Air Plan Approval; Florida; 2010 1-Hour SO2, 25295-25301 [2020-08501]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 85 / Friday, May 1, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing this action
and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by June 30, 2020.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: April 14, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
1. The authority citation for Part 52
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraphs (c)(156)(vii)(C),
(c)(191)(i)(C)(2), (c)(198)(i)(E)(3),
(c)(518)(i)(A)(3), (4), and (5) to read as
follows:
■
*
Identification of plan-in part.
*
*
(c) * * *
(156) * * *
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
*
08:05 May 01, 2020
[Amended]
3. Section 52.248 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraphs
(d)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii).
[FR Doc. 2020–08290 Filed 4–30–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
■
§ 52.220
§ 52.248
■
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
(vii) * * *
(C) Previously approved on January
15, 1987 in paragraph (c)(156)(vii)(A) of
this section, and now deleted with
replacement in the Mojave Desert Air
Quality Management District in
paragraph (c)(518)(i)(A)(5), Rule 463.
*
*
*
*
*
(191) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(2) Previously approved on May 3,
1995 in paragraph (c)(191)(i)(C)(1) of
this section, and now deleted with
replacement in the Mojave Desert Air
Quality Management District in
paragraph (c)(518)(i)(A)(5), Rule 463.
*
*
*
*
*
(198) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) * * *
(3) Previously approved on May 3,
1995 in paragraph (c)(198)(i)(E)(1) of
this section, and now deleted with
replacement in paragraphs
(c)(518)(i)(A)(3) and (4), respectively,
Rules 461 and 462.
*
*
*
*
*
(518) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(3) Rule 461, ‘‘Gasoline Transfer and
Dispensing,’’ amended on January 22,
2018.
(4) Rule 462, ‘‘Organic Liquid
Loading,’’ amended on January 22,
2018.
(5) Rule 463, ‘‘Storage of Organic
Liquids,’’ amended on January 22, 2018.
*
*
*
*
*
Jkt 250001
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2019–0008; FRL–10007–
99P—Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Florida; 2010 1-Hour
SO2 NAAQS Transport Infrastructure
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving Florida’s
September 18, 2018, State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission
pertaining to the ‘‘good neighbor’’
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
25295
provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). The good neighbor
provision requires each state’s
implementation plan to address the
interstate transport of air pollution in
amounts that contribute significantly to
nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other
state. In this action, EPA has determined
that 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 approving the
September 18, 2018, SIP revision as
meeting the requirements of the good
neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
DATES: This rule will be effective June
1, 2020.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR–
2019–0008. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information may not be publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Regulatory Management Section,
Air Planning and Implementation
Branch, Air and Radiation Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
Ms. Notarianni can be reached via
phone number (404) 562–9031 or via
electronic mail at notarianni.michele@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a
revised primary SO2 NAAQS with a
E:\FR\FM\01MYR1.SGM
01MYR1
25296
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 85 / Friday, May 1, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based
on a 3-year average of the annual 99th
percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June
22, 2010). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1)
of the CAA, states are required to submit
SIPs meeting the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(2) within
three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS or within such
shorter period as EPA may prescribe.
These SIPs, which EPA has historically
referred to as ‘‘infrastructure SIPs,’’ are
to provide for the ‘‘implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement’’ of such
NAAQS, and the requirements are
designed to ensure that the structural
components of each state’s air quality
management program are adequate to
meet the state’s responsibility under the
CAA. Section 110(a) of the CAA
requires states to make a SIP submission
to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but
the contents of individual state
submissions may vary depending upon
the facts and circumstances. The
content of the changes in such SIP
submissions may also vary depending
upon what provisions the state’s
approved SIP already contains. Section
110(a)(2) requires states to address basic
SIP elements such as requirements for
monitoring, basic program
requirements, and legal authority that
are designed to assure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA
requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of
emissions activity in one state from
emitting any air pollutant in amounts
that will contribute significantly to
nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another
state. The two clauses of this section are
referred to as prong 1 (significant
contribution to nonattainment) and
prong 2 (interference with maintenance
of the NAAQS).
On 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. EPA is
approving FDEP’s September 18, 2018,
SIP submission because 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 are
addressed in separate rulemakings.1
1 EPA acted on the other elements of Florida’s
June 3, 2013, infrastructure SIP submission, as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
08:05 May 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
In a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) published on February 10, 2020
(85 FR 7480), EPA proposed to approve
Florida’s September 18, 2018, SIP
revision for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS (‘‘Florida NPRM’’). The details
of the SIP revision and the rationale for
EPA’s action is explained in the Florida
NPRM. Comments on the proposed
rulemaking were due on or before
March 11, 2020.
II. Response to Comments
EPA received five sets of adverse
comments from anonymous commenters
(collectively referred to as the
‘‘Commenter’’). These comments are
included in the docket for this final
action. EPA has summarized the
comments and provided responses
below.
Comment 1: The Commenter states
that EPA has not demonstrated that
Florida will not contribute significantly
to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in any other state. The
Commenter claims this is ‘‘best
evidenced’’ in Escambia County,
Alabama, which borders the Florida
panhandle counties of Escambia 2 and
Santa Rosa. As summarized below, the
Commenter raises specific concerns
regarding several aspects of EPA’s
analysis of Florida’s SIP revision as it
relates to interstate transport of SO2
emissions into Alabama.
Comment 1.a: The Commenter quotes
the following statement from the Florida
NPRM: ‘‘Regarding three out-of-state
DRR 3 sources within 50 km 4 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.’’ The
Commenter then asserts that the
opposite is also true—that the available
information does not indicate that there
are no violations of the NAAQS.
Comment 1.b: The Commenter notes
that Escambia County is currently
designated unclassifiable for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS and claims that EPA
has not provided information to change
this designation, and therefore should
not approve the September 18, 2018,
Florida SIP submission because the
supplemented on January 8, 2014, for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS on September 30, 2016 (81 FR
67179).
2 All subsequent references to ‘‘Escambia County’’
in this notice are to Escambia County, Alabama.
3 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).
4 The Commenter’s use of ‘‘km’’ in this instance
refers to kilometers (km).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
State may be contributing to a NAAQS
violation in that county. The
Commenter states that the absence of
evidence of a violation does not mean
that there is no violation of the NAAQS,
which is why EPA designated the
county as unclassifiable, and that the
SIP revision should not be approved
until EPA or Florida demonstrates that
there is no violation. The Commenter
then asserts that without evidence that
there is not a NAAQS violation in
Escambia County, EPA cannot say that
Florida is not contributing to a
downwind NAAQS violation or is not
interfering with maintenance in
Escambia County and further asserts
that EPA cannot approve Florida’s SIP
revision until the ‘‘NAAQS status’’ of
that county is resolved.
Comment 1.c: The Commenter notes
that, contrary to EPA’s statement in the
notice, Table 5 in the Florida NPRM
does not show a decline in SO2
emissions from 2012 to 2017/2018 for
the Alabama sources listed therein. The
Commenter points out that if the
reference is to Table 6, there is a
decrease in emissions relative to 2012
and an increase in emissions relative to
2017. The Commenter states that EPA
should explain why there is an upward
trend and include 2019 emissions to be
more complete.
