ``emission 
limitations'' in CAA section 302(k). Thus, any excess emissions above 
the level of the applicable emission limitation must be considered 
violations, whether or not the state elects to exercise its enforcement 
discretion. SIP provisions that create exemptions such that the excess 
emissions during startup, shutdown, or malfunctions are not violations 
are inconsistent with the fundamental requirements of the CAA with 
respect to emission limitations in SIPs.
    This provision, which applies to visible emission standards for 
outdoor wood boilers and outdoor pellet boilers, states, ``No person 
shall cause or allow the emission of a smoke plume from any outdoor 
wood boiler or outdoor pellet boiler to exceed an average of 30 percent 
opacity on a six-minute block average basis, except for no more than 
two six minute block averages in a 3-hour period.'' While this 
provision does not explicitly mention periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction, the EPA is proposing to find that the provision is 
impermissible under the CAA requirement that some emission limit must 
apply at all times. There are no other provisions in the ME SIP that 
could act as an appropriate alternative emission limit to fill the 
periods of time the emission limit does not apply. This provision 
appears to provide for an automatic exemption from the emission 
limitations that would otherwise apply to visible emission standards 
for outdoor wood boilers and outdoor pellet boilers in the Maine SIP 
and is substantially inadequate to comply with CAA requirements under 
sections 110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(C), and 302(k).

C. North Carolina

15A NCAC 02D .1423(g)
    Separately from the reinstatement of the 2015 SIP Call discussed in 
the previous section, the EPA is also proposing in this document to 
make a finding of substantial inadequacy and issue a SIP Call to North 
Carolina for provision 15A NCAC 02D .1423(g) on the basis that it 
contains an impermissible automatic exemption.
    As explained earlier in this document, EPA's position is that the 
best reading of the CAA is that it does not allow for exemptions from 
otherwise applicable SIP emission limitations, whether automatic or 
through the exercise of a state official's discretion. In accordance 
with the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), emission limitations 
that appear in SIPs must be continuous, in accordance with the 
definition of ``emission limitations'' in CAA section 302(k). Thus, any 
excess emissions above the level of the applicable emission limitation 
must be considered violations, whether or not the state elects to 
exercise its enforcement discretion. SIP provisions that create 
exemptions such that the excess emissions during startup, shutdown, or 
malfunctions are not violations are inconsistent with the fundamental 
requirements of the CAA with respect to emission limitations in SIPs.
    The provision 15A NCAC 02D .1423(g), which applies to large 
internal combustion engines, states, ``The emission standards of this 
Rule shall not apply to the following periods of operation: (1) start-
up and shut-down periods and periods of malfunction, not to exceed 36 
consecutive hours; (2) regularly scheduled maintenance activities.'' 
\56\ The EPA is proposing to find the inclusion of these exemptions 
renders the provision impermissible under the CAA requirement that some 
emission limit must apply at all times. There are no other provisions 
in the NC SIP that could act as an appropriate alternative emission 
limit to fill the periods of time the emission limit does not apply, as 
is discussed in more detail above. The provision 15A NCAC 02D .1423(g) 
appears to provide for an impermissible automatic exemption and is 
substantially inadequate to comply with CAA requirements under sections 
110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(C), and 302(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ The EPA notes that ``emission standard'' and ``emission 
limitation'' have the same definition under section 302(k) of the 
CAA, and EPA considers the terms interchangeable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mecklenburg County, NC: Mecklenburg County Air Pollution Control 
Ordinance (MCAPCO) Rule 2.0535(c)
    The EPA is proposing in this document to make a finding of 
substantial inadequacy and issue a SIP call to North Carolina for local 
provision MACAPCO Rule 2.0535(c) on the basis

[[Page 11859]]

