Air Plan Approval; GA; 2010 1-Hour SO2, 37565-37568 [2020-10683]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 23, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 7.1 Point O’Woods Summer Fireworks ................................................. 7.5 Lawrence Beach Club Fireworks Display ........................................ 7.7 Southampton Fresh Air Fund .......................................................... 7.27 City of Long Beach Fireworks ....................................................... Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.151, the events listed above are established as safety zones. During the enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within these regulated areas unless they receive permission from the COTP or designated representative. This notification is issued under authority of 33 CFR part 100 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners or marine information broadcasts. Dated: June 2, 2020. K.B. Reed, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Long Island Sound. BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R04–OAR–2019–0329; FRL–10009– 69–Region 4] Air Plan Approval; GA; 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Transport Infrastructure Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving Georgia’s January 9, 2019, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission pertaining to the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The good neighbor provision jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:24 Jun 22, 2020 Jkt 250001 • Date: July 4, 2020. • Time: 8:45 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. • Location: Waters of the Great South Bay, Point O’Woods, NY in approximate position 40°39′18.57″ N, 073°08′5.73″ W (NAD 83). • Date: July 3, 2020. • Time: 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. • Location: Waters of the Atlantic Ocean off Lawrence Beach Club, Atlantic Beach, NY in approximate position 40°34′42.65″ N, 073°42′56.02″ W (NAD 83). • Date: July 3, 2020. • Rain Date: July 5, 2020. • Time: 8:45 p.m. • Location: Waters of Shinnecock Bay, Southampton, NY in approximate position, 40°51′48″ N, 072°26′30″ W (NAD 83). • Date: July 10, 2020. • Time: 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. • Location: Waters off Riverside Blvd., City of Long Beach, NY in approximate position 40°34′38.77″ N, 073°39′41.32″ W (NAD 83). requires each state’s implementation plan to address the interstate transport of air pollution in amounts that contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in any other state. In this action, EPA is determining that Georgia will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, EPA is approving the January 9, 2019, SIP revision as meeting the requirements of the good neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. This rule will be effective July 23, 2020. DATES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 2019–0329. 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 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. ADDRESSES: [FR Doc. 2020–12352 Filed 6–22–20; 8:45 am] PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 37565 Sfmt 4700 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached via phone number (404) 562–9031 or via electronic mail at notarianni.michele@ epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a revised primary SO2 NAAQS with a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. These SIPs, which EPA has historically referred to as ‘‘infrastructure SIPs,’’ are to provide for the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and enforcement’’ of such NAAQS, and the requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state’s air quality 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 E:\FR\FM\23JNR1.SGM 23JNR1 37566 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 23, 2020 / Rules and Regulations EPA received two 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 asks why EPA is using the 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) when the 2017 NEI data from point sources has been available since August of 2019. The Commenter asserts that EPA must use the most recently available data for all point sources. Response 1: EPA used the 2014 NEI (version 2) inventory to evaluate SO2 emissions from all source categories in Table 1 of the December 4, 2019, NPRM because it is the most recently available, complete, and quality assured NEI dataset which addresses all source categories.3 Additionally, EPA evaluated statewide data for point sources from 1990 to 2017 provided in Georgia’s SIP revision, and as shown in Table 4 of the December 4, 2019, NPRM, available 2017 emissions data for point sources not subject to EPA’s Data Requirements Rule (DRR) that emitted greater than 100 tons per year (tpy) of SO2 in 2017 and are located within 50 kilometers (km) of Georgia’s border (see Table 4 of the December 4, 2019, NPRM). EPA considered this information as part of its overall ‘‘weight of evidence’’ (WOE) analysis. The comprehensive 2017 NEI for all source categories, including point sources, is expected to be released later this year. Comment 2: The Commenter asks why EPA is using annual emissions in its WOE notices instead of short-term potential (or allowable) emissions. The Commenter contends that annual emissions are not indicative of past or future SO2 emissions and that it is especially important to use allowable emissions for areas close to state borders and with relatively elevated ambient or modeled SO2 levels (even those that are below the level of the NAAQS) because ‘‘these levels can become elevated quickly with a 1-hour standard and violate the NAAQS quickly.’’ The Commenter asserts that EPA should model areas close to state borders with allowable emissions, specifically for interstate transport, to confirm no possibilities of violating the NAAQS or ‘‘Georgia causing significant contribution above 1% of the NAAQS in Florida or North Carolina.’’ Response 2: EPA does not agree that modeling allowable emissions in areas near the border is necessary to demonstrate that sources in Georgia will not significantly contribute to 1 EPA acted on the other elements of Georgia’s October 22, 2013, SIP submission, as supplemented on July 25, 2014, for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on April 28, 2016. See 81 FR 25355. 2 In one instance, EPA erroneously referred to Georgia’s January 9, 2019 SIP submission with a date of July 31, 2019, in the NPRM. EPA confirms that the January 9, 2019, date was intended. See 84 FR 66335. 3 The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed estimate of air emissions for criteria pollutants, criteria pollutant precursors, and hazardous air pollutants from air emissions sources that is updated every three years using information provided by the states and other information available to EPA. The NEI is available at https:// www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/nationalemissions-inventory. 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 January 9, 2019, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD), submitted a revision to the Georgia SIP addressing only prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA is approving GA EPD’s January 9, 2019, SIP submission based on both the State’s analysis and EPA’s supplemental analysis as contained in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) which together demonstrate Georgia will not contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. All other elements related to the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for Georgia are addressed in a separate rulemaking.1 In a NPRM published on December 4, 2019, EPA proposed to approve Georgia’s January 9, 2019,2 SIP revision for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 84 FR 66334. The details of the SIP revision and the rationale for EPA’s action is explained in the December 4, 2019, NPRM. Comments on the December 4, 2019, NPRM were due on or before January 3, 2020. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES II. Response to Comments VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:24 Jun 22, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state. When reliable and relevant modeling information is available, EPA may utilize this information to inform its determination of whether a state has satisfied the good neighbor provision; however, EPA has routinely found that such modeling is not required where a WOE approach provides sufficient information to evaluate whether or not a state will adversely impact air quality in a downwind state under the good neighbor provision.4 In this instance, EPA used its long-standing WOE approach to evaluate Georgia’s January 9, 2019, SO2 good neighbor SIP revision, including the evaluation of available modeling information. EPA continues to believe that the WOE analysis provided in the NPRM is adequate to determine the potential downwind impact from Georgia to neighboring states. EPA’s WOE analysis in the NPRM included the following factors: (1) Potential ambient impacts of SO2 emissions from certain facilities in Georgia on neighboring states based on available air dispersion modeling results; (2) SO2 ambient air quality and emissions trends for Georgia and neighboring states; (3) SIP-approved regulations that address SO2 emissions; and (4) federal regulations that reduce SO2 emissions. As described above and in the December 4, 2019, NPRM, EPA evaluated a number of different factors in a WOE analysis 5 based on available information and found no basis to conclude that Georgia emissions will have an adverse impact on downwind states, and therefore, further concluded that Georgia will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in neighboring states. Specifically, in Tables 2 and 3 of the December 4, 2019, 4 See, e.g., Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Utah; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, Proposed Rule 78 FR 29314 (May 20, 2013), Final Rule 78 FR 48615 (August 9, 2013); Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of California; Interstate Transport of Pollution; Significant Contribution to Nonattainment and Interference With Maintenance Requirements, Proposed Rule 76 FR 146516 (March 17, 2011), Final Rule 76 FR 34872 (June 15, 2011); Approval and Promulgations of State Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS, Proposed Rule, 80 FR 27121 (May 12, 2015), Final Rule 80 FR 47862 (August 10, 2015). 5 The Commenter refers to WOE ‘‘notices;’’ however, EPA is responding to this comment only as it relates to the Agency’s proposed rulemaking on Georgia’s January 9, 2019, SO2 good neighbor SIP revision. To the extent the Commenter is concerned about other EPA rulemakings that use a WOE analysis, those concerns are outside the scope of this action. E:\FR\FM\23JNR1.SGM 23JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 23, 2020 / Rules and Regulations jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES NPRM, EPA considered available modeling results generated for certain sources subject to EPA’s DRR 6 which were also used during round 3 of EPA’s initial area designations for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS. Some of these sources were modeled using actual emissions data as allowed by the DRR,7 while others opted to model using potential or allowable emissions. EPA’s preferred dispersion model, American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD), which was the model used to yield all the modeling results referenced in the December 4, 2019, NPRM, requires that SO2 emissions (whether actual or allowable) are based on hourly emissions rates and input into AERMOD in units of grams per second. Typically, these are derived from actual reported hourly emissions or short-term allowable emissions instead of calculated hourly emissions derived from annual emissions. EPA’s assessment of these available DRR modeling results are one part of the Agency’s WOE approach, and EPA continues to believe that they provide helpful information to assess whether there are