Air Plan Approval; SC; 2010 1-Hour SO2, 54498-54502 [2019-21956]

Download as PDF 54498 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Rules and Regulations about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. C. Collection of Information This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. F. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023–01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:03 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 temporary safety zone that entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a limited area on the navigable water of the Manasquan Inlet, during a tug-of-war event lasting approximately two and a half hours. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) in Table 3–1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures 5090.1. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. G. Protest Activities The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP’s designated representative. (2) To seek permission to enter or remain in the zone, contact the COTP or the COTP’s representative via VHF–FM channel 16 or 215–271–4807. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP’s designated representative. (3) This section applies to all vessels except those engaged in law enforcement, aids to navigation servicing, and emergency response operations. (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and local agencies. (e) Enforcement period. This zone will be enforced on October 12, 2019, from on or after noon through on or before 2:30 p.m. on October 12, 2019. Dated: October 3, 2019. Scott E. Anderson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Delaware Bay. [FR Doc. 2019–22185 Filed 10–9–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0665; FRL–10000– 84–Region 4] Air Plan Approval; SC; 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Transport Infrastructure Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. ■ AGENCY: § 165.T05–0799 Safety Zone; Manasquan Inlet; Manasquan, NJ. SUMMARY: 2. Add § 165.T05–0799 to read as follows: (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the Manasquan Inlet extending 400 feet from either side of a rope located between approximate locations 40°06′09″ N, 74°02′09″ W and 40°06′14″ N, 74°02′08″ W. All coordinates are based on World Geodetic System 1984. (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard petty officer, warrant or commissioned officer on board a Coast Guard vessel or on board a federal, state, or local law enforcement vessel assisting the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone. (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in subpart C of PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving South Carolina’s June 25, 2018, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission pertaining to the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The good neighbor provision requires each state’s implementation plan to address the interstate transport of air pollution in amounts that contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other state. In this action, EPA has determined that South Carolina’s SIP contains adequate provisions to prohibit emissions within the State from contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM 10OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Rules and Regulations maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. DATES: This rule will be effective November 12, 2019. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 2018–0665. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached via phone number (404) 562–9031 or via electronic mail at notarianni.michele@ epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a revised primary SO2 NAAQS with a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. These SIPs, which EPA has historically referred to as ‘‘infrastructure SIPs,’’ are to provide for the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and enforcement’’ of such NAAQS, and the requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state’s air quality VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:03 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 management program are adequate to meet the state’s responsibility under the CAA. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of individual state submissions may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. The content of the changes in such SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state’s approved SIP already contains. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two clauses of this section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance of the NAAQS). On June 25, 2018, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) submitted a revision to the South Carolina SIP addressing only prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA is approving SC DHEC’s June 25, 2018, SIP submission because the State demonstrated that South Carolina will not contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. All other elements related to the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for South Carolina are addressed in separate rulemakings.1 In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on April 23, 2019, EPA proposed to approve South Carolina’s June 25, 2018, SIP revision on the basis that the State’s implementation plan adequately addresses prong 1 and prong 2 requirements for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS. See 84 FR 16799. The details of the SIP revision and the rationale for EPA’s action is explained in the NPRM. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before May 23, 2019. EPA received three sets of adverse comments from 1 EPA acted on the other elements of South Carolina’s May 8, 2014, infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on May 24, 2016 (81 FR 32651) and September 24, 2018 (83 FR 48237). PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 54499 anonymous commenters. These comments are included in the docket for this final action. EPA has summarized the comments and provided responses below. II. Response to Comments Comment 1: A commenter expresses concern about EPA’s statement that the Agency does not have monitoring or modeling data suggesting that North Carolina is impacted by SO2 emissions from the Milliken & Co. Magnolia Plant (Magnolia) 2 or WestRock CP LLC (WestRock).3 The commenter questions why EPA did not model these facilities and states that EPA must have monitoring data to ‘‘definitively conclude anything about these sources.’’ Response 1: EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that monitoring and dispersion modeling are needed for these two sources before EPA can approve South Carolina’s SIP submittal as meeting the interstate transport requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D). There is nothing in this section of the CAA suggesting that monitoring or dispersion modeling is legally required to evaluate good neighbor SIPs, and EPA has previously found that a weight of evidence (WOE) approach is sufficient to determine whether or not a state satisfies the good neighbor provision.4 EPA continues to believe that the WOE analysis provided in the NPRM is adequate to determine the potential downwind impact from South Carolina to neighboring states. EPA’s analysis includes the following factors: (1) SO2 air dispersion modeling results for sources within 50 kilometers (km) of South Carolina’s border both within the State and in neighboring states, (2) SO2 emissions trends for sources in South Carolina, (3) SO2 ambient air quality for monitors for sources within 50 km of South Carolina’s border both within the State and in neighboring states; and (4) South Carolina’s statutes and SIP2 Magnolia is a textile and fabric finishing plant located in Blacksburg, South Carolina. 3 Westrock is a pulp and paper mill located in Florence, South Carolina. 4 See, e.g., Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Utah; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, Proposed Rule 78 FR 29314 (May 20, 2013), Final Rule 78 FR 48615 (August 9, 2013); Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of California; Interstate Transport of Pollution; Significant Contribution to Nonattainment and Interference With Maintenance Requirements, Proposed Rule 76 FR 146516 (March 17, 2011), Final Rule 76 FR 34872 (June 15, 2011); Approval and Promulgations of State Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS, Proposed Rule, 80 FR 27121 (May 12, 2015), Final Rule 80 FR 47862 (August 10, 2015). E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM 10OCR1 54500 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Rules and Regulations approved regulations and federal regulations that address SO2 emissions. As part of its WOE analysis, EPA performed a qualitative evaluation to assess whether SO2 emissions from Magnolia and WestRock are impacting North Carolina, the only neighboring state within 50 km of these sources. Because EPA does not have monitoring or modeling data for these two sources, EPA evaluated their 2017 SO2 emissions, distances from the South Carolina border, and distances from sources in North Carolina with SO2 emissions greater than 100 tons per year (tpy) in 2017 and not subject to EPA’s Data Requirements Rule (DRR) 5 as summarized in Table 5 of the NPRM and found that this information supports EPA’s proposed determination that South Carolina has met the good neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.6 The commenter did not provide a technical analysis that contradicts EPA’s proposed determination that sources in South Carolina such as Magnolia or Westrock will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another state. Therefore, EPA continues to believe that the Agency’s analysis of these and other South Carolina sources in the NPRM, weighed along with other WOE factors described in the NPRM, support EPA’s conclusion that South Carolina has satisfied the good neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Comment 2: Two commenters expressed concerns regarding the modeling analysis for Resolute FP US Inc.—Catawba Mill (Resolute). One commenter questions the use of 2012– 2014 actual emissions in the modeling of Resolute.7 The commenter states that 5 The DRR required state air agencies to characterize air quality, through air dispersion modeling or monitoring, in areas associated with sources that emitted 2,000 tpy or more of SO2, or that have otherwise been listed under the DRR by EPA or state air agencies. In lieu of modeling or monitoring, state air agencies, by specified dates, could elect to impose federally-enforceable emissions limitations on those sources restricting their annual SO2 emissions to less than 2,000 tpy, or provide documentation that the sources have been shut down. See 80 FR 51052 (August 21, 2015). 6 With regard to the WestRock facility, EPA continues to believe that the 68-km distance between the WestRock facility in South Carolina and the Pilkington facility, the nearest source in North Carolina with SO2 emissions greater than 100 tpy, makes it unlikely that SO2 emissions from WestRock could interact with SO2 emissions from Pilkington in such a way as to contribute significantly to nonattainment in North Carolina. See 84 FR 16805 (April 23, 2019). 7 Resolute is a pulp and paper mill located in Catawba, South Carolina. Resolute opted to conduct air dispersion modeling under the DRR. EPA summarized these modeling results in the NPRM. See 84 FR at 16803–16804. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:03 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 ‘‘EPA is hiding behind 5–7 year old data’’ and that EPA should perform the modeling using maximum allowable potential emissions before concluding that the source, located 7 km from the North Carolina border, ‘‘does not contribute to violations in the neighboring state.’’ Another commenter questions the use of a modeling domain for Resolute that extends 4 km into North Carolina and mentions that EPA should perform ‘‘additional modeling to confirm that an extended modeling domain would not show an even higher modeled concentration farther into the state of North Carolina.’’ Response 2: As discussed above, the good neighbor provision does not require modeling to determine whether a state contributes significantly to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of a specific NAAQS in another state. EPA used a WOE analysis to evaluate South Carolina’s SIP revision under the good neighbor provision and evaluated all available data, including the modeling submitted by South Carolina during the DRR process for Resolute. As stated in the NPRM, the modeling for Resolute predicts no violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS within 50 km of the South Carolina border. The modeling results show that SO2 concentrations drop off rapidly with a predicted maximum modeled concentration of approximately 69 ppb just north of the facility and concentrations in North Carolina below approximately 18 ppb.8 EPA continues to believe that these results, weighed along with the other WOE factors discussed in the NPRM, support EPA’s proposed conclusion that sources in South Carolina do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. In response to the comment regarding the use of modeling with ‘‘5–7 year old data’’ to evaluate South Carolina’s June 25, 2018, SIP submission, EPA has evaluated more recent actual SO2 emissions data for Resolute for the years 2015–2017.9 Resolute’s 2015–2017 SO2 emissions (2,386 tpy, 2,391 tpy, and 2,211 tpy in 2015, 2016, and 2017, respectively) are lower than the modeled 2012–2014 SO2 emissions (4,562 tpy, 4,491 tpy, and 4,780 tpy in 2012, 2013, and 2014, respectively). 