Air Plan Approval; FL; 2010 1-Hour SO2, 7480-7491 [2020-02502]

Download as PDF 7480 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules III. Public Comment Procedures Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether these amendments satisfy the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendments, they will become part of the State program. Electronic or Written Comments If you submit written or electronic comments on the proposed rule during the 30-day comment period, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for any recommended change(s). We appreciate any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final regulations will be those that either involve personal experience or include citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other pertinent State or Federal laws or regulations, technical literature, or other relevant publications. We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see DATES) or sent to an address other than those listed (see ADDRESSES) will be included in the docket for this rulemaking and considered. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Public Availability of Comments Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Public Hearing If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4:00 p.m., e.s.t. on February 25, 2020. If you are disabled and need reasonable accommodations to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold a hearing. To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:29 Feb 07, 2020 Jkt 250001 date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak, and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard. Public Meeting If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings are open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES. We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the administrative record. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563—Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. Pursuant to OMB Guidance dated October 12, 1993, the approval of State program amendments is exempted from OMB review under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13563, which reaffirms and supplements Executive Order 12866, retains this exemption. Other Laws and Executive Orders Affecting Rulemaking When a State submits a program amendment to OSMRE for review, our regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require us to publish a notice in the Federal Register indicating receipt of the proposed amendment, its text or a summary of its terms, and an opportunity for public comment. We conclude our review of the proposed amendment after the close of the public comment period and determine whether the amendment should be approved, approved in part, or not approved. At that time, we will also make the determinations and certifications required by the various laws and executive orders governing the rulemaking process and include them in the final rule. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 948 Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Dated: April 30, 2019. Thomas D. Shope, Regional Director, North Atlantic— Appalachian Region. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on February 5, 2020. [FR Doc. 2020–02570 Filed 2–7–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–05–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R04–OAR–2019–0008; FRL–10005– 27–Region 4] Air Plan Approval; FL; 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Transport Infrastructure Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve Florida’s September 18, 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 Florida 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 September 18, 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 March 11, 2020. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– OAR–2019–0008 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 SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\10FEP1.SGM 10FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules 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. 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.1 EPA is proposing to approve FDEP’s September 18, 2018, SIP submission because, based on the information available at the time of this rulemaking, the State demonstrated that Florida 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 Florida have been addressed in separate rulemakings.2 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background In this action, EPA has considered information from the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS designations process, as discussed in more detail in section III.C of this notice. For this reason, a brief summary of EPA’s designations process for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is included here.3 After the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required to designate areas as ‘‘nonattainment,’’ ‘‘attainment,’’ or ‘‘unclassifiable’’ pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d) of the CAA. The CAA requires EPA to complete the initial designations 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 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 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS A. Infrastructure SIPs On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a revised primary SO2 NAAQS with a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section 110(a)(1) requires states to make SIP submissions to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This particular type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an ‘‘infrastructure SIP.’’ These submissions must meet the various requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), as applicable. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two clauses of this section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance of the NAAQS). On September 18, 2018, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) submitted a revision to the Florida SIP addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:29 Feb 07, 2020 Jkt 250001 1 On June 3, 2013, and supplemented on January 8, 2014, FDEP submitted SIP revisions addressing all infrastructure elements with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS with the exception of prongs 1 and 2 of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 2 EPA acted on the other elements of Florida’s June 3, 2013, infrastructure SIP submission, as supplemented on January 8, 2014, for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS on September 30, 2016 (81 FR 67179). 3 While designations may provide useful information for purposes of analyzing transport, particularly for a more source-specific pollutant such as SO2, EPA notes that designations themselves are not dispositive of whether or not upwind emissions are impacting areas in downwind states. EPA has consistently taken the position that CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) addresses ‘‘nonattainment’’ anywhere it may occur in other states, not only in designated nonattainment areas nor 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). PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 7481 to extend the deadline for completing designations by up to one year. EPA promulgated the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on June 2, 2010. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). EPA completed the first round of designations (‘‘round 1’’) 4 for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on July 25, 2013, designating 29 areas in 16 states as nonattainment for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS. See 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013). EPA signed Federal Register notices of promulgation for round 2 designations 5 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 6 on December 21, 2017 (83 FR 1098 (January 9, 2018)).7 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’’). In rounds 1 and 3 of designations, EPA designated three SO2 nonattainment areas and one unclassifiable area in Florida. In round 1, EPA designated portions of Nassau and Hillsborough counties as 4 The term ‘‘round’’ in this instance refers to which ‘‘round of designations.’’ 5 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. 6 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. 7 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’’). E:\FR\FM\10FEP1.SGM 10FEP1 7482 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS based on air quality monitoring data (Nassau, FL Area and Hillsborough, FL Area, respectively).8 In round 3, EPA designated portions of Hillsborough and Polk counties (Hillsborough-Polk, FL Area) as nonattainment for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS based on air quality modeling.9 EPA also designated portions of Hillsborough and Polk counties (Mulberry, FL Area) as unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in round 3. The remaining counties in Florida were designated as attainment/unclassifiable in round 3; therefore, no areas in Florida will be designated in round 4.10 8 The Nassau and Hillsborough Areas are currently attaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS based on complete, quality-assured, and certified air quality monitoring data for 2016–2018 and air dispersion modeling showing attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the area. Florida submitted a request that EPA redesignate both areas to attainment, and EPA approved the redesignation request and associated maintenance plan for the Nassau Area on April 24, 2019 (84 FR 17085). EPA approved the redesignation request and associated maintenance plan for the Hillsborough Area on November 12, 2019 (84 FR 60927). EPA approved the attainment demonstration for the Nassau Area on July 3, 2017, and incorporated the new allowable emission rates and control measures into the SIP, making them permanent and enforceable. See 82 FR 30749. EPA’s redesignation of the Nassau Area was based, in part, on a modeled attainment demonstration that included permanent and enforceable SO2 controls and emissions limits at the Rayonier and WestRock facilities showing attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard by the statutory deadline. 9 EPA designated a portion of Citrus County, Florida as unclassifiable in round 3 designations on December 21, 2017 (83 FR 1098). However, on March 28, 2018, EPA withdrew the designation of unclassifiable for the area and established a designation of attainment/unclassifiable for that area based on complete, quality-assured and certified air quality monitoring data from 2017 submitted by FDEP, and modeling showing attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the area. See 83 FR 14597 (April 5, 2018). On September 9, 2019 (84 FR 47216), EPA proposed approval of Florida’s February 15, 2019, draft redesignation requests and maintenance plan for the round 3 Hillsborough-Polk County SO2 nonattainment area, the redesignation request for the Mulberry unclassifiable area, and adoption of new 24-hour SO2 emission limits for the two primary emission sources in the areas. The public comment period has closed, and EPA is not reopening that comment period through this infrastructure proposal. 10 See Technical Support Document: Chapter 9 Final Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Florida at https://www.epa.gov/sites/ production/files/2017-12/documents/09-fl-so2-rd3final.pdf. See also Technical Support Document: Chapter 9 Intended Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Florida at https:// www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/ documents/9_fl_so2_rd3-final.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:29 Feb 07, 2020 Jkt 250001 II. Relevant Factors Used To Evaluate 2010 1-Hour SO2 Interstate Transport SIPs Although SO2 is emitted from a similar universe of point and nonpoint sources as is directly emitted fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and the precursors to ozone and PM2.5, interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the transport of PM2.5 or ozone because SO2 emissions sources usually do not have long range SO2 impacts. The transport of SO2 relative to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is more analogous to the transport of lead (Pb) relative to the Pb NAAQS in that emissions of SO2 typically result in 1-hour pollutant impacts of possible concern only near the emissions source. However, ambient 1-hour concentrations of SO2 do not decrease as quickly with distance from the source as do 3-month average concentrations of Pb, because SO2 gas is not removed by deposition as rapidly as are Pb particles and because SO2 typically has a higher emissions release height than Pb. Emitted SO2 has wider ranging impacts than emitted Pb, but it does not have such wide-ranging impacts that treatment in a manner similar to ozone or PM2.5 would be appropriate. Accordingly, while the approaches that EPA has adopted for ozone or PM2.5 transport are too regionally focused, the approach for Pb transport is too tightly circumscribed to the source. SO2 transport is therefore a unique case and requires a different approach. In this proposed rulemaking, as in prior 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 In its SIP submission, FDEP identified a distance threshold to reflect the transport properties of SO2. FDEP selected the ‘‘urban scale’’ as appropriate in assessing trends in both area-wide air quality and the effectiveness of large-scale pollution control strategies at such point sources. FDEP supported this transport distance threshold with references to the March 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). PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 1, 2011, EPA memorandum titled ‘‘Additional Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ and noted that this clarification applies equally to the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard.12 The memorandum offers a general guideline for estimating the distance to maximum 1-hour impact and the region of significant concentration gradients that may apply in relatively flat terrain, which is approximately 10 times the source’s release height.13 FDEP states that no SO2 source in Florida (which has flat terrain) has a stack height of more than 205 meters and thus, the maximum distance to a significant concentration gradient from a Florida source is approximately 2,050 meters (i.e., 2.05 km) from the source, after which a source’s impacts decrease significantly. Additionally, the memorandum indicates that the inclusion of all emissions sources within 50 km of the source under analysis is likely to produce an overly conservative result in most cases. Given the properties of SO2, EPA preliminarily agrees with Florida’s selection of the urban scale to assess trends in area-wide air quality that might impact downwind states. As discussed further in section III.B, EPA believes that Florida’s selection of the urban scale is appropriate for assessing trends in both area-wide air quality and the effectiveness of large-scale pollution control strategies at SO2 point sources. Florida’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 concurs with Florida’s application of 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. 