[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 85 (Friday, May 1, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25295-25301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08501]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0008; FRL-10007-99P--Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Florida; 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
Transport Infrastructure
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
Florida's September 18, 2018, State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission pertaining to the ``good neighbor'' provision of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The
good neighbor provision requires each state's implementation plan to
address the interstate transport of air pollution in amounts that
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other state. In this action, EPA has
determined that Florida will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, EPA is approving
the September 18, 2018, SIP revision as meeting the requirements of the
good neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
DATES: This rule will be effective June 1, 2020.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0008. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be
reached via phone number (404) 562-9031 or via electronic mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a revised primary SO2
NAAQS with a
[[Page 25296]]
level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the
annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75
FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA,
states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements
of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. These
SIPs, which EPA has historically referred to as ``infrastructure
SIPs,'' are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement'' of such NAAQS, and the requirements are designed to
ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality
management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibility
under the CAA. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to make a SIP
submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of
individual state submissions may vary depending upon the facts and
circumstances. The content of the changes in such SIP submissions may
also vary depending upon what provisions the state's approved SIP
already contains. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic
SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program
requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires SIPs to include
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two clauses of this
section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to
nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance of the
NAAQS).
On September 18, 2018, the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) submitted a revision to the Florida SIP addressing
prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. EPA is approving FDEP's September 18, 2018, SIP
submission because the State demonstrated that Florida will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state. All other elements related to the infrastructure requirements of
section 110(a)(2) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for Florida
are addressed in separate rulemakings.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA acted on the other elements of Florida's June 3, 2013,
infrastructure SIP submission, as supplemented on January 8, 2014,
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on September 30, 2016 (81
FR 67179).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on February 10,
2020 (85 FR 7480), EPA proposed to approve Florida's September 18,
2018, SIP revision for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS (``Florida
NPRM''). The details of the SIP revision and the rationale for EPA's
action is explained in the Florida NPRM. Comments on the proposed
rulemaking were due on or before March 11, 2020.
II. Response to Comments
EPA received five sets of adverse comments from anonymous
commenters (collectively referred to as the ``Commenter''). These
comments are included in the docket for this final action. EPA has
summarized the comments and provided responses below.
Comment 1: The Commenter states that EPA has not demonstrated that
Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state. The Commenter claims this is ``best evidenced'' in Escambia
County, Alabama, which borders the Florida panhandle counties of
Escambia \2\ and Santa Rosa. As summarized below, the Commenter raises
specific concerns regarding several aspects of EPA's analysis of
Florida's SIP revision as it relates to interstate transport of
SO2 emissions into Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ All subsequent references to ``Escambia County'' in this
notice are to Escambia County, Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 1.a: The Commenter quotes the following statement from the
Florida NPRM: ``Regarding three out-of-state DRR \3\ sources within 50
km \4\ of the Florida border which are located in Alabama, the
information available to the Agency does not indicate there are
violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Alabama to which
Florida sources could contribute.'' The Commenter then asserts that the
opposite is also true--that the available information does not indicate
that there are no violations of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ On August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052), EPA separately promulgated
air quality characterization requirements for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in the Data Requirements Rule (DRR).
\4\ The Commenter's use of ``km'' in this instance refers to
kilometers (km).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 1.b: The Commenter notes that Escambia County is currently
designated unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and
claims that EPA has not provided information to change this
designation, and therefore should not approve the September 18, 2018,
Florida SIP submission because the State may be contributing to a NAAQS
violation in that county. The Commenter states that the absence of
evidence of a violation does not mean that there is no violation of the
NAAQS, which is why EPA designated the county as unclassifiable, and
that the SIP revision should not be approved until EPA or Florida
demonstrates that there is no violation. The Commenter then asserts
that without evidence that there is not a NAAQS violation in Escambia
County, EPA cannot say that Florida is not contributing to a downwind
NAAQS violation or is not interfering with maintenance in Escambia
County and further asserts that EPA cannot approve Florida's SIP
revision until the ``NAAQS status'' of that county is resolved.
