Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Region 4 States; Visibility Protection Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 26143-26150 [2014-10347]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations EXCEPTION: In residential dwelling units, other than emergency transportable housing units, seats shall not be required in transfer type shower compartments provided that reinforcement has been installed in walls so as to permit the installation of seats complying with 608.4. * * * * * 804.3 Kitchen Work Surface. In residential dwelling units required to provide mobility features complying with 809.2, at least one 30 inch (760 mm) wide minimum section of counter shall provide a kitchen work surface that complies with 804.3. EXCEPTION: In emergency transportable housing units, a work surface complying with 804.3 shall not be required provided that the following criteria are met: (a) A kitchen table complying with 902 is provided within the kitchen; (b) An electrical outlet is provided at a location within reach of the table; and (c) All kitchen countertops are 34 inches high maximum. * * * * * 809.1 General. * * * Residential dwelling units required to provide mobility features shall comply with 809.2. Residential dwelling units required to provide communication features shall comply with 809.3. * * * * * 809.2 Residential Dwelling Units with Mobility Features. Residential dwelling units required to provide mobility features shall comply with 809.2 809.2.1 Accessible Routes. Accessible routes complying with Chapter 4 shall be provided within residential dwelling units in accordance with 809.2.1. Exception: * * * 809.2.1.1 Location. At least one accessible route shall connect all spaces and elements that are a part of the residential dwelling unit. * * * 809.2.1.2 Floor Surfaces. Within emergency transportable housing units, carpet shall not be provided on floor surfaces. pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES * * * * * 809.2.5 Bedrooms in Emergency Transportable Housing Units. Bedrooms in emergency transportable housing units shall comply with 809.2.5. 809.2.5.1 Clear Floor Space. A clear floor space complying with 305 shall be provided on one side of a bed. The clear floor space shall be positioned for parallel approach to the side of the bed and shall be on an accessible route. 809.2.5.2 Furniture. Where bedrooms are less than 70 square feet, furniture supplied with the unit shall not overlap the accessible route, maneuvering clearances required at doors, and turning space. 809.2.5.3 Lighting Controls. A means to control at least one source of bedroom lighting from the bed shall be provided. 809.2.6 Weather Alert Systems. Where provided in emergency transportable housing units, weather alert systems shall comply with 309.1 through 309.3. 809.3 Residential Dwelling Units with Communication Features. Residential dwelling units required to provide VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:20 May 06, 2014 Jkt 232001 communication features shall comply with 809.3. 809.3.1 Alarms. Alarms shall comply and 809.3.1. The same visible notification appliances shall be permitted to provide notification of building fire alarm and residential dwelling unit smoke alarm activation. Visible notification appliances used to indicate building fire alarm or residential dwelling unit smoke alarm activation shall not be used for any other purpose within the residential dwelling unit. 809.3.1.1 Building Fire Alarm System. Where a building fire alarm system is provided, the system wiring shall be extended to a point within the residential dwelling unit in the vicinity of the residential dwelling unit smoke alarm system. Notification appliances provided within a residential dwelling unit as part of the building fire alarm system shall comply with NFPA 72 (1999 or 2002 edition) (incorporated by reference, see ‘‘Referenced Standards’’ in Chapter 1). 809.3.1.2 Residential Dwelling Unit Smoke Alarms. Residential dwelling unit smoke alarms shall provide combination smoke alarms and visible notification appliances complying with NFPA 72 (1999 or 2002 edition) (incorporated by reference, see ‘‘Referenced Standards’’ in Chapter 1). Combination smoke alarms and visible notification appliances shall be supplied with power from one or more power sources as follows: (a) A commercial light and power source along with a secondary power source; or (b) A non-commercial alternating current (ac) power source along with a secondary power source. 809.3.1.3 Activation. All visible notification appliances within the residential dwelling unit providing notification of a building fire alarm shall be activated upon activation of the building fire alarm in the portion of the building containing the residential dwelling unit. All combination smoke alarms and visible notification appliances within the residential dwelling unit shall be activated upon smoke detection. 809.3.2 Residential Dwelling Unit Primary Entrance. Communication features shall be provided at the residential dwelling unit primary entrance and shall comply with 809.3.2. * * * * * 809.3.4 Weather Alert Systems. Where provided in emergency transportable housing units, weather alert systems shall provide audible and visual output. [FR Doc. 2014–10162 Filed 5–6–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8150–01–P PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 26143 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0814; FRL–9910–42– Region 4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Region 4 States; Visibility Protection Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve submissions from Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee for inclusion into each state’s respective state implementation plan (SIP). This action pertains to Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements regarding the protection of visibility in another state for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA. These plans are commonly referred to as ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. Specifically, EPA is taking final action to approve the submissions for Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee as they relate to the 1997 annual and 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP requirements to protect visibility in other states. All other applicable infrastructure requirements for these NAAQS associated with these seven states have been addressed in separate rulemakings. DATES: This rule will be effective June 6, 2014. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 2012–0814. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM 07MYR1 26144 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The telephone number is (404) 562–9043. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at lakeman.sean@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state (prong 3), and to protect visibility in another state (prong 4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions insuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement. EPA has previously taken action to address SIP submissions from Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee related to prongs 1 through 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Today’s final rulemaking relates only to prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), which as previously described, requires that infrastructure SIPs contain adequate provisions to protect visibility in other states. I. Background Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS. On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA promulgated a new annual PM2.5 NAAQS and on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA promulgated a new 24-hour NAAQS. On February 20, 2013, EPA proposed to approve SIP submissions from Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee as they relate to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) infrastructure SIP requirements to protect visibility in other states for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. A summary of the background for today’s final action is provided below. See EPA’s February 20, 2013, proposed rulemaking at 78 FR 11805 for more detail. Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another II. Response to Comments EPA received three sets of comments on the February 20, 2013 proposed rulemaking to approve the SIP submissions from Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Two of the commenters, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and the Utility Air Regulatory Group, support EPA’s proposed action and one commenter, the National Parks Conservation Association (the ‘‘Commenter’’), opposes the proposed action. A summary of the adverse comments and EPA’s responses are provided below. Comment 1: The Commenter states that EPA must disapprove the infrastructure SIP submissions from Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee as they relate to prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) because the submittals rely on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to satisfy best available retrofit technology (BART) and reasonable progress requirements for CAIR-subject electric generating units (EGUs). According to the Commenter, EPA must direct each state to develop a plan consistent with the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule for sourcespecific BART and reasonable progress for nitrogen oxide (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from EGUs subject to these regional haze provisions. The Commenter contends that reliance on CAIR is improper because CAIR was ‘‘declared illegal’’ VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:20 May 06, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 and remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) in North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008) and is therefore not permanent and enforceable. The Commenter further contends that CAIR cannot substitute for BART because it is impermissible under section 169A of the CAA for EPA or the states to rely on a cap-and-trade program as a substitute for, or exemption from, BART and because EPA’s better-than-BART provision in the Regional Haze Rule violates the CAA. The Commenter also believes that Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, and South Carolina improperly relied on CAIR to ‘‘exempt’’ sources from a reasonable progress review and that, ‘‘[i]n most cases, the states did not perform a unit-specific reasonable progress analysis, but more generally asserted that reliance on CAIR was sufficient for reasonable progress.’’ The Commenter believes that in the absence of such an analysis, ‘‘it is not possible to determine whether or the extent to which CAIR may fulfill RP requirements, assuming that it could overcome the impossible hurdle of being an unenforceable program.’’ The Commenter is concerned that the reliance on CAIR to ‘‘remove emission reduction obligations from many sources of SO2’’ and the ‘‘methodical elimination of sources of NOX and PM emissions’’ through the states’ area of influence methodology ‘‘may have prevented the achievement of meaningful reasonable progress.’’ The Commenter also believes that ‘‘it is incumbent upon the states and EPA to demonstrate in their SIPs that they have actually taken all measures necessary to reduce their share of pollutants’’ to meet reasonable progress goals in neighboring states’ Class I areas, citing language in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. As discussed in EPA’s proposed rulemaking related to today’s action, the DC Circuit vacated the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) in EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012) and ordered EPA to ‘‘continue administering CAIR pending the promulgation of a valid replacement.’’ The Agency believes that it is therefore appropriate for EPA to rely on CAIR emission reductions for purposes of assessing the adequacy of the infrastructure SIPs subject to this action with respect to prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) while a valid replacement rule is developed and until submissions complying with any such new rule are submitted by the states and acted upon by EPA or until EME Homer E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM 07MYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES City is resolved in a way that provides different direction regarding CAIR and CSAPR. Furthermore, CAIR remains part of the federally-approved SIPs for Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee and can be considered in determining whether each of the infrastructure SIPs subject to today’s action meets the requirements of prong 4. EPA is taking final action to approve these infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to prong 4 because the EPA-approved regional haze SIP for each state, in combination with each state’s implementation plan provisions to implement CAIR, adequately prevent sources in each state from interfering with measures adopted by other states to protect visibility during the first planning period.1 EPA notes that all of the rulemakings and proposed rulemakings cited by the Commenter that discuss the limited approvability of SIPs due to the status of CAIR were issued by EPA prior to the vacatur of CSAPR. Since the vacatur of CSAPR in August 2012 and with continued implementation of CAIR per the direction of the DC Circuit in EME Homer City, EPA has approved redesignations of areas to attainment of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in which states have relied on CAIR as a permanent and enforceable measure.2 EPA disagrees with the Commenter that the CAA does not allow states to rely on an alternative program such as CAIR in lieu of source-specific BART. EPA’s regulations allow states to adopt alternatives to BART that provide for 1 Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA’s long-standing guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the entire SIP submittal, even those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA from granting a full approval of the SIP revision. Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I–X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. Therefore, EPA believes it is appropriate to approve the infrastructure SIPs subject to today’s action as they relate to prong 4 despite the limited approval granted to the relevant regional haze SIPs. The SIP provisions implementing CAIR for each of the states subject to this action are identified in the following sections of 40 CFR Part 52: 52.50(c) (Alabama); 52.570(c) (Georgia); 52.920(c) (Kentucky); 52.1270(c) (Mississippi); 52.1770(c) (North Carolina); 52.2120(c) (South Carolina); and 52.2220(c) (Tennessee). 2 See 77 FR 76415 (Dec. 28, 2012) (redesignation of Huntingdon-Ashland, West Virginia for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS); 78 FR 59841 (Sept. 30, 2013) (redesignation of Wheeling, West Virginia for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS); 78 FR 56168 (Sept. 12, 2013) (redesignation of Parkersburg, West Virginia for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS); 78 FR 5306 (Jan. 25, 2013) (redesignation of Birmingham, Alabama for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:20 May 06, 2014 Jkt 232001 greater reasonable progress, and EPA’s determination that states may rely on CAIR to meet the BART requirements has been upheld by the DC Circuit as meeting the requirements of the CAA. In the first case challenging the provisions in the Regional Haze Rule allowing for states to adopt alternative programs in lieu of BART, Center for Energy and Economic Development v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2005), the court affirmed the Agency’s interpretation of section 169A(b)(2) as allowing for alternatives to BART where those alternatives will result in greater reasonable progress than BART. In the second case, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 2006), the court specifically upheld EPA’s determination that states could rely on CAIR as an alternative to BART for EGUs in the CAIR-affected states. The court concluded that the EPA’s twopronged test for determining whether an alternative program achieves greater reasonable progress was a reasonable one and also agreed with EPA that nothing in the CAA required the EPA to ‘‘impose a separate technology mandate for sources whose emissions affect Class I areas, rather than piggy-backing on solutions devised under other statutory categories, where such solutions meet the statutory requirements.’’ 3 More fundamentally, EPA disagrees with the Commenter that the adequacy of the BART measures in the regional haze SIPs for these states is relevant to the question of whether each state’s implementation plan meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA with respect to visibility. EPA interprets the visibility provisions in this section of the CAA as requiring states to include in their SIPs measures to prohibit emissions that would interfere with the reasonable progress goals set to protect Class I areas in other states. The Regional Haze Rule includes a similar requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), and for each of the states subject to this action, EPA found that the respective regional haze SIP meets this requirement.4 Each of these states 3 Utility Air Regulatory Group, 471 F.3d at 1340. Alabama: 77 FR 11937, 11947–48, 11955– 56 (Feb. 28, 2012) (proposed), 77 FR 38515 (June 28, 2012) (final); Georgia: 77 FR 11452, 11463, 11474–75 (Feb. 27, 2012) (proposed), 77 FR 38501 (June 28, 2012) (final); Kentucky: 76 FR 78194, 78205–06, 78213 (Dec. 16, 2011) (proposed), 77 FR 19098 (Mar. 30, 2012) (final); Mississippi: 77 FR 11879, 11888, 11892 (Feb. 28, 2012) (proposed), 77 FR 38191 (June 27, 2012) (final); North Carolina: 77 FR 11858, 11869, 11877 (Feb. 28, 2012) (proposed), 77 FR 38185 (June 27, 2012) (final); South Carolina: 77 FR 11894, 11904, 11911–12 (Feb. 28, 2012) (proposed), 77 FR 38509 (June 28, 2012) (final); Tennessee: 76 FR 33662, 33673, 33683–84 (June 9, 2011) (proposed), 77 FR 24392 (Apr. 24, 2012) (final). 4 See PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 26145 relied on CAIR to achieve significant reductions in emissions to both meet the BART requirements and to address impacts of the state on Class I areas in other states.5 The question of whether or not CAIR satisfies the BART requirements has no bearing on whether these measures meet the requirements of prong 4. Regarding the reasonable progress evaluations, each state at issue focused its reasonable progress analysis on SO2 emissions based on the conclusion that sulfate particles account for the greatest portion of the regional haze affecting Class I areas in these states.6 Each state then established areas of influence and contribution thresholds to determine which of its sources should be evaluated for reasonable progress control.7 EPA approved each state’s methodology for identifying units for reasonable progress evaluation and each state’s reasonable progress determinations in the respective regional haze SIP actions and provided a detailed discussion of the methodology and the rationale for approval in the Federal Register notices associated with those actions.8 Contrary to the Commenter’s assertions, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, and South Carolina did not ‘‘exempt [CAIR] sources . . . that would otherwise be subject to reasonable progress review.’’ Each of these states considered the four statutory reasonable progress factors in evaluating whether CAIR would satisfy reasonable progress requirements for the state’s EGU sector and determined that no additional controls beyond CAIR were reasonable for SO2 during the first planning period.9 As discussed in EPA’s 5 See, e.g., 77 FR 11949, 11951, 11956. conclusion was reached by the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) regional planning organization and adopted by each of the VISTAS states in their respective regional haze SIP submissions. VISTAS member states include: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. VISTAS determined that ammonium sulfate accounted for 69 to 87 percent of the calculated light extinction at the 18 Class I areas within the region. See, e.g., 77 FR 11946. In evaluating reasonable progress, states may identify and focus on key pollutants that contribute to visibility impairment. EPA, Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program at 3–1 (June 1, 2007) [hereinafter ‘‘Reasonable Progress Guidance’’]. 7 See, e.g., 77 FR 11947–48. 8 See, e.g., id. at 11946–49. 9 77 FR 11949; 77 FR 11464–69; 76 FR 78206–07; 77 FR 11872; 77 FR 11906–07. Georgia concluded that additional controls were not required on CAIRsubject EGUs that significantly contributed to visibility impairment at Class I areas that are clearly projected to meet or exceed the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) in 2018 because of CAIR emissions reductions and the emissions reductions associated 6 This E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM Continued 07MYR1 26146 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES Reasonable Progress Guidance, states may evaluate the need for reasonable progress controls on a source category basis, rather than through a unit-specific analysis, and have wide latitude to determine additional control requirements for ensuring reasonable progress.10 The guidance also notes that states may consider emissions reductions from cap-and-trade programs such as CAIR in addition to sourcespecific controls.11 As mentioned above, EPA determined that each of the regional haze SIPs submitted by the states subject to this action adequately prevents sources in the state from interfering with the reasonable progress goals adopted by other states to protect visibility during the first planning period, thus satisfying the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). These states participated in a regional planning process through VISTAS, and their SIPs include all measures needed to achieve their respective apportionment of emissions reduction obligations agreed upon through that process as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii).12 Comment 2: EPA must disapprove the infrastructure SIP submittals from North Carolina and South Carolina under prong 4 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) because EPA has not approved the State’s five-year progress reports. Response 2: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. EPA received the North Carolina and South Carolina progress report SIP submittals on May 31, 2013, and December 28, 2012, respectively. As of this final rulemaking, EPA has not taken final action on these submissions, and no such action is due pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(2) at this time. Therefore, EPA does not believe that EPA approval of these progress reports is a required structural element necessary before EPA may approve the North Carolina and South Carolina infrastructure SIPs subject to this action. Nevertheless, EPA notes that it has proposed approval of South Carolina’s progress report SIP submission since the publication of the proposed infrastructure action that is the subject of this rulemaking.13 As discussed in the proposed rulemaking on the progress report, South Carolina with Georgia state rule 391–3–1-.02(13) (capping SO2 emissions from Georgia EGUs in 2015 at 30 percent of 2002 actual emissions). Georgia evaluated reasonable progress controls for EGUs that significantly contributed to visibility impairment at Class I areas not meeting the URP. 77 FR 11469. 10 Reasonable Progress Guidance at 4–2. 11 Id. 12 See, e.g., 77 FR 38193. 13 79 FR 3147 (Jan. 17, 2014). VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:20 May 06, 2014 Jkt 232001 provided SO2 emissions data from EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) for EGUs in South Carolina and in the entire VISTAS region from 2002– 2011.14 This data indicates that emissions of SO2, the primary contributor to visibility impairment in the VISTAS region, have declined significantly since South Carolina submitted its regional haze SIP in 2007.15 South Carolina’s progress report also states that total SO2 emissions from South Carolina EGUs are already below the 2018 projections in South Carolina’s 2007 regional haze SIP submittal and are expected to decrease further.16 In addition, the most current visibility data available at the time of EPA’s proposed approval of the progress report shows that visibility has improved at the Cape Romain Wilderness Area, the Class I area within South Carolina.17 For these reasons, EPA has proposed to approve South Carolina’s negative declaration pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h) that no further substantive revision of the State’s regional haze SIP is required at this time to achieve the reasonable progress goals for Class I areas affected by the State’s sources and continues to believe that the State’s existing SIP (including the regional haze SIP and CAIR) contains adequate provisions to meet the visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).18 Although EPA has not yet proposed action on North Carolina’s progress report SIP, the Agency has performed a preliminary review of the submission. North Carolina included 2011 SO2 emissions data from CAMD for EGUs in North Carolina that are expected to be retired by 2015 and for EGUs that were projected in the 2007 regional haze SIP submission to have controls installed by 2018.19 Based on this data, North Carolina reported a reduction in SO2 emissions of approximately 390,000 tons per year from these units between 2002–2011 and estimated that 2018 SO2 emissions would be approximately 80 percent lower than those projected in the regional haze SIP.20 North Carolina also provided visibility data supporting its conclusion that visibility has improved since the 2000–2004 baseline at all five of the Class I areas in the State.21 Based on EPA’s preliminary 14 Id. at 3150. 15 Id. 16 Id. at 3151. at 3152. 18 79 FR at 3152. 19 Regional Haze 5-Year Periodic Review State Implementation Plan for North Carolina Class I Areas (May 31, 2013) at 32–36. 20 Id. at 32. 21 Id. at 42–44. 17 Id. PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 review of this information and other information provided in the State’s progress report SIP submission, EPA continues to believe, at this time, that the State’s existing SIP (including the regional haze SIP and CAIR) contains adequate provisions to meet the visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). III. This Action EPA is taking final action to approve the infrastructure SIP submissions from Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee as demonstrating that these states meet the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA that relate to the protection of visibility in other states for the 1997 annual and 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In describing how its submission meets this requirement, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee each referred to EPA-approved state provisions requiring EGUs to comply with the CAIR and to the limited approval and limited disapproval of its regional haze SIP. Although EPA has not fully approved the regional haze SIPs from these states, the Agency believes that the infrastructure SIP submission together with previously approved SIP provisions, specifically those provisions that require EGUs to comply with CAIR and the additional measures in the regional haze SIP addressing BART and reasonable progress requirements for other sources or pollutants, are adequate to demonstrate compliance with prong 4. IV. Final Action As described above, EPA is approving SIP submissions from Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee to incorporate provisions into the states’ implementation plans to address prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS because these submissions are consistent with section 110 of the CAA. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this final action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM 07MYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action: • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). EPA has determined that this final rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because there are no ‘‘substantial direct effects’’ on an Indian Tribe as a result of this action. EPA notes that the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27–16–120, ‘‘all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.’’ Thus, while the South Carolina SIP applies to the Catawba Reservation, because today’s action is not a substantive revision to the South Carolina SIP, and is instead approving South Carolina’s infrastructure SIP submission to incorporate provisions satisfying prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA has determined that today’s action will have no ‘‘substantial direct effects’’ on the Catawba Indian Nation. EPA has also determined that these revisions will not impose any substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate 26147 circuit by July 7, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: April 18, 2014. A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart B—Alabama 2. Section 52.50(e) is amended by adding two new entries for ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ and ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ at the end of the table to read as follows: ■ § 52.50 * Identification of plan. * * (e) * * * * * EPA-APPROVED ALABAMA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area * * * * 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Require- Alabama ............................ ments for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Require- Alabama ............................ ments for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:20 May 06, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 State submittal date/ effective date EPA Approval date Explanation 7/25/2008 * * 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of publication]. * Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. 9/23/2009 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of publication]. Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM 07MYR1 26148 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations Subpart L—Georgia 3. Section 52.570(e) is amended by adding two new entries for ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National ■ Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ and ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.570 * Identification of plan. * * (e) * * * * * EPA-APPROVED GEORGIA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS Applicable geographic or nonattainment area Name of nonregulatory SIP provision State submittal date/ effective date * * * * 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Require- Georgia .............................. 7/23/2008 ments for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Require- Georgia .............................. 10/21/2009 ments for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Subpart S—Kentucky 4. Section 52.920(e) is amended by adding two new entries for ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National ■ EPA Approval date Explanation * * 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of publication]. * Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of publication]. Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ and ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.’’ at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.920 * Identification of plan. * * (e) * * * * * EPA-APPROVED KENTUCKY NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS Applicable geographic or nonattainment area Name of nonregulatory SIP provision * * * * 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Require- Kentucky ............................ ments for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Require- Kentucky ............................ ments for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Subpart Z—Mississippi 5. Section 52.1270(e) is amended by adding two new entries for ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National ■ State submittal date/ effective date EPA Approval date Explanations 8/26/2008 * * 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of publication]. * Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. 7/17/2012 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of publication]. Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ and ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.1270 * Identification of plan. * * (e) * * * * * EPA-APPROVED MISSISSIPPI NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area * * * * 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Require- Mississippi ......................... ments for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Require- Mississippi ......................... ments for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:20 May 06, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 State submittal date/ effective date EPA Approval date Explanation 12/7/2007 * * 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of publication]. * Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. 10/6/2009 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of publication]. Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM 07MYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations Subpart II—North Carolina 6. Section 52.1770(e) is amended by adding two new entries for ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National ■ Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ and ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality 26149 Standards’’ at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.1770 * Identification of plan. * * (e) * * * * * EPA-APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS State effective date Provision 7. Section 52.2120(e) is amended by adding two new entries for ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National ■ Explanation * 5/7/2014 ............................. * * [Insert citation of publication]. * Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. 9/21/2009 Subpart PP—South Carolina Federal Register citation * 4/1/2008 * * 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards. EPA Approval date 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of publication]. [Insert citation of publication]. Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ and ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.2120 * Identification of plan. * * (e) * * * * * EPA-APPROVED SOUTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS State effective date Provision * * * 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Subpart RR—Tennessee 8. Section 52.2220(e), is amended by adding two new entries for ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National ■ * 4/14/2008 9/18/2009 EPA Approval date Explanation * 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of publication]. 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of publication]. * * Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ and ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.2220 * Identification of plan. * * (e) * * * * * EPA-APPROVED TENNESSEE NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State effective date EPA Approval date * * * * 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Require- Tennessee ......................... 12/14/2007 ments for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Require- Tennessee ......................... 10/19/2009 ments for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:20 May 06, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 Explanation * * 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of publication]. * Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of publication]. Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM 07MYR1 26150 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations [FR Doc. 2014–10347 Filed 5–6–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0210; FRL–9907–59] α-Alkyl-w-Hydroxypoly (Oxypropylene) and/or Poly (Oxyethylene) Polymers Where the Alkyl Chain Contains a Minimum of Six Carbons etc.; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance; Technical Correction Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule; technical correction. AGENCY: EPA issued a final rule in the Federal Register of February 3, 2014, establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of a-alkyl-w-hydroxypoly (oxypropylene) and/or poly (oxyethylene) polymers where the alkyl chain contains a minimum of six carbons, and a-alkyl-w-hydroxypoly (oxypropylene) and/or poly (oxyethylene) polymers where the alkyl chain contains a minimum of six carbons and a minimum number average molecular weight (in amu) 1,100 when used as an inert ingredient as a surfactant in pesticide formulations in growing crops without limitations. The document inadvertently omitted Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry numbers from the regulatory text. This document corrects those errors. SUMMARY: This final rule correction is effective May 7, 2014. ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0210, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES DATES: VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:20 May 06, 2014 Jkt 232001 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division (7509), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 305–7092; email address: RDFRNNotices@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Does this action apply to me? The Agency included in the Federal Register of February 3, 2014 (79 FR 6092) (FRL–9394–2), a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action. II. What does this technical correction do? EPA issued a final rule in the Federal Register of February 3, 2014 (79 FR 6092), that established an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for certain chemicals when used as an inert ingredient as a surfactant in pesticide formulations in growing crops without limitations. In the regulatory text, CAS registry numbers were inadvertently omitted under §§ 180.910, 180.930, 180.940, and 180.960. III. Why is this correction issued as a final rule? Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a final rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this technical correction PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because this document merely corrects technical omissions. EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). IV. Do any of the statutory and executive order reviews apply to this action? No. For a detailed discussion concerning the statutory and executive order review, refer to Unit VII. of the February 3, 2014 final rule. V. Congressional Review Act Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: April 23, 2014. Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is corrected as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. In § 180.910, the table is amended by revising the following inert ingredient to read as follows: ■ § 180.910 Inert ingredients used pre- and post-harvest; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. * E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM * * 07MYR1 * *

