[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 197 (Thursday, October 10, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54498-54502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21956]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0665; FRL-10000-84-Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; SC; 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Transport
Infrastructure
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving South
Carolina's June 25, 2018, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission
pertaining to the ``good neighbor'' provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The good neighbor provision
requires each state's implementation plan to address the interstate
transport of air pollution in amounts that contribute significantly to
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other
state. In this action, EPA has determined that South Carolina's SIP
contains adequate provisions to prohibit emissions within the State
from contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with
[[Page 54499]]
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
DATES: This rule will be effective November 12, 2019.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0665. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be
reached via phone number (404) 562-9031 or via electronic mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a revised primary SO2
NAAQS with a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). Pursuant to section
110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as
EPA may prescribe. These SIPs, which EPA has historically referred to
as ``infrastructure SIPs,'' are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS, and the requirements are
designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air
quality management program are adequate to meet the state's
responsibility under the CAA. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states
to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the
contents of individual state submissions may vary depending upon the
facts and circumstances. The content of the changes in such SIP
submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's
approved SIP already contains. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to
address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic
program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires SIPs to include
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two clauses of this
section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to
nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance of the
NAAQS).
On June 25, 2018, the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SC DHEC) submitted a revision to the South
Carolina 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 SC DHEC's June 25, 2018, SIP submission because the State
demonstrated that South Carolina 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 South Carolina are addressed in separate
rulemakings.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA acted on the other elements of South Carolina's May 8,
2014, infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS on May 24, 2016 (81 FR 32651) and September 24,
2018 (83 FR 48237).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on April 23,
2019, EPA proposed to approve South Carolina's June 25, 2018, SIP
revision on the basis that the State's implementation plan adequately
addresses prong 1 and prong 2 requirements for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. See 84 FR 16799. The details of the SIP revision
and the rationale for EPA's action is explained in the NPRM. Comments
on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before May 23, 2019. EPA
received three sets of adverse comments from anonymous commenters.
These comments are included in the docket for this final action. EPA
has summarized the comments and provided responses below.
II. Response to Comments
Comment 1: A commenter expresses concern about EPA's statement that
the Agency does not have monitoring or modeling data suggesting that
North Carolina is impacted by SO2 emissions from the
Milliken & Co. Magnolia Plant (Magnolia) \2\ or WestRock CP LLC
(WestRock).\3\ The commenter questions why EPA did not model these
facilities and states that EPA must have monitoring data to
``definitively conclude anything about these sources.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Magnolia is a textile and fabric finishing plant located in
Blacksburg, South Carolina.
\3\ Westrock is a pulp and paper mill located in Florence, South
Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 1: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that
monitoring and dispersion modeling are needed for these two sources
before EPA can approve South Carolina's SIP submittal as meeting the
interstate transport requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D). There is
nothing in this section of the CAA suggesting that monitoring or
dispersion modeling is legally required to evaluate good neighbor SIPs,
and EPA has previously found that a weight of evidence (WOE) approach
is sufficient to determine whether or not a state satisfies the good
neighbor provision.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA continues to believe that the WOE analysis provided in the NPRM
is adequate to determine the potential downwind impact from South
Carolina to neighboring states. EPA's analysis includes the following
factors: (1) SO2 air dispersion modeling results for sources
within 50 kilometers (km) of South Carolina's border both within the
State and in neighboring states, (2) SO2 emissions trends
for sources in South Carolina, (3) SO2 ambient air quality
for monitors for sources within 50 km of South Carolina's border both
within the State and in neighboring states; and (4) South Carolina's
statutes and SIP-
[[Page 54500]]
approved regulations and federal regulations that address
SO2 emissions. As part of its WOE analysis, EPA performed a
qualitative evaluation to assess whether SO2 emissions from
Magnolia and WestRock are impacting North Carolina, the only
neighboring state within 50 km of these sources. Because EPA does not
have monitoring or modeling data for these two sources, EPA evaluated
their 2017 SO2 emissions, distances from the South Carolina
border, and distances from sources in North Carolina with
SO2 emissions greater than 100 tons per year (tpy) in 2017
and not subject to EPA's Data Requirements Rule (DRR) \5\ as summarized
in Table 5 of the NPRM and found that this information supports EPA's
proposed determination that South Carolina has met the good neighbor
provision for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\6\ The commenter
did not provide a technical analysis that contradicts EPA's proposed
determination that sources in South Carolina such as Magnolia or
Westrock will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance in another state. Therefore, EPA continues
to believe that the Agency's analysis of these and other South Carolina
sources in the NPRM, weighed along with other WOE factors described in
the NPRM, support EPA's conclusion that South Carolina has satisfied
the good neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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).