Comment 1.c: The Commenter notes that, contrary to EPA's statement
in the notice, Table 5 in the Florida NPRM does not show a decline in
SO2 emissions from 2012 to 2017/2018 for the Alabama sources
listed therein. The Commenter points out that if the reference is to
Table 6, there is a decrease in emissions relative to 2012 and an
increase in emissions relative to 2017. The Commenter states that EPA
should explain why there is an upward trend and include 2019 emissions
to be more complete.
Comment 1.d: The Commenter references ``similar concerns'' that it
raised regarding EPA's December 31, 2019, NPRM (84 FR 72278) (``Alabama
NPRM'') proposing to approve Alabama's good neighbor SIP revision for
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and asks that EPA consider those
comments in evaluating the Florida NPRM.\5\ The Commenter then broadly
restates some of these comments as summarized below.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The docket for EPA's action on Alabama's August 20, 2018,
SIP submission is located at www.regulations.gov with Docket ID:
EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0792.
\6\ On March 10, 2020 (85 FR 13755), EPA responded to adverse
comments received and finalized approval of Alabama's August 20,
2018, SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commenter refers to its comments on the Alabama NPRM regarding
the unmodeled flare emissions at the Escambia Operating Company--Big
Escambia Creek Plant (Big Escambia) facility in Alabama.\7\ With
respect to the Florida SIP submission, the Commenter urges EPA or the
state to correct the modeling for
[[Page 25297]]
Big Escambia to account for missing emissions from a flare at the
facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Regarding Big Escambia, the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management (ADEM) provided supplemental information in
September and December of 2019 to address the issues with the
original modeling for this source performed under the DRR for the
purposes of evaluating interstate transport of SO2 from
Alabama into Florida.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commenter also refers to its comments on the Alabama NPRM
regarding the need for additional modeling receptors in the unmodeled
area in Florida between a Florida source, Breitburn Operating, L.P.
(Breitburn), and Big Escambia.\8\ With respect to the Florida NPRM, the
Commenter urges EPA or the state to include more receptors in the
modeling for Big Escambia and references Breitburn in its discussion
noting that EPA is proposing to approve Florida's SIP revision but does
not have evidence that there is not a NAAQS violation in Escambia
County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ EPA notes that Big Escambia is located 8 km from the Florida
border and 21 km northwest from Breitburn, the nearest
SO2 source in Florida. Breitburn is located less than 5
km from the Alabama-Florida border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 1.e: The Commenter believes that, in the absence of air
quality monitors, the best way to assess air quality is through
modeling. The Commenter predicts that EPA will not model in response to
the comments but will offer some rationale for why omitting the flare
emissions at Big Escambia and leaving a gap in the receptor grid
between Breitburn and Big Escambia are a sufficient and conservative
substitute for modeling. The Commenter conducted simple modeling runs
via AERSCREEN \9\ and claims that the results show that SO2
emissions are being transported across state lines from Alabama into
Florida and Florida into Alabama based on simulations from Big Escambia
and Breitburn. The Commenter acknowledges that AERSCREEN is a ``simple
screening model'' which is ``not capable or sophisticated enough to
unequivocally answer the question of whether there are NAAQS violations
around Breitburn (particularly in the unmodeled receptor gap) in
Florida, or at the unclassifiable receptors in Escambia County,
Alabama, or whether the prong 1 and prong 2 requirements of both
Alabama and Florida have been satisfied.'' The Commenter explains that
it did not submit the modeling results due to only being able to
estimate the hourly emissions and release characteristics of the flare
at Big Escambia, which the Commenter believes EPA would use to
discredit the results as invalid. The Commenter asks why EPA does not
``run the modeling properly instead of making unsubstantiated technical
assumptions that run counter to why modeling is used in the first
place?'' The Commenter notes that EPA could provide AERSCREEN runs to
supplement the Agency's weight of evidence (WOE) and to evaluate the
potential for transport issues ``rather than speculating on what the
concentrations might look like in the absence of adequate modeling.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ AERSCREEN is EPA's recommended screening model based on
