Air Plan Approval; Alabama; 2010 1-Hour SO2, 72278-72289 [2019-28236]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
72278
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 523
Prisoners.
Kathleen Hawk Sawyer,
Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Under rulemaking authority vested in
the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 301; 28
U.S.C. 509, 510 and delegated to the
Director, Bureau of Prisons in 28 CFR
0.96, we propose to amend 28 CFR part
523 as follows:
SUBCHAPTER B—INMATE ADMISSION,
CLASSIFICATION, AND TRANSFER
PART 523—COMPUTATION OF
SENTENCE
1. The authority citation for 28 CFR
part 523 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3568
(repealed November 1, 1987 as to offenses
committed on or after that date), 3621, 3622,
3624, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in
part as to conduct occurring on or after
November 1, 1987), 4161–4166 (repealed
October 12, 1984 as to offenses committed on
or after November 1, 1987), 5006–5024
(Repealed October 12, 1984 as to conduct
occurring after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C.
509, 510.
■
2. Revise § 523.20 to read as follows:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 523.20
Good Conduct Time.
(a) Good conduct time (GCT) credit.
The Bureau of Prisons (Bureau)
typically awards GCT credit to inmates
under conditions described in this
section. GCT credit may be reduced if
an inmate: (1) Commits prohibited acts
which result in certain disciplinary
sanctions (see part 541); or
(2) Fails to comply with literacy
requirements in this section and part
544 of this chapter.
(b) For inmates serving a sentence for
offenses committed on or after
November 1, 1987: (1) The Bureau will
initially determine a projected release
date based on the length of an inmate’s
imposed sentence. The projected release
date is subject to change during the
inmate’s incarceration.
(2) Any portion of a sentence that is
less than a full year will be calculated
at a prorated amount.
(3) An inmate may receive up to 54
days GCT credit on the anniversary date
of his/her imposed sentence, subject to
the requirements in this section.
(4) When the inmate reaches the
Bureau-projected release date, the
sentence will be satisfied/completed
and the inmate will be eligible for
release.
(c) For inmates serving a sentence for
offenses committed on or after
November 1, 1987, but before September
13, 1994, GCT credit is vested once
received and cannot be withdrawn.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 30, 2019
Jkt 250001
(d) Literacy requirement. (1) For
inmates serving a sentence for offenses
committed on or after September 13,
1994, but before April 26, 1996, all GCT
credit will vest annually only for
inmates who have earned, or are making
satisfactory progress toward earning, a
high school diploma, equivalent degree,
or Bureau-authorized alternative
program credit (see part 544 of this
chapter).
(2) For inmates serving a sentence for
an offense committed on or after April
26, 1996, the Bureau will award:
(i) Up to 54 days of GCT credit per
year served on the anniversary date of
his/her imposed sentence, if the inmate
has earned or is making satisfactory
progress toward earning a high school
diploma, equivalent degree, or Bureauauthorized alternative program credit; or
(ii) Up to 42 days of GCT credit per
year served on the anniversary date of
his/her imposed sentence, if the inmate
does not meet conditions described
above (in (d)(2)(i)).
(3) Aliens. Notwithstanding the
requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2),
an alien who is subject to a final order
of removal, deportation, or exclusion, is
not required to participate in a literacy
program to earn yearly awards of GCT
credit. However, such inmates remain
eligible to participate in literacy
programs under part 544.
[FR Doc. 2019–27976 Filed 12–30–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–05–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0792; FRL–10003–
83–Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Alabama; 2010 1Hour SO2 NAAQS Transport
Infrastructure
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
Alabama’s August 20, 2018, State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission
pertaining to the ‘‘good neighbor’’
provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). The good neighbor
provision requires each state’s
implementation plan to address the
interstate transport of air pollution in
amounts that contribute significantly to
nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
state. In this action, EPA is proposing to
determine that Alabama 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 August
20, 2018, 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 30, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2018–0792 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 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
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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).
In a letter dated August 20, 2018,1 the
Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM) submitted a
revision to the Alabama SIP only
addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS.2 EPA is proposing to
approve ADEM’s August 20, 2018, SIP
submission because the State
demonstrated that Alabama 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 Alabama
have been addressed in separate
rulemakings.3
B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
Designations Background
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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.4
1 EPA received ADEM’s August 20, 2018, SIP
submission on August 27, 2018.
2 On April 23, 2013, and October 24, 2017, ADEM
submitted SIP revisions addressing all
infrastructure elements with respect to the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS with the exception of prongs 1
and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
3 EPA acted on all other infrastructure elements
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Alabama’s April
23, 2013, and October 24, 2017, SIP revisions on
January 12, 2017 (82 FR 3637), October 12, 2017 (82
FR 47393), and July 6, 2018 (83 FR 31454).
4 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 30, 2019
Jkt 250001
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’’) 5 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). 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)).8
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
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
(August 8, 2011); Final Response to Petition from
New Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From the
Portland Generating Station, 76 FR 69052
(November 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).
5 The term ‘‘round’’ in this instance refers to
which ‘‘round of designations.’’
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.
8 Consent Decree, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case
No. 3:13–cv–3953–SI (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2015). This
consent decree requires EPA to sign for publication
in the Federal Register notices of the Agency’s
promulgation of area designations for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS by three specific deadlines: July
2, 2016 (‘‘round 2’’); December 31, 2017 (‘‘round
3’’); and December 31, 2020 (‘‘round 4’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
72279
requires 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’’).
For Alabama, EPA designated all
counties as attainment/unclassifiable or
unclassifiable in round 3 except for a
portion of Shelby County around the
Lhoist North America of Alabama—
Montevallo Plant (LNA—Montevallo)
that is currently conducting monitoring
to inform round 4 designations.9 There
are no nonattainment areas in Alabama
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS based
on rounds 1, 2, and 3 of EPA’s
designations process.10
II. Relevant Factors Used To Evaluate
the 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
9 See Technical Support Document: Chapter 3
Final Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for Alabama at https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2017-12/documents/03-al-so2-rd3final.pdf.
10 On August 5, 2013 (78 FR 47191) and effective
October 4, 2013, EPA designated 29 areas in 16
states as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS based on violating monitors using air
quality data for the years 2009–2011, but did not,
at that time, designate other areas in the country.
On July 12, 2016 (81 FR 45039), effective September
12, 2016, and December 13, 2016 (81 FR 89870),
effective January 12, 2017, EPA published a final
rule establishing air quality designations for 65
areas in 24 states for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
including seven nonattainment areas, 41
attainment/unclassifiable areas, and 17
unclassifiable areas. On January 9, 2018 (83 FR
1098) effective April 9, 2018, EPA designated six
areas as nonattainment; 23 areas designated
unclassifiable; and the rest of the areas covered by
this round in all states, territories, and tribal lands
were designated attainment/unclassifiable. No areas
in Alabama were designated as nonattainment in
these actions. See https://www.epa.gov/sulfurdioxide-designations/sulfur-dioxide-designationsregulatory-actions.
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
72280
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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
the 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 km-wide zone because
the physical properties of SO2 result in
relatively localized pollutant impacts
near an emissions source that drop off
with distance. Given the properties of
SO2, EPA selected a spatial scale with
dimensions from four to 50 kilometers
(km) from point sources—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 selected the urban scale as
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 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. The
American Meteorological Society/
Environmental Protection Agency
Regulatory Model (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 applied the 50-km
11 For the definition of spatial scales for SO , see
2
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 proposed rulemaking on Connecticut’s SO2
transport SIP. See 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May
8, 2017).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 30, 2019
Jkt 250001
threshold as a reasonable distance 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.
As discussed in sections III.C and
III.D, EPA first reviewed Alabama’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 other states’ sources
within 50 km of the Alabama border.12
III. Alabama’s SIP Submission and
EPA’s Analysis
A. State Submission
Through a letter dated August 20,
2018, ADEM submitted a revision to the
Alabama SIP addressing prongs 1 and 2
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.13 Alabama
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.
ADEM based its conclusions for
prongs 1 and 2 on attaining 2015–2017
SO2 design values (DVs) 14 in Alabama
and adjacent states; the lack of 2010 112 This proposed approval action is based on the
information contained in the administrative record
for this action and does not prejudge any other
future EPA action that may make other
determinations regarding Alabama’s air quality
status. Any such future actions, such as area
designations under any NAAQS, will be based on
their own administrative records and EPA’s
analyses of information that become available at
those times. Future available information may
include, and is not limited to, monitoring data and
modeling analyses conducted pursuant to the DRR
and information submitted to EPA by states, air
agencies, and third-party stakeholders such as
citizen groups and industry representatives.
13 On September 5, 2019, September 20, 2019,
September 25, 2019, December 2, 2019, and
December 6, 2019, ADEM provided supplemental
information pertaining to Escambia Operating
Company—Big Escambia Creek Plant’s (Big
Escambia’s) DRR modeling that addresses and
resolves the issues with the original modeling for
this source performed under the DRR (collectively,
the ‘‘Big Escambia Supplement’’). See Section
III.C.1.b. for more information. Big Escambia is
located in Escambia County, Alabama.
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. For example, the 2017
DV is calculated based on the three-year average
from 2015–2017. 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
hour SO2 NAAQS nonattainment areas
in Alabama or within close proximity to
Alabama; the existence of DRR
modeling for Alabama SO2 sources; and
established federal and State control
measures which address SO2 emissions.
EPA’s evaluation of Alabama’s August
20, 2018, SIP submission is detailed in
sections III.B, C, and D.
B. EPA’s Evaluation Methodology
EPA believes that a reasonable
starting point for determining which
sources and emissions activities in
Alabama 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
Emissions Inventory (NEI).15 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 Alabama originate
from point sources.16 In 2014, the total
SO2 emissions from point sources in
Alabama comprised approximately 96
percent of the total SO2 emissions in the
State. Further analysis of these data
show that SO2 emissions from fuel
combustion from point sources make up
approximately 74 percent of the total
SO2 emissions in the State. 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.
Based on EPA’s analysis of the 2014
NEI, EPA believes that it is appropriate
to focus the analysis on SO2 emissions
from Alabama’s larger point sources
(i.e., emitting over 100 tpy of SO2 in
2017), which are located within the
‘‘urban scale,’’ i.e., within 50 km of one
or more state borders.
15 EPA’s NEI is available at https://www.epa.gov/
air-emissions-inventories/national-emissionsinventory.
16 Alabama’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),’’ with the exception of
residential fuel consumption. 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.
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
72281
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF 2014 NEI (VERSION 2) SO2 DATA FOR ALABAMA BY SOURCE TYPES
Emissions
(tpy)
Category
Fuel Combustion: Electric Generating Units (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, Gas Stations) .........................................................................................................
119,922.45
27,658.08
13.58
84.40
43,805.93
1,528.60
7,585.65
814.84
0.62
3.67
60
14
0
0
22
1
4
0
0
0
SO2 Emissions Total ........................................................................................................................................
