Air Plan Approval; FL; GA; KY; MS; NC; SC: Definition of Chemical Process Plants Under State Prevention of Significant Deterioration Regulations, 43788-43793 [2020-14425]

Download as PDF 43788 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 139 / Monday, July 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R04–OAR–2020–0177; FRL–10011– 68–Region 4] Air Plan Approval; FL; GA; KY; MS; NC; SC: Definition of Chemical Process Plants Under State Prevention of Significant Deterioration Regulations Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plans (SIP) for Florida, Georgia, the Jefferson County portion of Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The SIP revisions incorporate changes to the definition of chemical process plants under the States’ Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations. Consistent with an EPA regulation completed in 2007, EPA is proposing to approve the rules for Florida, Georgia, the Jefferson County portion of Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina that modify the definition of chemical process plant to exclude ethanol manufacturing facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation processes. This will clarify that the PSD major source applicability threshold in the SIPs for these ethanol plants is 250 tons per year (tpy) (rather than 100 tpy) and removes the requirement to include fugitive emissions when determining if the source is major for PSD. EPA is proposing to find that the changes to the state and local rules described herein are approvable because the Agency believes that they are consistent with EPA regulations governing state PSD programs and will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. SUMMARY: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 2020. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– OAR–2020–0177 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you DATES: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:03 Jul 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Brad Akers, 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. Mr. Akers can be reached via electronic mail at akers.brad@epa.gov or via telephone at (404) 562–9089. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What is being addressed in this notice? II. Background A. PSD Permitting Thresholds for Chemical Processing Plants B. Ethanol Rule C. Petitions for Review and Reconsideration of the 2007 Ethanol Rule III. What SIP revisions are being proposed by EPA? IV. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? V. What action is EPA proposing to take? VI. Incorporation by Reference VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is being addressed in this notice? EPA is proposing to approve the following revisions to SIPs received by EPA from Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina: (1) A portion of a SIP revision provided to EPA through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FL DEP) via letter dated December 12, 2011; (2) a SIP revision provided to EPA through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) via letter dated September 15, 2008; 1 (3) a SIP revision to the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP that was provided to EPA through the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ) via a letter dated 1 EPA received the submittal on September 29, 2008. PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 July 1, 2009; 2 (4) a SIP revision provided to EPA through the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) via letter dated November 28, 2007; (5) a SIP revision provided to EPA through the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) 3 via letter dated June 20, 2008; 4 and (6) a portion of a SIP revision provided to EPA through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) via letter dated April 14, 2009, as updated in a portion of SIP revision provided to EPA via letter dated April 10, 2014. These revisions conform the State rules to changes to EPA regulations reflected in EPA’s final rule entitled ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Nonattainment New Source Review, and Title V: Treatment of Certain Ethanol Production Facilities Under the ‘‘Major Emitting Facility’’ Definition’’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘2007 Ethanol Rule’’) as published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2007. See 72 FR 24060. The 2007 Ethanol Rule amends the PSD definition of ‘‘major stationary source’’ to exclude certain ethanol facilities from the ‘‘chemical process plant’’ source category and clarifies that the PSD major source applicability threshold for certain ethanol plants is 250 tpy (rather than 100 tpy). The 2007 Ethanol Rule also removed the requirement to include fugitive emissions when determining if the source is major for PSD and Title V permitting. On October 21, 2019, EPA responded to a petition for reconsideration of the 2007 Ethanol Rule, and EPA denied the petition with respect to the revisions of the PSD Regulations reflected in that rule (as described in more detail below). EPA is now proposing to approve these SIP revisions that are based on a part of the 2007 Ethanol Rule. 2 In 2003, the City of Louisville and Jefferson County governments merged and the ‘‘Jefferson County Air Pollution Control District’’ was renamed the ‘‘Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District.’’ See The History of Air Pollution Control in Louisville, available at https://louisvilleky.gov/ government/air-pollution-control-district/historyair-pollution-control-louisville. However, each of the regulations in the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP still has the subheading ‘‘Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County.’’ Thus, to be consistent with the terminology used in the SIP, EPA refers throughout this notice to regulations contained in the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP as the ‘‘Jefferson County’’ regulations. 3 At the time of the 2008 submittal, the NC DEQ was the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Throughout this proposed rulemaking, EPA will refer to the State Agency as NC DEQ. 4 EPA received the submission on June 25, 2008. E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 139 / Monday, July 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules II. Background A. PSD Permitting Thresholds for Chemical Processing Plants Under the CAA, there are two potential thresholds for determining whether a source is a major emitting facility that is potentially subject to the construction permitting requirements under the PSD program; one threshold is 100 tpy per pollutant, and the other is 250 tpy per pollutant. Section 169(1) of the CAA lists twenty-eight source categories that qualify as major emitting facilities if their emissions exceed the 100 tpy threshold. If the source does not fall within one of twenty-eight source categories listed in section 169, then the 250 tpy threshold is applicable. One of the source categories in the list of twenty-eight source categories to which the 100 tpy threshold applies is chemical process plants. Since the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code for chemical process plants includes facilities primarily engaged in manufacturing ethanol fuel, EPA and States had previously considered such facilities to be subject to the 100 tpy thresholds. As a result of this classification, pursuant to EPA regulations interpreting CAA section 302(j), chemical process plants were also required to include fugitive emissions for determining the potential emissions of such sources. Thus, prior to promulgation of the 2007 Ethanol Rule, the classification of fuel and industrial ethanol facilities as chemical process plants had the effect of requiring these plants to include fugitive emissions of criteria pollutants when determining whether their emissions exceed the applicability thresholds for the PSD and nonattainment new source review (NA NSR) permit programs. B. Ethanol Rule On May 1, 2007, EPA published in the Federal Register the 2007 Ethanol Rule (72 FR 24060). This final rule amended EPA’s PSD and NA NSR regulations to exclude ethanol manufacturing facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation processes from the ‘‘chemical process plants’’ category under the regulatory definition of ‘‘major stationary source.’’ This change to EPA’s NSR regulations affected the threshold used to determine PSD applicability for these ethanol production facilities, clarifying that such facilities were subject to the 250 tpy major source threshold. The 2007 Ethanol Rule also included changes to other provisions which established that ethanol facilities need not count fugitive emissions when determining whether VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:03 Jul 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 such a source is ‘‘major’’ under the Federal PSD, NA NSR, and Title V permitting programs. C. Petitions for Review and Reconsideration of the 2007 Ethanol Rule On July 2, 2007, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) to review the 2007 Ethanol Rule. On that same day, EPA received a petition for administrative reconsideration and request for stay of the 2007 Ethanol Rule from NRDC. On March 27, 2008, EPA denied NRDC’s 2007 administrative petition for reconsideration. On March 2, 2009, EPA received a second petition for reconsideration and request for stay from NRDC. In 2009, NRDC also filed a petition for judicial review challenging EPA’s March 27, 2008, denial of NRDC’s 2007 administrative petition in the D.C. Circuit. This challenge was consolidated with NRDC’s challenge to the 2007 Ethanol Rule. In August of 2009, the D.C. Circuit granted a joint motion to hold the case in abeyance, and the case has remained in abeyance. On October 21, 2019, EPA partially granted and partially denied NRDC’s 2009 administrative petition for reconsideration. Specifically, EPA granted the request for reconsideration with regard to NRDC’s claim that the 2007 Ethanol Rule did not appropriately address the CAA section 193 antibacksliding requirements for nonattainment areas. EPA denied the remainder of the requests for reconsideration on the grounds that NRDC failed to establish that reconsideration was warranted under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). III. What SIP revisions are being proposed by EPA? As mentioned above, EPA is proposing to approve revisions to SIPs dated: Florida on December 12, 2011; Georgia on September 15, 2008; Kentucky, corresponding to the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP, on July 1, 2009; Mississippi on November 28, 2007; North Carolina on June 20, 2008; and South Carolina on April 14, 2009, and April 10, 2014. These revisions adopt language that is the same or consistent with that contained in EPA’s 2007 Ethanol Rule. EPA is not acting on any changes with respect to NA NSR. The State regulations that EPA is proposing to approve exclude ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation from the ‘‘chemical PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 43789 process plants’’ category. The revisions thus clarify that an ethanol facility is subject to a PSD major source threshold of 250 tpy and that such sources need not count fugitive emissions to determine potential emissions that are compared to this threshold. The revisions proposed for approval in this action do not affect NA NSR. More detail on the SIP revisions that EPA is proposing to approve is provided below. Each subsection below begins by identifying the rules as modified by each state or local government to include the ethanol exemption in its PSD program. A. Florida Florida rule 62–210.200, Definitions, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) at 62–210.200(189) ‘‘Major Stationary Source’’: ‘‘Any of the following stationary sources of air pollutants which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tons per year or more of any regulated NSR pollutant: Chemical process plants (the term ‘‘chemical process plants’’ shall not include ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 325193 or 312140) . . .’’ Florida rule 62–210.200(214) ‘‘North American Industry Classification System’’ or ‘‘NAICS’’: ‘‘A federal system of classifying business establishments according to similarity in the process used to produce goods or services, as described in the 2007 NAICS definition file (available free of cost at https:// www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/ or available in CD ROM or book from at a cost from the US Department of Commerce at 1–800–553–6847), hereby adopted and incorporated by reference (https://www.flrules.org/Gateway/ reference.asp?No=Ref-00705).’’ Additionally, Chapter 62–212.400, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, at (3)(b): ‘‘The requirements of subsections 62–212.400(4) through (12), F.A.C., shall not apply to a major stationary source or major modification if the source of modification would be a major stationary source or major modification only if fugitive emissions, to the extent quantifiable, are considered in calculating the potential to emit of the stationary source or modification and the source does not belong to one of the following categories . . . 20. Chemical process plants (the term ‘‘chemical process plants’’ shall not include ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in North American Industry Classification E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 43790 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 139 / Monday, July 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules System (NAICS) codes 325193 or 312140) . . .’’ Chapter 62–210 of the F.A.C., which contains Florida’s definitions regulation, generally applies to stationary sources in Florida. These definitions are referenced throughout Florida’s rules, including in Chapter 62– 212, which governs preconstruction review, including PSD. Chapter 62–212 of the F.A.C., which contains Florida’s PSD regulation, applies to new or modified ‘‘major stationary sources,’’ as that term is defined in 62–210.200. As identified above, Florida revised 62– 210.200 to exclude ethanol production facilities from the ‘‘chemical process plants’’ major stationary source category such that ethanol facilities emitting less than 250 tpy of a regulated air pollutant are not subject to PSD.5 Additionally, Florida incorporated a definition for NAICS as part of this rulemaking. Furthermore, Florida’s PSD regulation at 62–212.400(3)(b)20. says that emissions from these same facilities are not considered in determining whether the facility is subject to PSD. The state effective date of Florida’s revision to the definition of ‘‘chemical process plants’’ in Rule 62–210.200 and the change to applicability procedures in Rule 62– 212.400 is December 12, 2011. B. Georgia Official Compilation of Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia (Ga. Comp. R. & Regs.) 391–3–1-.02(7), Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, (a)2.(iii): ‘‘The definition of major stationary source contained in 40 CFR part 52.21(b)(1) is hereby incorporated by reference except as 5 Florida’s definition of ‘‘major stationary source’’ at 62–210.200 is also cross-referenced in the portion of its SIP-approved NA NSR regulation, 62–212.500, Preconstruction Review in Nonattainment Areas, that sets the fugitive emissions exclusion for determining rule applicability. See Rule 62– 212.500(2)(b). If the definition of ‘‘chemical process plants’’ within the term of ‘‘major stationary source’’ were updated to exclude these ethanol producing facilities for the purposes of NA NSR, then fugitive emissions would not need to be considered in determining whether the source is major. All sources in nonattainment areas are major at 100 tpy, and certain classifications of nonattainment areas for ozone and PM2.5 establish lower thresholds for major source applicability. See 40 CFR 51.165(b)(iv)(A). However, Florida’s December 12, 2011, submittal did not seek to revise, nor ask EPA to revise, the State’s SIP-approved NA NSR program. Therefore, EPA is not approving the revision to the definition of ‘‘chemical process plant’’ within the term ‘‘major stationary source’’ to apply to the NA NSR program. Accordingly, if EPA finalizes this action, the ethanol production facility exclusion within the definition of ‘‘major stationary source’’ at 62–210.200 will not apply in the SIP for the purposes of determining applicability in Rule 62–212.500, and EPA will note this in the list of SIP-approved Florida regulations at 40 CFR 52.520(c). There are currently no nonattainment areas in Florida. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:03 Jul 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 follows . . .’’ Additionally, (b)6.: ‘‘Review of major stationary sources and major modifications—source applicability and general exemptions: 40 CFR part 52.21 (i), as amended, is hereby incorporated and adopted by reference with the following exception . . .’’ This regulation incorporates by reference portions of 40 CFR 52.21, including most portions of the federal definition of ‘‘major stationary source’’ and most portions of EPA’s applicability procedures as revised and amended on July 1, 2007, which include the 2007 Ethanol Rule provisions. This revision aligns paragraph (a)2.(iii) with the incorporation by reference of provisions in 40 CFR 52.21 at paragraph (a)1. The term ‘‘major stationary source’’ is defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) as ‘‘[a]ny of the following stationary sources of air pollutants which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tons per year or more of any regulated NSR pollutant: . . . Chemical process plants (which does not include ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 312140).’’ Additionally, 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(iii) excludes fugitive emissions from ethanol production facilities from the ‘‘chemical process plants’’ category such that fugitive emissions are not considered in determining whether the facility is subject to PSD. Because Georgia’s incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21 includes the ethanol exclusion, ethanol facilities emitting less than 250 tpy of a regulated air pollutant are not subject to PSD, and fugitive emissions from ethanol facilities are not considered in determining whether the facility is subject to PSD. C. Jefferson County Portion of the Kentucky SIP Jefferson County Regulation 2.05, Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality. This regulation incorporates by reference 40 CFR 52.21, as revised and amended on July 1, 2008, with exceptions. The term ‘‘major stationary source’’ is defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) as ‘‘[a]ny of the following stationary sources of air pollutants which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tons per year or more of any regulated NSR pollutant: . . . Chemical process plants (which does not include ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 312140).’’ Additionally, 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(iii) excludes fugitive PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 emissions from ethanol production facilities from the ‘‘chemical process plants’’ category such that fugitive emissions are not considered in determining whether the facility is subject to PSD. Because Jefferson County’s incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21 includes the ethanol exclusion, ethanol facilities emitting less than 250 tpy of a regulated air pollutant are not subject to PSD, and fugitive emissions from ethanol facilities are not considered in determining whether the facility is subject to PSD. D. Mississippi 11 Mississippi Administrative Code (MAC) Part 2, Chapter 5, Regulations for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality. This regulation incorporates by reference 40 CFR 52.21, as revised and amended on June 15, 2007, with exceptions. The term ‘‘major stationary source’’ is defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) as ‘‘[a]ny of the following stationary sources of air pollutants which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tons per year or more of any regulated NSR pollutant: . . . Chemical process plants (which does not include ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 312140).’’ Additionally, 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(iii) excludes fugitive emissions from ethanol production facilities from the ‘‘chemical process plants’’ category such that fugitive emissions are not considered in determining whether the facility is subject to PSD. Because Mississippi’s incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21 includes the ethanol exclusion, ethanol facilities emitting less than 250 tpy of a regulated air pollutant are not subject to PSD, and fugitive emissions from ethanol facilities are not considered in determining whether the facility is subject to PSD. E. North Carolina 15 North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02D .0530, Prevention of Significant Deterioration. This regulation incorporates by reference 40 CFR 52.21, as revised and amended on June 13, 2007, with exceptions. The term ‘‘major stationary source’’ is defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) as ‘‘[a]ny of the following stationary sources of air pollutants which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tons per year or more of any regulated NSR pollutant: . . . Chemical process plants (which does not include ethanol production facilities that produce E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 139 / Monday, July 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules ethanol by natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 312140).’’ Additionally, 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(iii) excludes fugitive emissions from ethanol production facilities from the ‘‘chemical process plants’’ category such that fugitive emissions are not considered in determining whether the facility is subject to PSD. Because North Carolina’s incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21 includes the ethanol exclusion, ethanol facilities emitting less than 250 tpy of a regulated air pollutant are not subject to PSD, and fugitive emissions from ethanol facilities are not considered in determining whether the facility is subject to PSD. F. South Carolina South Carolina Code of Regulations Annotated (S.C. Code Ann. Regs.), Rule 61–62.5, Standard No. 7, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, at 61–62.5, Standard No. 7(b)(32) ‘‘Major stationary source’’ at (i)(a): ‘‘Any of the following stationary sources of air pollutants which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tons per year or more of any regulated NSR pollutant: . . . chemical process plants (which does not include ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 325193 or 312140) . . .’’ Additionally, another part of the definition at Standard No. 7(b)(32)(iii): ‘‘The fugitive emissions of a stationary source shall not be included in determining for any of the purposes of this regulation whether it is a major stationary source, unless the source belongs to one of the following categories of stationary sources: . . . (t) Chemical process plants—The term chemical processing plant shall not include ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 325193 or 312140 . . .’’ SC DHEC’s Rule 61–62.5, Standard No. 7, applies to new or modified ‘‘major stationary sources.’’ As identified above, Standard No. 7 was revised to exclude ethanol production facilities from the ‘‘chemical process plants’’ major stationary source category such that ethanol facilities emitting less than 250 tpy of a regulated air pollutant are not subject to PSD. Furthermore, South Carolina’s PSD regulation at 61– 62.5, Standard No. 7(b)(32)(iii) was revised to say that fugitive emissions at these same facilities are not considered in determining whether the facility is subject to PSD. The state effective date VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:03 Jul 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 of SC DHEC’s revision to the definition of ‘‘major stationary source’’ at 61–62.5, Standard No. 7(b)(32)(i) and (iii) was initially April 24, 2009, as transmitted in the April 14, 2009, SIP revision. Subsequently, South Carolina made additional changes to Standard No. 7 regarding these provisions. Specifically, South Carolina made a minor change to spell out the term ‘‘North American Industrial Classification System’’ the first time it appears in Regulation No. 7 at Regulation No. 7(b)(32)(i)(a). The State published its proposed changes in the South Carolina State Register on August 23, 2013, and held a public hearing on December 12, 2013. South Carolina adopted the amended rule on December 27, 2013, at which point it became state effective. On April 10, 2014, South Carolina submitted a request to EPA Region 4 to revise the South Carolina SIP with these additional changes made to South Carolina’s PSD program. IV. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? All of the aforementioned regulations are consistent with EPA’s PSD program requirements in 40 CFR 51.166, as amended in the 2007 Ethanol Rule. Further, all submissions have met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. FL DEP published a Notice of Proposed Rule on September 16, 2011, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, with a public hearing offered on October 13, 2011, if requested within 21 days of the published Notice. FL DEP received no request for a public hearing and therefore did not hold an official hearing. FL DEP received no comments from on its proposed revisions and therefore did not change the rules based on public input. GA EPD issued a Notice of Public Hearing and Proposed Revisions on May 4, 2008. A public hearing was then held on June 3, 2008. No comments were received on the proposed revision, and GA EPD therefore did not make changes to the rule based on public input. Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (LMAPCD) noticed proposed changes in newspapers published on February 20, 2009, and held a public hearing on May 20, 2009. Two sets of comments were received on the draft revisions, and LMAPCD responded to the comments received and noted that it made no substantive changes in response to the comments. MDEQ published its notice of public hearing and proposed changes via newspapers on June 15, 2007, June 22, 2007, and June 29, 2007, and held a PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 43791 public hearing on July 17, 2007. MDEQ did not receive any comments on its proposed changes and therefore did not make any changes to its rules based on public input. NC DEQ published a notice of proposed amendments in newspapers by October 7, 2007, and in the North Carolina Register on October 15, 2007, and a public hearing was held on November 7, 2007. NC DEQ received one set of public comments on the proposed rule and made changes to the rule based on those comments. No substantive comments were received on the adoption of regulations consistent with the 2007 Ethanol Rule. SC DHEC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in the State Register on January 23, 2009, for the April 14, 2009, submittal, and held a public hearing on April 9, 2009. In addition, for the April 10, 2014, submittal, SC DHEC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on August 23, 2013, in the State Register and held a public hearing on December 12, 2013. SC DHEC received no comments on either of its proposed revisions, and therefore made no changes based on public input. The SIP submissions also satisfy the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, these revisions meet the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations. A Technical Support Document (TSD) for each state or local revision, available as part of the docket to this proposed rulemaking, contains an analysis of the potential impact of the SIP revisions on air quality and whether approval of the SIP revisions will interfere with attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (or standards) or any other CAA requirement. Existing ethanol plants, where a state has any, are listed with information from their permits, including applicable requirements, current PSD status, and applicable federal rules that control emissions in lieu of PSD. The existing ethanol plants, where a state has any, are mapped along with the ambient air monitors to demonstrate the relationship between ethanol production and air quality. Emissions from ethanol plants are compared to other emissions data categories for four major pollutants revealing that for the major pollutants associated with ethanol production, ethanol plants make up less than 1 percent of the total anthropogenic emissions of that pollutant in all six states. EPA graphed air quality trends in each state, since the date of promulgation of the 2007 Ethanol Rule, for all criteria pollutants associated with E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 43792 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 139 / Monday, July 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules ethanol production. The air quality trends reveal that while ethanol production increased in certain areas, air quality improved for generally every pollutant monitored in each of the states. EPA also describes requirements for each state or local government’s minor source NSR program because the facilities that would be below the 250 tpy PSD major source threshold under this rulemaking will still need to obtain minor source construction permits.6 EPA further analyzes the impact of increasing the threshold to 250 tpy on ozone and particulate matter (PM) precursors in each state. The analysis for ozone and secondary PM demonstrates that sources of this size will not cause any interference with attainment or maintenance of the standard in these states. Based on EPA’s analysis in each TSD, EPA proposes to conclude that approval of this action will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171 of the CAA), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA as required under CAA section 110(l). V. What action is EPA proposing to take? EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Florida SIP, Georgia SIP, Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP, Mississippi SIP, North Carolina SIP, and South Carolina SIP. EPA plans to take final action after consideration of any comments received on this proposed rulemaking. The revisions to state rules that EPA is proposing to approve change the definition of ‘‘major stationary source’’ under each state or local PSD regulations. These proposed changes make clear that the PSD applicability threshold for certain ethanol plants is 250 tpy and remove the requirement to include fugitive emissions when determining if an ethanol plant is major for PSD. EPA proposes to determine that these revisions are consistent with EPA’s PSD regulations and that approval of these revisions is consistent with the requirements of CAA section 110(l) and will not adversely impact air quality. EPA’s analysis is available in the individual State TSDs that are part of the docket for this proposed rulemaking. This proposed action will 6 With the exception of facilities with a potential to emit between 100–250 tpy in several counties adjacent to the Atlanta, Georgia ozone nonattainment area for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, which are subject to Georgia’s NA NSR program. See the TSD for Georgia in the docket for this proposed rulemaking for more information. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:03 Jul 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 ensure consistency between the State and federally approved rules and ensure Federal enforceability of the State’s revised air program rules. VI. Incorporation by Reference In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the following regulations: Florida Rule 62–210.200, F.A.C., ‘‘Definitions,’’ state effective March 28, 2012; 7 8 Florida Rule 62–212.400, ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration,’’ state effective March 28, 2012; 9 Georgia Rule 391–3–1–.02(7), ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD),’’ state effective July 20, 2017; 10 Jefferson County Regulation 2.05, ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality,’’ version 13, state effective January 17, 2018 11 for the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP; Mississippi Rule 11 MAC Part 2, Rule 5.2, ‘‘Adoption of Federal Rules by Reference,’’ state effective May 28, 2016; 12 North Carolina Rule 02D .0530, 7 Except for the purposes of determining applicability in Rule 62–212.500, ‘‘Preconstruction Review for Nonattainment Areas.’’ See footnote 5 for additional information. 8 The effective date of the change to Florida Rule 62–210.200 made in Florida’s December 12, 2011, SIP revision is December 4, 2011. However, for purposes of the state effective date included at 40 CFR 52.520(c), that change to Florida’s rule is captured and superseded by Florida’s update in a February 27, 2013, SIP revision, state effective on March 28, 2012, which EPA previously approved on October 6, 2017. See 82 FR 46682. 9 The effective date of the change to Florida Rule 62–212.400 made in Florida’s December 12, 2011, SIP revision is December 4, 2011. However, for purposes of the state effective date included at 40 CFR 52.520(c), that change to Florida’s rule is captured and superseded by Florida’s update in a February 27, 2013, SIP revision, state effective on March 28, 2012, which EPA previously approved on September 19, 2012. See 77 FR 58027. 10 The effective date of the change to Georgia Rule 391–3–1-.02(7) made in Georgia’s September 15, 2008, SIP revision is September 11, 2008. However, for purposes of the state effective date included at 40 CFR 52.570(c), that change to Georgia’s rule is captured and superseded by Georgia’s update in a November 29, 2017, SIP revision, state effective on July 20, 2017, which EPA previously approved on December 4, 2018. See 83 FR 62466. 11 The effective date of the change to Jefferson County Regulation 2.05 made in Kentucky’s July 1, 2009, SIP revision is June 20, 2009. However, for purposes of the state effective date included at 40 CFR 52.920(c), that change to Jefferson County’s rule is captured and superseded by Kentucky’s update in a March 15, 2018, SIP revision, state effective on January 17, 2018, which EPA previously approved on April 10, 2019. See 84 FR 14268. 12 The effective date of the change to Mississippi Rule APC–S–5, ‘‘Regulations for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality’’ made in Mississippi’s November 28, 2007, SIP revision is August 23, 2007. However, for purposes of the state PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration,’’ state effective September 1, 2017; 13 and South Carolina Rule 61– 62.5, Standard No. 7, ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration,’’ state effective August 25, 2017.14 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). VII. 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. These proposed actions merely propose to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these proposed actions: • Are not significant regulatory actions 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); • Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory actions because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866; • Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); effective date included at 40 CFR 52.1270(c), that change to Mississippi’s rule is captured and superseded by Mississippi’s update in a June 7, 2016, SIP revision, state effective on May 28, 2016, which EPA previously approved on August 8, 2017. See 82 FR 37015. Furthermore, Mississippi has recodified previous Rule APC–S–5 as 11 MAC Part 2, Rule 5, with the relevant part from the November 28, 2007, SIP revision now included in Rule 5.2. 13 The effective date of the change to North Carolina Rule 02D .0530 made in North Carolina’s June 20, 2008, SIP revision is May 1, 2008. However, for purposes of the state effective date included at 40 CFR 52.1770(c), that change to North Carolina’s rule is captured and superseded by North Carolina’s update in a October 17, 2017, SIP revision, state effective on September 1, 2017, which EPA previously approved on September 11, 2018. See 82 FR 45827. 14 The effective date of the change to South Carolina Rule 61–62.1, Standard No. 7 made in South Caorlina’s April 10, 2014, SIP revision is December 27, 2013. However, for purposes of the state effective date included at 40 CFR 52.2120(c), that change to South Carolina’s rule is captured and superseded by South Carolina’s update in a September 5, 2017, SIP revision, state effective on August 25, 2017, which EPA previously approved on February 13, 2019. See 84 FR 3705. E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 139 / Monday, July 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules • Are 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.); • Do 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); • Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Are 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 • Do 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). For Florida, Georgia, the Jefferson County portion of Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina, the SIPs are not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. For South Carolina, because this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law, this action for the State of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Therefore, this proposed action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the boundary of York County, South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27–16–120 (Settlement Act), ‘‘all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:03 Jul 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.’’ The Catawba Indian Nation also retains authority to impose regulations applying higher environmental standards to the Reservation than those imposed by state law or local governing bodies, in accordance with the Settlement Act. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: June 26, 2020. Mary Walker, Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 2020–14425 Filed 7–17–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0636; FRL–10010– 94–Region 2] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Hormigas Ground Water Plume Superfund Site Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 2 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Hormigas Ground Water Plume Superfund Site (Site) located in Caguas, Puerto Rico, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, through the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund. DATES: Comments must be received by August 19, 2020. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 43793 Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– SFUND–2010–0636. Written comments submitted by mail are temporarily suspended and no hand deliveries will be accepted. We encourage the public to submit comments via https:// www.regulations.gov following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register. The EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Regional Records Centers for public visitors to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID–19. In addition, many site information repositories are closed, and information in these repositories, including the deletion docket, has not been updated with hardcopy or electronic media. For further information and updates on the EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/ dockets. The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Adalberto Bosque, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, City View Plaza II– Suite 7000, 48 RD, 165 Km. 1.2, Guaynabo, PR 00968–8069, (787) 977– 5825, email: bosque.adalberto@epa.gov. You might also contact: Brenda Reyes, Community Involvement Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, City View Plaza II–Suite 7000, 48 RD, 165 Km. 1.2, Guaynabo, PR 00968–8069, (787) 977–5825, email: reyes.brenda@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this issue of the Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of Hormigas Ground Water Plume Superfund Site without prior Notice of Intent to Delete because we view this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this deletion in the preamble to the direct final Notice of Deletion, and those reasons are incorporated herein. If we receive adverse comment(s) on this deletion action, we will withdraw the direct final Notice of Deletion, and it will not take effect. We will, as appropriate, consider and address all public comments in a subsequent final Notice of Deletion based on this Notice of Intent to Delete, if such action is determined to be appropriate. If so, we ADDRESSES: E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 139 (Monday, July 20, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43788-43793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14425]