AERMOD, a steady-state plume model that incorporates air dispersion
based on planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling
concepts, including treatment of both surface and elevated sources,
and both simple and complex terrain. AERSCREEN will produce
estimates of ``worst-case'' 1-hour concentrations for a single
source, without the need for hourly meteorological data, and also
includes conversion factors to estimate ``worst-case'' 3-hour, 8-
hour, 24-hour, and annual concentrations. AERSCREEN is intended to
produce concentration estimates that are equal to or greater than
the estimates produced by AERMOD with a fully developed set of
meteorological and terrain data, but the degree of conservatism will
vary depending on the application. EPA recommends AERSCREEN and
AERMOD for certain applications. See https://www.epa.gov/scram/air-quality-dispersion-modeling-screening-models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's claim that EPA has
not demonstrated that Florida will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in any other state. EPA continues to believe that
the WOE approach applied in the NPRM provides a sufficient technical
justification for approving Florida's transport SIP. EPA's WOE analysis
evaluated the following factors: (1) Potential ambient air quality
impacts of SO2 emissions from certain facilities in Florida
on neighboring states based on available air dispersion modeling
results; (2) SO2 emissions from Florida sources; (3)
SO2 ambient air quality for Florida and neighboring states;
(4) SIP-approved Florida regulations that address SO2
emissions; and (5) federal regulations that reduce SO2
emissions at Florida sources. EPA's response to the Commenter's
specific concerns are outlined below.
Response 1.a: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's statement that the
available information ``does not indicate that there are no violations
of the NAAQS.'' EPA's statement regarding the three out-of-state DRR
sources within 50 km of Florida (Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals--
LeMoyne Site (AkzoNobel); Alabama Power Company--James M. Barry
Electric Generating Plant (Plant Barry); and Big Escambia) cited by the
Commenter, and EPA's determination that Florida will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state, is based on EPA's
WOE analysis of Florida's SIP revision.
EPA's WOE evaluation described in Response 1 includes the
information summarized in Sections III.C.1.b (Big Escambia) and
III.C.2.b (Plant Barry and AkzoNobel) of the Florida NPRM. Although
Plant Barry and AkzoNobel are not located in Escambia County, Alabama,
EPA addresses these facilities in this response.
Regarding AkzoNobel and Plant Barry, these sources are both located
in Mobile County, Alabama, approximately 41 km and 36 km from the
Florida border, respectively. For these sources, EPA evaluated 2017
SO2 emissions data along with the distances to the closest
neighboring state's non-DRR sources emitting over 100 tons per year
(tpy) of SO2. Table 5 in the Florida NPRM shows that the
distances between each facility and the nearest state's source to each
facility which emits over 100 tpy of SO2 exceed 50 km, the
distance threshold Florida used to reflect the transport properties of
SO2.\10\ Further, the closest sources in another state to
AkzoNobel and Plant Barry are located in Mississippi. Due to the
magnitude of their SO2 emissions and the distance to the
facilities in Alabama, EPA believes that there are no Florida sources
which emit SO2 within 50 km of AkzoNobel and Plant Barry
which could interact with SO2 emissions from these Alabama
sources in such a way as to contribute significantly to nonattainment
in Alabama. In addition, EPA evaluated SO2 emissions trends
for AkzoNobel and Plant Barry in the Florida NPRM and assessed more
recent SO2 emissions data that has become available for
Plant Barry for 2019. See Response 1.c. for additional information on
the emissions data for these sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In the Florida NPRM, EPA concurred with Florida's
application of the 50-km threshold as a reasonable distance to
evaluate emission source impacts into neighboring states and to
assess air quality monitors within 50 km of the State's border. See
85 FR 7482 (February 10, 2020). The Commenter did not raise concerns
with this determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also evaluated data from the Agency's Air Quality System (AQS)
\11\ from the SO2 monitors in the surrounding areas of
AkzoNobel and Plant Barry. The only monitor within 50 km of these
sources is located in Mobile County, Alabama (AQS ID: 01-097-0003), and
is approximately 23 km from AkzoNobel. The 2018 design value (DV) \12\
for this monitor is 11 ppb. As
[[Page 25298]]
stated in the Florida NPRM, EPA believes that the information evaluated
for AkzoNobel and Plant Barry, as part of the Agency's WOE analysis,