Comment 1.d: The Commenter
references ‘‘similar concerns’’ that it
raised regarding EPA’s December 31,
2019, NPRM (84 FR 72278) (‘‘Alabama
NPRM’’) proposing to approve
Alabama’s good neighbor SIP revision
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and
asks that EPA consider those comments
in evaluating the Florida NPRM.5 The
Commenter then broadly restates some
of these comments as summarized
below.6
The Commenter refers to its
comments on the Alabama NPRM
regarding the unmodeled flare
emissions at the Escambia Operating
Company—Big Escambia Creek Plant
(Big Escambia) facility in Alabama.7
With respect to the Florida SIP
submission, the Commenter urges EPA
or the state to correct the modeling for
5 The docket for EPA’s action on Alabama’s
August 20, 2018, SIP submission is located at
www.regulations.gov with Docket ID: EPA–R04–
OAR–2018–0792.
6 On March 10, 2020 (85 FR 13755), EPA
responded to adverse comments received and
finalized approval of Alabama’s August 20, 2018,
SIP submission.
7 Regarding Big Escambia, the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management (ADEM)
provided supplemental information in September
and December of 2019 to address the issues with
the original modeling for this source performed
under the DRR for the purposes of evaluating
interstate transport of SO2 from Alabama into
Florida.
E:\FR\FM\01MYR1.SGM
01MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 85 / Friday, May 1, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Big Escambia to account for missing
emissions from a flare at the facility.
The Commenter also refers to its
comments on the Alabama NPRM
regarding the need for additional
modeling receptors in the unmodeled
area in Florida between a Florida
source, Breitburn Operating, L.P.
(Breitburn), and Big Escambia.8 With
respect to the Florida NPRM, the
Commenter urges EPA or the state to
include more receptors in the modeling
for Big Escambia and references
Breitburn in its discussion noting that
EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s
SIP revision but does not have evidence
that there is not a NAAQS violation in
Escambia County.
Comment 1.e: The Commenter
believes that, in the absence of air
quality monitors, the best way to assess
air quality is through modeling. The
Commenter predicts that EPA will not
model in response to the comments but
will offer some rationale for why
omitting the flare emissions at Big
Escambia and leaving a gap in the
receptor grid between Breitburn and Big
Escambia are a sufficient and
conservative substitute for modeling.
The Commenter conducted simple
modeling runs via AERSCREEN 9 and
claims that the results show that SO2
emissions are being transported across
state lines from Alabama into Florida
and Florida into Alabama based on
simulations from Big Escambia and
Breitburn. The Commenter
acknowledges that AERSCREEN is a
‘‘simple screening model’’ which is ‘‘not
capable or sophisticated enough to
unequivocally answer the question of
whether there are NAAQS violations
around Breitburn (particularly in the
unmodeled receptor gap) in Florida, or
at the unclassifiable receptors in
Escambia County, Alabama, or whether
8 EPA notes that Big Escambia is located 8 km
from the Florida border and 21 km northwest from
Breitburn, the nearest SO2 source in Florida.
Breitburn is located less than 5 km from the
Alabama-Florida border.
9 AERSCREEN is EPA’s recommended screening
model based on AERMOD, a steady-state plume
model that incorporates air dispersion based on
planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and
scaling concepts, including treatment of both
surface and elevated sources, and both simple and
complex terrain. AERSCREEN will produce
estimates of ‘‘worst-case’’ 1-hour concentrations for
a single source, without the need for hourly
meteorological data, and also includes conversion
factors to estimate ‘‘worst-case’’ 3-hour, 8-hour, 24hour, and annual concentrations. AERSCREEN is
intended to produce concentration estimates that
are equal to or greater than the estimates produced
by AERMOD with a fully developed set of
meteorological and terrain data, but the degree of
conservatism will vary depending on the
application. EPA recommends AERSCREEN and
AERMOD for certain applications. See https://
www.epa.gov/scram/air-quality-dispersionmodeling-screening-models.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
08:05 May 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
the prong 1 and prong 2 requirements of
both Alabama and Florida have been
satisfied.’’ The Commenter explains that
it did not submit the modeling results
due to only being able to estimate the
hourly emissions and release
characteristics of the flare at Big
Escambia, which the Commenter
believes EPA would use to discredit the
results as invalid. The Commenter asks
why EPA does not ‘‘run the modeling
properly instead of making
unsubstantiated technical assumptions
that run counter to why modeling is
used in the first place?’’ The Commenter
notes that EPA could provide
AERSCREEN runs to supplement the
Agency’s weight of evidence (WOE) and
to evaluate the potential for transport
issues ‘‘rather than speculating on what
the concentrations might look like in the
absence of adequate modeling.’’
Response 1: EPA disagrees with the
Commenter’s claim that EPA has not
demonstrated that Florida will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in any other state. EPA
continues to believe that the WOE
approach applied in the NPRM provides
a sufficient technical justification for
approving Florida’s transport SIP. EPA’s
WOE analysis evaluated the following
factors: (1) Potential ambient air quality
impacts of SO2 emissions from certain
facilities in Florida on neighboring
states based on available 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. EPA’s
response to the Commenter’s specific
concerns are outlined below.
Response 1.a: EPA disagrees with the
Commenter’s statement that the
available information ‘‘does not indicate
that there are no violations of the
NAAQS.’’ EPA’s statement regarding the
three out-of-state DRR sources within 50
km of Florida (Akzo Nobel Functional
Chemicals—LeMoyne Site (AkzoNobel);
Alabama Power Company—James M.
Barry Electric Generating Plant (Plant
Barry); and Big Escambia) cited by the
Commenter, and EPA’s determination
that Florida will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state, is
based on EPA’s WOE analysis of
Florida’s SIP revision.
EPA’s WOE evaluation described in
Response 1 includes the information
summarized in Sections III.C.1.b (Big
Escambia) and III.C.2.b (Plant Barry and
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
25297
AkzoNobel) of the Florida NPRM.
Although Plant Barry and AkzoNobel
are not located in Escambia County,
Alabama, EPA addresses these facilities
in this response.
Regarding AkzoNobel and Plant
Barry, these sources are both located in
Mobile County, Alabama, approximately
41 km and 36 km from the Florida
border, respectively. For these sources,
EPA evaluated 2017 SO2 emissions data
along with the distances to the closest
neighboring state’s non-DRR sources
emitting over 100 tons per year (tpy) of
SO2. Table 5 in the Florida NPRM
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 distance
threshold Florida used to reflect the
transport properties of SO2.10 Further,
the closest sources in another state to
AkzoNobel and Plant Barry are located
in Mississippi. Due to the magnitude of
their SO2 emissions and the distance to
the facilities in Alabama, EPA believes
that there are no Florida sources which
emit SO2 within 50 km of AkzoNobel
and Plant Barry which could interact
with SO2 emissions from these Alabama
sources in such a way as to contribute
significantly to nonattainment in
Alabama. In addition, EPA evaluated
SO2 emissions trends for AkzoNobel
and Plant Barry in the Florida NPRM
and assessed more recent SO2 emissions
data that has become available for Plant
Barry for 2019. See Response 1.c. for
additional information on the emissions
data for these sources.
EPA also evaluated data from the
Agency’s Air Quality System (AQS) 11
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 design value
(DV) 12 for this monitor is 11 ppb. As
10 In the Florida NPRM, EPA concurred 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.
See 85 FR 7482 (February 10, 2020). The
Commenter did not raise concerns with this
determination.