any indications of NAAQS violations or relatively high maximum 1-hour SO2 impacts around a modeled DRR source close to Georgia’s border. As noted in the December 4, 2019, NPRM, while such DRR modeling was not designed specifically to address interstate transport, the 50-km distance that is typically used in AERMOD for the DRR modeling aligns with the 50-km zone used for evaluating cross-border impacts, both supported by the concept that there are localized pollutant impacts of SO2 near an emissions source that decrease with distance. Moreover, in Table 4 of the December 4, 2019, NPRM, EPA evaluated certain sources near the Georgia border for which no modeling information was 6 The DRR required state air agencies to characterize air quality, through air dispersion modeling or monitoring, in areas associated with sources that emitted 2,000 tpy or more of SO2, or that have otherwise been listed under the DRR by EPA or state air agencies. In lieu of modeling or monitoring, state air agencies, by specified dates, could elect to impose federally-enforceable emissions limitations on those sources restricting their annual SO2 emissions to less than 2,000 tpy, or provide documentation that the sources have been shut down. See 80 FR 51052 (August 21, 2015). 7 Modeling performed pursuant to the DRR provided the bases for many areas in round 3 of designations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.1203(d)(2) (‘‘Modeling analyses shall characterize air quality based on either actual SO2 emissions from the most recent 3 years, or on any federally enforceable allowable emission limit or limits established by the air agency or the EPA and that are effective and require compliance by January 13, 2017’’). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:24 Jun 22, 2020 Jkt 250001 available. For these sources, EPA considered the available emissions information, proximity to the border and to cross-state sources to determine whether any areas warranted further review for potential cross-state impacts. This evaluation did not yield any areas that warranted further review based primarily on the large distances between cross-state sources. In response to the Commenter’s concern that actual emissions may increase in the future, EPA also considered as part of the WOE analysis in the December 4, 2019, NPRM: Emissions trends for Georgia and neighboring states’ sources, SIPapproved regulations that address SO2 emissions, and federal regulations that reduce SO2 emissions. These factors taken together provide sufficient information to support EPA’s conclusion that sources in Georgia will not adversely impact air quality in a downwind state under the good neighbor provision. EPA also notes that the Commenter did not provide a technical analysis that contradicts EPA’s proposed determination that sources in Georgia will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state. Furthermore, the Commenter has provided no basis for the suggestion that the determination of significant contribution from sources in Georgia to Florida and North Carolina should be based on modeled concentrations greater than one percent of the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS. In the December 4, 2019, NPRM, EPA did not rely on a one percent significance threshold to support the conclusion that Georgia does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state, nor has EPA in any other action set an air quality threshold for defining significant contribution or interference with maintenance for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. While EPA has used such a threshold in other contexts to address regional pollutants like ozone and fine particulate matter, that threshold was found to be appropriate in those cases based on data showing that downwind air quality problems were caused by the collective contribution of otherwise small impacts form hundreds of sources in numerous upwind states. Moreover, the air quality threshold was only one of several steps in defining the ‘‘amount’’ of emissions that would constitute a state’s significant contribution for those NAAQS. EPA has not developed any analyses, nor has the Commenter provided any analyses, PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 37567 demonstrating that a similar threshold would be appropriate for evaluating the good neighbor obligations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard, particularly in light of the more localized nature of SO2 transport as described in the December 4, 2019, NPRM. Thus, EPA disagrees with the Commenter that it is necessary to evaluate whether Georgia is impacting Florida and North Carolina at a level greater than one percent of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. For the reasons discussed above, EPA finds that its analysis of the Georgia sources in the December 4, 2019, NPRM, considered alongside other WOE factors described in that document, support the EPA’s conclusion that Georgia has satisfied CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. III. Final Action EPA is approving Georgia’s January 9, 2019, SIP submission as demonstrating that emissions from Georgia 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 E:\FR\FM\23JNR1.SGM 23JNR1 37568 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 23, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 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). 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 August 24, 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. Dated: May 12, 2020. Mary Walker, Regional Administrator, Region 4. PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart L—Georgia 2. Section 52.570(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: ■ § 52.570 * Identification of plan. * * (e) * * * * * EPA-APPROVED GEORGIA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area * * 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS. * Georgia ............. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES [EPA–R03–OAR–2019–0537; FRL–10004– 07–Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Virginia; Emission Standards for Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:24 Jun 22, 2020 Jkt 250001 * 1/9/2019 EPA approval date Explanation * 6/23/2020, ..................................... [Insert citation of publication] ........ * * Addressing Prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(d) plan submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ). This plan was submitted to fulfill the requirements of the CAA and in response to EPA’s promulgation of Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. The Virginia plan establishes emission limits for existing MSW landfills and provides for the implementation and enforcement of those limits. SUMMARY: [FR Doc. 2020–10683 Filed 6–22–20; 8:45 am] AGENCY: State submittal date/effective date This final rule is effective on July 23, 2020. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in the rule is DATES: PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 23, 2020. EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA–EPA–R03–OAR–2019– 0537. 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, e.g., confidential business information (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 ADDRESSES: E:\FR\FM\23JNR1.SGM 23JNR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 23, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37565-37568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10683]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0329; FRL-10009-69-Region 4]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving 
Georgia's January 9, 2019, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission 
pertaining to the ``good neighbor'' provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA 
or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The good neighbor provision 
requires each state's implementation plan to address the interstate 
transport of air pollution in amounts that contribute significantly to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in any other 
state. In this action, EPA is determining that Georgia will not 
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, 
EPA is approving the January 9, 2019, SIP revision as meeting the 
requirements of the good neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS.

DATES: This rule will be effective July 23, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0329. 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 possible, you contact the person 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your 
inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday 
through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a revised primary SO2 
NAAQS with a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year 
average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 
concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). Pursuant to section 
110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the 
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after 
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as 
EPA may prescribe. These SIPs, which EPA has historically referred to 
as ``infrastructure SIPs,'' are to provide for the ``implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS, and the requirements are 
designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air 
quality management program are adequate to meet the state's 
responsibility under the CAA. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states 
to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the 
contents of individual state submissions may vary depending upon the 
facts and circumstances. The content of the changes in such SIP 
submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's 
approved SIP already contains. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to 
address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic 
program

[[Page 37566]]

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 January 9, 2019, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 
through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD), 
submitted a revision to the Georgia SIP addressing only prongs 1 and 2 
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS. EPA is approving GA EPD's January 9, 2019, SIP submission based 
on both the State's analysis and EPA's supplemental analysis as 
contained in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) which together 
demonstrate Georgia will not contribute significantly to nonattainment, 
or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 
in any other state. All other elements related to the infrastructure 
requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS for Georgia are addressed in a separate rulemaking.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA acted on the other elements of Georgia's October 22, 
2013, SIP submission, as supplemented on July 25, 2014, for the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS on April 28, 2016. See 81 FR 25355.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a NPRM published on December 4, 2019, EPA proposed to approve 
Georgia's January 9, 2019,\2\ SIP revision for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS. See 84 FR 66334. The details of the SIP revision 
and the rationale for EPA's action is explained in the December 4, 
2019, NPRM. Comments on the December 4, 2019, NPRM were due on or 
before January 3, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In one instance, EPA erroneously referred to Georgia's 
January 9, 2019 SIP submission with a date of July 31, 2019, in the 
NPRM. EPA confirms that the January 9, 2019, date was intended. See 
84 FR 66335.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received two 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 asks why EPA is using the 2014 National 
Emissions Inventory (NEI) when the 2017 NEI data from point sources has 
been available since August of 2019. The Commenter asserts that EPA 
must use the most recently available data for all point sources.