12 EPA’s March 1, 2011, memorandum, Additional Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard, is available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201507/documents/appwno2_2.pdf. 13 Id. at pp. 15–16. E:\FR\FM\10FEP1.SGM 10FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules As discussed in sections III.C and III.D, EPA first reviewed Florida’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 Florida border.14 III. Florida’s SIP Submission and EPA’s Analysis A. State Submission On September 18, 2018, FDEP submitted a revision to the Florida SIP addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS. Florida 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. FDEP concluded that the State is meeting its prong 1 and prong 2 obligations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. FDEP based its conclusions on: Trends in SO2 design values (DVs) 15 at the State’s air quality monitors from 2007–2017; SO2 DVs for monitors located within 50 km of the Florida border; SO2 emissions trends statewide from 2000–2017; the change in SO2 emissions from 2014–2017 at the largest sources of SO2 within 50 km of the border; available SO2 modeling data for the State’s round 3 DRR sources; and SIP-approved State and federal regulations that establish requirements for sources of SO2 emissions. EPA’s evaluation of Florida’s September 18, 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 Florida 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).16 The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed estimate of air emissions for criteria pollutants, criteria pollutant precursors, and hazardous air pollutants from air emissions sources, that is updated every three years using information provided by the states and other information available to EPA. EPA evaluated data from the 2014 NEI (version 2), the most recently available, complete, and quality assured dataset of the NEI. FDEP provided 2014 NEI SO2 emissions data statewide by source category. FDEP states that fuel combustion by electric generating units 7483 (EGUs) is the largest source of SO2 emissions in Florida, representing 60 percent of the State’s SO2 emissions. FDEP also states that other large sources of SO2 emissions in Florida include chemical and allied product manufacturing and fuel combustion at industrial sources, which, when added to the EGU SO2 emissions, comprise 80 percent of Florida’s total SO2 emissions. As shown in Table 1, the majority of SO2 emissions in Florida originate from fuel combustion at point sources.17 In 2014, the total SO2 emissions from point sources in Florida comprised approximately 83 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 68 percent of the State’s total SO2 emissions. 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 Florida’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. TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF 2014 NEI (VERSION 2) SO2 DATA FOR FLORIDA BY SOURCE TYPE Emissions (tpy) jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Category Percent of total SO2 emissions Fuel Combustion: EGUs (All Fuel Types) ............................................................................................................... Fuel Combustion: Industrial Boilers/Internal Combustion Engines (All Fuel Types) .............................................. Fuel Combustion: Commercial/Institutional (All Fuel Types) .................................................................................. Fuel Combustion: Residential (All Fuel Types) ....................................................................................................... Industrial Processes (All Categories) ...................................................................................................................... Mobile Sources (All Categories) .............................................................................................................................. Fires (All Types) ...................................................................................................................................................... Waste Disposal ........................................................................................................................................................ Solvent Processes ................................................................................................................................................... Miscellaneous (Non-Industrial) ................................................................................................................................ 99,362.87 11,868.39 188.60 91.66 24,904.24 12,534.89 13,342.46 2,161.72 0.15 13.50 60.4 7.2 0.1 0.1 15.1 7.6 8.1 1.3 0 0 SO2 Emissions Total ........................................................................................................................................ 164,468.48 100 14 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 Florida’s or any neighboring state’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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:29 Feb 07, 2020 Jkt 250001 stakeholders such as citizen groups and industry representatives. 15 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 16 EPA’s NEI is available at https://www.epa.gov/ air-emissions-inventories/national-emissionsinventory. 17 Florida’s point sources listed in Table 1, for the purposes of this proposed action, are comprised of all of the ‘‘Fuel Combustion’’ categories and ‘‘Industrial Processes (All Categories),’’ with the exception of residential fuel combustion. Residential fuel consumption 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\10FEP1.SGM 10FEP1 7484 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules 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 Florida’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 Florida’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 Florida border (see section III.C.3. of this notice) is informed by all available data at the time of this proposed rulemaking.18 As described in Section III, EPA proposes to conclude that an assessment of Florida’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 Florida’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 federal regulations and SIP-approved regulations affecting SO2 emissions of Florida’s sources. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 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. FDEP asserts in its submission that Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other state with 18 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 Florida, depending on available information and state-specific circumstances. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:29 Feb 07, 2020 Jkt 250001 respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard. To evaluate Florida’s satisfaction of prong 1, EPA assessed the State’s SIP submission with respect to the following factors: (1) Potential ambient impacts of SO2 emissions from certain facilities in Florida on neighboring states based on available SO2 designation air dispersion modeling results; (2) SO2 emissions from Florida sources; (3) SO2 ambient air quality for Florida and neighboring states; (4) SIPapproved Florida regulations that address SO2 emissions; and (5) federal regulations that reduce SO2 emissions at Florida sources. A detailed discussion of Florida’s SIP submission with respect to each of these factors follows.19 EPA proposes, based on the information available at the time of this rulemaking, that these factors, taken together, support the Agency’s proposed determination that Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state. As discussed in the following sections, EPA’s proposed conclusion is based, in part, on the fact that modeling results for Florida’s four DRR sources within 50 km of another state’s border indicate that the maximum impacts do not exceed the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Regarding three out-of-state DRR sources within 50 km of the Florida border which are located in Alabama, the information available to the Agency does not indicate there are violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Alabama to which Florida sources could contribute. In addition, 2017 SO2 emissions for Florida’s nonDRR sources emitting over 100 tons of SO2 within 50 km of another state are at distances or emit levels of SO2 that make it unlikely that these SO2 emissions could interact with SO2 emissions from the neighboring states’ sources in such a way as to contribute significantly to nonattainment in neighboring states. Finally, the downward trends in SO2 emissions and DVs for air quality monitors in the State, combined with federal regulations and SIP-approved regulations affecting SO2 emissions of Florida’s sources, further support EPA’s proposed conclusion. 1. SO2 Designations Air Dispersion Modeling a. State Submission In Appendix 2 to Florida’s SIP revision, FDEP included the State’s January 13, 2017, modeling reports for 19 EPA has reviewed Florida’s submission, and where new or more current information has become available, is including this information as part of the Agency’s evaluation of this submission. PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 the four DRR sources in the State within 50 km of the Florida border: Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA)— Northside Generating Station (NGS)/St. Johns River Power Park (SJRPP); 20 21 WestRock CP, LLC—Fernandina Beach Mill (WestRock); Gulf Power Crist Plant (Crist Plant); and White Springs Agricultural Chemical—Swift Creek Chemical Complex (White Springs). Florida used AERMOD to evaluate the area around each of these sources to satisfy the requirements of the DRR and ran the model for the years 2012–2014 using actual emissions data and monitored SO2 background concentrations. FDEP asserts that the modeling results indicate that the area surrounding each facility is in attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, as shown in the modeling reports included in Appendix 2 of the State’s 2018 submission. FDEP included a table showing emissions decreases for these DRR sources from 2014 to 2017 (see Table 2 of Appendix 1 to Florida’s SIP submission), and states that since 2014, actual emissions from these sources have collectively decreased by 74 percent.22 A summary of the modeling results for Florida’s DRR sources within 50 km of the State’s border, including supplemental data EPA has reviewed as part of the Agency’s analysis, is shown in Table 2 of section III.C.1.b. b. EPA Analysis EPA evaluated the DRR modeling data in Florida’s SIP submission for sources in the State and supplemented this data with available DRR modeling results for sources in adjacent states (i.e., Alabama and Georgia) that are within 50 km of the Florida border.23 The purpose of 20 JEA owns and operates the combined NGS and SJRPP facility in Jacksonville, Florida. Table 2 of Appendix 1 in Florida’s September 18, 2018, SIP submission lists JEA NGS and JEA SJRRP separately; however, these sources are modeled as one source under the DRR. 21 Units 1 and 2 at St. John River Power Park shut down, effective December 31, 2017. 22 EPA notes that on page 5 of the State’s September 18, 2018, SIP submission, FDEP inadvertently states that since 2014, actual emissions from the four DRR sources in Florida within 50 km of the border have decreased by 65 percent. EPA has confirmed that the value of 74 percent in Table 2 of Appendix 1 is correct. 23 As discussed in section I.B., Florida 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 E:\FR\FM\10FEP1.SGM 10FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules evaluating modeling results in adjacent states within 50 km of the Florida border is to ascertain whether any nearby sources in Florida are impacting a violation of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state. Table 2 provides a summary of the modeling results for the four modeled DRR sources in Florida which are located within 50 km of another state. The modeling analyses for these four DRR sources resulted in no modeled 7485 violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS within the modeling domains for each facility. As a result, no further analysis is necessary for assessing the impacts of the interstate transport of SO2 pollution from these sources. TABLE 2—FLORIDA SOURCES WITH DRR MODELING LOCATED WITHIN 50 km OF ANOTHER STATE DRR source County Approximate distance from source to adjacent state (km) Crist Plant ........... Escambia ............ 17 (AL) ............... JEA-NGS/SJRPP Duval .................. 35 (GA) ............... WestRock 24 ....... Nassau ............... <5 (GA) .............. Yes—Rayonier Performance Fibers (FL). White Springs ..... Hamilton ............. 16 (GA) ............... Yes—PCS Suwannee River Plant * (FL). Modeled 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentration (ppb) Other facilities included in modeling? Yes—International Paper Pensacola Facility (FL). Yes—Cedar Bay/Generating Plant, Renessenz Jacksonville Facility (now Symrise, Inc.), Anchor Glass Jacksonville Plant, and IFF Chemical Holdings (FL). 33.81 (based on 2012–2014 actual emissions for both facilities). 56.22 (based on 2012–2014 actual emissions for SJRPP and Renessenz Jacksonville Facility (now Symrise, Inc.); allowable emission rates for Cedar Bay, Anchor Glass, and IFF Chemical facilities). 66.09 (based on 2012–2014 actual emissions for WestRock and Rayonier and permitted allowable emissions for three minor units at WestRock). 56.34 (based on 2012–2014 actual emissions for sulfuric acid plants E & F and permitted allowable emissions for the PCS Suwaneee River Plant and the remaining sources at White Springs River Plant equivalent to 1,276 tpy). Model grid extends into another state? No. No. Yes (approximately 3 km into a portion of southern Georgia). No. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS * The PCS Suwannee River Plant shut down most of its operations in 2014. There are three DRR sources in neighboring states which are located within 50 km of Florida and which elected to provide air dispersion modeling under the DRR: Alabama Power Company—James M. Barry Electric Generating Plant (Plant Barry); Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals— LeMoyne Site (AkzoNobel); and Escambia Operating Company—Big Escambia Creek Plant (Big Escambia), which are located approximately 36, 41, and 8 km, respectively, from the Florida border. These sources are all located in Alabama. With respect to the modeling and other information submitted by Alabama under the DRR for these modeled Alabama sources, EPA previously stated that the Agency does not have sufficient information to determine 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.25 Accordingly, the Agency has further assessed AkzoNobel and Plant Barry in section III.C.2.b. of this action to determine whether there is evidence of a violation in Alabama with respect to interstate transport for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Regarding Big Escambia, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) provided supplemental information to EPA in correspondence dated September 5, 2019, September 20, 2019, and September 25, 2019, December 2, 2019, and December 6, 2019 (collectively, the ‘‘Big Escambia Supplement’’) to address interstate transport by evaluating potential SO2 ambient air impacts in the neighboring state of Florida.26 On December 31, 2019 (84 FR 72278), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking containing an evaluation of this supplemental information 27 and proposing to determine that ADEM’s revised modeling for Big Escambia can be used for evaluating interstate transport of SO2 emissions from this facility to locations in Florida. Big Escambia is located 8 km from the Florida border, 21 km northwest from Breitburn Operating, L.P (Breitburn), the nearest SO2 source in Florida. Breitburn is located less than 5 km from the Florida-Alabama border. Florida’s submittal indicates that Breitburn’s 2017 SO2 emissions are 1,491 tons. Due to its proximity to Big Escambia, Alabama’s modeling analysis includes Breitburn as a modeled nearby source using its permitted allowable emissions of 2,181 pounds per hour (9,553 tpy). This modeling indicates that the maximum impacts do not exceed the 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 will potentially contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere 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. 24 As discussed in footnote 8, EPA’s redesignation of the Nassau Area was based, in part, on a modeled attainment demonstration that included permanent and enforceable SO2 controls and emissions limits at the Rayonier and WestRock facilities showing attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard. 25 See EPA’s initial and final technical support document (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. 26 The Big Escambia Supplement is available in Docket ID: EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0792. 27 EPA prepared a TSD—titled ‘‘Technical Support Document (TSD) Addressing Big Escambia Data Requirements Rule (DRR) Modeling for the Purpose of Evaluating Interstate Transport’’— analyzing the sufficiency of the model for use in evaluating interstate transport from Big Escambia. The TSD is located in the docket for that proposed rulemaking at Docket ID: EPA–R04–OAR–2018– 0792. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:29 Feb 07, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10FEP1.SGM 10FEP1 7486 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA believes that the modeling provides a conservative estimate of Breitburn’s SO2 impacts at locations in Alabama near the Florida-Alabama border, because the Big Escambia modeling used allowable emissions of SO2 for Breitburn, which are approximately 6.4 times Breitburn’s actual SO2 emissions for 2017 (9,533 tons/1,491 tons = 6.4). Breitburn’s 2014–2018 SO2 emissions contained in EPA’s Emissions Inventory System (EIS) are shown in Table 3 below. SO2 emissions have remained fairly constant from 2014–2018, with the 2018 emissions representing the lowest emissions over that time period. Breitburn’s 2014–2018 emissions profile demonstrates that Breitburn has consistently operated well below its permitted allowable emission rate. Thus, Breitburn’s actual contribution to SO2 concentrations in Alabama would likely be much less than the predicted concentrations in the Big Escambia modeling. Based upon this information, EPA proposes to find that SO2 emissions from Breitburn will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in Alabama. TABLE 3—BREITBURN SO2 EMISSIONS TRENDS (2014–2018) [Tons] Source 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Breitburn ............................................................................... 1,327 1,454 1,461 1,491 * 1,242 * Data submitted to EIS by FDEP. EPA believes that the modeling results for the DRR sources located in Florida (summarized in Table 2) and available information for the areas surrounding the DRR sources in Alabama within 50 km of the Florida border do not indicate there are violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Alabama to which Florida sources could contribute, based partially on the updated modeling completed by Alabama which addresses the Breitburn facility, weighed along with the other factors in this notice, support EPA’s proposed conclusion that sources in Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. 2. SO2 Emissions Analysis a. State Submission As discussed in section III.B, Florida’s SIP revision presents SO2 emissions from EPA’s 2014 NEI by source category and statewide SO2 emission trends for stationary industrial, on-road, nonroad, and nonpoint sources from 2000 to 2017. The State notes that SO2 emissions from stationary, on-road, nonroad, and nonpoint sources have decreased by 90, 95, 99, and 61 percent, respectively, since 2000. FDEP states that the largest source categories of SO2 emissions in Florida according to the 2014 NEI are chemical and allied product manufacturing and fuel combustion at electric utilities and industrial facilities. SO2 emissions from industrial sources have decreased by 90 percent since the year 2000 due to unit shut downs, fuel switches from higher sulfur-emitting fuels to lower sulfuremitting fuels, and SO2 reductions due to sources’ compliance with EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). FDEP anticipates that emissions are expected to decrease further in the coming years due to additional emission unit shutdowns and fuel switches. In addition, FDEP included 2014 and 2017 emissions for Florida’s four DRR sources within 50 km of the State’s border (discussed in section III.C.1 and listed in Table 2). From 2014 to 2017, total annual SO2 emissions from these four sources have decreased by 22,021 tons (74 percent) from 29,762 tons to 7,741 tons. b. EPA Analysis EPA reviewed the SO2 emissions data from 1990 to 2017 for Florida and the adjacent states of Alabama and Georgia. EPA notes that statewide SO2 emissions for these states, including Florida, have decreased significantly over this time period. This data specifically shows that Florida’s statewide SO2 emissions decreased from approximately 799,150 tons in 1990 to 100,850 tons in 2017.28 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 Florida 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 Florida within 50 km from the border. 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 4 lists the four sources in Florida not regulated under the DRR that emitted greater than 100 tpy of SO2 in 2017 and are located within 50 km of the State’s border (i.e., Anchor Glass Container Corporation (Anchor), Breitburn, IFF Chemical Holdings, Inc. (IFF), and Symrise). TABLE 4—FLORIDA NON-DRR SO2 SOURCES EMITTING GREATER THAN 100 TPY NEAR NEIGHBORING STATES jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Florida source Anchor .................................. Breitburn ............................... IFF ........................................ 2017 Annual SO2 emissions (tons) Approximate distance to Florida border (km) 117.1 1,491 494.1 26 <5 27 28 State annual emissions trends for criteria pollutants of 14 emission source categories (‘‘Tier VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:29 Feb 07, 2020 Jkt 250001 Closest neighboring state Approximate distance to nearest neighboring state SO2 source (km) Georgia ............. Alabama ........... Georgia ............. 92 16 91 1’’) from 1990 to 2017 are available at: https:// PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Nearest neighboring state non-DRR SO2 source & 2017 emissions (>100 tons SO2) Brunswick Cellulose LLC (281.4 tons). Georgia-Pacific Brewton LLC (103 tons). Brunswick Cellulose LLC (281.4 tons). www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/airpollutant-emissions-trends-data. E:\FR\FM\10FEP1.SGM 10FEP1 7487 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules TABLE 4—FLORIDA NON-DRR SO2 SOURCES EMITTING GREATER THAN 100 TPY NEAR NEIGHBORING STATES— Continued Florida source 2017 Annual SO2 emissions (tons) Approximate distance to Florida border (km) 824.9 38 Symrise ................................ Currently, the monitoring and modeling data available to EPA does not suggest that Alabama and Florida are impacted by SO2 emissions from the four Florida sources not subject to the DRR listed in Table 4. Of these four Florida sources, Anchor, IFF, and Symrise 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 these three Florida sources could interact with SO2 emissions from these out-of-state sources in such a way as to contribute Closest neighboring state Approximate distance to nearest neighboring state SO2 source (km) Georgia ............. 81 significantly to nonattainment in Alabama and Georgia. The remaining source, Breitburn, is located at or less than 50 km from the nearest source in Alabama (GeorgiaPacific Brewton LLC) which emits greater than 100 tons of SO2. EPA’s evaluation of potential SO2 impacts from Breitburn on Alabama is discussed in Section III.C.1.b of this notice. Based upon the analysis of the modeling for Alabama’s Big Escambia in Section III.C.1.b, EPA believes that emissions from Breitburn are not contributing significantly to nonattainment in Alabama. In addition, EPA evaluated the 2017 SO2 emissions data for AkzoNobel and Nearest neighboring state non-DRR SO2 source & 2017 emissions (>100 tons SO2) Brunswick Cellulose LLC (281.4 tons). Plant Barry, two of the DRR sources in Alabama located within 50 km of the Florida border for which EPA could not rely on existing DRR modeling. This was done to assess whether Florida sources may potentially be impacting the areas surrounding these Alabama sources under the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Table 5 provides annual 2017 SO2 emissions data for AkzoNobel and Plant Barry, along with the distances to the closest neighboring state’s non-DRR sources emitting over 100 tpy of SO2. Table 6 shows the SO2 emissions trends for AkzoNobel and Plant Barry from 2012–2017 (and 2018 if data is available). TABLE 5—ALABAMA DRR SO2 SOURCES EMITTING GREATER THAN 100 TPY NEAR NEIGHBORING STATES Alabama source 2017 Annual SO2 emissions (tons) Approximate distance to Alabama (km) Closest neighboring state Approximate distance to nearest neighboring state SO2 source (km) Plant Barry ........................... 4,218 40 Mississippi ........ 74 AkzoNobel ............................ 2,201 39 Mississippi ........ 71 Nearest neighboring state SO2 source & 2017 emissions (>100 tons SO2) Mississippi Power Company—Plant Daniel (Plant Daniel) (204 tons). Plant Daniel (204 tons). TABLE 6—ALABAMA DRR SO2 SOURCES EMITTING GREATER THAN 100 TPY NEAR NEIGHBORING STATES—EMISSIONS TRENDS Alabama source Plant Barry * ................. AkzoNobel .................... 2012 2013 10,731 3,293 2014 13,448 2,752 2015 10,690 2,320 2016 8,688 3,587 2017 5,421 3,646 4,218 2,201 2018 5,257 ** N/A jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS * SO2 emissions for Plant Barry are from EPA’s Air Markets Program Data (AMPD) accessible at: https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/. ** 2018 SO2 emissions not available for AkzoNobel. Table 5 shows that the distances between each facility and the nearest state’s source to each facility which emits over 100 tpy of SO2, exceed 50 km. The closest sources in another state to AkzoNobel and Plant Barry are located in Mississippi; therefore, there are no Florida sources within 50 km of AkzoNobel and Plant Barry which could interact with SO2 emissions from these Alabama sources in Table 4 in such a way as to contribute significantly to nonattainment in Alabama. Table 5 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:29 Feb 07, 2020 Jkt 250001 shows that SO2 emissions have declined from 2012 to 2017/2018 for these Alabama sources. EPA also considered whether any changes in controls or operations had occurred at AkzoNobel and Plant Barry. AkzoNobel entered into a consent decree with EPA which required more stringent emissions limits that have reduced SO2 emissions at the facility by PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 2,340 tpy.29 Plant Barry has retired Unit 3, and Units 1 and 2 are restricted to burn only natural gas as of January 1, 2017. 29 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. E:\FR\FM\10FEP1.SGM 10FEP1 7488 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules EPA also evaluated data from the Agency’s Air Quality System (AQS) 30 from the SO2 monitors in the surrounding areas of AkzoNobel 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. EPA believes that the SO2 emissions trends information in Florida’s submission, the Agency’s analysis of the sources in Tables 4 and 5, and the SO2 emissions trends for AkzoNobel and Plant Barry in Table 6, support the Agency’s conclusion that sources in Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in a nearby state. 3. SO2 Ambient Air Quality a. State Submission In its September 18, 2018, SIP submission, FDEP included a table showing DV trends from 2007 to 2017 for Florida’s 23 existing SO2 air quality monitors. All of Florida’s SO2 air quality monitors have 2015–2017 SO2 DVs below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. FDEP notes that the majority of these 2015–2017 DVs are ‘‘well below’’ the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and that several monitors show ‘‘significant decreases’’ in their SO2 DVs over time.31 FDEP also identified recent maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations at the one monitor in Mobile County, Alabama, that is within 50 km of the Florida border and notes that these concentrations—30.1 ppb in 2016 and 23.9 ppb in 2017—are well below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. FDEP also included the 2017 DV (5 ppb) for the next nearest SO2 monitor— located in Georgia—and notes that this monitor’s DV is seven percent of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.32 In addition, FDEP identified the closest SO2 nonattainment areas outside of Florida, with the nearest one located approximately 145 km away in St. Bernard Parish in New Orleans, Louisiana. FDEP notes that on August 5, 2013 (78 FR 47191), EPA designated an area in Nassau County, Florida, as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS based on ambient SO2 monitoring data in the area for the threeyear period 2009–2011 (round 1 designations). In Florida’s SIP submission, the State indicates that this is the only SO2 nonattainment area within 50 km of another state (approximately 4 km from the Georgia border). FDEP submitted a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the area on June 7, 2018. EPA notes that, subsequent to the state’s submission, the Agency approved Florida’s request to redesignate the Nassau County area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and the accompanying SIP revision containing the maintenance plan for the area on April 24, 2019 (effective May 24, 2019). See 84 FR 17085. b. EPA Analysis Since the time of development of Florida’s SIP submission, DVs based on more recent certified monitoring data from monitors in EPA’s AQS (‘‘AQS monitors’’) have become available for Florida and the surrounding states. The most recent certified 3-year DV period is 2016–2018. EPA has summarized the DVs from 2012 to 2018 for AQS monitors in Florida within 50 km of another state in Table 7. The 2010 1hour 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 1hour average concentrations exceeds 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with Appendix T of 40 CFR part 50. TABLE 7—TREND IN 1-HOUR SO2 DVS (ppb) FOR AQS MONITORS IN FLORIDA WITHIN 50 km OF ANOTHER STATE County AQS site code Duval ..................................... Duval ..................................... Duval ..................................... Duval ..................................... Escambia ............................... Hamilton ................................ Nassau .................................. 12–031–0032 * 12–031–0080 12–031–0081 * 12–031–0097 12–033–0004 12–047–0015 12–089–0005 2010–2012 2011–2013 16 13 29 18 27 23 122 2012–2014 17 11 29 21 22 25 70 17 17 27 21 25 ** ND 57 2013–2015 2014–2016 16 17 23 23 24 ** ND 58 2015–2017 16 17 20 18 16 ** ND 51 16 10 12 14 8 ** ND 43 2016–2018 18 ** ND 11 ** ND 6 ** ND 37 Approximate distance to state border (km) 39 (GA) 37 (GA) 38 (GA) 43 (GA) 20 (AL) 19 (GA) 6 (GA) jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS * EPA approved the discontinuation of two SO2 monitors in Duval County (AQS IDs: 12–031–0080 and 12–031–0097) in 2018. ** ND indicates ‘‘No Data’’ due to monitor startup or shutdown (operated less than three years), data quality issues, or incomplete data. As shown in Table 7, the 2012–2018 DVs for six of the seven monitoring sites in Florida within 50 km of another state’s border have remained below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, with the exception of the Nassau County monitor which had a 122 ppb DV for the 2010–2012 period. The DVs at the Nassau County monitor have declined over the 2013 through 2018 DV time periods, and these DVs are all below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The Hamilton County monitor has 2012 and 2013 DVs of 23 and 25 ppb, respectively, and incomplete data for the remaining DV time periods (2014– 2018). The Hamilton County monitor has not measured a daily exceedance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS since 2013. There is one AQS monitor in Alabama (Mobile County) which is located within 50 km of the Florida border. This monitor is approximately 45 km from Florida and 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 Mobile County monitor has measured no daily exceedances of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS during its years of operation. EPA also evaluated monitoring data provided to date for AQS monitors located in states adjacent to Florida and neighboring states within 50 km of the State’s border that were established to characterize the air quality around 30 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. 31 See Table 3 of Appendix 1 of Florida’s September 18, 2018, SIP submission. 32 FDEP inadvertently identified the nearest monitor in Georgia—located in Savannah, Georgia, approximately 155 km from the State’s border—as AQS ID 13–021–0012. EPA has confirmed that the monitor with this ID is located in Macon, Georgia, approximately 241 km from the Florida border, and it has 2016, 2017, and 2018 DVs of 9, 5, and 4 ppb, respectively. The monitor located in Savannah, Georgia, is AQS ID 13–051–1002, and it has 2016, 2017, and 2018 DVs of 52, 48, 45 ppb, respectively. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:29 Feb 07, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10FEP1.SGM 10FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules 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. No sources in Florida elected to establish monitors under the DRR and there are no DRR monitors within 50 km of the Florida border located in the adjacent states of Alabama and Georgia. EPA believes that the air quality data for monitors within 50 km of the Florida border within the State and in surrounding states support EPA’s proposed conclusion that Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. 4. SIP-Approved Regulations Addressing SO2 Emissions jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS a. State Submission In its September 18, 2018, SIP submission, Florida identified SIPapproved measures which help ensure that SO2 emissions in the State do not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. FDEP indicates that many of the current SIPapproved rules are adopted under the authority of subsection 403.061(35), Florida Statutes. FDEP lists the following SIP-approved Florida rule chapters of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) which establish emission limits and other control measures for SO2: Chapter 62–210, F.A.C., Stationary Sources—General Requirements; Chapter 62–212, F.A.C., Stationary Sources—Preconstruction Review; and Chapter 62–296, F.A.C., Stationary Sources—Emission Standards. Chapter 62–210, F.A.C establishes definitions and the general requirements for major and minor stationary sources of air pollutant emissions. Chapter 62–212, F.A.C. establishes the preconstruction review requirements for proposed new emissions units, new facilities, and modifications to existing units and facilities. Chapter 62–296, F.A.C. establishes emission limiting standards and compliance requirements for stationary sources of air pollutant emissions, including SIP emission limits that restrict SO2 emissions from various source categories (e.g., EGUs (Rule 62–296.405, F.A.C.) and sulfuric acid plants (Rule 62–296.402, F.A.C.)) and source-specific SO2 emission limits that form the basis of Florida’s SO2 nonattainment area SIPs. b. EPA Analysis As part of EPA’s weight of evidence approach to evaluating 2010 SO2 transport SIPs, EPA considered Florida’s SIP-approved measures summarized in VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:29 Feb 07, 2020 Jkt 250001 III.C.4.a. of this notice, which establish emission limits, permitting requirements, and other control measures for SO2. For the purposes of ensuring that SO2 emissions at new major sources or major modifications at existing major sources in Florida do not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS, the State has a SIP-approved major source new source review (NSR) program. Chapters 62–210 and 62–212, F.A.C. collectively regulate the construction of any new major stationary source or any modification at an existing major stationary source in an area designated as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable. The State’s SIP-approved prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regulations are found in Chapters 62–210, F.A.C., Stationary Sources— General Requirements, and 62–212, F.A.C., Stationary Sources— Preconstruction Review, F.A.C., which apply to the construction of any new major stationary source or major modification at an existing major stationary source in an area designated as attainment or unclassifiable or not yet designated. Florida’s SIP-approved rules, 62–210.300, F.A.C., and 62– 212.300, F.A.C., collectively govern the preconstruction permitting of modifications to and construction of minor stationary sources. These major and minor NSR rules are designed to ensure that SO2 emissions due to major modifications at existing major stationary sources, modifications at minor stationary sources, and the construction of new major and minor sources subject to these rules will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states. 5. Federal Regulations Addressing SO2 Emissions in Florida a. State Submission FDEP notes that MATS has helped to reduce SO2 emissions from industrial sources as discussed in section III.C.2.a of this notice. b. EPA Analysis EPA agrees that MATS is a federal control measure which has helped to reduce SO2 emissions in Florida, along with other federal regulatory programs such as: 2007 Heavy-Duty Highway Rule; Acid Rain Program; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; New Source Performance Standards; Nonroad Diesel Rule; and Tier 1 and 2 Mobile Source Rules. EPA believes that MATS, along with the other federal measures EPA identified, have and continue to lower SO2 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 7489 emissions, which, in turn, supports EPA’s proposed conclusion that SO2 emissions from Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state. 6. Conclusion EPA proposes to determine that Florida’s September 18, 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: DVs for six of Florida’s seven AQS SO2 monitors within 50 km of another state’s border have remained below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS since 2013 and six of these monitors have had DVs well below the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS since 2011 (the seventh monitor in Hamilton County, Florida, has no data to calculate DVs for the 2012–2014 through the 2016–2018 time periods); the 2018 99th percentile 1-hour SO2 concentrations for Alabama’s Mobile County monitor within 50 km of Florida’s border is well below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the 2016–2018 time period; modeling for the DRR sources within 50 km of the Florida border both within the State and in Alabama estimates impacts below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; downward SO2 emissions trends in Florida; SO2 emissions from Florida sources not subject to the DRR which each emitted over 100 tons of SO2 in 2017 are not likely interacting with SO2 emissions from the nearest out-of-state source in a bordering state in such a way as to cause a violation in Alabama and Georgia due to either distances over 50 km between the sources or, in the case of Breitburn, modeling which includes this source at much higher permitted emissions shows impacts below the level of the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS; and current Florida SIP-approved measures and federal emissions control programs ensure control of SO2 emissions from sources within Florida. Based on the analysis provided by Florida in its SIP submission and EPA’s analysis of the factors described in section III.C, EPA proposes to find that sources within Florida 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 E:\FR\FM\10FEP1.SGM 10FEP1 7490 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules with maintenance of a NAAQS in another state. 1. State Submission In its September 18, 2018, SIP submission, FDEP confirms that Florida will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard in any other state. FDEP bases its conclusion for prong 2 on: The localized nature of SO2 dispersion, emissions, and monitoring data presented in the submission and discussed in sections III.C.2.a and III.C.3.a of this notice, and DRR modeling for large SO2 sources within 50 km of the State border which shows the areas around these sources are not exceeding the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. As discussed in sections III.C.4 and III.C.5, FDEP has SIP-approved measures which address sources of SO2 emissions in Florida and there are also federal measures that control SO2 emissions in the State. Specifically, FDEP notes that SIPapproved sections of Chapters 62–210 and 62–212, F.A.C., require any new major source or major modification to undergo PSD or nonattainment NSR permitting to demonstrate that the source will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS in Florida or any other state. FDEP also states that Florida’s SIP contains other emission limiting standards such as Chapter 62– 296, F.A.C., which includes SIP emissions limits that restrict SO2 emissions from various source categories. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 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 Florida, EPA has also reviewed additional information on SO2 air quality and emission trends to evaluate the State’s conclusion that Florida 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). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:29 Feb 07, 2020 Jkt 250001 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 Florida, 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 SO2 emissions from sources within Florida, and the fact that all areas in other states within 50 km of the Florida border which have existing monitors have DVs attaining the 2010 1hour 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 Florida do not interfere with its neighboring states’ ability to maintain the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. With respect to air quality data trends, the 2016–2018 DVs for AQS SO2 monitors both in Florida within 50 km of another state’s border and in Alabama within 50 km of Florida’s border are below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Further, modeling results for DRR sources within 50 km of Florida’s border within the State demonstrate attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and thus, demonstrate that Florida’s largest point sources of SO2 are not expected to interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state. EPA believes that federal and SIPapproved State regulations discussed in sections III.C.4 and III.C.5 that both directly and indirectly reduce emissions of SO2 in Florida 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 Florida’s SIPapproved major NSR regulations described in section III.C.4. In addition, Florida has a SIP-approved minor NSR permit program addressing small emission sources of SO2. The permitting regulations contained within these programs are designed to ensure that emissions from these activities do not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the State or in any other state. 3. Conclusion EPA proposes to determine that Florida’s September 18, 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: SO2 emissions statewide from 2000 to 2017 in Florida have declined significantly; SO2 emissions from Florida’s non-DRR sources emitting greater than 100 tpy in 2017 listed in PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Table 4 of this notice are not likely interacting with SO2 emissions from the nearest out-of-state source in a bordering state in such a way as to interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Alabama and Georgia due to either distances over 50 km between the sources or, in the case of Breitburn modeling which includes this source at much higher permitted emissions shows impacts below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; current Florida SIP-approved measures and federal emissions control programs ensure control of SO2 emissions from sources within Florida; Florida’s SIPapproved PSD and minor source NSR permit programs will address future large and small SO2 sources; current DVs for AQS SO2 monitors both in Florida within 50 km of another state’s border and in Alabama within 50 km of Florida’s border are below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; and modeling for DRR sources within 50 km of Florida’s border both within the State and in Alabama demonstrate that Florida’s largest point sources of SO2 are not expected to interfere with maintenance of current attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state. Based on the analysis provided by Florida in its SIP submission and EPA’s supplemental analysis of the factors described in section III.C and III.D of this notice, EPA proposes to find that emission sources within Florida 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 Florida’s September 18, 2018, SIP submission as demonstrating that emissions from Florida 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 E:\FR\FM\10FEP1.SGM 10FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866; • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:29 Feb 07, 2020 Jkt 250001 Dated: January 30, 2020. Mary S. Walker, Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 2020–02502 Filed 2–7–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R04–OAR–2019–0305; FRL–10005– 29–Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Chattanooga Miscellaneous Revisions Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Chattanooga portion of the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Tennessee through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) on behalf of the Chattanooga/Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau (Bureau) on September 12, 2018. The SIP submittal removes and replaces the Chattanooga City Code, Air Pollution Control Ordinances pertaining to the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Board (Board), powers and duties of the Board, penalties, enforcement and permit fees. The SIP revision that EPA is proposing to approve is consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 2, 2020. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– OAR–2019–0305 at 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 SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 7491 EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, 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. The telephone number is (404) 562– 9043. Mr. Lakeman can also be reached via electronic mail at lakeman.sean@ epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Through a letter dated September 12, 2018, TDEC submitted a SIP revision on behalf of the Bureau requesting removal and replacement of certain air quality rules in the Chattanooga portion of the Tennessee SIP.1 2 This rulemaking proposes to approve the Chattanooga City Code Part II, Chapter 4, Section 4– 4, ‘‘Penalties for violation of chapter, permit or order,’’ 3 Section 4–6, ‘‘Air pollution control board; bureau of air pollution control; persons required to comply with chapter,’’ 4 Section 4–7, 1 The Bureau is comprised of Hamilton County and the municipalities of Chattanooga, Collegedale, East Ridge, Lakesite, Lookout Mountain, Red Bank, Ridgeside, Signal Mountain, Soddy Daisy, and Walden. The Bureau recommends regulatory revisions, which are subsequently adopted by the eleven jurisdictions. The Bureau then implements and enforces the regulations, as necessary, in each jurisdiction. Because the air pollution control regulations/ordinances adopted by the jurisdictions within the Bureau are substantively identical (except as noted later in this notice), EPA refers solely to Chattanooga and the Chattanooga rules throughout the notice as representative of the other ten jurisdictions for brevity and simplicity. See footnotes 3 through 8, later in this notice. 2 EPA received the SIP revision on September 18, 2018. 3 In this proposed action, EPA is also proposing to approve similar changes in the following sections of the Air Pollution Control Regulations/Ordinances for the remaining jurisdictions within the Bureau, which were locally effective as of the relevant dates below: Hamilton County—Section 4 (9/6/17); City of Collegedale—Section 14–304 (10/16/17); City of East Ridge—Section 8–4 (10/26/17); City of Lakesite—Section 14–4 (11/2/17); Town of Lookout Mountain—Section 4 (11/14/17); City of Red Bank—Section 20–4 (11/21/17); City of Ridgeside— Section 4 (1/16/18); City of Signal Mountain— Section 4 (10/20/17); City of Soddy-Daisy—Section 8–4 (10/5/17); and Town of Walden—Section 4 (10/ 16/17). The only substantive difference between the various jurisdictions’ regulations is that Chattanooga Ordinance Part II, Chapter 4, Section 4–4 contains an additional sentence regarding fines and fees, which is discussed later in this notice. 4 In this proposed action, EPA is also proposing to approve substantively similar changes in the following sections of the Air Pollution Control Regulations/Ordinances for the remaining E:\FR\FM\10FEP1.SGM Continued 10FEP1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 27 (Monday, February 10, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7480-7491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02502]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0008; FRL-10005-27-Region 4]