11 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.
12 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
E:\FR\FM\01MYR1.SGM
Continued
01MYR1
25298
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 85 / Friday, May 1, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
stated in the Florida NPRM, EPA
believes that the information evaluated
for AkzoNobel and Plant Barry, as part
of the Agency’s WOE analysis, 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.
Regarding Big Escambia, which is
located approximately 8 km from the
Florida border, EPA considered the
supplemental information and modeling
results provided by ADEM.13 The
modeling included Breitburn, the
nearest SO2 source in Florida to Big
Escambia, which is located less than 5
km from the Alabama-Florida border. As
noted in the Florida NPRM and
Response 1.d, 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 included Breitburn as
a modeled nearby source using a
conservative maximum potential-toemit emissions rate of 2,181 pounds per
hour (lb/hr) (9,553 tpy).14 This modeling
indicates that the impact of SO2
emissions from Breitburn do not result
in Alabama’s air quality exceeding 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 Alabama-Florida border because the
Big Escambia modeling used allowable
emissions of SO2 for Breitburn, which
are approximately 6.4 times higher than
Breitburn’s actual annual SO2 emissions
for 2017 (1,491 tpy). In addition, as
shown in the Florida NPRM, Breitburn’s
2014–2018 emissions profile
demonstrates that Breitburn has
consistently operated well below its
permitted allowable emission rate.
Thus, EPA continues to believe that
Breitburn’s actual contribution to SO2
concentrations in Alabama would likely
be much less than the predicted
concentrations in the Big Escambia
modeling, which provides further
assurances that air quality in the portion
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.
13 See footnote 7.
14 Breitburn has two sulfur recovery units that
each have SO2 permit limits of approximately 1,000
lb/hr that were both included in the modeling
performed by Alabama. However, Brietburn
operates only one of the two sulfur recovery units
at any given time. Therefore, the maximum
allowable emissions rate in reality is approximately
half of the 2,181 lb/hr modeled by Alabama.
Additionally, based upon Breitburn’s actual
operations in 2017 and 2018, the maximum hourly
SO2 emissions rate during that time was
approximately 396 lb/hr, which is approximately
18% of the emissions rate included in Alabama’s
modeling.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
08:05 May 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
of Alabama covered in the modeling
grid would remain below the level of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
Response 1.b: EPA disagrees with the
Commenter. EPA’s determination that
Florida will not contribute significantly
to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in another state is not reliant on
Escambia County’s unclassifiable
designation. As stated in Response 1.a,
this determination is based on a WOE
analysis that includes information
regarding Florida SO2 emission sources
and surrounding states’ sources,
including sources in Escambia County,
Alabama. EPA continues to believe that
the WOE analysis provided in the
NPRM, which includes as one of several
factors the absence of any information
demonstrating a potential violation in
Alabama, is adequate to determine the
potential downwind impact from
Florida to neighboring states.
Response 1.c: EPA acknowledges that
the quoted sentence from the Florida
NPRM should have referenced Table 6
instead of Table 5. Table 6 provides
annual SO2 emissions for two Alabama
sources, AkzoNobel and Plant Barry, for
the years 2012–2017 (AkzoNobel) and
2012–2018 (Plant Barry).
Regarding the comment that there is
an increase in SO2 emissions relative to
2017, annual SO2 emissions increased at
Plant Barry from 4,218 tons in 2017 to
5,257 tons in 2018. SO2 emissions data
are now available from Plant Barry for
2019. The data show that SO2 emissions
from Plant Barry decreased by 1,762
tons from 2018 to 2019 (from 5,257 tons
in 2018 down to 3,495 tons in 2019).
Thus, the 2019 SO2 emissions data for
Plant Barry demonstrates there is not a
continued upward trend in emissions at
this facility as the commenter suggests.
Emissions of SO2 at AkzoNobel
increased relative to the year 2014
(2,320 tons) in 2015 (3,587 tons) and
2016 (3,646 tons) but decreased in 2017
(2,201 tons) to below 2014 levels.
Emissions data remain unavailable from
AkzoNobel for 2018 or 2019. The
decrease in emissions for AkzoNobel
reported in 2017 demonstrate that there
is not a continued upward trend in
emissions at this facility as the
Commenter suggests.
EPA believes that the data in Table 6
of the NPRM, as supplemented by the
2019 SO2 emissions data for Plant Barry
provided in this response, and the
changes in controls or operations at
these two sources described in the
NPRM, support the Agency’s conclusion
that sources in Florida will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in a nearby state.
Response 1.d: The Commenter’s broad
request that EPA consider all of its
comments on the Alabama NPRM in
this action on Florida’s SIP revision is
not a valid comment. Merely referring to
a comment presented elsewhere does
not provide EPA with sufficient
information to evaluate that comment in
the context of this action. Therefore,
EPA is only responding to the
comments from the Alabama NPRM that
are restated by the Commenter in the
context of the Florida NPRM.
The Commenter does not explain the
relevance of its comment on the
Alabama NPRM concerning flare
emissions from Big Escambia to the
transport of SO2 emissions from Florida
into Alabama. EPA’s evaluation of the
flare characteristics in the Alabama
NPRM and final rule relate specifically
to the transport of SO2 emissions from
Alabama into Florida, and thus, does
not directly relate to the evaluation of
Florida’s SIP revision regarding the
transport of SO2 emissions from Florida
into Alabama. Regarding the influence
of Big Escambia’s flare emissions on
Escambia County when impacts from
Florida are factored in, EPA has no
evidence to suggest that the emissions
from Breitburn in Florida, when
combined with the SO2 emissions at Big
Escambia, including the flare emissions,
will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in Alabama.
The Commenter does not explain the
relevance of its comment on the
Alabama NPRM concerning the receptor
grid to the transport of SO2 emissions
from Florida into Alabama. Regarding
the transport of SO2 emissions from
Florida into Alabama, EPA disagrees
with the Commenter’s assertion that the
receptor grid needs to be expanded to
include modeling receptors to cover the
unmodeled area between Breitburn 15
and Big Escambia before EPA can
approve Florida’s SIP submittal.
Modeling this area in Florida is not
relevant to whether Florida will
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in Alabama. Regarding an
assessment of Breitburn’s impacts in
Alabama, Alabama’s modeling analysis
includes Breitburn as a modeled source
due to its proximity to Big Escambia.
15 Breitburn is located 4 km due south of the
Alabama-Florida border but is located 21 km
Southeast of Big Escambia. Big Escambia is located
8 km due north of the Alabama-Florida border. The
Big Escambia modeling grid extends 15 km from Big
Escambia in all directions and approximately 7 km
into Florida in the direction due south of Big
Escambia.
E:\FR\FM\01MYR1.SGM
01MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 85 / Friday, May 1, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
This modeling indicates that the impact
of SO2 emissions from Breitburn do not
result in Alabama’s air quality
exceeding the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
EPA continues to believe that the
modeling provides a conservative
estimate of Breitburn’s SO2 impacts at
locations in Alabama 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). Also as noted in
the Florida NPRM, Breitburn’s 2014–
2018 emissions profile demonstrates
that Breitburn has consistently operated
well below its permitted allowable
emission rate. Thus, Breitburn’s actual
impact on SO2 concentrations in
Alabama would likely be much less
than the predicted concentrations in the
Big Escambia modeling.
