Document ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0666-0003
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: South Carolina; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Interstate Transport
Posted Date: 2020-01-02T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 1 (Thursday, January 2, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3-7]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27543]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0666; FRL-10003-56-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; South Carolina; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Interstate 
Transport

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing 
approval of South Carolina's June 18, 2018, State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) submission pertaining to the ``good neighbor'' provision of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The good neighbor provision requires 
each state's implementation plan to address the interstate transport of 
air pollution in amounts that contribute significantly to 
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other 
state. In this action, EPA is finalizing the determination that South 
Carolina's SIP contains adequate provisions to prohibit emissions 
within the State from contributing significantly to nonattainment or 
interfering with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any 
other state.

DATES: This rule is effective February 3, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0666. 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

[[Page 4]]

through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Adams, Air Regulatory Management 
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Adams can also be reached 
via telephone at (404) 562-9009 and via electronic mail at 
adams.evan@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA published an ozone NAAQS that 
revised the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards 
from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm. Pursuant to CAA section 
110(a)(1), within three years after promulgation of a new or revised 
NAAQS (or shorter, if EPA prescribes), states must submit SIPs that 
meet the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2). EPA has 
historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of 
satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 
``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. One of the structural requirements 
of section 110(a)(2) is section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which generally 
requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state 
emissions activities from having certain adverse air quality effects on 
neighboring states due to interstate transport of air pollution. There 
are four sub-elements, or ``prongs,'' within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of 
the CAA. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the ``good 
neighbor'' provision, 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 provisions of this section are referred 
to as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 
(interference with maintenance). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires 
SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will 
interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable 
implementation plan for any other state under part C to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3) or to protect 
visibility (prong 4).
    On June 18, 2018, the South Carolina Department of Health and 
Environmental Control (SC DHEC) provided a SIP submittal containing a 
certification that South Carolina's SIP meets the requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. South 
Carolina's certification is based on available emissions data, air 
quality monitoring and modeling data, and SIP-approved \1\ regulations 
controlling emissions of ozone precursors within the State. In a notice 
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on May 28, 2019 (84 FR 24420), 
EPA proposed to approve South Carolina's SIP submission demonstrating 
that South Carolina's SIP is sufficient to address the CAA requirements 
of prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\2\ In that NPRM, EPA 
discussed the final determination made in the update to the Cross-State 
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) ozone season program that addresses good 
neighbor obligations for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (known as the 
``CSAPR Update'') \3\ that emissions activities within South Carolina 
will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of that NAAQS in any other state. In the NPRM, EPA stated 
that it was not reopening for comment final determinations made in the 
CSAPR Update or the modeling conducted to support that rulemaking. The 
NPRM provides additional detail regarding the background and rationale 
for EPA's action. Comments on the NPRM were due on or before June 27, 
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ South Carolina also identified state provisions regulating 
ozone precursors that are not in the SIP, but EPA is not relying on 
those regulations for purposes of this rulemaking.
    \2\ This action addresses only prongs 1 and 2 of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i). All other infrastructure SIP elements for South 
Carolina for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS were addressed in separate 
rulemakings. See 83 FR 48237 (September 24, 2018); 81 FR 56512 
(August 22, 2016); 80 FR 48255 (August 12, 2015); 80 FR 14019 (March 
18, 2015); and 80 FR 11136 (March 2, 2015).
    \3\ See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The CSAPR Update 
establishes statewide nitrogen oxide (NOX) budgets for 
certain affected electricity generating units in 22 eastern states 
for the May-September ozone season to reduce the interstate 
transport of ozone pollution in the eastern United States, and 
thereby help downwind states and communities meet and maintain the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The rule also determined that emissions 
from 14 states (including South Carolina) will not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 
2008 ozone NAAQS in downwind states. Accordingly, EPA determined 
that it need not require further emission reductions from sources in 
those states to address the good neighbor provision as to the 2008 
ozone NAAQS. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received two sets of comments on its May 28, 2019, NPRM. One 
set of comments is adverse but do not raise issues that would alter the 
action proposed in EPA's May 28, 2019, NPRM. EPA has summarized these 
comments below and provided its responses. The second set of comments 
are not relevant to EPA's May 28, 2019, NPRM because they are focused 
on greenhouse gases. Accordingly, the EPA is not required to respond to 
the second set of comments in finalizing this action. Both sets of 
comments are provided in the docket for this final action.
    Comment 1: The Commenter asserts that EPA cannot rely on a Federal 
implementation program (FIP) in this action, stating that ``the agency 
and the state can't rely on federal implementation programs to meet 
requirements of plans required under Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) 
because the language in the act requires all plans to include 
provisions in the state's plan.''
    Response 1: EPA believes this comment inaccurately characterizes 
South Carolina's transport obligation status because neither EPA nor 
the State is relying on a FIP to meet the interstate transport 
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Although the Commenter 
does not indicate which FIPs it believes EPA has inappropriately relied 
on, EPA is providing the following discussion to clarify the history 
involving South Carolina and CSAPR FIPs.
    In 2015, EPA issued findings of failure to submit to 24 states, 
including South Carolina, for failure to submit complete SIP revisions 
to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) related to 
the interstate transport of pollution as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 
80 FR 39961 (July 13, 2015) (effective August 12, 2015). The CSAPR 
Update was developed to address EPA's obligation under CAA section 
110(c) to promulgate FIPs addressing this statutory requirement on 
behalf of the states for which the findings were made. EPA's modeling 
in the CSAPR Update showed that emissions from South Carolina would not 
impact downwind air quality problems at or above the air quality 
screening threshold used to evaluate good neighbor obligations, and EPA 
therefore determined that South Carolina would not contribute 
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance for any 
other state with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA 
concluded that it need not require further emissions reductions from 
sources in South Carolina and therefore did not promulgate a FIP to 
address the good neighbor provision as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Thus, 
there is no CSAPR FIP currently in place for South Carolina sources 
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and there is no obligation for