that it contains an impermissible director's discretion provision. As 
explained earlier in this document, EPA's position is that the best 
reading of the CAA is that it does not allow for exemptions through the 
exercise of a state official's discretion. In accordance with the 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), emission limitations that 
appear in SIPs must be continuous, in accordance with the definition of 
``emission limitations'' in CAA section 302(k). Thus, any excess 
emissions above the level of the applicable emission limitation must be 
considered violations, whether or not the state elects to exercise its 
enforcement discretion. SIP provisions that create exemptions such that 
the excess emissions during startup, shutdown, or malfunctions are not 
violations are inconsistent with the fundamental requirements of the 
CAA with respect to emission limitations in SIPs. In addition, 
director's discretion provisions functionally could allow de facto 
revisions of the approved emission limitations required by the SIP, 
without complying with the process for SIP revisions required by the 
CAA.
    The local provision, which applies to excess emissions reporting 
and malfunctions, states ``Any excess emissions that do not occur 
during start-up or shut-down are considered a violation of the 
appropriate Regulation unless the owner or operator of the source of 
excess emissions demonstrates to the Director, that the excess 
emissions are the result of a malfunction.'' The provision relies on 
the same unbounded director's discretion language found in 15A NCAC 02D 
.0535(c), including the list of factors to be considered by the 
director, and is inadequate for the same reasons. As explained in EPA's 
February 22, 2013, SIP call proposal on the state's rule, and 
reiterated in part earlier in this document, this director's discretion 
provision authorizes exemptions from otherwise applicable emission 
limitations, in violation of EPA's SSM Policy that emission limits 
apply at all times. In addition, this provision makes the state 
official the unilateral arbiter of whether the excess emissions in a 
given event constitute a violation, which could preclude enforcement by 
the EPA or the public who might disagree about whether enforcement 
action is warranted. There are no other provisions in the NC SIP that 
could act as an appropriate alternative emission limit to fill the 
periods of time the emission limit does not apply, as is discussed in 
more detail above. The EPA is proposing to find that the provision 
MCAPCO Rule 2.0434(c) appears to provide for of an unbounded director's 
discretion exemption and is thus substantially inadequate to meet CAA 
requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(C), and 302(k).
Buncombe County, NC: Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency 
Air Quality Code (WNCRAQ Air Quality Code) Section 1-137(c)
    The EPA is also proposing in this document to make a finding of 
substantial inadequacy and issue a SIP Call to North Carolina for local 
provision WNCRAQ Air Quality Code section 1-137(c) on the basis that it 
contains an impermissible director's discretion exemption. As explained 
earlier in this document, EPA's position is that the best reading of 
the CAA is that it does not allow for exemptions through the exercise 
of a state official's discretion. In accordance with the requirements 
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), emission limitations that appear in SIPs 
must be continuous, in accordance with the definition of ``emission 
limitations'' in CAA section 302(k). Thus, any excess emissions above 
the level of the applicable emission limitation must be considered 
violations, whether or not the state elects to exercise its enforcement 
discretion. SIP provisions that create exemptions such that the excess 
emissions during startup, shutdown, or malfunctions are not violations 
are inconsistent with the fundamental requirements of the CAA with 
respect to emission limitations in SIPs. In addition, director's 
discretion provisions functionally could allow de facto revisions of 
the approved emission limitations required by the SIP, without 
complying with the process for SIP revisions required by the CAA.
    The local provision, which applies to excess emissions reporting 
and malfunctions, states ``Any excess emissions that do not occur 
during start-up or shut-down are considered a violation of the 
appropriate Regulation unless the owner or operator of the source of 
excess emissions demonstrates to the Director, that the excess 
emissions are the result of a malfunction.'' The provision relies on 
the same unbounded director's discretion language found in MCAPCO Rule 
2.0535(c) and 15A NCAC 02D .0535(c), including the list of factors to 
be considered by the director, and is inadequate for the same reasons. 
This director's discretion provision authorizes exemptions from 
otherwise applicable emission limitations, in violation of EPA's SSM 
Policy that emission limits apply at all times. There are no other 
provisions in the NC SIP that could act as an appropriate alternative 
emission limit to fill the periods of time the emission limit does not 
apply, as is discussed in more detail above. In addition, this 
provision makes the state official the unilateral arbiter of whether 
the excess emissions in a given event constitute a violation, which 
could preclude enforcement by the EPA or the public who might disagree 
about whether enforcement action is warranted. The EPA is proposing to 
find provision WNCRAQ Air Quality Code section 1-137(c) appears to 
provide for an unbounded director's discretion exemption and is thus 
substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements 110(a)(2)(A), 
110(a)(2)(C), and 302(k).

D. Tennessee

Shelby County, Tennessee: Shelby County Air Code 3-17 (City of Memphis 
Code 16-83)
    The EPA is proposing in this document to make a finding of 
substantial inadequacy and issue a SIP Call to Tennessee for local 
provisions Shelby County Air Code 3-17 (City of Memphis Code 16-83) 
\57\ on the basis that they contain impermissible unbounded director's 
discretion exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ This Shelby County portion of the Tennessee SIP consists of 
the Shelby County Air Code developed by the Shelby County Health 
Department's Pollution Control Section and the mirrored regulations 
for included municipalities and the City of Memphis. EPA selected 
the City of Memphis Air Code to represent the SIP compilation in the 
past. Shelby County Air Code section 3-17 corresponds to City of 
Memphis Code section 16-83. The Shelby County LIP also includes the 
Town of Arlington, City of Millington, Town of Collierville, City of 
Bartlett, City of Germantown, and the City of Lakeland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained earlier in this document, EPA's position is that the 
best reading of the CAA is that it does not allow for exemptions from 
otherwise applicable SIP emission limitations, whether automatic or 
through the exercise of a state official's discretion. In accordance 
with the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), emission limitations 
that appear in SIPs must be continuous, in accordance with the 
definition of ``emission limitations'' in CAA section 302(k). Thus, any 
excess emissions above the level of the applicable emission limitation 
must be considered violations, whether or not the state elects to 
exercise its enforcement discretion. SIP provisions that create 
exemptions such that the excess emissions during startup, shutdown, or 
malfunctions are not violations are inconsistent with the fundamental 
requirements of the CAA with respect to emission limitations in SIPs.