201,417.82
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
Alabama’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 ‘‘DRR monitors’’ or ‘‘DRR
modeling,’’ respectively). EPA’s
assessment of SO2 emissions from
Alabama’s point sources located within
approximately 50 km of another state
and their potential impacts on
neighboring states (see sections III.C.1.
and II.C.2 of this notice) and SO2 air
quality data at monitors within 50 km
of the Alabama border (see section
III.C.3. of this notice) is informed by all
available data at the time of this
proposed rulemaking.17
As described in Section III, EPA
proposes to conclude that an assessment
of Alabama’s satisfaction of the prong 1
17 EPA
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Percent of
total SO2
emissions
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 Alabama, depending on
available information and state-specific
circumstances.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 30, 2019
Jkt 250001
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 via modeling and an assessment
of SO2 emissions from Alabama’s point
sources emitting more than 100 tpy of
SO2 (including fuel combustion sources)
that are located within approximately
50 km of another state and upon any
regulations intended to address
Alabama’s SO2 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 contribute
significantly to nonattainment of a
NAAQS in another state. ADEM states
in its submission that Alabama does not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in another state based on the
information provided therein. To
evaluate Alabama’s satisfaction of prong
1, EPA assessed Alabama’s SIP
submission with respect to the
following factors: (1) Potential ambient
air quality impacts of SO2 emissions
from certain facilities in Alabama on
neighboring states based on available air
dispersion modeling results; (2) SO2
emissions from Alabama sources; (3)
SO2 ambient air quality for Alabama and
neighboring states; (4) SIP-approved
Alabama regulations that address SO2
emissions; and (5) federal regulations
that reduce SO2 emissions at Alabama
sources. A detailed discussion of
Alabama’s SIP submission with respect
to each of these factors follows. EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
proposes that these factors, taken
together, support the Agency’s proposed
determination that Alabama will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in another state. EPA’s
proposed conclusion is based, in part,
on the fact that adjacent states with
modeled DRR sources located within 50
km of the Alabama border do not have
areas that are violating or that model
violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS and the fact that the valid SO2
2016–2018 DVs for monitors in adjacent
states show attainment of the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS.18 Also, 2017 SO2
emissions for Alabama’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
neighboring states. In addition, the
downward trends in statewide SO2
emissions, combined with federal and
SIP-approved State regulations affecting
SO2 emissions from Alabama’s sources,
further support EPA’s proposed
conclusion.
1. SO2 Designations Air Dispersion
Modeling
a. State Submission
18 The Floyd County, Georgia monitor (AQS ID:
13–115–0003) does not have a valid DV for the
2015–2017 and 2016–2018 time periods. This
monitor has valid DVs for the 2010–2012 through
2014–2016 time periods which declined over this
period and are all below the level of the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
72282
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
In its August 20, 2018, SIP
submission, ADEM referenced a January
14, 2016, letter 19 that the State
submitted to EPA identifying the
facilities in Alabama with SO2
emissions subject to the DRR.20 ADEM
explained that the DRR modeling data is
contained in EPA’s technical support
document (TSD) for the SO2 round 3
area designations.21
b. EPA Analysis
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
EPA evaluated available DRR
modeling data for sources in Alabama
within 50 km of another state, including
the Big Escambia Supplement, and
available DRR modeling data for sources
in the adjacent states of Florida,
Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee
that are within 50 km of the Alabama
border.22 The purpose of evaluating
19 Alabama’s January 14, 2016, letter is available
on www.regulations.gov at Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2017–0003.
20 In 2017, Alabama provided recommendations
and submitted air dispersion modeling for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the DRR sources in the State
which elected to comply with the DRR using
modeling. The remainder of Alabama’s DRR sources
established federally-enforceable limits, shut down,
or the State installed and began operation of new,
approved SO2 monitors to characterize SO2 air
quality around the source. See https://
www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/so2-data-requirementsrule-january-13-2017-state-submittals-alabama.
21 See Technical Support Document: Chapter 3
Final Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010
1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for Alabama at https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2017-12/documents/03-al-so2-rd3final.pdf. See also Technical Support Document:
Chapter 3 Proposed Round 3 Area Designations for
the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for Alabama at https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/
documents/3_al_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
22 As discussed in section I.B., Alabama 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 30, 2019
Jkt 250001
DRR modeling results in adjacent states
within 50 km of the Alabama border is
to ascertain whether any nearby sources
in Alabama are impacting a violation of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another
state.
Of the 15 sources in Alabama initially
subject to the DRR, 10 sources
conducted dispersion modeling.23 Six of
the 10 modeled sources are within 50
km of another state: Akzo Nobel
Functional Chemicals—Lemoyne Site
(AkzoNobel); Alabama Power
Company—James M. Barry Electric
Generating Plant (Plant Barry); Ascend
Performance Materials—Decatur Plant
(Ascend); Big Escambia; PowerSouth
Energy Cooperative—Charles R.
Lowman Power Plant (Lowman); and
Continental Carbon Company—Phenix
City Plant (Continental Carbon).24 With
respect to Continental Carbon, EPA
previously determined that the
modeling and supporting information
provided to meet DRR requirements was
acceptable.25 With respect to the
modeling and other information
submitted by the State for the remaining
five modeled Alabama sources within
50 km of another state (i.e., AkzoNobel,
Ascend, Big Escambia, Lowman, and
Plant Barry), EPA previously
determined that the Agency does not
have sufficient information to
demonstrate whether the areas around
these sources meet or do not meet the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS or contribute
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 Of the remaining five sources in Alabama
initially subject to the DRR which did not opt to
conduct dispersion modeling, three sources
accepted federally-enforceable permit limits to
exempt out of the DRR requirements, one source
provided documentation that the facility shut
down, and one source installed a monitor. The
three sources that accepted federally-enforceable
permit limits to exempt out of the DRR
requirements are: Alabama Power—Gadsden
Electric Generating Plant; Alabama Power—Greene
County Electric Generating Plant; and Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA)—Colbert Fossil Plant.
Alabama’s one DRR source which shut down is the
TVA—Widows Creek Fossil Plant. As mentioned in
Section I.B., LNA—Montevallo installed a monitor
to inform round 4 designations. See Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0003.
24 The Mobile County area includes two DRR
sources: AkzoNobel and Plant Barry. Due to the
close proximity of AkzoNobel and Plant Barry to
each other, a combined air dispersion modeling
analysis was conducted for both facilities pursuant
to the DRR.
25 See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/
2017-08/documents/3_al_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
to an area that does not meet the
standard, and thus designated these
areas as unclassifiable.26 Although EPA
does not have any indications that there
are violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in these areas, the Agency
assessed AkzoNobel, Ascend, Lowman,
and Plant Barry in section III.C.2.b. of
this proposed action with respect to
interstate transport for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. Regarding Big Escambia,
ADEM provided supplemental
information in September and December
of 2019 that addresses the issues with
the original modeling for this source
performed under the DRR for the
purposes of evaluating interstate
transport of SO2 from Alabama into
Florida.27 EPA’s TSD for Big Escambia
summarizes the issues with the original
DRR modeling and how ADEM has now
addressed these issues for the purpose
of evaluating potential ambient air
impacts in the neighboring state of
Florida.28 Table 2 provides a summary
of the 99th percentile daily maximum 1hour average concentrations estimated
by the modeling for Big Escambia and
Continental Carbon, which are based on
actual emissions for Big Escambia and
potential to emit (PTE) emissions for
Continental Carbon. Alabama’s
modeling analyses for Big Escambia and
Continental Carbon indicate that the
maximum impacts did not exceed the
level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
neighboring states. Based on the
modeling results indicating that the
maximum impacts did not exceed the
level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
neighboring states, no further analysis is
necessary for assessing the potential
impacts of the interstate transport of
SO2 emissions from these facilities.
26 See EPA’s initial and final TSDs for Alabama
at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201708/documents/3_al_so2_rd3-final.pdf and https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/
documents/03-al-so2-rd3-final.pdf.
27 ADEM submitted the Big Escambia Supplement
to EPA in separate correspondence dated September
5, 2019, September 20, 2019, September 25, 2019,
December 2, 2019, and December 6, 2019, and it is
included in the docket for this proposed action,
with the exception of certain files due to their
nature and size and incompatibility with the
Federal Docket Management System. These files are
available at the EPA Region 4 office for review. To
request these files, please contact the person listed
in this notice under the section titled FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
28 EPA’s TSD addressing Big Escambia for this
proposed rulemaking is located in the docket.
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
72283
TABLE 2—ALABAMA SOURCES WITH VALID 29 DRR MODELING LOCATED WITHIN 50 km OF ANOTHER STATE
DRR source
County
Approximate
distance
from source to
adjacent State
(km)
Big Escambia
Escambia .......
8 (FL) .............
Escambia Operating Company-Flomaton (AL) and
Breitburn Operating, L.P.
(FL).
Continental
Carbon.
Russell ...........
1 (GA) ............
IIG MinWool LLC (AL) ..........
Table 3 provides a summary of the
modeling results for the four DRR
sources in neighboring states which are
located within 50 km of Alabama and
which elected to provide air dispersion
modeling under the DRR: Gulf Power
Other facilities included in
modeling
Modeled 99th percentile daily
maximum 1-hour SO2
concentration in nearest
neighboring state
(ppb)
58.8 ppb (FL) (based on
2013–2015 actual emissions for the thermal oxidizer at Big Escambia and
allowable/PTE emissions
for the remaining units at
Big Escambia and the
nearby sources).
38.9 (GA) (based on PTE
emissions).
Company—Crist Electric Generating
Station (Crist) in Florida; Georgia
Power—Plant Bowen (Plant Bowen) and
Georgia Power—Plant Wansley (Plant
Wansley) in Georgia; and Mississippi
Power Company’s Victor J. Daniel Steam
Model grid extends into
another State?
Yes, into FL (the northern
portion of Escambia County, FL).
Yes, into GA (the southwestern portion of
Muscogee County and the
northwestern portion of
Chattahoochee County).
Electric Generating Plant (Plant Daniel)
in Mississippi. The modeling results for
all four sources indicated that the
maximum impacts did not exceed the
level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.30
TABLE 3—OTHER STATES’ SOURCES WITH DRR MODELING LOCATED WITHIN 50 km OF ALABAMA
DRR source
County (state)
Approximate
distance from
source to
Alabama border
(km)
Crist ..................
Escambia (FL)
17
Plant Bowen .....
Plant Wansley ..
Bartow (GA) .....
Heard (GA) ......
46
24
Plant Daniel ......
Jackson (MS) ...
14
Other facilities included
in modeling
Modeled 99th
percentile daily
maximum
1-hour SO2
concentration
(ppb) *
Yes—International Paper Pensacola Facility.
No ...............................................
Yes—Georgia
Power—Plant
Yates; Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia; Chattahoochee Energy Facility; and
Wansley
Combined-Cycle
Generating Plant.
None ...........................................
Model grid extends into
another state?
33.8
No.
57.6
15
No.
No.
56.5
Yes—into AL (a portion of extreme southwest AL west of
Mobile County, AL).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
* The modeled 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations are based on: 2012–2014 actual SO2 emissions for Crist and Plant
Daniel; 2012–2014 actual SO2 emissions for Plant Wansley; PTE for the other sources included in Plant Wansley’s modeling; and 2014–2016
actual SO2 emissions for Plant Bowen.
EPA believes that the modeling
results in Tables 2 and 3, weighed along
with other factors in this notice, support
EPA’s proposed conclusion that sources
in Alabama will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state.
