Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Regional Haze Progress Report, 64797-64803 [2018-27357]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Therefore, this rule must implement
RACT. In addition, the rule was
evaluated to ensure it met the
commitment made by the AVAQMD
that served as the basis for the partial
conditional approval of the AVAQMD
2006 and 2015 RACT SIPs with respect
to Rule 462 (82 FR 46923).
Guidance and policy documents that
we used to evaluate enforceability,
revision/relaxation and rule stringency
requirements for the applicable criteria
pollutants include the following:
1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans;
General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR
13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070
(April 28, 1992).
2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the
Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).
3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting
Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21,
2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Bulk Gasoline Plants,’’
EPA–450/2–77–035, December 1977.
5. ‘‘Control of Hydrocarbons from
Tank Truck Gasoline Loading
Terminals,’’ EPA–450/2–77–026,
October 1977.
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation
criteria?
This rule is consistent with CAA
requirements and relevant guidance
regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP
revisions, and meets the District’s
commitment to remedy the Rule 462
deficiency identified in the RACT SIP
conditional approval (82 FR 46923). The
TSD has more information on our
evaluation.
C. EPA Recommendations to Further
Improve the Rule
The TSD describes additional rule
revisions that we recommend for the
next time the local agency modifies the
rule.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
D. Public Comment and Proposed
Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of
the Act, the EPA proposes to fully
approve the submitted rule because it
fulfills all relevant requirements. We
will accept comments from the public
on this proposal until January 17, 2019.
If we take final action to approve the
submitted rule, our final action will
incorporate this rule into the federally
enforceable SIP.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Dec 17, 2018
Jkt 247001
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to
include in a final EPA rule regulatory
text that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
the AVAQMD rule described in Table 1
of this preamble. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these
materials available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region IX Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, 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, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. 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);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• 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);
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64797
• 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 Clean Air Act;
and
• does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the 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 and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 30, 2018.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2018–27362 Filed 12–17–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0544; FRL–9988–02–
Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Regional
Haze Progress Report
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of
Alabama through the Alabama
Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM) with a letter dated
June 26, 2018. Alabama’s SIP revision
(Progress Report) addresses
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act) and EPA’s rules that require
each state to submit periodic reports
describing progress towards reasonable
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM
18DEP1
64798
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
progress goals (RPGs) established for
regional haze and a determination of the
adequacy of the State’s existing SIP
addressing regional haze (regional haze
plan). EPA is proposing to approve
Alabama’s determination that the State’s
regional haze plan is adequate to meet
these RPGs for the first implementation
period covering through 2018 and
requires no substantive revision at this
time.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before January 8, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2018–0544 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: D.
Brad Akers, 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. Akers can be
reached via telephone at (404) 562–9089
or electronic mail at akers.brad@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
States are required to submit progress
reports that evaluate progress towards
the RPGs for each mandatory Class I
federal area 1 (Class I area) within the
state and for each Class I area outside
1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7472(a)). Listed at 40 CFR part 81 Subpart D.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Dec 17, 2018
Jkt 247001
the state which may be affected by
emissions from within the state. See 40
CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require
states to submit, at the same time as the
40 CFR 51.308(g) progress reports, a
determination of the adequacy of the
state’s existing regional haze plan. The
first progress report is due five years
after submittal of the initial regional
haze plan and must be submitted as a
SIP revision. Alabama submitted its
regional haze plan on July 15, 2008, as
later amended in a SIP revision
submitted on October 26, 2015.
Like many other states subject to the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),
Alabama relied on CAIR in its regional
haze plan to meet certain requirements
of EPA’s Regional Haze Rule, including
best available retrofit technology
(BART) requirements for emissions of
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) from certain electric generating
units (EGUs) in the State.2 This reliance
was consistent with EPA’s regulations at
the time that Alabama developed its
regional haze plan. See 70 FR 39104
(July 6, 2005). However, in 2008, the
United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C.
Circuit) remanded CAIR to EPA without
vacatur to preserve the environmental
benefits provided by CAIR. North
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178
(D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76
FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit’s
remand, EPA promulgated the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to
replace CAIR and issued Federal
Implementation Plans (FIPs) to
implement the rule in CSAPR-subject
states.3 Implementation of CSAPR was
scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012,
when CSAPR would have superseded
the CAIR program. However, numerous
parties filed petitions for review of
CSAPR, and at the end of 2011, the D.C.
Circuit issued an order staying CSAPR
pending resolution of the petitions and
directing EPA to continue to administer
CAIR. Order of December 30, 2011, in
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v.
EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11–1302.
On June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38515), EPA
finalized a limited approval of
Alabama’s regional haze plan as meeting
2 CAIR required certain states, including
Alabama, to reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX that
significantly contribute to downwind
nonattainment of the 1997 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) and ozone. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12,
2005).
3 CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO
2
and NOX emissions from EGUs in 27 states in the
Eastern United States that significantly contribute
to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5 and
ozone NAAQS, 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
some of the applicable regional haze
requirements as set forth in sections
169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40
CFR 51.300–308. Separately, in a June 7,
2012 (77 FR 33642), action, EPA
finalized a limited disapproval of
Alabama’s regional haze plan because of
deficiencies arising from the State’s
reliance on CAIR to satisfy certain
regional haze requirements. Also on
June 7, 2012, EPA promulgated FIPs to
replace reliance on CAIR with reliance
on CSAPR to address deficiencies in
CAIR-dependent regional haze plans of
several states, including Alabama’s
regional haze plan. Following additional
litigation and the lifting of the stay, EPA
began implementation of CSAPR on
January 1, 2015.
Certain CSAPR Phase 2 emissions
budgets were remanded to EPA for
reconsideration.4 However, the CSAPR
trading programs remained in effect and
all CSAPR emissions budgets likewise
remained in effect while EPA addressed
the remands. The remanded budgets
included the CSAPR Phase 2 SO2
emissions budget applicable to Alabama
units under the federal CSAPR SO2
Group 2 Trading Program. On October
26, 2015, Alabama submitted a SIP
revision to EPA which sought to adopt
CSAPR at the state level and to change
reliance from CAIR to CSAPR for certain
regional haze requirements. This
submittal also adopted the remanded
SO2 Phase 2 budget for the State. EPA
approved portions of the October 26,
2015, submittal on August 31, 2016 (81
FR 59869), including the adoption of
CSAPR unit requirements for SO2 and
NOX annual trading programs, thereby
replacing the FIP obligations in the State
for these two programs.5 The August 31,
2016, final rule also approved
Alabama’s adoption of the remanded
federal SO2 Phase 2 budget.
Subsequently, on May 19, 2017,
Alabama submitted a SIP revision to
address additional requirements for the
NOX ozone season requirements for
CSAPR. On October 6, 2017 (82 FR
46674), EPA approved Alabama’s
adoption of a state allowance trading
program to replace federal NOX ozone
season requirements under CSAPR,
thereby replacing the remainder of the
CSAPR FIP. On October 12, 2017, EPA
4 EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795
F.3d 118, 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
5 Large EGUs in Alabama were subject to
additional CSAPR FIP provisions requiring them to
participate in the federal CSAPR NOX ozone season
trading program. While Alabama’s October 26,
2015, SIP submittal also sought to replace the
CSAPR FIP requirements addressing Alabama units’
ozone-season NOX emissions, EPA did not act on
that portion of the SIP submittal until October 6,
2017, when it acted on Alabama’s May 19, 2017 SIP
revision. See 82 FR 46674.
