Air Plan Approval; Alabama: Prevention of Significant Deterioration Updates, 38660-38664 [2017-17220]
Download as PDF
38660
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules
remainder of the first implementation
period in 2018, EPA is proposing to
approve Georgia’s finding that the plan
elements and strategies in its
implementation plan are sufficient to
achieve the RPGs for the Class I area in
the State and for Class I areas in nearby
states potentially impacted by sources
in the State.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
7. Review of Current Monitoring
Strategy
Georgia’s Progress Report summarizes
the existing monitoring network in the
State to monitor visibility in Georgia’s
Class I areas and concludes that no
modifications to the existing visibility
monitoring strategy are necessary. The
primary monitoring network for regional
haze, both nationwide and in Georgia, is
the IMPROVE network. There are
currently two IMPROVE sites in
Georgia. One is located in the Cohutta
Wilderness Area. The other monitor is
located in the Okefenokee Wilderness
area and serves as the monitoring site
for both the Okefenokee and Wolf Island
Wilderness Areas.
The State also explains the
importance of the IMPROVE monitoring
network for tracking visibility trends at
Class I areas in Georgia, noting that
because IMPROVE monitoring data from
2000–2004 serve as the baseline for the
regional haze program, the future
regional haze monitoring strategy
should be based on IMPROVE data (or
data directly comparable to IMPROVE
data). Georgia also highlights that the
IMPROVE measurements provide the
only long-term record available for
tracking visibility improvement or
degradation. The Visibility Information
Exchange Web System Web site has
been maintained by VISTAS and the
other Regional Planning Organizations
to provide ready access to the IMPROVE
data and data analysis tools.
EPA proposes to find that Georgia has
adequately addressed the applicable
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)
regarding monitoring strategy because
the State reviewed its visibility
monitoring strategy and determined that
no further modifications to the strategy
are necessary.
B. Determination of Adequacy of
Existing Regional Haze Plan
In its Progress Report, Georgia
submitted a declaration to EPA that the
existing regional haze plan requires no
further substantive revision at this time
to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas
affected by the State’s sources. The basis
for the State’s declaration is the findings
from the Progress Report, including the
findings that: The control measures in
Georgia’s regional haze plan are on track
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Aug 14, 2017
Jkt 241001
to meet their implementation schedules;
reduction of SO2 emissions continues to
be the appropriate strategy for
improvement of visibility in Georgia’s
Class I areas; EGU SO2 emissions
dropped from 2002 to 2011 by 325,795
tons,28 and the actual change in
visibility through 2010 for Georgia’s
Class I areas is better than the what the
State predicted for 2010 and is
exceeding the uniform rate of progress.
EPA proposes to find that Georgia has
adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h)
because the visibility trends at the Class
I areas in the State and at Class I areas
outside the State potentially impacted
by sources within Georgia and the
emissions trends of the largest emitters
of visibility-impairing pollutants in the
State indicate that the relevant RPGs
will be met.
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve Georgia’s
Regional Haze Progress Report SIP
revision, submitted by the State on
January 8, 2014, as meeting the
applicable regional haze requirements
set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and
51.308(h).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely proposes to approve state
law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this proposed
action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
28 See
PO 00000
page 39 of Georgia’s Progress Report.
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), nor will it impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 7, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017–17229 Filed 8–14–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0360; FRL–9966–39–
Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Alabama:
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Updates
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM
15AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
portions of revisions to Alabama’s State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted
by the State of Alabama, through the
Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM), on May 8, 2013,
and August 23, 2016. The portions of
these SIP revisions that EPA proposes to
approve relate to the State’s Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
permitting program. This action is being
proposed pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act).
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received on
or before September 14, 2017.
DATES:
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No EPA–R04–
OAR–2017–0360 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. EPA will generally
not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
ADDRESSES:
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andres Febres of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr.
Febres can be reached by telephone at
(404) 562–8966 or via electronic mail at
febres-martinez.andres@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. What action is the agency taking?
On May 8, 2013, and August 23, 2016,
ADEM submitted SIP revisions for
EPA’s approval that include changes to
Alabama’s PSD permitting regulations,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Aug 14, 2017
Jkt 241001
among other changes.1 In this
document, EPA is proposing to approve
certain portions of these submittals that
make changes to ADEM Administrative
Code Rule 335–3–14–.04—‘‘Air Permits
Authorizing Construction in Clean
Areas (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD),’’ which applies to
the construction or modification of any
major stationary source in areas
designated as attainment or
unclassifiable as required by part C of
title I of the CAA.
Alabama’s May 8, 2013 SIP submittal
includes changes to Rule 335–3–14–.04
to address the Federal rule entitled
‘‘Implementation of the New Source
Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5):2 Amendment to the Definition
of ‘Regulated NSR Pollutant’ Concerning
1 EPA’s regulations governing the implementation
of New Source Review (NSR) permitting programs
are contained in 40 CFR 51.160–51.166; 52.21,
52.24; and part 51, Appendix S. The CAA NSR
program is composed of three separate programs:
PSD, NNSR, and Minor NSR. PSD is established in
part C of title I of the CAA and applies in areas that
meet the NAAQS—‘‘attainment areas’’—as well as
areas where there is insufficient information to
determine if the area meets the NAAQS—
‘‘unclassifiable areas.’’ The NNSR program is
established in part D of title I of the CAA and
applies in areas that are not in attainment of the
NAAQS—‘‘nonattainment areas.’’ The Minor NSR
program addresses construction or modification
activities that do not qualify as ‘‘major’’ and applies
regardless of the designation of the area in which
a source is located. Together, these programs are
referred to as the NSR programs.
