Air Plan Approval; GA; 2010 1-Hour SO2, 66334-66345 [2019-26037]

Download as PDF khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 66334 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules by indicating that a work has been published ‘‘online’’ and/or identifying the nation from which the work was posted online as the nation of first publication, without prejudice to any party subsequently making more specific claims or arguments regarding the publication status or nation(s) in which a work was first published, including before a court of competent jurisdiction? 21 4. Applicants cannot currently register published works and unpublished works in the same application. Should the Copyright Office alter its practices to allow applicants who pay a fee to amend or supplement applications to partition the application into published and unpublished sections if a work (or group of works) the applicant mistakenly represented was either entirely published or unpublished in an initial application is subsequently determined to contain both published and unpublished components? What practical or administrative considerations should the Office take into account in considering this option? 5. For certain group registration options, should the Copyright Office amend its regulations to allow applicants in its next generation registration system to register unpublished and published works in a single registration, with published works marked as published and the date and nation of first publication noted? What would the benefits of such a registration option be, given that applicants will continue to be required to determine whether each work has been published prior to submitting an application? What practical or administrative considerations should the Office take into account in considering this option? 7. Is there a need to amend section 409 so that applicants for copyright registrations are no longer required to identify whether a work has been published and/or the date and nation of first publication, or to provide the Register of Copyrights with regulatory authority to alter section 409(8)’s requirement for certain classes of works? 8. Is there a need for Congress to take additional steps with respect to clarifying the definition of publication in the digital environment? Why or why 21 Compare 37 CFR 201.4(g) (‘‘The fact that the Office has recorded a document is not a determination by the Office of the document’s validity or legal effect. Recordation of a document by the Copyright Office is without prejudice to any party claiming that the legal or formal requirements for recordation have not been met, including before a court of competent jurisdiction.’’). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Dec 03, 2019 Jkt 250001 not? For example, should Congress consider amending the Copyright Act so that a different event, rather than publication, triggers some or all of the consequences that currently flow from a work’s publication? If so, how and through what provisions? 9. The Copyright Office invites comment on any additional considerations it should take into account relating to online publication. Dated: November 26, 2019. Regan A. Smith, General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights. [FR Doc. 2019–26004 Filed 12–3–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410–30–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R04–OAR–2019–0329; FRL–10002– 76–Region 4] Air Plan Approval; GA; 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Transport Infrastructure Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve Georgia’s January 9, 2019, 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 will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other state. In this action, EPA is proposing to determine that Georgia will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the January 9, 2019, SIP revision as meeting the requirements of the good neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 3, 2020. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– OAR–2019–0329 at https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. 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 A. Infrastructure SIPs 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). Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section 110(a)(1) requires states to make SIP submissions to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This particular type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an ‘‘infrastructure SIP.’’ These submissions must meet the various requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), as applicable. 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). E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM 04DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules On January 9, 2019, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD), submitted a revision to the Georgia SIP addressing only prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS.1 EPA is proposing to approve GA EPD’s January 9, 2019, SIP submission because the State demonstrated that Georgia 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 Georgia were addressed in separate rulemakings.2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background In this action, EPA has considered information from the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS designations process, as discussed in more detail in section III.C of this notice. For this reason, a brief summary of EPA’s designations process for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is included here.3 After the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required to designate areas as ‘‘nonattainment,’’ ‘‘attainment,’’ or ‘‘unclassifiable,’’ pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d) of the CAA. The CAA requires EPA to complete the initial designations 1 In an October 22, 2013, SIP submission, as supplemented on July 25, 2014, GA EPD submitted SIP revisions addressing all infrastructure elements with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS with the exception of prongs 1 and 2 of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 2 EPA acted on the other elements of Georgia’s October 22, 2013, SIP submission, as supplemented on July 25, 2014, for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on April 28, 2016 (81 FR 25355). 3 While designations may provide useful information for purposes of analyzing transport, particularly for a more source-specific pollutant such as SO2, EPA notes that designations themselves are not dispositive of whether or not upwind emissions are impacting areas in downwind states. EPA has consistently taken the position that as to impacts, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) refers only to prevention of ‘nonattainment’ in other states, not to prevention of nonattainment in designated nonattainment areas or any similar formulation requiring that designations for downwind nonattainment areas must first have occurred. See e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule, 70 FR 25162, 25265 (May 12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208, 48211 (Aug. 8, 2011); Final Response to Petition from New Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From the Portland Generating Station, 76 FR 69052 (Nov. 7, 2011) (finding facility in violation of the prohibitions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS prior to issuance of designations for that standard). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Dec 03, 2019 Jkt 250001 process within two years of promulgating a new or revised standard. If the Administrator has insufficient information to make these designations by that deadline, EPA has the authority to extend the deadline for completing designations by up to one year. EPA promulgated the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on June 2, 2010. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). EPA completed the first round of designations (‘‘round 1’’) 4 for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on July 25, 2013, designating 29 areas in 16 states as nonattainment for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS. See 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013). On August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052), EPA separately promulgated air quality characterization requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the Data Requirements Rule (DRR). 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 tons per year (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. EPA expected that the information generated by implementation of the DRR would help inform designations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS that must be completed by December 31, 2020 (‘‘round 4’’).5 EPA signed Federal Register notices of promulgation for round 2 designations 6 on June 30, 2016 (81 FR 45039 (July 12, 2016)), and on November 29, 2016 (81 FR 89870 (December 13, 2016)), and round 3 designations 7 on December 21, 2017 (83 FR 1098 (January 9, 2018)). 4 The term ‘‘round’’ in this instance refers to which ‘‘round of designations.’’ 5 Consent Decree, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case No. 3:13–cv–3953–SI (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2015). This March 2, 2015, consent decree requires EPA to sign for publication in the Federal Register notices of the Agency’s promulgation of area designations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS by three specific deadlines: July 2, 2016 (‘‘round 2’’); December 31, 2017 (‘‘round 3’’); and December 31, 2020 (‘‘round 4’’). 6 EPA and state documents and public comments related to the round 2 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2014–0464 and at EPA’s website for SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxidedesignations. 7 EPA and state documents and public comments related to round 3 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2017–0003 and at EPA’s website for SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxidedesignations. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 66335 Currently, there are no nonattainment areas for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Georgia. One area in Floyd County, Georgia, will be designated in round 4.8 The remaining counties in Georgia were designated as attainment/unclassifiable in rounds 2 and round 3. II. Relevant Factors Used To Evaluate 2010 1-Hour SO2 Interstate Transport SIPs Although SO2 is emitted from a similar universe of point and nonpoint sources as is directly emitted fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and the precursors to ozone and PM2.5, interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the transport of PM2.5 or ozone because SO2 emissions sources usually do not have long range SO2 impacts. The transport of SO2 relative to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is more analogous to the transport of lead (Pb) relative to the Pb NAAQS in that emissions of SO2 typically result in 1-hour pollutant impacts of possible concern only near the emissions source. However, ambient 1-hour concentrations of SO2 do not decrease as quickly with distance from the source as do 3-month average concentrations of Pb, because SO2 gas is not removed by deposition as rapidly as are Pb particles and because SO2 typically has a higher emissions release height than Pb. Emitted SO2 has wider ranging impacts than emitted Pb, but it does not have such wide-ranging impacts that treatment in a manner similar to ozone or PM2.5 would be appropriate. Accordingly, while the approaches that EPA has adopted for ozone or PM2.5 transport are too regionally focused, the approach for Pb transport is too tightly circumscribed to the source. SO2 transport is therefore a unique case and requires a different approach. In SO2 transport analyses, EPA focuses on a 50 kilometer (km)-wide zone because the physical properties of SO2 result in relatively localized pollutant impacts near an emissions source that drop off with distance. In its July 31, 2019, SIP submission, GA EPD identified a distance threshold to reflect the transport properties of SO2. GA EPD selected a spatial scale with dimensions from four to 50 km from point sources—the ‘‘urban scale’’—as appropriate in assessing trends in both 8 See Technical Support Document: Chapter 10: Final Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Georgia at https://www.epa.gov/sites/ production/files/2017-12/documents/10-ga-so2-rd3final.pdf. See also Technical Support Document: Chapter 10: Proposed Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Georgia at https:// www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/ documents/10_ga-so2-rd3-final.pdf. E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM 04DEP1 66336 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS area-wide air quality and the effectiveness of large-scale pollution control strategies at such point sources. GA EPD supported this choice of transport distance threshold with references to the March 1, 2011, EPA memorandum titled ‘‘Additional Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ and noted that GA EPD believes that this guidance memorandum can be applied to 1-hour SO2 analyses.9 In its January 9, 2019, SIP submission, GA EPD included a quote from page 16 of this March 1, 2011, EPA memorandum: ‘‘Even accounting for some terrain influences on the location and gradients of maximum 1-hour concentrations, these considerations suggest that the emphasis on determining which nearby sources to include in the modeling analysis should focus on the area within about 10 kilometers of the project location in most cases. The routine inclusion of all sources within 50 kilometers of the project location, the nominal distance for which the American Meteorological Society/ Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) is applicable, is likely to produce an overly conservative result in most cases.’’ In addition, the State indicated that GA EPD conducted modeling for the DRR which showed that the highest impacts from sources are typically within 2–5 km from the source and that the impacts past 10 km are ‘‘insignificant.’’ GA EPD believes that based on EPA’s March 11, 2011, guidance memorandum and GA EPD’s SO2 modeling, an appropriate transport distance for SO2 from Georgia to neighboring states is 10 km. However, GA EPD stated that Georgia ‘‘will use an extremely conservative transport distance of 50 km in this demonstration to match the distance for which AERMOD is applicable.’’ 10 Given the properties of SO2, EPA preliminarily agrees with Georgia’s selection of the urban scale to assess trends in area-wide air quality that might impact downwind states.11 As 9 EPA’s March 1, 2011, memorandum, Additional Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard, is available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201507/documents/appwno2_2.pdf. 10 See page 3 of Georgia’s January 9, 2019, SIP submission in the docket for this action. 11 For the definition of spatial scales for SO , 2 please see 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.4 (‘‘Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Design Criteria’’). For further discussion on how EPA applies these definitions with respect to interstate transport of SO2, see EPA’s notice of proposed rulemaking on VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Dec 03, 2019 Jkt 250001 discussed further in section III.B, EPA believes that Georgia’s selection of the urban scale is appropriate for assessing trends in both area-wide air quality and the effectiveness of large-scale pollution control strategies at SO2 point sources. EPA’s notes that Georgia’s selection of this transport distance for SO2 is consistent with 40 CFR 58, Appendix D, Section 4.4.4(4) ‘‘Urban scale,’’ which states that measurements in this scale would be used to estimate SO2 concentrations over large portions of an urban area with dimensions from four to 50 km. AERMOD is EPA’s preferred modeling platform for regulatory purposes for near-field dispersion of emissions for distances up to 50 km. See Appendix W of 40 CFR part 51. Thus, EPA is proposing to concur with Georgia’s application of the 50-km threshold to evaluate emission source impacts into neighboring states and to assess air quality monitors within 50 km of the State’s border, which is discussed further in section III.C.12 As discussed in sections III.C and III.D, EPA first reviewed Georgia’s analysis to assess how the State evaluated the transport of SO2 to other states, the types of information used in the analysis, and the conclusions drawn by the State. EPA then conducted a weight of evidence analysis based on a review of the State’s submission and other available information, including SO2 air quality and available source modeling for monitors and sources in Georgia and in neighboring states within 50 km of the Georgia border.13 whether SO2 emissions from the State adversely affect attainment or maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in downwind states. GA EPD reviewed the following information to support its conclusion that Georgia does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in downwind states: Annual SO2 99th percentile values (2015, 2016, and 2017) and 2017 design values (DVs) 14 at monitors in Georgia and adjacent states within 50 km of Georgia’s border; SO2 emissions trends in Georgia and adjacent states from 1990 to 2017; the fact that EPA designated all counties within 50 km of Georgia’s border as attainment/unclassifiable with the exception of Haywood County in North Carolina and a portion of Nassau County in Florida 15 (GA EPD’s analysis of Haywood County, North Carolina, and Nassau County, Florida, is described in section III.C.3.a of this notice); and established federal and State control measures which reduce SO2 emissions in the present and future. Based on this weight of evidence analysis, the State concluded that emissions within Georgia will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. EPA’s evaluation of Georgia’s submission is detailed in sections III.B, C, and D. III. Georgia’s SIP Submission and EPA’s Analysis EPA believes that a reasonable starting point for determining which sources and emissions activities in Georgia are likely to impact downwind air quality in other states with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is by using information in EPA’s National A. State Submission On January 9, 2019, GA EPD submitted a revision to the Georgia SIP addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS. Georgia conducted a weight of evidence analysis to examine Connecticut’s SO2 transport SIP. 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8, 2017). 12 Because EPA concurs with Georgia’s application of the 50-km threshold, EPA is not addressing Georgia’s assertion that impacts of SO2 beyond 10 km are insignificant. 