[[Page 43788]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0177; FRL-10011-68-Region 4]


Air Plan Approval; FL; GA; KY; MS; NC; SC: Definition of Chemical 
Process Plants Under State Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve revisions to the State Implementation Plans (SIP) for Florida, 
Georgia, the Jefferson County portion of Kentucky, Mississippi, North 
Carolina, and South Carolina. The SIP revisions incorporate changes to 
the definition of chemical process plants under the States' Prevention 
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations. Consistent with an EPA 
regulation completed in 2007, EPA is proposing to approve the rules for 
Florida, Georgia, the Jefferson County portion of Kentucky, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina that modify the 
definition of chemical process plant to exclude ethanol manufacturing 
facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation processes. This 
will clarify that the PSD major source applicability threshold in the 
SIPs for these ethanol plants is 250 tons per year (tpy) (rather than 
100 tpy) and removes the requirement to include fugitive emissions when 
determining if the source is major for PSD. EPA is proposing to find 
that the changes to the state and local rules described herein are 
approvable because the Agency believes that they are consistent with 
EPA regulations governing state PSD programs and will not interfere 
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable 
further progress (as defined in section 171 of the Clean Air Act (CAA 
or Act)), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2020-0177 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions 
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or 
removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to 
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Brad Akers, 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. Mr. Akers can be 
reached via electronic mail at [email protected] or via telephone at 
(404) 562-9089.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is being addressed in this notice?
II. Background
    A. PSD Permitting Thresholds for Chemical Processing Plants
    B. Ethanol Rule
    C. Petitions for Review and Reconsideration of the 2007 Ethanol 
Rule
III. What SIP revisions are being proposed by EPA?
IV. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
V. What action is EPA proposing to take?
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this notice?