2 Airborne particulate matter (PM) with a nominal
aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (a
micrometer is one-millionth of a meter, and 2.5
micrometers is less than one-seventh the average
width of a human hair) are considered to be ‘‘fine
particles’’ and are also known as PM2.5. Fine
particles in the atmosphere are made up of a
complex mixture of components including sulfate;
nitrate; ammonium; elemental carbon; a great
variety of organic compounds; and inorganic
material (including metals, dust, sea salt, and other
trace elements) generally referred to as ‘‘crustal’’
material, although it may contain material from
other sources. The health effects associated with
exposure to PM2.5 include potential aggravation of
respiratory and cardiovascular disease (i.e., lung
disease, decreased lung function, asthma attacks
and certain cardiovascular issues). On July 18,
1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for PM to add new
standards for fine particles, using PM2.5 as the
indicator. Previously, EPA used PM10 (inhalable
particles smaller than or equal to 10 micrometers
in diameter) as the indicator for the PM NAAQS.
EPA established health-based (primary) annual and
24-hour standards for PM2.5, setting an annual
standard at a level of 15.0 micrograms per cubic
meter (mg/m3) and a 24-hour standard at a level of
65 mg/m3 (62 FR 38652). At the time the 1997
primary standards were established, EPA also
established welfare-based (secondary) standards
identical to the primary standards. The secondary
standards are designed to protect against major
environmental effects of PM2.5, such as visibility
impairment, soiling, and materials damage. On
October 17, 2006, EPA revised the primary and
secondary 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 to 35 mg/m3
and retained the existing annual PM2.5 NAAQS of
15.0 mg/m3 (71 FR 61236). On January 15, 2013,
EPA published a final rule revising the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 mg/m3 (78 FR 3086).
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38661
Condensable Particulate Matter,’’ 77 FR
65107 (October 25, 2012) (hereinafter
referred to as the PM2.5 Condensables
Correction Rule), and plantwide
applicability limits (PALs) for
greenhouse gases (GHGs) as allowed in
the Federal rule entitled ‘‘Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3
and GHG Plantwide Applicability
Limits,’’ 77 FR 41051 (July 12, 2012)
(hereinafter referred to as the GHG Step
3 Rule). In addition, the SIP submittal
includes changes to the definition of
GHGs in Rule 335–3–14–.04 and Rule
335–3–16 (regarding major source
operating permits) to address EPA’s July
20, 2011 rule deferring PSD
requirements for carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions from bioenergy and other
biogenic sources (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘‘Biomass Deferral Rule’’).3
Alabama’s May 8, 2013 SIP submission
also includes the following changes to
other Alabama rules: changes to the
definition of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) at Rule 335–3–1–
.02; changes to the incorporation by
reference (IBR) of the Federal New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
in Chapter 335–3–10 and National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPs) in Chapter 335–
3–11; and changes regarding
transportation conformity provisions at
Rule Chapter 335–3–16.
Alabama’s August 23, 2016 SIP
submittal includes changes to Rule 335–
3–14–.04 and Rule Chapter 335–3–16 to
remove the treatment of GHGs as an air
pollutant for the specific purpose of
determining whether a source is a major
source (or a modification thereof) in
PSD and title V permitting requirements
for the reasons discussed in Section
II.A, below. The submittal also
withdraws the portion of the State’s
May 8, 2013 SIP submittal that revises
Rule 335–3–14–.04 to address the
Biomass Deferral Rule and makes
changes to the GHG Step 3 language
proposed in Alabama’s May 8, 2013
submittal.
Currently, EPA is only proposing to
approve the portions of the May 8, 2013
submittal that make changes to the GHG
3 Emissions of CO from a stationary source
2
directly resulting from the combustion or
decomposition of biologically-based materials other
than fossil fuels and mineral sources of carbon (e.g.,
calcium carbonate) and biologically-based material
(non-fossilized and biodegradable organic material
originating from plants, animals or microorganisms, including products, by-products,
residues and waste from agriculture, forestry and
related industries as well as the non-fossilized and
biodegradable organic fractions of industrial and
municipal wastes, including gases and liquids
recovered from the decomposition of non-fossilized
and biodegradable organic material).
E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM
15AUP1
38662
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules
PAL provisions pursuant to the GHG
Step 3 rule and the portions of the
August 23, 2016 submittal that
discontinue regulation of GHGs as an air
pollutant for the specific purpose of
determining whether a source is a major
source (or a modification thereof) in
PSD and title V permitting requirements
and that make changes to the GHG Step
3 language proposed in Alabama’s May
8, 2013 submittal. EPA is not acting on
the remaining portions of these
submittals for the following reasons:
• EPA previously acted upon the
changes to the definition of VOCs at
Rule 335–3–1–.02. See 81 FR 63701
(September 16, 2016).
• The revisions that address the
Regulated PM2.5 Condensables
Correction Rule are unnecessary
because the errors corrected by the Rule
were never incorporated into Alabama’s
SIP.4 See 77 FR 59100 (September 26,
2012).
• EPA will act on the transportation
conformity revisions in a separate
action.
• In its August 23, 2016 SIP revision,
Alabama withdrew the portion of its
May 8, 2013 SIP revision that addressed
the Biomass Deferral Rule.
• ADEM Administrative Code
Chapter 335–3–10—‘‘Standards of
Performance for New Stationary
Sources,’’ Chapter 335–3–11—‘‘National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants,’’ and Chapter 335–3–16—
‘‘Major Source Operating permits,’’ are
not part of Alabama’s SIP; therefore,
EPA cannot make the changes to these
regulations.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Background
On January 2, 2011, GHG emissions
were, for the first time, covered by the
PSD and title V operating permit
programs.5 To establish a process for
phasing in the permitting requirements
for stationary sources of GHGs under the
CAA PSD and title V programs, on June
3, 2010, EPA published a final rule
entitled ‘‘Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse
Gas Tailoring Rule’’ (hereinafter referred
to as the GHG Tailoring Rule). See 75 FR
31514. In Step 1 of the GHG Tailoring
4 In a May 2, 2011 SIP revision, Alabama
requested that EPA incorporate the term
‘‘Particulate matter (PM)’’ emissions into its SIPapproved definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ at
Rule 335–3–14–.04(2)(ww)5, among other changes.