E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM
18DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules
approved the regional haze portion of
Alabama’s October 26, 2015 (82 FR
47393), SIP submission to change
reliance from CAIR to CSAPR for certain
regional haze requirements and
converted EPA’s limited approval/
limited disapproval to a full approval.
On June 27, 2018,6 Alabama
submitted its Progress Report which,
among other things, details the progress
made in the first period toward
implementation of the long term
strategy outlined in the State’s regional
haze plan; the visibility improvement
measured at the Sipsey Wilderness Area
(the only Class I area within Alabama);
and a determination of the adequacy of
the State’s existing regional haze plan.
EPA is proposing to approve Alabama’s
June 26, 2018, Progress Report for the
reasons discussed below.
II. EPA’s Evaluation of Alabama’s
Progress Report and Adequacy
Determination
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
This section includes EPA’s analysis
of Alabama’s Progress Report and an
explanation of the basis for the Agency’s
proposed approval.
1. Control Measures
In its Progress Report, Alabama
summarizes the status of the emissions
reduction measures that were relied
upon by the State in its regional haze
plan and included in the final iteration
of the Visibility Improvement State and
Tribal Association of the Southeast
(VISTAS) regional haze emissions
inventory and RPG modeling used by
the State in developing its regional haze
plan. The measures include, among
other things, applicable federal
programs (e.g., mobile source rules,
Maximum Achievable Control
Technology standards), federal consent
agreements, and federal control
strategies for EGUs. Alabama also
reviewed the status of BART
requirements for the two BART-subject
sources for NOX and SO2 in the State—
Solutia, Inc., Decatur facility and
International Paper Company, Courtland
facility—and described several court
decisions addressing CAIR and CSAPR.7
As discussed in Section I of this
notice, a number of states, including
Alabama, submitted regional haze plans
that relied on CAIR to meet certain
regional haze requirements. EPA
finalized a limited disapproval of
Alabama’s 2008 regional haze plan due
to this reliance and promulgated a FIP
6 EPA notes that the cover letter was dated June
26, 2018. The submittal date is the date of receipt,
which was June 27, 2018.
7 Progress Report, pp. 9–11.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Dec 17, 2018
Jkt 247001
to replace the State’s reliance on CAIR
with reliance on CSAPR. Although a
number of parties challenged the
legality of CSAPR and the D.C. Circuit
initially vacated and remanded CSAPR
to EPA in EME Homer City Generation,
L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012),
the United States Supreme Court
reversed the D.C. Circuit’s decision on
April 29, 2014, and remanded the case
to the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining
issues in accordance with the high
court’s ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014).
On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed
CSAPR in most respects, and CSAPR is
now in effect. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118
(D.C. Cir. 2015). Because CSAPR should
result in greater emissions reductions of
SO2 and NOX than CAIR throughout the
affected region, EPA expects Alabama to
maintain and continue its progress
towards its RPGs for 2018 through
continued, and additional, SO2 and NOX
reductions. See generally 76 FR 48208
(August 8, 2011).
In the State’s 2008 regional haze plan
and Progress Report, Alabama focuses
its assessment on SO2 emissions from
EGUs because of VISTAS’ findings that
ammonium sulfate accounted for 69–87
percent of the visibility-impairing
pollution in the VISTAS states and
roughly 75 percent of the visibilityimpairing pollution at the Sipsey
Wilderness Area on the 20 percent
worst visibility days. Alabama
determined in its 2008 regional haze
plan that no additional controls for
sources in the State were needed to
make reasonable progress for SO2 during
the first implementation period.8 In its
regional haze plan, Alabama identified
19 Alabama EGUs at six facilities
located in the area of influence of
Alabama’s Class I area using the State’s
methodology for determining sources
eligible for a reasonable progress control
determination. Because these 19 EGUs
were subject to CAIR and the Sipsey
Wilderness Area was projected to
exceed the uniform rate of progress
during the first implementation period,
ADEM opted not to require any
additional emissions reductions for
reasonable progress for the first
implementation period.9 Alabama’s
Progress Report indicates that SO2
emissions from all in-state EGUs have
decreased by approximately 71 percent
from 2002 to 2012.
Because many states had not yet
defined their criteria for identifying
sources to evaluate for reasonable
progress at the time Alabama was
developing the State’s 2008 regional
haze plan, Alabama initially applied the
State’s criteria for identifying emissions
units eligible for a reasonable progress
control analysis as a screening tool to
identify Class I areas outside of the State
potentially impacted by Alabama
sources. Alabama identified the
following Class I areas as potentially
impacted by Alabama sources: Cohutta
Wilderness Area in Georgia; Joyce
Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area in
North Carolina; St. Marks Wilderness
Area in Florida; and Breton Wilderness
Area in Louisiana.10 Additionally,
North Carolina identified an Alabama
source (Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA)—Widows Creek) as meeting
North Carolina’s threshold for a
reasonable progress control evaluation
at one of its Class I areas (Joyce KilmerSlickrock Wilderness Area). Alabama
determined that there were no
additional controls that would be
reasonable to require of this source for
the first implementation period.
Alabama also consulted with Florida,
Georgia, and Louisiana and concluded
that no Alabama sources were identified
by these states as meeting their criteria
for a reasonable progress control
evaluation.11
EPA proposes to find that Alabama
has adequately addressed the applicable
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)
regarding the implementation status of
control measures because the State
described the implementation of
measures within Alabama, including
BART at BART-subject sources for NOX
and SO2.
2. Emissions Reductions
As discussed in Section II.A.1. of this
notice, Alabama focused its assessment
in its regional haze plan and Progress
Report on SO2 emissions from EGUs
because of VISTAS’ findings that
ammonium sulfate is the primary
component of visibility-impairing
pollution in the VISTAS states. In its
Progress Report, Alabama provides
2002, 2005, 2008, 2011, and 2012 SO2
emissions data from EPA’s Clean Air
Markets Division (CAMD) for EGUs in
the State. Actual SO2 emissions
reductions from 2002–2012 for these
Alabama EGUs (319,428 tons) have
already exceeded the projected SO2
emissions reductions from 2002 to 2018
estimated in Alabama’s regional haze
plan for these EGUs (312,397 tons).12
Alabama also includes cumulative
10 See
8 See
77 FR 11937, 11946 (February 28, 2012).
9 See 77 FR 11949 and Section 7.6 of Alabama’s
2008 regional haze plan.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64799
77 FR 11956.
77 FR 11956 and Appendix J of Alabama’s
2008 regional haze plan.