EPA continues to believe that the
WOE analysis provided in the Florida
NPRM is adequate to determine the
potential downwind impact from
Florida to neighboring states and that
the inclusion of Breitburn (at its
allowable emission levels) indicates that
air quality at the Alabama-Florida
border is likely characterized
conservatively. Thus, EPA finds that
SO2 emissions from Breitburn will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in Alabama.
Response 1.e: Regarding the
Commenter’s suggestion that EPA
should rely on its own resources and
expertise to model whether or not
Florida sources significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in Escambia County,
Alabama, EPA does not believe that the
issues identified by the Commenter
related to the Big Escambia modeling
invalidate consideration of the modeling
for transport purposes as part of a WOE
analysis. EPA does not believe that
modeling is required in all cases under
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to
evaluate good neighbor obligations,
particularly where other available
information can be used to qualitatively
and quantitatively assess the potential
for downwind impacts from upwind
state emission sources. Here, EPA has
evaluated a number of different factors
in a WOE analysis based on available
information, which includes the
available modeling of Big Escambia, and
found no basis to conclude that Florida
emissions will have an adverse impact
on downwind states. Therefore, EPA has
concluded that Florida emissions will
not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
08:05 May 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
NAAQS in neighboring states.
Therefore, as stated in our response to
Comment 1.a, EPA continues to believe
that the WOE analysis provided in the
Florida NPRM is adequate to evaluate
the potential downwind impact from
Florida to neighboring states.
Regarding AERSCREEN, without the
modeling input and output data used
and produced by the Commenter, EPA
cannot evaluate the modeling results to
which the Commenter refers showing
that there is transport of SO2 from
Alabama into Florida and Florida into
Alabama. Further, as the Commenter
acknowledges, AERSCREEN has
limitations in terms of making any
definitive assessments. AERSCREEN is
intended to produce pollutant
concentration estimates that are
conservative, for screening purposes,
relative to refined modeling with
AERMOD. AERSCREEN conservatively
assumes that every receptor is located
along the plume centerline (area of
highest concentration across the plume)
and worst-case meteorological
conditions. Thus, the Commenter’s
unsupported assertions regarding the
results of its AERSCREEN runs do not
provide a basis for the EPA to
reconsider its WOE analysis of Florida’s
SIP revision.
As noted earlier, the available
information indicates that modeling and
emissions data provide a conservative
estimate of the predicted SO2 impacts in
Alabama that may be due to transport of
SO2 from Florida sources. EPA
continues to believe that the Agency’s
WOE analysis of Florida’s SIP revision,
as supplemented with additional data
discussed in the Florida NPRM,
provides a sufficient basis for the
Agency’s assessment as to whether
sources in Florida will contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in a nearby state.
Comment 2: The Commenter notes
that EPA consistently uses the words
‘‘will not’’ when discussing the
potential for significant contribution or
interference with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and asks why
EPA is not using the present tense when
evaluating the SIP submission from
Florida. The Commenter asks whether
EPA thinks a particular source is
currently contributing to nonattainment
or interfering with maintenance of
another state’s NAAQS, and if so,
asserts that EPA must redo its
evaluation for the present tense and
repropose.
Response 2: EPA disagrees with the
Commenter that the Agency must
repropose using the present tense. EPA’s
use of the phrase ‘‘will not’’ is
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
25299
consistent with the verb tense in the
good neighbor provision of the CAA,
which 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. See CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Accordingly,
EPA’s evaluation and conclusion are
consistent with the statutory standard in
the good neighbor provision. In the
NPRM, EPA evaluated data regarding
historic, current, and future source
activity and air quality to determine
whether emissions from Florida are
likely to be impacting downwind air
quality, either presently or in the future,
and are thus in violation of the good
neighbor provision. EPA’s WOE analysis
of this information did not find any
indication that such an impact was
likely occuring currently or would be
likely to occur in the future.
Accordingly, EPA concluded that
emissions from Florida will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in any other state.
Comment 3: The Commenter asserts
that EPA should disapprove Florida’s
SIP submission because the DRR
modeling EPA relies on inappropriate
receptor grids. Specifically, the
Commenter states that ‘‘one of those
geometries was not appropriate for
many regions in Florida, including the
Gulf of Mexico.’’ The Commenter claims
that the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
utilizes ‘‘this same SAU modeling’’ and
that EPA never requested or solicited
input from NOAA about how EPA might
improve its monitoring and forecasting
of SO2 emissions in Florida. In addition,
the Commenter believes that EPA
should also disapprove the SIP
submission ‘‘because the AER uses
‘worst case’ grid cells for SO2 emissions
measurements in Figure 3, which are
also the grid cells used by the EPA in
its AER standard.’’ The Commenter
states that EPA should ‘‘reassess the grid
cells used in the DRR modeling for a
more refined receptor grid in areas
beyond the state’s borders.’’
Response 3: It is unclear how the
comment relates to EPA’s proposal. As
the comment may broadly relate to the
DRR modeling referenced in sections
III.C.1.a and III.C.1.b of the Florida
NPRM and to the receptor grids used in
that modeling, EPA believes that the
modeling results support EPA’s WOE
determination as discussed in that
notice and in Response 1.d, above. EPA
E:\FR\FM\01MYR1.SGM
01MYR1
25300
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 85 / Friday, May 1, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
is unable to respond any further because
the Commenter did not explain, and the
Agency does not understand, the
meaning of the terms ‘‘geometries,’’
‘‘SAU modeling,’’ or ‘‘AER,’’ in this
context, and despite the Commenter’s
reference to ‘‘Figure 3,’’ the Florida
NPRM does not contain any figures.
Comment 4: The Commenter states
that EPA cannot approve the SIP
revision because it is inconsistent with
‘‘Florida’s Clean Air Act.’’ The
Commenter claims that EPA’s proposed
determination confirms that Florida
does not have a ‘‘meaningful permitting
process for the transportation of SO2’’
out of Florida, because the State has not
established a procedure for a ‘‘subject
air-quality permit application to be
transferred to the federal permit
authority.’’ The Commenter also claims
that the proposal is inconsistent with
Florida’s ‘‘administrative procedures for
approval of the transport of pollutants
that are of significant public health
concern.’’
Response 4: It is unclear how the
comment relates to EPA’s proposal. The
Commenter has not explained how
‘‘Florida’s Clean Air Act’’ and the
State’s administrative procedures are
relevant to this rulemaking or provided
any basis for its assertion that the State
must establish a procedure for a
‘‘subject air-quality permit application
to be transferred to the federal permit
authority’’ before EPA can approve the
SIP revision as meeting the
requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). To the extent that the
Commenter may be referring to EPA’s
discussion of Florida’s SIP-approved
permitting programs in section III.C.4 of
the Florida NPRM, EPA reiterates its
position that Florida’s major and minor
new source review 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 or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in neighboring states.
Comment 5: The Commenter claims
that EPA should disapprove Florida’s
SIP revision because it ‘‘will negatively
affect the provision of electricity to
residential customers in the region.’’