Following EPA’s proposed approval of the PM2.5
Condensables Correction Rule, Alabama submitted
a supplemental letter on June 18, 2012, requesting
that EPA not approve the proposed change at 335–
3–14–.04(2)(ww)5 when taking action on the May
2, 2011, SIP revision.
5 See the rule entitled ‘‘Reconsideration of
Interpretation of Regulations that Determine
Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting
Programs,’’ Final Rule, 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Aug 14, 2017
Jkt 241001
Rule, which began on January 2, 2011,
EPA limited application of PSD and title
V requirements to sources and
modifications of GHG emissions, but
only if they were subject to PSD or title
V ‘‘anyway’’ due to their emissions of
pollutants other than GHGs. These
sources are referred to as ‘‘anyway
sources.’’
In Step 2 of the GHG Tailoring Rule,
which applied as of July 1, 2011, the
PSD and title V permitting requirements
applied to some sources that were
classified as major sources based solely
on their GHG emissions or potential to
emit GHGs. Step 2 also applied PSD
permitting requirements to
modifications of otherwise major
sources that would increase only GHG
emissions above the level in EPA
regulations. EPA generally described the
sources covered by PSD during Step 2
of the Tailoring Rule as ‘‘Step 2
sources’’ or ‘‘GHG-only sources.’’
Subsequently, EPA published the
GHG Step 3 Rule on July 12, 2012. See
77 FR 41051. In this rule, EPA decided
against further phase-in of the PSD and
title V requirements for sources emitting
lower levels of GHG emissions. Thus,
the thresholds for determining PSD
applicability based on emissions of
GHGs remained the same as established
in Steps 1 and 2 of the Tailoring Rule.
The GHG PALs portion of the July 12,
2012 final rule revised EPA regulations
under 40 CFR part 52 for establishing
PALs for GHG emissions. A PAL
establishes a site-specific plantwide
emission level for a pollutant that
allows the source to make changes at the
facility without triggering the
requirements of the PSD program,
provided that its actual emissions at the
facility do not exceed the PAL level.
Prior to the July 12, 2012 rule, PALs
were available for non-GHG pollutants
and for GHGs on a mass basis. EPA’s
rule revised the PAL regulations to
allow for GHG PALs to be established
on a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)6
basis, as well as a mass basis. See 77 FR
41051 (July 12, 2012). These regulatory
changes provided sources with
flexibility in implementing PALs for
GHGs.
On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme
Court addressed the application of
stationary source permitting
requirements to GHG emissions in
Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v.
EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014). The
Supreme Court upheld EPA’s regulation
6 CO
emissions refers to emissions of six
recognized GHGs other than CO2 which are scaled
to equivalent CO2 emissions by relative global
warming potential values, then summed with CO2
to determine a total equivalent emissions value. See
40 CFR 51.166(48)(ii) and 52.21(49)(ii).
PO 00000
2e
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of GHG Step 1—or ‘‘anyway’’ sources—
but held that EPA may not treat GHGs
as air pollutants for the purpose of
determining whether a source is a major
source (or is undergoing a major
modification) and thus require the
source to obtain a PSD or title V permit.
Therefore, the Court invalidated PSD
and title V permitting requirements for
GHG Step 2 sources.
In accordance with the Supreme
Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the
D.C. Circuit issued an Amended
Judgment vacating the regulations that
implemented Step 2 of the GHG
Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations
that implement Step 1 of the GHG
Tailoring Rule. Coalition for
Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, 606
Fed. Appx. 6, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The
D.C. Circuit’s Judgment specifically
vacated the EPA regulations under
review (including 40 CFR
51.166(b)(48)(v) and 40 CFR
52.21(b)(49)(v)) ‘‘to the extent they
require a stationary source to obtain a
PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the
only pollutant (i) that the source emits
or has the potential to emit above the
applicable major source thresholds, or
(ii) for which there is a significant
emissions increase from a
modification.’’ Id. at 7–8.
EPA promulgated a good cause final
rule on August 19, 2015, entitled
‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration
and Title V Permitting for Greenhouse
Gases: Removal of Certain Vacated
Elements.’’ See 80 FR 50199 (August 19,
2015) (hereinafter referred to as the
Good Cause GHG Rule). The rule
removed from the Federal regulations
the portions of the PSD permitting
provisions for Step 2 sources that were
vacated by the D.C. Circuit (i.e., 40 CFR
51.166(b)(48)(v) and 52.21(b)(49)(v)).
EPA therefore no longer has the
authority to conduct PSD permitting for
Step 2 sources, nor can the Agency
approve provisions submitted by a state
for inclusion in their SIP providing this
authority. In addition, on October 3,
2016, EPA proposed to revise provisions
in the PSD permitting regulations
applicable to GHGs to address the GHG
applicability threshold for PSD in order
to fully conform with UARG and the
Amended Judgment, but those revisions
have not been finalized. See 81 FR
68110.
III. Analysis of the State’s Submittals
A. Alabama’s May 8, 2013 Submittal
Alabama’s May 8, 2013 SIP submittal
seeks to add to the Alabama SIP
elements of EPA’s July 12, 2012 rule
implementing Step 3 of the phase-in of
PSD permitting requirements for GHGs
E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM
15AUP1
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules
described in the GHG Step 3 Rule by
modifying a PAL provision at Rule 335–
3–14–.04(23)(b)4.7 As explained in
Section II above, a PAL establishes a
site-specific plantwide emission level
for a pollutant that allows the source to
make changes to units at the facility
without triggering the requirements of
the PSD program, provided that facilitywide emissions do not exceed the PAL.
The Federal PSD regulations currently
include PAL provisions that apply to
GHG-only, or Step 2, sources. However,
some of these provisions may no longer
be applicable in light of the Supreme
Court’s decision in UARG and the D.C.