Air Plan Approval; FL; 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 Florida's September 18, 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 Florida 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 September 18, 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 March 11, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2019-0008 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

[[Page 7481]]

comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

A. Infrastructure SIPs

    On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a revised primary SO2 
NAAQS with a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year 
average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 
concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). Whenever EPA 
promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section 110(a)(1) requires 
states to make SIP submissions to provide for the implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This particular type of SIP 
submission is commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP.'' These 
submissions must meet the various requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2), as applicable.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires SIPs to include 
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity 
in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will 
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with 
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two clauses of this 
section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to 
nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance of the 
NAAQS).
    On September 18, 2018, the Florida Department of Environmental 
Protection (FDEP) submitted a revision to the Florida SIP addressing 
prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS.\1\ EPA is proposing to approve FDEP's September 
18, 2018, SIP submission because, based on the information available at 
the time of this rulemaking, the State demonstrated that Florida 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 Florida 
have been addressed in separate rulemakings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On June 3, 2013, and supplemented on January 8, 2014, FDEP 
submitted SIP revisions addressing all infrastructure elements with 
respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS with the exception 
of prongs 1 and 2 of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    \2\ EPA acted on the other elements of Florida's June 3, 2013, 
infrastructure SIP submission, as supplemented on January 8, 2014, 
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on September 30, 2016 (81 
FR 67179).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background

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

    \3\ While designations may provide useful information for 
purposes of analyzing transport, particularly for a more source-
specific pollutant such as SO2, EPA notes that 
designations themselves are not dispositive of whether or not upwind 
emissions are impacting areas in downwind states. EPA has 
consistently taken the position that CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
addresses ``nonattainment'' anywhere it may occur in other states, 
not only in designated nonattainment areas nor 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'') \4\ for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 
on July 25, 2013, designating 29 areas in 16 states as nonattainment 
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 
2013). EPA signed Federal Register notices of promulgation for round 2 
designations \5\ 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 \6\ on December 21, 2017 (83 FR 1098 (January 9, 
2018)).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``round'' in this instance refers to which ``round 
of designations.''
    \5\ 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.
    \6\ 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.
    \7\ 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'').
    In rounds 1 and 3 of designations, EPA designated three 
SO2 nonattainment areas and one unclassifiable area in 
Florida. In round 1, EPA designated portions of Nassau and Hillsborough 
counties as

[[Page 7482]]

nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS based on air 
quality monitoring data (Nassau, FL Area and Hillsborough, FL Area, 
respectively).\8\ In round 3, EPA designated portions of Hillsborough 
and Polk counties (Hillsborough-Polk, FL Area) as nonattainment for the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS based on air quality modeling.\9\ EPA 
also designated portions of Hillsborough and Polk counties (Mulberry, 
FL Area) as unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 
round 3. The remaining counties in Florida were designated as 
attainment/unclassifiable in round 3; therefore, no areas in Florida 
will be designated in round 4.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Nassau and Hillsborough Areas are currently attaining 
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS based on complete, quality-
assured, and certified air quality monitoring data for 2016-2018 and 
air dispersion modeling showing attainment of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in the area. Florida submitted a request that 
EPA redesignate both areas to attainment, and EPA approved the 
redesignation request and associated maintenance plan for the Nassau 
Area on April 24, 2019 (84 FR 17085). EPA approved the redesignation 
request and associated maintenance plan for the Hillsborough Area on 
November 12, 2019 (84 FR 60927). EPA approved the attainment 
demonstration for the Nassau Area on July 3, 2017, and incorporated 
the new allowable emission rates and control measures into the SIP, 
making them permanent and enforceable. See 82 FR 30749. EPA's 
redesignation of the Nassau Area was based, in part, on a modeled 
attainment demonstration that included permanent and enforceable 
SO2 controls and emissions limits at the Rayonier and 
WestRock facilities showing attainment of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 standard by the statutory deadline.
    \9\ EPA designated a portion of Citrus County, Florida as 
unclassifiable in round 3 designations on December 21, 2017 (83 FR 
1098). However, on March 28, 2018, EPA withdrew the designation of 
unclassifiable for the area and established a designation of 
attainment/unclassifiable for that area based on complete, quality-
assured and certified air quality monitoring data from 2017 
submitted by FDEP, and modeling showing attainment of the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS in the area. See 83 FR 14597 (April 5, 
2018). On September 9, 2019 (84 FR 47216), EPA proposed approval of 
Florida's February 15, 2019, draft redesignation requests and 
maintenance plan for the round 3 Hillsborough-Polk County 
SO2 nonattainment area, the redesignation request for the 
Mulberry unclassifiable area, and adoption of new 24-hour 
SO2 emission limits for the two primary emission sources 
in the areas. The public comment period has closed, and EPA is not 
reopening that comment period through this infrastructure proposal.
    \10\ See Technical Support Document: Chapter 9 Final Round 3 
Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard for Florida at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/09-fl-so2-rd3-final.pdf. See also 
Technical Support Document: Chapter 9 Intended Round 3 Area 
Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard for Florida at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/9_fl_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Although SO2 is emitted from a similar universe of point 
and nonpoint sources as is directly emitted fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) and the precursors to ozone and PM2.5, 
interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the transport of 
PM2.5 or ozone because SO2 emissions sources 
usually do not have long range SO2 impacts. The transport of 
SO2 relative to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is more 
analogous to the transport of lead (Pb) relative to the Pb NAAQS in 
that emissions of SO2 typically result in 1-hour pollutant 
impacts of possible concern only near the emissions source. However, 
ambient 1-hour concentrations of SO2 do not decrease as 
quickly with distance from the source as do 3-month average 
concentrations of Pb, because SO2 gas is not removed by 
deposition as rapidly as are Pb particles and because SO2 
typically has a higher emissions release height than Pb. Emitted 
SO2 has wider ranging impacts than emitted Pb, but it does 
not have such wide-ranging impacts that treatment in a manner similar 
to ozone or PM2.5 would be appropriate. Accordingly, while 
the approaches that EPA has adopted for ozone or PM2.5 
transport are too regionally focused, the approach for Pb transport is 
too tightly circumscribed to the source. SO2 transport is 
therefore a unique case and requires a different approach.
    In this proposed rulemaking, as in prior 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its SIP submission, FDEP identified a distance threshold to 
reflect the transport properties of SO2. FDEP selected the 
``urban scale'' as appropriate in assessing trends in both area-wide 
air quality and the effectiveness of large-scale pollution control 
strategies at such point sources. FDEP supported this transport 
distance threshold with references to the March 1, 2011, EPA memorandum 
titled ``Additional Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W 
Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour NO2 National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard,'' and noted that this clarification applies equally 
to the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard.\12\ The memorandum offers a 
general guideline for estimating the distance to maximum 1-hour impact 
and the region of significant concentration gradients that may apply in 
relatively flat terrain, which is approximately 10 times the source's 
release height.\13\ FDEP states that no SO2 source in 
Florida (which has flat terrain) has a stack height of more than 205 
meters and thus, the maximum distance to a significant concentration 
gradient from a Florida source is approximately 2,050 meters (i.e., 
2.05 km) from the source, after which a source's impacts decrease 
significantly. Additionally, the memorandum indicates that the 
inclusion of all emissions sources within 50 km of the source under 
analysis is likely to produce an overly conservative result in most 
cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA's March 1, 2011, memorandum, Additional Clarification 
Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour 
NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard, is available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/appwno2_2.pdf.
    \13\ Id. at pp. 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the properties of SO2, EPA preliminarily agrees 
with Florida's selection of the urban scale to assess trends in area-
wide air quality that might impact downwind states. As discussed 
further in section III.B, EPA believes that Florida's selection of the 
urban scale is appropriate for assessing trends in both area-wide air 
quality and the effectiveness of large-scale pollution control 
strategies at SO2 point sources. Florida'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 
concurs with Florida's application of 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.

[[Page 7483]]

    As discussed in sections III.C and III.D, EPA first reviewed 
Florida'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 Florida border.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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 Florida's or any neighboring state'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. Florida's SIP Submission and EPA's Analysis

A. State Submission

    On September 18, 2018, FDEP submitted a revision to the Florida SIP 
addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Florida 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.
    FDEP concluded that the State is meeting its prong 1 and prong 2 
obligations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. FDEP based its 
conclusions on: Trends in SO2 design values (DVs) \15\ at 
the State's air quality monitors from 2007-2017; SO2 DVs for 
monitors located within 50 km of the Florida border; SO2 
emissions trends statewide from 2000-2017; the change in SO2 
emissions from 2014-2017 at the largest sources of SO2 
within 50 km of the border; available SO2 modeling data for 
the State's round 3 DRR sources; and SIP-approved State and federal 
regulations that establish requirements for sources of SO2 
emissions. EPA's evaluation of Florida's September 18, 2018, SIP 
submission is detailed in sections III.B, C, and D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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 Florida 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).\16\ The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed 
estimate of air emissions for criteria pollutants, criteria pollutant 
precursors, and hazardous air pollutants from air emissions sources, 
that is updated every three years using information provided by the 
states and other information available to EPA. EPA evaluated data from 
the 2014 NEI (version 2), the most recently available, complete, and 
quality assured dataset of the NEI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FDEP provided 2014 NEI SO2 emissions data statewide by 
source category. FDEP states that fuel combustion by electric 
generating units (EGUs) is the largest source of SO2 
emissions in Florida, representing 60 percent of the State's 
SO2 emissions. FDEP also states that other large sources of 
SO2 emissions in Florida include chemical and allied product 
manufacturing and fuel combustion at industrial sources, which, when 
added to the EGU SO2 emissions, comprise 80 percent of 
Florida's total SO2 emissions.
    As shown in Table 1, the majority of SO2 emissions in 
Florida originate from fuel combustion at point sources.\17\ In 2014, 
the total SO2 emissions from point sources in Florida 
comprised approximately 83 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 68 percent of the State's total SO2 
emissions. 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 Florida'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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Florida's point sources listed in Table 1, for the purposes 
of this proposed action, are comprised of all of the ``Fuel 
Combustion'' categories and ``Industrial Processes (All 
Categories),'' with the exception of residential fuel combustion. 
Residential fuel consumption is considered a nonpoint source, and 
thus, residential fuel combustion data is not included in the point 
source fuel combustion data and related calculations.