29 As used in the heading for this table, the term
‘‘valid’’ means valid for the purpose of evaluating
impacts for interstate transport of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS from Alabama in neighboring states.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 30, 2019
Jkt 250001
2. SO2 Emissions Analysis
b. EPA Analysis
a. State Submission
EPA reviewed statewide and EGU SO2
emissions in Alabama from the NEI for
the years 2005, 2008, 2011, and 2014 to
examine any trends in SO2 emissions
over this period. As shown in Table 4,
Alabama’s statewide SO2 emissions
have declined by 66 percent from
592,670 tons in 2002 to 201,418 tons in
2014. Alabama EGU SO2 emissions
decreased by 74 percent from 461,634
tons in 2005 to 119,976 tons in 2014.
With respect to emissions trends,
ADEM states that significant SO2
emissions reductions have resulted from
the implementation of several federal
programs in Alabama. These federal
programs are identified in section III.C.5
of this notice.
30 Although the modeling grids for Crist, Plant
Bowen, and Plant Wansley do not extend into
Alabama, EPA finds that the model results for these
sources which show that the maximum impacts did
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
not exceed the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
indicate that there is not a transport issue in the
areas modeled for which there is data.
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
72284
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—ALABAMA SO2 EMISSIONS (tons) FROM THE NEI
2008 NEI
(Version 3)
2005 NEI
Total SO2 Emissions ........................................................................................
SO2 Emissions from EGUs ..............................................................................
592,670
461,634
assessed this information 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 5 lists
sources in Alabama not subject to the
DRR that emitted greater than 100 tpy of
SO2 in 2017 within 50 km of the State’s
border.
Currently, EPA does not have
monitoring or modeling data suggesting
that Florida, Georgia, North Carolina,
and Tennessee are impacted by SO2
As discussed in section III.B., EPA
also finds that it is appropriate to
examine the impacts of SO2 emissions
from stationary sources emitting greater
than 100 tons of SO2 in Alabama at
distances ranging from zero km to 50 km
from a neighboring state’s border.
Therefore, in addition to those 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 that emitted over 100 tons of SO2
in 2017 and are located in Alabama
within 50 km from the border.31 EPA
2011 NEI
(Version 2)
443,810
362,671
278,364
179,849
2014 NEI
(Version 2)
201,418
119,976
emissions from the 14 Alabama sources
not subject to the DRR listed in Table 5.
Of these 14 Alabama sources, 10 are
located over 50 km from the nearest
source 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 Alabama sources
could interact with SO2 emissions from
the neighboring states’ nearest sources
in Table 5 in such a way as to contribute
significantly to nonattainment in
Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and
Tennessee.
TABLE 5—ALABAMA NON-DRR SO2 SOURCES EMITTING GREATER THAN 100 tpy IN 2017 NEAR NEIGHBORING STATES
Alabama source
Approximate
distance to
Alabama
border
(km)
2017 Annual
SO2 emissions
(tons)
Closest
neighboring
state
Approximate
distance to
nearest
neighboring state
SO2 source
(km)
American Midstream Chatom,
LLC.
948
5
Mississippi ........
44
Evonik Corporation .................
ExxonMobil Production Company.
Georgia-Pacific (Penington) ...
Georgia-Pacific Brewton LLC
225
157
25
19
Mississippi ........
Mississippi ........
41
37
1,236
103
37
8
Mississippi ........
Florida ..............
70
16
512
<5
Georgia .............
96
126
222
33
<5
Mississippi ........
Georgia .............
60
85
Mineral Manufacturing Corporation.
Nucor Steel Decatur LLC .......
182
5
Georgia .............
109
110
39
Tennessee ........
102
Rock-Tenn Mill Company,
LLC.
SSAB Alabama Inc .................
Tennessee Alloys Corporation
250
38
Mississippi ........
90
381
671
39
<5
9
Mississippi ........
Tennessee and
Georgia.
70
93
* 105
29
Mississippi ........
60
Georgia-Pacific Cedar Springs
LLC.
Hilcorp Energy Company .......
MeadWestvaco Mahrt Mill ......
Union Oil of California—
Chunchula Gas Plant.
Nearest neighboring state
non-DRR SO2 source & 2017
emissions (>100 tons SO2)
Petro Harvester Operating Company LLC—South Cypress
Creek (Petro-Cypress Creek)
(128 tons).
Plant Daniel (204 tons).
Plant Daniel (204 tons).
Petro-Cypress Creek (128 tons).
Breitburn Operating LP (1,491
tons).
Georgia Power Company—Plant
Mitchell (633 tons in 2015).
Plant Daniel (204 tons).
C–E Minerals Plants 1, 2, and 6
(292 tons).
C–E Minerals Plants 1, 2, and 6
(292 tons).
Steel Dynamics Columbus (457
tons).
Petro-Cypress Creek (128 tons).
Plant Daniel (204 tons).
Resolute Forest Products—Calhoun Operations (TN)—(218
tons).
Plant Daniel (204 tons).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
* (2016 Emissions).
There are four Alabama sources not
subject to the DRR that are located at or
less than 50 km from the nearest source
in another state which emit greater than
100 tons of SO2: American Midstream
Chatom, LLC; Evonik Corporation;
ExxonMobil Production Company; and
Georgia-Pacific Brewton LLC. EPA
believes that the relatively low SO2
emissions of each of these four Alabama
sources combined with the emissions
from the nearest sources emitting greater
than 100 tons of SO2 in neighboring
states make it unlikely that the SO2
emissions from these four Alabama
31 2017 emissions are the latest available data for
these sources in Alabama.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 30, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
sources could interact with SO2
emissions from the neighboring states’
sources in such a way as to contribute
significantly to nonattainment in the
neighboring states of Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi, and Tennessee.
In addition, EPA evaluated 2017 SO2
emissions data for four of the five DRR
sources for which EPA could not rely on
existing DRR modeling to assess their
impacts for interstate transport for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on other
states: AkzoNobel, Ascend, Lowman,
and Plant Barry. Table 6 provides
annual 2017 SO2 emissions data along
72285
with the distances to the closest
neighboring state’s sources emitting
over 100 tpy of SO2.32 Table 7 shows the
SO2 emissions trends for these sources
from 2012–2017 (and 2018 if data is
available).33
TABLE 6—ALABAMA DRR SO2 SOURCES WITHOUT VALID DRR MODELING NEAR NEIGHBORING STATES
Approximate
distance to
nearest
neighboring
state SO2
source (km)
Approximate
distance to
Alabama (km)
Ascend .............................................
1,628
40
Tennessee ........
123
Lowman ...........................................
Plant Barry .......................................
AkzoNobel .......................................
1,110
4,218
2,201
51
40
39
Mississippi ........
Mississippi ........
Mississippi ........
73
74
71
Alabama source
Closest
neighboring
state
Nearest neighboring state SO2
source & 2017 Emissions (≤100
Tons SO2)
2017 Annual
SO2 emissions
(tons)
Packaging Corp. of America (616
tons).
Petro-Cypress Creek (128 tons).
Plant Daniel (204 tons).
Plant Daniel (204 tons).
TABLE 7—ALABAMA DRR SO2 SOURCES EMITTING GREATER THAN 100 tpy NEAR NEIGHBORING STATES—EMISSIONS
TRENDS
Alabama source
AkzoNobel ....................
Ascend .........................
Lowman ........................
Plant Barry ...................
2012
2013
3,293
2,182
3,619
10,731
2014
2,752
2,595
3,893
13,448
2015
2,320
2,839
4,546
10,690
2016
3,587
2,594
2,506
8,688
2017
3,646
2,179
1,241
5,421
2,201
1,628
1,110
4,218
2018
N/A *
N/A *
808
5,257
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
* 2018 emissions not yet available for AkzoNobel and Ascend from EPA’s Emissions Inventory System (EIS).
Table 6 shows that the distances
between the four Alabama DRR sources
without valid DRR modeling and the
nearest state’s source emitting over 100
tpy of SO2 exceed 50 km. EPA believes
that the distances greater than 50 km
between sources make it unlikely that
SO2 emissions from the four Alabama
DRR sources could interact with SO2
emissions from the neighboring states’
nearest sources in Table 6 in such a way
as to contribute significantly to
nonattainment in Mississippi and
Tennessee. Table 7 shows that 2017 SO2
emissions have declined below 2012
levels for Ascend and Akzo Nobel) and
that 2018 SO2 emissions have declined
below 2012 levels for Lowman and
Plant Barry.
EPA also considered whether any
changes in controls or operations had
occurred at AkzoNobel, Ascend,
Lowman, and Plant Barry. AkzoNobel
entered into a consent decree with EPA
that has reduced SO2 emissions.34
According to June 6, 2019, and
December 2, 2019, emails from ADEM to
EPA, Ascend ceased operating Boiler 5,
Boiler 6 is set to cease operations in
2020, and Cokers 1 and 2 are set to cease
operations in 2021.35 At Loman, three
coal-fired boilers are set to be shut down
in 2020. Plant Barry has retired Unit 3,
and Units 1 and 2 are restricted to burn
only natural gas as of January 1, 2017.
EPA also evaluated data in EPA’s Air
Quality System (AQS) 36 from the SO2
monitors in the surrounding areas of
AkzoNobel, Ascend, Lowman, and Plant
Barry. The only monitor within 50 km
of these sources is located in Mobile
County, Alabama (AQS ID: 01–097–
0003) and is approximately 23 km from
AkzoNobel. The 2018 DV for this
monitor is 11 ppb.
Based on the declining SO2 emissions
trends in Alabama shown in Table 4,
and the Agency’s analysis of the
Alabama sources and respective data in
Tables 5, 6, and 7, EPA believes that
32 Table 6 SO emissions are from EPA’s Air
2
Markets Program Data (AMPD) accessible at:
https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/. EPA’s AMPD is an
application that provides both current and
historical data collected as part of EPA’s emissions
trading programs.
33 Table 7 SO emissions for Lowman and Plant
2
Barry are from EPA’s AMPD.
34 The consent decree, entered on November 21,
2019, is available at: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/
consent-decree/file/1201231/download. A press
release is available at: https://www.epa.gov/
newsreleases/settlement-reached-nouryonfunctional-chemicals-llc-fka-akzo-nobel-functionalchemicals.
35 ADEM’s June 6, 2019, and December 2, 2019,
emails are included in the docket for this action at
www.regulations.gov at Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2018–0792.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 30, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Alabama’s potential for contributing
significantly to nonattainment in a
nearby state is reduced substantially.
3. SO2 Ambient Air Quality
a. State Submission
In its August 20, 2018, SIP
submission, ADEM indicated that there
is one SO2 monitor located in the State
with complete data.37 This monitor
(AQS ID: 01–073–1003) is located in
Jefferson County, Alabama, and has a
2015–2017 DV of 13 ppb. The monitor
is well over 50 km from the State’s
border. ADEM also asserts that there are
no monitors located in Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, Mississippi, or Tennessee
that are violating the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS for the 2015–2017 monitoring
period based on the DVs in EPA’s AQS
for these monitors.
b. EPA Analysis
EPA reviewed monitoring data for
AQS monitors in Alabama within 50 km
36 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.