12 Progress Report, Figure 4, p. 14.
11 See
E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM
18DEP1
64800
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules
volatile organic compounds (VOC), fine
particulate matter (PM2.5), coarse
particulate matter (PM10), ammonia
(NH3), SO2, and NOX emissions data
from 2002, 2007, and 2011 for point
sources. For the five-year period
covered by the Progress Report, the 2011
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) was
the latest available inventory.13 This
data shows a decline in these emissions
over this time period and shows that the
SO2 reductions are greater than those
estimated for these units between 2002–
2018 in the State’s regional haze plan.
The emissions reductions identified by
Alabama are due, in part, to the
implementation of measures included in
the State’s regional haze plan.
EPA proposes to find that Alabama
has adequately addressed the applicable
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)
regarding emissions reductions because
the State identifies SO2 emissions
reductions from EGUs in Alabama, the
largest sources of SO2 emissions in the
State.
3. Visibility Conditions
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g) require that states with Class
I areas within their borders provide
information on current visibility
conditions and the difference between
current visibility conditions and
baseline visibility conditions expressed
in terms of five-year averages of these
annual values.
Alabama’s Progress Report provides
visibility monitoring data for the Sipsey
Wilderness Area. Alabama reported
current visibility conditions as the
2009–2013 five-year time period and
used the 2000–2004 baseline period for
the State’s Class I area.14 Alabama also
provided 20 percent worst day and 20
percent best day visibility data for each
year from 2004–2013 in terms of fiveyear averages. Table 1 shows the
visibility conditions for the 2009–2013
five-year time period, the difference
between the current visibility
conditions and baseline visibility
conditions, and the RPGs for the Sipsey
Wilderness Area in the State’s 2008
regional haze plan.
TABLE 1—BASELINE VISIBILITY, RPGS, AND CURRENT VISIBILITY IN ALABAMA’S CLASS I AREA
[Deciviews]
Baseline
(2000–2004)
Class I area
RPGs
(2018)
Current
(2009–2013)
20 Percent Best Days
Sipsey Wilderness Area ..............................................................................................................
15.6
14.22
12.82
29.0
23.53
22.91
20 Percent Worst Days
Sipsey Wilderness Area ..............................................................................................................
As shown in Table 1, the Sipsey
Wilderness Area saw an improvement
in visibility between baseline and the
2009–2013 time period.15
EPA proposes to find that Alabama
has adequately addressed the applicable
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)
regarding visibility conditions because
the State provided baseline visibility
conditions, visibility conditions for the
2009–2013 five-year time period, the
difference between these sets of
visibility conditions, and five-year
visibility averages at the Sipsey
Wilderness Area from 2004–2013.
4. Emissions Tracking
In its Progress Report, Alabama
presents data from a statewide actual
emissions inventory for 2007, developed
through the Southeastern Modeling,
Analysis and Planning (SEMAP)
partnership and compares this data to
the baseline emissions inventory for
2002 (actual emissions). The pollutants
inventoried include: VOC, NH3, NOX,
PM2.5, PM10, and SO2. The emissions
inventories include the following source
classifications: Point, area, biogenic
(e.g., VOC from vegetation, emissions
from fires), non-road mobile, and onroad mobile sources. As discussed in
Section II.A.2, above, Alabama also
presented 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011, and
2012 SO2 data for EGUs in Alabama and
2011 emissions for point sources in
Alabama.
SEMAP estimated on-road mobile
source emissions in the 2007 inventory
using EPA’s MOVES model. This model
tends to estimate higher emissions for
NOX and particulate matter than its
previous counterpart, EPA’s MOBILE6.2
model, used by the State to estimate onroad mobile source emissions for the
2002 inventories. Due in part to the
change in methodology, there are
increases in NOX, PM2.5 and PM10, in
the 2007 actual on-road emissions,
while VOC, NH3 and SO2 mobile
emissions show decreases from the
actual 2002 emissions, as can be seen
when comparing Tables 2 and 3. Apart
from this, decreases in total pollutant
emissions can be seen for each pollutant
potentially impacting visibility.
Additionally, ADEM included the
2011 point source actual emissions
inventory from the 2011 NEI, Version 2,
included in Table 4, below. The actual
point source emissions in 2011 showed
significant reductions for all pollutants
when compared to both the 2002 and
2007 inventories. These point source
emissions have already exceeded the
reductions expected in the 2018
projected year inventory, which can be
seen in Table 5, below.
TABLE 2—2002 ACTUAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR ALABAMA
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
[tpy]
Source category
VOC
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
49,323
209,200
13 See the EPA’s website for additional data and
documentation for the 2011 version of the NEI
(https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/
2011-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Dec 17, 2018
Jkt 247001
PM2.5
NOX
238,007
34,900
23,353
101,442
14 For the first regional haze plans, ‘‘baseline’’
conditions were represented by the 2000–2004 time
period. See 64 FR 35730 (July 1, 1999).
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
PM10
NH3
33,084
444,259
15 Progress
E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM
2,121
60,275
Report, Table 3, p. 15.
18DEP1
SO2
520,217
54,812
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules
64801
TABLE 2—2002 ACTUAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR ALABAMA—Continued
[tpy]
Source category
VOC
PM2.5
NOX
PM10
NH3
SO2
On-Road Mobile .......................................
Non-Road Mobile .....................................
Biogenic ...................................................
137,086
60,487
1,751,809
170,047
65,366
14,873
3,006
4,526
0
4,188
4,949
0
5,968
33
0
7,386
7,584
0
Total ..................................................
2,207,904
523,191
132,328
486,481
68,397
590,000
TABLE 3—2007 ACTUAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR ALABAMA
[tpy]
Source category
VOC
PM2.5
NOX
PM10
NH3
SO2
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................
Non-Road Mobile .....................................
Biogenic ...................................................
38,877
79,030
77,078
52,230
1,745,263
197,963
3,940
172,668
63,588
9,785
24,930
41,587
5,887
4,121
0
34,776
349,981
7,861
4,424
0
2,191
62,426
2,823
46
0
526,620
431
1,509
3,469
0
Total ..................................................
1,992,478
447,944
76,525
397,042
67,486
532,029
TABLE 4—2011 ACTUAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY OF POINT SOURCES FOR ALABAMA
[tpy] 16
Source category
VOC
Point .........................................................
NOX
26,077
PM2.5
121,962
11,124
PM10
NH3
17,093
1,874
SO2
245,802
TABLE 5—2018 PROJECTED ACTUAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY OF POINT SOURCES FOR ALABAMA
[tpy] 17 18
Source category
VOC
Point .........................................................
57,243
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
EPA is proposing to find that Alabama
adequately addressed the provisions of
40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions
tracking because the State compared the
most recent updated emission inventory
data for the five-year period covered by
the Progress Report with the baseline
emissions used in the modeling for the
regional haze plan. Furthermore,
Alabama evaluated EPA Air Markets
Program Data 19 SO2 emissions data
from 2002–2012 for EGUs in the State
because ammonium sulfate is the
primary component of visibilityimpairing pollution in the VISTAS
16 ADEM included the entire 2011 emissions
inventory summary in Appendix A of its Progress
Report. This inventory shows decreases in total
emissions for all pollutants since 2002 and 2007.