8 Extending the modeling domain more than 4 km into North Carolina would not alter EPA’s conclusions because the modeled concentrations in North Carolina are well below the NAAQS and, given the nature of SO2, would likely continue to decrease as distance increases from the source. 9 https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/ national-emissions-inventory. PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Because emissions have decreased from 2012–2014 to 2015–2017, the model results may overpredict current SO2 concentrations and therefore continue to support the Agency’s conclusion that South Carolina has satisfied the good neighbor provision with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA also notes that the commenters did not provide any technical analysis contradicting EPA’s proposed determination that Resolute will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another state. Comment 3: A commenter notes that EPA analyzed sources that emitted more than 100 tpy of SO2 within 50 km of the South Carolina border. The commenter states that EPA should have considered and modeled sources that emitted less SO2 and are closer to the border and that EPA evaluated sources emitting 1 tpy when acting on good neighbor SIP revisions for Delaware and the District of Columbia. Response 3: EPA assessed annual emissions data for non-DRR sources emitting over 100 tons of SO2 in 2017 in South Carolina and existing dispersion modeling for DRR sources to identify the universe of sources in the State likely to be responsible for SO2 emissions potentially contributing to interstate transport. After determining that 89 percent of South Carolina’s statewide SO2 emissions are from point sources based on 2014 emissions, EPA next focused on individual facilities which emitted above 100 tpy using the most recent year for which point source emission data was available, i.e., 2017. EPA assessed, using its best judgment, which sources could have the most serious impact on downwind states. EPA chose 100 tpy as the emissions threshold for consideration for interstate transport because South Carolina’s universe of point sources was too large to evaluate every source at a lower threshold like that used in the Delaware and District of Columbia analyses. South Carolina’s point sources of SO2 emitting 100 tons or less in 2017 comprise only seven percent of the State’s total SO2 point source inventory in 2017.10 EPA is not precluded from choosing different thresholds for evaluating interstate transport in different states because the factual circumstances vary from state to state. Furthermore, EPA notes that small sources, in particular those emitting less than 100 tpy of SO2, usually cannot be 10 The 2017 South Carolina SO point source 2 emissions data which SC DHEC reported to EPA is included in the docket for this action under Docket ID: EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0665. E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM 10OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Rules and Regulations characterized accurately because the level of detail about the source and the data needed for such an analysis is not as often readily available as for the larger sources. Regarding the statement about modeling, EPA notes that it did not independently model any sources as part of its evaluation of South Carolina’s good neighbor SIP submission, including sources emitting more than 100 tpy of SO2 within 50 km from the South Carolina border. EPA did, however, evaluate all available information for sources that emitted more than 100 tpy of SO2 within 50 km of the border, including any available air dispersion modeling, and continues to believe that its WOE analysis demonstrates that South Carolina has satisfied the good neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The commenter did not provide a technical analysis indicating that sources emitting less than or equal to 100 tpy within 50 km of the border may have downwind impacts that violate the good neighbor provision. Comment 4: A commenter states that three sources in South Carolina (i.e., W.S. Lee Station, McMeekin Station, and WestRock) were ‘‘able to escape nonattainment designation status’’ by accepting federally-enforceable permit limits ‘‘to exempt them from complying with the DRR.’’ The commenter states that accepting these limits does not mean that these sources are not ‘‘causing or contributing to nonattainment or maintenance’’ in another state and questions why EPA did not perform modeling to determine if these sources are impacting neighboring states for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Response 4: Regarding the commenter’s reference to the SO2 designations signed on December 21, 2017 (83 FR 1098), to the extent commenter is taking issue with those designations, those designations and the federally-enforceable emission limits taken to comply with the DRR are outside the scope of this action to approve South Carolina’s SIP revision to address interstate transport for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Regarding the comment concerning modeling, EPA does not agree that modeling is necessary to demonstrate that these sources do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state. As discussed above, there is nothing in the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) suggesting that dispersion modeling is legally required to evaluate good neighbor SIPs, and EPA used its VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:03 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 long-standing WOE approach to evaluate South Carolina’s SIP revision under the good neighbor provision. EPA also notes that the commenter did not provide a technical analysis that contradicts EPA’s proposed determination that W.S. Lee Station, McMeekin Station, and WestRock will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another state. III. Final Action EPA is approving South Carolina’s June 25, 2018, SIP submission as demonstrating that South Carolina’s SIP has adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state. 