According to the Commenter, the ‘‘two
most active engines in SO2 production
are burned in utility equipment, and
that equipment now accounts for the
majority of production’’ and ‘‘EPA
argues that reversing the decision would
trigger an emergency rulemaking and
delay the inevitable phase-out of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
08:05 May 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
vehicles that emit emissions.’’ The
Commenter believes that it ‘‘would also
raise costs and delay purchases,
ultimately raising the cost of electricity,
which would result in higher electric
rates for consumers and businesses.’’
The Commenter also claims that EPA
should disapprove the SIP revision
because of the ‘‘large short-term costs of
complying with an additional facility
and business planning requirements and
because of the adverse effect of a lawsuit
on the SO2 manufacturers and the
health and welfare of the general
public.’’
Response 5: EPA disagrees that
approval of Florida’s SIP revision will
negatively affect the provision of
electricity to residential customers or
raise the cost of electricity. EPA’s action
does not create any new regulatory
requirements nor does it revise any
regulations or source-specific permits.
Therefore, it does not impact the electric
utility sector. Regarding the statements
concerning a lawsuit and the reversal of
an EPA decision that would trigger an
emergency rulemaking, EPA cannot
provide a substantive response because
it is unclear what decision and lawsuit
the Commenter is referencing or how
they relate to Florida’s good neighbor
SIP revision.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving 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.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. This action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
• 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.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
E:\FR\FM\01MYR1.SGM
01MYR1
25301
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 85 / Friday, May 1, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by June 30, 2020. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section
307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides.
Mary Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart K—Florida
2. Section 52.520(e) is amended by
adding a new entry for ‘‘110(a)(1) and
(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS’’ at the end of
the table to read as follows:
■
§ 52.520
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
EPA–APPROVED FLORIDA NON–REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Provision
State effective date
EPA approval date
FEDERAL REGISTER, notice
*
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements
for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS.
*
*
9/18/2018 ..........................
*
5/1/2020 ............................
*
*
[Insert citation of publication].
[FR Doc. 2020–08501 Filed 4–30–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2020–0039; FRL–10008–
22—Region 7]
Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Removal
of Control of Emissions From the
Application of Automotive Underbody
Deadeners
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
08:05 May 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
Will
Stone, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality
Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219;
telephone number (913) 551–7714;
email address stone.william@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
approve a revision to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Missouri on
December 3, 2018, and supplemented by
letter on May 22, 2019. Missouri
requests that the EPA remove a rule
related to control of emissions from the
application of automotive underbody
deadeners in the Kansas City, Missouri
area from its SIP. This removal does not
have an adverse effect on air quality.
The EPA’s approval of this rule revision
is in accordance with the requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This final rule is effective on
June 1, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
SUMMARY:
No. EPA–R07–OAR–2020–0039. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://
www.regulations.gov or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional information.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a
SIP revision been met?
III. The EPA’s Response to Comments
IV. What action is the EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Explanation
*
Addressing Prongs 1 and
2 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) only.
I. What is being addressed in this
document?
The EPA is approving the removal of
10 Code of State Regulations (CSR) 10–
2.310, Control of Emissions from the
Application of Automotive Underbody
Deadeners, from the Missouri SIP. As
explained in detail in the EPA’s
proposed rule, Missouri has
demonstrated that removal of 10 CSR
10–2.310 will not interfere with
attainment of the NAAQS, reasonable
further progress 1 or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA
because the single source subject to the
rule has permanently ceased operations
and removal of the rule will not cause
VOC emissions to increase. 85 FR 8230,
February 13, 2020. Therefore the EPA is
finalizing its proposal to remove 10 CSR
10–2.310 from the SIP.
II. Have the requirements for approval
of a SIP revision been met?
The State submission has met the
public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR
51.102. The submission also satisfied
the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part
51, appendix V. The State provided
public notice on this SIP revision from
February 28, 2018, to April 5, 2018 and
received five comments from the EPA
that related to Missouri’s lack of an
adequate demonstration that the rule
could be removed from the SIP in
1 Reasonable further progress is not applicable to
the Kansas City Area because the area is in
attainment of all applicable ozone standards.
E:\FR\FM\01MYR1.SGM
01MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 85 (Friday, May 1, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25295-25301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08501]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0008; FRL-10007-99P--Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Florida; 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
Transport Infrastructure
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
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 has
determined 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 approving
the September 18, 2018, SIP revision as meeting the requirements of the
good neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
DATES: This rule will be effective June 1, 2020.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0008. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be
reached via phone number (404) 562-9031 or via electronic mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a revised primary SO2
NAAQS with a
[[Page 25296]]
level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the
annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75
FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA,
states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements
of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. These
SIPs, which EPA has historically referred to as ``infrastructure
SIPs,'' are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement'' of such NAAQS, and the requirements are designed to
ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality
management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibility
under the CAA. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to make a SIP
submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of
individual state submissions may vary depending upon the facts and
circumstances. The content of the changes in such SIP submissions may
also vary depending upon what provisions the state's approved SIP
already contains. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic
SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program
requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires SIPs to include
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two clauses of this
section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to
nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance of the
NAAQS).
On 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. EPA is approving FDEP's September 18, 2018, SIP
submission because 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
are addressed in separate rulemakings.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on February 10,
2020 (85 FR 7480), EPA proposed to approve Florida's September 18,
2018, SIP revision for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS (``Florida
NPRM''). The details of the SIP revision and the rationale for EPA's
action is explained in the Florida NPRM. Comments on the proposed
rulemaking were due on or before March 11, 2020.
II. Response to Comments
EPA received five sets of adverse comments from anonymous
commenters (collectively referred to as the ``Commenter''). These
comments are included in the docket for this final action. EPA has
summarized the comments and provided responses below.
Comment 1: The Commenter states that EPA has not demonstrated that
Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state. The Commenter claims this is ``best evidenced'' in Escambia
County, Alabama, which borders the Florida panhandle counties of
Escambia \2\ and Santa Rosa. As summarized below, the Commenter raises
specific concerns regarding several aspects of EPA's analysis of
Florida's SIP revision as it relates to interstate transport of
SO2 emissions into Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ All subsequent references to ``Escambia County'' in this
notice are to Escambia County, Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 1.a: The Commenter quotes the following statement from the
Florida NPRM: ``Regarding three out-of-state DRR \3\ sources within 50
km \4\ 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.'' The Commenter then asserts that the
opposite is also true--that the available information does not indicate
that there are no violations of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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).
\4\ The Commenter's use of ``km'' in this instance refers to
kilometers (km).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 1.b: The Commenter notes that Escambia County is currently
designated unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and
claims that EPA has not provided information to change this
designation, and therefore should not approve the September 18, 2018,
Florida SIP submission because the State may be contributing to a NAAQS
violation in that county. The Commenter states that the absence of
evidence of a violation does not mean that there is no violation of the
NAAQS, which is why EPA designated the county as unclassifiable, and
that the SIP revision should not be approved until EPA or Florida
demonstrates that there is no violation. The Commenter then asserts
that without evidence that there is not a NAAQS violation in Escambia
County, EPA cannot say that Florida is not contributing to a downwind
NAAQS violation or is not interfering with maintenance in Escambia
County and further asserts that EPA cannot approve Florida's SIP
revision until the ``NAAQS status'' of that county is resolved.