 Table 1--Summary of 2014 NEI (Version 2) SO2 Data for Florida by Source
                                  Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Percent of
                Category                     Emissions       total SO2
                                               (tpy)         emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Combustion: EGUs (All Fuel Types)..       99,362.87            60.4
Fuel Combustion: Industrial Boilers/           11,868.39             7.2
 Internal Combustion Engines (All Fuel
 Types).................................
Fuel Combustion: Commercial/                      188.60             0.1
 Institutional (All Fuel Types).........
Fuel Combustion: Residential (All Fuel             91.66             0.1
 Types).................................
Industrial Processes (All Categories)...       24,904.24            15.1
Mobile Sources (All Categories).........       12,534.89             7.6
Fires (All Types).......................       13,342.46             8.1
Waste Disposal..........................        2,161.72             1.3
Solvent Processes.......................            0.15               0
Miscellaneous (Non-Industrial)..........           13.50               0
                                         -------------------------------
    SO2 Emissions Total.................      164,468.48             100
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 7484]]

    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 Florida'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 
Florida'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 Florida border (see section III.C.3. of 
this notice) is informed by all available data at the time of this 
proposed rulemaking.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 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 Florida, depending on available 
information and state-specific circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in Section III, EPA proposes to conclude that an 
assessment of Florida'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 Florida'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 federal 
regulations and SIP-approved regulations affecting SO2 
emissions of Florida's 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. FDEP asserts in its submission that 
Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other 
state with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard. To 
evaluate Florida's satisfaction of prong 1, EPA assessed the State's 
SIP submission with respect to the following factors: (1) Potential 
ambient impacts of SO2 emissions from certain facilities in 
Florida on neighboring states based on available SO2 
designation air dispersion modeling results; (2) SO2 
emissions from Florida sources; (3) SO2 ambient air quality 
for Florida and neighboring states; (4) SIP-approved Florida 
regulations that address SO2 emissions; and (5) federal 
regulations that reduce SO2 emissions at Florida sources. A 
detailed discussion of Florida's SIP submission with respect to each of 
these factors follows.\19\ EPA proposes, based on the information 
available at the time of this rulemaking, that these factors, taken 
together, support the Agency's proposed determination that Florida will 
not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in another state. As discussed in the following 
sections, EPA's proposed conclusion is based, in part, on the fact that 
modeling results for Florida's four DRR sources within 50 km of another 
state's border indicate that the maximum impacts do not exceed the 
level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Regarding three out-of-
state DRR sources within 50 km of the Florida border which are located 
in Alabama, the information available to the Agency does not indicate 
there are violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Alabama 
to which Florida sources could contribute. In addition, 2017 
SO2 emissions for Florida'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 neighboring states. 
Finally, the downward trends in SO2 emissions and DVs for 
air quality monitors in the State, combined with federal regulations 
and SIP-approved regulations affecting SO2 emissions of 
Florida's sources, further support EPA's proposed conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ EPA has reviewed Florida's submission, and where new or 
more current information has become available, is including this 
information as part of the Agency's evaluation of this submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. SO2 Designations Air Dispersion Modeling
a. State Submission
    In Appendix 2 to Florida's SIP revision, FDEP included the State's 
January 13, 2017, modeling reports for the four DRR sources in the 
State within 50 km of the Florida border: Jacksonville Electric 
Authority (JEA)--Northside Generating Station (NGS)/St. Johns River 
Power Park (SJRPP); ^{20 21} WestRock CP, LLC--Fernandina Beach 
Mill (WestRock); Gulf Power Crist Plant (Crist Plant); and White 
Springs Agricultural Chemical--Swift Creek Chemical Complex (White 
Springs). Florida used AERMOD to evaluate the area around each of these 
sources to satisfy the requirements of the DRR and ran the model for 
the years 2012-2014 using actual emissions data and monitored 
SO2 background concentrations. FDEP asserts that the 
modeling results indicate that the area surrounding each facility is in 
attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, as shown in the 
modeling reports included in Appendix 2 of the State's 2018 submission. 
FDEP included a table showing emissions decreases for these DRR sources 
from 2014 to 2017 (see Table 2 of Appendix 1 to Florida's SIP 
submission), and states that since 2014, actual emissions from these 
sources have collectively decreased by 74 percent.\22\ A summary of the 
modeling results for Florida's DRR sources within 50 km of the State's 
border, including supplemental data EPA has reviewed as part of the 
Agency's analysis, is shown in Table 2 of section III.C.1.b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ JEA owns and operates the combined NGS and SJRPP facility 
in Jacksonville, Florida. Table 2 of Appendix 1 in Florida's 
September 18, 2018, SIP submission lists JEA NGS and JEA SJRRP 
separately; however, these sources are modeled as one source under 
the DRR.
    \21\ Units 1 and 2 at St. John River Power Park shut down, 
effective December 31, 2017.
    \22\ EPA notes that on page 5 of the State's September 18, 2018, 
SIP submission, FDEP inadvertently states that since 2014, actual 
emissions from the four DRR sources in Florida within 50 km of the 
border have decreased by 65 percent. EPA has confirmed that the 
value of 74 percent in Table 2 of Appendix 1 is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. EPA Analysis
    EPA evaluated the DRR modeling data in Florida's SIP submission for 
sources in the State and supplemented this data with available DRR 
modeling results for sources in adjacent states (i.e., Alabama and 
Georgia) that are within 50 km of the Florida border.\23\ The purpose 
of

[[Page 7485]]

evaluating modeling results in adjacent states within 50 km of the 
Florida border is to ascertain whether any nearby sources in Florida 
are impacting a violation of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 
another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ As discussed in section I.B., Florida 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 will potentially contribute 
significantly to nonattainment or interfere 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 provides a summary of the modeling results for the four 
modeled DRR sources in Florida which are located within 50 km of 
another state. The modeling analyses for these four DRR sources 
resulted in no modeled violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS within the modeling domains for each facility. As a result, no 
further analysis is necessary for assessing the impacts of the 
interstate transport of SO2 pollution from these sources.

                                    Table 2--Florida Sources With DRR Modeling Located Within 50 km of Another State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Modeled 99th
                                                           Approximate                             percentile daily
                                                          distance from       Other facilities    maximum 1-hour SO2   Model grid extends into  another
           DRR source                    County         source to adjacent      included  in        concentration                   state?
                                                            state (km)           modeling?              (ppb)
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crist Plant.....................  Escambia...........  17 (AL)............  Yes--International   33.81 (based on      No.
                                                                             Paper Pensacola      2012-2014 actual
                                                                             Facility (FL).       emissions for both
                                                                                                  facilities).
JEA-NGS/SJRPP...................  Duval..............  35 (GA)............  Yes--Cedar Bay/      56.22 (based on      No.
                                                                             Generating Plant,    2012-2014 actual
                                                                             Renessenz            emissions for
                                                                             Jacksonville         SJRPP and
                                                                             Facility (now        Renessenz
                                                                             Symrise, Inc.),      Jacksonville
                                                                             Anchor Glass         Facility (now
                                                                             Jacksonville         Symrise, Inc.);
                                                                             Plant, and IFF       allowable emission
                                                                             Chemical Holdings    rates for Cedar
                                                                             (FL).                Bay, Anchor Glass,
                                                                                                  and IFF Chemical
                                                                                                  facilities).
WestRock \24\...................  Nassau.............  <5 (GA)............  Yes--Rayonier        66.09 (based on      Yes (approximately 3 km into a
                                                                             Performance Fibers   2012-2014 actual     portion of southern Georgia).
                                                                             (FL).                emissions for
                                                                                                  WestRock and
                                                                                                  Rayonier and
                                                                                                  permitted
                                                                                                  allowable
                                                                                                  emissions for
                                                                                                  three minor units
                                                                                                  at WestRock).
White Springs...................  Hamilton...........  16 (GA)............  Yes--PCS Suwannee    56.34 (based on      No.
                                                                             River Plant * (FL).  2012-2014 actual
                                                                                                  emissions for
                                                                                                  sulfuric acid
                                                                                                  plants E & F and
                                                                                                  permitted
                                                                                                  allowable
                                                                                                  emissions for the
                                                                                                  PCS Suwaneee River
                                                                                                  Plant and the
                                                                                                  remaining sources
                                                                                                  at White Springs
                                                                                                  River Plant
                                                                                                  equivalent to
                                                                                                  1,276 tpy).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The PCS Suwannee River Plant shut down most of its operations in 2014.

    There are three DRR sources in neighboring states which are located 
within 50 km of Florida and which elected to provide air dispersion 
modeling under the DRR: Alabama Power Company--James M. Barry Electric 
Generating Plant (Plant Barry); Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals--
LeMoyne Site (AkzoNobel); and Escambia Operating Company--Big Escambia 
Creek Plant (Big Escambia), which are located approximately 36, 41, and 
8 km, respectively, from the Florida border. These sources are all 
located in Alabama. With respect to the modeling and other information 
submitted by Alabama under the DRR for these modeled Alabama sources, 
EPA previously stated that the Agency does not have sufficient 
information to determine 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.\25\ Accordingly, the Agency has further assessed 
AkzoNobel and Plant Barry in section III.C.2.b. of this action to 
determine whether there is evidence of a violation in Alabama with 
respect to interstate transport for the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ As discussed in footnote 8, EPA's redesignation of the 
Nassau Area was based, in part, on a modeled attainment 
demonstration that included permanent and enforceable SO2 
controls and emissions limits at the Rayonier and WestRock 
facilities showing attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 
standard.
    \25\ See EPA's initial and final technical support document 
(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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding Big Escambia, the Alabama Department of Environmental 
Management (ADEM) provided supplemental information to EPA in 
correspondence dated September 5, 2019, September 20, 2019, and 
September 25, 2019, December 2, 2019, and December 6, 2019 
(collectively, the ``Big Escambia Supplement'') to address interstate 
transport by evaluating potential SO2 ambient air impacts in 
the neighboring state of Florida.\26\ On December 31, 2019 (84 FR 
72278), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking containing an 
evaluation of this supplemental information \27\ and proposing to 
determine that ADEM's revised modeling for Big Escambia can be used for 
evaluating interstate transport of SO2 emissions from this 
facility to locations in Florida. Big Escambia is located 8 km from the 
Florida border, 21 km northwest from Breitburn Operating, L.P 
(Breitburn), the nearest SO2 source in Florida. Breitburn is 
located less than 5 km from the Florida-Alabama border. Florida's 
submittal indicates that Breitburn's 2017 SO2 emissions are 
1,491 tons. Due to its proximity to Big Escambia, Alabama's modeling 
analysis includes Breitburn as a modeled nearby source using its 
permitted allowable emissions of 2,181 pounds per hour (9,553 tpy). 
This modeling indicates that the maximum impacts do not exceed the

[[Page 7486]]

level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA believes that the 
modeling provides a conservative estimate of Breitburn's SO2 
impacts at locations in Alabama near the Florida-Alabama border, 
because the Big Escambia modeling used allowable emissions of 
SO2 for Breitburn, which are approximately 6.4 times 
Breitburn's actual SO2 emissions for 2017 (9,533 tons/1,491 
tons = 6.4). Breitburn's 2014-2018 SO2 emissions contained 
in EPA's Emissions Inventory System (EIS) are shown in Table 3 below. 
SO2 emissions have remained fairly constant from 2014-2018, 
with the 2018 emissions representing the lowest emissions over that 
time period. Breitburn's 2014-2018 emissions profile demonstrates that 
Breitburn has consistently operated well below its permitted allowable 
emission rate. Thus, Breitburn's actual contribution to SO2 
concentrations in Alabama would likely be much less than the predicted 
concentrations in the Big Escambia modeling. Based upon this 
information, EPA proposes to find that SO2 emissions from 
Breitburn will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in 
Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Big Escambia Supplement is available in Docket ID: EPA-
R04-OAR-2018-0792.
    \27\ EPA prepared a TSD--titled ``Technical Support Document 
(TSD) Addressing Big Escambia Data Requirements Rule (DRR) Modeling 
for the Purpose of Evaluating Interstate Transport''--analyzing the 
sufficiency of the model for use in evaluating interstate transport 
from Big Escambia. The TSD is located in the docket for that 
proposed rulemaking at Docket ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0792.