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 approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action: • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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); PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 54501 • 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). In addition, this action for South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) because it does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the boundary of York County, South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27–16–120, ‘‘all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.’’ However, EPA has determined that this rule does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe because this action is not approving any specific rule, but rather has determined that South Carolina’s already approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements. EPA notes that this action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM 10OCR1 54502 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Rules and Regulations action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 9, 2019. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2). reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides. Dated: September 25, 2019. Mary S. Walker, Regional Administrator, Region 4. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: § 52.2120 PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS State effective date * * 6/25/2018 EPA approval date Explanation 10/10/2019, [insert Federal Register citation]. Addressing Prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007–1866, (212) 637–3764, or by email at Linky.Edward@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [FR Doc. 2019–21956 Filed 10–9–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R02–OAR–2018–0511; FRL–10000– 78–Region 2] Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New York; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 Sulfur Dioxide, and 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: I. What action is EPA taking? II. What is the background information? III. What is a section 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP? IV. What elements are required under section 110(a)(1) and (2)? V. What is EPA’s approach to the review of infrastructure SIP submissions? VI. What did New York submit? VII. How has the State addressed the elements of the section 110(a)(1) and (2) ‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? VIII. What comments did EPA receive in response to the proposed action? IX. What is EPA approving? X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What action is EPA taking? The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving certain elements of New York’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions, submitted to demonstrate that the State meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 Ozone; 2010 Sulfur Dioxide; and 2012 particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit for approval into the SIP a plan for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. DATES: This final rule is effective on November 12, 2019. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward J. Linky, Air Programs Branch, Jkt 250001 Identification of plan. * * (e) * * * Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 16:03 Oct 09, 2019 * 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Provision VerDate Sep<11>2014 2. In § 52.2120, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS’’ at the end of the table to read as follows: ■ ■ List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by SUMMARY: Subpart PP–South Carolina The EPA is approving certain elements of the State of New York Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) as meeting the section 110(a) infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the following National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standard): 2008 Ozone, 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2), and 2012 particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5). As explained below, the EPA has determined that the State has the necessary infrastructure, resources, and general authority to implement the standards noted above. II. What is the background information? Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit for approval into the SIP a plan that provides for the PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS. The EPA commonly refers to such state plans as ‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ • On March 12, 2008, the EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for ozone. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). • On June 2, 2010), the EPA promulgated a revised primary NAAQS for SO2. 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). • On December 14, 2012, the EPA promulgated a revised primary NAAQS for PM2.5 for the annual standard. 78 FR 3086 (Jan. 15, 2013). The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted the following revisions to its Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (ISIP): • 2008 Ozone ISIP submitted on April 4, 2013 • 2010 SO2 ISIP submitted on October 3, 2013 • 2012 PM2.5 ISIP submitted on November 30, 2016 On August 26, 2016 (81 FR 58849), the EPA published its action on certain elements of NYSDEC’s April 4, 2013 SIP submittal pertaining to the 2008 Ozone ISIP. The EPA’s action addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) which requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS (commonly referred to as prong 1), or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS (prong 2), in any other state and CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) which requires SIPs to include E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM 10OCR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 197 (Thursday, October 10, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54498-54502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21956]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0665; FRL-10000-84-Region 4]