13 This proposed approval action is based on the information contained in the administrative record for this action, and does not prejudge any future EPA action that may make other determinations regarding the air quality status in Georgia and downwind states. Any such future action, such as area designations under any NAAQS, will be based on their own administrative records and EPA’s analyses of information that becomes available at those times. Future available information may include, and is not limited to, monitoring data and modeling analyses conducted pursuant to EPA’s DRR and information submitted to EPA by states, air agencies, and third-party stakeholders such as citizen groups and industry representatives. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 B. EPA’s Evaluation Methodology 14 A ‘‘Design Value’’ is a statistic that describes the air quality status of a given location relative to the level of the NAAQS. The DV for the primary 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is the 3-year average of annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour values for a monitoring site. The interpretation of the primary 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS including the data handling conventions and calculations necessary for determining compliance with the NAAQS can be found in Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50. The 2017 DV is calculated based on the three year average from 2015–2017. 15 On April 24, 2019, EPA approved Florida’s request, submitted on June 7, 2018, to redesignate the Nassau County area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and the accompanying SIP revision containing the maintenance plan for the area. See 84 FR 17085. EPA’s redesignation of the Nassau Area was based, in part, on a modeled attainment demonstration that included permanent and enforceable SO2 controls and emissions limits at the Rayonier and WestRock facilities showing attainment of the 2010 SO2 standard by the statutory deadline. E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM 04DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules Emissions Inventory (NEI).16 The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed estimate of air emissions for criteria pollutants, criteria pollutant precursors, and hazardous air pollutants from air emissions sources that is updated every three years using information provided by the states and other information available to EPA. EPA evaluated data from the 2014 NEI (version 2), the most recently available, complete, and quality assured dataset of the NEI. As shown in Table 1, the majority of SO2 emissions in Georgia originate from fuel combustion at point sources.17 In 2014, SO2 emissions from point sources 18 in Georgia comprised approximately 91 percent of the total SO2 emissions in the State, with 81 percent of the State’s total SO2 emissions coming from fuel combustion point sources. Because emissions from the other listed source categories are more dispersed throughout the State, those categories are less likely to cause high ambient concentrations when compared to a point source on a ton-forton basis. In addition, EPA considered 2017 statewide SO2 emissions data in Georgia’s SIP submission, which showed that fuel combustion by electric 66337 generating units (EGUs) and industrial processes comprised approximately 57 percent of the State’s SO2 emissions in 2017.19 Based on EPA’s analysis of the 2014 NEI and GA EPD’s evaluation of 2017 statewide SO2 emissions data by certain source categories, EPA believes that it is appropriate to focus the analysis on SO2 emissions from Georgia’s larger point sources (i.e., emitting over 100 tpy of SO2 in 2017), including fuel combustion point sources, which are located within the ‘‘urban scale,’’ i.e., within 50 km of one or more state borders. TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF 2014 NEI (VERSION 2) SO2 DATA FOR GEORGIA BY SOURCE TYPE Emissions (tpy) khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Category Percent of total SO2 emissions Fuel Combustion: EGUs (All Fuel Types) ............................................................................................................... Fuel Combustion: Industrial Boilers/Internal Combustion Engines (All Fuel Types) .............................................. Fuel Combustion: Commercial/Institutional (All Fuel Types) .................................................................................. Fuel Combustion: Residential (All Fuel Types) ....................................................................................................... Industrial Processes (All Categories) ...................................................................................................................... Mobile Sources (All Categories) .............................................................................................................................. Fires (All Types) ...................................................................................................................................................... Waste Disposal ........................................................................................................................................................ Solvent Processes ................................................................................................................................................... Miscellaneous (Non-Industrial) ................................................................................................................................ 65,464.40 14,152.46 2,833.38 140.30 10,789.15 3,077.47 4,772.53 919.03 0.28 5.57 64 14 3 0 11 3 5 1 0 0 SO2 Emissions Total ........................................................................................................................................ 102,154.57 100 As explained in Section II, because the physical properties of SO2 result in relatively localized pollutant impacts near an emissions source that drop off with distance, in SO2 transport analyses, EPA focuses on a 50 km-wide zone. Thus, EPA focused its evaluation on Georgia’s point sources of SO2 emissions located within approximately 50 km of another state and their potential impact on neighboring states. As discussed in section I.B., EPA’s current implementation strategy for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS includes the flexibility to characterize air quality for stationary sources subject to the DRR via either data collected at ambient air quality monitors sited to capture the points of maximum concentration, or air dispersion modeling (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘DRR monitor’’). EPA’s assessment of SO2 emissions from Georgia’s point sources located within approximately 50 km of another state and their potential impacts on neighboring states (section III.C.1. of this notice) and SO2 air quality data at monitors within 50 km of the Georgia border (section III.C.3. of this notice) is informed by all available data at the time of this rulemaking.20 As described in Section III, EPA proposes to conclude that an assessment of Georgia’s satisfaction of the prong 1 and 2 requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS may be reasonably based upon evaluating the downwind impacts of SO2 emissions from Georgia’s point sources, including fuel combustion sources, located within approximately 50 km of another state and upon any regulations intended to address Georgia’s point sources. 16 EPA’s NEI is available at https://www.epa.gov/ air-emissions-inventories/national-emissionsinventory. 17 Residential fuel combustion is considered a nonpoint source, and thus, residential fuel combustion data is not included in the point source fuel combustion data and related calculations. 18 Georgia’s point sources listed in Table 1, for the purposes of this action, are comprised of all of the ‘‘Fuel Combustion’’ categories and ‘‘Industrial Processes (All Categories).’’ 19 See Table 2 on p.7 of Georgia’s July 31, 2019, SIP submission. 20 EPA notes that the evaluation of other states’ satisfaction of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS can be informed by similar factors found in this proposed rulemaking but may not be identical to the approach taken in this or any VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Dec 03, 2019 Jkt 250001 C. EPA’s Prong 1 Evaluation— Significant Contribution to Nonattainment Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision requires states’ plans to PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment of a NAAQS in another state. GA EPD confirms in its submission that Georgia sources will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other state with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard. To evaluate Georgia’s satisfaction of prong 1, EPA assessed the State’s implementation plan with respect to the following factors: (1) Potential ambient impacts of SO2 emissions from certain facilities in Georgia on neighboring states based on available air dispersion modeling results; (2) SO2 ambient air quality and emissions trends for Georgia and neighboring states; (3) SIP-approved regulations that address SO2 emissions; and (4) federal regulations that reduce SO2 emissions. A detailed discussion of Georgia’s SIP submission with respect to each of these factors follows.21 EPA proposes that these factors, taken together, support the Agency’s proposed future rulemaking for Georgia, depending on available information and state-specific circumstances. 21 EPA has reviewed Georgia’s submission, and where new or more current information has become available, is including this information as part of the Agency’s evaluation of this submission. E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM 04DEP1 66338 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules determination that Georgia will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state. EPA also notes that the Agency does not have information indicating that there are violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the surrounding states. Also, 2017 SO2 emissions for Georgia’s nonDRR sources emitting over 100 tons of SO2 within 50 km of another state are at distances or emit levels of SO2 that make it unlikely that these SO2 emissions could interact with SO2 emissions from the neighboring states’ sources in such a way as to contribute significantly to nonattainment in these states. In addition, the downward trends in SO2 emissions and DVs for air quality monitors in the State, the fact that the highest annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentration values observed at the only DRR monitor within 50 km of the Georgia border were well below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 2017 and 2018, combined with federal and State SIPapproved regulations affecting SO2 emissions of Georgia’s sources, further support EPA’s proposed conclusion. 1. SO2 Designations Air Dispersion Modeling a. State Submission In its SIP revision, GA EPD references modeling done by the State for the DRR when discussing SO2 transport. Regarding source-specific modeling under the DRR, EPA evaluated and summarized the modeling results for Georgia’s DRR sources within 50 km of the State’s border in Table 2 of section III.C.1.b. b. EPA Analysis EPA evaluated available DRR modeling results for sources in Georgia and in the adjacent states that are within 50 km of the Georgia border.22 The purpose of evaluating modeling results in adjacent states within 50 km of the Georgia border is to ascertain whether any nearby sources in Georgia are impacting a violation of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state.23 Table 2 provides a summary of the modeling results for the modeled DRR sources 24 in Georgia which are located within 50 km of another state: GeorgiaPacific Consumer Products—Savannah River Mill (Savannah River Mill); Georgia Power Company—Plant Bowen (Plant Bowen); Georgia Power Company—Plant McIntosh (Plant McIntosh); Georgia Power Company— Plant Wansley (Plant Wansley); and International Paper—Savannah. The modeling analysis resulted in no modeled violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS within the modeling domain for each facility. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS TABLE 2—GEORGIA SOURCES WITH DRR MODELING LOCATED WITHIN 50 km OF ANOTHER STATE DRR source County Approximate distance from source to adjacent state (km) International Paper—Savannah. Chatham ........ <5 (SC) .......... Plant Bowen ....... Bartow ............ Plant McIntosh (Modeled with Savannah River Mill). Effingham ....... Modeled 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentration (ppb) Model grid extends into another state? None ............................................. 66.0 (based on 2011–2013 actual and allowable/potential-to-emit (PTE) emissions). 45 (AL) ........... None ............................................. <5 (SC) .......... Effingham County Power, LLC facility (GA); GA Pacific—Savannah River Mill (GA); * South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) Jasper Generating Station (SC) (based on allowable/PTE emissions for Effingham County Power and Jasper Generating Station). 57.6 (based on 2014–2016 actual emissions). 71.6 for both Plant McIntosh and Savannah River Mill (based on 2012–2014 actual emissions for the steam generating unit at Plant McIntosh; combustion turbines at Plant McIntosh were modeled at PTE). Yes—into SC (western portion of Jasper County, SC). No. 22 As discussed in section I.B., Georgia used air dispersion modeling to characterize air quality in the vicinity of certain SO2 emitting sources to identify the maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations in ambient air which informed EPA’s round 3 SO2 designations. EPA’s preferred modeling platform for regulatory purposes is AERMOD (Appendix W of 40 CFR part 51). In these DRR modeling analyses using AERMOD, the impacts of the actual emissions for one or more of the recent 3-year periods (e.g., 2012– 2014, 2013–2015, 2014–2016) were considered, and in some cases, the modeling was of currently effective limits on allowable emissions in lieu of or as a supplement to modeling of actual emissions. The available air dispersion modeling of certain SO2 sources can support transport related conclusions about whether sources in one state are potentially contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard in other states. While AERMOD was not designed specifically to address interstate transport, the 50-km distance that EPA VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Dec 03, 2019 Jkt 250001 Other facilities included in modeling recommends for use with AERMOD aligns with the concept that there are localized pollutant impacts of SO2 near an emissions source that drop off with distance. Thus, EPA believes that the use of AERMOD provides a reliable indication of air quality for transport purposes. 23 EPA established a non-binding technical assistance document to assist states and other parties in their efforts to characterize air quality through air dispersion modeling for sources that emit SO2 titled, ‘‘SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical Assistance Document.’’ This draft document was first released in spring 2013. Revised drafts were released in February and August of 2016 (see https://www.epa.gov/sites/ production/files/2016-06/documents/ so2modelingtad.pdf). 24 The DRR modeling results for Georgia’s DRR sources may be found in the proposed and final round 3 technical support documents at: https:// www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/ PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Yes—extends into western portion of Jasper County, SC. documents/10_ga-so2-rd3-final.pdf and https:// www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/ documents/10-ga-so2-rd3-final.pdf. Georgia Power Company—Plant Kraft is a DRR source in Georgia located less than 5 km from the South Carolina border which has shut down as of October 13, 2015, and its operating permit was formally revoked on November 9, 2016. Georgia Power—Plant Yates (Plant Yates) is a DRR source in Georgia located approximately 34 km from the Alabama border. Plant Yates accepted a federally enforceable emissions limit as its pathway to satisfy the DRR. Units 1–5 at Plant Yates were permanently shut down on April 15, 2015, and units 6 and 7 were converted from coal-fired to natural gas-fired by the same date, in accordance with an April 29, 2014, title V permit revision to comply with the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule. The facility then added permit condition 3.2.1, restricting all fuel burning to natural gas, in its title V operating permit effective January 10, 2017. E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM 04DEP1 66339 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2—GEORGIA SOURCES WITH DRR MODELING LOCATED WITHIN 50 km OF ANOTHER STATE—Continued DRR source County Approximate distance from source to adjacent state (km) Plant Wansley .... Heard ............. 17 (AL) ........... Savannah River Mill (Modeled with Plant McIntosh). Effingham ....... <5 (SC) .......... Modeled 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentration (ppb) Other facilities included in modeling Plant Yates, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, Chattahoochee Energy, and Wansley Combined-Cycle Generating Plant (GA). Effingham County Power, LLC facility (GA); Plant McIntosh (GA); * SCE&G Jasper Generating Station (SC) (based on allowable/PTE emissions for Effingham County Power and Jasper Generating Station). Model grid extends into another state? 15 (based on 2012–2014 actual emissions for Plant Wansley and allowable/PTE emissions for the nearby sources). No. 71.6 for both Plant McIntosh and Savannah River Mill * (based on 2012–2014 actual emissions for the steam generating unit at Plant McIntosh; combustion turbines at Plant McIntosh were modeled at PTE). Yes—extends into western portion of Jasper County, South Carolina. * Savannah River Mill’s 2010 1-hour SO2 modeled DV is based on 2012–2014 actual emissions for three primary power boilers and allowable/ PTE emissions for 13 emissions units at Savannah River Mill. For more details, see pp. 67–68 of EPA’s Technical Support Document: Chapter 10 Proposed Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Georgia located at https:// www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/10_ga-so2-rd3-final.pdf. Table 3 provides a summary of the modeling results for the modeled DRR sources in neighboring states which are located within 50 km of Georgia: 25 Continental Carbon Company—Phenix City Plant (Continental Carbon) in Alabama and JEA—Northside/St. Johns River Power Park (SJRPP); 26 WestRock CP, LLC—Fernandina Beach Mill (WestRock); and White Springs Agricultural Chemical—Swift Creek Chemical Complex (White Springs) in Florida. TABLE 3—OTHER STATES’ SOURCES WITH DRR MODELING LOCATED WITHIN 50 km OF GEORGIA DRR source County (state) Approximate distance from source to Georgia border (km) Other facilities included in modeling Modeled 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentration (ppb) Model grid extends into another state? Yes, into GA (the southwestern portion of Muscogee County, GA, and the northwestern portion of Chattahoochee County, GA). No. Continental Carbon. Russell (AL). 