17 See Section 7 of Alabama’s 2008 regional haze
plan and page 18 of the Progress Report for the
complete inventory.
18 The Progress Report lists SO projected 2018
2
point source emissions as 418,486 tpy. This is an
error in carrying over information from the 2008
Alabama regional haze plan. The correct value is
provided in Table 5. See Table 7.2.3–2 of the 2008
regional haze plan, p. 52 and 77 FR 11945.
19 EPA Air Markets Program Data is available at:
https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Dec 17, 2018
Jkt 247001
NOX
PM2.5
142,676
27,366
PM10
NH3
37,746
3,536
SO2
249,075
examines other potential pollutants of
concern affecting visibility at the Sipsey
Wilderness Area. Furthermore, the
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding
Progress Report shows that visibility
Visibility Progress
averages for the five-year period 2009–
In its Progress Report, Alabama
2013 are better than the 2018 RPGs for
documented that sulfates, which are
the Sipsey Wilderness Area and that
formed from SO2 emissions, continue to SO2 emissions reductions from 2002–
be the biggest single contributor to
2012 for EGUs in Alabama have
regional haze for the Sipsey Wilderness
exceeded the projected reductions from
Area, and therefore focused its analysis
2002–2018 in the regional haze plan.
on large SO2 emissions from point
EPA proposes to find that Alabama
sources.20 In its 2008 regional haze plan, has adequately addressed the provisions
Alabama notes that sulfates account for
of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding an
75 percent of the visibility impairment
assessment of significant changes in
on the 20 percent worst days and 50
anthropogenic emissions for the reasons
percent of visibility impairment on the
discussed above.
20 percent best days over the 2000–2004
6. Assessment of Current Strategy
period. In addressing the requirements
Alabama believes that it is on track to
at 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), Alabama shows
meet the 2018 RPGs for the Sipsey
in the Progress Report that the overall
contribution of sulfates toward visibility Wilderness Area, and that the State’s
sources will not impede Class I areas
impairment has been reduced to 64
outside of Alabama from meeting their
percent over the 2008–2012 period for
the 20 percent worst days and remained RPGs based on the trends in visibility
and emissions presented in its Progress
approximately the same for the 20
Report. Alabama notes that the
percent best days. Alabama also
Interagency Monitoring of Protected
20 See Figures 9 and 10 in the Progress Report.
Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
states, and EGUs are the largest source
of SO2 in the State.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM
18DEP1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
64802
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules
visibility readings for 2009–2013
generally show greater improvements in
visibility than projected by the State in
establishing the 2018 RPGs for the
Sipsey Wilderness Area and that SO2
emissions from coal-fired EGUs in the
State have decreased from 2002–2012 by
more than the predicted decline in SO2
emissions from these sources for the
first implementation period in
Alabama’s 2008 regional haze plan.
Alabama expects that these emissions
will continue to decrease through the
first regional haze implementation
period.
As discussed above, Alabama
identified the following Class I areas as
potentially impacted by Alabama
sources: Cohutta Wilderness Area in
Georgia; Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock
Wilderness Area in North Carolina; St.
Marks Wilderness Area in Florida; and
Breton Wilderness Area in Louisiana. In
its Progress Report, Alabama notes that
it has evaluated IMPROVE monitoring
data from 2009–2013 for these Class I
areas and that the trend for each of these
areas is at or below the glidepath.21 The
State concludes that given expected
continued emission reductions, the
trends for those areas should continue,
and no additional controls are needed at
this time to meet RPGs.
Alabama notes that it consulted with
other states during the development of
its 2008 regional haze plan, including
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and North
Carolina. Of these states, North Carolina
identified one unit in Alabama—TVA
Widows Creek—as meeting North
Carolina’s criteria for a reasonable
progress control evaluation and asked
Alabama to share its reasonable progress
control evaluation for this unit.
Alabama determined that because this
unit was subject to CAIR and had a
scrubber installed, no additional
controls were reasonable for this period.
See 77 FR 11956. The State reiterates
that after consultation with each of
these states, Alabama was not requested
to further evaluate any source relative to
a regional Class I area. Additionally, the
State did not request any out-of-state
source to evaluate impacts on the Sipsey
Wilderness Area because no source met
the State’s criteria for a reasonable
progress analysis.
The State notes that, considering the
trends in visibility in the IMPROVE
network, and given SO2 reductions
achieved, it is reasonable to assume that
these conclusions still stand for the
purposes of the Progress Report.
21 The ‘‘glidepath’’ is the rate of progress needed
to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 (also
referred to as the ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’). See
77 FR 11940.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Dec 17, 2018
Jkt 247001
As discussed above, CAIR was
implemented during the time period
evaluated by ADEM for its Progress
Report, CAIR has been replaced by
CSAPR, and the requirements of CSAPR
apply to sources in Alabama through the
State’s implementation plan. Alabama’s
fully approved regional haze plan,
which now relies on CSAPR rather than
CAIR, accordingly contains sufficient
provisions to ensure that the RPGs of
Class I areas in nearby states will be
achieved.
EPA proposes to find that Alabama
has adequately addressed the provisions
of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the
strategy assessment. In its Progress
Report, Alabama describes the
improving visibility trends using data
from the IMPROVE network and the
downward emissions trends in key
pollutants, with a focus on SO2
emissions from EGUs in the State.
ADEM determined that its regional haze
plan is sufficient to meet the RPGs for
its own Class I area and the Class I areas
outside the State potentially impacted
by the emissions from Alabama. EPA
preliminarily finds that Alabama’s
conclusion regarding the sufficiency of
its regional haze plan is appropriate
because CAIR was in effect in Alabama
through 2014, providing the emission
reductions relied upon in Alabama’s
regional haze plan through that date.
CSAPR is now being implemented, and
by 2018, the end of the first regional
haze implementation period, CSAPR
will reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX
from EGUs in Alabama by the same
amount assumed by EPA when the
Agency originally issued the FIP for the
State in June 2012, replacing reliance on
CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. Because
CSAPR, now adopted and implemented
at the state level, will ensure the control
of SO2 and NOX emissions reductions
relied upon by Alabama and other states
in setting their RPGs beginning in
January 2015 at least through the
remainder of the first implementation
period in 2018, EPA is proposing to
approve Alabama’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.
7. Review of Current Monitoring
Strategy
In its Progress Report, Alabama
summarizes the existing monitoring
network in the State to monitor
visibility at the Sipsey Wilderness Area
and concludes that no modifications to
the existing visibility monitoring
strategy are necessary. The primary
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
monitoring network for regional haze,
both nationwide and in Alabama, is the
IMPROVE network. There is currently
one IMPROVE site located in the Sipsey
Wilderness Area.