Air Plan Approval; SC; 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Transport 
Infrastructure

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving South 
Carolina's June 25, 2018, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission 
pertaining to the ``good neighbor'' provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA 
or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The good neighbor provision 
requires each state's implementation plan to address the interstate 
transport of air pollution in amounts that contribute significantly to 
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other 
state. In this action, EPA has determined that South Carolina's SIP 
contains adequate provisions to prohibit emissions within the State 
from contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with

[[Page 54499]]

maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: This rule will be effective November 12, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0665. All documents in the docket 
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the 
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., 
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure 
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard 
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and 
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the 
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of 
business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory 
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and 
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be 
reached via phone number (404) 562-9031 or via electronic mail at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a revised primary SO2 
NAAQS with a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year 
average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 
concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). Pursuant to section 
110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the 
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after 
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as 
EPA may prescribe. These SIPs, which EPA has historically referred to 
as ``infrastructure SIPs,'' are to provide for the ``implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS, and the requirements are 
designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air 
quality management program are adequate to meet the state's 
responsibility under the CAA. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states 
to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the 
contents of individual state submissions may vary depending upon the 
facts and circumstances. The content of the changes in such SIP 
submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's 
approved SIP already contains. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to 
address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic 
program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure 
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires SIPs to include 
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity 
in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will 
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with 
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two clauses of this 
section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to 
nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance of the 
NAAQS).
    On June 25, 2018, the South Carolina Department of Health and 
Environmental Control (SC DHEC) submitted a revision to the South 
Carolina SIP addressing only prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA is 
approving SC DHEC's June 25, 2018, SIP submission because the State 
demonstrated that South Carolina will not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in any other state. All other elements related to 
the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS for South Carolina are addressed in separate 
rulemakings.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA acted on the other elements of South Carolina's May 8, 
2014, infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS on May 24, 2016 (81 FR 32651) and September 24, 
2018 (83 FR 48237).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on April 23, 
2019, EPA proposed to approve South Carolina's June 25, 2018, SIP 
revision on the basis that the State's implementation plan adequately 
addresses prong 1 and prong 2 requirements for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS. See 84 FR 16799. The details of the SIP revision 
and the rationale for EPA's action is explained in the NPRM. Comments 
on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before May 23, 2019. EPA 
received three sets of adverse comments from anonymous commenters. 
These comments are included in the docket for this final action. EPA 
has summarized the comments and provided responses below.