37 At the time of SIP submission, the Jefferson
County, Alabama, monitor (AQS ID: 01–073–1003)
was the only monitor with a valid DV for the 2015–
2017 time period.
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
72286
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
of another state and for AQS monitors
within 50 km of Alabama in adjacent
states using relevant data from EPA’s
AQS DV reports. 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 3year 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. The only
AQS monitors in Alabama within 50 km
of another state are the Mobile County
monitor (AQS ID: 01–097–0003), and
the Sumter County monitor (AQS ID:
01–119–0003). The Mobile County
monitor is approximately 30 km from
Mississippi and 45 km from Florida,
and the Sumter County monitor is
approximately 13 km from Mississippi.
The Mobile County monitor began
operation on January 1, 2016. The
monitor has a complete, quality-assured
2016–2018 DV of 11 ppb, which is 85
percent below the level of the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS. The Sumter County
monitor began operation on January 1,
2018. Since the monitor has not
operated for three years, it has not yet
collected a valid DV. During 2018, the
Sumter County monitor recorded a 99th
percentile daily maximum 1-hour SO2
concentration of approximately 4 ppb.
Neither the Mobile County nor Sumter
County monitor has measured any daily
exceedances of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS during their respective years of
operation.
Table 8 shows that there are three
AQS monitors in the adjacent states of
Florida (Escambia County monitor),
Georgia (Floyd County monitor), and
Mississippi (Jackson County monitor)
which are located within 50 km of the
Alabama border. Currently, there are no
AQS monitors with complete, valid data
indicating a violation of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS located within 50 km of
Alabama in the states of Florida,
Georgia, and Mississippi. Further, the
DVs from these monitors show a general
downward trend in SO2 concentrations
and that the DVs from 2012–2018 have
remained below the standard, with the
exception of the Floyd County monitor
in Georgia which did not have a valid
DV for 2015–2017 and 2016–2018.38
TABLE 8—2010 1-HOUR SO2 DVS (ppb) FOR AQS MONITORS LOCATED IN ADJACENT STATES WITHIN 50 km OF
ALABAMA
State
County
AQS ID
2010–2012
Florida ..........
Georgia .........
Mississippi ....
Escambia ......
Floyd .............
Jackson ........
12–033–0004
13–115–0003
28–059–0006
2011–2013
27
74
27
2012–2014
22
67
23
2013–2015
25
46
27
2014–2016
24
35
28
2015–2017
16
42
21
2016–2018
8
* ND
12
Approximate
distance to
state border
(km)
6
* ND
6
23
12
13
* ND indicates no data due to relocation of the Floyd County, Georgia monitor to serve as a DRR monitor (AQS ID: 13–115–0006) listed in Table 8.
EPA notes that the 2014–2016 DV for
the Floyd County, Georgia AQS monitor
(AQS ID: 13–115–0003) of 42 ppb is 44
percent below the level of the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS. None of the monitors
listed in Table 8 has measured any daily
exceedances of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS during 2017 or 2018. Thus,
based on this assessment, EPA believes
that these data support EPA’s proposed
conclusion that Alabama will not
contribute significantly to
monitor—located in Floyd County,
Georgia (AQS ID: 13–115–0006)—that is
within 50 km of the Alabama border.
Although this monitor does not have
three or more years of complete data to
establish DVs, EPA evaluated the
available, annual 99th percentile SO2
concentration data for 2017 and 2018
(see Table 9). The Floyd County DRR
monitor was sited in the vicinity of the
International Paper—Rome facility, a
DRR source.
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in any other state.
EPA also evaluated monitoring data
provided to date for AQS monitors
located in states adjacent to Alabama
within 50 km of the State’s 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
(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘DRR
monitors’’). There is only one DRR
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 9—ANNUAL 99TH PERCENTILE OF 1-HOUR DAILY MAXIMUM SO2 CONCENTRATIONS (ppb) FOR ROUND 4 DRR
MONITORS LOCATED IN ADJACENT STATES WITHIN 50 km OF ALABAMA
County (state)
Round 4 monitored source
AQS ID
Floyd (GA) ........................................
International Paper—Rome ..............
2017
99th percentile
concentration
2018
99th percentile
concentration
22
15
13–115–0006
Approximate
distance to
Alabama
(km)
12
Though the annual 99th percentile
daily maximum 1-hour SO2
concentrations shown in Table 9 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.
The Floyd County DRR monitor has not
measured 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 assessed support EPA’s
proposed conclusion that Alabama will
not contribute significantly to 2010 1hour SO2 violations in the neighboring
states.
38 The Floyd County, Georgia monitor (AQS ID:
13–115–0003) 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
under the DRR. The relocated monitor (AQS ID: 13–
115–0006) is shown in Table 9 of this notice and
does not have a valid 2016–2018 DV due to the
relocation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 30, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
4. SIP-Approved Regulations
Addressing SO2 Emissions
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
a. State Submission
Alabama’s August 20, 2018, SIP
submission identifies SIP-approved
measures which help ensure that SO2
emissions in the State will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in any other state. Specifically,
ADEM lists the following SIP-approved
Alabama regulations which establish
emission limits and other control
measures for SO2: ADEM
Administrative Code Chapter 335–3–5—
Control of Sulfur Compound Emissions
and Rules 335–3–14–.01—General
Provisions; 335–3–14–.02—Permit
Procedure; 335–3–14–.03—Standards
for Granting Permits; 335–3–14–.04—
Air Permits Authorizing Construction in
Clean Air Areas (Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD)); and
335–3–14–.05—Air Permits Authorizing
Construction in or Near Nonattainment
Areas.
b. EPA Analysis
EPA believes that Alabama’s SIPapproved measures summarized in
III.C.4.a. of this notice, which establish
emissions 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 Alabama do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS, the State has a SIPapproved major source new source
review (NSR) program. Alabama’s SIPapproved nonattainment NSR
regulation, Rule 335–3–14–.05, applies
to the construction of any new major
stationary source or major modification
at an existing major stationary source in
an area designated as nonattainment.
Alabama’s SIP-approved prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD)
regulation, Rule 335–3–14–.04, applies
to the construction of any new major
stationary source or any major
modification at an existing major
stationary source in an area designated
as attainment or unclassifiable or not yet
designated. Rules 335–3–14–.01—
General Provisions, 335–3–14–.02—
Permit Procedure, and 335–3–14–.03—
Standards for Granting Permits govern
the preconstruction permitting of
modifications to and construction of
minor stationary sources. These major
and minor NSR rules ensure that SO2
emissions due to major modifications at
existing major stationary sources,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 30, 2019
Jkt 250001
modifications at minor stationary
sources, and the construction of new
major and minor sources in Alabama
will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in neighboring states.
5. Federal Regulations Addressing SO2
Emissions in Alabama
a. State Submission
ADEM identified EPA programs
which, either directly or indirectly, have
significantly reduced SO2 emissions in
Alabama. These programs include: 2007
Heavy-Duty Highway Rule; Acid Rain
Program; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule;
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; New Source
Performance Standards; Nonroad Diesel
Rule; and Tier 1 and 2 Mobile Source
Rules.
b. EPA Analysis
In addition to the list of federal
regulations identified in section
III.C.5.a. of this notice which contribute
to SO2 reductions in Alabama, EPA
notes that some facilities in the State are
also subject to the federal requirements
contained in EPA’s Mercury Air Toxic
Standards (MATS). These regulations
reduce acid gases, which also result in
reductions of SO2 emissions. EPA
believes that the federal control
measures for SO2 which Alabama lists
in the State’s SIP submission, along
with MATS, may lower SO2 emissions,
which, in turn, are expected to continue
to support EPA’s proposed conclusion
that SO2 emissions from Alabama will
not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in another state.
6. Conclusion
EPA proposes to determine that
Alabama’s August 20, 2018, 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: Current air quality data
for AQS SO2 monitors located in the
states of Florida, Georgia, and
Mississippi that are within 50 km of
Alabama’s border are well below the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; modeling for
the two Alabama DRR sources whose
modeling grids extend into a portion of
other states indicate that the maximum
impacts did not exceed the level of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in neighboring
states; modeling for four DRR sources in
the surrounding states of Florida,
Georgia, and Mississippi located within
50 km of Alabama indicate that the
areas around these sources do not
violate the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS;
declining statewide and EGU SO2
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
72287
emissions from 2005 to 2014 in
Alabama suggest that the State’s
potential for contributing significantly
to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS is reduced substantially; SO2
emissions from Alabama sources not
subject to the DRR and which emitted
over 100 tons of SO2 in 2017 are not
likely interacting with SO2 emissions
from the nearest sources in bordering
states in such a way as to contribute
significantly to nonattainment in the
surrounding states of Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi, and Tennessee; Alabama
DRR sources without valid DRR
modeling are located over 50 km from
the nearest state’s SO2 source and their
SO2 emissions show an overall general
downward trend; and the
implementation of current Alabama SIPapproved measures and federal
emissions control programs help to
further reduce and control SO2
emissions from sources within Alabama.
Further, EPA has no information
indicating that Alabama sources will
contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in another state.
Based on the analysis provided by
Alabama in its SIP submission and
EPA’s analysis of the factors described
in section III.C, EPA proposes to find
that sources within Alabama 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 August 20, 2018, SIP
submission, ADEM relied upon the
information provided for prong 1 to
demonstrate that emissions within
Alabama will not interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in any neighboring state.
Further, ADEM notes that there are no
monitors located in the surrounding
states of Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Tennessee that are
violating the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
for the 2015–2017 monitoring period.
ADEM also highlighted the State’s PSD
regulation (335–3–14–.04) and states
that this regulation ‘‘will continue to
apply to any future, large sources in
Alabama, further ensuring that
maintenance efforts in neighboring
states are addressed.’’
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
72288
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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.
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 Alabama, EPA has
also reviewed additional information on
SO2 air quality and emission trends to
evaluate the State’s conclusion that
Alabama 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 data discussed in section
III.C. of this notice for prong 1, with a
specific focus on evaluating emissions
trends in Alabama, analyzing air quality
data, and assessing how future sources
of SO2 are addressed through existing
SIP-approved and federal regulations.