support the Agency's conclusion that sources in Florida will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in a nearby state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ EPA's AQS contains ambient air pollution data collected by
EPA, state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies. This
data is available at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
\12\ A ``Design Value'' is a statistic that describes the air
quality status of a given location relative to the level of the
NAAQS. The DV for the primary 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is
the 3-year average of annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour
values for a monitoring site. For example, the 2017 DV is calculated
based on the three-year average from 2015-2017. The interpretation
of the primary 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS including the data
handling conventions and calculations necessary for determining
compliance with the NAAQS can be found in Appendix T to 40 CFR part
50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Big Escambia, which is located approximately 8 km from
the Florida border, EPA considered the supplemental information and
modeling results provided by ADEM.\13\ The modeling included Breitburn,
the nearest SO2 source in Florida to Big Escambia, which is
located less than 5 km from the Alabama-Florida border. As noted in the
Florida NPRM and Response 1.d, Florida's submittal indicates that
Breitburn's 2017 SO2 emissions are 1,491 tons. Due to its
proximity to Big Escambia, Alabama's modeling analysis included
Breitburn as a modeled nearby source using a conservative maximum
potential-to-emit emissions rate of 2,181 pounds per hour (lb/hr)
(9,553 tpy).\14\ This modeling indicates that the impact of
SO2 emissions from Breitburn do not result in Alabama's air
quality exceeding the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA believes
that the modeling provides a conservative estimate of Breitburn's
SO2 impacts at locations in Alabama near the Alabama-Florida
border because the Big Escambia modeling used allowable emissions of
SO2 for Breitburn, which are approximately 6.4 times higher
than Breitburn's actual annual SO2 emissions for 2017 (1,491
tpy). In addition, as shown in the Florida NPRM, Breitburn's 2014-2018
emissions profile demonstrates that Breitburn has consistently operated
well below its permitted allowable emission rate. Thus, EPA continues
to believe that Breitburn's actual contribution to SO2
concentrations in Alabama would likely be much less than the predicted
concentrations in the Big Escambia modeling, which provides further
assurances that air quality in the portion of Alabama covered in the
modeling grid would remain below the level of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See footnote 7.
\14\ Breitburn has two sulfur recovery units that each have
SO2 permit limits of approximately 1,000 lb/hr that were
both included in the modeling performed by Alabama. However,
Brietburn operates only one of the two sulfur recovery units at any
given time. Therefore, the maximum allowable emissions rate in
reality is approximately half of the 2,181 lb/hr modeled by Alabama.
Additionally, based upon Breitburn's actual operations in 2017 and
2018, the maximum hourly SO2 emissions rate during that
time was approximately 396 lb/hr, which is approximately 18% of the
emissions rate included in Alabama's modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 1.b: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. EPA's determination
that Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
another state is not reliant on Escambia County's unclassifiable
designation. As stated in Response 1.a, this determination is based on
a WOE analysis that includes information regarding Florida
SO2 emission sources and surrounding states' sources,
including sources in Escambia County, Alabama. EPA continues to believe
that the WOE analysis provided in the NPRM, which includes as one of
several factors the absence of any information demonstrating a
potential violation in Alabama, is adequate to determine the potential
downwind impact from Florida to neighboring states.
Response 1.c: EPA acknowledges that the quoted sentence from the
Florida NPRM should have referenced Table 6 instead of Table 5. Table 6
provides annual SO2 emissions for two Alabama sources,
AkzoNobel and Plant Barry, for the years 2012-2017 (AkzoNobel) and
2012-2018 (Plant Barry).
Regarding the comment that there is an increase in SO2
emissions relative to 2017, annual SO2 emissions increased
at Plant Barry from 4,218 tons in 2017 to 5,257 tons in 2018.
SO2 emissions data are now available from Plant Barry for
2019. The data show that SO2 emissions from Plant Barry
decreased by 1,762 tons from 2018 to 2019 (from 5,257 tons in 2018 down
to 3,495 tons in 2019). Thus, the 2019 SO2 emissions data
for Plant Barry demonstrates there is not a continued upward trend in
emissions at this facility as the commenter suggests.