The State explains the importance of
the IMPROVE monitoring network for
tracking visibility trends at the Class I
area in Alabama. ADEM states that data
produced by the IMPROVE monitoring
network will be used for preparing the
regional haze progress reports and SIP
revisions, and thus, the monitoring data
from the IMPROVE sites needs to be
readily accessible and to be kept up to
date. The Visibility Information
Exchange Web System website has been
maintained by VISTAS and the other
Regional Planning Organizations to
provide ready access to the IMPROVE
data and data analysis tools.
In addition, ADEM operates a PM2.5
network of filter-based federal reference
method monitors and filter-based
speciation monitors. These PM2.5
measurements help ADEM characterize
air pollution levels in areas across the
State, and therefore aid in the analysis
of visibility improvement in and near
the Sipsey Wilderness Area.22
EPA proposes to find that Alabama
has adequately addressed the applicable
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)
regarding the 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 the
Existing Regional Haze Plan
In its Progress Report, ADEM
submitted a negative 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 State’s negative declaration
is based on the findings from the
Progress Report, including the findings
that: Visibility has already improved at
the Sipsey Wilderness Area in Alabama
such that the visibility averages for the
five-year period 2009–2013 are better
than the RPGs for 2018; actual SO2
emissions reductions from coal-fired
EGUs in Alabama exceed the predicted
reductions in ADEM’s 2008 regional
haze plan; additional EGU control
measures not relied upon in the State’s
2008 regional haze plan have occurred
or will occur during the first
implementation period that will further
reduce SO2 emissions; and emissions of
SO2 from EGUs in Alabama are expected
to continue to trend downward.
22 See
E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM
Figure 11 in the Progress Report, p. 24.
18DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules
EPA proposes to conclude that
Alabama has adequately addressed 40
CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility
trends at the Sipsey Wilderness Area
and at Class I areas outside of the State
potentially impacted by sources within
Alabama 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
Alabama’s June 26, 2018, Regional Haze
Progress Report as meeting the
applicable regional haze requirements
set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and
51.308(h).
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
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. This 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);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• 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);
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Dec 17, 2018
Jkt 247001
• 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 dioxide, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 6, 2018.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018–27357 Filed 12–17–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and
Families
45 CFR Parts 302, 303, 307, and 309
RIN 0970–AC50
Child Support Technical Corrections
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Office of Child Support
Enforcement (OCSE), Administration for
Children and Families (ACF),
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;
delay of compliance date.
AGENCY:
The Office of Child Support
Enforcement proposes to eliminate
regulations rendered outdated or
unnecessary and make technical
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64803
amendments to the Flexibility,
Efficiency, and Modernization in Child
Support Enforcement (FEM) final rule,
published on December 20, 2016,
including proposing to amend the
compliance date for review and
adjustment of child support orders. We
are also proposing conforming
amendments to the regulations as a
result of Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018,
Public Law 115–123.
DATES: In order to be considered, we
must receive written comments on this
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
on or before January 17, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by [docket number and/or
Regulatory Information Number (RIN)
number], by one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Written comments may be
submitted to: Office of Child Support
Enforcement, Attention: Director of
Policy and Training, 330 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20201.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number or RIN for this
rulemaking. All comments received will
be posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tricia John, Division of Policy and
Training, OCSE, telephone (202) 260–
7143. Email inquiries to ocse.dpt@
acf.hhs.gov. Deaf and hearing impaired
individuals may call the Federal Dual
Party Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339
between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submission of Comments
Comments should be specific, address
issues raised by the proposed rule,
propose alternatives where appropriate,
explain reasons for any objections or
recommended changes, and reference
the specific action of the proposed rule
that is being addressed. Additionally,
we will be interested in comments that
indicate agreement with changed or new
proposals. We will not acknowledge
receipt of the comments we receive.
However, we will review and consider
all comments that are germane and are
received during the comment period.
We will respond to these comments in
the preamble to the Final Rule.
Statutory Authority
This NPRM is published under the
authority granted to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services by section
E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM
18DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 18, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64797-64803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27357]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0544; FRL-9988-02-Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Regional Haze Progress Report
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Alabama through the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM) with a letter dated June 26, 2018. Alabama's SIP
revision (Progress Report) addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that require each state to submit periodic
reports describing progress towards reasonable
[[Page 64798]]
progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination
of the adequacy of the State's existing SIP addressing regional haze
(regional haze plan). EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's
determination that the State's regional haze plan is adequate to meet
these RPGs for the first implementation period covering through 2018
and requires no substantive revision at this time.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 8, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0544 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: D. Brad Akers, 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. Akers can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9089 or
electronic mail at akers.brad@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
States are required to submit progress reports that evaluate
progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I federal area \1\
(Class I area) within the state and for each Class I area outside the
state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. See 40
CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require
states to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress
reports, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing
regional haze plan. The first progress report is due five years after
submittal of the initial regional haze plan and must be submitted as a
SIP revision. Alabama submitted its regional haze plan on July 15,
2008, as later amended in a SIP revision submitted on October 26, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
Listed at 40 CFR part 81 Subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like many other states subject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR), Alabama relied on CAIR in its regional haze plan to meet
certain requirements of EPA's Regional Haze Rule, including best
available retrofit technology (BART) requirements for emissions of
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)
from certain electric generating units (EGUs) in the State.\2\ This
reliance was consistent with EPA's regulations at the time that Alabama
developed its regional haze plan. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).
However, in 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur
to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR. North Carolina
v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR
48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace CAIR and issued Federal
Implementation Plans (FIPs) to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject
states.\3\ Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1,
2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR program. However,
numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR, and at the end of
2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order staying CSAPR pending resolution
of the petitions and directing EPA to continue to administer CAIR.
Order of December 30, 2011, in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA,
D.C. Cir. No. 11-1302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ CAIR required certain states, including Alabama, to reduce
emissions of SO2 and NOX that significantly
contribute to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) and ozone. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
\3\ CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO2 and
NOX emissions from EGUs in 27 states in the Eastern
United States that significantly contribute to downwind
nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS, 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38515), EPA finalized a limited approval of
Alabama's regional haze plan as meeting some of the applicable regional
haze requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and
in 40 CFR 51.300-308. Separately, in a June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642),
action, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of Alabama's regional haze
plan because of deficiencies arising from the State's reliance on CAIR
to satisfy certain regional haze requirements. Also on June 7, 2012,
EPA promulgated FIPs to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR
to address deficiencies in CAIR-dependent regional haze plans of
several states, including Alabama's regional haze plan. Following
additional litigation and the lifting of the stay, EPA began
implementation of CSAPR on January 1, 2015.
Certain CSAPR Phase 2 emissions budgets were remanded to EPA for
reconsideration.\4\ However, the CSAPR trading programs remained in
effect and all CSAPR emissions budgets likewise remained in effect
while EPA addressed the remands. The remanded budgets included the
CSAPR Phase 2 SO2 emissions budget applicable to Alabama
units under the federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program.
On October 26, 2015, Alabama submitted a SIP revision to EPA which
sought to adopt CSAPR at the state level and to change reliance from
CAIR to CSAPR for certain regional haze requirements. This submittal
also adopted the remanded SO2 Phase 2 budget for the State.
