[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13755-13759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04656]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0792; FRL-10006-25-Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; AL; 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Transport
Infrastructure
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
Alabama's August 20, 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 Alabama 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 August 20, 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 April 9, 2020.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0792. 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
[[Page 13756]]
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).
Through a letter dated August 20, 2018,\1\ the Alabama Department
of Environmental Management (ADEM) submitted a revision to the Alabama
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 ADEM's August 20,
2018, SIP submission because the State demonstrated that Alabama 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 Alabama
are addressed in separate rulemakings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA received ADEM's August 20, 2018, SIP submission on
August 27, 2018.
\2\ EPA acted on all other infrastructure elements for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS for Alabama on January 12, 2017 (82 FR
3637), October 12, 2017 (82 FR 47393), and July 6, 2018 (83 FR
31454).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on December 31,
2019 (84 FR 72278), EPA proposed to approve Alabama's August 20, 2018,
SIP revision for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 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 January
30, 2020. EPA received two sets of adverse comments from anonymous
commenters (collectively referred to as the ``Commenter''). These
comments are included in the docket for this final action. EPA has
summarized the comments and provided responses below.
II. Response to Comments
Comment 1: The Commenter states that EPA has not demonstrated that
Alabama 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, and disputes EPA's proposed finding in the NPRM that
no further analysis is necessary for assessing the potential impacts of
the interstate transport of SO2 emissions from Escambia
Operating Company--Big Escambia Creek Plant (Big Escambia). The
Commenter asserts that there are gaps in EPA's analysis, and as
summarized below, raises specific concerns regarding several aspects of
the analysis of Big Escambia as it relates to interstate transport of
SO2 emissions.
Comment 1.a: The Commenter notes that EPA identified Georgia-
Pacific's Brewton LLC facility (Brewton) as a possible contributor to
modeled violations but that the facility was not included in the Big
Escambia modeling for EPA's Data Requirements Rule (DRR). The Commenter
asserts that the decrease in SO2 emissions from Brewton from
2014 to 2017 (972 tons to 103 tons) identified in the NPRM's Technical
Support Document (TSD) ``does not unequivocally mean that there is no
transport of SO2 (or causation or contribution to
nonattainment)'' in Florida. The Commenter claims that EPA's belief
that excluding Brewton from the model does not invalidate the model and
does not answer the question as to whether there is transport from the
facility, and that EPA should offer some weight of evidence (WOE),
model Brewton, or ask the State to model Brewton, in order to
demonstrate no transport of SO2 emissions from Brewton into
the neighboring state of Florida.
Comment 1.b: The Commenter further indicates a concern with the
lack of modeling of certain emissions from the Big Escambia facility.
The Commenter notes that EPA's TSD indicates the fact that the
difference in the lower modeled emissions and the higher reported
emissions at Big Escambia (a difference of 1,575.6 tons in 2014) is due
to emissions being diverted to a flare at the facility. The Commenter
states that EPA did not consider the emission release characteristics
and asserts that EPA's estimate of what the unmodeled concentrations
would be in Florida from the flare is therefore ``unsubstantiated.''
The Commenter also notes that EPA assumed that the increase in
concentrations from the flare would increase overall concentrations at
Big Escambia by 50 percent (%) and argues that ``some explanation of
how the emissions from the flare are released and where the maximum
impacts will occur is necessary instead of just adding 50% to highest
modeled impact from the source based on emissions changes alone''
because ``[e]missions changes alone are not directly proportional to
modeled impacts.''
Comment 1.c: The Commenter notes that, although the Big Escambia
DRR modeling receptor grid extended into Florida, the grid did not
extend 13 kilometers (km) into Florida, which the Commenter asserts is
the approximate distance from the Florida border to Breitburn
Operating, L.P. (Breitburn), a source located in Florida. The Commenter
therefore asserts that there is ``an unmodeled area in Florida for
which we don't know the air quality impacts.'' The Commenter further
states that given the maximum reported SO2 concentration
(58.8 ppb) from the Big
[[Page 13757]]
Escambia modeling, the 1,575.6 unmodeled tons of SO2 from
the flare at Big Escambia, and the unmodeled space between Breitburn
and the Alabama/Florida border, EPA's conclusion that sources in
Alabama will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state is ``off base.'' The
Commenter claims that EPA should either ask the State to ``properly
model'' Big Escambia with the flare emissions and the entire land area
between the Alabama and Florida sources included or EPA should rerun
the modeling.