\6\ With regard to the WestRock facility, EPA continues to
believe that the 68-km distance between the WestRock facility in
South Carolina and the Pilkington facility, the nearest source in
North Carolina with SO2 emissions greater than 100 tpy,
makes it unlikely that SO2 emissions from WestRock could
interact with SO2 emissions from Pilkington in such a way
as to contribute significantly to nonattainment in North Carolina.
See 84 FR 16805 (April 23, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: Two commenters expressed concerns regarding the modeling
analysis for Resolute FP US Inc.--Catawba Mill (Resolute). One
commenter questions the use of 2012-2014 actual emissions in the
modeling of Resolute.\7\ The commenter states that ``EPA is hiding
behind 5-7 year old data'' and that EPA should perform the modeling
using maximum allowable potential emissions before concluding that the
source, located 7 km from the North Carolina border, ``does not
contribute to violations in the neighboring state.'' Another commenter
questions the use of a modeling domain for Resolute that extends 4 km
into North Carolina and mentions that EPA should perform ``additional
modeling to confirm that an extended modeling domain would not show an
even higher modeled concentration farther into the state of North
Carolina.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Resolute is a pulp and paper mill located in Catawba, South
Carolina. Resolute opted to conduct air dispersion modeling under
the DRR. EPA summarized these modeling results in the NPRM. See 84
FR at 16803-16804.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 2: As discussed above, the good neighbor provision does
not require modeling to determine whether a state contributes
significantly to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of a
specific NAAQS in another state. EPA used a WOE analysis to evaluate
South Carolina's SIP revision under the good neighbor provision and
evaluated all available data, including the modeling submitted by South
Carolina during the DRR process for Resolute.
As stated in the NPRM, the modeling for Resolute predicts no
violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS within 50 km of the
South Carolina border. The modeling results show that SO2
concentrations drop off rapidly with a predicted maximum modeled
concentration of approximately 69 ppb just north of the facility and
concentrations in North Carolina below approximately 18 ppb.\8\ EPA
continues to believe that these results, weighed along with the other
WOE factors discussed in the NPRM, support EPA's proposed conclusion
that sources in South Carolina do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Extending the modeling domain more than 4 km into North
Carolina would not alter EPA's conclusions because the modeled
concentrations in North Carolina are well below the NAAQS and, given
the nature of SO2, would likely continue to decrease as
distance increases from the source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the comment regarding the use of modeling with ``5-7
year old data'' to evaluate South Carolina's June 25, 2018, SIP
submission, EPA has evaluated more recent actual SO2
emissions data for Resolute for the years 2015-2017.\9\ Resolute's
2015-2017 SO2 emissions (2,386 tpy, 2,391 tpy, and 2,211 tpy
in 2015, 2016, and 2017, respectively) are lower than the modeled 2012-
2014 SO2 emissions (4,562 tpy, 4,491 tpy, and 4,780 tpy in
2012, 2013, and 2014, respectively). Because emissions have decreased
from 2012-2014 to 2015-2017, the model results may overpredict current
SO2 concentrations and therefore continue to support the
Agency's conclusion that South Carolina has satisfied the good neighbor
provision with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA
also notes that the commenters did not provide any technical analysis
contradicting EPA's proposed determination that Resolute will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: A commenter notes that EPA analyzed sources that emitted
more than 100 tpy of SO2 within 50 km of the South Carolina
border. The commenter states that EPA should have considered and
modeled sources that emitted less SO2 and are closer to the
border and that EPA evaluated sources emitting 1 tpy when acting on
good neighbor SIP revisions for Delaware and the District of Columbia.