Circuit’s Amended Judgment. The
Supreme Court determined that sources
and modifications may not be defined as
‘‘major’’ solely on the basis of GHGs
emitted or increased, and consequently
PALs for GHGs may no longer be
authorized in instances in which a
source has triggered PSD based on GHG
emissions alone. EPA has proposed
action in an October 3, 2016 proposed
rule to clarify the GHG PAL rules. See
81 FR 68110. However, PALs for GHGs
may still have a role to play in
determining whether a source that is
already subject to PSD for a pollutant
other than GHGs should also be subject
to PSD for GHGs. The existing GHG
PALs regulations do not add new
requirements for sources or
modifications that only emit or increase
GHGs above the major source threshold,
or the 75,000 ton per year (tpy) GHG
level in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(iv), but
rather provide increased flexibility to
sources that wish to manage their GHG
emissions by way of a PAL.
In its May 8, 2013 SIP submittal,
Alabama seeks to modify the definition
of ‘‘major emissions unit’’ in its SIPapproved PAL regulations by adding the
phrase ‘‘any emissions unit that has the
potential to emit 100,000 tons per year
of GHG as CO2e.’’ The State
subsequently revised this threshold
from 100,000 tpy to 75,000 tpy as part
of its August 23, 2016 submittal, as
discussed below. Given this subsequent
revision, the text that EPA is proposing
to add to the SIP-approved definition of
‘‘major emissions unit’’ at Rule 335–3–
14–.04(23)(b)4. reads as follows: ‘‘any
emissions unit that has the potential to
emit 75,000 tons per year of GHG as
CO2e’’ into the SIP-approved definition
of ‘‘major emissions unit’’ at Rule 335–
3–14–.04(23)(b)4.
EPA has preliminarily concluded that
approving these changes into the SIP
will not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
7 As discussed in Section I above, EPA is not
acting on the remaining portions of this submittal.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Aug 14, 2017
Jkt 241001
reasonable further progress (as defined
in section 171), or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. EPA discussed
the effects of PALs in the Supplemental
Analysis of the Environmental Impact of
the 2002 Final NSR Improvement Rules
(November 21, 2002) (2002
Supplemental Analysis). The
Supplemental Analysis explained,
‘‘[t]he EPA expects that the adoption of
PAL provisions will result in a net
environmental benefit. Our experience
to date is that the emissions caps found
in PAL-type permits result in real
emissions reductions, as well as other
benefits.’’ Supplemental Analysis at 6;
see also 76 FR 49313, 49315 (August 10,
2011). EPA further discussed the effects
of PALs in the GHG Step 3 Rule,
including the benefits of GHG PALs. See
77 FR 41059–60. EPA is therefore
proposing to approve the changes to the
PAL provisions into the Alabama SIP, as
amended in the August 23, 2016
submittal discussed below.
B. Alabama’s August 23, 2016 Submittal
Alabama’s August 23, 2016 SIP
submittal makes further changes to the
State’s PSD permitting regulation at
Rule 335–3–14–.04. This submittal
revises the GHG PALs threshold in Rule
335–3–14–.04(23)(b)4 proposed in the
May 8, 2013, submittal from 100,000 tpy
to 75,000 tpy, as mentioned in section
III.A above.8 The SIP submittal also
revises the applicability of PSD for
GHGs by removing language regulating
GHG-only (i.e., Step 2) sources in Rules
335–3–14–.04(1)(k) and 335–3–14–
.04(2)(a) to align with current federal
requirements, as discussed below.
Alabama modifies its applicability
language for GHGs to regulate only
‘‘anyway’’ sources. The State revises
Rule 335–3–14–.04(1)(k) in its PSD
applicability regulations and the
definition of ‘‘Major Stationary Source’’
at Rule 335–3–14–.04(2)(a) by removing
language that would subject a source to
PSD requirements through GHG
emissions alone. The proposed revision
to subparagraph (2)(a) removes the
following text from the definition of
‘‘major stationary source’’: ‘‘(iii) For
GHGs, any stationary source which
emits or has the potential to emit: (I)
GHGs on a total mass rate in accordance
with either subparagraph 2(a)1. or
(2)(a)1.(i), and (II) GHGs of 100,000 tons
per year or more CO2e.’’ The proposed
revision to Rule 335–3–14–.04(1)(k)
8 As discussed in Section I, above, EPA is not
acting on the remaining portions of this submittal.
The submittal also withdraws the change proposed
to Rule 335–3–14–.04(2)(zz) in the State’s May 8,
2013 SIP submittal to address the Biomass Deferral
Rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38663
replaces subparagraph (k) with the
following text:
(k) Greenhouse gases (GHGs)
1. GHGs, as defined in Subparagraph
(2)(zz) of this Rule,9 shall not be utilized in
determining if a source is a major stationary
source, as defined in Subparagraph (2)(a) of
this Rule, or in determining if a modification
is a major modification, as defined in
Subparagraph (2)(b) of this Rule.
2. GHGs shall only be subject to the
requirements of this Rule if:
(i) A new major stationary source or major
modification causes a significant emissions
increase of GHGs, as defined in subparagraph
(2)(mm) of this rule,10 and a significant net
emissions increase of GHGs, as defined in
subparagraphs (2)(c) and (2)(w) of this rule,11
and
(ii) The new major stationary source or
major modification is required to obtain a
permit subject to the requirements of this
Rule as a result of emissions of regulated
NSR pollutants other than GHGs.
Although these proposed changes to
the Alabama SIP are structured
differently than EPA’s federal rules, the
primary practical effect of both is the
same: PSD requirements do not apply to
GHG emissions from an ‘‘anyway
source’’ unless the source emits GHGs at
or above the 75,000 tpy CO2e threshold.
EPA has preliminarily concluded that
proposing approval of these change into
the SIP will not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 171), or
any other applicable requirement of the
CAA. Step 2 of the GHG Tailoring Rule
was invalidated. As mentioned above,
EPA discussed the effects of PALs in the
2002 Supplemental Analysis and the
GHG Step 3 Rule.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In accordance with requirements of 1
CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing the
incorporation by reference of ADEM
Administrative Code Rules 335–3–14–
.04(1)(k), 335–3–14–.04(2)(a)(ii), and
335–3–14–.04(b)4, state effective on
November 25, 2014. Therefore, EPA is
proposing approval for inclusion of
these materials in Alabama’s State
implementation plan. Once final, and
these materials have been incorporated
9 Subparagraph (2)(zz) defines ‘‘greenhouse
gases’’ as ‘‘the aggregate of: Carbon dioxide, nitrous
oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.’’