[[Page 11860]]

    Shelby County Air Code 3-17 (City of Memphis Code 16-83), which 
incorporates by reference Chapter 1200-3-5 of the Tennessee Air 
Pollution Control Regulations, applies to visible emissions from 
stationary sources. Tennessee Compilation of Rules and Regulations 
(Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs) 1200-3-5-.02(1), which was SIP-called in 2015, 
states, ``Consistent with the requirements of Chapter 1200-3-20, due 
allowance may be made for visible emissions in excess of that permitted 
in this chapter which are necessary or unavoidable due to routine 
startup and shutdown conditions.'' As explained in EPA's February 22, 
2013, SIP call proposal, this provision creates an unbounded director's 
discretion provision because it allows a state official to excuse 
excess visible emissions after giving ``due allowance'' to the fact 
that they were emitted during startup or shutdown events.\58\ More 
importantly, the provision purports to authorize the local official to 
create exemptions from applicable SIP emission limitations when such 
exemptions are impermissible in the first instance. There are no other 
provisions in the TN SIP that could act as an appropriate alternative 
emission limit to fill the periods of time the emission limit does not 
apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs 1200-3-5-.02(1) refers to Chapter 
1200-3-20 as prescribing the requirements for considering whether 
violations can receive ``due allowance.'' As SIP-called, 1200-3-
20-.07(1) requires data to be reported ``to assist the Technical 
Secretary in deciding whether to excuse or proceed upon'' violations 
of applicable SIP emission limitations. Therefore, the due allowance 
at 1200-3-5-.02(1) can be interpreted to mean the discretion of the 
Technical Secretary to excuse violations during periods of SSM. The 
EPA SIP called the Shelby County incorporation by reference of 
Chapter 1200-3-20 in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, and Shelby County 
submitted a SIP revision addressing that SIP call through the State 
on March 1, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As such, the EPA is proposing to find Shelby County Air Code 3-17 
(City of Memphis Code 16-83), which appears to provide for director's 
discretion exemptions from the emission limitations that would 
otherwise apply to visible emission standards from stationary sources 
in the TN SIP, is substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements 
sections 110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(C), and 302(k) as interpreted in EPA's 
SSM Policy.

E. Wisconsin

Wis. Admin. Code NR 431.05(1)-(2) and NR 436.03(2)
    The EPA is proposing in this document to make a finding of 
substantial inadequacy and issue a SIP call to the state of Wisconsin 
for Wis. Admin. Code provisions NR 431.05(1)-(2) and NR 436.03(2) on 
the basis that these provisions contain impermissible automatic and 
director's discretion exemptions.
    As explained earlier in this document, EPA's position is that the 
best reading of the CAA is that it does not allow for exemptions from 
otherwise applicable SIP emission limitations, whether automatic or 
through the exercise of a state official's discretion. In accordance 
with the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), emission limitations 
that appear in SIPs must be continuous, in accordance with the 
definition of ``emission limitations'' in CAA section 302(k). Thus, any 
excess emissions above the level of the applicable emission limitation 
must be considered violations, whether or not the state elects to 
exercise its enforcement discretion. SIP provisions that create 
exemptions such that the excess emissions during startup, shutdown, or 
malfunctions are not violations are inconsistent with the fundamental 
requirements of the CAA with respect to emission limitations in SIPs. 
In addition, director's discretion provisions functionally could allow 
de facto revisions of approved emission limitations required by the 
SIP, without complying with the process for SIP revisions required by 
the CAA.
    The provision NR 431.05(1), which applies to emissions limitations 
and visible emissions control for all air contaminant sources, states, 
``No owner or operator of a direct or portable source on which 
construction or modification is commenced after April 1, 1972 may cause 
or allow emissions of shade or density greater than number 1 of the 
Ringlemann chart or 20% opacity with the following exceptions: (1) When 
combustion equipment is being cleaned or a new fire started, emissions 
may exceed number 1 of the Ringlemann chart or 20% opacity but may not 
exceed number 4 of the Ringlemann chart or 80% opacity for 6 minutes in 
any one hour. Combustion equipment may not be cleaned nor a fire 
started more than 3 times per day.'' While the CAA does allow for 
alternative emission limitations or other enforceable control measures 
or techniques that apply during startup or shutdown, 431.05(1) does not 
comply with the Act's requirements for an alternative emission limit as 
interpreted in EPA's SSM policy. While the provision appears on its 
face to provide for a numerical limitation on visible emissions 
exceedances at all times, an 80% opacity limit provides for 
functionally uncontrolled emissions. In EPA's experience, for most 
source categories, a source displaying 80% opacity would likely be 
operating without any emissions controls at all. Opacity limits in EPA 
rules and permits that represent controlled sources are typically much 
lower than 80% (most often 20% or lower). While framed as an 
alternative emissions limitation, EPA views this provision as operating 
in practice as an automatic exemption, which does not comply with the 
CAA or EPA's SSM policy. Further, the limit applies to emissions 
limitations and visible emissions control for all air contaminant 
sources--it is not ``limited to specific, narrowly defined source 
categories'' as EPA's SSM Policy for alternative emission limits 
recommends. As articulated in 1999 SSM SIP Guidance and 2015 SSM SIP 
Action, for some source categories, given the types of control 
technologies available, there may exist short periods of emissions 
during startup and shutdown when, despite best efforts regarding 
planning, design, and operating procedures, otherwise applicable 
emission limitation cannot be met. In these instances, it may be 
appropriate to create SIP revisions providing for alternative emission 
limitations, so long as they meet the criteria for developing and 
evaluating alternative emission limitations laid out by EPA, including 
that the revision be ``limited to specific, narrowly defined source 
categories.'' \59\ Even if an 80 percent opacity limit were to be 
appropriate for certain sources in very specific scenarios, it operates 
too broadly to be appropriate in all situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See 80 FR 33840 at 33914 and EPA's 1999 SSM Guidance 
(Memorandum to EPA Regional Administrators, Regions I-X from Steven 
A. Herman and Robert Perciasepe, USEPA, Subject: State 
Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During 
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown, dated September 20, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both NR 431.05(2) and NR 436.03(2) provide for unbounded director's 
discretion exemptions, authorizing exemptions from otherwise applicable 
emission limitations, in violation of EPA's SSM Policy that emission 
limits apply at all times. NR 431.05(2), which applies to emission 
limitations and visible emissions control for all air contaminant 
sources, states, ``No owner or operation of a direct or portable source 
on which construction or modification is commenced after April 1, 1972 
may cause or allow emissions of shade or density greater than number 1 
of the Ringlemann chart or 2 percent opacity with the following 
exceptions: (2) Emissions may exceed number 1 of the Ringlemann chart 
or 20 percent opacity for stated periods of time, as permitted by the 
department, for such