Comment 1.c: The Commenter notes that, contrary to EPA's statement
in the notice, Table 5 in the Florida NPRM does not show a decline in
SO2 emissions from 2012 to 2017/2018 for the Alabama sources
listed therein. The Commenter points out that if the reference is to
Table 6, there is a decrease in emissions relative to 2012 and an
increase in emissions relative to 2017. The Commenter states that EPA
should explain why there is an upward trend and include 2019 emissions
to be more complete.
Comment 1.d: The Commenter references ``similar concerns'' that it
raised regarding EPA's December 31, 2019, NPRM (84 FR 72278) (``Alabama
NPRM'') proposing to approve Alabama's good neighbor SIP revision for
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and asks that EPA consider those
comments in evaluating the Florida NPRM.\5\ The Commenter then broadly
restates some of these comments as summarized below.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The docket for EPA's action on Alabama's August 20, 2018,
SIP submission is located at www.regulations.gov with Docket ID:
EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0792.
\6\ On March 10, 2020 (85 FR 13755), EPA responded to adverse
comments received and finalized approval of Alabama's August 20,
2018, SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commenter refers to its comments on the Alabama NPRM regarding
the unmodeled flare emissions at the Escambia Operating Company--Big
Escambia Creek Plant (Big Escambia) facility in Alabama.\7\ With
respect to the Florida SIP submission, the Commenter urges EPA or the
state to correct the modeling for
[[Page 25297]]
Big Escambia to account for missing emissions from a flare at the
facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Regarding Big Escambia, the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management (ADEM) provided supplemental information in
September and December of 2019 to address the issues with the
original modeling for this source performed under the DRR for the
purposes of evaluating interstate transport of SO2 from
Alabama into Florida.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commenter also refers to its comments on the Alabama NPRM
regarding the need for additional modeling receptors in the unmodeled
area in Florida between a Florida source, Breitburn Operating, L.P.
(Breitburn), and Big Escambia.\8\ With respect to the Florida NPRM, the
Commenter urges EPA or the state to include more receptors in the
modeling for Big Escambia and references Breitburn in its discussion
noting that EPA is proposing to approve Florida's SIP revision but does
not have evidence that there is not a NAAQS violation in Escambia
County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ EPA notes that Big Escambia is located 8 km from the Florida
border and 21 km northwest from Breitburn, the nearest
SO2 source in Florida. Breitburn is located less than 5
km from the Alabama-Florida border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 1.e: The Commenter believes that, in the absence of air
quality monitors, the best way to assess air quality is through
modeling. The Commenter predicts that EPA will not model in response to
the comments but will offer some rationale for why omitting the flare
emissions at Big Escambia and leaving a gap in the receptor grid
between Breitburn and Big Escambia are a sufficient and conservative
substitute for modeling. The Commenter conducted simple modeling runs
via AERSCREEN \9\ and claims that the results show that SO2
emissions are being transported across state lines from Alabama into
Florida and Florida into Alabama based on simulations from Big Escambia
and Breitburn. The Commenter acknowledges that AERSCREEN is a ``simple
screening model'' which is ``not capable or sophisticated enough to
unequivocally answer the question of whether there are NAAQS violations
around Breitburn (particularly in the unmodeled receptor gap) in
Florida, or at the unclassifiable receptors in Escambia County,
Alabama, or whether the prong 1 and prong 2 requirements of both
Alabama and Florida have been satisfied.'' The Commenter explains that
it did not submit the modeling results due to only being able to
estimate the hourly emissions and release characteristics of the flare
at Big Escambia, which the Commenter believes EPA would use to
discredit the results as invalid. The Commenter asks why EPA does not
``run the modeling properly instead of making unsubstantiated technical
assumptions that run counter to why modeling is used in the first
place?'' The Commenter notes that EPA could provide AERSCREEN runs to
supplement the Agency's weight of evidence (WOE) and to evaluate the
potential for transport issues ``rather than speculating on what the
concentrations might look like in the absence of adequate modeling.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ AERSCREEN is EPA's recommended screening model based on
AERMOD, a steady-state plume model that incorporates air dispersion
based on planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling
concepts, including treatment of both surface and elevated sources,
and both simple and complex terrain. AERSCREEN will produce
estimates of ``worst-case'' 1-hour concentrations for a single
source, without the need for hourly meteorological data, and also
includes conversion factors to estimate ``worst-case'' 3-hour, 8-
hour, 24-hour, and annual concentrations. AERSCREEN is intended to
produce concentration estimates that are equal to or greater than
the estimates produced by AERMOD with a fully developed set of
meteorological and terrain data, but the degree of conservatism will
vary depending on the application. EPA recommends AERSCREEN and
AERMOD for certain applications. See https://www.epa.gov/scram/air-quality-dispersion-modeling-screening-models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's claim that EPA has
not demonstrated that Florida will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in any other state. EPA continues to believe that
the WOE approach applied in the NPRM provides a sufficient technical
justification for approving Florida's transport SIP. EPA's WOE analysis
evaluated the following factors: (1) Potential ambient air quality
impacts of SO2 emissions from certain facilities in Florida
on neighboring states based on available 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. EPA's response to the Commenter's
specific concerns are outlined below.
Response 1.a: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's statement that the
available information ``does not indicate that there are no violations
of the NAAQS.'' EPA's statement regarding the three out-of-state DRR
sources within 50 km of Florida (Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals--
LeMoyne Site (AkzoNobel); Alabama Power Company--James M. Barry
Electric Generating Plant (Plant Barry); and Big Escambia) cited by the
Commenter, and EPA's determination that Florida will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state, is based on EPA's
WOE analysis of Florida's SIP revision.
EPA's WOE evaluation described in Response 1 includes the
information summarized in Sections III.C.1.b (Big Escambia) and
III.C.2.b (Plant Barry and AkzoNobel) of the Florida NPRM. Although
Plant Barry and AkzoNobel are not located in Escambia County, Alabama,
EPA addresses these facilities in this response.
Regarding AkzoNobel and Plant Barry, these sources are both located
in Mobile County, Alabama, approximately 41 km and 36 km from the
Florida border, respectively. For these sources, EPA evaluated 2017
SO2 emissions data along with the distances to the closest
neighboring state's non-DRR sources emitting over 100 tons per year
(tpy) of SO2. Table 5 in the Florida NPRM 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
distance threshold Florida used to reflect the transport properties of
SO2.\10\ Further, the closest sources in another state to
AkzoNobel and Plant Barry are located in Mississippi. Due to the
magnitude of their SO2 emissions and the distance to the
facilities in Alabama, EPA believes that there are no Florida sources
which emit SO2 within 50 km of AkzoNobel and Plant Barry
which could interact with SO2 emissions from these Alabama
sources in such a way as to contribute significantly to nonattainment
in Alabama. In addition, EPA evaluated SO2 emissions trends
for AkzoNobel and Plant Barry in the Florida NPRM and assessed more
recent SO2 emissions data that has become available for
Plant Barry for 2019. See Response 1.c. for additional information on
the emissions data for these sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In the Florida NPRM, EPA concurred 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. See
85 FR 7482 (February 10, 2020). The Commenter did not raise concerns
with this determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also evaluated data from the Agency's Air Quality System (AQS)
\11\ 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 design value (DV) \12\
for this monitor is 11 ppb. As
[[Page 25298]]
stated in the Florida NPRM, EPA believes that the information evaluated
for AkzoNobel and Plant Barry, as part of the Agency's WOE analysis,
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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.