    EPA is proposing to approve the following revisions to SIPs 
received by EPA from Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 
Carolina, and South Carolina: (1) A portion of a SIP revision provided 
to EPA through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FL 
DEP) via letter dated December 12, 2011; (2) a SIP revision provided to 
EPA through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) via 
letter dated September 15, 2008; \1\ (3) a SIP revision to the 
Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP that was provided to EPA 
through the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ) via a letter dated 
July 1, 2009; \2\ (4) a SIP revision provided to EPA through the 
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) via letter dated 
November 28, 2007; (5) a SIP revision provided to EPA through the North 
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) \3\ via letter 
dated June 20, 2008; \4\ and (6) a portion of a SIP revision provided 
to EPA through the South Carolina Department of Health and 
Environmental Control (SC DHEC) via letter dated April 14, 2009, as 
updated in a portion of SIP revision provided to EPA via letter dated 
April 10, 2014. These revisions conform the State rules to changes to 
EPA regulations reflected in EPA's final rule entitled ``Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration, Nonattainment New Source Review, and Title 
V: Treatment of Certain Ethanol Production Facilities Under the ``Major 
Emitting Facility'' Definition'' (hereinafter referred to as the ``2007 
Ethanol Rule'') as published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2007. 
See 72 FR 24060.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA received the submittal on September 29, 2008.
    \2\ In 2003, the City of Louisville and Jefferson County 
governments merged and the ``Jefferson County Air Pollution Control 
District'' was renamed the ``Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control 
District.'' See The History of Air Pollution Control in Louisville, 
available at https://louisvilleky.gov/government/air-pollution-control-district/history-air-pollution-control-louisville. However, 
each of the regulations in the Jefferson County portion of the 
Kentucky SIP still has the subheading ``Air Pollution Control 
District of Jefferson County.'' Thus, to be consistent with the 
terminology used in the SIP, EPA refers throughout this notice to 
regulations contained in the Jefferson County portion of the 
Kentucky SIP as the ``Jefferson County'' regulations.
    \3\ At the time of the 2008 submittal, the NC DEQ was the North 
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Throughout 
this proposed rulemaking, EPA will refer to the State Agency as NC 
DEQ.
    \4\ EPA received the submission on June 25, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2007 Ethanol Rule amends the PSD definition of ``major 
stationary source'' to exclude certain ethanol facilities from the 
``chemical process plant'' source category and clarifies that the PSD 
major source applicability threshold for certain ethanol plants is 250 
tpy (rather than 100 tpy). The 2007 Ethanol Rule also removed the 
requirement to include fugitive emissions when determining if the 
source is major for PSD and Title V permitting. On October 21, 2019, 
EPA responded to a petition for reconsideration of the 2007 Ethanol 
Rule, and EPA denied the petition with respect to the revisions of the 
PSD Regulations reflected in that rule (as described in more detail 
below). EPA is now proposing to approve these SIP revisions that are 
based on a part of the 2007 Ethanol Rule.

[[Page 43789]]

II. Background

A. PSD Permitting Thresholds for Chemical Processing Plants

    Under the CAA, there are two potential thresholds for determining 
whether a source is a major emitting facility that is potentially 
subject to the construction permitting requirements under the PSD 
program; one threshold is 100 tpy per pollutant, and the other is 250 
tpy per pollutant. Section 169(1) of the CAA lists twenty-eight source 
categories that qualify as major emitting facilities if their emissions 
exceed the 100 tpy threshold. If the source does not fall within one of 
twenty-eight source categories listed in section 169, then the 250 tpy 
threshold is applicable.
    One of the source categories in the list of twenty-eight source 
categories to which the 100 tpy threshold applies is chemical process 
plants. Since the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code for 
chemical process plants includes facilities primarily engaged in 
manufacturing ethanol fuel, EPA and States had previously considered 
such facilities to be subject to the 100 tpy thresholds.
    As a result of this classification, pursuant to EPA regulations 
interpreting CAA section 302(j), chemical process plants were also 
required to include fugitive emissions for determining the potential 
emissions of such sources. Thus, prior to promulgation of the 2007 
Ethanol Rule, the classification of fuel and industrial ethanol 
facilities as chemical process plants had the effect of requiring these 
plants to include fugitive emissions of criteria pollutants when 
determining whether their emissions exceed the applicability thresholds 
for the PSD and nonattainment new source review (NA NSR) permit 
programs.

B. Ethanol Rule

    On May 1, 2007, EPA published in the Federal Register the 2007 
Ethanol Rule (72 FR 24060). This final rule amended EPA's PSD and NA 
NSR regulations to exclude ethanol manufacturing facilities that 
produce ethanol by natural fermentation processes from the ``chemical 
process plants'' category under the regulatory definition of ``major 
stationary source.''
    This change to EPA's NSR regulations affected the threshold used to 
determine PSD applicability for these ethanol production facilities, 
clarifying that such facilities were subject to the 250 tpy major 
source threshold. The 2007 Ethanol Rule also included changes to other 
provisions which established that ethanol facilities need not count 
fugitive emissions when determining whether such a source is ``major'' 
under the Federal PSD, NA NSR, and Title V permitting programs.

C. Petitions for Review and Reconsideration of the 2007 Ethanol Rule

    On July 2, 2007, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 
petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) to review the 2007 Ethanol Rule. On 
that same day, EPA received a petition for administrative 
reconsideration and request for stay of the 2007 Ethanol Rule from 
NRDC. On March 27, 2008, EPA denied NRDC's 2007 administrative petition 
for reconsideration.
    On March 2, 2009, EPA received a second petition for 
reconsideration and request for stay from NRDC. In 2009, NRDC also 
filed a petition for judicial review challenging EPA's March 27, 2008, 
denial of NRDC's 2007 administrative petition in the D.C. Circuit. This 
challenge was consolidated with NRDC's challenge to the 2007 Ethanol 
Rule. In August of 2009, the D.C. Circuit granted a joint motion to 
hold the case in abeyance, and the case has remained in abeyance.
    On October 21, 2019, EPA partially granted and partially denied 
NRDC's 2009 administrative petition for reconsideration. Specifically, 
EPA granted the request for reconsideration with regard to NRDC's claim 
that the 2007 Ethanol Rule did not appropriately address the CAA 
section 193 anti-backsliding requirements for nonattainment areas. EPA 
denied the remainder of the requests for reconsideration on the grounds 
that NRDC failed to establish that reconsideration was warranted under 
CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).

