[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 40 (Thursday, March 2, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12328-12333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04009]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0748; FRL-9959-07-Region 4]
Air Plan Approvals; TN; Prong 4-2010 NO2, SO2, and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
conditionally approve the visibility transport (prong 4) portions of
revisions to the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted
by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC),
addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) infrastructure SIP
requirements for the 2010 1-hour Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2),
2010 1-hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and 2012 annual Fine
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a
SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by EPA, commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP.''
Specifically, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the prong 4
portions of Tennessee's March 13, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 and
2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure SIP submission and December
16, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submission.
All other applicable infrastructure requirements for these SIP
submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 3, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2016-0748 at http://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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman 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. Lakeman can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9043
or via electronic mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised
NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for
the purpose of satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) require states to address basic SIP elements such as for
monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly established
or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the
procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure SIPs. Section
110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for the
infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or
revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may
vary depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the
state, as well as the provisions already contained in the state's
implementation plan at the time in which the state develops and submits
the submission for a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct
components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed
in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit
any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in
another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit
emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state
(prong 3) or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in
another state (prong 4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to
include provisions insuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the
Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
Through this action, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the
prong 4 portions of Tennessee's infrastructure SIP submissions for the
2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. All other applicable infrastructure SIP
requirements for these SIP submissions have been or will be addressed
in separate rulemakings. A brief background regarding the NAAQS
relevant to today's proposal is provided below. For comprehensive
information on these NAAQS, please refer to the Federal Register
notices cited in the following subsections.
a. 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS
On January 22, 2010, EPA established a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for
NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion, based
[[Page 12329]]
on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution
of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9,
2010). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions
for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January
22, 2013. For the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, this proposed
action only addresses the prong 4 element of Tennessee's infrastructure
SIP submission received on March 13, 2014. EPA has taken action on the
remainder of Tennessee's March 13, 2014, SIP submission through
separate rulemakings.
b. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS to an
hourly standard of 75 parts per billion based on a 3-year average of
the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See
75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). States were required to submit
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
to EPA no later than June 2, 2013. For the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS, this proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of
Tennessee's infrastructure SIP submission received on March 13, 2014.
EPA has taken action on the remainder of Tennessee's March 13, 2014,
SIP submission through separate rulemakings.
c. 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
based on a 3-year average of the annual average PM2.5
concentrations. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). States were required
to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14, 2015. For the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, this proposed action only addresses the prong 4
element of Tennessee's infrastructure SIP submission received on
December 16, 2015. Several of the other infrastructure elements of
Tennessee's December 16, 2015, SIP submission have been addressed
through a separate rulemaking and the remaining elements will be
addressed in a future rulemaking.
II. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP
submissions?
The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type
arises out of section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states
must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as
the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``each such
plan'' submission must address.
EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) as
``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term ``infrastructure
SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this
particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to
satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as ``nonattainment
SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to address the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D of Title I of the CAA,
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to address the
visibility protection requirements of section 169A of the CAA, and
nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address
the permit requirements of CAA, Title I, part D.
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\1\ EPA therefore believes
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous,
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular,
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; Section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of Title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2)
requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of
requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of Title I of the
CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\2\
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b)
requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for
certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation
of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two
years or in some cases three years, for such designations to be
promulgated.\3\ This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all
the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense,
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable
for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
\3\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g.,
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another example of ambiguity within section 110(a)(1) and (2) with
respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all
of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and
whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action.
Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a plan'' to meet
these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make
multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP
elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP
submissions to meet the
[[Page 12330]]
infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such
submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.\4\
Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the
individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP
submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire
submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different
times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure
SIP submission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule),
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' 78 FR 4337 (January 22, 2013)
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS).
\5\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ambiguities within section 110(a)(1) and (2) may also arise with
respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different
NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2)
would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for
each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP
submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example,
the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its
infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B)
could be very different for different pollutants, because the content
and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this
element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a
minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires attainment plan SIP submissions
required by part D to meet the ``applicable requirements'' of section
110(a)(2); thus, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission
limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air
agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that
attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to
meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD
program required in part C of Title I of the CAA, because PSD does not
apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and
thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example
illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of
section 110(a)(2) but not others.
Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\7\ EPA
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013 (2013 Guidance).\8\ EPA developed this document to provide states
with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised
NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make
infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP
requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of
section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure
SIP submissions.\9\ The guidance also discusses the substantively
important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section
110(a)(2). EPA interprets section 110(a)(1) and (2) such that
infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need
not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP
submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of
section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
\8\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
\9\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to
address Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's SIP
appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that
there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately
address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the
structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program
(e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-
member board or by a head of an executive agency). However they are
addressed by the state, the substantive requirements of
[[Page 12331]]
Section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of
infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section
128.
As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions
with respect to the PSD program requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program
requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural
PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD
program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including
Greenhouse Gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program
requirements do not include provisions that are not required under
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an
option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of
complete permit applications with respect to the PM2.5
NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of
provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure
SIP action.
For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a
state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the
state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program and whether
the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the
context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA
does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every
provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in
the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and
EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and
EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; \10\ (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR
Reform). Thus, EPA believes that it may approve an infrastructure SIP
submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\11\ It is important to
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Subsequent to issuing the 2013 Guidance, EPA's
interpretation of the CAA with respect to the approvability of
affirmative defense provisions in SIPs has changed. See ``State
Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking;
Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs;
Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend
Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup,
Shutdown and Malfunction,'' 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015). As a
result, EPA's 2013 Guidance (p. 21 & n.30) no longer represents the
EPA's view concerning the validity of affirmative defense
provisions, in light of the requirements of section 113 and section
304.
\11\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption or affirmative defense for
excess emissions during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate
that provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA
requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in section 110(a)(2) as requiring
review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against
all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP
submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA
to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with
respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the CAA provides other avenues and
mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\12\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submissions.\13\
[[Page 12332]]
Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on a state's
infrastructure SIP submission is not the appropriate time and place to
address all potential existing SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's
subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the
basis for action to correct those deficiencies at a later time. For
example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state to
eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion provisions
in the course of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA
believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases
that EPA relies upon in the course of addressing such deficiency in a
subsequent action.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
\13\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has
previously used its authority under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA to
remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it
had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62
FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009)
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
\14\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21,
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76
FR 4540 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. What are the Prong 4 requirements?
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a state's implementation plan
to contain provisions prohibiting sources in that state from emitting
pollutants in amounts that interfere with any other state's efforts to
protect visibility under part C of the CAA (which includes sections
169A and 169B). The 2013 Guidance states that these prong 4
requirements can be satisfied by approved SIP provisions that EPA has
found to adequately address any contribution of that state's sources to
impacts on visibility program requirements in other states. The 2013
Guidance also states that EPA interprets this prong to be pollutant-
specific, such that the infrastructure SIP submission need only address
the potential for interference with protection of visibility caused by
the pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS
applies.
The 2013 Guidance lays out two ways in which a state's
infrastructure SIP may satisfy prong 4. The first way is through an air
agency's confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that it has
an EPA-approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 specifically require
that a state participating in a regional planning process include all
measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction
obligations agreed upon through that process. A fully approved regional
haze SIP will ensure that emissions from sources under an air agency's
jurisdiction are not interfering with measures required to be included
in other air agencies' plans to protect visibility.
Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze
SIP, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a
demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions
within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans
to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need
to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure
that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed regional haze
reasonable progress goals for mandatory Class I areas in other states.
IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Tennessee addressed Prong 4?
Tennessee's March 13, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 and 2010 1-
hour SO2 submission cites to the State's regional haze SIP
and Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) SIP as satisfying prong 4
requirements.\15\ In its December 16, 2015, 2012 annual
PM2.5 submission, the State notes that it is developing a
regional haze SIP revision with the intent to obtain a fully approved
regional haze SIP and that Tennessee's SIP will be adequate with regard
to prong 4 if EPA approves that revision. As explained below, EPA has
not yet fully approved Tennessee's existing regional haze SIP because
the SIP relies on CAIR to satisfy the nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and SO2 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
requirements for the CAIR-subject electric generating units (EGUs) in
the State and the requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to
achieve the state-adopted reasonable progress goals.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ In its March 13, 2014, submission, Tennessee states that
its regional haze SIP and its ``CAIR SIP are sufficient to ensure
emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other
agencies' plans to protect visibility.'' However, as Tennessee notes
in its submittal, a state's infrastructure SIP submission can
satisfy prong 4 solely through confirmation that the state has a
fully approved regional haze SIP.