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 7, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26143-26150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10347]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0814; FRL-9910-42-Region 4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Region 4 
States; Visibility Protection Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 
and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final 
action to approve submissions from Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee for 
inclusion into each state's respective state implementation plan (SIP). 
This action pertains to Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements 
regarding the protection of visibility in another state for the 1997 
annual and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that 
each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, 
and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA. These plans are 
commonly referred to as ``infrastructure'' SIPs. Specifically, EPA is 
taking final action to approve the submissions for Alabama, Georgia, 
Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee as 
they relate to the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 
infrastructure SIP requirements to protect visibility in other states. 
All other applicable infrastructure requirements for these NAAQS 
associated with these seven states have been addressed in separate 
rulemakings.

DATES: This rule will be effective June 6, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0814. All documents in the docket 
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential 
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically through

[[Page 26144]]

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development 
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all 
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's 
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development 
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at 
lakeman.sean@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and 
(2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements, 
including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure 
attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS. On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 
36852), EPA promulgated a new annual PM2.5 NAAQS and on 
October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA promulgated a new 24-hour NAAQS. On 
February 20, 2013, EPA proposed to approve SIP submissions from 
Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South 
Carolina, and Tennessee as they relate to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 
infrastructure SIP requirements to protect visibility in other states 
for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. A summary of the 
background for today's final action is provided below. See EPA's 
February 20, 2013, proposed rulemaking at 78 FR 11805 for more detail.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct 
components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed 
in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are 
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit 
any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from 
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 
state (prong 1) and interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in 
another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are 
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit 
emissions activity in one state interfering with measures required to 
prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state 
(prong 3), and to protect visibility in another state (prong 4). 
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions insuring 
compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate 
and international pollution abatement.
    EPA has previously taken action to address SIP submissions from 
Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South 
Carolina, and Tennessee related to prongs 1 through 3 of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) and the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for 
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Today's final 
rulemaking relates only to prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 
which as previously described, requires that infrastructure SIPs 
contain adequate provisions to protect visibility in other states.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received three sets of comments on the February 20, 2013 
proposed rulemaking to approve the SIP submissions from Alabama, 
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and 
Tennessee addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Two of the 
commenters, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and the Utility 
Air Regulatory Group, support EPA's proposed action and one commenter, 
the National Parks Conservation Association (the ``Commenter''), 
opposes the proposed action. A summary of the adverse comments and 
EPA's responses are provided below.
    Comment 1: The Commenter states that EPA must disapprove the 
infrastructure SIP submissions from Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee as they 
relate to prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) because the submittals 
rely on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to satisfy best available 
retrofit technology (BART) and reasonable progress requirements for 
CAIR-subject electric generating units (EGUs). According to the 
Commenter, EPA must direct each state to develop a plan consistent with 
the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule for source-specific BART and 
reasonable progress for nitrogen oxide (NOX) and sulfur 
dioxide (SO2) emissions from EGUs subject to these regional 
haze provisions. The Commenter contends that reliance on CAIR is 
improper because CAIR was ``declared illegal'' and remanded by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) in 
North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008) and is therefore 
not permanent and enforceable. The Commenter further contends that CAIR 
cannot substitute for BART because it is impermissible under section 
169A of the CAA for EPA or the states to rely on a cap-and-trade 
program as a substitute for, or exemption from, BART and because EPA's 
better-than-BART provision in the Regional Haze Rule violates the CAA. 
The Commenter also believes that Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North 
Carolina, and South Carolina improperly relied on CAIR to ``exempt'' 
sources from a reasonable progress review and that, ``[i]n most cases, 
the states did not perform a unit-specific reasonable progress 
analysis, but more generally asserted that reliance on CAIR was 
sufficient for reasonable progress.'' The Commenter believes that in 
the absence of such an analysis, ``it is not possible to determine 
whether or the extent to which CAIR may fulfill RP requirements, 
assuming that it could overcome the impossible hurdle of being an 
unenforceable program.'' The Commenter is concerned that the reliance 
on CAIR to ``remove emission reduction obligations from many sources of 
SO2'' and the ``methodical elimination of sources of 
NOX and PM emissions'' through the states' area of influence 
methodology ``may have prevented the achievement of meaningful 
reasonable progress.'' The Commenter also believes that ``it is 
incumbent upon the states and EPA to demonstrate in their SIPs that 
they have actually taken all measures necessary to reduce their share 
of pollutants'' to meet reasonable progress goals in neighboring 
states' Class I areas, citing language in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii).
    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. As discussed in EPA's 
proposed rulemaking related to today's action, the DC Circuit vacated 
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) in EME Homer City Generation 
v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012) and ordered EPA to ``continue 
administering CAIR pending the promulgation of a valid replacement.'' 
The Agency believes that it is therefore appropriate for EPA to rely on 
CAIR emission reductions for purposes of assessing the adequacy of the 
infrastructure SIPs subject to this action with respect to prong 4 of 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) while a valid replacement rule is developed 
and until submissions complying with any such new rule are submitted by 
the states and acted upon by EPA or until EME Homer

[[Page 26145]]