[[Page 11861]]

purpose as an operating test, use of emergency equipment, or other good 
cause, provided no hazard or unsafe condition arises.'' This provision 
constitutes a director's discretion exemption because it allows 
exceptions ``as permitted by the department'' for various purposes 
including ``other good cause.'' Although it limits the department 
head's discretion so that ``no hazard or unsafe condition arises,'' 
this vague language provides the department head with extremely broad 
discretion to approve emissions exceedances in accordance with ``good 
cause'' which could preclude enforcement by the EPA or the public who 
might disagree about whether enforcement action is warranted due to 
emissions exceedances.
    NR 436.03(2), which applies to emission limitations exceptions for 
all air contaminant sources, states, ``Emissions in excess of the 
emission limitations set in NR 400 to 499 may be allowed in the 
following circumstances: (a) When an approved program or plan with a 
time schedule for correction has been undertaken and correction is 
being pursued with diligence; (b) When emissions in excess of the 
limits are temporary and due to scheduled maintenance, startup or 
shutdown of operations carried out in accord with a plan and schedule 
approved by the department; (c) The use of emergency or reserve 
equipment needed for meeting of high peak loads, testing of the 
equipment or other uses approved by the department. Such equipment must 
be specified in writing as emergency or reserve equipment by the 
department. Upon startup of this equipment notification must be given 
to the department which may or may not give approval for continued 
equipment use.''
    This provision constitutes a director's discretion exemption 
because, for example, NR 436.03(2) references exceptions to emissions 
limitations during periods of SSM as being acceptable so long as the 
emissions are ``carried out in accord with a plan and schedule approved 
by the department.'' Like NR 431.05(2), this vague language provides 
the department head or director with extremely broad discretion to 
approve emissions exceedances in accordance with an unspecified 
department plan, which could preclude enforcement by the EPA or the 
public who might disagree about whether enforcement action is 
warranted. Most importantly, however, the provision may be read to 
authorize the state official to create an exemption from applicable 
emission limitations, and such an exemption is impermissible in the 
first instance. There are no other provisions in the WI SIP that could 
act as an appropriate alternative emission limit to fill the periods of 
time the emission limits do not apply.
    As such, the EPA proposes to find that Wis. Admin. Code NC 
431.05(1)-(2) and NR 436.03(2), which appears to provide for automatic 
and director's discretion exemptions from the emission limitations that 
would otherwise apply to air contaminant sources in the WI SIP, are 
substantially inadequate to comply with the CAA requirements in 
sections 110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(C), and 302(k) and, thus, are 
impermissible for the aforementioned reasons.