\16\ CAIR, promulgated in 2005, required 27 states and the
District of Columbia to reduce emissions of NOX and
SO2 that significantly contribute to, or interfere with
maintenance of, the 1997 NAAQS for fine particulates and/or ozone in
any downwind state. CAIR imposed specified emissions reduction
requirements on each affected State, and established several EPA-
administered cap and trade programs for EGUs that States could join
as a means to meet these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA demonstrated that CAIR achieved greater reasonable progress
toward the national visibility goal than BART for NOX and
SO2 at BART-eligible EGUs in CAIR affected states, and
revised the regional haze rule to provide that states participating in
CAIR's cap-and-trade programs need not require affected BART-eligible
EGUs to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions of
SO2 and NOX. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). As a
result, a number of states in the CAIR region designed their regional
haze SIPs to rely on CAIR as an alternative to NOX and
SO2 BART for CAIR-subject EGUs. These states also relied on
CAIR as an element of a long-term strategy for achieving their
reasonable progress goals.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in 2008,\17\ but
ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the
environmental benefits provided by CAIR.\18\ 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 thus to address
the interstate transport of emissions contributing to nonattainment and
interfering with maintenance of the two air quality standards covered
by CAIR as well as the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
\18\ North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to CAIR's status as a temporary measure following the D.C.
Circuit's 2008 ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze SIP
revisions to the extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART
requirement and the requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to
achieve the state-adopted reasonable progress goals. On these grounds,
EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of Tennessee's
regional haze SIP on April 24, 2012 (77 FR 24392), triggering the
requirement for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
unless Tennessee submitted and EPA approved a SIP revision that
corrected the deficiencies.
Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C.
Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating
and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of
CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir.
2012). The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United
States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded 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.
[[Page 12333]]
Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects, but invalidated without
vacating some of the CSAPR budgets as to a number of states. EME Homer
City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). EPA began
implementation of CSAPR, which replaced CAIR, on January 1, 2015.
Therefore, Tennessee cannot rely on CAIR to satisfy the BART
requirement and the requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to
achieve the state-adopted reasonable progress goals.
As mentioned above, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4
without a fully approved regional haze SIP by showing that its SIP
contains adequate provisions to prevent emissions from within the state
from interfering with other states' measures to protect visibility.
Tennessee did not, however, provide a demonstration in any of the
infrastructure SIP submissions subject to this proposed action that
emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other states'
plans to protect visibility.
As discussed above, Tennessee does not have a fully approved
regional haze SIP that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 and has
not otherwise shown that its SIP contains adequate provisions to
prevent emissions from within the state from interfering with other
states' measures to protect visibility. Therefore, on December 7, 2016,
Tennessee submitted a commitment letter to EPA requesting conditional
approval of the prong 4 portions of the aforementioned infrastructure
SIP revisions. In this letter, Tennessee commits to submit an
infrastructure SIP revision, within one year of final conditional
approval, that will satisfy the prong 4 requirements for the 2010 1-
hour NO2 NAAQS, 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS through reliance on a fully approved
regional haze SIP or through an analysis showing that emissions from
sources in Tennessee will not interfere with the attainment of the
reasonable progress goals of other states. If the revised
infrastructure SIP revision relies on a fully approved regional haze
SIP revision to satisfy prong 4 requirements, Tennessee also commits to
providing the necessary regional haze SIP revision to EPA within one
year of EPA's final conditional approval.
If Tennessee meets its commitment within one year of final
conditional approval, the prong 4 portions of the conditionally
approved infrastructure SIP submissions will remain a part of the SIP
until EPA takes final action approving or disapproving the new SIP
revision(s). However, if the State fails to submit these revisions
within the one-year timeframe, the conditional approval will
automatically become a disapproval one year from EPA's final
conditional approval and EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. EPA
is not required to propose the finding of disapproval. If the
conditional approval is converted to a disapproval, the final
disapproval triggers the FIP requirement under CAA section 110(c).
V. Proposed Action
As described above, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the
prong 4 portions of Tennessee's March 13, 2014, 2010 1-hour
NO2 and 2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure SIP
submission and December 16, 2015, 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure
SIP submission. All other outstanding applicable infrastructure
requirements for these SIP submissions have been or will be addressed
in separate rulemakings.
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. 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 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, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 21, 2017.
Kenneth R. Lapierre,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-04009 Filed 3-1-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P