10 Pursuant to subparagraph (2)(mm), ‘‘significant
emissions increase means, for a regulated NSR
pollutant, an increase in emissions that is
significant (as defined in subparagraph (2)(w) of
this rule) for that pollutant.’’
11 As it relates to GHGs, subparagraph (2)(w)
defines ‘‘significant,’’ in reference to a net
emissions increase or potential to emit, at a rate of
75,000 tpy of GHGs on a CO2e basis. This definition
of ‘‘significant’’ was previously approved by EPA
on December 29, 2010. See 75 FR 81863.
E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM
15AUP1
38664
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules
by reference by EPA into that plan, they
are fully Federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rulemaking
of EPA’s approval, and will be
incorporated by reference by the
Director of the Federal Register in the
next update to the SIP compilation.12
EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov
and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office
(please contact the person identified in
the ‘‘For Further Information Contact’’
section of this preamble for more
information).
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
V. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the
portions of Alabama’s May 8, 2013 and
August 23, 2016 SIP submittals that
revise the PSD permitting program at
Rule 335–3–14–.04—‘‘Air Permits
Authorizing Construction in Clean
Areas (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD))’’ by removing
language regulating GHG-only (i.e., Step
2) sources and by adding language to the
PAL provisions. EPA believes that these
changes are consistent with the
requirements of the CAA.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely proposes to approve state
law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this proposed
action:
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Public Law 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), nor will it impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate Matter, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 7, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017–17220 Filed 8–14–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
[Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2015–0073;
FF09M21200–178–FXMB1231099BPP0]
RIN 1018–BB06
Migratory Bird Hunting; Approval of
Corrosion-Inhibited Copper Shot as
Nontoxic for Waterfowl Hunting
AGENCY:
12 See
62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Aug 14, 2017
Jkt 241001
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Proposed rule; availability of
draft environmental assessment.
ACTION:
Having completed our review
of the application materials for
corrosion-inhibited copper shot, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(hereinafter Service or we) proposes to
approve the shot for hunting waterfowl
and coots. We have concluded that this
type of shot left in terrestrial or aquatic
environments is unlikely to adversely
affect fish, wildlife, or their habitats.
Approving this shot formulation would
increase the nontoxic shot options for
hunters.
SUMMARY:
Electronic comments on this
proposal or on the draft environmental
assessment via https://
www.regulations.gov must be submitted
by 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on
September 14, 2017. Comments
submitted by mail must be postmarked
no later than September 14, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Document Availability. You
may view the application and our draft
environmental assessment by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket
No. FWS–HQ–MB–2015–0073.
• Request a copy by contacting the
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Written Comments: You may submit
comments on the proposed rule or the
associated draft environmental
assessment by either one of the
following two methods:
• Federal eRulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments to
Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2015–0073.
• U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attention: FWS–
HQ–MB–2015–0073; Division of Policy,
Performance, and Management
Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: BPHC,
Falls Church, VA 22041–3803.
We will not accept email or faxes. We
will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information that you provide.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron
Kokel, Division of Migratory Bird
Management, at 703–358–1967.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
Background
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918
(Act) (16 U.S.C. 703–712 and 16 U.S.C.
742 a–j) implements migratory bird
treaties between the United States and
Great Britain for Canada (1916 and
1996, as amended), Mexico (1936 and
1972, as amended), Japan (1972 and
E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM
15AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 15, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38660-38664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17220]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0360; FRL-9966-39-Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Alabama: Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Updates
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 38661]]
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve portions of revisions to Alabama's State Implementation Plan
(SIP), submitted by the State of Alabama, through the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), on May 8, 2013, and
August 23, 2016. The portions of these SIP revisions that EPA proposes
to approve relate to the State's Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permitting program. This action is being proposed
pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 14, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-
OAR-2017-0360 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andres Febres of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Febres can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-8966 or
via electronic mail at febres-martinez.andres@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. What action is the agency taking?
On May 8, 2013, and August 23, 2016, ADEM submitted SIP revisions
for EPA's approval that include changes to Alabama's PSD permitting
regulations, among other changes.\1\ In this document, EPA is proposing
to approve certain portions of these submittals that make changes to
ADEM Administrative Code Rule 335-3-14-.04--``Air Permits Authorizing
Construction in Clean Areas (Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD),'' which applies to the construction or modification of any major
stationary source in areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable
as required by part C of title I of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA's regulations governing the implementation of New Source
Review (NSR) permitting programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.160-
51.166; 52.21, 52.24; and part 51, Appendix S. The CAA NSR program
is composed of three separate programs: PSD, NNSR, and Minor NSR.
PSD is established in part C of title I of the CAA and applies in
areas that meet the NAAQS--``attainment areas''--as well as areas
where there is insufficient information to determine if the area
meets the NAAQS--``unclassifiable areas.'' The NNSR program is
established in part D of title I of the CAA and applies in areas
that are not in attainment of the NAAQS--``nonattainment areas.''
The Minor NSR program addresses construction or modification
activities that do not qualify as ``major'' and applies regardless
of the designation of the area in which a source is located.