Given the continuing trend of
decreasing statewide SO2 emissions
from sources within Alabama, and the
fact that all areas in other states within
50 km of the Alabama border have DVs
attaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS,
EPA believes that evaluating whether
these decreases in emissions can be
maintained over time is a reasonable
criterion to ensure that sources within
Alabama do not interfere with its
neighboring states’ ability to maintain
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
With respect to air quality data trends,
the valid 2016–2018 DVs for AQS SO2
monitors both in Alabama within 50 km
of another state’s border and in adjacent
states within 50 km of Alabama’s border
are below the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS.39 Further, modeling results for
DRR sources in the State within 50 km
of Alabama’s border did not exceed the
level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
neighboring states and modeling results
for DRR sources in neighboring states
within 50 km of Alabama’s border show
39 As noted in Section III.C.3.b, the Floyd County,
Georgia monitor (AQS ID: 13–115–0003) does not
have a valid 2016–2018 DV as this monitor 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 under the DRR.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 30, 2019
Jkt 250001
maximum impacts did not exceed the
level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
Thus, these modeling results
demonstrate that Alabama’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 Alabama 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 Alabama’s SIPapproved major NSR regulations
described in section III.C.4. In addition,
ADEM Rules 335–3–14–.01—General
Provisions, 335–3–14–.02—Permit
Procedure, and 335–3–14–.03—
Standards for Granting Permits govern
the preconstruction permitting of
modifications to and construction of
minor stationary sources. These major
and minor source permitting regulations
are designed to ensure that emissions
from these activities will 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
Alabama’s August 20, 2018, 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:
Statewide and EGU SO2 emissions from
2005 to 2014 in Alabama have declined
significantly (66 and 74 percent,
respectively); current Alabama SIPapproved measures and federal
emissions control programs adequately
control SO2 emissions from sources
within Alabama; Alabama’s SIPapproved PSD and minor source NSR
permit programs will address future
large and small SO2 sources; current air
quality data for AQS SO2 monitors in
Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi within
50 km of Alabama’s border have DVs
well below the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS; and modeling for DRR sources
in Alabama indicate that the maximum
impacts did not exceed the level of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in neighboring
states; modeling for DRR sources within
50 km of Alabama’s border located in
the states of Florida, Georgia, and
Mississippi demonstrate that Alabama’s
largest point sources of SO2 will not
interfere with maintenance of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state.
Based on the analysis provided by
Alabama in its SIP submission and
EPA’s analysis of the factors described
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
in section III.C of this notice, EPA
proposes to find that emission sources
within Alabama will not interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in any other state.
IV. Proposed Action
In light of the above analysis, EPA is
proposing to approve Alabama’s August
20, 2018, SIP submission as
demonstrating that emissions from
Alabama will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state.
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 proposed action merely
proposes to approve state law as
meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed 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: December 17, 2019.
Blake M. Ashbee,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019–28236 Filed 12–30–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2018–0705; FRL–10003–
47–Region 6]
Air Plan Approval; New Mexico;
Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of
comment period.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is extending the comment
period for the proposed rule titled ‘‘Air
Plan Approval; New Mexico; Interstate
Transport Requirements for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS’’ that was published in
the Federal Register on December 3,
2019. The proposal provided for a
public comment period ending January
2, 2020. The EPA received a request
from the public to extend this comment
period. The EPA is extending the
comment period to a 45-day public
comment period ending January 17,
2020.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 30, 2019
Jkt 250001
The comment period for the
proposed rule published December 3,
2019 (84 FR 66098), is extended.
Written comments must be received on
or before January 17, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket Number EPA–R06–
OAR–2018–0705, at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
fuerst.sherry@epa.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 Sherry Fuerst, 214–665–6454,
fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. 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-epadockets.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at the EPA Region 6 Office, 1201 Elm
Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas. While
all documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available at
either location (e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sherry Fuerst, 214–665–6454,
fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment with Ms. Fuerst or Mr. Bill
Deese at 214–665–7253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 3, 2019, we published in the
Federal Register ‘‘Air Plan Approval;
New Mexico; Interstate Transport
Requirements for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS’’ addressing ozone interstate
transport (84 FR 66098). We received a
request for an extension of the comment
period and, in response, have decided to
allow an additional 15 days. We are
extending the comment period to
January 17, 2020. This action will allow
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
72289
interested persons additional time to
prepare and submit comments.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen Oxides, Ozone.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 18, 2019.
David Garcia,
Air and Radiation Division Director, Region
6.
[FR Doc. 2019–27865 Filed 12–30–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Office of Inspector General
42 CFR Part 1001
Solicitation of New Safe Harbors and
Special Fraud Alerts
Office of Inspector General
(OIG), HHS.
ACTION: Notification of intent to develop
regulations.
AGENCY:
In accordance with section
205 of the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996
(HIPAA), this annual notification
solicits proposals and recommendations
for developing new, or modifying
existing, safe harbor provisions under
section 1128B(b) of the Social Security
Act (the Act), (the anti-kickback statute),
as well as developing new OIG Special
Fraud Alerts.
DATES: To ensure consideration, public
comments must be delivered to the
address provided below by no later than
5 p.m. on March 2, 2020.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer
to file code OIG–128–N. Because of staff
and resource limitations, we cannot
accept comments by facsimile (fax)
transmission. You may submit
comments in one of three ways (no
duplicates, please):
1. Electronically. You may submit
electronic comments on specific
recommendations and proposals
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at https://www.regulations.gov.
2. By regular, express, or overnight
mail. You may send written comments
to the following address: Office of
Inspector General, Regulatory Affairs,
Department of Health and Human
Services, Attention: OIG–128–N, Room
5527, Cohen Building, 330
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20201. Please allow sufficient time
for mailed comments to be received
before the close of the comment period.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 250 (Tuesday, December 31, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72278-72289]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28236]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0792; FRL-10003-83-Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Alabama; 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 Alabama's August 20, 2018, State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission pertaining to the ``good neighbor'' provision of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The
good neighbor provision requires each state's implementation plan to
address the interstate transport of air pollution in amounts that
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other state. In this action, EPA is
proposing to determine that Alabama 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 August 20, 2018, 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 30, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0792 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
[[Page 72279]]
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).
In a letter dated August 20, 2018,\1\ the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management (ADEM) submitted a revision to the Alabama SIP
only addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\2\ EPA is proposing to approve
ADEM's August 20, 2018, SIP submission because the State demonstrated
that Alabama 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 Alabama have been addressed in separate rulemakings.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA received ADEM's August 20, 2018, SIP submission on
August 27, 2018.
\2\ On April 23, 2013, and October 24, 2017, ADEM 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 section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
\3\ EPA acted on all other infrastructure elements for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Alabama's April 23, 2013, and October
24, 2017, SIP revisions on January 12, 2017 (82 FR 3637), October
12, 2017 (82 FR 47393), and July 6, 2018 (83 FR 31454).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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
(August 8, 2011); Final Response to Petition from New Jersey
Regarding SO2 Emissions From the Portland Generating
Station, 76 FR 69052 (November 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'') \5\ 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). 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)).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The term ``round'' in this instance refers to which ``round
of designations.''
\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.
\8\ Consent Decree, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case No. 3:13-cv-
3953-SI (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2015). This 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
requires 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'').
For Alabama, EPA designated all counties as attainment/
unclassifiable or unclassifiable in round 3 except for a portion of
Shelby County around the Lhoist North America of Alabama--Montevallo
Plant (LNA--Montevallo) that is currently conducting monitoring to
inform round 4 designations.\9\ There are no nonattainment areas in
Alabama for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS based on rounds 1, 2,
and 3 of EPA's designations process.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Technical Support Document: Chapter 3 Final Round 3 Area
Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for Alabama at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/03-al-so2-rd3-final.pdf.
\10\ On August 5, 2013 (78 FR 47191) and effective October 4,
2013, EPA designated 29 areas in 16 states as nonattainment for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS based on violating monitors using
air quality data for the years 2009-2011, but did not, at that time,
designate other areas in the country. On July 12, 2016 (81 FR
45039), effective September 12, 2016, and December 13, 2016 (81 FR
89870), effective January 12, 2017, EPA published a final rule
establishing air quality designations for 65 areas in 24 states for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS including seven nonattainment areas,
41 attainment/unclassifiable areas, and 17 unclassifiable areas. On
January 9, 2018 (83 FR 1098) effective April 9, 2018, EPA designated
six areas as nonattainment; 23 areas designated unclassifiable; and
the rest of the areas covered by this round in all states,
territories, and tribal lands were designated attainment/
unclassifiable. No areas in Alabama were designated as nonattainment
in these actions. See https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations/sulfur-dioxide-designations-regulatory-actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Relevant Factors Used To Evaluate the 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
[[Page 72280]]
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 the 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 km-wide
zone because the physical properties of SO2 result in
relatively localized pollutant impacts near an emissions source that
drop off with distance. Given the properties of SO2, EPA
selected a spatial scale with dimensions from four to 50 kilometers
(km) from point sources--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 selected the urban scale as 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 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. The
American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency
Regulatory Model (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
applied the 50-km threshold as a reasonable distance 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For the definition of spatial scales for SO2,
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 proposed rulemaking on Connecticut's
SO2 transport SIP. See 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in sections III.C and III.D, EPA first reviewed
Alabama'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 other states' sources within 50 km of
the Alabama border.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ This proposed approval action is based on the information
contained in the administrative record for this action and does not
prejudge any other future EPA action that may make other
determinations regarding Alabama's air quality status. Any such
future actions, such as area designations under any NAAQS, will be
based on their own administrative records and EPA's analyses of
information that become available at those times. Future available
information may include, and is not limited to, monitoring data and
modeling analyses conducted pursuant to the DRR and information
submitted to EPA by states, air agencies, and third-party
stakeholders such as citizen groups and industry representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Alabama's SIP Submission and EPA's Analysis
A. State Submission
Through a letter dated August 20, 2018, ADEM submitted a revision
to the Alabama SIP addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\13\
Alabama 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ On September 5, 2019, September 20, 2019, September 25,
2019, December 2, 2019, and December 6, 2019, ADEM provided
supplemental information pertaining to Escambia Operating Company--
Big Escambia Creek Plant's (Big Escambia's) DRR modeling that
addresses and resolves the issues with the original modeling for
this source performed under the DRR (collectively, the ``Big
Escambia Supplement''). See Section III.C.1.b. for more information.
Big Escambia is located in Escambia County, Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEM based its conclusions for prongs 1 and 2 on attaining 2015-
2017 SO2 design values (DVs) \14\ in Alabama and adjacent
states; the lack of 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS nonattainment
areas in Alabama or within close proximity to Alabama; the existence of
DRR modeling for Alabama SO2 sources; and established
federal and State control measures which address SO2
emissions. EPA's evaluation of Alabama's August 20, 2018, SIP
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. For example, the 2017 DV is calculated
based on the three-year average from 2015-2017. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. EPA's Evaluation Methodology
EPA believes that a reasonable starting point for determining which
sources and emissions activities in Alabama 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
Emissions Inventory (NEI).\15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ EPA's NEI is available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 1, the majority of SO2 emissions in
Alabama originate from point sources.\16\ In 2014, the total
SO2 emissions from point sources in Alabama comprised
approximately 96 percent of the total SO2 emissions in the
State. Further analysis of these data show that SO2
emissions from fuel combustion from point sources make up approximately
74 percent of the total SO2 emissions in the State. 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. Based on EPA's analysis of the 2014 NEI, EPA believes that it is
appropriate to focus the analysis on SO2 emissions from
Alabama's larger point sources (i.e., emitting over 100 tpy of
SO2 in 2017), which are located within the ``urban scale,''
i.e., within 50 km of one or more state borders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Alabama'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),'' with the
exception of residential fuel consumption. 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.
[[Page 72281]]
Table 1--Summary of 2014 NEI (Version 2) SO2 Data for Alabama by Source
Types
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Category Emissions total SO2
(tpy) emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Combustion: Electric Generating 119,922.45 60
Units (EGUs) (All Fuel Types)..........
Fuel Combustion: Industrial Boilers/ 27,658.08 14
Internal Combustion Engines (All Fuel
Types).................................
Fuel Combustion: Commercial/ 13.58 0
Institutional (All Fuel Types).........