Comment 1.d: The Commenter states that EPA often responds to
comments such as this by saying that the Commenter has not provided
evidence indicating a contribution to nonattainment or interference
with maintenance and standing by its conclusions. The Commenter argues
that private citizens and organizations do not have the expertise or
resources to perform the necessary modeling to provide definitive
answers like EPA does, and asks why EPA doesn't run the modeling for
Big Escambia properly ``instead of making unsubstantiated technical
assumptions that run counter to why modeling is used in the first
place.''
Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's claim that EPA has
not demonstrated that Alabama will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in any other state and responds to the Commenter's
specific concerns below.
Response 1.a: Regarding the Commenter's concerns with EPA's
analysis for Brewton, EPA continues to believe that the exclusion of
Brewton from the DRR modeling for Big Escambia does not render the
model invalid for use in assessing interstate transport of
SO2 into the neighboring state of Florida. EPA did not rely
on the modeling alone in drawing the conclusion that, based on the
information available, sources in Alabama will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in other
states. Rather, EPA considered additional WOE factors to evaluate
potential impacts of Alabama sources on air quality in other states.
Relevant to the Commenter's contention, EPA considered the fact
that SO2 emissions at Brewton in 2017 were 103 tons and that
the distance between Brewton and Big Escambia is approximately 24 km.
EPA therefore determined that it was not necessary for this source to
be included in the modeling because it is unlikely to interact with the
emissions from Big Escambia.\3\ Since publication of the NPRM, EPA
evaluated more recent emissions data from EPA's Emissions Inventory
System which indicates that Brewton emitted 27 tons of SO2
in 2018.\4\ A source with this magnitude of emissions is unlikely to
contribute to an air quality problem in Florida, regardless of Big
Escambia's impact in the State. Further, with respect to the
significant decrease in emissions of SO2 since 2017, seven
units at the facility (three recovery furnace units, three smelt
dissolving tank units, and one package boiler unit) have permanently
shut down as requested in the title V permit renewal application
submitted by Brewton in June of 2017.\5\ In addition, the No. 2 Power
Boiler, rated at 323 million British thermal units per hour, is
currently capable of burning natural gas only.\6\ These recent changes
at the facility indicate that emissions from Brewton are likely to
remain low in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPA performed a qualitative evaluation to assess whether
SO2 emissions from Brewton are impacting Florida, the
only neighboring state within 50 km of this source. Because EPA does
not have monitoring or modeling data for Brewton, EPA evaluated its
2017 SO2 emissions, distance from the Alabama border, and
distances from sources in Florida with SO2 emissions
greater than 100 tons in 2017 and not subject to EPA's DRR as
summarized in Table 5 of the NPRM.
\4\ Brewton is located approximately 8 km from the Alabama/
Florida border.
\5\ In an email dated February 24, 2020, ADEM provided an
excerpt from Brewton's June 2017 title V permit renewal application
requesting the permanent shutdown of seven units at the facility.
These seven units are no longer included in Brewton's title V permit
issued on January 17, 2018. The February 24, 2020, email, June 2017
renewal application excerpt, and the title V permit are included in
the docket for this action.