                                                   Table 3--Breitburn SO2 Emissions Trends (2014-2018)
                                                                         [Tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Source                                      2014             2015             2016             2017             2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breitburn..........................................................           1,327            1,454            1,461            1,491          * 1,242
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data submitted to EIS by FDEP.

    EPA believes that the modeling results for the DRR sources located 
in Florida (summarized in Table 2) and available information for the 
areas surrounding the DRR sources in Alabama within 50 km of the 
Florida border do not indicate there are violations of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in Alabama to which Florida sources could 
contribute, based partially on the updated modeling completed by 
Alabama which addresses the Breitburn facility, weighed along with the 
other factors in this notice, support EPA's proposed conclusion that 
sources in Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment 
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
2. SO2 Emissions Analysis
a. State Submission
    As discussed in section III.B, Florida's SIP revision presents 
SO2 emissions from EPA's 2014 NEI by source category and 
statewide SO2 emission trends for stationary industrial, on-
road, nonroad, and nonpoint sources from 2000 to 2017. The State notes 
that SO2 emissions from stationary, on-road, nonroad, and 
nonpoint sources have decreased by 90, 95, 99, and 61 percent, 
respectively, since 2000. FDEP states that the largest source 
categories of SO2 emissions in Florida according to the 2014 
NEI are chemical and allied product manufacturing and fuel combustion 
at electric utilities and industrial facilities. SO2 
emissions from industrial sources have decreased by 90 percent since 
the year 2000 due to unit shut downs, fuel switches from higher sulfur-
emitting fuels to lower sulfur-emitting fuels, and SO2 
reductions due to sources' compliance with EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics 
Standards (MATS). FDEP anticipates that emissions are expected to 
decrease further in the coming years due to additional emission unit 
shutdowns and fuel switches.
    In addition, FDEP included 2014 and 2017 emissions for Florida's 
four DRR sources within 50 km of the State's border (discussed in 
section III.C.1 and listed in Table 2). From 2014 to 2017, total annual 
SO2 emissions from these four sources have decreased by 
22,021 tons (74 percent) from 29,762 tons to 7,741 tons.
b. EPA Analysis
    EPA reviewed the SO2 emissions data from 1990 to 2017 
for Florida and the adjacent states of Alabama and Georgia. EPA notes 
that statewide SO2 emissions for these states, including 
Florida, have decreased significantly over this time period. This data 
specifically shows that Florida's statewide SO2 emissions 
decreased from approximately 799,150 tons in 1990 to 100,850 tons in 
2017.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ State annual emissions trends for criteria pollutants of 14 
emission source categories (``Tier 1'') from 1990 to 2017 are 
available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
Florida 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 Florida within 50 km from the border. 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 4 lists the 
four sources in Florida not regulated under the DRR that emitted 
greater than 100 tpy of SO2 in 2017 and are located within 
50 km of the State's border (i.e., Anchor Glass Container Corporation 
(Anchor), Breitburn, IFF Chemical Holdings, Inc. (IFF), and Symrise).

                               Table 4--Florida Non-DRR SO2 Sources Emitting Greater Than 100 TPY Near Neighboring States
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Approximate
                                             2017 Annual     Approximate                                       distance to    Nearest neighboring state
                                            SO2 emissions    distance to                                         nearest      non-DRR SO2  source & 2017
              Florida source                   (tons)      Florida border      Closest neighboring state       neighboring    emissions  (>100 tons SO2)
                                                                (km)                                            state SO2
                                                                                                               source (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anchor...................................           117.1              26  Georgia.........................              92  Brunswick Cellulose LLC
                                                                                                                              (281.4 tons).
Breitburn................................           1,491              <5  Alabama.........................              16  Georgia-Pacific Brewton LLC
                                                                                                                              (103 tons).
IFF......................................           494.1              27  Georgia.........................              91  Brunswick Cellulose LLC
                                                                                                                              (281.4 tons).

[[Page 7487]]

 
Symrise..................................           824.9              38  Georgia.........................              81  Brunswick Cellulose LLC
                                                                                                                              (281.4 tons).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the monitoring and modeling data available to EPA does 
not suggest that Alabama and Florida are impacted by SO2 
emissions from the four Florida sources not subject to the DRR listed 
in Table 4. Of these four Florida sources, Anchor, IFF, and Symrise 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 these three Florida sources could interact with 
SO2 emissions from these out-of-state sources in such a way 
as to contribute significantly to nonattainment in Alabama and Georgia.
    The remaining source, Breitburn, is located at or less than 50 km 
from the nearest source in Alabama (Georgia-Pacific Brewton LLC) which 
emits greater than 100 tons of SO2. EPA's evaluation of 
potential SO2 impacts from Breitburn on Alabama is discussed 
in Section III.C.1.b of this notice. Based upon the analysis of the 
modeling for Alabama's Big Escambia in Section III.C.1.b, EPA believes 
that emissions from Breitburn are not contributing significantly to 
nonattainment in Alabama.
    In addition, EPA evaluated the 2017 SO2 emissions data 
for AkzoNobel and Plant Barry, two of the DRR sources in Alabama 
located within 50 km of the Florida border for which EPA could not rely 
on existing DRR modeling. This was done to assess whether Florida 
sources may potentially be impacting the areas surrounding these 
Alabama sources under the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Table 5 
provides annual 2017 SO2 emissions data for AkzoNobel and 
Plant Barry, along with the distances to the closest neighboring 
state's non-DRR sources emitting over 100 tpy of SO2. Table 
6 shows the SO2 emissions trends for AkzoNobel and Plant 
Barry from 2012-2017 (and 2018 if data is available).

                                 Table 5--Alabama DRR SO2 Sources Emitting Greater Than 100 TPY 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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant Barry..............................           4,218              40  Mississippi.....................              74  Mississippi Power Company--
                                                                                                                              Plant Daniel (Plant
                                                                                                                              Daniel) (204 tons).
AkzoNobel................................           2,201              39  Mississippi.....................              71  Plant Daniel (204 tons).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                        Table 6--Alabama DRR SO2 Sources Emitting Greater Than 100 TPY Near Neighboring States--Emissions Trends
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Alabama source                    2012            2013            2014            2015            2016            2017            2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant Barry *...........................          10,731          13,448          10,690           8,688           5,421           4,218           5,257
AkzoNobel...............................           3,293           2,752           2,320           3,587           3,646           2,201          ** N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* SO2 emissions for Plant Barry are from EPA's Air Markets Program Data (AMPD) accessible at: https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
** 2018 SO2 emissions not available for AkzoNobel.

    Table 5 shows that the distances between each facility and the 
nearest state's source to each facility which emits over 100 tpy of 
SO2, exceed 50 km. The closest sources in another state to 
AkzoNobel and Plant Barry are located in Mississippi; therefore, there 
are no Florida sources within 50 km of AkzoNobel and Plant Barry which 
could interact with SO2 emissions from these Alabama sources 
in Table 4 in such a way as to contribute significantly to 
nonattainment in Alabama. Table 5 shows that SO2 emissions 
have declined from 2012 to 2017/2018 for these Alabama sources.
    EPA also considered whether any changes in controls or operations 
had occurred at AkzoNobel and Plant Barry. AkzoNobel entered into a 
consent decree with EPA which required more stringent emissions limits 
that have reduced SO2 emissions at the facility by 2,340 
tpy.\29\ Plant Barry has retired Unit 3, and Units 1 and 2 are 
restricted to burn only natural gas as of January 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 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.

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

[[Page 7488]]

    EPA also evaluated data from the Agency's Air Quality System (AQS) 
\30\ from the SO2 monitors in the surrounding areas of 
AkzoNobel 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. EPA believes that the SO2 emissions trends 
information in Florida's submission, the Agency's analysis of the 
sources in Tables 4 and 5, and the SO2 emissions trends for 
AkzoNobel and Plant Barry in Table 6, support the Agency's conclusion 
that sources in Florida will not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in a nearby 
state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. SO2 Ambient Air Quality
a. State Submission
    In its September 18, 2018, SIP submission, FDEP included a table 
showing DV trends from 2007 to 2017 for Florida's 23 existing 
SO2 air quality monitors. All of Florida's SO2 
air quality monitors have 2015-2017 SO2 DVs below the level 
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. FDEP notes that the majority 
of these 2015-2017 DVs are ``well below'' the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS and that several monitors show ``significant 
decreases'' in their SO2 DVs over time.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Table 3 of Appendix 1 of Florida's September 18, 2018, 
SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDEP also identified recent maximum 1-hour SO2 
concentrations at the one monitor in Mobile County, Alabama, that is 
within 50 km of the Florida border and notes that these 
concentrations--30.1 ppb in 2016 and 23.9 ppb in 2017--are well below 
the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. FDEP also included 
the 2017 DV (5 ppb) for the next nearest SO2 monitor--
located in Georgia--and notes that this monitor's DV is seven percent 
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\32\ In addition, FDEP 
identified the closest SO2 nonattainment areas outside of 
Florida, with the nearest one located approximately 145 km away in St. 
Bernard Parish in New Orleans, Louisiana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ FDEP inadvertently identified the nearest monitor in 
Georgia--located in Savannah, Georgia, approximately 155 km from the 
State's border--as AQS ID 13-021-0012. EPA has confirmed that the 
monitor with this ID is located in Macon, Georgia, approximately 241 
km from the Florida border, and it has 2016, 2017, and 2018 DVs of 
9, 5, and 4 ppb, respectively. The monitor located in Savannah, 
Georgia, is AQS ID 13-051-1002, and it has 2016, 2017, and 2018 DVs 
of 52, 48, 45 ppb, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDEP notes that on August 5, 2013 (78 FR 47191), EPA designated an 
area in Nassau County, Florida, as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS based on ambient SO2 monitoring data in 
the area for the three-year period 2009-2011 (round 1 designations). In 
Florida's SIP submission, the State indicates that this is the only 
SO2 nonattainment area within 50 km of another state 
(approximately 4 km from the Georgia border). FDEP submitted a 
redesignation request and maintenance plan for the area on June 7, 
2018. EPA notes that, subsequent to the state's submission, the Agency 
approved Florida's request to redesignate the Nassau County area to 
attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and the 
accompanying SIP revision containing the maintenance plan for the area 
on April 24, 2019 (effective May 24, 2019). See 84 FR 17085.
b. EPA Analysis
    Since the time of development of Florida's SIP submission, DVs 
based on more recent certified monitoring data from monitors in EPA's 
AQS (``AQS monitors'') have become available for Florida and the 
surrounding states. The most recent certified 3-year DV period is 2016-
2018. EPA has summarized the DVs from 2012 to 2018 for AQS monitors in 
Florida within 50 km of another state in Table 7. The 2010 1-hour 
SO2 standard is violated at an ambient air quality 
monitoring site (or in the case of dispersion modeling, at an ambient 
air quality receptor location) when the 3-year average of the annual 
99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations 
exceeds 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with Appendix T of 40 CFR 
part 50.