1 IIG MinWool LLC (AL) .......... 60.63 (based on PTE emissions) ........ SJRPP .... Duval (FL). 35 WestRock 27. Nassau (FL). <5 Cedar Bay/Generating Plant, Renessenz Jacksonville Facility, Anchor Glass Jacksonville Plant, and IFF Chemical Holdings (FL). Rayonier Performance Fibers (FL). White Springs. Hamilton (FL). 16 56.22 (based on 2012–2014 actual emissions for SJRPP and Renessenz Jacksonville Facility; PTE rates for Cedar Bay, Anchor Glass, and IFF Chemical facilities). 66.09 (based on 2012–2014 actual emissions for WestRock and Rayonier; three minor sources at WestRock were modeled based on PTE). 56.34 (based on 2012–2014 actual emissions for White Springs sulfuric acid plants E & F and permitted allowable emissions for PCS Suwanee River Plant and the remaining sources at White Springs). PCS Suwannee River Plant * (FL). Yes (approximately 3 km into a portion of southern Georgia). No. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS * The PCS Suwannee River Plant shut down most of its operations in 2014. 25 Two DRR sources in adjacent states within 50 km of the Georgia border were not modeled. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)—Widows Creek Fossil Plant, located in Alabama, has shut down. Therefore, Alabama did not characterize this source via monitoring or modeling pursuant to the DRR. Duke Energy Carolinas LLC—W.S. Lee Steam Station (Lee Station), located in South Carolina 42 km from the Georgia border, accepted federallyenforceable permit limits to exempt out of the DRR VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Dec 03, 2019 Jkt 250001 requirements. The station closed two coal-fired units at the facility in 2014 and converted a coalfired unit to natural gas in 2015. See, e.g., EPA, Technical Support Document: Final Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (Dec. 2017), pp. 62 and 64, available at Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0003–0611 at www.regulations.gov. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 26 Units 1 and 2 at Florida’s DRR source, St. John River Power Park, shut down effective December 31, 2017. 27 As discussed in footnote 15, EPA’s redesignation of the Nassau Area was based, in part, on a modeled attainment demonstration that included permanent and enforceable SO2 controls and emissions limits at the Rayonier and WestRock facilities showing attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard. E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM 04DEP1 66340 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules EPA believes that the modeling results summarized in Tables 2 and 3, weighed along with the other factors in this notice, support EPA’s proposed conclusion that sources in Georgia will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Furthermore, EPA does not have any evidence of any modeled 2010 1-hour SO2 violations in the neighboring states due to SO2 emissions from Georgia. 2. SO2 Emissions Analysis a. State Submission As discussed above, GA EPD provided 2017 statewide SO2 emissions data by certain source categories, which showed that fuel combustion by EGUs and industrial processes comprised approximately 57 percent of the State’s SO2 emissions in 2017. In addition, GA EPD provided in Georgia’s January 9, 2019, submission in Appendix A and displayed in a figure SO2 emission trends in Georgia from 1990 to 2017 and notes that SO2 emissions decreased by 95 percent during that time period.28 GA EPD also analyzed and displayed in a figure in Georgia’s January 9, 2019, submission SO2 emission trends in the adjacent states of Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee from 1990 to 2017.29 From the State’s analysis of these emissions data, GA EPD concludes that there has been a significant reduction in SO2 emissions in Georgia and its neighboring states from 2007 to 2017. b. EPA Analysis EPA reviewed the SO2 emissions data from 1990 to 2017 for Georgia and the adjacent states of Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.30 Georgia’s statewide SO2 emissions decreased from 985,445 tons in 1990 to 50,606 tons in 2017. EPA agrees that statewide SO2 emissions for these six states, including Georgia, have decreased significantly over this time period and notes that these reductions show a similar downward trend.31 EPA also notes that SO2 emissions from fuel combustion at Georgia EGUs decreased from 875,451 tons in 1990 to 13,794 tons in 2017 and that SO2 emissions from fuel combustion due to industrial processes in Georgia declined from 54,570 tons in 1990 to 14,706 tons in 2017.32 As discussed in section III.B, EPA finds that it is appropriate to examine the impacts of SO2 emissions from stationary sources emitting greater than 100 tons of SO2 in Georgia in distances ranging from zero km to 50 km from the sources. Therefore, in addition to the sources addressed in section III.C.1.b of this notice, EPA also assessed the potential impacts of SO2 emissions from stationary sources not subject to the DRR and located up to 50 km from Georgia’s borders using 2017 emissions data and to evaluate whether the SO2 emissions from these sources could interact with SO2 emissions from the nearest source in a neighboring state in such a way as to impact a violation of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in that state. Table 4 lists sources in Georgia not subject to the DRR that emitted greater than 100 tpy of SO2 in 2017 and are located within 50 km of the State’s border. Currently, EPA does not have monitoring or modeling data suggesting that the states of Alabama, Florida, and South Carolina are impacted by SO2 emissions from the nine Georgia sources listed in Table 4. All 10 Georgia sources are located over 50 km from the nearest non-DRR sources in another state emitting over 100 tons of SO2. EPA believes that the distances greater than 50 km between sources make it unlikely that SO2 emissions from the 10 Georgia sources could interact with SO2 emissions from these out-of-state sources in such a way as to contribute significantly to nonattainment in Alabama, Florida, or South Carolina. TABLE 4—GEORGIA NON-DRR SO2 SOURCES WITHIN 50 km OF THE GEORGIA BORDER EMITTING GREATER THAN 100 TPY NEAR NEIGHBORING STATES 2017 Annual SO2 emissions (tons) khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Georgia source Approximate distance to Georgia border (km) Closest neighboring state Approximate distance to nearest neighboring state SO2 source (km) Brunswick Cellulose LLC ............... Georgia-Pacific Cedar Springs LLC. Graphic Packaging International, LLC (formerly International Paper—Augusta Mill). Imperial-Savannah, L.P ................. 281.4 511.6 50 <5 Florida .................. Alabama ............... 88 75 253.3 <5 South Carolina ..... 88 191.0 <5 South Carolina ..... 130 PCA Valdosta Mill .......................... 471.1 7 Florida .................. 76 Savannah Acid Plant LLC ............. 163.0 <5 South Carolina ..... 130 Southern States Phosphate & Fertilizer. Thermal Ceramics ......................... 581.4 <5 South Carolina ..... 130 1,150.2 <5 South Carolina ..... 90 Weyerhaeuser NR Port Wentworth 524.1 <5 South Carolina ..... 130 28 See Figures 3 and 4 on p.6 and 7, respectively, of Georgia’s submission which includes statewide SO2 emission trends in Georgia from 1990 to 2017. 29 See Figure 4 on p.7 of Georgia’s submission which includes statewide SO2 emission trends in Georgia and the adjacent states of Alabama, Florida, VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Dec 03, 2019 Jkt 250001 North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee from 1990 to 2017. 30 State annual emissions trends for criteria pollutants of Tier 1 emission source categories from 1990 to 2017 are available at: https://www.epa.gov/ air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissionstrends-data. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Nearest neighboring state non-DRR SO2 source & 2017 emissions (>100 tons SO2) Symrise (824.9 tons). Mineral Manufacturing Corporation (182.3 tons). SCE&G Cope Station (1,165.6 tons). Showa Denko Carbon Inc. (241.0 tons). Foley Cellulose LLC (1,537.6 tons). Showa Denko Carbon Inc. (241.0 tons). Showa Denko Carbon Inc. (241.0 tons). SCE&G Cope Station (1,165.6 tons). Showa Denko Carbon Inc. (241.0 tons). 31 See Figure 4 on p.7 of Georgia’s submission. Appendix A of Georgia’s submission. This data is also available at: https://www.epa.gov/airemissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissionstrends-data. 32 See E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM 04DEP1 66341 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules Based on the declining SO2 emissions trends statewide in Georgia and the adjacent states of Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee, and the Agency’s analysis of the Georgia sources in Table 4, EPA believes that Georgia’s potential for contributing significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in a nearby state is reduced substantially. 3. SO2 Ambient Air Quality a. State Submission In its SIP submission, GA EPD included a table showing that the six SO2 monitors in Georgia and six monitors in the adjacent states of Florida and South Carolina within 50 km of Georgia’s border with complete, valid DVs for the 2015–2017 time period have 2017 DVs of 52 ppb or less, well below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.33 GA EPD also summarized EPA’s round 3 designations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for Georgia and adjacent states. GA EPD notes that EPA designated all counties within 50 km of Georgia’s border as attainment/unclassifiable in round 3 with the exception of Haywood County in North Carolina and a small portion of Nassau County in Florida. With respect to Haywood County, North Carolina, GA EPD explains that Haywood County will be designated in round 4. The only SO2 source in Georgia within 50 km 34 of Haywood County, North Carolina, is Multitrade Rabun Gap. According to the State, the 2014 SO2 emissions from this facility were 25.1 tpy.35 In the January 9, 2019, SIP submission, GA EPD concluded that Multitrade Rabun Gap will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Haywood County, North Carolina, due to the amount of these emissions and the distance from Haywood County. With respect to Nassau County, Florida, GA EPD summarized the status of this area as follows. On August 5, 2013,36 EPA designated an area in Nassau County, Florida, as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS based on ambient SO2 monitoring data in the area over the three-year period 2009–2011. Florida submitted an attainment demonstration for Nassau County on April 3, 2015, and EPA fully approved this demonstration on July 3, 2017. GA EPD notes that the SO2 monitor in Nassau County has a 2017 SO2 DV of 43 ppb. Florida submitted a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Nassau County SO2 nonattainment area on June 7, 2018. Thus, GA EPD concluded that because Nassau County currently has a 3-year DV well below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and, at the time of Georgia’s SIP development, was in the process of being redesignated to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, SO2 emission sources in Georgia do not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Nassau County, Florida.37 b. EPA Analysis Since the time of development of Georgia’s SIP submission, certified monitoring data from EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) 38 (‘‘AQS monitors’’) have become available for Georgia and the surrounding states. EPA has summarized the DVs from 2013 to 2018 for AQS monitors in Georgia within 50 km of another state in Table 5 and AQS monitors in neighboring states within 50 km of Georgia in Table 6 using relevant data from EPA’s AQS DV reports for recent and complete 3-year periods. The 2010 1-hour SO2 standard is violated at an ambient air quality monitoring site (or in the case of dispersion modeling, at an ambient air quality receptor location) when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations exceeds 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with Appendix T of 40 CFR part 50. TABLE 5—TREND IN 1-HOUR SO2 DVS (PPB) FOR AQS MONITORS IN GEORGIA WITHIN 50 km OF ANOTHER STATE County AQS Site code (ID) Chatham ............... Chatham ............... Floyd .................... Richmond ............. 2011–2013 13–051–0021 13–051–1002 13–115–0003 13–245–0091 2012–2014 66 79 67 * ND * ND 78 46 * ND 2013–2015 2014–2016 * ND 70 35 61 2015–2017 * ND 52 42 60 32 48 * ND 52 2016–2018 32 45 * ND 52 Approximate distance to Georgia border (km) 7.1 (SC). 2.8 (SC). 12.6 (AL). 6.2 (SC). khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS * ND indicates ‘‘No Data’’ due to monitor startup or shutdown (operated less than three years), data quality issues, or incomplete data. ** The Floyd County, Georgia monitor (AQS ID: 13–115–0003) was discontinued in 2016. As shown in Table 5, DVs for the four non-DRR monitoring sites in Georgia within 50 km of another state’s border have remained well below the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS for the 2011–2013 through 2016–2018 time periods.39 The monitor located in Floyd County maintained 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS DVs well below the NAAQS for the 2011–2013 through 2014–2016 time periods, and was then relocated to a nearby site in 2016 to characterize the area pursuant to the DRR; therefore, no DVs are available for this monitor after the 2014–2016 time period.40 33 Table 1 of Georgia’s SIP submission also presents 2015, 2016, and 2017 annual 99th percentile SO2 concentrations in ppb (appears as ‘‘ppm’’ in the submission) for four monitors within 50 km of Georgia’s border which do not have complete valid data to calculate a DV. 34 EPA notes that Multitrade Rabun Gap is located approximately 55 km from Haywood County. 35 EPA notes that Multitrade Rabun Gap emitted 28.1 tons of SO2 in 2017. 36 See 78 FR 47191 (effective October 4, 2013). 37 As discussed in footnote 15, EPA has redesignated the Nassau County area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 38 EPA’s AQS contains ambient air pollution data collected by EPA, state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies. This data is available at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-designvalues. 39 The Muscogee County, Georgia monitor (AQS ID: 13–215–008) is not shown in Table 5 because it was discontinued in 2012, and therefore, has no DVs for the 2011–2013 through the 2016–2018 time periods. 40 The Floyd County, Georgia monitor (AQS ID: 13–115–0003) shown in Table 5 of this notice was relocated in January 2017 to the opposite side of the International Paper-Rome facility to characterize the area of expected maximum 1-hour SO2 concentration near the source pursuant to the DRR. This DRR monitor in Floyd County, Georgia (AQS ID: 13–115–0006), is shown in Table 7 of this notice and does not have a valid 2015–2017 DV because the monitor was relocated. The data from the original monitor (AQS ID: 13–115–0003) and the relocated monitor (AQS ID: 13–115–0006) were not combined to calculate a DV because the relocated monitor (AQS ID: 13–115–0006) was installed to characterize the air quality in the area under the DRR. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Dec 03, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM 04DEP1 66342 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules There is one AQS monitor in South Carolina and six AQS monitors in Florida that are located within 50 km of Georgia. As shown in Table 6, the DVs from 2013 to 2018 for these monitors are generally trending downward, and the 2018 DVs are well below the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS, with the exception of the Hamilton County, Florida monitor which has no data for the 2016–2018 DV time period. The Hamilton County monitor has 2012 and 2013 DVs of 23 and 25 ppb, respectively, and incomplete data for the remaining DV time periods (2014–2018). TABLE 6—2010 1-HOUR SO2 DVS (PPB) FOR AQS MONITORS WITH COMPLETE, VALID DATA WITHIN 50 km OF GEORGIA IN ADJACENT STATES State County AQS ID Florida ..... Florida ..... Florida ..... Florida ..... Florida ..... Florida ..... South Carolina. Duval ....... Duval ....... Duval ....... Duval ....... Hamilton .. Nassau .... Oconee ... 12–031–0032 * 12–031–0080 12–031–0081 * 12–031–0097 12–047–0015 12–089–0005 45–073–0001 2011–2013 2012–2014 17 11 29 21 25 70 ** ND 17 17 27 21 ** ND 57 ** ND 2013–2015 2014–2016 16 17 23 23 ** ND 58 3 2015–2017 16 17 20 18 ** ND 51 2 Alabama .. No AQS monitors within 50 km of Georgia, North Carolina. No AQS monitors within 50 km of Georgia. Approximate distance to Georgia border (km) 2016–2018 16 10 12 14 ** ND 43 2 18 ** ND 11 ** ND ** ND 37 2 39 37 38 43 19 6 3 * EPA approved the shutdown of two SO2 monitors in Duval County (AQS IDs: 12–031–0080 and 12–031–0097) in 2018. ** ND indicates ‘‘No Data’’ due to monitor startup or shutdown (operated less than three years), data quality issues, or incomplete data. EPA also evaluated monitoring data provided to date for DRR monitors either located in Georgia within 50 km of another state’s border or in other states within 50 km of the Georgia border that were established to characterize the air quality around specific sources subject to EPA’s DRR to inform the Agency’s future round 4 designations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in lieu of modeling. There are no DRR monitors located in other states within 50 km of the Georgia border. There is one DRR monitor in Georgia which is within 50 km of the border, and it is located approximately 12 km from Alabama in Floyd County, Georgia (AQS ID: 13–115–0006) and is sited in the vicinity of the International Paper— Rome facility, a DRR source. Table 7 lists the 2017 and 2018 99th percentile SO2 concentration data for this DRR monitor in Floyd County, Georgia.41 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS TABLE 7—ANNUAL 99TH PERCENTILE OF 1-HOUR DAILY MAXIMUM SO2 CONCENTRATIONS FOR ROUND 4 DRR MONITORS IN GEORGIA WITHIN 50 km OF ANOTHER STATE’S BORDER County (state) Round 4 monitored source Floyd (GA) .................. International Paper—Rome ............................ Although the annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations shown in Table 7 are not directly comparable to a DV for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, which is in the form of the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour values, EPA notes that the highest annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour values observed at the Floyd County DRR monitor in 2017 and 2018 were 22 ppb and 15 ppb, respectively, which are well below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The Floyd County DRR monitor did not measure any daily AQS ID 13–115–0006 exceedances of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS during 2017 or 2018. After careful review of the State’s assessment and all available monitoring data, EPA believes that the AQS monitoring data and the preliminary data from the Floyd County DRR monitor (AQS ID: 13–115–0006) further support EPA’s proposed conclusion that Georgia will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states. 2017 99th percentile concentration (ppb) 2018 99th percentile concentration (ppb) Approximate distance to Alabama (km) 22 15 12 4. SIP-Approved Regulations Addressing SO2 Emissions a. State Submission Georgia identified the following SIPapproved measures which help ensure that SO2 emissions in the State do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control 391–3–1.03.—Permits. Amended, contains provisions addressing construction permits (391–3–1-.03(1)); operating permits (391–3–1-.03(2)); new source review (NSR) (391–3–1-.03(8)(c) and 41 The Floyd County, Georgia DRR monitor (AQS ID: 13–115–0006) does not have three or more years of complete data to establish DVs. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Dec 03, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM 04DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS (g)); permit by rule (391–3–1-.03(11)); and generic permits (391–3–1-.03(12)). Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control 391–3–1-.02(7) addresses Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements, which apply to all new major sources and major modifications in attainment, unclassifiable, or undesignated areas.42 Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control 391–3–1-.02(2)(g)— Sulfur Dioxide and 391–3–1-.02(13)— Cross State Air Pollution Rule SO2 Annual Trading Program also reduce SO2 emissions. In addition, GA EPD listed the following State-enforceable rules not approved into the Georgia SIP which control SO2 emissions: Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control 391–3–1.02(2)(sss)—Multipollutant Control for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and 391–3–1-.02(2)(uuu)—SO2 Emissions from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. b. EPA Analysis EPA believes that Georgia’s SIPapproved measures which establish emission limits, permitting requirements, and other control measures for SO2 effectively address emissions of SO2 from sources in the State. For the purposes of ensuring that SO2 emissions at new major sources or major modifications at existing major sources in Georgia do not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS, the State has a SIP-approved major NSR program. Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control 391–3–1-.03.— Permits. Amended, which includes NSR requirements under 391–3-l-.03(8)(c) and (g), regulates the construction of any new major stationary source or any modification at an existing major stationary source in an area designated as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable. The State’s SIP-approved PSD regulation, 391–3–1-.02.— Provisions. Amended, which includes PSD requirements under 391–3–1-.02(7), applies to the construction of any new major stationary source or major modification at an existing major stationary source in an area designated as attainment or unclassifiable or not yet designated. SIP-approved Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control 391–3–1-.03(1)— Construction (SIP) Permit governs the preconstruction permitting of minor modifications and the construction of minor stationary sources. These major and minor NSR rules ensure that SO2 emissions due to major modifications at existing major stationary sources, modifications at minor stationary 42 There are currently no nonattainment areas for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Georgia. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Dec 03, 2019 Jkt 250001 sources, and the construction of new major and minor sources subject to these rules will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states. 5. Federal Regulations Addressing SO2 Emissions in Georgia a. State Submission GA EPD did not identify any specific federal regulations that address SO2 emissions in its SIP submission. Thus, EPA lists in section III.C.5.b several federal regulations which have reduced SO2 emissions in Georgia and will continue to do so in the future. b. EPA Analysis The following federal control measures reduce SO2 emissions from various sources: 2007 Heavy-Duty Highway Rule; Acid Rain Program; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule; Mercury Air Toxics Rule; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; New Source Performance Standards; Nonroad Diesel Rule; and Tier 1 and 2 Mobile Source Rules. EPA believes that these federal measures will lower SO2 emissions, which, in turn, are expected to continue to support EPA’s proposed conclusion that SO2 emissions from Georgia will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state. 6. Conclusion EPA proposes to determine that Georgia’s January 9, 2019, SIP submission satisfies the requirements of prong 1 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This proposed determination is based on the following considerations: Modeling for the six Georgia DRR sources within 50 km of another state’s border shows that the areas around these facilities are not exceeding the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; DVs for 2013 through 2018 for the four currently operating nonDRR monitoring sites in Georgia within 50 km of another state’s border have remained well below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; 2017 and 2018 99th percentile SO2 concentrations at the DRR monitor in Floyd County, Georgia, are well below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; the DVs for five of the six nonDRR monitors in Florida 43 and the one non-DRR monitor South Carolina that are located within 50 km of Georgia are trending downward overall and have remained below the level of the 2010 143 The Hamilton County, Florida monitor (AQS ID: 12–047–0015) has no data to calculate DVs for the 2012–2014 through the 2016–2018 time periods due to invalidated data for those years. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 66343 hour SO2 NAAQS from the 2011–2013 to 2016–2018 time periods; SO2 emissions from Georgia sources not subject to the DRR emitting over 100 tons of SO2 in 2017 are not likely interacting with SO2 emissions from the nearest out-of-state source in a bordering state in such a way as to contribute significantly to nonattainment in Alabama, Florida, or South Carolina; downward SO2 emissions trends in Georgia and the Agency’s analysis of the non-DRR Georgia sources emitting over 100 tpy in 2017 in Table 4 suggest that Georgia’s potential for contributing significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in a nearby state is reduced substantially; and current Georgia SIPapproved measures and federal emissions control programs adequately control SO2 emissions from sources within Georgia. Based on the analysis provided by Georgia in its SIP submission and EPA’s analysis of factors described in section III.C, EPA proposes to find that sources within Georgia will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. D. EPA’s Prong 2 Evaluation— Interference With Maintenance of the NAAQS Prong 2 of the good neighbor provision requires state plans to prohibit emissions that will interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in another state. 1. State Submission In its January 9, 2019, SIP submission, GA EPD confirms that Georgia will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. GA EPD bases its conclusion for prong 2 on the following: Annual SO2 99th percentile values (2015, 2016, and 2017) and the 2015–2017 DVs at monitors in Georgia and within 50 km of Georgia’s border; SO2 emissions trends in Georgia and adjacent states from 1990 to 2017; and the SIP-approved measures discussed in sections III.C.4.a of this notice. 2. EPA Analysis In North Carolina v. EPA, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) explained that the regulating authority must give prong 2 ‘‘independent significance’’ from prong 1 by evaluating the impact of upwind state emissions on downwind areas that, while currently in attainment, are at risk of future nonattainment. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 910–11 (D.C. Cir. E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM 04DEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 66344 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules 2008). EPA interprets prong 2 to require an evaluation of the potential impact of a state’s emissions on areas that are currently measuring clean data, but that may have issues maintaining that air quality. Therefore, in addition to the analysis presented by Georgia, EPA has also reviewed additional information on SO2 air quality and emission trends to evaluate the State’s conclusion that Georgia will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in downwind states. This evaluation builds on the analysis regarding significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1). For the prong 2 analysis, EPA evaluated the emissions trends provided by Georgia for the State, evaluated air quality data, and assessed how future sources of SO2 are addressed through existing SIP-approved and federal regulations. Given the continuing trend of decreasing SO2 emissions from sources within Georgia and the fact that all areas in other states within 50 km of the Georgia border have DVs attaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS (with the exception of Florida’s Duval County monitor (AQS ID: 12–031–0080) which does not have a 2018 DV), EPA believes that evaluating whether these decreases in emissions can be maintained over time is a reasonable criterion to ensure that sources within Georgia do not interfere with its neighboring states’ ability to maintain the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. With respect to air quality data trends, the 2018 DVs for AQS SO2 monitors both in Georgia within 50 km of another state’s border and in adjacent states within 50 km of Georgia’s border are below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Further, modeling results for DRR sources both within the State and in neighboring states within 50 km of Georgia’s border demonstrate attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and thus, demonstrate that Georgia’s largest point sources of SO2 are not expected to interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state. As discussed in sections III.C.4 and III.C.5, EPA believes that federal and SIP-approved State regulations that both directly and indirectly reduce emissions of SO2 in Georgia help ensure that the State does not interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. SO2 emissions from future major modifications and new major sources will be addressed by Georgia’s SIPapproved major NSR regulations described in section III.C.4. In addition, Georgia’s SIP approved Air Quality Control Rule 391–3–1-.03(1)— Construction (SIP) Permit governs the preconstruction permitting of VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Dec 03, 2019 Jkt 250001 modifications, construction of minor stationary sources, and minor modifications of major stationary sources. The permitting regulations contained within these programs ensure that emissions from these activities do not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the State or in any other state. 3. Conclusion EPA proposes to determine that Georgia’s January 9, 2019, SIP submission satisfies the requirements of prong 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This determination is based on the following considerations: Modeling for DRR sources within 50 km of Georgia’s border both within the State and in neighboring states demonstrate that Georgia’s largest point sources of SO2 are not expected to interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state; SO2 emissions statewide from 1990 to 2017 in Georgia have declined significantly and, weighed along with the Agency’s analysis of the Georgia non-DRR sources emitting greater than 100 tpy in 2017 listed in Table 4 of this notice, indicate that Georgia’s potential for interfering with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in a nearby state is reduced substantially; current Georgia SIPapproved measures and federal emissions control programs adequately control SO2 emissions from sources within Georgia, including Georgia’s SIPapproved NSR permit programs which address future large and small SO2 sources in the State; DVs for the 2011– 2013 through 2016–2018 time periods for AQS SO2 monitors both in Georgia within 50 km of another state’s border and in adjacent states within 50 km of Georgia’s border are well below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and trending downward; and the relatively low 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum SO2 concentrations for 2017 and 2018 at the Floyd County, Georgia, DRR monitor. Based on the analysis provided by Georgia in its SIP submission and EPA’s supplemental analysis of the factors described in section III.C and III.D of this notice, EPA proposes to find that emission sources within Georgia will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. IV. Proposed Action Based on the above analysis, EPA is proposing to determine that Georgia will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the January PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 9, 2019, SIP revision as meeting the requirements of the good neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action: • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866; • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM 04DEP1 66345 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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, Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: November 21, 2019. Mary S. Walker, Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 2019–26037 Filed 12–3–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2019–0439; FRL–10002– 89–Region 9] Air Plan Approval; California; Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rules. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These SUMMARY: revisions concern emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from Metal Parts and Products Coating Operations, and Polyester Resin Operations. We are proposing to approve two local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) as well as proposing to approve negative declarations for three subcategories of control techniques guidelines (CTG) sources in the MDAQMD. In addition, we are proposing to convert the partial conditional approval of the District’s reasonably available control technology (RACT) SIPs for the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards, as it applies to these two rules, to a full approval. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action. DATES: Any comments must arrive by January 3, 2020. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– OAR–2019–0439 at https:// www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The 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. The 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, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972–3024 or by email at Lazarus.Arnold@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. Table of Contents I. The State’s Submittal A. What did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules and negative declarations? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules? II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the submissions? B. Do the submissions meet the evaluation criteria? C. The EPA’s Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules D. Public Comment and Proposed Action III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State’s Submittal A. What did the State submit? Table 1 lists the rules and the negative declarations addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were amended/ adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board. TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE AND NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS Document title MDAQMD ................. MDAQMD ................. MDAQMD ................. Rule 1115 Metal Parts and Products Coating Operations ............................................... Rule 1162 Polyester Resin Operations ............................................................................ Federal Negative Declarations for Two Control Techniques Guidelines Source Categories. Federal Negative Declaration for One Control Techniques Guidelines Source Category (Motor Vehicle Materials). MDAQMD ................. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Amended/ adopted Local agency On November 23, 2018, the submittal for MDAQMD Rule 1115 was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. On January 16, 2019, the submittal for Rule 1162 was deemed by operation of law to meet the VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Dec 03, 2019 Jkt 250001 completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. On January 16, 2019, the submittal for Federal Negative Declarations for Two Control Techniques Guidelines Source Categories was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. On June 7, PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Submitted 01/22/2018 04/23/2018 04/23/2018 05/23/2018 07/16/2018 07/16/2018 10/22/2018 12/07/2018 2019, the submittal for Federal Negative Declaration for One Control Techniques Guidelines Source Category (Motor Vehicle Materials) was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM 04DEP1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66334-66345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26037]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0329; FRL-10002-76-Region 4]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve Georgia's January 9, 2019, 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 will 
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with 
maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other state. In this action, EPA is 
proposing to determine that Georgia will not contribute significantly 
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
approve the January 9, 2019, SIP revision as meeting the requirements 
of the good neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 3, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2019-0329 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment 
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