[[Page 5]]

South Carolina to implement further emissions reductions from sources 
in the State to address that obligation. The approval of South 
Carolina's SIP here merely implements the final determination regarding 
the State's good neighbor obligation with respect to the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS already made in the CSAPR Update.
    EPA notes that South Carolina is also not subject to any other FIPs 
under the good neighbor provision. Although South Carolina was 
originally subject to a CSAPR FIP to address the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 
FIP was subsequently removed.\4\ Similarly, the State was originally 
subject to CSAPR FIPs for the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) NAAQS regulating annual emissions of NOX 
and sulfur dioxide emissions, but the State has since adopted those 
requirements into its SIP. See 82 FR 47936 (October 13, 2017)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA removed the FIP requiring South Carolina to participate 
in the CSAPR ozone season NOX trading program because the 
updated modeling showed that the State was not linked to any 
identified downwind air quality problems for either the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS or 1997 ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 74504 at 74524 (containing 
additional explanation on EPA's removal of South Carolina from the 
CSAPR ozone season NOX trading program); EME Homer City 
Generation, L.P., v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 129-30, 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015) 
(remanding South Carolina's CSAPR FIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for 
reconsideration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: The Commenter questions EPA's modeling for the CSAPR 
Update and the use of that modeling for this action, stating that EPA 
``cannot approve South Carolina's action since it is based on EPA's 
faulty CSAPR Update modeling analysis which uses illegal attainment 
years to base the state's contribution.'' Additionally, the Commenter 
questions the accuracy of EPA's modeling. The Commenter goes on to 
suggest that EPA should compare the ``modeling results for 2017 and 
2018 and 2019 to see how accurate the agency's model performs.''
    Response 2: EPA stated in the NPRM that it was not taking comment 
on the final determinations made in the CSAPR Update or the modeling 
conducted to support that rulemaking. The Commenter had the opportunity 
to raise concerns about the model year and accuracy in the CSAPR Update 
rulemaking.\5\ Issues related to the final determinations made in the 
CSAPR Update or the modeling conducted to support that rulemaking are 
thus outside the scope of this rule. Nonetheless, the EPA is providing 
the following explanation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA notes that it already addressed comments raised in the 
CSAPR Update rulemaking regarding the use of 2017 as the model year 
and the accuracy of the modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commenter does not explain why it believes that the analytic 
year that EPA used in the CSAPR Update modeling is inappropriate. As 
explained in that action, the 2017 analytic year aligned with the July 
2018 Moderate area attainment date, which was the next applicable 
attainment date at the time that rulemaking was conducted. The 
Commenter also does not explain why it believes the 2017 air quality 
modeling is inaccurate or unreliable such that modeling of additional 
years is necessary.
    To the extent the commenter was concerned about EPA verification of 
the accuracy of the model's performance, in 2016 EPA performed an 
extensive model performance evaluation that compared the 2011 base year 
model predictions to the corresponding measured data.\6\ This approach 
is consistent with recommendations in EPA's air quality modeling 
guidance.\7\ This evaluation found that the predictions from the 2011 
modeling platform correspond closely to observed concentrations in 
terms of the magnitude, temporal fluctuations, and geographic 
differences for 8-hour daily maximum ozone. Thus, the model performance 
results demonstrate the scientific credibility of our 2011 modeling 
platform. These results provide confidence in the ability of the 
modeling platform to provide a reasonable projection of expected future 
year ozone concentrations and contributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for 
the Final Cross State Air Pollution Rule Update,'' August 2016, 
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/aq_modeling_tsd_final_csapr_update.pdf.
    \7\ See ``Draft Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air Quality 
Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,'' December 3, 
2014, available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/Draft-O3-PM-RH-Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, EPA has identified all monitoring sites outside of 
South Carolina that have predicted 2017 contributions from South 
Carolina that are at or above the 1 percent of the NAAQS threshold used 
by EPA as a screening threshold in evaluation contributions with 
respect to the 2008 NAAQS. The outcome of this analysis reveals that 
there are no monitors currently measuring violations to which South 
Carolina contributes at or above the 1 percent threshold. The data to 
support this finding are provided in Table 1.