F. Louisiana

Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) Title 33 Chapter 9 Section 917
    The EPA is proposing in this document to make a finding of 
substantial inadequacy and issue a SIP call to Louisiana for the LA. 
Admin Code Tit. 33 section 917 provision on the basis that it contains 
an impermissible director's discretion exemption.
    As explained earlier in this document, EPA's position is that the 
best reading of the CAA is that it does not allow for exemptions from 
otherwise applicable SIP emission limitations, whether automatic or 
through the exercise of a state official's discretion. In accordance 
with the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), emission limitations 
that appear in SIPs must be continuous, in accordance with the 
definition of ``emission limitations'' in CAA section 302(k). Thus, any 
excess emissions above the level of the applicable emission limitation 
must be considered violations, whether or not the state elects to 
exercise its enforcement discretion. SIP provisions that seek to 
provide or create exemptions such that the excess emissions during 
startup, shutdown, or malfunctions are not violations are inconsistent 
with the fundamental requirements of the CAA with respect to emission 
limitations in SIPs.
    The EPA proposes to find that a provision in Louisiana's SIP that 
allows emissions in excess of otherwise applicable SIP emission 
limitations due to ``exceptional circumstances'' (LA. Admin Code Tit. 
33 section 917) is impermissible under the CAA as interpreted in EPA's 
SSM Policy because it includes an unbounded director's discretion 
provision. The provision authorizes a state official to grant a 
``variance'' from any generally applicable SIP emission limitation if 
the state official ``finds that by reason of exceptional circumstances 
strict conformity with any provisions of [Louisiana's air quality] 
regulations would cause undue hardship, would be unreasonable, 
impractical or not feasible under the circumstances.'' This provision 
could be read to mean that once the state official has granted a 
variance for excess emissions due to conditions that make it difficult 
for sources to comply with otherwise applicable SIP limitations, those 
excess emissions are not violations. In fact, the state of Louisiana 
has granted several variances in recent years to allow for excess 
emissions during periods of SSM.\60\ This is contrary to the 
fundamental enforcement structure of the CAA, as provided in CAA 
section 113 and CAA section 304, through which the EPA and other 
parties are authorized to bring enforcement actions for violations of 
SIP emission limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Louisiana variance memorandum in Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0814.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section V.A. of this document, such director's 
discretion provisions are impermissible. Such an interpretation would 
make the state official the unilateral arbiter of whether the excess 
emissions in a given event constitute a violation, which could preclude 
enforcement by the EPA or the public who might disagree about whether 
enforcement action is warranted. Most importantly, however, the 
provision may be read to authorize the state official to create an 
exemption from applicable emission limitations, and such an exemption 
is impermissible in the first instance. Inclusion of an unbounded 
director's discretion provision in LA. Admin Code Tit. 33 section 917 
is thus a substantial inadequacy and renders this specific SIP 
provision impermissible for this reason.
    The EPA notes that the Louisiana provision also states that ``No 
variance may permit or authorize the maintenance of a nuisance, or a 
danger to public health or safety.'' While this seems to be meant to 
limit the scope of Louisiana's authority to grant such a variance, the 
EPA does not believe that it provides any objective criteria that might 
allow for meaningful EPA or citizen enforcement. Such a vague 
limitation does not remedy the CAA inadequacies discussed above and 
does not comply with EPA's interpretation of the CAA as applied through 
EPA's SSM Policy regarding alternative emission limitations. There are 
no other provisions in the LA SIP that could act as an appropriate 
alternative emission limit to fill the periods of time the emission 
limits do not apply.

[[Page 11862]]

    The EPA proposes to find that LA. Admin Code Tit. 33 section 917 
provision appears to provide for exemptions from otherwise applicable 
emission limitations through a state official's unilateral exercise of 
discretionary authority that is unbounded. Such provisions are 
inconsistent with the fundamental requirements of the CAA with respect 
to emission limitations in SIPs as required by CAA sections 
110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(C), and 302(k). For these reasons, the EPA is 
proposing to find that this provision is substantially inadequate to 
meet CAA requirements and thus proposing to issue a SIP call with 
respect to this provision.