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

A. Infrastructure SIPs

    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). Whenever EPA 
promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section 110(a)(1) requires 
states to make SIP submissions to provide for the implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This particular type of SIP 
submission is commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP.'' These 
submissions must meet the various requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2), as applicable.
    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).

[[Page 66335]]

    On January 9, 2019, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 
through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD), 
submitted a revision to the Georgia SIP addressing only prongs 1 and 2 
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS.\1\ EPA is proposing to approve GA EPD's January 9, 2019, SIP 
submission because the State demonstrated that Georgia 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 Georgia 
were addressed in separate rulemakings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In an October 22, 2013, SIP submission, as supplemented on 
July 25, 2014, GA EPD submitted SIP revisions addressing all 
infrastructure elements with respect to the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS with the exception of prongs 1 and 2 of CAA 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    \2\ EPA acted on the other elements of Georgia's October 22, 
2013, SIP submission, as supplemented on July 25, 2014, for the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS on April 28, 2016 (81 FR 25355).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background

    In this action, EPA has considered information from the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS designations process, as discussed in more detail 
in section III.C of this notice. For this reason, a brief summary of 
EPA's designations process for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is 
included here.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ While designations may provide useful information for 
purposes of analyzing transport, particularly for a more source-
specific pollutant such as SO2, EPA notes that 
designations themselves are not dispositive of whether or not upwind 
emissions are impacting areas in downwind states. EPA has 
consistently taken the position that as to impacts, CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D) refers only to prevention of `nonattainment' in other 
states, not to prevention of nonattainment in designated 
nonattainment areas or any similar formulation requiring that 
designations for downwind nonattainment areas must first have 
occurred. See e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule, 70 FR 25162, 25265 
(May 12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208, 48211 
(Aug. 8, 2011); Final Response to Petition from New Jersey Regarding 
SO2 Emissions From the Portland Generating Station, 76 FR 
69052 (Nov. 7, 2011) (finding facility in violation of the 
prohibitions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS prior to issuance of designations 
for that standard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required 
to designate areas as ``nonattainment,'' ``attainment,'' or 
``unclassifiable,'' pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. The 
process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or 
revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d) of the CAA. The CAA 
requires EPA to complete the initial designations process within two 
years of promulgating a new or revised standard. If the Administrator 
has insufficient information to make these designations by that 
deadline, EPA has the authority to extend the deadline for completing 
designations by up to one year.
    EPA promulgated the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on June 2, 
2010. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). EPA completed the first round of 
designations (``round 1'') \4\ for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 
on July 25, 2013, designating 29 areas in 16 states as nonattainment 
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``round'' in this instance refers to which ``round 
of designations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052), EPA separately promulgated air 
quality characterization requirements for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in the Data Requirements Rule (DRR). 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 tons per year (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. EPA expected that the information 
generated by implementation of the DRR would help inform designations 
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS that must be completed by 
December 31, 2020 (``round 4'').\5\ EPA signed Federal Register notices 
of promulgation for round 2 designations \6\ on June 30, 2016 (81 FR 
45039 (July 12, 2016)), and on November 29, 2016 (81 FR 89870 (December 
13, 2016)), and round 3 designations \7\ on December 21, 2017 (83 FR 
1098 (January 9, 2018)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Consent Decree, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case No. 3:13-cv-
3953-SI (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2015). This March 2, 2015, consent decree 
requires EPA to sign for publication in the Federal Register notices 
of the Agency's promulgation of area designations for the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS by three specific deadlines: July 2, 2016 
(``round 2''); December 31, 2017 (``round 3''); and December 31, 
2020 (``round 4'').
    \6\ EPA and state documents and public comments related to the 
round 2 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464 and at EPA's website for 
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
    \7\ EPA and state documents and public comments related to round 
3 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003 and at EPA's website for 
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, there are no nonattainment areas for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in Georgia. One area in Floyd County, Georgia, 
will be designated in round 4.\8\ The remaining counties in Georgia 
were designated as attainment/unclassifiable in rounds 2 and round 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Technical Support Document: Chapter 10: Final Round 3 
Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard for Georgia at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/10-ga-so2-rd3-final.pdf. See also 
Technical Support Document: Chapter 10: Proposed Round 3 Area 
Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard for Georgia at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/10_ga-so2-rd3-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Relevant Factors Used To Evaluate 2010 1-Hour SO2 Interstate 
Transport SIPs

    Although SO2 is emitted from a similar universe of point 
and nonpoint sources as is directly emitted fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) and the precursors to ozone and PM2.5, 
interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the transport of 
PM2.5 or ozone because SO2 emissions sources 
usually do not have long range SO2 impacts. The transport of 
SO2 relative to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is more 
analogous to the transport of lead (Pb) relative to the Pb NAAQS in 
that emissions of SO2 typically result in 1-hour pollutant 
impacts of possible concern only near the emissions source. However, 
ambient 1-hour concentrations of SO2 do not decrease as 
quickly with distance from the source as do 3-month average 
concentrations of Pb, because SO2 gas is not removed by 
deposition as rapidly as are Pb particles and because SO2 
typically has a higher emissions release height than Pb. Emitted 
SO2 has wider ranging impacts than emitted Pb, but it does 
not have such wide-ranging impacts that treatment in a manner similar 
to ozone or PM2.5 would be appropriate. Accordingly, while 
the approaches that EPA has adopted for ozone or PM2.5 
transport are too regionally focused, the approach for Pb transport is 
too tightly circumscribed to the source. SO2 transport is 
therefore a unique case and requires a different approach. In 
SO2 transport analyses, EPA focuses on a 50 kilometer (km)-
wide zone because the physical properties of SO2 result in 
relatively localized pollutant impacts near an emissions source that 
drop off with distance.
    In its July 31, 2019, SIP submission, GA EPD identified a distance 
threshold to reflect the transport properties of SO2. GA EPD 
selected a spatial scale with dimensions from four to 50 km from point 
sources--the ``urban scale''--as appropriate in assessing trends in 
both

[[Page 66336]]

area-wide air quality and the effectiveness of large-scale pollution 
control strategies at such point sources. GA EPD supported this choice 
of transport distance threshold with references to the March 1, 2011, 
EPA memorandum titled ``Additional Clarification Regarding Application 
of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour NO2 National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' and noted that GA EPD believes that 
this guidance memorandum can be applied to 1-hour SO2 
analyses.\9\ In its January 9, 2019, SIP submission, GA EPD included a 
quote from page 16 of this March 1, 2011, EPA memorandum: ``Even 
accounting for some terrain influences on the location and gradients of 
maximum 1-hour concentrations, these considerations suggest that the 
emphasis on determining which nearby sources to include in the modeling 
analysis should focus on the area within about 10 kilometers of the 
project location in most cases. The routine inclusion of all sources 
within 50 kilometers of the project location, the nominal distance for 
which the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection 
Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) is applicable, is likely to produce an 
overly conservative result in most cases.'' In addition, the State 
indicated that GA EPD conducted modeling for the DRR which showed that 
the highest impacts from sources are typically within 2-5 km from the 
source and that the impacts past 10 km are ``insignificant.'' GA EPD 
believes that based on EPA's March 11, 2011, guidance memorandum and GA 
EPD's SO2 modeling, an appropriate transport distance for 
SO2 from Georgia to neighboring states is 10 km. However, GA 
EPD stated that Georgia ``will use an extremely conservative transport 
distance of 50 km in this demonstration to match the distance for which 
AERMOD is applicable.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA's March 1, 2011, memorandum, Additional Clarification 
Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour 
NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard, is available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/appwno2_2.pdf.
    \10\ See page 3 of Georgia's January 9, 2019, SIP submission in 
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the properties of SO2, EPA preliminarily agrees 
with Georgia's selection of the urban scale to assess trends in area-
wide air quality that might impact downwind states.\11\ As discussed 
further in section III.B, EPA believes that Georgia's selection of the 
urban scale is appropriate for assessing trends in both area-wide air 
quality and the effectiveness of large-scale pollution control 
strategies at SO2 point sources. EPA's notes that Georgia's 
selection of this transport distance for SO2 is consistent 
with 40 CFR 58, Appendix D, Section 4.4.4(4) ``Urban scale,'' which 
states that measurements in this scale would be used to estimate 
SO2 concentrations over large portions of an urban area with 
dimensions from four to 50 km. AERMOD is EPA's preferred modeling 
platform for regulatory purposes for near-field dispersion of emissions 
for distances up to 50 km. See Appendix W of 40 CFR part 51. Thus, EPA 
is proposing to concur with Georgia's application of the 50-km 
threshold to evaluate emission source impacts into neighboring states 
and to assess air quality monitors within 50 km of the State's border, 
which is discussed further in section III.C.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For the definition of spatial scales for SO2, 
please see 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.4 (``Sulfur Dioxide 
(SO2) Design Criteria''). For further discussion on how 
EPA applies these definitions with respect to interstate transport 
of SO2, see EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking on 
Connecticut's SO2 transport SIP. 82 FR 21351, 21352, 
21354 (May 8, 2017).
    \12\ Because EPA concurs with Georgia's application of the 50-km 
threshold, EPA is not addressing Georgia's assertion that impacts of 
SO2 beyond 10 km are insignificant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in sections III.C and III.D, EPA first reviewed 
Georgia's analysis to assess how the State evaluated the transport of 
SO2 to other states, the types of information used in the 
analysis, and the conclusions drawn by the State. EPA then conducted a 
weight of evidence analysis based on a review of the State's submission 
and other available information, including SO2 air quality 
and available source modeling for monitors and sources in Georgia and 
in neighboring states within 50 km of the Georgia border.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This proposed approval action is based on the information 
contained in the administrative record for this action, and does not 
prejudge any future EPA action that may make other determinations 
regarding the air quality status in Georgia and downwind states. Any 
such future action, such as area designations under any NAAQS, will 
be based on their own administrative records and EPA's analyses of 
information that becomes available at those times. Future available 
information may include, and is not limited to, monitoring data and 
modeling analyses conducted pursuant to EPA's DRR and information 
submitted to EPA by states, air agencies, and third-party 
stakeholders such as citizen groups and industry representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Georgia's SIP Submission and EPA's Analysis

A. State Submission

    On January 9, 2019, GA EPD submitted a revision to the Georgia SIP 
addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Georgia conducted a weight of 
evidence analysis to examine whether SO2 emissions from the 
State adversely affect attainment or maintenance of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in downwind states.
    GA EPD reviewed the following information to support its conclusion 
that Georgia does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 
downwind states: Annual SO2 99th percentile values (2015, 
2016, and 2017) and 2017 design values (DVs) \14\ at monitors in 
Georgia and adjacent states within 50 km of Georgia's border; 
SO2 emissions trends in Georgia and adjacent states from 
1990 to 2017; the fact that EPA designated all counties within 50 km of 
Georgia's border as attainment/unclassifiable with the exception of 
Haywood County in North Carolina and a portion of Nassau County in 
Florida \15\ (GA EPD's analysis of Haywood County, North Carolina, and 
Nassau County, Florida, is described in section III.C.3.a of this 
notice); and established federal and State control measures which 
reduce SO2 emissions in the present and future. Based on 
this weight of evidence analysis, the State concluded that emissions 
within Georgia will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 
any other state. EPA's evaluation of Georgia's submission is detailed 
in sections III.B, C, and D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ A ``Design Value'' is a statistic that describes the air 
quality status of a given location relative to the level of the 
NAAQS. The DV for the primary 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is 
the 3-year average of annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour 
values for a monitoring site. The interpretation of the primary 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS including the data handling conventions 
and calculations necessary for determining compliance with the NAAQS 
can be found in Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50. The 2017 DV is 
calculated based on the three year average from 2015-2017.
    \15\ On April 24, 2019, EPA approved Florida's request, 
submitted on June 7, 2018, to redesignate the Nassau County area to 
attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and the 
accompanying SIP revision containing the maintenance plan for the 
area. See 84 FR 17085. EPA's redesignation of the Nassau Area was 
based, in part, on a modeled attainment demonstration that included 
permanent and enforceable SO2 controls and emissions 
limits at the Rayonier and WestRock facilities showing attainment of 
the 2010 SO2 standard by the statutory deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Evaluation Methodology

    EPA believes that a reasonable starting point for determining which 
sources and emissions activities in Georgia are likely to impact 
downwind air quality in other states with respect to the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS is by using information in EPA's National

[[Page 66337]]

Emissions Inventory (NEI).\16\ The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed 
estimate of air emissions for criteria pollutants, criteria pollutant 
precursors, and hazardous air pollutants from air emissions sources 
that is updated every three years using information provided by the 
states and other information available to EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EPA's NEI is available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA evaluated data from the 2014 NEI (version 2), the most recently 
available, complete, and quality assured dataset of the NEI. As shown 
in Table 1, the majority of SO2 emissions in Georgia 
originate from fuel combustion at point sources.\17\ In 2014, 
SO2 emissions from point sources \18\ in Georgia comprised 
approximately 91 percent of the total SO2 emissions in the 
State, with 81 percent of the State's total SO2 emissions 
coming from fuel combustion point sources. Because emissions from the 
other listed source categories are more dispersed throughout the State, 
those categories are less likely to cause high ambient concentrations 
when compared to a point source on a ton-for-ton basis. In addition, 
EPA considered 2017 statewide SO2 emissions data in 
Georgia's SIP submission, which showed that fuel combustion by electric 
generating units (EGUs) and industrial processes comprised 
approximately 57 percent of the State's SO2 emissions in 
2017.\19\ Based on EPA's analysis of the 2014 NEI and GA EPD's 
evaluation of 2017 statewide SO2 emissions data by certain 
source categories, EPA believes that it is appropriate to focus the 
analysis on SO2 emissions from Georgia's larger point 
sources (i.e., emitting over 100 tpy of SO2 in 2017), 
including fuel combustion point sources, which are located within the 
``urban scale,'' i.e., within 50 km of one or more state borders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Residential fuel combustion is considered a nonpoint 
source, and thus, residential fuel combustion data is not included 
in the point source fuel combustion data and related calculations.
    \18\ Georgia's point sources listed in Table 1, for the purposes 
of this action, are comprised of all of the ``Fuel Combustion'' 
categories and ``Industrial Processes (All Categories).''
    \19\ See Table 2 on p.7 of Georgia's July 31, 2019, SIP 
submission.