City is resolved in a way that provides different direction regarding 
CAIR and CSAPR.
    Furthermore, CAIR remains part of the federally-approved SIPs for 
Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South 
Carolina, and Tennessee and can be considered in determining whether 
each of the infrastructure SIPs subject to today's action meets the 
requirements of prong 4. EPA is taking final action to approve these 
infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to prong 4 because the EPA-
approved regional haze SIP for each state, in combination with each 
state's implementation plan provisions to implement CAIR, adequately 
prevent sources in each state from interfering with measures adopted by 
other states to protect visibility during the first planning period.\1\ 
EPA notes that all of the rulemakings and proposed rulemakings cited by 
the Commenter that discuss the limited approvability of SIPs due to the 
status of CAIR were issued by EPA prior to the vacatur of CSAPR. Since 
the vacatur of CSAPR in August 2012 and with continued implementation 
of CAIR per the direction of the DC Circuit in EME Homer City, EPA has 
approved redesignations of areas to attainment of the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS in which states have relied on CAIR as a 
permanent and enforceable measure.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA's long-
standing guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the 
entire SIP submittal, even those parts that are deficient and 
prevent EPA from granting a full approval of the SIP revision. 
Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA 
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management 
Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-
X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. Therefore, EPA 
believes it is appropriate to approve the infrastructure SIPs 
subject to today's action as they relate to prong 4 despite the 
limited approval granted to the relevant regional haze SIPs.
     The SIP provisions implementing CAIR for each of the states 
subject to this action are identified in the following sections of 
40 CFR Part 52: 52.50(c) (Alabama); 52.570(c) (Georgia); 52.920(c) 
(Kentucky); 52.1270(c) (Mississippi); 52.1770(c) (North Carolina); 
52.2120(c) (South Carolina); and 52.2220(c) (Tennessee).
    \2\ See 77 FR 76415 (Dec. 28, 2012) (redesignation of 
Huntingdon-Ashland, West Virginia for the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS); 78 FR 59841 (Sept. 30, 2013) (redesignation of Wheeling, 
West Virginia for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS); 78 FR 56168 
(Sept. 12, 2013) (redesignation of Parkersburg, West Virginia for 
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS); 78 FR 5306 (Jan. 25, 2013) 
(redesignation of Birmingham, Alabama for the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA disagrees with the Commenter that the CAA does not allow states 
to rely on an alternative program such as CAIR in lieu of source-
specific BART. EPA's regulations allow states to adopt alternatives to 
BART that provide for greater reasonable progress, and EPA's 
determination that states may rely on CAIR to meet the BART 
requirements has been upheld by the DC Circuit as meeting the 
requirements of the CAA. In the first case challenging the provisions 
in the Regional Haze Rule allowing for states to adopt alternative 
programs in lieu of BART, Center for Energy and Economic Development v. 
EPA, 398 F.3d 653, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2005), the court affirmed the 
Agency's interpretation of section 169A(b)(2) as allowing for 
alternatives to BART where those alternatives will result in greater 
reasonable progress than BART. In the second case, Utility Air 
Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 2006), the court 
specifically upheld EPA's determination that states could rely on CAIR 
as an alternative to BART for EGUs in the CAIR-affected states. The 
court concluded that the EPA's two-pronged test for determining whether 
an alternative program achieves greater reasonable progress was a 
reasonable one and also agreed with EPA that nothing in the CAA 
required the EPA to ``impose a separate technology mandate for sources 
whose emissions affect Class I areas, rather than piggy-backing on 
solutions devised under other statutory categories, where such 
solutions meet the statutory requirements.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Utility Air Regulatory Group, 471 F.3d at 1340.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More fundamentally, EPA disagrees with the Commenter that the 
adequacy of the BART measures in the regional haze SIPs for these 
states is relevant to the question of whether each state's 
implementation plan meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 
of the CAA with respect to visibility. EPA interprets the visibility 
provisions in this section of the CAA as requiring states to include in 
their SIPs measures to prohibit emissions that would interfere with the 
reasonable progress goals set to protect Class I areas in other states. 
The Regional Haze Rule includes a similar requirement in 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3), and for each of the states subject to this action, EPA 
found that the respective regional haze SIP meets this requirement.\4\ 
Each of these states relied on CAIR to achieve significant reductions 
in emissions to both meet the BART requirements and to address impacts 
of the state on Class I areas in other states.\5\ The question of 
whether or not CAIR satisfies the BART requirements has no bearing on 
whether these measures meet the requirements of prong 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Alabama: 77 FR 11937, 11947-48, 11955-56 (Feb. 28, 2012) 
(proposed), 77 FR 38515 (June 28, 2012) (final); Georgia: 77 FR 
11452, 11463, 11474-75 (Feb. 27, 2012) (proposed), 77 FR 38501 (June 
28, 2012) (final); Kentucky: 76 FR 78194, 78205-06, 78213 (Dec. 16, 
2011) (proposed), 77 FR 19098 (Mar. 30, 2012) (final); Mississippi: 
77 FR 11879, 11888, 11892 (Feb. 28, 2012) (proposed), 77 FR 38191 
(June 27, 2012) (final); North Carolina: 77 FR 11858, 11869, 11877 
(Feb. 28, 2012) (proposed), 77 FR 38185 (June 27, 2012) (final); 
South Carolina: 77 FR 11894, 11904, 11911-12 (Feb. 28, 2012) 
(proposed), 77 FR 38509 (June 28, 2012) (final); Tennessee: 76 FR 
33662, 33673, 33683-84 (June 9, 2011) (proposed), 77 FR 24392 (Apr. 
24, 2012) (final).
    \5\ See, e.g., 77 FR 11949, 11951, 11956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the reasonable progress evaluations, each state at issue 
focused its reasonable progress analysis on SO2 emissions 
based on the conclusion that sulfate particles account for the greatest 
portion of the regional haze affecting Class I areas in these 
states.\6\ Each state then established areas of influence and 
contribution thresholds to determine which of its sources should be 
evaluated for reasonable progress control.\7\ EPA approved each state's 
methodology for identifying units for reasonable progress evaluation 
and each state's reasonable progress determinations in the respective 
regional haze SIP actions and provided a detailed discussion of the 
methodology and the rationale for approval in the Federal Register 
notices associated with those actions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This conclusion was reached by the Visibility Improvement 
State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) regional 
planning organization and adopted by each of the VISTAS states in 
their respective regional haze SIP submissions. VISTAS member states 
include: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. 
VISTAS determined that ammonium sulfate accounted for 69 to 87 
percent of the calculated light extinction at the 18 Class I areas 
within the region. See, e.g., 77 FR 11946.
    In evaluating reasonable progress, states may identify and focus 
on key pollutants that contribute to visibility impairment. EPA, 
Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional 
Haze Program at 3-1 (June 1, 2007) [hereinafter ``Reasonable 
Progress Guidance''].
    \7\ See, e.g., 77 FR 11947-48.
    \8\ See, e.g., id. at 11946-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contrary to the Commenter's assertions, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, 
North Carolina, and South Carolina did not ``exempt [CAIR] sources . . 
. that would otherwise be subject to reasonable progress review.'' Each 
of these states considered the four statutory reasonable progress 
factors in evaluating whether CAIR would satisfy reasonable progress 
requirements for the state's EGU sector and determined that no 
additional controls beyond CAIR were reasonable for SO2 
during the first planning period.\9\ As discussed in EPA's