VIII. Legal Authority, Process, and Timing for SIP Calls

A. SIP Call Process Under CAA Section 110(k)(5)

    Section 110(k)(5) of the CAA provides the EPA with authority to 
determine whether a SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or 
maintain the NAAQS or otherwise comply with any requirement of the CAA. 
Where the EPA makes such a determination, the EPA then has a duty to 
issue a SIP call. In addition to providing general authority for a SIP 
call, CAA section 110(k)(5) sets forth the process and timing for such 
an action.
    First, the statute requires the EPA to notify the state of the 
final finding of substantial inadequacy. The EPA intends to provide 
notice to states via letter to the appropriate state officials in 
addition to publication of the final action in the Federal Register. 
Second, the statute requires the EPA to establish ``reasonable 
deadlines (not to exceed 18 months after the date of such notice)'' for 
the state to submit a corrective SIP submission to eliminate the 
inadequacy in response to the SIP call. The EPA implements this by 
proposing and taking comment on the schedule for the submission of 
corrective SIP revisions in order to ascertain the appropriate 
timeframe, depending on the nature of the SIP inadequacy. Third, the 
statute requires that any finding of substantial inadequacy and notice 
to the state be made public. By undertaking a notice-and-comment 
rulemaking, the EPA ensures that the air agency, affected sources, and 
members of the public all are adequately informed and afforded the 
opportunity to participate in the process. Through this proposal 
document and the subsequent final document, the EPA intends to provide 
a full evaluation of the issues and to use this process as a means of 
giving clear guidance concerning SIP provisions relevant to SSM events 
that are consistent with CAA requirements.
    If the state fails to submit the corrective SIP revision concerning 
the deficiency by the deadline that the EPA finalizes as part of the 
SIP call, CAA section 110(c) authorizes the EPA to ``find that [the] 
State has failed to make a required submission.'' \61\ Once EPA makes 
such a finding of failure to submit, CAA section 110(c)(1) requires the 
EPA to ``promulgate a Federal implementation plan at any time within 2 
years after the [finding] * * * unless the State corrects the 
deficiency, and [the EPA] approves the plan or plan revision, before 
[the EPA] promulgates such [FIP].'' Thus, if EPA finalizes a SIP call 
and then finds that the air agency failed to submit a complete SIP 
revision that responds to the SIP call, or if the EPA disapproves such 
SIP revision, then the EPA will have an obligation under CAA section 
110(c)(1) to promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years from the date of 
the finding or the disapproval, if the deficiency has not been 
corrected before that time.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See CAA section 110(c)(1)(A).
    \62\ The 2-year deadline does not necessarily apply to FIPs 
following disapproval of a tribal implementation plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The finding of failure to submit a revision in response to a SIP 
call, or EPA's disapproval of that corrective SIP revision, can also 
trigger sanctions under CAA section 179. If a state fails to submit a 
complete SIP revision that responds to a final SIP call, CAA section 
179(a) provides for the EPA to issue a finding of state failure. Such a 
finding starts mandatory 18-month and 24-month sanctions clocks. The 
two sanctions that apply under CAA section 179(b) are the 2-to-1 
emission offset requirement for all new and modified major sources 
subject to the nonattainment new source review program and restrictions 
on highway funding. However, CAA section 179 leaves it to the EPA to 
decide the order in which these sanctions apply. The EPA issued an 
order of sanctions rule in 1994 but did not specify the order of 
sanctions where a state fails to submit or submits a deficient SIP 
revision in response to a SIP call.\63\ In this document, we are now 
proposing and taking comment on the following timeline: the EPA 
proposes that the 2-to-1 emission offset requirement will apply for all 
new sources subject to the nonattainment new source review program 18 
months following such finding or disapproval unless the state corrects 
the deficiency before that date. The EPA proposes that the highway 
funding restrictions sanction will also apply 24 months following such 
finding or disapproval unless the state corrects the deficiency before 
that date. The EPA is proposing that the provisions in 40 CFR 52.31 
regarding staying the sanctions clock and deferring the imposition of 
sanctions would also apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See, ``Selection of Sequence of Mandatory Sanctions for 
Findings Made Pursuant to Section 179 of the Clean Air Act,'' 59 FR 
39832 (August. 4, 1994), codified at 40 CFR 52.31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179 generally apply only in 
nonattainment areas. By its definition, the emission offset sanction 
applies only in areas required to have a part D NSR program, typically 
areas designated nonattainment. CAA section 179(b)(1) expressly limits 
the highway funding restriction to nonattainment areas. Additionally, 
EPA interprets the section 179 sanctions to apply only in the area or 
areas of the state that are subject to or required to have in place the 
deficient SIP and for the pollutant or pollutants the specific SIP 
element addresses. For example, if the deficient provision applies 
statewide and applies for all NAAQS pollutants, then the mandatory 
sanctions would apply in all areas designated nonattainment for all 
NAAQS within the state. Following through on this interpretation, it is 
reasonable to expect that any newly designated nonattainment areas 
subsequent to the EPA taking final action on this proposal would also 
be subject to sanctions for failure to comply with SIP submittal 
obligations stemming from this SIP call, if finalized (or failure to 
comply with similar obligations for previously identified deficient 
statewide SSM provisions). In such cases, the EPA will evaluate the 
geographic scope of potential sanctions at the time it makes a final 
determination whether the state's SIP is substantially inadequate and 
issues a SIP call, as this may vary depending upon the provisions at 
issue.

B. SIP Call Timing Under CAA Section 110(k)(5)

    If the EPA finalizes a proposed finding of substantial inadequacy 
and a proposed SIP call for any state, CAA section 110(k)(5) requires 
EPA to establish a SIP submission deadline by which the state must make 
a SIP submission to rectify the identified deficiency. Pursuant to CAA 
section 110(k)(5), the EPA has authority to set a SIP submission 
deadline up to 18 months from the signature date of the final finding 
of inadequacy. The EPA is proposing here that if it promulgates a final 
finding of inadequacy and a SIP call for a state, it will establish a 
date 18 months from the date of

[[Page 11863]]

promulgation of the final finding for the state to respond to the SIP 
call. Thereafter, the EPA will review the adequacy of that new SIP 
submission and take appropriate action on the submission in accordance 
with the CAA requirements of sections 110(a), 110(k), 110(l), 113(b), 
113(e), 193, and 304, including EPA's interpretation of the CAA 
reflected in the SSM Policy as clarified and updated through this 
action.
    Considering the affected air agencies' need to develop appropriate 
regulatory provisions to address the SIP call and conduct any required 
processes for developing a SIP, we are proposing the 18-month due date 
because we believe that states should be provided the maximum time 
allowable under CAA section 110(k)(5) in order to ensure they have 
sufficient time. EPA expects that such a schedule will allow for the 
necessary SIP development process to correct the deficiencies yet still 
achieve the necessary SIP improvements as expeditiously as practicable. 
In light of the potential for public health impacts during this time 
period, we solicit comment on whether establishing a shorter time 
period than 18 months could instead be sufficient for the affected air 
agencies to develop and submit their SIP revisions.
    The EPA acknowledges that the longstanding existence of many of the 
provisions at issue, such as automatic exemptions for SSM events, may 
have resulted in undue reliance on them as a compliance mechanism by 
some sources. As a result, development of appropriate SIP revisions may 
entail reexamination of the applicable emission limitations themselves, 
and this process may require the maximum time allowed by the CAA. 
Nevertheless, the EPA encourages the affected states to make the 
necessary revisions in as timely a fashion as possible and encourages 
the states to work with the respective EPA Regional office as they 
develop the corrective SIP revisions.
    The EPA notes that the SIP calls that it is proposing for affected 
states in this document would be narrow and apply only to the specific 
SIP provisions determined to be inconsistent with the requirements of 
the CAA. To the extent that a state is concerned that elimination of a 
particular aspect of an existing emission limitation, such as an 
impermissible exemption, will render that emission limitation more 
stringent than the state originally intended and more stringent than 
needed to meet the CAA requirements it was intended to address, EPA 
anticipates that the state will revise the emission limitation 
accordingly, but without the impermissible exemption or other feature 
that necessitated the SIP call. The EPA will evaluate any such SIP 
revision in accordance with applicable CAA requirements, including CAA 
section 110(l).
    Finally, the EPA notes that its authority under CAA section 
110(k)(5) does not extend to requiring a state to adopt a particular 
control measure in its SIP in response to the SIP call. Under 
principles of cooperative federalism, the CAA vests air agencies with 
substantial discretion to develop SIP provisions, so long as the 
provisions meet the legal requirements and objectives of the CAA.\64\ 
Thus, the issuance of a SIP call should not be misconstrued as a 
directive to the state in question to adopt a particular control 
measure. The EPA is merely proposing to require that affected states 
make a SIP revision to remove or revise existing SIP provisions that 
fail to comply with fundamental requirements of the CAA. The states 
retain discretion to remove or revise those provisions as they 
determine best, so long as they bring their SIPs into compliance with 
the requirements of the CAA.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See, Virginia, et al. v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1397 (D.C. Cir. 
1997) (SIP call remanded and vacated because, inter alia, the EPA 
had issued a SIP call that required states to adopt a particular 
control measure for mobile sources).
    \65\ Notwithstanding the latitude states have in developing SIP 
provisions, the EPA is required to assure that states meet the basic 
legal criteria for SIPs. See, Michigan, et al. v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663, 
686 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (upholding NOX SIP call because, 
inter alia, the EPA was requiring states to meet basic legal 
requirement that SIPs comply with CAA section 110(a)(2)(D), not 
dictating the adoption of a particular control measure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Severability