 Table 1--Summary of 2014 NEI (Version 2) SO2 Data for Georgia by Source
                                  Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Percent of
                Category                     Emissions       total SO2
                                               (tpy)         emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Combustion: EGUs (All Fuel Types)..       65,464.40              64
Fuel Combustion: Industrial Boilers/           14,152.46              14
 Internal Combustion Engines (All Fuel
 Types).................................
Fuel Combustion: Commercial/                    2,833.38               3
 Institutional (All Fuel Types).........
Fuel Combustion: Residential (All Fuel            140.30               0
 Types).................................
Industrial Processes (All Categories)...       10,789.15              11
Mobile Sources (All Categories).........        3,077.47               3
Fires (All Types).......................        4,772.53               5
Waste Disposal..........................          919.03               1
Solvent Processes.......................            0.28               0
Miscellaneous (Non-Industrial)..........            5.57               0
                                         -------------------------------
    SO2 Emissions Total.................      102,154.57             100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in Section II, because the physical properties of 
SO2 result in relatively localized pollutant impacts near an 
emissions source that drop off with distance, in SO2 
transport analyses, EPA focuses on a 50 km-wide zone. Thus, EPA focused 
its evaluation on Georgia's point sources of SO2 emissions 
located within approximately 50 km of another state and their potential 
impact on neighboring states.
    As discussed in section I.B., EPA's current implementation strategy 
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS includes the flexibility to 
characterize air quality for stationary sources subject to the DRR via 
either data collected at ambient air quality monitors sited to capture 
the points of maximum concentration, or air dispersion modeling 
(hereinafter referred to as the ``DRR monitor''). EPA's assessment of 
SO2 emissions from Georgia's point sources located within 
approximately 50 km of another state and their potential impacts on 
neighboring states (section III.C.1. of this notice) and SO2 
air quality data at monitors within 50 km of the Georgia border 
(section III.C.3. of this notice) is informed by all available data at 
the time of this rulemaking.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ EPA notes that the evaluation of other states' satisfaction 
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS can be informed by similar factors found in this proposed 
rulemaking but may not be identical to the approach taken in this or 
any future rulemaking for Georgia, depending on available 
information and state-specific circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in Section III, EPA proposes to conclude that an 
assessment of Georgia's satisfaction of the prong 1 and 2 requirements 
under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS may be reasonably based upon evaluating the 
downwind impacts of SO2 emissions from Georgia's point 
sources, including fuel combustion sources, located within 
approximately 50 km of another state and upon any regulations intended 
to address Georgia's point sources.

C. EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation--Significant Contribution to Nonattainment

    Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision requires states' plans to 
prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment 
of a NAAQS in another state. GA EPD confirms in its submission that 
Georgia sources will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in 
any other state with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 
standard. To evaluate Georgia's satisfaction of prong 1, EPA assessed 
the State's implementation plan with respect to the following factors: 
(1) Potential ambient impacts of SO2 emissions from certain 
facilities in Georgia on neighboring states based on available air 
dispersion modeling results; (2) SO2 ambient air quality and 
emissions trends for Georgia and neighboring states; (3) SIP-approved 
regulations that address SO2 emissions; and (4) federal 
regulations that reduce SO2 emissions. A detailed discussion 
of Georgia's SIP submission with respect to each of these factors 
follows.\21\ EPA proposes that these factors, taken together, support 
the Agency's proposed

[[Page 66338]]

determination that Georgia will not significantly contribute to 
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state. 
EPA also notes that the Agency does not have information indicating 
that there are violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 
the surrounding states. Also, 2017 SO2 emissions for 
Georgia's non-DRR sources emitting over 100 tons of SO2 
within 50 km of another state are at distances or emit levels of 
SO2 that make it unlikely that these SO2 
emissions could interact with SO2 emissions from the 
neighboring states' sources in such a way as to contribute 
significantly to nonattainment in these states. In addition, the 
downward trends in SO2 emissions and DVs for air quality 
monitors in the State, the fact that the highest annual 99th percentile 
daily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentration values observed at 
the only DRR monitor within 50 km of the Georgia border were well below 
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 2017 and 2018, combined with 
federal and State SIP-approved regulations affecting SO2 
emissions of Georgia's sources, further support EPA's proposed 
conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ EPA has reviewed Georgia's submission, and where new or 
more current information has become available, is including this 
information as part of the Agency's evaluation of this submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. SO2 Designations Air Dispersion Modeling
a. State Submission
    In its SIP revision, GA EPD references modeling done by the State 
for the DRR when discussing SO2 transport. Regarding source-
specific modeling under the DRR, EPA evaluated and summarized the 
modeling results for Georgia's DRR sources within 50 km of the State's 
border in Table 2 of section III.C.1.b.
b. EPA Analysis
    EPA evaluated available DRR modeling results for sources in Georgia 
and in the adjacent states that are within 50 km of the Georgia 
border.\22\ The purpose of evaluating modeling results in adjacent 
states within 50 km of the Georgia border is to ascertain whether any 
nearby sources in Georgia are impacting a violation of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in another state.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ As discussed in section I.B., Georgia used air dispersion 
modeling to characterize air quality in the vicinity of certain 
SO2 emitting sources to identify the maximum 1-hour 
SO2 concentrations in ambient air which informed EPA's 
round 3 SO2 designations. EPA's preferred modeling 
platform for regulatory purposes is AERMOD (Appendix W of 40 CFR 
part 51). In these DRR modeling analyses using AERMOD, the impacts 
of the actual emissions for one or more of the recent 3-year periods 
(e.g., 2012-2014, 2013-2015, 2014-2016) were considered, and in some 
cases, the modeling was of currently effective limits on allowable 
emissions in lieu of or as a supplement to modeling of actual 
emissions. The available air dispersion modeling of certain 
SO2 sources can support transport related conclusions 
about whether sources in one state are potentially contributing 
significantly to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of 
the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard in other states. While 
AERMOD was not designed specifically to address interstate 
transport, the 50-km distance that EPA recommends for use with 
AERMOD aligns with the concept that there are localized pollutant 
impacts of SO2 near an emissions source that drop off 
with distance. Thus, EPA believes that the use of AERMOD provides a 
reliable indication of air quality for transport purposes.
    \23\ EPA established a non-binding technical assistance document 
to assist states and other parties in their efforts to characterize 
air quality through air dispersion modeling for sources that emit 
SO2 titled, ``SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling 
Technical Assistance Document.'' This draft document was first 
released in spring 2013. Revised drafts were released in February 
and August of 2016 (see https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/so2modelingtad.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 provides a summary of the modeling results for the modeled 
DRR sources \24\ in Georgia which are located within 50 km of another 
state: Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products--Savannah River Mill (Savannah 
River Mill); Georgia Power Company--Plant Bowen (Plant Bowen); Georgia 
Power Company--Plant McIntosh (Plant McIntosh); Georgia Power Company--
Plant Wansley (Plant Wansley); and International Paper--Savannah. The 
modeling analysis resulted in no modeled violations of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS within the modeling domain for each facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The DRR modeling results for Georgia's DRR sources may be 
found in the proposed and final round 3 technical support documents 
at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/10_ga-so2-rd3-final.pdf and https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/10-ga-so2-rd3-final.pdf. Georgia Power 
Company--Plant Kraft is a DRR source in Georgia located less than 5 
km from the South Carolina border which has shut down as of October 
13, 2015, and its operating permit was formally revoked on November 
9, 2016. Georgia Power--Plant Yates (Plant Yates) is a DRR source in 
Georgia located approximately 34 km from the Alabama border. Plant 
Yates accepted a federally enforceable emissions limit as its 
pathway to satisfy the DRR. Units 1-5 at Plant Yates were 
permanently shut down on April 15, 2015, and units 6 and 7 were 
converted from coal-fired to natural gas-fired by the same date, in 
accordance with an April 29, 2014, title V permit revision to comply 
with the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule. The facility then added permit 
condition 3.2.1, restricting all fuel burning to natural gas, in its 
title V operating permit effective January 10, 2017.

                                    Table 2--Georgia Sources With DRR Modeling Located Within 50 km of Another State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Modeled 99th percentile
                                                           Approximate distance       Other facilities      daily maximum 1-hour SO2  Model grid extends
           DRR source                     County              from source to        included in modeling       concentration (ppb)       into another
                                                            adjacent state (km)                                                             state?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper--Savannah...  Chatham...............  <5 (SC)...............  None....................  66.0 (based on 2011-2013  Yes--into SC
                                                                                                             actual and allowable/     (western portion
                                                                                                             potential-to-emit (PTE)   of Jasper County,
                                                                                                             emissions).               SC).
Plant Bowen.....................  Bartow................  45 (AL)...............  None....................  57.6 (based on 2014-2016  No.
                                                                                                             actual emissions).
Plant McIntosh (Modeled with      Effingham.............  <5 (SC)...............  Effingham County Power,   71.6 for both Plant       Yes--extends into
 Savannah River Mill).                                                             LLC facility (GA); GA     McIntosh and Savannah     western portion
                                                                                   Pacific--Savannah River   River Mill (based on      of Jasper County,
                                                                                   Mill (GA); * South        2012-2014 actual          SC.
                                                                                   Carolina Electric & Gas   emissions for the steam
                                                                                   (SCE&G) Jasper            generating unit at
                                                                                   Generating Station (SC)   Plant McIntosh;
                                                                                   (based on allowable/PTE   combustion turbines at
                                                                                   emissions for Effingham   Plant McIntosh were
                                                                                   County Power and Jasper   modeled at PTE).
                                                                                   Generating Station).

[[Page 66339]]

 
Plant Wansley...................  Heard.................  17 (AL)...............  Plant Yates, Municipal    15 (based on 2012-2014    No.
                                                                                   Electric Authority of     actual emissions for
                                                                                   Georgia, Chattahoochee    Plant Wansley and
                                                                                   Energy, and Wansley       allowable/PTE emissions
                                                                                   Combined-Cycle            for the nearby sources).
                                                                                   Generating Plant (GA).
Savannah River Mill (Modeled      Effingham.............  <5 (SC)...............  Effingham County Power,   71.6 for both Plant       Yes--extends into
 with Plant McIntosh).                                                             LLC facility (GA);        McIntosh and Savannah     western portion
                                                                                   Plant McIntosh (GA); *    River Mill * (based on    of Jasper County,
                                                                                   SCE&G Jasper Generating   2012-2014 actual          South Carolina.
                                                                                   Station (SC) (based on    emissions for the steam
                                                                                   allowable/PTE emissions   generating unit at
                                                                                   for Effingham County      Plant McIntosh;
                                                                                   Power and Jasper          combustion turbines at
                                                                                   Generating Station).      Plant McIntosh were
                                                                                                             modeled at PTE).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Savannah River Mill's 2010 1-hour SO2 modeled DV is based on 2012-2014 actual emissions for three primary power boilers and allowable/PTE emissions
  for 13 emissions units at Savannah River Mill. For more details, see pp. 67-68 of EPA's Technical Support Document: Chapter 10 Proposed Round 3 Area
  Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Georgia located at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/10_ga-so2-rd3-final.pdf.

    Table 3 provides a summary of the modeling results for the modeled 
DRR sources in neighboring states which are located within 50 km of 
Georgia: \25\ Continental Carbon Company--Phenix City Plant 
(Continental Carbon) in Alabama and JEA--Northside/St. Johns River 
Power Park (SJRPP); \26\ WestRock CP, LLC--Fernandina Beach Mill 
(WestRock); and White Springs Agricultural Chemical--Swift Creek 
Chemical Complex (White Springs) in Florida.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Two DRR sources in adjacent states within 50 km of the 
Georgia border were not modeled. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)--
Widows Creek Fossil Plant, located in Alabama, has shut down. 
Therefore, Alabama did not characterize this source via monitoring 
or modeling pursuant to the DRR. Duke Energy Carolinas LLC--W.S. Lee 
Steam Station (Lee Station), located in South Carolina 42 km from 
the Georgia border, accepted federally-enforceable permit limits to 
exempt out of the DRR requirements. The station closed two coal-
fired units at the facility in 2014 and converted a coal-fired unit 
to natural gas in 2015. See, e.g., EPA, Technical Support Document: 
Final Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 
Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (Dec. 2017), pp. 62 
and 64, available at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003-0611 at 
www.regulations.gov.
    \26\ Units 1 and 2 at Florida's DRR source, St. John River Power 
Park, shut down effective December 31, 2017.