EPA approved portions of the October 26, 2015, submittal on August 31,
2016 (81 FR 59869), including the adoption of CSAPR unit requirements
for SO2 and NOX annual trading programs, thereby
replacing the FIP obligations in the State for these two programs.\5\
The August 31, 2016, final rule also approved Alabama's adoption of the
remanded federal SO2 Phase 2 budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 138
(D.C. Cir. 2015).
\5\ Large EGUs in Alabama were subject to additional CSAPR FIP
provisions requiring them to participate in the federal CSAPR
NOX ozone season trading program. While Alabama's October
26, 2015, SIP submittal also sought to replace the CSAPR FIP
requirements addressing Alabama units' ozone-season NOX
emissions, EPA did not act on that portion of the SIP submittal
until October 6, 2017, when it acted on Alabama's May 19, 2017 SIP
revision. See 82 FR 46674.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, on May 19, 2017, Alabama submitted a SIP revision to
address additional requirements for the NOX ozone season
requirements for CSAPR. On October 6, 2017 (82 FR 46674), EPA approved
Alabama's adoption of a state allowance trading program to replace
federal NOX ozone season requirements under CSAPR, thereby
replacing the remainder of the CSAPR FIP. On October 12, 2017, EPA
[[Page 64799]]
approved the regional haze portion of Alabama's October 26, 2015 (82 FR
47393), SIP submission to change reliance from CAIR to CSAPR for
certain regional haze requirements and converted EPA's limited
approval/limited disapproval to a full approval.
On June 27, 2018,\6\ Alabama submitted its Progress Report which,
among other things, details the progress made in the first period
toward implementation of the long term strategy outlined in the State's
regional haze plan; the visibility improvement measured at the Sipsey
Wilderness Area (the only Class I area within Alabama); and a
determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze
plan. EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's June 26, 2018, Progress
Report for the reasons discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA notes that the cover letter was dated June 26, 2018. The
submittal date is the date of receipt, which was June 27, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. EPA's Evaluation of Alabama's Progress Report and Adequacy
Determination
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
This section includes EPA's analysis of Alabama's Progress Report
and an explanation of the basis for the Agency's proposed approval.
1. Control Measures
In its Progress Report, Alabama summarizes the status of the
emissions reduction measures that were relied upon by the State in its
regional haze plan and included in the final iteration of the
Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast
(VISTAS) regional haze emissions inventory and RPG modeling used by the
State in developing its regional haze plan. The measures include, among
other things, applicable federal programs (e.g., mobile source rules,
Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards), federal consent
agreements, and federal control strategies for EGUs. Alabama also
reviewed the status of BART requirements for the two BART-subject
sources for NOX and SO2 in the State--Solutia,
Inc., Decatur facility and International Paper Company, Courtland
facility--and described several court decisions addressing CAIR and
CSAPR.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Progress Report, pp. 9-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section I of this notice, a number of states,
including Alabama, submitted regional haze plans that relied on CAIR to
meet certain regional haze requirements. EPA finalized a limited
disapproval of Alabama's 2008 regional haze plan due to this reliance
and promulgated a FIP to replace the State's reliance on CAIR with
reliance on CSAPR. Although a number of parties challenged the legality
of CSAPR and the D.C. Circuit initially vacated and remanded CSAPR to
EPA in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir.
2012), the United States Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's
decision on April 29, 2014, and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit
to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the high court's ruling.
EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On
remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects, and CSAPR is
now in effect. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118
(D.C. Cir. 2015). Because CSAPR should result in greater emissions
reductions of SO2 and NOX than CAIR throughout
the affected region, EPA expects Alabama to maintain and continue its
progress towards its RPGs for 2018 through continued, and additional,
SO2 and NOX reductions. See generally 76 FR 48208
(August 8, 2011).
In the State's 2008 regional haze plan and Progress Report, Alabama
focuses its assessment on SO2 emissions from EGUs because of
VISTAS' findings that ammonium sulfate accounted for 69-87 percent of
the visibility-impairing pollution in the VISTAS states and roughly 75
percent of the visibility-impairing pollution at the Sipsey Wilderness
Area on the 20 percent worst visibility days. Alabama determined in its
2008 regional haze plan that no additional controls for sources in the
State were needed to make reasonable progress for SO2 during
the first implementation period.\8\ In its regional haze plan, Alabama
identified 19 Alabama EGUs at six facilities located in the area of
influence of Alabama's Class I area using the State's methodology for
determining sources eligible for a reasonable progress control
determination. Because these 19 EGUs were subject to CAIR and the
Sipsey Wilderness Area was projected to exceed the uniform rate of
progress during the first implementation period, ADEM opted not to
require any additional emissions reductions for reasonable progress for
the first implementation period.\9\ Alabama's Progress Report indicates
that SO2 emissions from all in-state EGUs have decreased by
approximately 71 percent from 2002 to 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 77 FR 11937, 11946 (February 28, 2012).
\9\ See 77 FR 11949 and Section 7.6 of Alabama's 2008 regional
haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because many states had not yet defined their criteria for
identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress at the time
Alabama was developing the State's 2008 regional haze plan, Alabama
initially applied the State's criteria for identifying emissions units
eligible for a reasonable progress control analysis as a screening tool
to identify Class I areas outside of the State potentially impacted by
Alabama sources. Alabama identified the following Class I areas as
potentially impacted by Alabama sources: Cohutta Wilderness Area in
Georgia; Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area in North Carolina; St.
Marks Wilderness Area in Florida; and Breton Wilderness Area in
Louisiana.\10\ Additionally, North Carolina identified an Alabama
source (Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)--Widows Creek) as meeting
North Carolina's threshold for a reasonable progress control evaluation
at one of its Class I areas (Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area).
Alabama determined that there were no additional controls that would be
reasonable to require of this source for the first implementation
period. Alabama also consulted with Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana and
concluded that no Alabama sources were identified by these states as
meeting their criteria for a reasonable progress control
evaluation.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 77 FR 11956.
\11\ See 77 FR 11956 and Appendix J of Alabama's 2008 regional
haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that Alabama has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the
implementation status of control measures because the State described
the implementation of measures within Alabama, including BART at BART-
subject sources for NOX and SO2.
2. Emissions Reductions
As discussed in Section II.A.1. of this notice, Alabama focused its
assessment in its regional haze plan and Progress Report on
SO2 emissions from EGUs because of VISTAS' findings that
ammonium sulfate is the primary component of visibility-impairing
pollution in the VISTAS states. In its Progress Report, Alabama
provides 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011, and 2012 SO2 emissions data
from EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) for EGUs in the State.