Response 3: EPA assessed annual emissions data for non-DRR sources
emitting over 100 tons of SO2 in 2017 in South Carolina and
existing dispersion modeling for DRR sources to identify the universe
of sources in the State likely to be responsible for SO2
emissions potentially contributing to interstate transport. After
determining that 89 percent of South Carolina's statewide
SO2 emissions are from point sources based on 2014
emissions, EPA next focused on individual facilities which emitted
above 100 tpy using the most recent year for which point source
emission data was available, i.e., 2017. EPA assessed, using its best
judgment, which sources could have the most serious impact on downwind
states. EPA chose 100 tpy as the emissions threshold for consideration
for interstate transport because South Carolina's universe of point
sources was too large to evaluate every source at a lower threshold
like that used in the Delaware and District of Columbia analyses. South
Carolina's point sources of SO2 emitting 100 tons or less in
2017 comprise only seven percent of the State's total SO2
point source inventory in 2017.\10\ EPA is not precluded from choosing
different thresholds for evaluating interstate transport in different
states because the factual circumstances vary from state to state.
Furthermore, EPA notes that small sources, in particular those emitting
less than 100 tpy of SO2, usually cannot be
[[Page 54501]]
characterized accurately because the level of detail about the source
and the data needed for such an analysis is not as often readily
available as for the larger sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The 2017 South Carolina SO2 point source
emissions data which SC DHEC reported to EPA is included in the
docket for this action under Docket ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0665.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the statement about modeling, EPA notes that it did not
independently model any sources as part of its evaluation of South
Carolina's good neighbor SIP submission, including sources emitting
more than 100 tpy of SO2 within 50 km from the South
Carolina border. EPA did, however, evaluate all available information
for sources that emitted more than 100 tpy of SO2 within 50
km of the border, including any available air dispersion modeling, and
continues to believe that its WOE analysis demonstrates that South
Carolina has satisfied the good neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. The commenter did not provide a technical
analysis indicating that sources emitting less than or equal to 100 tpy
within 50 km of the border may have downwind impacts that violate the
good neighbor provision.
Comment 4: A commenter states that three sources in South Carolina
(i.e., W.S. Lee Station, McMeekin Station, and WestRock) were ``able to
escape nonattainment designation status'' by accepting federally-
enforceable permit limits ``to exempt them from complying with the
DRR.'' The commenter states that accepting these limits does not mean
that these sources are not ``causing or contributing to nonattainment
or maintenance'' in another state and questions why EPA did not perform
modeling to determine if these sources are impacting neighboring states
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
Response 4: Regarding the commenter's reference to the
SO2 designations signed on December 21, 2017 (83 FR 1098),
to the extent commenter is taking issue with those designations, those
designations and the federally-enforceable emission limits taken to
comply with the DRR are outside the scope of this action to approve
South Carolina's SIP revision to address interstate transport for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Regarding the comment concerning
modeling, EPA does not agree that modeling is necessary to demonstrate
that these sources do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
another state. As discussed above, there is nothing in the interstate
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) suggesting that
dispersion modeling is legally required to evaluate good neighbor SIPs,
and EPA used its long-standing WOE approach to evaluate South
Carolina's SIP revision under the good neighbor provision. EPA also
notes that the commenter did not provide a technical analysis that
contradicts EPA's proposed determination that W.S. Lee Station,
McMeekin Station, and WestRock will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another state.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving South Carolina's June 25, 2018, SIP submission as
demonstrating that South Carolina's SIP has adequate provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in the State
from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this action for South Carolina does not have Tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000) because it does not have substantial direct effects
on an Indian Tribe. 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, ``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.'' However, EPA has determined
that this rule does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian
Tribe because this action is not approving any specific rule, but
rather has determined that South Carolina's already approved SIP meets
certain CAA requirements. EPA notes that this action will not 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
[[Page 54502]]
action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by December 9, 2019. 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: September 25, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
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 PP-South Carolina
0
2. In Sec. 52.2120, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
the entry ``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. 52.2120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Provision effective date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 6/25/2018 10/10/2019, [insert Addressing Prongs 1 and 2
Requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 Federal Register of section
NAAQS. citation]. 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-21956 Filed 10-9-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P