    Response 1: EPA used the 2014 NEI (version 2) inventory to evaluate 
SO2 emissions from all source categories in Table 1 of the 
December 4, 2019, NPRM because it is the most recently available, 
complete, and quality assured NEI dataset which addresses all source 
categories.\3\ Additionally, EPA evaluated statewide data for point 
sources from 1990 to 2017 provided in Georgia's SIP revision, and as 
shown in Table 4 of the December 4, 2019, NPRM, available 2017 
emissions data for point sources not subject to EPA's Data Requirements 
Rule (DRR) that emitted greater than 100 tons per year (tpy) of 
SO2 in 2017 and are located within 50 kilometers (km) of 
Georgia's border (see Table 4 of the December 4, 2019, NPRM). EPA 
considered this information as part of its overall ``weight of 
evidence'' (WOE) analysis. The comprehensive 2017 NEI for all source 
categories, including point sources, is expected to be released later 
this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed estimate of air 
emissions for criteria pollutants, criteria pollutant precursors, 
and hazardous air pollutants from air emissions sources that is 
updated every three years using information provided by the states 
and other information available to EPA. The NEI is available at 
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: The Commenter asks why EPA is using annual emissions in 
its WOE notices instead of short-term potential (or allowable) 
emissions. The Commenter contends that annual emissions are not 
indicative of past or future SO2 emissions and that it is 
especially important to use allowable emissions for areas close to 
state borders and with relatively elevated ambient or modeled 
SO2 levels (even those that are below the level of the 
NAAQS) because ``these levels can become elevated quickly with a 1-hour 
standard and violate the NAAQS quickly.'' The Commenter asserts that 
EPA should model areas close to state borders with allowable emissions, 
specifically for interstate transport, to confirm no possibilities of 
violating the NAAQS or ``Georgia causing significant contribution above 
1% of the NAAQS in Florida or North Carolina.''
    Response 2: EPA does not agree that modeling allowable emissions in 
areas near the border is necessary to demonstrate that sources in 
Georgia will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere 
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another 
state. When reliable and relevant modeling information is available, 
EPA may utilize this information to inform its determination of whether 
a state has satisfied the good neighbor provision; however, EPA has 
routinely found that such modeling is not required where a WOE approach 
provides sufficient information to evaluate whether or not a state will 
adversely impact air quality in a downwind state under the good 
neighbor provision.\4\ In this instance, EPA used its long-standing WOE 
approach to evaluate Georgia's January 9, 2019, SO2 good 
neighbor SIP revision, including the evaluation of available modeling 
information. EPA continues to believe that the WOE analysis provided in 
the NPRM is adequate to determine the potential downwind impact from 
Georgia to neighboring states. EPA's WOE analysis in the NPRM included 
the following factors: (1) Potential ambient impacts of SO2 
emissions from certain facilities in Georgia on neighboring states 
based on available air dispersion modeling results; (2) SO2 
ambient air quality and emissions trends for Georgia and neighboring 
states; (3) SIP-approved regulations that address SO2 
emissions; and (4) federal regulations that reduce SO2 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As described above and in the December 4, 2019, NPRM, EPA evaluated 
a number of different factors in a WOE analysis \5\ based on available 
information and found no basis to conclude that Georgia emissions will 
have an adverse impact on downwind states, and therefore, further 
concluded that Georgia will not significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in neighboring 
states. Specifically, in Tables 2 and 3 of the December 4, 2019,

[[Page 37567]]

NPRM, EPA considered available modeling results generated for certain 
sources subject to EPA's DRR \6\ which were also used during round 3 of 
EPA's initial area designations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS. Some of these sources were modeled using actual emissions data 
as allowed by the DRR,\7\ while others opted to model using potential 
or allowable emissions. EPA's preferred dispersion model, American 
Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model 
(AERMOD), which was the model used to yield all the modeling results 
referenced in the December 4, 2019, NPRM, requires that SO2 
emissions (whether actual or allowable) are based on hourly emissions 
rates and input into AERMOD in units of grams per second. Typically, 
these are derived from actual reported hourly emissions or short-term 
allowable emissions instead of calculated hourly emissions derived from 
annual emissions. EPA's assessment of these available DRR modeling 
results are one part of the Agency's WOE approach, and EPA continues to 
believe that they provide helpful information to assess whether there 
are any indications of NAAQS violations or relatively high maximum 1-
hour SO2 impacts around a modeled DRR source close to 
Georgia's border. As noted in the December 4, 2019, NPRM, while such 
DRR modeling was not designed specifically to address interstate 
transport, the 50-km distance that is typically used in AERMOD for the 
DRR modeling aligns with the 50-km zone used for evaluating cross-
border impacts, both supported by the concept that there are localized 
pollutant impacts of SO2 near an emissions source that 
decrease with distance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commenter refers to WOE ``notices;'' however, EPA is 
responding to this comment only as it relates to the Agency's 
proposed rulemaking on Georgia's January 9, 2019, SO2 
good neighbor SIP revision. To the extent the Commenter is concerned 
about other EPA rulemakings that use a WOE analysis, those concerns 
are outside the scope of this action.