Actual SO2 emissions reductions from 2002-2012 for these
Alabama EGUs (319,428 tons) have already exceeded the projected
SO2 emissions reductions from 2002 to 2018 estimated in
Alabama's regional haze plan for these EGUs (312,397 tons).\12\ Alabama
also includes cumulative
[[Page 64800]]
volatile organic compounds (VOC), fine particulate matter
(PM2.5), coarse particulate matter (PM10),
ammonia (NH3), SO2, and NOX emissions
data from 2002, 2007, and 2011 for point sources. For the five-year
period covered by the Progress Report, the 2011 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) was the latest available inventory.\13\ This data shows
a decline in these emissions over this time period and shows that the
SO2 reductions are greater than those estimated for these
units between 2002-2018 in the State's regional haze plan. The
emissions reductions identified by Alabama are due, in part, to the
implementation of measures included in the State's regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Progress Report, Figure 4, p. 14.
\13\ See the EPA's website for additional data and documentation
for the 2011 version of the NEI (https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2011-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that Alabama has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions
reductions because the State identifies SO2 emissions
reductions from EGUs in Alabama, the largest sources of SO2
emissions in the State.
3. Visibility Conditions
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) require that states with
Class I areas within their borders provide information on current
visibility conditions and the difference between current visibility
conditions and baseline visibility conditions expressed in terms of
five-year averages of these annual values.
Alabama's Progress Report provides visibility monitoring data for
the Sipsey Wilderness Area. Alabama reported current visibility
conditions as the 2009-2013 five-year time period and used the 2000-
2004 baseline period for the State's Class I area.\14\ Alabama also
provided 20 percent worst day and 20 percent best day visibility data
for each year from 2004-2013 in terms of five-year averages. Table 1
shows the visibility conditions for the 2009-2013 five-year time
period, the difference between the current visibility conditions and
baseline visibility conditions, and the RPGs for the Sipsey Wilderness
Area in the State's 2008 regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For the first regional haze plans, ``baseline'' conditions
were represented by the 2000-2004 time period. See 64 FR 35730 (July
1, 1999).
Table 1--Baseline Visibility, RPGs, and Current Visibility in Alabama's Class I Area
[Deciviews]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (2000- Current (2009-
Class I area 2004) RPGs (2018) 2013)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 Percent Best Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sipsey Wilderness Area.......................................... 15.6 14.22 12.82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 Percent Worst Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sipsey Wilderness Area.......................................... 29.0 23.53 22.91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 1, the Sipsey Wilderness Area saw an improvement
in visibility between baseline and the 2009-2013 time period.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Progress Report, Table 3, p. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that Alabama has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding visibility
conditions because the State provided baseline visibility conditions,
visibility conditions for the 2009-2013 five-year time period, the
difference between these sets of visibility conditions, and five-year
visibility averages at the Sipsey Wilderness Area from 2004-2013.
4. Emissions Tracking
In its Progress Report, Alabama presents data from a statewide
actual emissions inventory for 2007, developed through the Southeastern
Modeling, Analysis and Planning (SEMAP) partnership and compares this
data to the baseline emissions inventory for 2002 (actual emissions).
The pollutants inventoried include: VOC, NH3,
NOX, PM2.5, PM10, and SO2.
The emissions inventories include the following source classifications:
Point, area, biogenic (e.g., VOC from vegetation, emissions from
fires), non-road mobile, and on-road mobile sources. As discussed in
Section II.A.2, above, Alabama also presented 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011,
and 2012 SO2 data for EGUs in Alabama and 2011 emissions for
point sources in Alabama.
SEMAP estimated on-road mobile source emissions in the 2007
inventory using EPA's MOVES model. This model tends to estimate higher
emissions for NOX and particulate matter than its previous
counterpart, EPA's MOBILE6.2 model, used by the State to estimate on-
road mobile source emissions for the 2002 inventories. Due in part to
the change in methodology, there are increases in NOX,
PM2.5 and PM10, in the 2007 actual on-road
emissions, while VOC, NH3 and SO2 mobile
emissions show decreases from the actual 2002 emissions, as can be seen
when comparing Tables 2 and 3. Apart from this, decreases in total
pollutant emissions can be seen for each pollutant potentially
impacting visibility.
Additionally, ADEM included the 2011 point source actual emissions
inventory from the 2011 NEI, Version 2, included in Table 4, below. The
actual point source emissions in 2011 showed significant reductions for
all pollutants when compared to both the 2002 and 2007 inventories.
These point source emissions have already exceeded the reductions
expected in the 2018 projected year inventory, which can be seen in
Table 5, below.
Table 2--2002 Actual Emissions Inventory Summary for Alabama
[tpy]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 49,323 238,007 23,353 33,084 2,121 520,217
Area.................................................... 209,200 34,900 101,442 444,259 60,275 54,812
[[Page 64801]]
On-Road Mobile.......................................... 137,086 170,047 3,006 4,188 5,968 7,386
Non-Road Mobile......................................... 60,487 65,366 4,526 4,949 33 7,584
Biogenic................................................ 1,751,809 14,873 0 0 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 2,207,904 523,191 132,328 486,481 68,397 590,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--2007 Actual Emissions Inventory Summary for Alabama
[tpy]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 38,877 197,963 24,930 34,776 2,191 526,620
Area.................................................... 79,030 3,940 41,587 349,981 62,426 431
On-Road Mobile.......................................... 77,078 172,668 5,887 7,861 2,823 1,509
Non-Road Mobile......................................... 52,230 63,588 4,121 4,424 46 3,469
Biogenic................................................ 1,745,263 9,785 0 0 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 1,992,478 447,944 76,525 397,042 67,486 532,029
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--2011 Actual Emissions Inventory Summary of Point Sources for Alabama
[tpy] \16\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 26,077 121,962 11,124 17,093 1,874 245,802
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--2018 Projected Actual Emissions Inventory Summary of Point Sources for Alabama
[tpy] 17 18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 57,243 142,676 27,366 37,746 3,536 249,075
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to find that Alabama adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions tracking because the
State compared the most recent updated emission inventory data for the
five-year period covered by the Progress Report with the baseline
emissions used in the modeling for the regional haze plan. Furthermore,
Alabama evaluated EPA Air Markets Program Data \19\ SO2
emissions data from 2002-2012 for EGUs in the State because ammonium
sulfate is the primary component of visibility-impairing pollution in
the VISTAS states, and EGUs are the largest source of SO2 in
the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ADEM included the entire 2011 emissions inventory summary
in Appendix A of its Progress Report. This inventory shows decreases
in total emissions for all pollutants since 2002 and 2007.
\17\ See Section 7 of Alabama's 2008 regional haze plan and page
18 of the Progress Report for the complete inventory.
\18\ The Progress Report lists SO2 projected 2018
point source emissions as 418,486 tpy. This is an error in carrying
over information from the 2008 Alabama regional haze plan. The
correct value is provided in Table 5. See Table 7.2.3-2 of the 2008
regional haze plan, p. 52 and 77 FR 11945.