    The findings of substantial inadequacy discussed in this action are 
based on an individual analysis of whether each SIP at issue contains 
provisions that are inconsistent with the CAA and EPA's SSM SIP policy. 
As such, it is reasonable to consider each SIP call as severable from 
the others because the SIP calls do not depend on one another. If any 
particular SIP call is stayed or determined to be invalid by a court, 
it is the EPA's intention that the remaining SIP calls shall continue 
in effect.

IX. Environmental Justice Considerations

    This proposal applies, but does not change, EPA's interpretation of 
the statutory requirements of the CAA outlined in its 2015 SSM SIP 
Action. Through the SIP calls issued to certain states as part of this 
SIP call action under CAA section 110(k)(5), EPA is requiring each 
affected state to revise its SIP to comply with existing requirements 
of the CAA. EPA's action, therefore, leaves to each affected state the 
flexibility bound by the CAA as to how to revise the SIP provision in 
question to make it consistent with CAA requirements and to determine, 
among other things, which of the several lawful approaches to the 
treatment of excess emissions during SSM events will be applied to 
particular sources. In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, the EPA did not perform 
an environmental justice analysis for purposes of this action, because 
it determined that it cannot geographically identify or quantify the 
resulting source-specific emission reductions.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See 80 FR 33840 at 33982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA believes it is not practicable to assess whether the 
conditions that exist prior to this proposed action result in 
disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income 
populations, and/or indigenous peoples. While it is difficult to assess 
the environmental justice implications of this proposed action because 
the EPA cannot geographically identify or quantify the resulting 
source-specific emission reductions, the EPA believes that this 
proposed action is likely to either reduce or have no adverse impact on 
existing disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-
income populations and/or indigenous peoples.
    As articulated in the 2021 McCabe memo, SIP provisions that contain 
exemptions or affirmative defense provisions are not consistent with 
CAA requirements and, therefore, generally are not approvable if 
contained in a SIP submission. While there are many different kinds of 
SSM provisions with varying scope and effect, the EPA notes that the 
overarching effect of these provisions is to allow or excuse excess 
emissions that exceed SIP limitations. Eliminating impermissible SSM 
provisions is intended to ensure that all communities and populations, 
including overburdened communities, receive the full health and 
environmental protections provided by the CAA. The correction of SIP 
deficiencies by the states affected by this document is, therefore, 
expected to contribute to reduced excess emissions during SSM periods 
and improve human and environmental health for U.S. citizens, including 
people of color, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples.
    Although not a basis for this proposed action, EPA would be 
interested in hearing from communities that have

[[Page 11864]]