III. What SIP revisions are being proposed by EPA?

    As mentioned above, EPA is proposing to approve revisions to SIPs 
dated: Florida on December 12, 2011; Georgia on September 15, 2008; 
Kentucky, corresponding to the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky 
SIP, on July 1, 2009; Mississippi on November 28, 2007; North Carolina 
on June 20, 2008; and South Carolina on April 14, 2009, and April 10, 
2014. These revisions adopt language that is the same or consistent 
with that contained in EPA's 2007 Ethanol Rule. EPA is not acting on 
any changes with respect to NA NSR. The State regulations that EPA is 
proposing to approve exclude ethanol production facilities that produce 
ethanol by natural fermentation from the ``chemical process plants'' 
category. The revisions thus clarify that an ethanol facility is 
subject to a PSD major source threshold of 250 tpy and that such 
sources need not count fugitive emissions to determine potential 
emissions that are compared to this threshold. The revisions proposed 
for approval in this action do not affect NA NSR. More detail on the 
SIP revisions that EPA is proposing to approve is provided below. Each 
subsection below begins by identifying the rules as modified by each 
state or local government to include the ethanol exemption in its PSD 
program.

A. Florida

    Florida rule 62-210.200, Definitions, Florida Administrative Code 
(F.A.C.) at 62-210.200(189) ``Major Stationary Source'': ``Any of the 
following stationary sources of air pollutants which emits, or has the 
potential to emit, 100 tons per year or more of any regulated NSR 
pollutant: Chemical process plants (the term ``chemical process 
plants'' shall not include ethanol production facilities that produce 
ethanol by natural fermentation included in North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) codes 325193 or 312140) . . .'' Florida 
rule 62-210.200(214) ``North American Industry Classification System'' 
or ``NAICS'': ``A federal system of classifying business establishments 
according to similarity in the process used to produce goods or 
services, as described in the 2007 NAICS definition file (available 
free of cost at https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/ or available in CD 
ROM or book from at a cost from the US Department of Commerce at 1-800-
553-6847), hereby adopted and incorporated by reference (https://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-00705).'' Additionally, 
Chapter 62-212.400, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, at (3)(b): 
``The requirements of subsections 62-212.400(4) through (12), F.A.C., 
shall not apply to a major stationary source or major modification if 
the source of modification would be a major stationary source or major 
modification only if fugitive emissions, to the extent quantifiable, 
are considered in calculating the potential to emit of the stationary 
source or modification and the source does not belong to one of the 
following categories . . . 20. Chemical process plants (the term 
``chemical process plants'' shall not include ethanol production 
facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in 
North American Industry Classification

[[Page 43790]]

System (NAICS) codes 325193 or 312140) . . .''
    Chapter 62-210 of the F.A.C., which contains Florida's definitions 
regulation, generally applies to stationary sources in Florida. These 
definitions are referenced throughout Florida's rules, including in 
Chapter 62-212, which governs preconstruction review, including PSD. 
Chapter 62-212 of the F.A.C., which contains Florida's PSD regulation, 
applies to new or modified ``major stationary sources,'' as that term 
is defined in 62-210.200. As identified above, Florida revised 62-
210.200 to exclude ethanol production facilities from the ``chemical 
process plants'' major stationary source category such that ethanol 
facilities emitting less than 250 tpy of a regulated air pollutant are 
not subject to PSD.\5\ Additionally, Florida incorporated a definition 
for NAICS as part of this rulemaking. Furthermore, Florida's PSD 
regulation at 62-212.400(3)(b)20. says that emissions from these same 
facilities are not considered in determining whether the facility is 
subject to PSD. The state effective date of Florida's revision to the 
definition of ``chemical process plants'' in Rule 62-210.200 and the 
change to applicability procedures in Rule 62-212.400 is December 12, 
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Florida's definition of ``major stationary source'' at 62-
210.200 is also cross-referenced in the portion of its SIP-approved 
NA NSR regulation, 62-212.500, Preconstruction Review in 
Nonattainment Areas, that sets the fugitive emissions exclusion for 
determining rule applicability. See Rule 62-212.500(2)(b). If the 
definition of ``chemical process plants'' within the term of ``major 
stationary source'' were updated to exclude these ethanol producing 
facilities for the purposes of NA NSR, then fugitive emissions would 
not need to be considered in determining whether the source is 
major. All sources in nonattainment areas are major at 100 tpy, and 
certain classifications of nonattainment areas for ozone and 
PM2.5 establish lower thresholds for major source 
applicability. See 40 CFR 51.165(b)(iv)(A). However, Florida's 
December 12, 2011, submittal did not seek to revise, nor ask EPA to 
revise, the State's SIP-approved NA NSR program. Therefore, EPA is 
not approving the revision to the definition of ``chemical process 
plant'' within the term ``major stationary source'' to apply to the 
NA NSR program. Accordingly, if EPA finalizes this action, the 
ethanol production facility exclusion within the definition of 
``major stationary source'' at 62-210.200 will not apply in the SIP 
for the purposes of determining applicability in Rule 62-212.500, 
and EPA will note this in the list of SIP-approved Florida 
regulations at 40 CFR 52.520(c). There are currently no 
nonattainment areas in Florida.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Georgia

    Official Compilation of Rules and Regulations of the State of 
Georgia (Ga. Comp. R. & Regs.) 391-3-1-.02(7), Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, (a)2.(iii): ``The definition 
of major stationary source contained in 40 CFR part 52.21(b)(1) is 
hereby incorporated by reference except as follows . . .'' 
Additionally, (b)6.: ``Review of major stationary sources and major 
modifications--source applicability and general exemptions: 40 CFR part 
52.21 (i), as amended, is hereby incorporated and adopted by reference 
with the following exception . . .''
    This regulation incorporates by reference portions of 40 CFR 52.21, 
including most portions of the federal definition of ``major stationary 
source'' and most portions of EPA's applicability procedures as revised 
and amended on July 1, 2007, which include the 2007 Ethanol Rule 
provisions. This revision aligns paragraph (a)2.(iii) with the 
incorporation by reference of provisions in 40 CFR 52.21 at paragraph 
(a)1.
    The term ``major stationary source'' is defined in 40 CFR 
52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) as ``[a]ny of the following stationary sources of air 
pollutants which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tons per year 
or more of any regulated NSR pollutant: . . . Chemical process plants 
(which does not include ethanol production facilities that produce 
ethanol by natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 
312140).'' Additionally, 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(iii) excludes fugitive 
emissions from ethanol production facilities from the ``chemical 
process plants'' category such that fugitive emissions are not 
considered in determining whether the facility is subject to PSD.
    Because Georgia's incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21 
includes the ethanol exclusion, ethanol facilities emitting less than 
250 tpy of a regulated air pollutant are not subject to PSD, and 
fugitive emissions from ethanol facilities are not considered in 
determining whether the facility is subject to PSD.

C. Jefferson County Portion of the Kentucky SIP

    Jefferson County Regulation 2.05, Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration of Air Quality. This regulation incorporates by reference 
40 CFR 52.21, as revised and amended on July 1, 2008, with exceptions.
    The term ``major stationary source'' is defined in 40 CFR 
52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) as ``[a]ny of the following stationary sources of air 
pollutants which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tons per year 
or more of any regulated NSR pollutant: . . . Chemical process plants 
(which does not include ethanol production facilities that produce 
ethanol by natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 
312140).'' Additionally, 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(iii) excludes fugitive 
emissions from ethanol production facilities from the ``chemical 
process plants'' category such that fugitive emissions are not 
considered in determining whether the facility is subject to PSD.
    Because Jefferson County's incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 
52.21 includes the ethanol exclusion, ethanol facilities emitting less 
than 250 tpy of a regulated air pollutant are not subject to PSD, and 
fugitive emissions from ethanol facilities are not considered in 
determining whether the facility is subject to PSD.