\6\ The Statement of Basis for the draft permit for Brewton
(A530001) title V significant modification dated November 7, 2016,
documenting ADEM's approval of the removal of all fuel burning
equipment at Power Boiler No. 2, is included in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the WOE available regarding Brewton indicates that it will
not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in any other state, and the Commenter has not provided any
information to contradict EPA's determination. Therefore, EPA continues
to believe that the exclusion of Brewton from Big Escambia's modeling
is not problematic as it relates to an evaluation of the interstate
transport of SO2 emissions into Florida, and this modeling,
weighed along with other WOE factors described in the NPRM, supports
EPA's conclusion that Alabama has satisfied the good neighbor provision
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
Response 1.b: Regarding the Commenter's statements about emissions
from the Big Escambia flare,\7\ the release characteristics of the
flare, specifically the tall stack height (42 meters), the exit
velocity (20 meters/second), and the high stack temperature (1,273
degrees Kelvin), make it likely that the emissions released from the
flare would be highly dispersive and therefore concentrations would
likely be well below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS at the 8 km
distance to the Florida border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Alabama provided documentation on December 2, 2019, that
indicated the discrepancy in emissions for each of the modeled years
was due to acid gas being diverted to a flare, unit FL-02, when the
sulfur recovery unit was down during startup, shutdown, malfunction
or upset events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A comparison of the flare characteristics to other modeled sources
at Big Escambia, as well as the location of the modeled design
concentration and the concentration gradient, also support EPA's
conclusion. A comparable source, the sulfur recovery unit
(incinerator--Source ID S1201), with a stack height of 66 meters, an
exit velocity of 50 meters/second, and a stack temperature of 617
degrees Kelvin is the primary source of emissions at Big Escambia. In
ADEM's modeling, emissions from the incinerator were varied hourly
having a rate greater than or equal to one-half of a ton per hour for
30 percent of the hours and a maximum hourly rate of 3.7 tons per hour.
Given the similarities in the characteristics of the flare to that of
the incinerator, the dispersion characteristics of the plume from the
flare are likewise expected to be very similar to those of the plume
from the incinerator with regard to modeled concentrations and
concentration gradient.
The area of maximum modeled concentrations is bimodal, i.e., with
two areas of high concentrations located in different directions from
Big Escambia. The modeled design concentration is actually located at
the northwestern fenceline of the Big Escambia facility. There is a
secondary area of high concentrations at the southern fenceline. In
both regions, the maximum concentrations are located within a distance
of only 600-700 meters of the incinerator, the primary SO2
source, with a steep concentration gradient of decreasing
concentrations occurring within the first kilometer beyond the
fenceline. The flare is located on the northern side of the facility,
about 250 meters northeast of the incinerator, and is almost 1 km from
the secondary area of maximum modeled concentrations near the southern
fenceline, toward the Florida border. Given the location of the
[[Page 13758]]
flare relative to the incinerator and the distance of the flare to the
southern Big Escambia fenceline, additional emissions from the flare
would not be expected to have a significant impact on modeled
concentrations at the Alabama/Florida border. Based on EPA's analysis
of the similar emissions from the incinerator, EPA continues to believe
that the unmodeled SO2 emissions from the flare would not
result in a significant concentration gradient in Florida. In other
words, the nature of the flare and the distance from Big Escambia to
the Florida border make it highly unlikely that the additional
emissions from the flare (stated by Alabama to be due to startup,
shutdown, malfunction and upset conditions), had they been included in
the model, would have increased modeled concentrations in Florida to a
level above the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
Response 1.c: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that the
receptor grid needs to be expanded before EPA can approve Alabama's SIP
submittal as meeting the CAA's good neighbor provision. As part of its
WOE analysis, EPA evaluated the issues with the original DRR modeling
for Big Escambia \8\ and how ADEM addressed them for the purpose of
assessing interstate transport of SO2. In particular, ADEM
provided supplemental information pertaining to Big Escambia's DRR
modeling intended to address the issues identified with the original
modeling for the purpose of evaluating potential ambient air impacts in
the neighboring state of Florida (``Big Escambia Supplement'').\9\ With
respect to Breitburn, the Big Escambia modeling included Breitburn at
allowable emissions, a level 6.4 times higher than actual emissions in
2017, indicating that ADEM's assessment of Breitburn's impact within
the modeling grid was conservative. Additionally, the most recent
actual emissions available for the Big Escambia facility in EPA's
Emissions Inventory System database were 2,990 tons/year in 2018. This
level is more than 500 tons/year less than the Big Escambia emissions
that were modeled during 2013-2015 timeframe, which also adds to the
conservatism of the modeling. Although the modeling grid did not cover
Breitburn, a portion of the modeling grid did extend into Florida and
therefore assessed the potential impacts of Breitburn and Big Escambia
within that portion of the State.\10\ That analysis showed that the
maximum modeled impact in Florida remained below the level of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ EPA identified issues with Big Escambia's DRR modeling in
EPA's proposed and final TSDs for Alabama for designations under the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/3_al_so2_rd3-final.pdf (see pp.