    \6\ The DRR required state air agencies to characterize air 
quality, through air dispersion modeling or monitoring, in areas 
associated with sources that emitted 2,000 tpy or more of 
SO2, or that have otherwise been listed under the DRR by 
EPA or state air agencies. In lieu of modeling or monitoring, state 
air agencies, by specified dates, could elect to impose federally-
enforceable emissions limitations on those sources restricting their 
annual SO2 emissions to less than 2,000 tpy, or provide 
documentation that the sources have been shut down. See 80 FR 51052 
(August 21, 2015).
    \7\ Modeling performed pursuant to the DRR provided the bases 
for many areas in round 3 of designations for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.1203(d)(2) (``Modeling analyses 
shall characterize air quality based on either actual SO2 
emissions from the most recent 3 years, or on any federally 
enforceable allowable emission limit or limits established by the 
air agency or the EPA and that are effective and require compliance 
by January 13, 2017'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, in Table 4 of the December 4, 2019, NPRM, EPA evaluated 
certain sources near the Georgia border for which no modeling 
information was available. For these sources, EPA considered the 
available emissions information, proximity to the border and to cross-
state sources to determine whether any areas warranted further review 
for potential cross-state impacts. This evaluation did not yield any 
areas that warranted further review based primarily on the large 
distances between cross-state sources. In response to the Commenter's 
concern that actual emissions may increase in the future, EPA also 
considered as part of the WOE analysis in the December 4, 2019, NPRM: 
Emissions trends for Georgia and neighboring states' sources, SIP-
approved regulations that address SO2 emissions, and federal 
regulations that reduce SO2 emissions. These factors taken 
together provide sufficient information to support EPA's conclusion 
that sources in Georgia will not adversely impact air quality in a 
downwind state under the good neighbor provision.
    EPA also notes that the Commenter did not provide a technical 
analysis that contradicts EPA's proposed determination that sources in 
Georgia will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere 
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another 
state.
    Furthermore, the Commenter has provided no basis for the suggestion 
that the determination of significant contribution from sources in 
Georgia to Florida and North Carolina should be based on modeled 
concentrations greater than one percent of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS. In the December 4, 2019, NPRM, EPA did not rely 
on a one percent significance threshold to support the conclusion that 
Georgia does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere 
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other 
state, nor has EPA in any other action set an air quality threshold for 
defining significant contribution or interference with maintenance for 
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. While EPA has used such a 
threshold in other contexts to address regional pollutants like ozone 
and fine particulate matter, that threshold was found to be appropriate 
in those cases based on data showing that downwind air quality problems 
were caused by the collective contribution of otherwise small impacts 
form hundreds of sources in numerous upwind states. Moreover, the air 
quality threshold was only one of several steps in defining the 
``amount'' of emissions that would constitute a state's significant 
contribution for those NAAQS. EPA has not developed any analyses, nor 
has the Commenter provided any analyses, demonstrating that a similar 
threshold would be appropriate for evaluating the good neighbor 
obligations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard, particularly 
in light of the more localized nature of SO2 transport as 
described in the December 4, 2019, NPRM. Thus, EPA disagrees with the 
Commenter that it is necessary to evaluate whether Georgia is impacting 
Florida and North Carolina at a level greater than one percent of the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    For the reasons discussed above, EPA finds that its analysis of the 
Georgia sources in the December 4, 2019, NPRM, considered alongside 
other WOE factors described in that document, support the EPA's 
conclusion that Georgia has satisfied CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving Georgia's January 9, 2019, SIP submission as 
demonstrating that emissions from Georgia 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

[[Page 37568]]

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).
    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 August 24, 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.

    Dated: May 12, 2020.
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 L--Georgia

0
2. Section 52.570(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.  52.570   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Georgia Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               State
  Name of  nonregulatory  SIP     Applicable  geographic  submittal  date/  EPA approval date     Explanation
           provision             or  nonattainment  area  effective  date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2)                Georgia................         1/9/2019  6/23/2020,........  Addressing Prongs
 Infrastructure Requirements                                               [Insert citation     1 and 2 of
 for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.                                             of publication].    section
                                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)
                                                                                                only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-10683 Filed 6-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.