Fuel Combustion: Residential (All Fuel 84.40 0
Types).................................
Industrial Processes (All Categories)... 43,805.93 22
Mobile Sources (All Categories)......... 1,528.60 1
Fires (All Types)....................... 7,585.65 4
Waste Disposal.......................... 814.84 0
Solvent Processes....................... 0.62 0
Miscellaneous (Non-Industrial, Gas 3.67 0
Stations)..............................
-------------------------------
SO2 Emissions Total................. 201,417.82 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Alabama'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 ``DRR monitors'' or ``DRR modeling,''
respectively). EPA's assessment of SO2 emissions from
Alabama's point sources located within approximately 50 km of another
state and their potential impacts on neighboring states (see sections
III.C.1. and II.C.2 of this notice) and SO2 air quality data
at monitors within 50 km of the Alabama border (see section III.C.3. of
this notice) is informed by all available data at the time of this
proposed rulemaking.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 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 Alabama, depending on available
information and state-specific circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in Section III, EPA proposes to conclude that an
assessment of Alabama'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 via modeling and an assessment of SO2
emissions from Alabama's point sources emitting more than 100 tpy of
SO2 (including fuel combustion sources) that are located
within approximately 50 km of another state and upon any regulations
intended to address Alabama's SO2 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 contribute significantly to nonattainment
of a NAAQS in another state. ADEM states in its submission that Alabama
does not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in another state based on the information provided
therein. To evaluate Alabama's satisfaction of prong 1, EPA assessed
Alabama's SIP submission with respect to the following factors: (1)
Potential ambient air quality impacts of SO2 emissions from
certain facilities in Alabama on neighboring states based on available
air dispersion modeling results; (2) SO2 emissions from
Alabama sources; (3) SO2 ambient air quality for Alabama and
neighboring states; (4) SIP-approved Alabama regulations that address
SO2 emissions; and (5) federal regulations that reduce
SO2 emissions at Alabama sources. A detailed discussion of
Alabama's SIP submission with respect to each of these factors follows.
EPA proposes that these factors, taken together, support the Agency's
proposed determination that Alabama will not contribute significantly
to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another
state. EPA's proposed conclusion is based, in part, on the fact that
adjacent states with modeled DRR sources located within 50 km of the
Alabama border do not have areas that are violating or that model
violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and the fact that
the valid SO2 2016-2018 DVs for monitors in adjacent states
show attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\18\ Also, 2017
SO2 emissions for Alabama'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 neighboring states.
In addition, the downward trends in statewide SO2 emissions,
combined with federal and SIP-approved State regulations affecting
SO2 emissions from Alabama's sources, further support EPA's
proposed conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The Floyd County, Georgia monitor (AQS ID: 13-115-0003)
does not have a valid DV for the 2015-2017 and 2016-2018 time
periods. This monitor has valid DVs for the 2010-2012 through 2014-
2016 time periods which declined over this period and are all below
the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. SO2 Designations Air Dispersion Modeling
a. State Submission
[[Page 72282]]
In its August 20, 2018, SIP submission, ADEM referenced a January
14, 2016, letter \19\ that the State submitted to EPA identifying the
facilities in Alabama with SO2 emissions subject to the
DRR.\20\ ADEM explained that the DRR modeling data is contained in
EPA's technical support document (TSD) for the SO2 round 3
area designations.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Alabama's January 14, 2016, letter is available on
www.regulations.gov at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003.
\20\ In 2017, Alabama provided recommendations and submitted air
dispersion modeling for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the
DRR sources in the State which elected to comply with the DRR using
modeling. The remainder of Alabama's DRR sources established
federally-enforceable limits, shut down, or the State installed and
began operation of new, approved SO2 monitors to
characterize SO2 air quality around the source. See
https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/so2-data-requirements-rule-january-13-2017-state-submittals-alabama.
\21\ See Technical Support Document: Chapter 3 Final Round 3
Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient
Air Quality Standard for Alabama at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/03-al-so2-rd3-final.pdf. See also
Technical Support Document: Chapter 3 Proposed Round 3 Area
Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for Alabama at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/3_al_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. EPA Analysis
EPA evaluated available DRR modeling data for sources in Alabama
within 50 km of another state, including the Big Escambia Supplement,
and available DRR modeling data for sources in the adjacent states of
Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee that are within 50 km of
the Alabama border.\22\ The purpose of evaluating DRR modeling results
in adjacent states within 50 km of the Alabama border is to ascertain
whether any nearby sources in Alabama are impacting a violation of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ As discussed in section I.B., Alabama 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 15 sources in Alabama initially subject to the DRR, 10
sources conducted dispersion modeling.\23\ Six of the 10 modeled
sources are within 50 km of another state: Akzo Nobel Functional
Chemicals--Lemoyne Site (AkzoNobel); Alabama Power Company--James M.
Barry Electric Generating Plant (Plant Barry); Ascend Performance
Materials--Decatur Plant (Ascend); Big Escambia; PowerSouth Energy
Cooperative--Charles R. Lowman Power Plant (Lowman); and Continental
Carbon Company--Phenix City Plant (Continental Carbon).\24\ With
respect to Continental Carbon, EPA previously determined that the
modeling and supporting information provided to meet DRR requirements
was acceptable.\25\ With respect to the modeling and other information
submitted by the State for the remaining five modeled Alabama sources
within 50 km of another state (i.e., AkzoNobel, Ascend, Big Escambia,
Lowman, and Plant Barry), EPA previously determined that the Agency
does not have sufficient information to demonstrate whether the areas
around these sources meet or do not meet the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS or contribute to an area that does not meet the standard, and
thus designated these areas as unclassifiable.\26\ Although EPA does
not have any indications that there are violations of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in these areas, the Agency assessed AkzoNobel,
Ascend, Lowman, and Plant Barry in section III.C.2.b. of this proposed
action with respect to interstate transport for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. Regarding Big Escambia, ADEM provided
supplemental information in September and December of 2019 that
addresses the issues with the original modeling for this source
performed under the DRR for the purposes of evaluating interstate
transport of SO2 from Alabama into Florida.\27\ EPA's TSD
for Big Escambia summarizes the issues with the original DRR modeling
and how ADEM has now addressed these issues for the purpose of
evaluating potential ambient air impacts in the neighboring state of
Florida.\28\ Table 2 provides a summary of the 99th percentile daily
maximum 1-hour average concentrations estimated by the modeling for Big
Escambia and Continental Carbon, which are based on actual emissions
for Big Escambia and potential to emit (PTE) emissions for Continental
Carbon. Alabama's modeling analyses for Big Escambia and Continental
Carbon indicate that the maximum impacts did not exceed the level of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states. Based on
the modeling results indicating that the maximum impacts did not exceed
the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in neighboring
states, no further analysis is necessary for assessing the potential
impacts of the interstate transport of SO2 emissions from
these facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Of the remaining five sources in Alabama initially subject
to the DRR which did not opt to conduct dispersion modeling, three
sources accepted federally-enforceable permit limits to exempt out
of the DRR requirements, one source provided documentation that the
facility shut down, and one source installed a monitor. The three
sources that accepted federally-enforceable permit limits to exempt
out of the DRR requirements are: Alabama Power--Gadsden Electric
Generating Plant; Alabama Power--Greene County Electric Generating
Plant; and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)--Colbert Fossil Plant.
Alabama's one DRR source which shut down is the TVA--Widows Creek
Fossil Plant. As mentioned in Section I.B., LNA--Montevallo
installed a monitor to inform round 4 designations. See Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003.
\24\ The Mobile County area includes two DRR sources: AkzoNobel
and Plant Barry. Due to the close proximity of AkzoNobel and Plant
Barry to each other, a combined air dispersion modeling analysis was
conducted for both facilities pursuant to the DRR.
\25\ See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/3_al_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
\26\ See EPA's initial and final TSDs for Alabama at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/3_al_so2_rd3-final.pdf and https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/03-al-so2-rd3-final.pdf.
\27\ ADEM submitted the Big Escambia Supplement to EPA in
separate correspondence dated September 5, 2019, September 20, 2019,
September 25, 2019, December 2, 2019, and December 6, 2019, and it
is included in the docket for this proposed action, with the
exception of certain files due to their nature and size and
incompatibility with the Federal Docket Management System. These
files are available at the EPA Region 4 office for review. To
request these files, please contact the person listed in this notice
under the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
\28\ EPA's TSD addressing Big Escambia for this proposed
rulemaking is located in the docket.
[[Page 72283]]
Table 2--Alabama Sources With Valid \29\ DRR Modeling Located Within 50 km of Another State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeled 99th
percentile daily
Approximate distance maximum 1-hour SO2
DRR source County from source to Other facilities concentration in Model grid extends
adjacent State (km) included in modeling nearest neighboring into another State?
state (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Escambia....................... Escambia.............. 8 (FL)................ Escambia Operating 58.8 ppb (FL) (based Yes, into FL (the
Company-Flomaton on 2013-2015 actual northern portion of
(AL) and Breitburn emissions for the Escambia County,
Operating, L.P. (FL). thermal oxidizer at FL).
Big Escambia and
allowable/PTE
emissions for the
remaining units at
Big Escambia and the
nearby sources).
Continental Carbon................. Russell............... 1 (GA)................ IIG MinWool LLC (AL). 38.9 (GA) (based on Yes, into GA (the
PTE emissions). southwestern portion
of Muscogee County
and the northwestern
portion of
Chattahoochee
County).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 provides a summary of the modeling results for the four DRR
sources in neighboring states which are located within 50 km of Alabama
and which elected to provide air dispersion modeling under the DRR:
Gulf Power Company--Crist Electric Generating Station (Crist) in
Florida; Georgia Power--Plant Bowen (Plant Bowen) and Georgia Power--
Plant Wansley (Plant Wansley) in Georgia; and Mississippi Power
Company's Victor J. Daniel Steam Electric Generating Plant (Plant
Daniel) in Mississippi. The modeling results for all four sources
indicated that the maximum impacts did not exceed the level of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ As used in the heading for this table, the term ``valid''
means valid for the purpose of evaluating impacts for interstate
transport of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS from Alabama in
neighboring states.
\30\ Although the modeling grids for Crist, Plant Bowen, and
Plant Wansley do not extend into Alabama, EPA finds that the model
results for these sources which show that the maximum impacts did
not exceed the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
indicate that there is not a transport issue in the areas modeled
for which there is data.
Table 3--Other States' Sources With DRR Modeling Located Within 50 km of Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeled 99th
Approximate percentile daily
distance from Other facilities maximum 1-hour Model grid extends into
DRR source County (state) source to included in modeling SO2 another state?
Alabama border concentration
(km) (ppb) *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crist................................. Escambia (FL)........... 17 Yes--International Paper 33.8 No.
Pensacola Facility.
Plant Bowen........................... Bartow (GA)............. 46 No...................... 57.6 No.
Plant Wansley......................... Heard (GA).............. 24 Yes--Georgia Power-- 15 No.
Plant Yates; Municipal
Electric Authority of
Georgia; Chattahoochee
Energy Facility; and
Wansley Combined-Cycle
Generating Plant.