[[Page 26146]]

Reasonable Progress Guidance, states may evaluate the need for 
reasonable progress controls on a source category basis, rather than 
through a unit-specific analysis, and have wide latitude to determine 
additional control requirements for ensuring reasonable progress.\10\ 
The guidance also notes that states may consider emissions reductions 
from cap-and-trade programs such as CAIR in addition to source-specific 
controls.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 77 FR 11949; 77 FR 11464-69; 76 FR 78206-07; 77 FR 11872; 77 
FR 11906-07. Georgia concluded that additional controls were not 
required on CAIR-subject EGUs that significantly contributed to 
visibility impairment at Class I areas that are clearly projected to 
meet or exceed the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) in 2018 because of 
CAIR emissions reductions and the emissions reductions associated 
with Georgia state rule 391-3-1-.02(13) (capping SO2 
emissions from Georgia EGUs in 2015 at 30 percent of 2002 actual 
emissions). Georgia evaluated reasonable progress controls for EGUs 
that significantly contributed to visibility impairment at Class I 
areas not meeting the URP. 77 FR 11469.
    \10\ Reasonable Progress Guidance at 4-2.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned above, EPA determined that each of the regional haze 
SIPs submitted by the states subject to this action adequately prevents 
sources in the state from interfering with the reasonable progress 
goals adopted by other states to protect visibility during the first 
planning period, thus satisfying the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3). These states participated in a regional planning process 
through VISTAS, and their SIPs include all measures needed to achieve 
their respective apportionment of emissions reduction obligations 
agreed upon through that process as required by 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(ii).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., 77 FR 38193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: EPA must disapprove the infrastructure SIP submittals 
from North Carolina and South Carolina under prong 4 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 
because EPA has not approved the State's five-year progress reports.
    Response 2: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. EPA received the 
North Carolina and South Carolina progress report SIP submittals on May 
31, 2013, and December 28, 2012, respectively. As of this final 
rulemaking, EPA has not taken final action on these submissions, and no 
such action is due pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(2) at this time. 
Therefore, EPA does not believe that EPA approval of these progress 
reports is a required structural element necessary before EPA may 
approve the North Carolina and South Carolina infrastructure SIPs 
subject to this action.
    Nevertheless, EPA notes that it has proposed approval of South 
Carolina's progress report SIP submission since the publication of the 
proposed infrastructure action that is the subject of this 
rulemaking.\13\ As discussed in the proposed rulemaking on the progress 
report, South Carolina provided SO2 emissions data from 
EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) for EGUs in South Carolina and 
in the entire VISTAS region from 2002-2011.\14\ This data indicates 
that emissions of SO2, the primary contributor to visibility 
impairment in the VISTAS region, have declined significantly since 
South Carolina submitted its regional haze SIP in 2007.\15\ South 
Carolina's progress report also states that total SO2 
emissions from South Carolina EGUs are already below the 2018 
projections in South Carolina's 2007 regional haze SIP submittal and 
are expected to decrease further.\16\ In addition, the most current 
visibility data available at the time of EPA's proposed approval of the 
progress report shows that visibility has improved at the Cape Romain 
Wilderness Area, the Class I area within South Carolina.\17\ For these 
reasons, EPA has proposed to approve South Carolina's negative 
declaration pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h) that no further substantive 
revision of the State's regional haze SIP is required at this time to 
achieve the reasonable progress goals for Class I areas affected by the 
State's sources and continues to believe that the State's existing SIP 
(including the regional haze SIP and CAIR) contains adequate provisions 
to meet the visibility protection requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 79 FR 3147 (Jan. 17, 2014).
    \14\ Id. at 3150.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id. at 3151.
    \17\ Id. at 3152.
    \18\ 79 FR at 3152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although EPA has not yet proposed action on North Carolina's 
progress report SIP, the Agency has performed a preliminary review of 
the submission. North Carolina included 2011 SO2 emissions 
data from CAMD for EGUs in North Carolina that are expected to be 
retired by 2015 and for EGUs that were projected in the 2007 regional 
haze SIP submission to have controls installed by 2018.\19\ Based on 
this data, North Carolina reported a reduction in SO2 
emissions of approximately 390,000 tons per year from these units 
between 2002-2011 and estimated that 2018 SO2 emissions 
would be approximately 80 percent lower than those projected in the 
regional haze SIP.\20\ North Carolina also provided visibility data 
supporting its conclusion that visibility has improved since the 2000-
2004 baseline at all five of the Class I areas in the State.\21\ Based 
on EPA's preliminary review of this information and other information 
provided in the State's progress report SIP submission, EPA continues 
to believe, at this time, that the State's existing SIP (including the 
regional haze SIP and CAIR) contains adequate provisions to meet the 
visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Regional Haze 5-Year Periodic Review State Implementation 
Plan for North Carolina Class I Areas (May 31, 2013) at 32-36.
    \20\ Id. at 32.
    \21\ Id. at 42-44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. This Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve the infrastructure SIP 
submissions from Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee as demonstrating that these 
states meet the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of 
the CAA that relate to the protection of visibility in other states for 
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In describing 
how its submission meets this requirement, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee each 
referred to EPA-approved state provisions requiring EGUs to comply with 
the CAIR and to the limited approval and limited disapproval of its 
regional haze SIP. Although EPA has not fully approved the regional 
haze SIPs from these states, the Agency believes that the 
infrastructure SIP submission together with previously approved SIP 
provisions, specifically those provisions that require EGUs to comply 
with CAIR and the additional measures in the regional haze SIP 
addressing BART and reasonable progress requirements for other sources 
or pollutants, are adequate to demonstrate compliance with prong 4.