                                    Table 3--Other States' Sources With DRR Modeling Located Within 50 km of Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Approximate
                                                             distance from                             Modeled 99th percentile
             DRR source                  County (state)        source to        Other facilities       daily maximum 1-hour SO2     Model grid extends
                                                            Georgia border    included in modeling       concentration (ppb)        into another state?
                                                                 (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Carbon..................  Russell (AL)........               1  IIG MinWool LLC (AL)...  60.63 (based on PTE          Yes, into GA (the
                                                                                                      emissions).                  southwestern portion
                                                                                                                                   of Muscogee County,
                                                                                                                                   GA, and the
                                                                                                                                   northwestern portion
                                                                                                                                   of Chattahoochee
                                                                                                                                   County, GA).
SJRPP...............................  Duval (FL)..........              35  Cedar Bay/Generating     56.22 (based on 2012-2014    No.
                                                                             Plant, Renessenz         actual emissions for SJRPP
                                                                             Jacksonville Facility,   and Renessenz Jacksonville
                                                                             Anchor Glass             Facility; PTE rates for
                                                                             Jacksonville Plant,      Cedar Bay, Anchor Glass,
                                                                             and IFF Chemical         and IFF Chemical
                                                                             Holdings (FL).           facilities).
WestRock \27\.......................  Nassau (FL).........              <5  Rayonier Performance     66.09 (based on 2012-2014    Yes (approximately 3
                                                                             Fibers (FL).             actual emissions for         km into a portion of
                                                                                                      WestRock and Rayonier;       southern Georgia).
                                                                                                      three minor sources at
                                                                                                      WestRock were modeled
                                                                                                      based on PTE).
White Springs.......................  Hamilton (FL).......              16  PCS Suwannee River       56.34 (based on 2012-2014    No.
                                                                             Plant * (FL).            actual emissions for White
                                                                                                      Springs sulfuric acid
                                                                                                      plants E & F and permitted
                                                                                                      allowable emissions for
                                                                                                      PCS Suwanee River Plant
                                                                                                      and the remaining sources
                                                                                                      at White Springs).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The PCS Suwannee River Plant shut down most of its operations in 2014.


[[Page 66340]]

    EPA believes that the modeling results summarized in Tables 2 and 
3, weighed along with the other factors in this notice, support EPA's 
proposed conclusion that sources in Georgia will not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 
any other state. Furthermore, EPA does not have any evidence of any 
modeled 2010 1-hour SO2 violations in the neighboring states 
due to SO2 emissions from Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ As discussed in footnote 15, EPA's redesignation of the 
Nassau Area was based, in part, on a modeled attainment 
demonstration that included permanent and enforceable SO2 
controls and emissions limits at the Rayonier and WestRock 
facilities showing attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. SO2 Emissions Analysis
a. State Submission
    As discussed above, GA EPD provided 2017 statewide SO2 
emissions data by certain source categories, which showed that fuel 
combustion by EGUs and industrial processes comprised approximately 57 
percent of the State's SO2 emissions in 2017. In addition, 
GA EPD provided in Georgia's January 9, 2019, submission in Appendix A 
and displayed in a figure SO2 emission trends in Georgia 
from 1990 to 2017 and notes that SO2 emissions decreased by 
95 percent during that time period.\28\ GA EPD also analyzed and 
displayed in a figure in Georgia's January 9, 2019, submission 
SO2 emission trends in the adjacent states of Alabama, 
Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee from 1990 to 
2017.\29\ From the State's analysis of these emissions data, GA EPD 
concludes that there has been a significant reduction in SO2 
emissions in Georgia and its neighboring states from 2007 to 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Figures 3 and 4 on p.6 and 7, respectively, of 
Georgia's submission which includes statewide SO2 
emission trends in Georgia from 1990 to 2017.
    \29\ See Figure 4 on p.7 of Georgia's submission which includes 
statewide SO2 emission trends in Georgia and the adjacent 
states of Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and 
Tennessee from 1990 to 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. EPA Analysis
    EPA reviewed the SO2 emissions data from 1990 to 2017 
for Georgia and the adjacent states of Alabama, Florida, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.\30\ Georgia's statewide 
SO2 emissions decreased from 985,445 tons in 1990 to 50,606 
tons in 2017. EPA agrees that statewide SO2 emissions for 
these six states, including Georgia, have decreased significantly over 
this time period and notes that these reductions show a similar 
downward trend.\31\ EPA also notes that SO2 emissions from 
fuel combustion at Georgia EGUs decreased from 875,451 tons in 1990 to 
13,794 tons in 2017 and that SO2 emissions from fuel 
combustion due to industrial processes in Georgia declined from 54,570 
tons in 1990 to 14,706 tons in 2017.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ State annual emissions trends for criteria pollutants of 
Tier 1 emission source categories from 1990 to 2017 are available 
at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
    \31\ See Figure 4 on p.7 of Georgia's submission.
    \32\ See Appendix A of Georgia's submission. This data is also 
available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section III.B, EPA finds that it is appropriate to 
examine the impacts of SO2 emissions from stationary sources 
emitting greater than 100 tons of SO2 in Georgia in 
distances ranging from zero km to 50 km from the sources. Therefore, in 
addition to the sources addressed in section III.C.1.b of this notice, 
EPA also assessed the potential impacts of SO2 emissions 
from stationary sources not subject to the DRR and located up to 50 km 
from Georgia's borders using 2017 emissions data and to evaluate 
whether the SO2 emissions from these sources could interact 
with SO2 emissions from the nearest source in a neighboring 
state in such a way as to impact a violation of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in that state. Table 4 lists sources in Georgia 
not subject to the DRR that emitted greater than 100 tpy of 
SO2 in 2017 and are located within 50 km of the State's 
border.
    Currently, EPA does not have monitoring or modeling data suggesting 
that the states of Alabama, Florida, and South Carolina are impacted by 
SO2 emissions from the nine Georgia sources listed in Table 
4. All 10 Georgia sources are located over 50 km from the nearest non-
DRR sources in another state emitting over 100 tons of SO2. 
EPA believes that the distances greater than 50 km between sources make 
it unlikely that SO2 emissions from the 10 Georgia sources 
could interact with SO2 emissions from these out-of-state 
sources in such a way as to contribute significantly to nonattainment 
in Alabama, Florida, or South Carolina.

              Table 4--Georgia Non-DRR SO2 Sources Within 50 km of the Georgia Border Emitting Greater Than 100 TPY Near Neighboring States
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                Approximate
                                            2017 Annual     Approximate                                         distance to    Nearest neighboring state
                                           SO2 emissions    distance to                                           nearest     non-DRR SO2 source &  2017
              Georgia source                  (tons)          Georgia         Closest  neighboring  state       neighboring   emissions  (>100 tons SO2)
                                                           border  (km)                                          state SO2
                                                                                                               source  (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brunswick Cellulose LLC.................           281.4              50  Florida...........................              88  Symrise (824.9 tons).
Georgia-Pacific Cedar Springs LLC.......           511.6              <5  Alabama...........................              75  Mineral Manufacturing
                                                                                                                               Corporation (182.3 tons).
Graphic Packaging International, LLC               253.3              <5  South Carolina....................              88  SCE&G Cope Station
 (formerly International Paper--Augusta                                                                                        (1,165.6 tons).
 Mill).
Imperial-Savannah, L.P..................           191.0              <5  South Carolina....................             130  Showa Denko Carbon Inc.
                                                                                                                               (241.0 tons).
PCA Valdosta Mill.......................           471.1               7  Florida...........................              76  Foley Cellulose LLC
                                                                                                                               (1,537.6 tons).
Savannah Acid Plant LLC.................           163.0              <5  South Carolina....................             130  Showa Denko Carbon Inc.
                                                                                                                               (241.0 tons).
Southern States Phosphate & Fertilizer..           581.4              <5  South Carolina....................             130  Showa Denko Carbon Inc.
                                                                                                                               (241.0 tons).
Thermal Ceramics........................         1,150.2              <5  South Carolina....................              90  SCE&G Cope Station
                                                                                                                               (1,165.6 tons).
Weyerhaeuser NR Port Wentworth..........           524.1              <5  South Carolina....................             130  Showa Denko Carbon Inc.
                                                                                                                               (241.0 tons).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 66341]]

    Based on the declining SO2 emissions trends statewide in 
Georgia and the adjacent states of Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, 
South Carolina, and Tennessee, and the Agency's analysis of the Georgia 
sources in Table 4, EPA believes that Georgia's potential for 
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in a nearby state is reduced substantially.
3. SO2 Ambient Air Quality
a. State Submission
    In its SIP submission, GA EPD included a table showing that the six 
SO2 monitors in Georgia and six monitors in the adjacent 
states of Florida and South Carolina within 50 km of Georgia's border 
with complete, valid DVs for the 2015-2017 time period have 2017 DVs of 
52 ppb or less, well below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\33\ GA 
EPD also summarized EPA's round 3 designations for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS for Georgia and adjacent states. GA EPD notes that 
EPA designated all counties within 50 km of Georgia's border as 
attainment/unclassifiable in round 3 with the exception of Haywood 
County in North Carolina and a small portion of Nassau County in 
Florida.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Table 1 of Georgia's SIP submission also presents 2015, 
2016, and 2017 annual 99th percentile SO2 concentrations 
in ppb (appears as ``ppm'' in the submission) for four monitors 
within 50 km of Georgia's border which do not have complete valid 
data to calculate a DV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Haywood County, North Carolina, GA EPD explains 
that Haywood County will be designated in round 4. The only 
SO2 source in Georgia within 50 km \34\ of Haywood County, 
North Carolina, is Multitrade Rabun Gap. According to the State, the 
2014 SO2 emissions from this facility were 25.1 tpy.\35\ In 
the January 9, 2019, SIP submission, GA EPD concluded that Multitrade 
Rabun Gap will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Haywood County, North Carolina, due 
to the amount of these emissions and the distance from Haywood County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ EPA notes that Multitrade Rabun Gap is located 
approximately 55 km from Haywood County.
    \35\ EPA notes that Multitrade Rabun Gap emitted 28.1 tons of 
SO2 in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Nassau County, Florida, GA EPD summarized the 
status of this area as follows. On August 5, 2013,\36\ EPA designated 
an area in Nassau County, Florida, as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS based on ambient SO2 monitoring data in 
the area over the three-year period 2009-2011. Florida submitted an 
attainment demonstration for Nassau County on April 3, 2015, and EPA 
fully approved this demonstration on July 3, 2017. GA EPD notes that 
the SO2 monitor in Nassau County has a 2017 SO2 
DV of 43 ppb. Florida submitted a redesignation request and maintenance 
plan for the Nassau County SO2 nonattainment area on June 7, 
2018. Thus, GA EPD concluded that because Nassau County currently has a 
3-year DV well below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and, at the 
time of Georgia's SIP development, was in the process of being 
redesignated to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, 
SO2 emission sources in Georgia do not contribute 
significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 
in Nassau County, Florida.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See 78 FR 47191 (effective October 4, 2013).
    \37\ As discussed in footnote 15, EPA has redesignated the 
Nassau County area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. EPA Analysis
    Since the time of development of Georgia's SIP submission, 
certified monitoring data from EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) \38\ 
(``AQS monitors'') have become available for Georgia and the 
surrounding states. EPA has summarized the DVs from 2013 to 2018 for 
AQS monitors in Georgia within 50 km of another state in Table 5 and 
AQS monitors in neighboring states within 50 km of Georgia in Table 6 
using relevant data from EPA's AQS DV reports for recent and complete 
3-year periods. The 2010 1-hour SO2 standard is violated at 
an ambient air quality monitoring site (or in the case of dispersion 
modeling, at an ambient air quality receptor location) when the 3-year 
average of the annual 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour 
average concentrations exceeds 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with 
Appendix T of 40 CFR part 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ EPA's AQS contains ambient air pollution data collected by 
EPA, state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies. This 
data is available at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.

                            Table 5--Trend in 1-Hour SO2 DVs (ppb) for AQS Monitors in Georgia Within 50 km of Another State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                             Approximate
                                                                                                                                             distance to
                  County                   AQS Site code (ID)   2011-2013    2012-2014    2013-2015    2014-2016    2015-2017    2016-2018     Georgia
                                                                                                                                             border (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham..................................         13-051-0021           66         * ND         * ND         * ND           32           32    7.1 (SC).
Chatham..................................         13-051-1002           79           78           70           52           48           45    2.8 (SC).
Floyd....................................         13-115-0003           67           46           35           42         * ND         * ND   12.6 (AL).
Richmond.................................         13-245-0091         * ND         * ND           61           60           52           52   6.2 (SC).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ND indicates ``No Data'' due to monitor startup or shutdown (operated less than three years), data quality issues, or incomplete data.
** The Floyd County, Georgia monitor (AQS ID: 13-115-0003) was discontinued in 2016.

    As shown in Table 5, DVs for the four non-DRR monitoring sites in 
Georgia within 50 km of another state's border have remained well below 
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the 2011-2013 through 2016-
2018 time periods.\39\ The monitor located in Floyd County maintained 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS DVs well below the NAAQS for the 2011-
2013 through 2014-2016 time periods, and was then relocated to a nearby 
site in 2016 to characterize the area pursuant to the DRR; therefore, 
no DVs are available for this monitor after the 2014-2016 time 
period.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The Muscogee County, Georgia monitor (AQS ID: 13-215-008) 
is not shown in Table 5 because it was discontinued in 2012, and 
therefore, has no DVs for the 2011-2013 through the 2016-2018 time 
periods.
    \40\ The Floyd County, Georgia monitor (AQS ID: 13-115-0003) 
shown in Table 5 of this notice was relocated in January 2017 to the 
opposite side of the International Paper-Rome facility to 
characterize the area of expected maximum 1-hour SO2 
concentration near the source pursuant to the DRR. This DRR monitor 
in Floyd County, Georgia (AQS ID: 13-115-0006), is shown in Table 7 
of this notice and does not have a valid 2015-2017 DV because the 
monitor was relocated. The data from the original monitor (AQS ID: 
13-115-0003) and the relocated monitor (AQS ID: 13-115-0006) were 
not combined to calculate a DV because the relocated monitor (AQS 
ID: 13-115-0006) was installed to characterize the air quality in 
the area under the DRR.