Plant Daniel.......................... Jackson (MS)............ 14 None.................... 56.5 Yes--into AL (a portion
of extreme southwest AL
west of Mobile County,
AL).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The modeled 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations are based on: 2012-2014 actual SO2 emissions for Crist and Plant Daniel; 2012-2014
actual SO2 emissions for Plant Wansley; PTE for the other sources included in Plant Wansley's modeling; and 2014-2016 actual SO2 emissions for Plant
Bowen.
EPA believes that the modeling results in Tables 2 and 3, weighed
along with other factors in this notice, support EPA's proposed
conclusion that sources in Alabama will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state.
2. SO2 Emissions Analysis
a. State Submission
With respect to emissions trends, ADEM states that significant
SO2 emissions reductions have resulted from the
implementation of several federal programs in Alabama. These federal
programs are identified in section III.C.5 of this notice.
b. EPA Analysis
EPA reviewed statewide and EGU SO2 emissions in Alabama
from the NEI for the years 2005, 2008, 2011, and 2014 to examine any
trends in SO2 emissions over this period. As shown in Table
4, Alabama's statewide SO2 emissions have declined by 66
percent from 592,670 tons in 2002 to 201,418 tons in 2014. Alabama EGU
SO2 emissions decreased by 74 percent from 461,634 tons in
2005 to 119,976 tons in 2014.
[[Page 72284]]
Table 4--Alabama SO2 Emissions (tons) From the NEI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 NEI 2011 NEI 2014 NEI
2005 NEI (Version 3) (Version 2) (Version 2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total SO2 Emissions............................. 592,670 443,810 278,364 201,418
SO2 Emissions from EGUs......................... 461,634 362,671 179,849 119,976
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section III.B., EPA also finds that it is
appropriate to examine the impacts of SO2 emissions from
stationary sources emitting greater than 100 tons of SO2 in
Alabama at distances ranging from zero km to 50 km from a neighboring
state's border. Therefore, in addition to those 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 that emitted over 100 tons of SO2 in 2017 and are
located in Alabama within 50 km from the border.\31\ EPA assessed this
information 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 5 lists
sources in Alabama not subject to the DRR that emitted greater than 100
tpy of SO2 in 2017 within 50 km of the State's border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 2017 emissions are the latest available data for these
sources in Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, EPA does not have monitoring or modeling data suggesting
that Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee are impacted by
SO2 emissions from the 14 Alabama sources not subject to the
DRR listed in Table 5. Of these 14 Alabama sources, 10 are located over
50 km from the nearest source 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 Alabama sources could interact with SO2 emissions from
the neighboring states' nearest sources in Table 5 in such a way as to
contribute significantly to nonattainment in Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi, and Tennessee.
Table 5--Alabama Non-DRR SO2 Sources Emitting Greater Than 100 tpy in 2017 Near Neighboring States
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate
Approximate distance to Nearest neighboring state
2017 Annual SO2 distance to nearest non-DRR SO2 source &
Alabama source emissions (tons) Alabama border Closest neighboring state neighboring 2017 emissions (>100
(km) state SO2 source tons SO2)
(km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Midstream Chatom, LLC......... 948 5 Mississippi................... 44 Petro Harvester Operating
Company LLC--South
Cypress Creek (Petro-
Cypress Creek) (128
tons).
Evonik Corporation..................... 225 25 Mississippi................... 41 Plant Daniel (204 tons).
ExxonMobil Production Company.......... 157 19 Mississippi................... 37 Plant Daniel (204 tons).
Georgia-Pacific (Penington)............ 1,236 37 Mississippi................... 70 Petro-Cypress Creek (128
tons).
Georgia-Pacific Brewton LLC............ 103 8 Florida....................... 16 Breitburn Operating LP
(1,491 tons).
Georgia-Pacific Cedar Springs LLC...... 512 <5 Georgia....................... 96 Georgia Power Company--
Plant Mitchell (633 tons
in 2015).
Hilcorp Energy Company................. 126 33 Mississippi................... 60 Plant Daniel (204 tons).
MeadWestvaco Mahrt Mill................ 222 <5 Georgia....................... 85 C-E Minerals Plants 1, 2,
and 6 (292 tons).
Mineral Manufacturing Corporation...... 182 5 Georgia....................... 109 C-E Minerals Plants 1, 2,
and 6 (292 tons).
Nucor Steel Decatur LLC................ 110 39 Tennessee..................... 102 Steel Dynamics Columbus
(457 tons).
Rock-Tenn Mill Company, LLC............ 250 38 Mississippi................... 90 Petro-Cypress Creek (128
tons).
SSAB Alabama Inc....................... 381 39 Mississippi................... 70 Plant Daniel (204 tons).
Tennessee Alloys Corporation........... 671 <5 Tennessee and Georgia......... 93 Resolute Forest Products--
9 Calhoun Operations (TN)--
(218 tons).
Union Oil of California--Chunchula Gas * 105 29 Mississippi................... 60 Plant Daniel (204 tons).
Plant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* (2016 Emissions).
There are four Alabama sources not subject to the DRR that are
located at or less than 50 km from the nearest source in another state
which emit greater than 100 tons of SO2: American Midstream
Chatom, LLC; Evonik Corporation; ExxonMobil Production Company; and
Georgia-Pacific Brewton LLC. EPA believes that the relatively low
SO2 emissions of each of these four Alabama sources combined
with the emissions from the nearest sources emitting greater than 100
tons of SO2 in neighboring states make it unlikely that the
SO2 emissions from these four Alabama
[[Page 72285]]
sources could interact with SO2 emissions from the
neighboring states' sources in such a way as to contribute
significantly to nonattainment in the neighboring states of Florida,
Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee.
In addition, EPA evaluated 2017 SO2 emissions data for
four of the five DRR sources for which EPA could not rely on existing
DRR modeling to assess their impacts for interstate transport for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on other states: AkzoNobel, Ascend,
Lowman, and Plant Barry. Table 6 provides annual 2017 SO2
emissions data along with the distances to the closest neighboring
state's sources emitting over 100 tpy of SO2.\32\ Table 7
shows the SO2 emissions trends for these sources from 2012-
2017 (and 2018 if data is available).\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Table 6 SO2 emissions are from EPA's Air Markets
Program Data (AMPD) accessible at: https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/. EPA's
AMPD is an application that provides both current and historical
data collected as part of EPA's emissions trading programs.
\33\ Table 7 SO2 emissions for Lowman and Plant Barry
are from EPA's AMPD.
Table 6--Alabama DRR SO2 Sources Without Valid DRR Modeling Near Neighboring States
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate
2017 Annual distance to Nearest neighboring state
SO2 emissions Approximate nearest SO2 source & 2017 Emissions
Alabama source (tons) distance to Closest neighboring state neighboring (>100 Tons SO2)
Alabama (km) state SO2
source (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ascend................................... 1,628 40 Tennessee....................... 123 Packaging Corp. of America
(616 tons).
Lowman................................... 1,110 51 Mississippi..................... 73 Petro-Cypress Creek (128
tons).
Plant Barry.............................. 4,218 40 Mississippi..................... 74 Plant Daniel (204 tons).
AkzoNobel................................ 2,201 39 Mississippi..................... 71 Plant Daniel (204 tons).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7--Alabama DRR SO2 Sources Emitting Greater Than 100 tpy Near Neighboring States--Emissions Trends
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama source 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AkzoNobel............................... 3,293 2,752 2,320 3,587 3,646 2,201 N/A *
Ascend.................................. 2,182 2,595 2,839 2,594 2,179 1,628 N/A *
Lowman.................................. 3,619 3,893 4,546 2,506 1,241 1,110 808
Plant Barry............................. 10,731 13,448 10,690 8,688 5,421 4,218 5,257
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 2018 emissions not yet available for AkzoNobel and Ascend from EPA's Emissions Inventory System (EIS).
Table 6 shows that the distances between the four Alabama DRR
sources without valid DRR modeling and the nearest state's source
emitting over 100 tpy of SO2 exceed 50 km. EPA believes that
the distances greater than 50 km between sources make it unlikely that
SO2 emissions from the four Alabama DRR sources could
interact with SO2 emissions from the neighboring states'
nearest sources in Table 6 in such a way as to contribute significantly
to nonattainment in Mississippi and Tennessee. Table 7 shows that 2017
SO2 emissions have declined below 2012 levels for Ascend and
Akzo Nobel) and that 2018 SO2 emissions have declined below
2012 levels for Lowman and Plant Barry.
EPA also considered whether any changes in controls or operations
had occurred at AkzoNobel, Ascend, Lowman, and Plant Barry. AkzoNobel
entered into a consent decree with EPA that has reduced SO2
emissions.\34\ According to June 6, 2019, and December 2, 2019, emails
from ADEM to EPA, Ascend ceased operating Boiler 5, Boiler 6 is set to
cease operations in 2020, and Cokers 1 and 2 are set to cease
operations in 2021.\35\ At Loman, three coal-fired boilers are set to
be shut down in 2020. Plant Barry has retired Unit 3, and Units 1 and 2
are restricted to burn only natural gas as of January 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ The consent decree, entered on November 21, 2019, is
available at: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decree/file/1201231/download. A press release is available at: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/settlement-reached-nouryon-functional-chemicals-llc-fka-akzo-nobel-functional-chemicals.
\35\ ADEM's June 6, 2019, and December 2, 2019, emails are
included in the docket for this action at www.regulations.gov at
Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0792.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also evaluated data in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) \36\ from
the SO2 monitors in the surrounding areas of AkzoNobel,
Ascend, Lowman, and Plant Barry. The only monitor within 50 km of these
sources is located in Mobile County, Alabama (AQS ID: 01-097-0003) and
is approximately 23 km from AkzoNobel. The 2018 DV for this monitor is
11 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the declining SO2 emissions trends in Alabama
shown in Table 4, and the Agency's analysis of the Alabama sources and
respective data in Tables 5, 6, and 7, EPA believes that Alabama's
potential for contributing significantly to nonattainment in a nearby
state is reduced substantially.
3. SO2 Ambient Air Quality
a. State Submission
In its August 20, 2018, SIP submission, ADEM indicated that there
is one SO2 monitor located in the State with complete
data.\37\ This monitor (AQS ID: 01-073-1003) is located in Jefferson
County, Alabama, and has a 2015-2017 DV of 13 ppb. The monitor is well
over 50 km from the State's border. ADEM also asserts that there are no
monitors located in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, or
Tennessee that are violating the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for
the 2015-2017 monitoring period based on the DVs in EPA's AQS for these
monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ At the time of SIP submission, the Jefferson County,
Alabama, monitor (AQS ID: 01-073-1003) was the only monitor with a
valid DV for the 2015-2017 time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. EPA Analysis
EPA reviewed monitoring data for AQS monitors in Alabama within 50
km
[[Page 72286]]
of another state and for AQS monitors within 50 km of Alabama in
adjacent states using relevant data from EPA's AQS DV reports. 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. The only AQS monitors in Alabama within 50 km of another state
are the Mobile County monitor (AQS ID: 01-097-0003), and the Sumter
County monitor (AQS ID: 01-119-0003). The Mobile County monitor is
approximately 30 km from Mississippi and 45 km from Florida, and the
Sumter County monitor is approximately 13 km from Mississippi. The
Mobile County monitor began operation on January 1, 2016. The monitor
has a complete, quality-assured 2016-2018 DV of 11 ppb, which is 85
percent below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The
Sumter County monitor began operation on January 1, 2018. Since the
monitor has not operated for three years, it has not yet collected a
valid DV. During 2018, the Sumter County monitor recorded a 99th
percentile daily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentration of
approximately 4 ppb. Neither the Mobile County nor Sumter County
monitor has measured any daily exceedances of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS during their respective years of operation.