\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Big Escambia, which is located approximately 8 km from
the Florida border, EPA considered the supplemental information and
modeling results provided by ADEM.\13\ The modeling included Breitburn,
the nearest SO2 source in Florida to Big Escambia, which is
located less than 5 km from the Alabama-Florida border. As noted in the
Florida NPRM and Response 1.d, 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 included
Breitburn as a modeled nearby source using a conservative maximum
potential-to-emit emissions rate of 2,181 pounds per hour (lb/hr)
(9,553 tpy).\14\ This modeling indicates that the impact of
SO2 emissions from Breitburn do not result in Alabama's air
quality exceeding 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 Alabama-Florida
border because the Big Escambia modeling used allowable emissions of
SO2 for Breitburn, which are approximately 6.4 times higher
than Breitburn's actual annual SO2 emissions for 2017 (1,491
tpy). In addition, as shown in the Florida NPRM, Breitburn's 2014-2018
emissions profile demonstrates that Breitburn has consistently operated
well below its permitted allowable emission rate. Thus, EPA continues
to believe that Breitburn's actual contribution to SO2
concentrations in Alabama would likely be much less than the predicted
concentrations in the Big Escambia modeling, which provides further
assurances that air quality in the portion of Alabama covered in the
modeling grid would remain below the level of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See footnote 7.
\14\ Breitburn has two sulfur recovery units that each have
SO2 permit limits of approximately 1,000 lb/hr that were
both included in the modeling performed by Alabama. However,
Brietburn operates only one of the two sulfur recovery units at any
given time. Therefore, the maximum allowable emissions rate in
reality is approximately half of the 2,181 lb/hr modeled by Alabama.
Additionally, based upon Breitburn's actual operations in 2017 and
2018, the maximum hourly SO2 emissions rate during that
time was approximately 396 lb/hr, which is approximately 18% of the
emissions rate included in Alabama's modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 1.b: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. EPA's determination
that Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
another state is not reliant on Escambia County's unclassifiable
designation. As stated in Response 1.a, this determination is based on
a WOE analysis that includes information regarding Florida
SO2 emission sources and surrounding states' sources,
including sources in Escambia County, Alabama. EPA continues to believe
that the WOE analysis provided in the NPRM, which includes as one of
several factors the absence of any information demonstrating a
potential violation in Alabama, is adequate to determine the potential
downwind impact from Florida to neighboring states.
Response 1.c: EPA acknowledges that the quoted sentence from the
Florida NPRM should have referenced Table 6 instead of Table 5. Table 6
provides annual SO2 emissions for two Alabama sources,
AkzoNobel and Plant Barry, for the years 2012-2017 (AkzoNobel) and
2012-2018 (Plant Barry).
Regarding the comment that there is an increase in SO2
emissions relative to 2017, annual SO2 emissions increased
at Plant Barry from 4,218 tons in 2017 to 5,257 tons in 2018.
SO2 emissions data are now available from Plant Barry for
2019. The data show that SO2 emissions from Plant Barry
decreased by 1,762 tons from 2018 to 2019 (from 5,257 tons in 2018 down
to 3,495 tons in 2019). Thus, the 2019 SO2 emissions data
for Plant Barry demonstrates there is not a continued upward trend in
emissions at this facility as the commenter suggests.
Emissions of SO2 at AkzoNobel increased relative to the
year 2014 (2,320 tons) in 2015 (3,587 tons) and 2016 (3,646 tons) but
decreased in 2017 (2,201 tons) to below 2014 levels. Emissions data
remain unavailable from AkzoNobel for 2018 or 2019. The decrease in
emissions for AkzoNobel reported in 2017 demonstrate that there is not
a continued upward trend in emissions at this facility as the Commenter
suggests.
EPA believes that the data in Table 6 of the NPRM, as supplemented
by the 2019 SO2 emissions data for Plant Barry provided in
this response, and the changes in controls or operations at these two
sources described in the NPRM, support the Agency's conclusion that
sources in Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
in a nearby state.
Response 1.d: The Commenter's broad request that EPA consider all
of its comments on the Alabama NPRM in this action on Florida's SIP
revision is not a valid comment. Merely referring to a comment
presented elsewhere does not provide EPA with sufficient information to
evaluate that comment in the context of this action. Therefore, EPA is
only responding to the comments from the Alabama NPRM that are restated
by the Commenter in the context of the Florida NPRM.
The Commenter does not explain the relevance of its comment on the
Alabama NPRM concerning flare emissions from Big Escambia to the
transport of SO2 emissions from Florida into Alabama. EPA's
evaluation of the flare characteristics in the Alabama NPRM and final
rule relate specifically to the transport of SO2 emissions
from Alabama into Florida, and thus, does not directly relate to the
evaluation of Florida's SIP revision regarding the transport of
SO2 emissions from Florida into Alabama. Regarding the
influence of Big Escambia's flare emissions on Escambia County when
impacts from Florida are factored in, EPA has no evidence to suggest
that the emissions from Breitburn in Florida, when combined with the
SO2 emissions at Big Escambia, including the flare
emissions, will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS in Alabama.
The Commenter does not explain the relevance of its comment on the
Alabama NPRM concerning the receptor grid to the transport of
SO2 emissions from Florida into Alabama. Regarding the
transport of SO2 emissions from Florida into Alabama, EPA
disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that the receptor grid needs
to be expanded to include modeling receptors to cover the unmodeled
area between Breitburn \15\ and Big Escambia before EPA can approve
Florida's SIP submittal. Modeling this area in Florida is not relevant
to whether Florida will contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Alabama.
Regarding an assessment of Breitburn's impacts in Alabama, Alabama's
modeling analysis includes Breitburn as a modeled source due to its
proximity to Big Escambia.
[[Page 25299]]
This modeling indicates that the impact of SO2 emissions
from Breitburn do not result in Alabama's air quality exceeding the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA continues to believe that the
modeling provides a conservative estimate of Breitburn's SO2
impacts at locations in Alabama 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). Also as noted in the Florida NPRM,
Breitburn's 2014-2018 emissions profile demonstrates that Breitburn has
consistently operated well below its permitted allowable emission rate.
Thus, Breitburn's actual impact on SO2 concentrations in
Alabama would likely be much less than the predicted concentrations in
the Big Escambia modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Breitburn is located 4 km due south of the Alabama-Florida
border but is located 21 km Southeast of Big Escambia. Big Escambia
is located 8 km due north of the Alabama-Florida border. The Big
Escambia modeling grid extends 15 km from Big Escambia in all
directions and approximately 7 km into Florida in the direction due
south of Big Escambia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA continues to believe that the WOE analysis provided in the
Florida NPRM is adequate to determine the potential downwind impact
from Florida to neighboring states and that the inclusion of Breitburn
(at its allowable emission levels) indicates that air quality at the
Alabama-Florida border is likely characterized conservatively. Thus,
EPA finds that SO2 emissions from Breitburn will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Alabama.