Emissions of SO2 at AkzoNobel increased relative to the
year 2014 (2,320 tons) in 2015 (3,587 tons) and 2016 (3,646 tons) but
decreased in 2017 (2,201 tons) to below 2014 levels. Emissions data
remain unavailable from AkzoNobel for 2018 or 2019. The decrease in
emissions for AkzoNobel reported in 2017 demonstrate that there is not
a continued upward trend in emissions at this facility as the Commenter
suggests.
EPA believes that the data in Table 6 of the NPRM, as supplemented
by the 2019 SO2 emissions data for Plant Barry provided in
this response, and the changes in controls or operations at these two
sources described in the NPRM, support the Agency's conclusion that
sources in Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
in a nearby state.
Response 1.d: The Commenter's broad request that EPA consider all
of its comments on the Alabama NPRM in this action on Florida's SIP
revision is not a valid comment. Merely referring to a comment
presented elsewhere does not provide EPA with sufficient information to
evaluate that comment in the context of this action. Therefore, EPA is
only responding to the comments from the Alabama NPRM that are restated
by the Commenter in the context of the Florida NPRM.
The Commenter does not explain the relevance of its comment on the
Alabama NPRM concerning flare emissions from Big Escambia to the
transport of SO2 emissions from Florida into Alabama. EPA's
evaluation of the flare characteristics in the Alabama NPRM and final
rule relate specifically to the transport of SO2 emissions
from Alabama into Florida, and thus, does not directly relate to the
evaluation of Florida's SIP revision regarding the transport of
SO2 emissions from Florida into Alabama. Regarding the
influence of Big Escambia's flare emissions on Escambia County when
impacts from Florida are factored in, EPA has no evidence to suggest
that the emissions from Breitburn in Florida, when combined with the
SO2 emissions at Big Escambia, including the flare
emissions, will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS in Alabama.
The Commenter does not explain the relevance of its comment on the
Alabama NPRM concerning the receptor grid to the transport of
SO2 emissions from Florida into Alabama. Regarding the
transport of SO2 emissions from Florida into Alabama, EPA
disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that the receptor grid needs
to be expanded to include modeling receptors to cover the unmodeled
area between Breitburn \15\ and Big Escambia before EPA can approve
Florida's SIP submittal. Modeling this area in Florida is not relevant
to whether Florida will contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Alabama.
Regarding an assessment of Breitburn's impacts in Alabama, Alabama's
modeling analysis includes Breitburn as a modeled source due to its
proximity to Big Escambia.
[[Page 25299]]
This modeling indicates that the impact of SO2 emissions
from Breitburn do not result in Alabama's air quality exceeding the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA continues to believe that the
modeling provides a conservative estimate of Breitburn's SO2
impacts at locations in Alabama because the Big Escambia modeling used
allowable emissions of SO2 for Breitburn, which are
approximately 6.4 times Breitburn's actual SO2 emissions for
2017 (9,533 tons/1,491 tons = 6.4). Also as noted in the Florida NPRM,
Breitburn's 2014-2018 emissions profile demonstrates that Breitburn has
consistently operated well below its permitted allowable emission rate.
Thus, Breitburn's actual impact on SO2 concentrations in
Alabama would likely be much less than the predicted concentrations in
the Big Escambia modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Breitburn is located 4 km due south of the Alabama-Florida
border but is located 21 km Southeast of Big Escambia. Big Escambia
is located 8 km due north of the Alabama-Florida border. The Big
Escambia modeling grid extends 15 km from Big Escambia in all
directions and approximately 7 km into Florida in the direction due
south of Big Escambia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA continues to believe that the WOE analysis provided in the
Florida NPRM is adequate to determine the potential downwind impact
from Florida to neighboring states and that the inclusion of Breitburn
(at its allowable emission levels) indicates that air quality at the
Alabama-Florida border is likely characterized conservatively. Thus,
EPA finds that SO2 emissions from Breitburn will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Alabama.