IV. Final Action

    As described above, EPA is approving SIP submissions from Alabama, 
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and 
Tennessee to incorporate provisions into the states' implementation 
plans to address prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for both 
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS because these submissions are 
consistent with section 110 of the CAA.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
final action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements 
and does not

[[Page 26147]]

impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For 
that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    EPA has determined that this final rule does not have tribal 
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 
November 9, 2000), because there are no ``substantial direct effects'' 
on an Indian Tribe as a result of this action. EPA notes that the 
Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within South Carolina. 
Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 
27-16-120, ``all state and local environmental laws and regulations 
apply to the Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation and are fully 
enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.'' 
Thus, while the South Carolina SIP applies to the Catawba Reservation, 
because today's action is not a substantive revision to the South 
Carolina SIP, and is instead approving South Carolina's infrastructure 
SIP submission to incorporate provisions satisfying prong 4 of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA has determined that today's action will have no 
``substantial direct effects'' on the Catawba Indian Nation. EPA has 
also determined that these revisions will not impose any substantial 
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by July 7, 2014. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic 
compounds.

    Dated: April 18, 2014.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart B--Alabama

0
2. Section 52.50(e) is amended by adding two new entries for 
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' and 
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' at the end 
of the table to read as follows:


Sec.  52.50  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Alabama Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
                                        Applicable        submittal
    Name of nonregulatory SIP          geographic or        date/       EPA Approval date        Explanation
            provision               nonattainment area    effective
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure   Alabama.............    7/25/2008  5/7/2014 [Insert      Addressing prong 4
 Requirements for 1997 Fine                                            citation of           of section
 Particulate Matter National                                           publication].         110(a)(2)(D)(i)
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.                                                              only.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure   Alabama.............    9/23/2009  5/7/2014 [Insert      Addressing prong 4
 Requirements for 2006 Fine                                            citation of           of section
 Particulate Matter National                                           publication].         110(a)(2)(D)(i)
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.                                                              only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 26148]]

Subpart L--Georgia

0
3. Section 52.570(e) is amended by adding two new entries for 
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' and 
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' at the end 
of the table to read as follows:


Sec.  52.570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Georgia Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
                                        Applicable        submittal
    Name of nonregulatory SIP          geographic or        date/       EPA Approval date        Explanation
            provision               nonattainment area    effective
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure   Georgia.............    7/23/2008  5/7/2014 [Insert      Addressing prong 4
 Requirements for 1997 Fine                                            citation of           of section
 Particulate Matter National                                           publication].         110(a)(2)(D)(i)
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.                                                              only.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure   Georgia.............   10/21/2009  5/7/2014 [Insert      Addressing prong 4
 Requirements for 2006 Fine                                            citation of           of section
 Particulate Matter National                                           publication].         110(a)(2)(D)(i)
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.                                                              only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart S--Kentucky

0
4. Section 52.920(e) is amended by adding two new entries for 
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' and 
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.'' at the end 
of the table to read as follows:


Sec.  52.920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Kentucky Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
                                        Applicable        submittal
    Name of nonregulatory SIP          geographic or        date/       EPA Approval date       Explanations
            provision               nonattainment area    effective
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure   Kentucky............    8/26/2008  5/7/2014 [Insert      Addressing prong 4
 Requirements for 1997 Fine                                            citation of           of section
 Particulate Matter National                                           publication].         110(a)(2)(D)(i)
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.                                                              only.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure   Kentucky............    7/17/2012  5/7/2014 [Insert      Addressing prong 4
 Requirements for 2006 Fine                                            citation of           of section
 Particulate Matter National                                           publication].         110(a)(2)(D)(i)
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.                                                              only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart Z--Mississippi

0
5. Section 52.1270(e) is amended by adding two new entries for 
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' and 
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' at the end 
of the table to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                               EPA-Approved Mississippi Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
                                        Applicable        submittal
    Name of nonregulatory SIP          geographic or        date/       EPA Approval date        Explanation
            provision               nonattainment area    effective
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure   Mississippi.........    12/7/2007  5/7/2014 [Insert      Addressing prong 4
 Requirements for 1997 Fine                                            citation of           of section
 Particulate Matter National                                           publication].         110(a)(2)(D)(i)
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.                                                              only.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure   Mississippi.........    10/6/2009  5/7/2014 [Insert      Addressing prong 4
 Requirements for 2006 Fine                                            citation of           of section
 Particulate Matter National                                           publication].         110(a)(2)(D)(i)
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.                                                              only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 26149]]

Subpart II--North Carolina

0
6. Section 52.1770(e) is amended by adding two new entries for 
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' and 
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' at the end 
of the table to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                              EPA-Approved North Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      State
            Provision               effective     EPA Approval date     Federal Register         Explanation
                                       date                                 citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure      4/1/2008  5/7/2014............  [Insert citation of   Addressing prong 4
 Requirements for 1997 Fine                                            publication].         of section
 Particulate Matter National                                                                 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.                                                              only.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure     9/21/2009  5/7/2014 [Insert      [Insert citation of   Addressing prong 4
 Requirements for 2006 Fine                      citation of           publication].         of section
 Particulate Matter National                     publication].                               110(a)(2)(D)(i)
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.                                                              only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart PP--South Carolina

0
7. Section 52.2120(e) is amended by adding two new entries for 
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' and 
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' at the end 
of the table to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                              EPA-Approved South Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              State
                Provision                   effective        EPA Approval date               Explanation
                                               date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure             4/14/2008  5/7/2014 [Insert citation    Addressing prong 4 of
 Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate                  of publication].             section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
 Matter National Ambient Air Quality                                                  only.
 Standards.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure             9/18/2009  5/7/2014 [Insert citation    Addressing prong 4 of
 Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate                  of publication].             section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
 Matter National Ambient Air Quality                                                  only.
 Standards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart RR--Tennessee

0
8. Section 52.2220(e), is amended by adding two new entries for 
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' and 
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' at the end 
of the table to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                EPA-Approved Tennessee Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable          State
    Name of nonregulatory SIP          geographic or      effective     EPA Approval date        Explanation
            provision               nonattainment area       date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure   Tennessee...........   12/14/2007  5/7/2014 [Insert      Addressing prong 4
 Requirements for 1997 Fine                                            citation of           of section
 Particulate Matter National                                           publication].         110(a)(2)(D)(i)
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.                                                              only.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure   Tennessee...........   10/19/2009  5/7/2014 [Insert      Addressing prong 4
 Requirements for 2006 Fine                                            citation of           of section
 Particulate Matter National                                           publication].         110(a)(2)(D)(i)
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.                                                              only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 26150]]

[FR Doc. 2014-10347 Filed 5-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P