II. Response to Comments

    Comment 1: A commenter expresses concern about EPA's statement that 
the Agency does not have monitoring or modeling data suggesting that 
North Carolina is impacted by SO2 emissions from the 
Milliken & Co. Magnolia Plant (Magnolia) \2\ or WestRock CP LLC 
(WestRock).\3\ The commenter questions why EPA did not model these 
facilities and states that EPA must have monitoring data to 
``definitively conclude anything about these sources.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Magnolia is a textile and fabric finishing plant located in 
Blacksburg, South Carolina.
    \3\ Westrock is a pulp and paper mill located in Florence, South 
Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that 
monitoring and dispersion modeling are needed for these two sources 
before EPA can approve South Carolina's SIP submittal as meeting the 
interstate transport requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D). There is 
nothing in this section of the CAA suggesting that monitoring or 
dispersion modeling is legally required to evaluate good neighbor SIPs, 
and EPA has previously found that a weight of evidence (WOE) approach 
is sufficient to determine whether or not a state satisfies the good 
neighbor provision.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals 
and Promulgations: Utah; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, Proposed Rule 78 FR 29314 (May 20, 
2013), Final Rule 78 FR 48615 (August 9, 2013); Approval and 
Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of California; 
Interstate Transport of Pollution; Significant Contribution to 
Nonattainment and Interference With Maintenance Requirements, 
Proposed Rule 76 FR 146516 (March 17, 2011), Final Rule 76 FR 34872 
(June 15, 2011); Approval and Promulgations of State Implementation 
Plans; State of Colorado; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 
2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS, Proposed Rule, 80 FR 27121 (May 
12, 2015), Final Rule 80 FR 47862 (August 10, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA continues to believe that the WOE analysis provided in the NPRM 
is adequate to determine the potential downwind impact from South 
Carolina to neighboring states. EPA's analysis includes the following 
factors: (1) SO2 air dispersion modeling results for sources 
within 50 kilometers (km) of South Carolina's border both within the 
State and in neighboring states, (2) SO2 emissions trends 
for sources in South Carolina, (3) SO2 ambient air quality 
for monitors for sources within 50 km of South Carolina's border both 
within the State and in neighboring states; and (4) South Carolina's 
statutes and SIP-

[[Page 54500]]