seen impacts from emissions events during SSM periods. This 
information, while not necessary to justify this action, may be useful 
to EPA in continuing to implement the Agency's SSM Policy. If the EPA 
finalizes this action, as described elsewhere in this document, 
affected states will be required to revise their SIPs. In complying 
with minimum public notice and comment requirements associated with SIP 
development processes, the EPA encourages affected state and local air 
agencies to provide for meaningful public engagement during that SIP 
review process and, where appropriate and applicable, evaluate 
environmental justice considerations.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    The EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 
3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB 
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
This proposed action is merely reiterates EPA's interpretation of the 
statutory requirements of the CAA and does not require states to 
collect any additional information. To the extent that the EPA proposes 
to issue a SIP call to a state under CAA section 110(k)(5), the EPA is 
only proposing an action that requires the state to revise its SIP to 
comply with existing requirements of the CAA.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action will not impose any requirements on small entities.\67\ Instead, 
the action merely reiterates EPA's interpretation of the statutory 
requirements of the CAA. Through the SIP calls issued to certain states 
as part of this SIP call action under CAA section 110(k)(5), EPA is 
only requiring each affected state to revise its SIP to comply with 
existing requirements of the CAA. EPA's action, therefore, leaves to 
each affected state the choice as to how to revise the SIP provision in 
question to make it consistent with CAA requirements and to determine, 
among other things, which of the several lawful approaches to the 
treatment of excess emissions during SSM events will be applied to 
particular sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Small entities include small businesses, small 
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of 
assessing the impacts of this document on small entities, small 
entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a small 
industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business 
Administration (SBA) size standards (see 13 CFR 121.201); (2) a 
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, 
county, town, school district, or special district with a population 
of less than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-
for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and 
is not dominant in its field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (URMA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded of $100 million or more as 
described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. The action may impose a duty on 
certain state governments to meet their existing obligations to revise 
their SIPs to comply with CAA requirements. The direct costs of this 
action on states would be those associated with preparation and 
submission of a SIP revision by those states for which the EPA issues a 
SIP call. Examples of such costs could include development of a state 
rule, conducting notice and public hearing, and other costs incurred in 
connection with a SIP submission. These aggregate costs would be far 
less than the $100-million threshold in any 1 year. Thus, this action 
is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
    This proposed action is also not subject to the requirements of 
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The 
regulatory requirements of this action would apply to the states for 
which the EPA issues a SIP call. To the extent that such states allow 
local air districts or planning organizations to implement portions of 
the state's obligation under the CAA, the regulatory requirements of 
this action would not significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments because those governments have already undertaken the 
obligation to comply with the CAA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). In this 
document, the EPA is not addressing any tribal implementation plans. 
This action is limited to states. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this action. However, the EPA invites comment on this action 
from tribal officials.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect 
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in 
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it because it merely prescribes EPA's 
action for states regarding their obligations for SIPs under the CAA.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs 
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by 
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying 
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations (people of color and/or indigenous 
peoples) and low-income populations.
    The EPA believes it is not practicable to assess whether the 
conditions that exist prior to this proposed action result in 
disproportionate and adverse effects

[[Page 11865]]

on people of color, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples. 
While it is difficult to assess the environmental justice implications 
of this proposed action because the EPA cannot geographically identify 
or quantify the resulting source-specific emission reductions, the EPA 
believes that this proposed action is likely to either reduce or have 
no adverse impact on existing disproportionate and adverse effects on 
people of color, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples. The 
basis for this decision is contained in section IX of this preamble.

K. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA governs judicial review of final 
actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for 
review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit: (i) When the agency action consists of ``nationally 
applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the 
Administrator,'' or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally 
applicable, if ``such action is based on a determination of nationwide 
scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds 
and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.'' For 
locally or regionally applicable final actions, the CAA reserves to the 
EPA complete discretion whether to invoke the exception in (ii).\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ In deciding whether to invoke the exception by making and 
publishing a finding that this action, if finalized, is based on a 
determination of nationwide scope or effect, the Administrator 
intends to take into account a number of policy considerations, 
including his judgment balancing the benefit of obtaining the D.C. 
Circuit's authoritative centralized review versus allowing 
development of the issue in other contexts and the best use of 
agency resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to issue SIP calls to eight states (applicable 
in 10 statewide and local jurisdictions) located in four of the ten EPA 
regions pursuant to a uniform process and analytical approach. The EPA 
is proposing to apply a nationally consistent policy regarding SSM 
provisions in SIPs in each of these eight states as a follow-up to 
EPA's larger 2015 SSM SIP Action, in which the Agency issued SIP calls 
pursuant to the same nationally consistent policy to 36 states 
(applicable in 45 statewide and local jurisdictions), for which 
petitions for review were all filed in the D.C. Circuit in 2015. The 
jurisdictions that would be affected by this action, if finalized, 
represent a wide geographic area and fall within six different judicial 
circuits.
    If the Administrator takes final action on this proposal, then, in 
consideration of the effects of the action across the country, the EPA 
views this action to be ``nationally applicable'' within the meaning of 
CAA section 307(b)(1). In the alternative, to the extent a court finds 
this proposal, if finalized, to be locally or regionally applicable, 
the Administrator intends to exercise the complete discretion afforded 
to him under the CAA to make and publish a finding that this action is 
based on a determination of ``nationwide scope or effect'' within the 
meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1).\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ In the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised CAA 
section 307(b)(1), Congress noted that the Administrator's 
determination that the ``nationwide scope or effect'' exception 
applies would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or 
effect beyond a single judicial circuit. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 
323-24, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XI. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this proposed action is provided in CAA 
section 101 et seq. (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Affirmative defense, Air pollution 
control, Carbon dioxide, Carbon dioxide equivalents, Carbon monoxide, 
Excess emissions, Greenhouse gases, Hydrofluorocarbons, Incorporation 
by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Methane, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Nitrous oxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Perfluorocarbons, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Shutdown and malfunction, 
Startup, State implementation plan, Sulfur hexafluoride, Sulfur oxides, 
Volatile organic compounds.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-03575 Filed 2-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P