Together, these programs are referred to as the NSR programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama's May 8, 2013 SIP submittal includes changes to Rule 335-3-
14-.04 to address the Federal rule entitled ``Implementation of the New
Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5):\2\ Amendment to the Definition of
`Regulated NSR Pollutant' Concerning Condensable Particulate Matter,''
77 FR 65107 (October 25, 2012) (hereinafter referred to as the
PM2.5 Condensables Correction Rule), and plantwide
applicability limits (PALs) for greenhouse gases (GHGs) as allowed in
the Federal rule entitled ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG Plantwide
Applicability Limits,'' 77 FR 41051 (July 12, 2012) (hereinafter
referred to as the GHG Step 3 Rule). In addition, the SIP submittal
includes changes to the definition of GHGs in Rule 335-3-14-.04 and
Rule 335-3-16 (regarding major source operating permits) to address
EPA's July 20, 2011 rule deferring PSD requirements for carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic sources
(hereinafter referred to as the ``Biomass Deferral Rule'').\3\
Alabama's May 8, 2013 SIP submission also includes the following
changes to other Alabama rules: changes to the definition of Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs) at Rule 335-3-1-.02; changes to the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the Federal New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) in Chapter 335-3-10 and National Emissions Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) in Chapter 335-3-11; and changes
regarding transportation conformity provisions at Rule Chapter 335-3-
16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Airborne particulate matter (PM) with a nominal aerodynamic
diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (a micrometer is one-millionth
of a meter, and 2.5 micrometers is less than one-seventh the average
width of a human hair) are considered to be ``fine particles'' and
are also known as PM2.5. Fine particles in the atmosphere
are made up of a complex mixture of components including sulfate;
nitrate; ammonium; elemental carbon; a great variety of organic
compounds; and inorganic material (including metals, dust, sea salt,
and other trace elements) generally referred to as ``crustal''
material, although it may contain material from other sources. The
health effects associated with exposure to PM2.5 include
potential aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease
(i.e., lung disease, decreased lung function, asthma attacks and
certain cardiovascular issues). On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the
NAAQS for PM to add new standards for fine particles, using
PM2.5 as the indicator. Previously, EPA used
PM10 (inhalable particles smaller than or equal to 10
micrometers in diameter) as the indicator for the PM NAAQS. EPA
established health-based (primary) annual and 24-hour standards for
PM2.5, setting an annual standard at a level of 15.0
micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) and a 24-hour standard at
a level of 65 [micro]g/m\3\ (62 FR 38652). At the time the 1997
primary standards were established, EPA also established welfare-
based (secondary) standards identical to the primary standards. The
secondary standards are designed to protect against major
environmental effects of PM2.5, such as visibility
impairment, soiling, and materials damage. On October 17, 2006, EPA
revised the primary and secondary 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5
to 35 [micro]g/m\3\ and retained the existing annual
PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ (71 FR 61236). On
January 15, 2013, EPA published a final rule revising the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 [micro]g/m\3\ (78 FR 3086).
\3\ Emissions of CO2 from a stationary source
directly resulting from the combustion or decomposition of
biologically-based materials other than fossil fuels and mineral
sources of carbon (e.g., calcium carbonate) and biologically-based
material (non-fossilized and biodegradable organic material
originating from plants, animals or micro-organisms, including
products, by-products, residues and waste from agriculture, forestry
and related industries as well as the non-fossilized and
biodegradable organic fractions of industrial and municipal wastes,
including gases and liquids recovered from the decomposition of non-
fossilized and biodegradable organic material).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama's August 23, 2016 SIP submittal includes changes to Rule
335-3-14-.04 and Rule Chapter 335-3-16 to remove the treatment of GHGs
as an air pollutant for the specific purpose of determining whether a
source is a major source (or a modification thereof) in PSD and title V
permitting requirements for the reasons discussed in Section II.A,
below. The submittal also withdraws the portion of the State's May 8,
2013 SIP submittal that revises Rule 335-3-14-.04 to address the
Biomass Deferral Rule and makes changes to the GHG Step 3 language
proposed in Alabama's May 8, 2013 submittal.
Currently, EPA is only proposing to approve the portions of the May
8, 2013 submittal that make changes to the GHG
[[Page 38662]]
PAL provisions pursuant to the GHG Step 3 rule and the portions of the
August 23, 2016 submittal that discontinue regulation of GHGs as an air
pollutant for the specific purpose of determining whether a source is a
major source (or a modification thereof) in PSD and title V permitting
requirements and that make changes to the GHG Step 3 language proposed
in Alabama's May 8, 2013 submittal. EPA is not acting on the remaining
portions of these submittals for the following reasons:
EPA previously acted upon the changes to the definition of
VOCs at Rule 335-3-1-.02. See 81 FR 63701 (September 16, 2016).
The revisions that address the Regulated PM2.5
Condensables Correction Rule are unnecessary because the errors
corrected by the Rule were never incorporated into Alabama's SIP.\4\
See 77 FR 59100 (September 26, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In a May 2, 2011 SIP revision, Alabama requested that EPA
incorporate the term ``Particulate matter (PM)'' emissions into its
SIP-approved definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' at Rule 335-
3-14-.04(2)(ww)5, among other changes. Following EPA's proposed
approval of the PM2.5 Condensables Correction Rule,
Alabama submitted a supplemental letter on June 18, 2012, requesting
that EPA not approve the proposed change at 335-3-14-.04(2)(ww)5
when taking action on the May 2, 2011, SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA will act on the transportation conformity revisions in
a separate action.
In its August 23, 2016 SIP revision, Alabama withdrew the
portion of its May 8, 2013 SIP revision that addressed the Biomass
Deferral Rule.
ADEM Administrative Code Chapter 335-3-10--``Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources,'' Chapter 335-3-11--``National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,'' and Chapter 335-3-
16--``Major Source Operating permits,'' are not part of Alabama's SIP;
therefore, EPA cannot make the changes to these regulations.