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

[[Page 66342]]

    There is one AQS monitor in South Carolina and six AQS monitors in 
Florida that are located within 50 km of Georgia. As shown in Table 6, 
the DVs from 2013 to 2018 for these monitors are generally trending 
downward, and the 2018 DVs are well below the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS, with the exception of the Hamilton County, 
Florida monitor which has no data for the 2016-2018 DV time period. The 
Hamilton County monitor has 2012 and 2013 DVs of 23 and 25 ppb, 
respectively, and incomplete data for the remaining DV time periods 
(2014-2018).

                Table 6--2010 1-Hour SO2 DVs (ppb) for AQS Monitors With Complete, Valid Data Within 50 km of Georgia in Adjacent States
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                             Approximate
                                                                                                                                             distance to
            State                  County          AQS ID       2011-2013    2012-2014    2013-2015    2014-2016    2015-2017    2016-2018     Georgia
                                                                                                                                             border (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida.....................  Duval..........     12-031-0032           17           17           16           16           16           18           39
Florida.....................  Duval..........   * 12-031-0080           11           17           17           17           10        ** ND           37
Florida.....................  Duval..........     12-031-0081           29           27           23           20           12           11           38
Florida.....................  Duval..........   * 12-031-0097           21           21           23           18           14        ** ND           43
Florida.....................  Hamilton.......     12-047-0015           25        ** ND        ** ND        ** ND        ** ND        ** ND           19
Florida.....................  Nassau.........     12-089-0005           70           57           58           51           43           37            6
South Carolina..............  Oconee.........     45-073-0001        ** ND        ** ND            3            2            2            2            3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.....................                                           No AQS monitors within 50 km of Georgia,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina..............                                           No AQS monitors within 50 km of Georgia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA approved the shutdown of two SO2 monitors in Duval County (AQS IDs: 12-031-0080 and 12-031-0097) in 2018.
** ND indicates ``No Data'' due to monitor startup or shutdown (operated less than three years), data quality issues, or incomplete data.

    EPA also evaluated monitoring data provided to date for DRR 
monitors either located in Georgia within 50 km of another state's 
border or in other states within 50 km of the Georgia border that were 
established to characterize the air quality around specific sources 
subject to EPA's DRR to inform the Agency's future round 4 designations 
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in lieu of modeling. There are 
no DRR monitors located in other states within 50 km of the Georgia 
border. There is one DRR monitor in Georgia which is within 50 km of 
the border, and it is located approximately 12 km from Alabama in Floyd 
County, Georgia (AQS ID: 13-115-0006) and is sited in the vicinity of 
the International Paper--Rome facility, a DRR source. Table 7 lists the 
2017 and 2018 99th percentile SO2 concentration data for 
this DRR monitor in Floyd County, Georgia.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The Floyd County, Georgia DRR monitor (AQS ID: 13-115-0006) 
does not have three or more years of complete data to establish DVs.

  Table 7--Annual 99th Percentile of 1-Hour Daily Maximum SO2 Concentrations for Round 4 DRR Monitors in Georgia Within 50 km of Another State's Border
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          2017 99th        2018 99th
                                                                                                          percentile       percentile      Approximate
                County (state)                       Round 4 monitored source            AQS ID         concentration    concentration     distance to
                                                                                                            (ppb)            (ppb)         Alabama (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floyd (GA)....................................  International Paper--Rome........         13-115-0006              22               15               12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour 
SO2 concentrations shown in Table 7 are not directly 
comparable to a DV for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, which is 
in the form of the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of daily 
maximum 1-hour values, EPA notes that the highest annual 99th 
percentile daily maximum 1-hour values observed at the Floyd County DRR 
monitor in 2017 and 2018 were 22 ppb and 15 ppb, respectively, which 
are well below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The Floyd County 
DRR monitor did not measure any daily exceedances of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS during 2017 or 2018.
    After careful review of the State's assessment and all available 
monitoring data, EPA believes that the AQS monitoring data and the 
preliminary data from the Floyd County DRR monitor (AQS ID: 13-115-
0006) further support EPA's proposed conclusion that Georgia will not 
contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states.
4. SIP-Approved Regulations Addressing SO2 Emissions
a. State Submission
    Georgia identified the following SIP-approved measures which help 
ensure that SO2 emissions in the State do not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 
any other state. Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control 391-3-1-.03.--
Permits. Amended, contains provisions addressing construction permits 
(391-3-1-.03(1)); operating permits (391-3-1-.03(2)); new source review 
(NSR) (391-3-1-.03(8)(c) and

[[Page 66343]]

(g)); permit by rule (391-3-1-.03(11)); and generic permits (391-3-
1-.03(12)). Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control 391-3-1-.02(7) 
addresses Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements, 
which apply to all new major sources and major modifications in 
attainment, unclassifiable, or undesignated areas.\42\ Georgia Rules 
for Air Quality Control 391-3-1-.02(2)(g)--Sulfur Dioxide and 391-3-
1-.02(13)--Cross State Air Pollution Rule SO2 Annual Trading 
Program also reduce SO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ There are currently no nonattainment areas for the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS in Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, GA EPD listed the following State-enforceable rules 
not approved into the Georgia SIP which control SO2 
emissions: Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control 391-3-1-.02(2)(sss)--
Multipollutant Control for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and 
391-3-1-.02(2)(uuu)--SO2 Emissions from Electric Utility 
Steam Generating Units.
b. EPA Analysis
    EPA believes that Georgia's SIP-approved measures which establish 
emission limits, permitting requirements, and other control measures 
for SO2 effectively address emissions of SO2 from 
sources in the State. For the purposes of ensuring that SO2 
emissions at new major sources or major modifications at existing major 
sources in Georgia do not contribute significantly to nonattainment of 
the NAAQS, the State has a SIP-approved major NSR program. Georgia 
Rules for Air Quality Control 391-3-1-.03.--Permits. Amended, which 
includes NSR requirements under 391-3-l-.03(8)(c) and (g), regulates 
the construction of any new major stationary source or any modification 
at an existing major stationary source in an area designated as 
nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable. The State's SIP-approved 
PSD regulation, 391-3-1-.02.--Provisions. Amended, which includes PSD 
requirements under 391-3-1-.02(7), applies to the construction of any 
new major stationary source or major modification at an existing major 
stationary source in an area designated as attainment or unclassifiable 
or not yet designated. SIP-approved Georgia Rules for Air Quality 
Control 391-3-1-.03(1)--Construction (SIP) Permit governs the 
preconstruction permitting of minor modifications and the construction 
of minor stationary sources. These major and minor NSR rules ensure 
that SO2 emissions due to major modifications at existing 
major stationary sources, modifications at minor stationary sources, 
and the construction of new major and minor sources subject to these 
rules will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states.
5. Federal Regulations Addressing SO2 Emissions in Georgia
a. State Submission
    GA EPD did not identify any specific federal regulations that 
address SO2 emissions in its SIP submission. Thus, EPA lists 
in section III.C.5.b several federal regulations which have reduced 
SO2 emissions in Georgia and will continue to do so in the 
future.
b. EPA Analysis
    The following federal control measures reduce SO2 
emissions from various sources: 2007 Heavy-Duty Highway Rule; Acid Rain 
Program; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule; Mercury Air Toxics Rule; 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; New Source 
Performance Standards; Nonroad Diesel Rule; and Tier 1 and 2 Mobile 
Source Rules. EPA believes that these federal measures will lower 
SO2 emissions, which, in turn, are expected to continue to 
support EPA's proposed conclusion that SO2 emissions from 
Georgia will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state.
6. Conclusion
    EPA proposes to determine that Georgia's January 9, 2019, SIP 
submission satisfies the requirements of prong 1 of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This proposed determination is based on the 
following considerations: Modeling for the six Georgia DRR sources 
within 50 km of another state's border shows that the areas around 
these facilities are not exceeding the level of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS; DVs for 2013 through 2018 for the four currently 
operating non-DRR monitoring sites in Georgia within 50 km of another 
state's border have remained well below the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS; 2017 and 2018 99th percentile SO2 concentrations at 
the DRR monitor in Floyd County, Georgia, are well below the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS; the DVs for five of the six non-DRR monitors 
in Florida \43\ and the one non-DRR monitor South Carolina that are 
located within 50 km of Georgia are trending downward overall and have 
remained below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS from 
the 2011-2013 to 2016-2018 time periods; SO2 emissions from 
Georgia sources not subject to the DRR emitting over 100 tons of 
SO2 in 2017 are not likely interacting with SO2 
emissions from the nearest out-of-state source in a bordering state in 
such a way as to contribute significantly to nonattainment in Alabama, 
Florida, or South Carolina; downward SO2 emissions trends in 
Georgia and the Agency's analysis of the non-DRR Georgia sources 
emitting over 100 tpy in 2017 in Table 4 suggest that Georgia's 
potential for contributing significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in a nearby state is reduced substantially; 
and current Georgia SIP-approved measures and federal emissions control 
programs adequately control SO2 emissions from sources 
within Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The Hamilton County, Florida monitor (AQS ID: 12-047-0015) 
has no data to calculate DVs for the 2012-2014 through the 2016-2018 
time periods due to invalidated data for those years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the analysis provided by Georgia in its SIP submission and 
EPA's analysis of factors described in section III.C, EPA proposes to 
find that sources within Georgia will not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other 
state.

D. EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation--Interference With Maintenance of the NAAQS

    Prong 2 of the good neighbor provision requires state plans to 
prohibit emissions that will interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in 
another state.
1. State Submission
    In its January 9, 2019, SIP submission, GA EPD confirms that 
Georgia will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in any other state. GA EPD bases its conclusion 
for prong 2 on the following: Annual SO2 99th percentile 
values (2015, 2016, and 2017) and the 2015-2017 DVs at monitors in 
Georgia and within 50 km of Georgia's border; SO2 emissions 
trends in Georgia and adjacent states from 1990 to 2017; and the SIP-
approved measures discussed in sections III.C.4.a of this notice.
2. EPA Analysis
    In North Carolina v. EPA, the United States Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) explained that the 
regulating authority must give prong 2 ``independent significance'' 
from prong 1 by evaluating the impact of upwind state emissions on 
downwind areas that, while currently in attainment, are at risk of 
future nonattainment. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 910-11 (D.C. 
Cir.

[[Page 66344]]

2008). EPA interprets prong 2 to require an evaluation of the potential 
impact of a state's emissions on areas that are currently measuring 
clean data, but that may have issues maintaining that air quality. 
Therefore, in addition to the analysis presented by Georgia, EPA has 
also reviewed additional information on SO2 air quality and 
emission trends to evaluate the State's conclusion that Georgia will 
not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 
in downwind states. This evaluation builds on the analysis regarding 
significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1).
    For the prong 2 analysis, EPA evaluated the emissions trends 
provided by Georgia for the State, evaluated air quality data, and 
assessed how future sources of SO2 are addressed through 
existing SIP-approved and federal regulations. Given the continuing 
trend of decreasing SO2 emissions from sources within 
Georgia and the fact that all areas in other states within 50 km of the 
Georgia border have DVs attaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 
(with the exception of Florida's Duval County monitor (AQS ID: 12-031-
0080) which does not have a 2018 DV), EPA believes that evaluating 
whether these decreases in emissions can be maintained over time is a 
reasonable criterion to ensure that sources within Georgia do not 
interfere with its neighboring states' ability to maintain the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS.
    With respect to air quality data trends, the 2018 DVs for AQS 
SO2 monitors both in Georgia within 50 km of another state's 
border and in adjacent states within 50 km of Georgia's border are 
below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Further, modeling results 
for DRR sources both within the State and in neighboring states within 
50 km of Georgia's border demonstrate attainment of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS, and thus, demonstrate that Georgia's largest 
point sources of SO2 are not expected to interfere with 
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state.
    As discussed in sections III.C.4 and III.C.5, EPA believes that 
federal and SIP-approved State regulations that both directly and 
indirectly reduce emissions of SO2 in Georgia help ensure 
that the State does not interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in 
another state. SO2 emissions from future major modifications 
and new major sources will be addressed by Georgia's SIP-approved major 
NSR regulations described in section III.C.4. In addition, Georgia's 
SIP approved Air Quality Control Rule 391-3-1-.03(1)--Construction 
(SIP) Permit governs the preconstruction permitting of modifications, 
construction of minor stationary sources, and minor modifications of 
major stationary sources. The permitting regulations contained within 
these programs ensure that emissions from these activities do not 
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 
the State or in any other state.
3. Conclusion
    EPA proposes to determine that Georgia's January 9, 2019, SIP 
submission satisfies the requirements of prong 2 of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This determination is based on the following 
considerations: Modeling for DRR sources within 50 km of Georgia's 
border both within the State and in neighboring states demonstrate that 
Georgia's largest point sources of SO2 are not expected to 
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 
another state; SO2 emissions statewide from 1990 to 2017 in 
Georgia have declined significantly and, weighed along with the 
Agency's analysis of the Georgia non-DRR sources emitting greater than 
100 tpy in 2017 listed in Table 4 of this notice, indicate that 
Georgia's potential for interfering with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in a nearby state is reduced substantially; 
current Georgia SIP-approved measures and federal emissions control 
programs adequately control SO2 emissions from sources 
within Georgia, including Georgia's SIP-approved NSR permit programs 
which address future large and small SO2 sources in the 
State; DVs for the 2011-2013 through 2016-2018 time periods for AQS 
SO2 monitors both in Georgia within 50 km of another state's 
border and in adjacent states within 50 km of Georgia's border are well 
below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and trending 
downward; and the relatively low 99th percentile of 1-hour daily 
maximum SO2 concentrations for 2017 and 2018 at the Floyd 
County, Georgia, DRR monitor. Based on the analysis provided by Georgia 
in its SIP submission and EPA's supplemental analysis of the factors 
described in section III.C and III.D of this notice, EPA proposes to 
find that emission sources within Georgia will not interfere with 
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

IV. Proposed Action

    Based on the above analysis, EPA is proposing to determine that 
Georgia will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere 
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other 
state. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the January 9, 2019, SIP 
revision as meeting the requirements of the good neighbor provision for 
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely 
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does 
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

[[Page 66345]]

    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, Particulate Matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: November 21, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019-26037 Filed 12-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.