  Table 1--2018 Design Values and Predicted 2017 Contributions for All Monitoring Sites To Which South Carolina
                                 Contributes at or Above the 1 Percent Threshold
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  2016-2018    2017 Contribution
             Site ID                       State                County          design value       from  South
                                                                                    (ppb)        Carolina (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10499991.........................  Alabama.............  DeKalb..............              62               0.86
10690004.........................  Alabama.............  Houston.............              58               1.13
120030002........................  Florida.............  Baker...............              61               1.16
120230002........................  Florida.............  Columbia............              62               1.10
120310077........................  Florida.............  Duval...............              58               0.97
120310106........................  Florida.............  Duval...............              61               1.01
120730012........................  Florida.............  Leon................              61               0.89
121275002........................  Florida.............  Volusia.............              61               0.92
130510021........................  Georgia.............  Chatham.............              57               3.53
130550001........................  Georgia.............  Chattooga...........              60               0.98
130590002........................  Georgia.............  Clarke..............              65               1.10
130670003........................  Georgia.............  Cobb................              66               1.06
130730001........................  Georgia.............  Columbia............              60               6.19
130850001........................  Georgia.............  Dawson..............              65               1.60
130890002........................  Georgia.............  DeKalb..............              69               1.33
130970004........................  Georgia.............  Douglas.............              67               1.61
131210055........................  Georgia.............  Fulton..............              73               1.45

[[Page 6]]

 
131270006........................  Georgia.............  Glynn...............              57               3.17
131350002........................  Georgia.............  Gwinnett............              69               1.74
131510002........................  Georgia.............  Henry...............              71               1.02
132130003........................  Georgia.............  Murray..............              65               0.82
132150008........................  Georgia.............  Muscogee............              60               1.65
132450091........................  Georgia.............  Richmond............              62               6.78
370210030........................  North Carolina......  Buncombe............              61               1.33
370270003........................  North Carolina......  Caldwell............              64               1.38
370330001........................  North Carolina......  Caswell.............              62               1.85
370650099........................  North Carolina......  Edgecombe...........              62               1.37
370670022........................  North Carolina......  Forsyth.............              66               2.23
370670030........................  North Carolina......  Forsyth.............              67               2.05
370671008........................  North Carolina......  Forsyth.............              66               1.98
370810013........................  North Carolina......  Guilford............              66               1.30
370870008........................  North Carolina......  Haywood.............              61               1.48
370870036........................  North Carolina......  Haywood.............              64               0.82
371090004........................  North Carolina......  Lincoln.............              65               1.16
371190041........................  North Carolina......  Mecklenburg.........              68               4.53
371570099........................  North Carolina......  Rockingham..........              65               0.90
371590021........................  North Carolina......  Rowan...............              62               1.64
371730002........................  North Carolina......  Swain...............              60               0.94
371790003........................  North Carolina......  Union...............              68               4.79
371830014........................  North Carolina......  Wake................              66               0.87
470259991........................  Tennessee...........  Claiborne...........              63               0.89
470651011........................  Tennessee...........  Hamilton............              64               1.59
470890002........................  Tennessee...........  Jefferson...........              66               1.16
470930021........................  Tennessee...........  Knox................              65               1.07
471632002........................  Tennessee...........  Sullivan............              66               0.79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve South Carolina's June 18, 
2018, SIP submission demonstrating that South Carolina's SIP is 
sufficient to address the CAA requirements of prongs 1 and 2 under 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is 
taking final action to approve the SIP submission because it is 
consistent with section 110 of the CAA.

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).
    Because this final action merely approves state law as meeting 
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law, this final action for the State of South 
Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive 
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Therefore, this action 
will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or 
preempt Tribal law. The Catawba Indian Nation (CIN) Reservation is 
located within the boundary of York County, South Carolina. Pursuant to 
the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120 
(Settlement Act), ``all state and local environmental laws and 
regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and 
are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and 
authorities.'' The CIN also retains authority to impose

[[Page 7]]

regulations applying higher environmental standards to the Reservation 
than those imposed by state law or local governing bodies, in 
accordance with the Settlement Act.
    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 March 2, 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, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 10, 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. Section 52.2120(e), is amended by adding an entry for ``110(a)(1) 
and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone 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               6/18/2018  1/2/2020 [Insert citation   Addressing prongs 1 and 2
 Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone                    of publication].            of section
 NAAQS.                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-27543 Filed 12-31-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P