90-92, 93-95) and https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/03-al-so2-rd3-final.pdf (see p. 26). The TSD to the
NPRM is limited to an assessment of Big Escambia's DRR modeling in
relation to the interstate transport of SO2 (i.e.,
whether Alabama's SO2 emissions will contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states). The TSD
does not address designations of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS nor does it reopen any designations.
\9\ The Big Escambia Supplement files submitted by ADEM in
separate correspondence to EPA dated September 5, 2019, September
20, 2019, September 25, 2019, December 2, 2019, and December 6,
2019, are included in the docket for this final action at
www.regulations.gov at Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0792, with the
exception of certain files due to their nature and size and
incompatibility with the Federal Docket Management System. These
files are available at the EPA Region 4 office for review. To
request these files, please contact the person listed in the notice
associated with this TSD under the section titled FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
\10\ The Commenter incorrectly asserts that the distance from
Breitburn to the Alabama/Florida border is 13 km. Breitburn is
located 4 km due south of the border but is located 21 km Southeast
of Big Escambia. Big Escambia is located 8 km due north of the
border. Therefore, the distance between the sources and the borders
are not directly linear as the Commenter asserts. 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 but does not cover the Breitburn facility itself. EPA does
not believe this invalidates the Big Escambia modeling for purposes
of assessing transport into Florida as explained in the NPRM and
associated TSD and this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While, as discussed above in response to Comment 1.b, the Big
Escambia modeling did not include all emissions from the flare, the
inclusion of Breitburn at its allowable emission levels indicates that
air quality at the Alabama/Florida border is likely characterized
conservatively. Moreover, given the response to Comment 1.b above
regarding the locations of the areas of maximum modeled concentrations
in Alabama, their close proximity to the modeled emission sources at
Big Escambia, and the nature of the concentration gradients near Big
Escambia, EPA further concludes that it is unlikely that there is a
violation of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS located in the
portions of Florida that extend outside of the receptor grid where
emissions from Big Escambia may have an impact. EPA continues to
believe that the Big Escambia DRR modeling and Supplement provide a
conservative estimation of potential SO2 impacts in Florida
and Big Escambia's lack of significant contribution to impacts in
Florida when the factors discussed in the NPRM and associated TSD are
weighed together.
While EPA acknowledges that the modeling grid does not address all
potential impacts within Florida from the Breitburn and Big Escambia
emissions, in the absence of any information demonstrating a potential
violation in Florida, EPA continues to believe that the WOE analysis
provided in the NPRM is adequate to determine the potential downwind
impact from Alabama to neighboring states. EPA's WOE analysis includes
the following factors: (1) Potential ambient air quality impacts of
SO2 emissions from certain facilities in Alabama on
neighboring states based on available air dispersion modeling results;
(2) SO2 emissions from Alabama sources; (3) SO2
ambient air quality for Alabama and neighboring states; (4) SIP-
approved Alabama regulations that address SO2 emissions; and
(5) Federal regulations that reduce SO2 emissions at Alabama
sources. This information, when weighed together, does not provide any
indication of an air quality problem in Florida due to emissions from
Alabama sources with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
and instead supports EPA's conclusion that, based on the available
information, Alabama will not significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the standard in other states.
Response 1.d: Regarding the Commenter's suggestion that EPA should
rely on its own resources and expertise to model whether or not Alabama
sources in Escambia County significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance in Florida, EPA does not believe the
uncertainties of the modeling performed by Alabama identified in the
NPRM 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 and found no basis to conclude that Alabama
emissions will have an adverse impact on downwind states in violation
of the good neighbor provision. Therefore, as stated in our response to
Comment 1.c, EPA continues to believe that the WOE analysis provided in
the NPRM is adequate to determine the potential
[[Page 13759]]
downwind impact from Alabama to neighboring states.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving Alabama's August 20, 2018, SIP submission as
demonstrating that emissions from Alabama 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).
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 May 11, 2020 Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: February 27, 2020.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 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 B--Alabama
0
2. Section 52.50(e) is amended by adding an 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. 52.50 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA Approved Alabama Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State submittal
Name of nonregulatory SIP Applicable geographic or date/effective EPA approval Explanation
provision nonattainment area date date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Alabama................... 8/20/2018 3/10/2020, Addressing
Infrastructure Requirements [Insert Prongs 1 and 2
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. citation of of section
publication]. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2020-04656 Filed 3-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P