II. Background
On January 2, 2011, GHG emissions were, for the first time, covered
by the PSD and title V operating permit programs.\5\ To establish a
process for phasing in the permitting requirements for stationary
sources of GHGs under the CAA PSD and title V programs, on June 3,
2010, EPA published a final rule entitled ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule'' (hereinafter
referred to as the GHG Tailoring Rule). See 75 FR 31514. In Step 1 of
the GHG Tailoring Rule, which began on January 2, 2011, EPA limited
application of PSD and title V requirements to sources and
modifications of GHG emissions, but only if they were subject to PSD or
title V ``anyway'' due to their emissions of pollutants other than
GHGs. These sources are referred to as ``anyway sources.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See the rule entitled ``Reconsideration of Interpretation of
Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act
Permitting Programs,'' Final Rule, 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Step 2 of the GHG Tailoring Rule, which applied as of July 1,
2011, the PSD and title V permitting requirements applied to some
sources that were classified as major sources based solely on their GHG
emissions or potential to emit GHGs. Step 2 also applied PSD permitting
requirements to modifications of otherwise major sources that would
increase only GHG emissions above the level in EPA regulations. EPA
generally described the sources covered by PSD during Step 2 of the
Tailoring Rule as ``Step 2 sources'' or ``GHG-only sources.''
Subsequently, EPA published the GHG Step 3 Rule on July 12, 2012.
See 77 FR 41051. In this rule, EPA decided against further phase-in of
the PSD and title V requirements for sources emitting lower levels of
GHG emissions. Thus, the thresholds for determining PSD applicability
based on emissions of GHGs remained the same as established in Steps 1
and 2 of the Tailoring Rule.
The GHG PALs portion of the July 12, 2012 final rule revised EPA
regulations under 40 CFR part 52 for establishing PALs for GHG
emissions. A PAL establishes a site-specific plantwide emission level
for a pollutant that allows the source to make changes at the facility
without triggering the requirements of the PSD program, provided that
its actual emissions at the facility do not exceed the PAL level. Prior
to the July 12, 2012 rule, PALs were available for non-GHG pollutants
and for GHGs on a mass basis. EPA's rule revised the PAL regulations to
allow for GHG PALs to be established on a carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2e)\6\ basis, as well as a mass basis. See 77 FR 41051
(July 12, 2012). These regulatory changes provided sources with
flexibility in implementing PALs for GHGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ CO2e emissions refers to emissions of six
recognized GHGs other than CO2 which are scaled to
equivalent CO2 emissions by relative global warming
potential values, then summed with CO2 to determine a
total equivalent emissions value. See 40 CFR 51.166(48)(ii) and
52.21(49)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the application
of stationary source permitting requirements to GHG emissions in
Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014). The
Supreme Court upheld EPA's regulation of GHG Step 1--or ``anyway''
sources--but held that EPA may not treat GHGs as air pollutants for the
purpose of determining whether a source is a major source (or is
undergoing a major modification) and thus require the source to obtain
a PSD or title V permit. Therefore, the Court invalidated PSD and title
V permitting requirements for GHG Step 2 sources.
In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015,
the D.C. Circuit issued an Amended Judgment vacating the regulations
that implemented Step 2 of the GHG Tailoring Rule, but not the
regulations that implement Step 1 of the GHG Tailoring Rule. Coalition
for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, 606 Fed. Appx. 6, 7 (D.C. Cir.
2015). The D.C. Circuit's Judgment specifically vacated the EPA
regulations under review (including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 40 CFR
52.21(b)(49)(v)) ``to the extent they require a stationary source to
obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the only pollutant (i) that
the source emits or has the potential to emit above the applicable
major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant
emissions increase from a modification.'' Id. at 7-8.
EPA promulgated a good cause final rule on August 19, 2015,
entitled ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: Removal of Certain Vacated Elements.''
See 80 FR 50199 (August 19, 2015) (hereinafter referred to as the Good
Cause GHG Rule). The rule removed from the Federal regulations the
portions of the PSD permitting provisions for Step 2 sources that were
vacated by the D.C. Circuit (i.e., 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and
52.21(b)(49)(v)). EPA therefore no longer has the authority to conduct
PSD permitting for Step 2 sources, nor can the Agency approve
provisions submitted by a state for inclusion in their SIP providing
this authority. In addition, on October 3, 2016, EPA proposed to revise
provisions in the PSD permitting regulations applicable to GHGs to
address the GHG applicability threshold for PSD in order to fully
conform with UARG and the Amended Judgment, but those revisions have
not been finalized. See 81 FR 68110.
III. Analysis of the State's Submittals
A. Alabama's May 8, 2013 Submittal
Alabama's May 8, 2013 SIP submittal seeks to add to the Alabama SIP
elements of EPA's July 12, 2012 rule implementing Step 3 of the phase-
in of PSD permitting requirements for GHGs
[[Page 38663]]
described in the GHG Step 3 Rule by modifying a PAL provision at Rule
335-3-14-.04(23)(b)4.\7\ As explained in Section II above, a PAL
establishes a site-specific plantwide emission level for a pollutant
that allows the source to make changes to units at the facility without
triggering the requirements of the PSD program, provided that facility-
wide emissions do not exceed the PAL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ As discussed in Section I above, EPA is not acting on the
remaining portions of this submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal PSD regulations currently include PAL provisions that
apply to GHG-only, or Step 2, sources. However, some of these
provisions may no longer be applicable in light of the Supreme Court's
decision in UARG and the D.C. Circuit's Amended Judgment. The Supreme
Court determined that sources and modifications may not be defined as
``major'' solely on the basis of GHGs emitted or increased, and
consequently PALs for GHGs may no longer be authorized in instances in
which a source has triggered PSD based on GHG emissions alone. EPA has
proposed action in an October 3, 2016 proposed rule to clarify the GHG
PAL rules. See 81 FR 68110. However, PALs for GHGs may still have a
role to play in determining whether a source that is already subject to
PSD for a pollutant other than GHGs should also be subject to PSD for
GHGs. The existing GHG PALs regulations do not add new requirements for
sources or modifications that only emit or increase GHGs above the
major source threshold, or the 75,000 ton per year (tpy) GHG level in
40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(iv), but rather provide increased flexibility to
sources that wish to manage their GHG emissions by way of a PAL.