Response 1.e: Regarding the Commenter's suggestion that EPA should
rely on its own resources and expertise to model whether or not Florida
sources significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in Escambia County, Alabama, EPA does not believe that the
issues identified by the Commenter related to the Big Escambia modeling
invalidate consideration of the modeling for transport purposes as part
of a WOE analysis. EPA does not believe that modeling is required in
all cases under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to evaluate good
neighbor obligations, particularly where other available information
can be used to qualitatively and quantitatively assess the potential
for downwind impacts from upwind state emission sources. Here, EPA has
evaluated a number of different factors in a WOE analysis based on
available information, which includes the available modeling of Big
Escambia, and found no basis to conclude that Florida emissions will
have an adverse impact on downwind states. Therefore, EPA has concluded
that Florida emissions will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states. Therefore, as stated in our
response to Comment 1.a, EPA continues to believe that the WOE analysis
provided in the Florida NPRM is adequate to evaluate the potential
downwind impact from Florida to neighboring states.
Regarding AERSCREEN, without the modeling input and output data
used and produced by the Commenter, EPA cannot evaluate the modeling
results to which the Commenter refers showing that there is transport
of SO2 from Alabama into Florida and Florida into Alabama.
Further, as the Commenter acknowledges, AERSCREEN has limitations in
terms of making any definitive assessments. AERSCREEN is intended to
produce pollutant concentration estimates that are conservative, for
screening purposes, relative to refined modeling with AERMOD. AERSCREEN
conservatively assumes that every receptor is located along the plume
centerline (area of highest concentration across the plume) and worst-
case meteorological conditions. Thus, the Commenter's unsupported
assertions regarding the results of its AERSCREEN runs do not provide a
basis for the EPA to reconsider its WOE analysis of Florida's SIP
revision.
As noted earlier, the available information indicates that modeling
and emissions data provide a conservative estimate of the predicted
SO2 impacts in Alabama that may be due to transport of
SO2 from Florida sources. EPA continues to believe that the
Agency's WOE analysis of Florida's SIP revision, as supplemented with
additional data discussed in the Florida NPRM, provides a sufficient
basis for the Agency's assessment as to whether sources in Florida will
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in a nearby state.
Comment 2: The Commenter notes that EPA consistently uses the words
``will not'' when discussing the potential for significant contribution
or interference with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS and asks why EPA is not using the present tense when evaluating
the SIP submission from Florida. The Commenter asks whether EPA thinks
a particular source is currently contributing to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance of another state's NAAQS, and if so,
asserts that EPA must redo its evaluation for the present tense and
repropose.
Response 2: EPA disagrees with the Commenter that the Agency must
repropose using the present tense. EPA's use of the phrase ``will not''
is consistent with the verb tense in the good neighbor provision of the
CAA, which requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source
or other type of emissions activity in one state from emitting any air
pollutant in amounts that ``will'' contribute significantly to
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another
state. See CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Accordingly, EPA's
evaluation and conclusion are consistent with the statutory standard in
the good neighbor provision. In the NPRM, EPA evaluated data regarding
historic, current, and future source activity and air quality to
determine whether emissions from Florida are likely to be impacting
downwind air quality, either presently or in the future, and are thus
in violation of the good neighbor provision. EPA's WOE analysis of this
information did not find any indication that such an impact was likely
occuring currently or would be likely to occur in the future.
Accordingly, EPA concluded that emissions from Florida will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
Comment 3: The Commenter asserts that EPA should disapprove
Florida's SIP submission because the DRR modeling EPA relies on
inappropriate receptor grids. Specifically, the Commenter states that
``one of those geometries was not appropriate for many regions in
Florida, including the Gulf of Mexico.'' The Commenter claims that the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) utilizes ``this
same SAU modeling'' and that EPA never requested or solicited input
from NOAA about how EPA might improve its monitoring and forecasting of
SO2 emissions in Florida. In addition, the Commenter
believes that EPA should also disapprove the SIP submission ``because
the AER uses `worst case' grid cells for SO2 emissions
measurements in Figure 3, which are also the grid cells used by the EPA
in its AER standard.'' The Commenter states that EPA should ``reassess
the grid cells used in the DRR modeling for a more refined receptor
grid in areas beyond the state's borders.''