approved regulations and federal regulations that address 
SO2 emissions. As part of its WOE analysis, EPA performed a 
qualitative evaluation to assess whether SO2 emissions from 
Magnolia and WestRock are impacting North Carolina, the only 
neighboring state within 50 km of these sources. Because EPA does not 
have monitoring or modeling data for these two sources, EPA evaluated 
their 2017 SO2 emissions, distances from the South Carolina 
border, and distances from sources in North Carolina with 
SO2 emissions greater than 100 tons per year (tpy) in 2017 
and not subject to EPA's Data Requirements Rule (DRR) \5\ as summarized 
in Table 5 of the NPRM and found that this information supports EPA's 
proposed determination that South Carolina has met the good neighbor 
provision for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\6\ The commenter 
did not provide a technical analysis that contradicts EPA's proposed 
determination that sources in South Carolina such as Magnolia or 
Westrock will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance in another state. Therefore, EPA continues 
to believe that the Agency's analysis of these and other South Carolina 
sources in the NPRM, weighed along with other WOE factors described in 
the NPRM, support EPA's conclusion that South Carolina has satisfied 
the good neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The DRR required state air agencies to characterize air 
quality, through air dispersion modeling or monitoring, in areas 
associated with sources that emitted 2,000 tpy or more of 
SO2, or that have otherwise been listed under the DRR by 
EPA or state air agencies. In lieu of modeling or monitoring, state 
air agencies, by specified dates, could elect to impose federally-
enforceable emissions limitations on those sources restricting their 
annual SO2 emissions to less than 2,000 tpy, or provide 
documentation that the sources have been shut down. See 80 FR 51052 
(August 21, 2015).
    \6\ With regard to the WestRock facility, EPA continues to 
believe that the 68-km distance between the WestRock facility in 
South Carolina and the Pilkington facility, the nearest source in 
North Carolina with SO2 emissions greater than 100 tpy, 
makes it unlikely that SO2 emissions from WestRock could 
interact with SO2 emissions from Pilkington in such a way 
as to contribute significantly to nonattainment in North Carolina. 
See 84 FR 16805 (April 23, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: Two commenters expressed concerns regarding the modeling 
analysis for Resolute FP US Inc.--Catawba Mill (Resolute). One 
commenter questions the use of 2012-2014 actual emissions in the 
modeling of Resolute.\7\ The commenter states that ``EPA is hiding 
behind 5-7 year old data'' and that EPA should perform the modeling 
using maximum allowable potential emissions before concluding that the 
source, located 7 km from the North Carolina border, ``does not 
contribute to violations in the neighboring state.'' Another commenter 
questions the use of a modeling domain for Resolute that extends 4 km 
into North Carolina and mentions that EPA should perform ``additional 
modeling to confirm that an extended modeling domain would not show an 
even higher modeled concentration farther into the state of North 
Carolina.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Resolute is a pulp and paper mill located in Catawba, South 
Carolina. Resolute opted to conduct air dispersion modeling under 
the DRR. EPA summarized these modeling results in the NPRM. See 84 
FR at 16803-16804.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 2: As discussed above, the good neighbor provision does 
not require modeling to determine whether a state contributes 
significantly to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of a 
specific NAAQS in another state. EPA used a WOE analysis to evaluate 
South Carolina's SIP revision under the good neighbor provision and 
evaluated all available data, including the modeling submitted by South 
Carolina during the DRR process for Resolute.
    As stated in the NPRM, the modeling for Resolute predicts no 
violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS within 50 km of the 
South Carolina border. The modeling results show that SO2 
concentrations drop off rapidly with a predicted maximum modeled 
concentration of approximately 69 ppb just north of the facility and 
concentrations in North Carolina below approximately 18 ppb.\8\ EPA 
continues to believe that these results, weighed along with the other 
WOE factors discussed in the NPRM, support EPA's proposed conclusion 
that sources in South Carolina do not significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Extending the modeling domain more than 4 km into North 
Carolina would not alter EPA's conclusions because the modeled 
concentrations in North Carolina are well below the NAAQS and, given 
the nature of SO2, would likely continue to decrease as 
distance increases from the source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the comment regarding the use of modeling with ``5-7 
year old data'' to evaluate South Carolina's June 25, 2018, SIP 
submission, EPA has evaluated more recent actual SO2 
emissions data for Resolute for the years 2015-2017.\9\ Resolute's 
2015-2017 SO2 emissions (2,386 tpy, 2,391 tpy, and 2,211 tpy 
in 2015, 2016, and 2017, respectively) are lower than the modeled 2012-
2014 SO2 emissions (4,562 tpy, 4,491 tpy, and 4,780 tpy in 
2012, 2013, and 2014, respectively). Because emissions have decreased 
from 2012-2014 to 2015-2017, the model results may overpredict current 
SO2 concentrations and therefore continue to support the 
Agency's conclusion that South Carolina has satisfied the good neighbor 
provision with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA 
also notes that the commenters did not provide any technical analysis 
contradicting EPA's proposed determination that Resolute will not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 3: A commenter notes that EPA analyzed sources that emitted 
more than 100 tpy of SO2 within 50 km of the South Carolina 
border. The commenter states that EPA should have considered and 
modeled sources that emitted less SO2 and are closer to the 
border and that EPA evaluated sources emitting 1 tpy when acting on 
good neighbor SIP revisions for Delaware and the District of Columbia.
    Response 3: EPA assessed annual emissions data for non-DRR sources 
emitting over 100 tons of SO2 in 2017 in South Carolina and 
existing dispersion modeling for DRR sources to identify the universe 
of sources in the State likely to be responsible for SO2 
emissions potentially contributing to interstate transport. After 
determining that 89 percent of South Carolina's statewide 
SO2 emissions are from point sources based on 2014 
emissions, EPA next focused on individual facilities which emitted 
above 100 tpy using the most recent year for which point source 
emission data was available, i.e., 2017. EPA assessed, using its best 
judgment, which sources could have the most serious impact on downwind 
states. EPA chose 100 tpy as the emissions threshold for consideration 
for interstate transport because South Carolina's universe of point 
sources was too large to evaluate every source at a lower threshold 
like that used in the Delaware and District of Columbia analyses. South 
Carolina's point sources of SO2 emitting 100 tons or less in 
2017 comprise only seven percent of the State's total SO2 
point source inventory in 2017.\10\ EPA is not precluded from choosing 
different thresholds for evaluating interstate transport in different 
states because the factual circumstances vary from state to state. 
Furthermore, EPA notes that small sources, in particular those emitting 
less than 100 tpy of SO2, usually cannot be