In its May 8, 2013 SIP submittal, Alabama seeks to modify the
definition of ``major emissions unit'' in its SIP-approved PAL
regulations by adding the phrase ``any emissions unit that has the
potential to emit 100,000 tons per year of GHG as CO2e.'' The State
subsequently revised this threshold from 100,000 tpy to 75,000 tpy as
part of its August 23, 2016 submittal, as discussed below. Given this
subsequent revision, the text that EPA is proposing to add to the SIP-
approved definition of ``major emissions unit'' at Rule 335-3-
14-.04(23)(b)4. reads as follows: ``any emissions unit that has the
potential to emit 75,000 tons per year of GHG as CO2e'' into the SIP-
approved definition of ``major emissions unit'' at Rule 335-3-
14-.04(23)(b)4.
EPA has preliminarily concluded that approving these changes into
the SIP will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171),
or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA discussed the
effects of PALs in the Supplemental Analysis of the Environmental
Impact of the 2002 Final NSR Improvement Rules (November 21, 2002)
(2002 Supplemental Analysis). The Supplemental Analysis explained,
``[t]he EPA expects that the adoption of PAL provisions will result in
a net environmental benefit. Our experience to date is that the
emissions caps found in PAL-type permits result in real emissions
reductions, as well as other benefits.'' Supplemental Analysis at 6;
see also 76 FR 49313, 49315 (August 10, 2011). EPA further discussed
the effects of PALs in the GHG Step 3 Rule, including the benefits of
GHG PALs. See 77 FR 41059-60. EPA is therefore proposing to approve the
changes to the PAL provisions into the Alabama SIP, as amended in the
August 23, 2016 submittal discussed below.
B. Alabama's August 23, 2016 Submittal
Alabama's August 23, 2016 SIP submittal makes further changes to
the State's PSD permitting regulation at Rule 335-3-14-.04. This
submittal revises the GHG PALs threshold in Rule 335-3-14-.04(23)(b)4
proposed in the May 8, 2013, submittal from 100,000 tpy to 75,000 tpy,
as mentioned in section III.A above.\8\ The SIP submittal also revises
the applicability of PSD for GHGs by removing language regulating GHG-
only (i.e., Step 2) sources in Rules 335-3-14-.04(1)(k) and 335-3-
14-.04(2)(a) to align with current federal requirements, as discussed
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ As discussed in Section I, above, EPA is not acting on the
remaining portions of this submittal. The submittal also withdraws
the change proposed to Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(zz) in the State's May
8, 2013 SIP submittal to address the Biomass Deferral Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama modifies its applicability language for GHGs to regulate
only ``anyway'' sources. The State revises Rule 335-3-14-.04(1)(k) in
its PSD applicability regulations and the definition of ``Major
Stationary Source'' at Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(a) by removing language
that would subject a source to PSD requirements through GHG emissions
alone. The proposed revision to subparagraph (2)(a) removes the
following text from the definition of ``major stationary source'':
``(iii) For GHGs, any stationary source which emits or has the
potential to emit: (I) GHGs on a total mass rate in accordance with
either subparagraph 2(a)1. or (2)(a)1.(i), and (II) GHGs of 100,000
tons per year or more CO2e.'' The proposed revision to Rule
335-3-14-.04(1)(k) replaces subparagraph (k) with the following text:
(k) Greenhouse gases (GHGs)
1. GHGs, as defined in Subparagraph (2)(zz) of this Rule,\9\
shall not be utilized in determining if a source is a major
stationary source, as defined in Subparagraph (2)(a) of this Rule,
or in determining if a modification is a major modification, as
defined in Subparagraph (2)(b) of this Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Subparagraph (2)(zz) defines ``greenhouse gases'' as ``the
aggregate of: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. GHGs shall only be subject to the requirements of this Rule
if:
(i) A new major stationary source or major modification causes a
significant emissions increase of GHGs, as defined in subparagraph
(2)(mm) of this rule,\10\ and a significant net emissions increase
of GHGs, as defined in subparagraphs (2)(c) and (2)(w) of this
rule,\11\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Pursuant to subparagraph (2)(mm), ``significant emissions
increase means, for a regulated NSR pollutant, an increase in
emissions that is significant (as defined in subparagraph (2)(w) of
this rule) for that pollutant.''
\11\ As it relates to GHGs, subparagraph (2)(w) defines
``significant,'' in reference to a net emissions increase or
potential to emit, at a rate of 75,000 tpy of GHGs on a CO2e basis.
This definition of ``significant'' was previously approved by EPA on
December 29, 2010. See 75 FR 81863.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) The new major stationary source or major modification is
required to obtain a permit subject to the requirements of this Rule
as a result of emissions of regulated NSR pollutants other than
GHGs.
Although these proposed changes to the Alabama SIP are structured
differently than EPA's federal rules, the primary practical effect of
both is the same: PSD requirements do not apply to GHG emissions from
an ``anyway source'' unless the source emits GHGs at or above the
75,000 tpy CO2e threshold.
EPA has preliminarily concluded that proposing approval of these
change into the SIP will not interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in
section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Step 2 of
the GHG Tailoring Rule was invalidated. As mentioned above, EPA
discussed the effects of PALs in the 2002 Supplemental Analysis and the
GHG Step 3 Rule.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing the
incorporation by reference of ADEM Administrative Code Rules 335-3-
14-.04(1)(k), 335-3-14-.04(2)(a)(ii), and 335-3-14-.04(b)4, state
effective on November 25, 2014. Therefore, EPA is proposing approval
for inclusion of these materials in Alabama's State implementation
plan. Once final, and these materials have been incorporated
[[Page 38664]]
by reference by EPA into that plan, they are fully Federally
enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective
date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\12\ EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact
the person identified in the ``For Further Information Contact''
section of this preamble for more information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the portions of Alabama's May 8, 2013
and August 23, 2016 SIP submittals that revise the PSD permitting
program at Rule 335-3-14-.04--``Air Permits Authorizing Construction in
Clean Areas (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD))'' by
removing language regulating GHG-only (i.e., Step 2) sources and by
adding language to the PAL provisions. EPA believes that these changes
are consistent with the requirements of the CAA.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 7, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-17220 Filed 8-14-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P