                            Table 7--Trend in 1-Hour SO2 DVs (ppb) for AQS Monitors in Florida Within 50 km of Another State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                             Approximate
                                                                                                                                             distance to
             County                AQS site code   2010-2012    2011-2013    2012-2014    2013-2015    2014-2016    2015-2017    2016-2018      state
                                                                                                                                             border (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duval...........................     12-031-0032           16           17           17           16           16           16           18      39 (GA)
Duval...........................   * 12-031-0080           13           11           17           17           17           10        ** ND      37 (GA)
Duval...........................     12-031-0081           29           29           27           23           20           12           11      38 (GA)
Duval...........................   * 12-031-0097           18           21           21           23           18           14        ** ND      43 (GA)
Escambia........................     12-033-0004           27           22           25           24           16            8            6      20 (AL)
Hamilton........................     12-047-0015           23           25        ** ND        ** ND        ** ND        ** ND        ** ND      19 (GA)
Nassau..........................     12-089-0005          122           70           57           58           51           43           37       6 (GA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA approved the discontinuation of two SO2 monitors in Duval County (AQS IDs: 12-031-0080 and 12-031-0097) in 2018.
** ND indicates ``No Data'' due to monitor startup or shutdown (operated less than three years), data quality issues, or incomplete data.

    As shown in Table 7, the 2012-2018 DVs for six of the seven 
monitoring sites in Florida within 50 km of another state's border have 
remained below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, with 
the exception of the Nassau County monitor which had a 122 ppb DV for 
the 2010-2012 period. The DVs at the Nassau County monitor have 
declined over the 2013 through 2018 DV time periods, and these DVs are 
all below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The 
Hamilton County monitor has 2012 and 2013 DVs of 23 and 25 ppb, 
respectively, and incomplete data for the remaining DV time periods 
(2014-2018). The Hamilton County monitor has not measured a daily 
exceedance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS since 2013.
    There is one AQS monitor in Alabama (Mobile County) which is 
located within 50 km of the Florida border. This monitor is 
approximately 45 km from Florida and 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 Mobile County monitor has measured no daily 
exceedances of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS during its years of 
operation.
    EPA also evaluated monitoring data provided to date for AQS 
monitors located in states adjacent to Florida and neighboring states 
within 50 km of the State's border that were established to 
characterize the air quality around

[[Page 7489]]

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. No sources in Florida elected to establish monitors under 
the DRR and there are no DRR monitors within 50 km of the Florida 
border located in the adjacent states of Alabama and Georgia.
    EPA believes that the air quality data for monitors within 50 km of 
the Florida border within the State and in surrounding states support 
EPA's proposed conclusion that Florida will not contribute 
significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 
in any other state.
4. SIP-Approved Regulations Addressing SO2 Emissions
a. State Submission
    In its September 18, 2018, SIP submission, Florida identified SIP-
approved measures which help ensure that SO2 emissions in 
the State do not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. FDEP indicates that 
many of the current SIP-approved rules are adopted under the authority 
of subsection 403.061(35), Florida Statutes. FDEP lists the following 
SIP-approved Florida rule chapters of the Florida Administrative Code 
(F.A.C.) which establish emission limits and other control measures for 
SO2: Chapter 62-210, F.A.C., Stationary Sources--General 
Requirements; Chapter 62-212, F.A.C., Stationary Sources--
Preconstruction Review; and Chapter 62-296, F.A.C., Stationary 
Sources--Emission Standards. Chapter 62-210, F.A.C establishes 
definitions and the general requirements for major and minor stationary 
sources of air pollutant emissions. Chapter 62-212, F.A.C. establishes 
the preconstruction review requirements for proposed new emissions 
units, new facilities, and modifications to existing units and 
facilities. Chapter 62-296, F.A.C. establishes emission limiting 
standards and compliance requirements for stationary sources of air 
pollutant emissions, including SIP emission limits that restrict 
SO2 emissions from various source categories (e.g., EGUs 
(Rule 62-296.405, F.A.C.) and sulfuric acid plants (Rule 62-296.402, 
F.A.C.)) and source-specific SO2 emission limits that form 
the basis of Florida's SO2 nonattainment area SIPs.
b. EPA Analysis
    As part of EPA's weight of evidence approach to evaluating 2010 
SO2 transport SIPs, EPA considered Florida's SIP-approved 
measures summarized in III.C.4.a. of this notice, which establish 
emission limits, permitting requirements, and other control measures 
for SO2. For the purposes of ensuring that SO2 
emissions at new major sources or major modifications at existing major 
sources in Florida do not contribute significantly to nonattainment of 
the NAAQS, the State has a SIP-approved major source new source review 
(NSR) program. Chapters 62-210 and 62-212, F.A.C. collectively regulate 
the construction of any new major stationary source or any modification 
at an existing major stationary source in an area designated as 
nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable. The State's SIP-approved 
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regulations are found in 
Chapters 62-210, F.A.C., Stationary Sources--General Requirements, and 
62-212, F.A.C., Stationary Sources--Preconstruction Review, F.A.C., 
which apply to the construction of any new major stationary source or 
major modification at an existing major stationary source in an area 
designated as attainment or unclassifiable or not yet designated. 
Florida's SIP-approved rules, 62-210.300, F.A.C., and 62-212.300, 
F.A.C., collectively govern the preconstruction permitting of 
modifications to and construction of minor stationary sources. These 
major and minor NSR rules are designed to ensure that SO2 
emissions due to major modifications at existing major stationary 
sources, modifications at minor stationary sources, and the 
construction of new major and minor sources subject to these rules will 
not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states.
5. Federal Regulations Addressing SO2 Emissions in Florida
a. State Submission
    FDEP notes that MATS has helped to reduce SO2 emissions 
from industrial sources as discussed in section III.C.2.a of this 
notice.
b. EPA Analysis
    EPA agrees that MATS is a federal control measure which has helped 
to reduce SO2 emissions in Florida, along with other federal 
regulatory programs such as: 2007 Heavy-Duty Highway Rule; Acid Rain 
Program; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; New 
Source Performance Standards; Nonroad Diesel Rule; and Tier 1 and 2 
Mobile Source Rules. EPA believes that MATS, along with the other 
federal measures EPA identified, have and continue to lower 
SO2 emissions, which, in turn, supports EPA's proposed 
conclusion that SO2 emissions from Florida will not 
contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in another state.
6. Conclusion
    EPA proposes to determine that Florida's September 18, 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: DVs for six of Florida's seven AQS 
SO2 monitors within 50 km of another state's border have 
remained below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS since 2013 and six 
of these monitors have had DVs well below the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS since 2011 (the seventh monitor in Hamilton 
County, Florida, has no data to calculate DVs for the 2012-2014 through 
the 2016-2018 time periods); the 2018 99th percentile 1-hour 
SO2 concentrations for Alabama's Mobile County monitor 
within 50 km of Florida's border is well below the level of the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS for the 2016-2018 time period; modeling for 
the DRR sources within 50 km of the Florida border both within the 
State and in Alabama estimates impacts below the level of the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS; downward SO2 emissions trends in 
Florida; SO2 emissions from Florida sources not subject to 
the DRR which each emitted over 100 tons of SO2 in 2017 are 
not likely interacting with SO2 emissions from the nearest 
out-of-state source in a bordering state in such a way as to cause a 
violation in Alabama and Georgia due to either distances over 50 km 
between the sources or, in the case of Breitburn, modeling which 
includes this source at much higher permitted emissions shows impacts 
below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; and current 
Florida SIP-approved measures and federal emissions control programs 
ensure control of SO2 emissions from sources within Florida.
    Based on the analysis provided by Florida in its SIP submission and 
EPA's analysis of the factors described in section III.C, EPA proposes 
to find that sources within Florida 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

[[Page 7490]]

with maintenance of a NAAQS in another state.
1. State Submission
    In its September 18, 2018, SIP submission, FDEP confirms that 
Florida will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 standard in any other state. FDEP bases its conclusion 
for prong 2 on: The localized nature of SO2 dispersion, 
emissions, and monitoring data presented in the submission and 
discussed in sections III.C.2.a and III.C.3.a of this notice, and DRR 
modeling for large SO2 sources within 50 km of the State 
border which shows the areas around these sources are not exceeding the 
level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. As discussed in sections 
III.C.4 and III.C.5, FDEP has SIP-approved measures which address 
sources of SO2 emissions in Florida and there are also 
federal measures that control SO2 emissions in the State. 
Specifically, FDEP notes that SIP-approved sections of Chapters 62-210 
and 62-212, F.A.C., require any new major source or major modification 
to undergo PSD or nonattainment NSR permitting to demonstrate that the 
source will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS in 
Florida or any other state. FDEP also states that Florida's SIP 
contains other emission limiting standards such as Chapter 62-296, 
F.A.C., which includes SIP emissions limits that restrict 
SO2 emissions from various source categories.
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 Florida, 
EPA has also reviewed additional information on SO2 air 
quality and emission trends to evaluate the State's conclusion that 
Florida 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 Florida, 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 SO2 emissions from sources within 
Florida, and the fact that all areas in other states within 50 km of 
the Florida border which have existing monitors 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 Florida do not 
interfere with its neighboring states' ability to maintain the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS.
    With respect to air quality data trends, the 2016-2018 DVs for AQS 
SO2 monitors both in Florida within 50 km of another state's 
border and in Alabama within 50 km of Florida's border are below the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Further, modeling results for DRR 
sources within 50 km of Florida's border within the State demonstrate 
attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and thus, 
demonstrate that Florida's largest point sources of SO2 are 
not expected to interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in another state.
    EPA believes that federal and SIP-approved State regulations 
discussed in sections III.C.4 and III.C.5 that both directly and 
indirectly reduce emissions of SO2 in Florida 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 Florida's SIP-approved major 
NSR regulations described in section III.C.4. In addition, Florida has 
a SIP-approved minor NSR permit program addressing small emission 
sources of SO2. The permitting regulations contained within 
these programs are designed to ensure that emissions from these 
activities do not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in the State or in any other state.
3. Conclusion
    EPA proposes to determine that Florida's September 18, 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: SO2 emissions statewide from 2000 to 2017 in 
Florida have declined significantly; SO2 emissions from 
Florida's non-DRR sources emitting greater than 100 tpy in 2017 listed 
in Table 4 of this notice are not likely interacting with 
SO2 emissions from the nearest out-of-state source in a 
bordering state in such a way as to interfere with maintenance of the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Alabama and Georgia due to either 
distances over 50 km between the sources or, in the case of Breitburn 
modeling which includes this source at much higher permitted emissions 
shows impacts below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; 
current Florida SIP-approved measures and federal emissions control 
programs ensure control of SO2 emissions from sources within 
Florida; Florida's SIP-approved PSD and minor source NSR permit 
programs will address future large and small SO2 sources; 
current DVs for AQS SO2 monitors both in Florida within 50 
km of another state's border and in Alabama within 50 km of Florida's 
border are below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; and 
modeling for DRR sources within 50 km of Florida's border both within 
the State and in Alabama demonstrate that Florida's largest point 
sources of SO2 are not expected to interfere with 
maintenance of current attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS in another state. Based on the analysis provided by Florida in 
its SIP submission and EPA's supplemental analysis of the factors 
described in section III.C and III.D of this notice, EPA proposes to 
find that emission sources within Florida 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 
Florida's September 18, 2018, SIP submission as demonstrating that 
emissions from Florida 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

[[Page 7491]]

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 
3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does 
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: January 30, 2020.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2020-02502 Filed 2-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

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