D. Mississippi

    11 Mississippi Administrative Code (MAC) Part 2, Chapter 5, 
Regulations for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air 
Quality. This regulation incorporates by reference 40 CFR 52.21, as 
revised and amended on June 15, 2007, with exceptions.
    The term ``major stationary source'' is defined in 40 CFR 
52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) as ``[a]ny of the following stationary sources of air 
pollutants which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tons per year 
or more of any regulated NSR pollutant: . . . Chemical process plants 
(which does not include ethanol production facilities that produce 
ethanol by natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 
312140).'' Additionally, 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(iii) excludes fugitive 
emissions from ethanol production facilities from the ``chemical 
process plants'' category such that fugitive emissions are not 
considered in determining whether the facility is subject to PSD.
    Because Mississippi's incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21 
includes the ethanol exclusion, ethanol facilities emitting less than 
250 tpy of a regulated air pollutant are not subject to PSD, and 
fugitive emissions from ethanol facilities are not considered in 
determining whether the facility is subject to PSD.

E. North Carolina

    15 North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02D .0530, Prevention 
of Significant Deterioration. This regulation incorporates by reference 
40 CFR 52.21, as revised and amended on June 13, 2007, with exceptions.
    The term ``major stationary source'' is defined in 40 CFR 
52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) as ``[a]ny of the following stationary sources of air 
pollutants which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tons per year 
or more of any regulated NSR pollutant: . . . Chemical process plants 
(which does not include ethanol production facilities that produce

[[Page 43791]]

ethanol by natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 
312140).'' Additionally, 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(iii) excludes fugitive 
emissions from ethanol production facilities from the ``chemical 
process plants'' category such that fugitive emissions are not 
considered in determining whether the facility is subject to PSD.
    Because North Carolina's incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21 
includes the ethanol exclusion, ethanol facilities emitting less than 
250 tpy of a regulated air pollutant are not subject to PSD, and 
fugitive emissions from ethanol facilities are not considered in 
determining whether the facility is subject to PSD.

F. South Carolina

    South Carolina Code of Regulations Annotated (S.C. Code Ann. 
Regs.), Rule 61-62.5, Standard No. 7, Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration, at 61-62.5, Standard No. 7(b)(32) ``Major stationary 
source'' at (i)(a): ``Any of the following stationary sources of air 
pollutants which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tons per year 
or more of any regulated NSR pollutant: . . . chemical process plants 
(which does not include ethanol production facilities that produce 
ethanol by natural fermentation included in North American Industrial 
Classification System (NAICS) codes 325193 or 312140) . . .'' 
Additionally, another part of the definition at Standard No. 
7(b)(32)(iii): ``The fugitive emissions of a stationary source shall 
not be included in determining for any of the purposes of this 
regulation whether it is a major stationary source, unless the source 
belongs to one of the following categories of stationary sources: . . . 
(t) Chemical process plants--The term chemical processing plant shall 
not include ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by 
natural fermentation included in North American Industrial 
Classification System (NAICS) codes 325193 or 312140 . . .''
    SC DHEC's Rule 61-62.5, Standard No. 7, applies to new or modified 
``major stationary sources.'' As identified above, Standard No. 7 was 
revised to exclude ethanol production facilities from the ``chemical 
process plants'' major stationary source category such that ethanol 
facilities emitting less than 250 tpy of a regulated air pollutant are 
not subject to PSD. Furthermore, South Carolina's PSD regulation at 61-
62.5, Standard No. 7(b)(32)(iii) was revised to say that fugitive 
emissions at these same facilities are not considered in determining 
whether the facility is subject to PSD. The state effective date of SC 
DHEC's revision to the definition of ``major stationary source'' at 61-
62.5, Standard No. 7(b)(32)(i) and (iii) was initially April 24, 2009, 
as transmitted in the April 14, 2009, SIP revision.
    Subsequently, South Carolina made additional changes to Standard 
No. 7 regarding these provisions. Specifically, South Carolina made a 
minor change to spell out the term ``North American Industrial 
Classification System'' the first time it appears in Regulation No. 7 
at Regulation No. 7(b)(32)(i)(a). The State published its proposed 
changes in the South Carolina State Register on August 23, 2013, and 
held a public hearing on December 12, 2013. South Carolina adopted the 
amended rule on December 27, 2013, at which point it became state 
effective. On April 10, 2014, South Carolina submitted a request to EPA 
Region 4 to revise the South Carolina SIP with these additional changes 
made to South Carolina's PSD program.

IV. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    All of the aforementioned regulations are consistent with EPA's PSD 
program requirements in 40 CFR 51.166, as amended in the 2007 Ethanol 
Rule. Further, all submissions have met the public notice requirements 
for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102.
    FL DEP published a Notice of Proposed Rule on September 16, 2011, 
in the Florida Administrative Weekly, with a public hearing offered on 
October 13, 2011, if requested within 21 days of the published Notice. 
FL DEP received no request for a public hearing and therefore did not 
hold an official hearing. FL DEP received no comments from on its 
proposed revisions and therefore did not change the rules based on 
public input.
    GA EPD issued a Notice of Public Hearing and Proposed Revisions on 
May 4, 2008. A public hearing was then held on June 3, 2008. No 
comments were received on the proposed revision, and GA EPD therefore 
did not make changes to the rule based on public input.
    Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (LMAPCD) noticed 
proposed changes in newspapers published on February 20, 2009, and held 
a public hearing on May 20, 2009. Two sets of comments were received on 
the draft revisions, and LMAPCD responded to the comments received and 
noted that it made no substantive changes in response to the comments.
    MDEQ published its notice of public hearing and proposed changes 
via newspapers on June 15, 2007, June 22, 2007, and June 29, 2007, and 
held a public hearing on July 17, 2007. MDEQ did not receive any 
comments on its proposed changes and therefore did not make any changes 
to its rules based on public input.
    NC DEQ published a notice of proposed amendments in newspapers by 
October 7, 2007, and in the North Carolina Register on October 15, 
2007, and a public hearing was held on November 7, 2007. NC DEQ 
received one set of public comments on the proposed rule and made 
changes to the rule based on those comments. No substantive comments 
were received on the adoption of regulations consistent with the 2007 
Ethanol Rule.
    SC DHEC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in the State 
Register on January 23, 2009, for the April 14, 2009, submittal, and 
held a public hearing on April 9, 2009. In addition, for the April 10, 
2014, submittal, SC DHEC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on 
August 23, 2013, in the State Register and held a public hearing on 
December 12, 2013. SC DHEC received no comments on either of its 
proposed revisions, and therefore made no changes based on public 
input.
    The SIP submissions also satisfy the completeness criteria of 40 
CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, these revisions meet the 
substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and 
implementing regulations. A Technical Support Document (TSD) for each 
state or local revision, available as part of the docket to this 
proposed rulemaking, contains an analysis of the potential impact of 
the SIP revisions on air quality and whether approval of the SIP 
revisions will interfere with attainment or maintenance of the national 
ambient air quality standards (or standards) or any other CAA 
requirement. Existing ethanol plants, where a state has any, are listed 
with information from their permits, including applicable requirements, 
current PSD status, and applicable federal rules that control emissions 
in lieu of PSD. The existing ethanol plants, where a state has any, are 
mapped along with the ambient air monitors to demonstrate the 
relationship between ethanol production and air quality.
    Emissions from ethanol plants are compared to other emissions data 
categories for four major pollutants revealing that for the major 
pollutants associated with ethanol production, ethanol plants make up 
less than 1 percent of the total anthropogenic emissions of that 
pollutant in all six states. EPA graphed air quality trends in each 
state, since the date of promulgation of the 2007 Ethanol Rule, for all 
criteria pollutants associated with