Table 8 shows that there are three AQS monitors in the adjacent
states of Florida (Escambia County monitor), Georgia (Floyd County
monitor), and Mississippi (Jackson County monitor) which are located
within 50 km of the Alabama border. Currently, there are no AQS
monitors with complete, valid data indicating a violation of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS located within 50 km of Alabama in the
states of Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi. Further, the DVs from
these monitors show a general downward trend in SO2
concentrations and that the DVs from 2012-2018 have remained below the
standard, with the exception of the Floyd County monitor in Georgia
which did not have a valid DV for 2015-2017 and 2016-2018.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ The Floyd County, Georgia monitor (AQS ID: 13-115-0003) 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 under the DRR. The
relocated monitor (AQS ID: 13-115-0006) is shown in Table 9 of this
notice and does not have a valid 2016-2018 DV due to the relocation.
Table 8--2010 1-Hour SO2 DVs (ppb) for AQS Monitors Located in Adjacent States Within 50 km of Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate
distance to
State County AQS ID 2010-2012 2011-2013 2012-2014 2013-2015 2014-2016 2015-2017 2016-2018 state
border (km)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida.................................... Escambia..................... 12-033-0004 27 22 25 24 16 8 6 23
Georgia.................................... Floyd........................ 13-115-0003 74 67 46 35 42 * ND * ND 12
Mississippi................................ Jackson...................... 28-059-0006 27 23 27 28 21 12 6 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ND indicates no data due to relocation of the Floyd County, Georgia monitor to serve as a DRR monitor (AQS ID: 13-115-0006) listed in Table 8.
EPA notes that the 2014-2016 DV for the Floyd County, Georgia AQS
monitor (AQS ID: 13-115-0003) of 42 ppb is 44 percent below the level
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. None of the monitors listed in
Table 8 has measured any daily exceedances of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS during 2017 or 2018. Thus, based on this
assessment, EPA believes that these data support EPA's proposed
conclusion that Alabama will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state.
EPA also evaluated monitoring data provided to date for AQS
monitors located in states adjacent to Alabama within 50 km of the
State's 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 (hereinafter referred to as ``DRR monitors''). There
is only one DRR monitor--located in Floyd County, Georgia (AQS ID: 13-
115-0006)--that is within 50 km of the Alabama border. Although this
monitor does not have three or more years of complete data to establish
DVs, EPA evaluated the available, annual 99th percentile SO2
concentration data for 2017 and 2018 (see Table 9). The Floyd County
DRR monitor was sited in the vicinity of the International Paper--Rome
facility, a DRR source.
Table 9--Annual 99th Percentile of 1-Hour Daily Maximum SO2 Concentrations (ppb) for Round 4 DRR Monitors
Located in Adjacent States Within 50 km of Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 99th 2018 99th Approximate
County (state) Round 4 AQS ID percentile percentile distance to
monitored source concentration concentration Alabama (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floyd (GA).................... International 13-115-0006 22 15 12
Paper--Rome.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though the annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour
SO2 concentrations shown in Table 9 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. The
Floyd County DRR monitor has not measured 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 assessed support EPA's proposed
conclusion that Alabama will not contribute significantly to 2010 1-
hour SO2 violations in the neighboring states.
[[Page 72287]]
4. SIP-Approved Regulations Addressing SO2 Emissions
a. State Submission
Alabama's August 20, 2018, SIP submission identifies SIP-approved
measures which help ensure that SO2 emissions in the State
will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Specifically, ADEM lists the
following SIP-approved Alabama regulations which establish emission
limits and other control measures for SO2: ADEM
Administrative Code Chapter 335-3-5--Control of Sulfur Compound
Emissions and Rules 335-3-14-.01--General Provisions; 335-3-14-.02--
Permit Procedure; 335-3-14-.03--Standards for Granting Permits; 335-3-
14-.04--Air Permits Authorizing Construction in Clean Air Areas
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)); and 335-3-14-.05--Air
Permits Authorizing Construction in or Near Nonattainment Areas.
b. EPA Analysis
EPA believes that Alabama's SIP-approved measures summarized in
III.C.4.a. of this notice, which establish emissions 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
Alabama do not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, the State has
a SIP-approved major source new source review (NSR) program. Alabama's
SIP-approved nonattainment NSR regulation, Rule 335-3-14-.05, applies
to the construction of any new major stationary source or major
modification at an existing major stationary source in an area
designated as nonattainment. Alabama's SIP-approved prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) regulation, Rule 335-3-14-.04, applies
to the construction of any new major stationary source or any major
modification at an existing major stationary source in an area
designated as attainment or unclassifiable or not yet designated. Rules
335-3-14-.01--General Provisions, 335-3-14-.02--Permit Procedure, and
335-3-14-.03--Standards for Granting Permits govern the preconstruction
permitting of modifications to and 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 in Alabama will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states.
5. Federal Regulations Addressing SO2 Emissions in Alabama
a. State Submission
ADEM identified EPA programs which, either directly or indirectly,
have significantly reduced SO2 emissions in Alabama. These
programs include: 2007 Heavy-Duty Highway Rule; Acid Rain Program;
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule; National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; New Source Performance Standards; Nonroad
Diesel Rule; and Tier 1 and 2 Mobile Source Rules.
b. EPA Analysis
In addition to the list of federal regulations identified in
section III.C.5.a. of this notice which contribute to SO2
reductions in Alabama, EPA notes that some facilities in the State are
also subject to the federal requirements contained in EPA's Mercury Air
Toxic Standards (MATS). These regulations reduce acid gases, which also
result in reductions of SO2 emissions. EPA believes that the
federal control measures for SO2 which Alabama lists in the
State's SIP submission, along with MATS, may lower SO2
emissions, which, in turn, are expected to continue to support EPA's
proposed conclusion that SO2 emissions from Alabama will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in another state.
6. Conclusion
EPA proposes to determine that Alabama's August 20, 2018, 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: Current air quality data for AQS
SO2 monitors located in the states of Florida, Georgia, and
Mississippi that are within 50 km of Alabama's border are well below
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; modeling for the two Alabama DRR
sources whose modeling grids extend into a portion of other states
indicate that the maximum impacts did not exceed the level of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states; modeling for four
DRR sources in the surrounding states of Florida, Georgia, and
Mississippi located within 50 km of Alabama indicate that the areas
around these sources do not violate the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS; declining statewide and EGU SO2 emissions from 2005
to 2014 in Alabama suggest that the State's potential for contributing
significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
is reduced substantially; SO2 emissions from Alabama sources
not subject to the DRR and which emitted over 100 tons of
SO2 in 2017 are not likely interacting with SO2
emissions from the nearest sources in bordering states in such a way as
to contribute significantly to nonattainment in the surrounding states
of Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee; Alabama DRR sources
without valid DRR modeling are located over 50 km from the nearest
state's SO2 source and their SO2 emissions show
an overall general downward trend; and the implementation of current
Alabama SIP-approved measures and federal emissions control programs
help to further reduce and control SO2 emissions from
sources within Alabama. Further, EPA has no information indicating that
Alabama sources will contribute significantly to nonattainment of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state.
Based on the analysis provided by Alabama in its SIP submission and
EPA's analysis of the factors described in section III.C, EPA proposes
to find that sources within Alabama 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 August 20, 2018, SIP submission, ADEM relied upon the
information provided for prong 1 to demonstrate that emissions within
Alabama will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in any neighboring state. Further, ADEM notes that
there are no monitors located in the surrounding states of Florida,
Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee that are violating the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the 2015-2017 monitoring period.
ADEM also highlighted the State's PSD regulation (335-3-14-.04) and
states that this regulation ``will continue to apply to any future,
large sources in Alabama, further ensuring that maintenance efforts in
neighboring states are addressed.''
[[Page 72288]]
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. 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 Alabama,
EPA has also reviewed additional information on SO2 air
quality and emission trends to evaluate the State's conclusion that
Alabama 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 data discussed in
section III.C. of this notice for prong 1, with a specific focus on
evaluating emissions trends in Alabama, analyzing air quality data, and
assessing how future sources of SO2 are addressed through
existing SIP-approved and federal regulations. Given the continuing
trend of decreasing statewide SO2 emissions from sources
within Alabama, and the fact that all areas in other states within 50
km of the Alabama border have DVs attaining the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS, EPA believes that evaluating whether these
decreases in emissions can be maintained over time is a reasonable
criterion to ensure that sources within Alabama do not interfere with
its neighboring states' ability to maintain the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
With respect to air quality data trends, the valid 2016-2018 DVs
for AQS SO2 monitors both in Alabama within 50 km of another
state's border and in adjacent states within 50 km of Alabama's border
are below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\39\ Further, modeling
results for DRR sources in the State within 50 km of Alabama's border
did not exceed the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
neighboring states and modeling results for DRR sources in neighboring
states within 50 km of Alabama's border show maximum impacts did not
exceed the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Thus, these
modeling results demonstrate that Alabama's largest point sources of
SO2 are not expected to interfere with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ As noted in Section III.C.3.b, the Floyd County, Georgia
monitor (AQS ID: 13-115-0003) does not have a valid 2016-2018 DV as
this monitor 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
under the DRR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Alabama 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 Alabama's SIP-approved major
NSR regulations described in section III.C.4. In addition, ADEM Rules
335-3-14-.01--General Provisions, 335-3-14-.02--Permit Procedure, and
335-3-14-.03--Standards for Granting Permits govern the preconstruction
permitting of modifications to and construction of minor stationary
sources. These major and minor source permitting regulations are
designed to ensure that emissions from these activities will 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 Alabama's August 20, 2018, 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: Statewide and EGU SO2 emissions from 2005 to
2014 in Alabama have declined significantly (66 and 74 percent,
respectively); current Alabama SIP-approved measures and federal
emissions control programs adequately control SO2 emissions
from sources within Alabama; Alabama's SIP-approved PSD and minor
source NSR permit programs will address future large and small
SO2 sources; current air quality data for AQS SO2
monitors in Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi within 50 km of Alabama's
border have DVs well below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; and
modeling for DRR sources in Alabama indicate that the maximum impacts
did not exceed the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
neighboring states; modeling for DRR sources within 50 km of Alabama's
border located in the states of Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi
demonstrate that Alabama's largest point sources of SO2 will
not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
in another state. Based on the analysis provided by Alabama in its SIP
submission and EPA's analysis of the factors described in section III.C
of this notice, EPA proposes to find that emission sources within
Alabama will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
IV. Proposed Action
In light of the above analysis, EPA is proposing to approve
Alabama's August 20, 2018, SIP submission as demonstrating that
emissions from Alabama will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in another state.
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 proposed action
merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National
[[Page 72289]]
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with
the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed
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: December 17, 2019.
Blake M. Ashbee,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019-28236 Filed 12-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