Response 1.e: Regarding the Commenter's suggestion that EPA should
rely on its own resources and expertise to model whether or not Florida
sources significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in Escambia County, Alabama, EPA does not believe that the
issues identified by the Commenter related to the Big Escambia modeling
invalidate consideration of the modeling for transport purposes as part
of a WOE analysis. EPA does not believe that modeling is required in
all cases under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to evaluate good
neighbor obligations, particularly where other available information
can be used to qualitatively and quantitatively assess the potential
for downwind impacts from upwind state emission sources. Here, EPA has
evaluated a number of different factors in a WOE analysis based on
available information, which includes the available modeling of Big
Escambia, and found no basis to conclude that Florida emissions will
have an adverse impact on downwind states. Therefore, EPA has concluded
that Florida emissions will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states. Therefore, as stated in our
response to Comment 1.a, EPA continues to believe that the WOE analysis
provided in the Florida NPRM is adequate to evaluate the potential
downwind impact from Florida to neighboring states.
Regarding AERSCREEN, without the modeling input and output data
used and produced by the Commenter, EPA cannot evaluate the modeling
results to which the Commenter refers showing that there is transport
of SO2 from Alabama into Florida and Florida into Alabama.
Further, as the Commenter acknowledges, AERSCREEN has limitations in
terms of making any definitive assessments. AERSCREEN is intended to
produce pollutant concentration estimates that are conservative, for
screening purposes, relative to refined modeling with AERMOD. AERSCREEN
conservatively assumes that every receptor is located along the plume
centerline (area of highest concentration across the plume) and worst-
case meteorological conditions. Thus, the Commenter's unsupported
assertions regarding the results of its AERSCREEN runs do not provide a
basis for the EPA to reconsider its WOE analysis of Florida's SIP
revision.
As noted earlier, the available information indicates that modeling
and emissions data provide a conservative estimate of the predicted
SO2 impacts in Alabama that may be due to transport of
SO2 from Florida sources. EPA continues to believe that the
Agency's WOE analysis of Florida's SIP revision, as supplemented with
additional data discussed in the Florida NPRM, provides a sufficient
basis for the Agency's assessment as to whether sources in Florida will
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in a nearby state.
Comment 2: The Commenter notes that EPA consistently uses the words
``will not'' when discussing the potential for significant contribution
or interference with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS and asks why EPA is not using the present tense when evaluating
the SIP submission from Florida. The Commenter asks whether EPA thinks
a particular source is currently contributing to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance of another state's NAAQS, and if so,
asserts that EPA must redo its evaluation for the present tense and
repropose.
Response 2: EPA disagrees with the Commenter that the Agency must
repropose using the present tense. EPA's use of the phrase ``will not''
is consistent with the verb tense in the good neighbor provision of the
CAA, which 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. See CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Accordingly, EPA's
evaluation and conclusion are consistent with the statutory standard in
the good neighbor provision. In the NPRM, EPA evaluated data regarding
historic, current, and future source activity and air quality to
determine whether emissions from Florida are likely to be impacting
downwind air quality, either presently or in the future, and are thus
in violation of the good neighbor provision. EPA's WOE analysis of this
information did not find any indication that such an impact was likely
occuring currently or would be likely to occur in the future.
Accordingly, EPA concluded that emissions from Florida will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
Comment 3: The Commenter asserts that EPA should disapprove
Florida's SIP submission because the DRR modeling EPA relies on
inappropriate receptor grids. Specifically, the Commenter states that
``one of those geometries was not appropriate for many regions in
Florida, including the Gulf of Mexico.'' The Commenter claims that the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) utilizes ``this
same SAU modeling'' and that EPA never requested or solicited input
from NOAA about how EPA might improve its monitoring and forecasting of
SO2 emissions in Florida. In addition, the Commenter
believes that EPA should also disapprove the SIP submission ``because
the AER uses `worst case' grid cells for SO2 emissions
measurements in Figure 3, which are also the grid cells used by the EPA
in its AER standard.'' The Commenter states that EPA should ``reassess
the grid cells used in the DRR modeling for a more refined receptor
grid in areas beyond the state's borders.''
Response 3: It is unclear how the comment relates to EPA's
proposal. As the comment may broadly relate to the DRR modeling
referenced in sections III.C.1.a and III.C.1.b of the Florida NPRM and
to the receptor grids used in that modeling, EPA believes that the
modeling results support EPA's WOE determination as discussed in that
notice and in Response 1.d, above. EPA
[[Page 25300]]
is unable to respond any further because the Commenter did not explain,
and the Agency does not understand, the meaning of the terms
``geometries,'' ``SAU modeling,'' or ``AER,'' in this context, and
despite the Commenter's reference to ``Figure 3,'' the Florida NPRM
does not contain any figures.
Comment 4: The Commenter states that EPA cannot approve the SIP
revision because it is inconsistent with ``Florida's Clean Air Act.''
The Commenter claims that EPA's proposed determination confirms that
Florida does not have a ``meaningful permitting process for the
transportation of SO2'' out of Florida, because the State
has not established a procedure for a ``subject air-quality permit
application to be transferred to the federal permit authority.'' The
Commenter also claims that the proposal is inconsistent with Florida's
``administrative procedures for approval of the transport of pollutants
that are of significant public health concern.''
Response 4: It is unclear how the comment relates to EPA's
proposal. The Commenter has not explained how ``Florida's Clean Air
Act'' and the State's administrative procedures are relevant to this
rulemaking or provided any basis for its assertion that the State must
establish a procedure for a ``subject air-quality permit application to
be transferred to the federal permit authority'' before EPA can approve
the SIP revision as meeting the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). To the extent that the Commenter may be referring
to EPA's discussion of Florida's SIP-approved permitting programs in
section III.C.4 of the Florida NPRM, EPA reiterates its position that
Florida's major and minor new source review 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 or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
neighboring states.
Comment 5: The Commenter claims that EPA should disapprove
Florida's SIP revision because it ``will negatively affect the
provision of electricity to residential customers in the region.''
According to the Commenter, the ``two most active engines in
SO2 production are burned in utility equipment, and that
equipment now accounts for the majority of production'' and ``EPA
argues that reversing the decision would trigger an emergency
rulemaking and delay the inevitable phase-out of vehicles that emit
emissions.'' The Commenter believes that it ``would also raise costs
and delay purchases, ultimately raising the cost of electricity, which
would result in higher electric rates for consumers and businesses.''
The Commenter also claims that EPA should disapprove the SIP revision
because of the ``large short-term costs of complying with an additional
facility and business planning requirements and because of the adverse
effect of a lawsuit on the SO2 manufacturers and the health
and welfare of the general public.''
Response 5: EPA disagrees that approval of Florida's SIP revision
will negatively affect the provision of electricity to residential
customers or raise the cost of electricity. EPA's action does not
create any new regulatory requirements nor does it revise any
regulations or source-specific permits. Therefore, it does not impact
the electric utility sector. Regarding the statements concerning a
lawsuit and the reversal of an EPA decision that would trigger an
emergency rulemaking, EPA cannot provide a substantive response because
it is unclear what decision and lawsuit the Commenter is referencing or
how they relate to Florida's good neighbor SIP revision.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving 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.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
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.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
[[Page 25301]]
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 30, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Mary Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart K--Florida
0
2. Section 52.520(e) is amended by adding a new entry for ``110(a)(1)
and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.520 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Florida Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State effective Federal Register,
Provision date EPA approval date notice Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 9/18/2018......... 5/1/2020.......... [Insert citation Addressing Prongs
Requirements for the 2010 1- of publication]. 1 and 2 of
hour SO2 NAAQS. section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)
only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2020-08501 Filed 4-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