Response 3: It is unclear how the comment relates to EPA's
proposal. As the comment may broadly relate to the DRR modeling
referenced in sections III.C.1.a and III.C.1.b of the Florida NPRM and
to the receptor grids used in that modeling, EPA believes that the
modeling results support EPA's WOE determination as discussed in that
notice and in Response 1.d, above. EPA
[[Page 25300]]
is unable to respond any further because the Commenter did not explain,
and the Agency does not understand, the meaning of the terms
``geometries,'' ``SAU modeling,'' or ``AER,'' in this context, and
despite the Commenter's reference to ``Figure 3,'' the Florida NPRM
does not contain any figures.
Comment 4: The Commenter states that EPA cannot approve the SIP
revision because it is inconsistent with ``Florida's Clean Air Act.''
The Commenter claims that EPA's proposed determination confirms that
Florida does not have a ``meaningful permitting process for the
transportation of SO2'' out of Florida, because the State
has not established a procedure for a ``subject air-quality permit
application to be transferred to the federal permit authority.'' The
Commenter also claims that the proposal is inconsistent with Florida's
``administrative procedures for approval of the transport of pollutants
that are of significant public health concern.''
Response 4: It is unclear how the comment relates to EPA's
proposal. The Commenter has not explained how ``Florida's Clean Air
Act'' and the State's administrative procedures are relevant to this
rulemaking or provided any basis for its assertion that the State must
establish a procedure for a ``subject air-quality permit application to
be transferred to the federal permit authority'' before EPA can approve
the SIP revision as meeting the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). To the extent that the Commenter may be referring
to EPA's discussion of Florida's SIP-approved permitting programs in
section III.C.4 of the Florida NPRM, EPA reiterates its position that
Florida's major and minor new source review rules are designed to
ensure that SO2 emissions due to major modifications at
existing major stationary sources, modifications at minor stationary
sources, and the construction of new major and minor sources subject to
these rules will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
neighboring states.
Comment 5: The Commenter claims that EPA should disapprove
Florida's SIP revision because it ``will negatively affect the
provision of electricity to residential customers in the region.''
According to the Commenter, the ``two most active engines in
SO2 production are burned in utility equipment, and that
equipment now accounts for the majority of production'' and ``EPA
argues that reversing the decision would trigger an emergency
rulemaking and delay the inevitable phase-out of vehicles that emit
emissions.'' The Commenter believes that it ``would also raise costs
and delay purchases, ultimately raising the cost of electricity, which
would result in higher electric rates for consumers and businesses.''
The Commenter also claims that EPA should disapprove the SIP revision
because of the ``large short-term costs of complying with an additional
facility and business planning requirements and because of the adverse
effect of a lawsuit on the SO2 manufacturers and the health
and welfare of the general public.''
Response 5: EPA disagrees that approval of Florida's SIP revision
will negatively affect the provision of electricity to residential
customers or raise the cost of electricity. EPA's action does not
create any new regulatory requirements nor does it revise any
regulations or source-specific permits. Therefore, it does not impact
the electric utility sector. Regarding the statements concerning a
lawsuit and the reversal of an EPA decision that would trigger an
emergency rulemaking, EPA cannot provide a substantive response because
it is unclear what decision and lawsuit the Commenter is referencing or
how they relate to Florida's good neighbor SIP revision.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving Florida's September 18, 2018, SIP submission as
demonstrating that emissions from Florida will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
[[Page 25301]]
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 30, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Mary Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart K--Florida
0
2. Section 52.520(e) is amended by adding a new entry for ``110(a)(1)
and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.520 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Florida Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State effective Federal Register,
Provision date EPA approval date notice Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 9/18/2018......... 5/1/2020.......... [Insert citation Addressing Prongs
Requirements for the 2010 1- of publication]. 1 and 2 of
hour SO2 NAAQS. section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)
only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2020-08501 Filed 4-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P