\19\ EPA Air Markets Program Data is available at: https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
In its Progress Report, Alabama documented that sulfates, which are
formed from SO2 emissions, continue to be the biggest single
contributor to regional haze for the Sipsey Wilderness Area, and
therefore focused its analysis on large SO2 emissions from
point sources.\20\ In its 2008 regional haze plan, Alabama notes that
sulfates account for 75 percent of the visibility impairment on the 20
percent worst days and 50 percent of visibility impairment on the 20
percent best days over the 2000-2004 period. In addressing the
requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), Alabama shows in the Progress
Report that the overall contribution of sulfates toward visibility
impairment has been reduced to 64 percent over the 2008-2012 period for
the 20 percent worst days and remained approximately the same for the
20 percent best days. Alabama also examines other potential pollutants
of concern affecting visibility at the Sipsey Wilderness Area.
Furthermore, the Progress Report shows that visibility averages for the
five-year period 2009-2013 are better than the 2018 RPGs for the Sipsey
Wilderness Area and that SO2 emissions reductions from 2002-
2012 for EGUs in Alabama have exceeded the projected reductions from
2002-2018 in the regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Figures 9 and 10 in the Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that Alabama has adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding an assessment of significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions for the reasons discussed above.
6. Assessment of Current Strategy
Alabama believes that it is on track to meet the 2018 RPGs for the
Sipsey Wilderness Area, and that the State's sources will not impede
Class I areas outside of Alabama from meeting their RPGs based on the
trends in visibility and emissions presented in its Progress Report.
Alabama notes that the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE)
[[Page 64802]]
visibility readings for 2009-2013 generally show greater improvements
in visibility than projected by the State in establishing the 2018 RPGs
for the Sipsey Wilderness Area and that SO2 emissions from
coal-fired EGUs in the State have decreased from 2002-2012 by more than
the predicted decline in SO2 emissions from these sources
for the first implementation period in Alabama's 2008 regional haze
plan. Alabama expects that these emissions will continue to decrease
through the first regional haze implementation period.
As discussed above, Alabama identified the following Class I areas
as potentially impacted by Alabama sources: Cohutta Wilderness Area in
Georgia; Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area in North Carolina; St.
Marks Wilderness Area in Florida; and Breton Wilderness Area in
Louisiana. In its Progress Report, Alabama notes that it has evaluated
IMPROVE monitoring data from 2009-2013 for these Class I areas and that
the trend for each of these areas is at or below the glidepath.\21\ The
State concludes that given expected continued emission reductions, the
trends for those areas should continue, and no additional controls are
needed at this time to meet RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The ``glidepath'' is the rate of progress needed to reach
natural visibility conditions by 2064 (also referred to as the
``uniform rate of progress''). See 77 FR 11940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama notes that it consulted with other states during the
development of its 2008 regional haze plan, including Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, and North Carolina. Of these states, North Carolina
identified one unit in Alabama--TVA Widows Creek--as meeting North
Carolina's criteria for a reasonable progress control evaluation and
asked Alabama to share its reasonable progress control evaluation for
this unit. Alabama determined that because this unit was subject to
CAIR and had a scrubber installed, no additional controls were
reasonable for this period. See 77 FR 11956. The State reiterates that
after consultation with each of these states, Alabama was not requested
to further evaluate any source relative to a regional Class I area.
Additionally, the State did not request any out-of-state source to
evaluate impacts on the Sipsey Wilderness Area because no source met
the State's criteria for a reasonable progress analysis.
The State notes that, considering the trends in visibility in the
IMPROVE network, and given SO2 reductions achieved, it is
reasonable to assume that these conclusions still stand for the
purposes of the Progress Report.
As discussed above, CAIR was implemented during the time period
evaluated by ADEM for its Progress Report, CAIR has been replaced by
CSAPR, and the requirements of CSAPR apply to sources in Alabama
through the State's implementation plan. Alabama's fully approved
regional haze plan, which now relies on CSAPR rather than CAIR,
accordingly contains sufficient provisions to ensure that the RPGs of
Class I areas in nearby states will be achieved.
EPA proposes to find that Alabama has adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the strategy assessment. In
its Progress Report, Alabama describes the improving visibility trends
using data from the IMPROVE network and the downward emissions trends
in key pollutants, with a focus on SO2 emissions from EGUs
in the State. ADEM determined that its regional haze plan is sufficient
to meet the RPGs for its own Class I area and the Class I areas outside
the State potentially impacted by the emissions from Alabama. EPA
preliminarily finds that Alabama's conclusion regarding the sufficiency
of its regional haze plan is appropriate because CAIR was in effect in
Alabama through 2014, providing the emission reductions relied upon in
Alabama's regional haze plan through that date. CSAPR is now being
implemented, and by 2018, the end of the first regional haze
implementation period, CSAPR will reduce emissions of SO2
and NOX from EGUs in Alabama by the same amount assumed by
EPA when the Agency originally issued the FIP for the State in June
2012, replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. Because CSAPR,
now adopted and implemented at the state level, will ensure the control
of SO2 and NOX emissions reductions relied upon
by Alabama and other states in setting their RPGs beginning in January
2015 at least through the remainder of the first implementation period
in 2018, EPA is proposing to approve Alabama'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.
7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy
In its Progress Report, Alabama summarizes the existing monitoring
network in the State to monitor visibility at the Sipsey Wilderness
Area and concludes that no modifications to the existing visibility
monitoring strategy are necessary. The primary monitoring network for
regional haze, both nationwide and in Alabama, is the IMPROVE network.
There is currently one IMPROVE site located in the Sipsey Wilderness
Area.
The State explains the importance of the IMPROVE monitoring network
for tracking visibility trends at the Class I area in Alabama. ADEM
states that data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network will be
used for preparing the regional haze progress reports and SIP
revisions, and thus, the monitoring data from the IMPROVE sites needs
to be readily accessible and to be kept up to date. The Visibility
Information Exchange Web System website has been maintained by VISTAS
and the other Regional Planning Organizations to provide ready access
to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools.
In addition, ADEM operates a PM2.5 network of filter-
based federal reference method monitors and filter-based speciation
monitors. These PM2.5 measurements help ADEM characterize
air pollution levels in areas across the State, and therefore aid in
the analysis of visibility improvement in and near the Sipsey
Wilderness Area.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Figure 11 in the Progress Report, p. 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that Alabama has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the 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 the Existing Regional Haze Plan
In its Progress Report, ADEM submitted a negative 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 State's negative declaration is
based on the findings from the Progress Report, including the findings
that: Visibility has already improved at the Sipsey Wilderness Area in
Alabama such that the visibility averages for the five-year period
2009-2013 are better than the RPGs for 2018; actual SO2
emissions reductions from coal-fired EGUs in Alabama exceed the
predicted reductions in ADEM's 2008 regional haze plan; additional EGU
control measures not relied upon in the State's 2008 regional haze plan
have occurred or will occur during the first implementation period that
will further reduce SO2 emissions; and emissions of
SO2 from EGUs in Alabama are expected to continue to trend
downward.
[[Page 64803]]
EPA proposes to conclude that Alabama has adequately addressed 40
CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility trends at the Sipsey Wilderness
Area and at Class I areas outside of the State potentially impacted by
sources within Alabama 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 Alabama's June 26, 2018, Regional Haze
Progress Report 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. This 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);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
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).
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 dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 6, 2018.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-27357 Filed 12-17-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