[[Page 43792]]

ethanol production. The air quality trends reveal that while ethanol 
production increased in certain areas, air quality improved for 
generally every pollutant monitored in each of the states.
    EPA also describes requirements for each state or local 
government's minor source NSR program because the facilities that would 
be below the 250 tpy PSD major source threshold under this rulemaking 
will still need to obtain minor source construction permits.\6\ EPA 
further analyzes the impact of increasing the threshold to 250 tpy on 
ozone and particulate matter (PM) precursors in each state. The 
analysis for ozone and secondary PM demonstrates that sources of this 
size will not cause any interference with attainment or maintenance of 
the standard in these states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ With the exception of facilities with a potential to emit 
between 100-250 tpy in several counties adjacent to the Atlanta, 
Georgia ozone nonattainment area for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 
which are subject to Georgia's NA NSR program. See the TSD for 
Georgia in the docket for this proposed rulemaking for more 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on EPA's analysis in each TSD, EPA proposes to conclude that 
approval of this action will not interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as 
defined in section 171 of the CAA), or any other applicable requirement 
of the CAA as required under CAA section 110(l).

V. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Florida SIP, Georgia 
SIP, Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP, Mississippi SIP, 
North Carolina SIP, and South Carolina SIP. EPA plans to take final 
action after consideration of any comments received on this proposed 
rulemaking.
    The revisions to state rules that EPA is proposing to approve 
change the definition of ``major stationary source'' under each state 
or local PSD regulations. These proposed changes make clear that the 
PSD applicability threshold for certain ethanol plants is 250 tpy and 
remove the requirement to include fugitive emissions when determining 
if an ethanol plant is major for PSD. EPA proposes to determine that 
these revisions are consistent with EPA's PSD regulations and that 
approval of these revisions is consistent with the requirements of CAA 
section 110(l) and will not adversely impact air quality. EPA's 
analysis is available in the individual State TSDs that are part of the 
docket for this proposed rulemaking. This proposed action will ensure 
consistency between the State and federally approved rules and ensure 
Federal enforceability of the State's revised air program rules.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference the following regulations: Florida Rule 62-210.200, F.A.C., 
``Definitions,'' state effective March 28, 2012; 7 8 Florida 
Rule 62-212.400, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration,'' state 
effective March 28, 2012; \9\ Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(7), ``Prevention 
of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD),'' state effective 
July 20, 2017; \10\ Jefferson County Regulation 2.05, ``Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration of Air Quality,'' version 13, state effective 
January 17, 2018 \11\ for the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky 
SIP; Mississippi Rule 11 MAC Part 2, Rule 5.2, ``Adoption of Federal 
Rules by Reference,'' state effective May 28, 2016; \12\ North Carolina 
Rule 02D .0530, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration,'' state 
effective September 1, 2017; \13\ and South Carolina Rule 61-62.5, 
Standard No. 7, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration,'' state 
effective August 25, 2017.\14\ EPA has made, and will continue to make, 
these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at 
the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the person identified in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more 
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Except for the purposes of determining applicability in Rule 
62-212.500, ``Preconstruction Review for Nonattainment Areas.'' See 
footnote 5 for additional information.
    \8\ The effective date of the change to Florida Rule 62-210.200 
made in Florida's December 12, 2011, SIP revision is December 4, 
2011. However, for purposes of the state effective date included at 
40 CFR 52.520(c), that change to Florida's rule is captured and 
superseded by Florida's update in a February 27, 2013, SIP revision, 
state effective on March 28, 2012, which EPA previously approved on 
October 6, 2017. See 82 FR 46682.
    \9\ The effective date of the change to Florida Rule 62-212.400 
made in Florida's December 12, 2011, SIP revision is December 4, 
2011. However, for purposes of the state effective date included at 
40 CFR 52.520(c), that change to Florida's rule is captured and 
superseded by Florida's update in a February 27, 2013, SIP revision, 
state effective on March 28, 2012, which EPA previously approved on 
September 19, 2012. See 77 FR 58027.
    \10\ The effective date of the change to Georgia Rule 391-3-
1-.02(7) made in Georgia's September 15, 2008, SIP revision is 
September 11, 2008. However, for purposes of the state effective 
date included at 40 CFR 52.570(c), that change to Georgia's rule is 
captured and superseded by Georgia's update in a November 29, 2017, 
SIP revision, state effective on July 20, 2017, which EPA previously 
approved on December 4, 2018. See 83 FR 62466.
    \11\ The effective date of the change to Jefferson County 
Regulation 2.05 made in Kentucky's July 1, 2009, SIP revision is 
June 20, 2009. However, for purposes of the state effective date 
included at 40 CFR 52.920(c), that change to Jefferson County's rule 
is captured and superseded by Kentucky's update in a March 15, 2018, 
SIP revision, state effective on January 17, 2018, which EPA 
previously approved on April 10, 2019. See 84 FR 14268.
    \12\ The effective date of the change to Mississippi Rule APC-S-
5, ``Regulations for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of 
Air Quality'' made in Mississippi's November 28, 2007, SIP revision 
is August 23, 2007. However, for purposes of the state effective 
date included at 40 CFR 52.1270(c), that change to Mississippi's 
rule is captured and superseded by Mississippi's update in a June 7, 
2016, SIP revision, state effective on May 28, 2016, which EPA 
previously approved on August 8, 2017. See 82 FR 37015. Furthermore, 
Mississippi has recodified previous Rule APC-S-5 as 11 MAC Part 2, 
Rule 5, with the relevant part from the November 28, 2007, SIP 
revision now included in Rule 5.2.
    \13\ The effective date of the change to North Carolina Rule 02D 
.0530 made in North Carolina's June 20, 2008, SIP revision is May 1, 
2008. However, for purposes of the state effective date included at 
40 CFR 52.1770(c), that change to North Carolina's rule is captured 
and superseded by North Carolina's update in a October 17, 2017, SIP 
revision, state effective on September 1, 2017, which EPA previously 
approved on September 11, 2018. See 82 FR 45827.
    \14\ The effective date of the change to South Carolina Rule 61-
62.1, Standard No. 7 made in South Caorlina's April 10, 2014, SIP 
revision is December 27, 2013. However, for purposes of the state 
effective date included at 40 CFR 52.2120(c), that change to South 
Carolina's rule is captured and superseded by South Carolina's 
update in a September 5, 2017, SIP revision, state effective on 
August 25, 2017, which EPA previously approved on February 13, 2019. 
See 84 FR 3705.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. 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. These proposed actions 
merely propose to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, these proposed actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions 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);
     Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory actions because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

[[Page 43793]]

     Are 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.);
     Do 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);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are 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
     Do 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).
    For Florida, Georgia, the Jefferson County portion of Kentucky, 
Mississippi, and North Carolina, the SIPs are not approved to apply on 
any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian 
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor 
will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 
preempt tribal law.
    For South Carolina, because this proposed action merely proposes to 
approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose 
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law, this action 
for the State of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 
Therefore, this proposed action will not impose substantial direct 
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. The Catawba Indian 
Nation Reservation is located within the boundary of York County, South 
Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. 
Code Ann. 27-16-120 (Settlement Act), ``all state and local 
environmental laws and regulations apply to the Catawba Indian Nation 
and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and 
local agencies and authorities.'' The Catawba Indian Nation also 
retains authority to impose regulations applying higher environmental 
standards to the Reservation than those imposed by state law or local 
governing bodies, in accordance with the Settlement Act.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 26, 2020.
Mary Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

[FR Doc. 2020-14425 Filed 7-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.