[[Page 54501]]

characterized accurately because the level of detail about the source 
and the data needed for such an analysis is not as often readily 
available as for the larger sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The 2017 South Carolina SO2 point source 
emissions data which SC DHEC reported to EPA is included in the 
docket for this action under Docket ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0665.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the statement about modeling, EPA notes that it did not 
independently model any sources as part of its evaluation of South 
Carolina's good neighbor SIP submission, including sources emitting 
more than 100 tpy of SO2 within 50 km from the South 
Carolina border. EPA did, however, evaluate all available information 
for sources that emitted more than 100 tpy of SO2 within 50 
km of the border, including any available air dispersion modeling, and 
continues to believe that its WOE analysis demonstrates that South 
Carolina has satisfied the good neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS. The commenter did not provide a technical 
analysis indicating that sources emitting less than or equal to 100 tpy 
within 50 km of the border may have downwind impacts that violate the 
good neighbor provision.
    Comment 4: A commenter states that three sources in South Carolina 
(i.e., W.S. Lee Station, McMeekin Station, and WestRock) were ``able to 
escape nonattainment designation status'' by accepting federally-
enforceable permit limits ``to exempt them from complying with the 
DRR.'' The commenter states that accepting these limits does not mean 
that these sources are not ``causing or contributing to nonattainment 
or maintenance'' in another state and questions why EPA did not perform 
modeling to determine if these sources are impacting neighboring states 
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    Response 4: Regarding the commenter's reference to the 
SO2 designations signed on December 21, 2017 (83 FR 1098), 
to the extent commenter is taking issue with those designations, those 
designations and the federally-enforceable emission limits taken to 
comply with the DRR are outside the scope of this action to approve 
South Carolina's SIP revision to address interstate transport for the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Regarding the comment concerning 
modeling, EPA does not agree that modeling is necessary to demonstrate 
that these sources do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 
another state. As discussed above, there is nothing in the interstate 
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) suggesting that 
dispersion modeling is legally required to evaluate good neighbor SIPs, 
and EPA used its long-standing WOE approach to evaluate South 
Carolina's SIP revision under the good neighbor provision. EPA also 
notes that the commenter did not provide a technical analysis that 
contradicts EPA's proposed determination that W.S. Lee Station, 
McMeekin Station, and WestRock will not significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another state.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving South Carolina's June 25, 2018, SIP submission as 
demonstrating that South Carolina's SIP has adequate provisions 
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in the State 
from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute 
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state.

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 
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose 
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that 
reason, this action:

     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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).

    In addition, this action for South Carolina does not have Tribal 
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 
November 9, 2000) because it does not have substantial direct effects 
on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located 
within the boundary of York County, South Carolina. Pursuant to the 
Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, ``all 
state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the Catawba 
Indian Nation and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant 
state and local agencies and authorities.'' However, EPA has determined 
that this rule does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian 
Tribe because this action is not approving any specific rule, but 
rather has determined that South Carolina's already approved SIP meets 
certain CAA requirements. EPA notes that this action will not impose 
substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this

[[Page 54502]]

action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the 
appropriate circuit by December 9, 2019. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: September 25, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart PP-South Carolina

0
2. In Sec.  52.2120, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding 
the entry ``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.2120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               State
                Provision                 effective date       EPA approval date              Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure               6/25/2018  10/10/2019, [insert         Addressing Prongs 1 and 2
 Requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2                      Federal Register            of section
 NAAQS.                                                    citation].                  110(a)(2)(D)(i) only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-21956 Filed 10-9-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.