[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 27 (Monday, February 10, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7480-7491]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02502]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0008; FRL-10005-27-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; FL; 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Transport
Infrastructure

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve 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 is
proposing to determine 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 proposing to
approve the September 18, 2018, SIP revision as meeting the
requirements of the good neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 11, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2019-0008 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written

comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

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<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Infrastructure SIPs

    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). Whenever EPA
promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section 110(a)(1) requires
states to make SIP submissions to provide for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This particular type of SIP
submission is commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP.'' These
submissions must meet the various requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2), as applicable.
    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.\1\ EPA is proposing to approve FDEP's September
18, 2018, SIP submission because, based on the information available at
the time of this rulemaking, 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
have been addressed in separate rulemakings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On June 3, 2013, and supplemented on January 8, 2014, FDEP
submitted SIP revisions addressing all infrastructure elements with
respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS with the exception
of prongs 1 and 2 of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    \2\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background

    In this action, EPA has considered information from the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS designations process, as discussed in more detail
in section III.C of this notice. For this reason, a brief summary of
EPA's designations process for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is
included here.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ While designations may provide useful information for
purposes of analyzing transport, particularly for a more source-
specific pollutant such as SO2, EPA notes that
designations themselves are not dispositive of whether or not upwind
emissions are impacting areas in downwind states. EPA has
consistently taken the position that CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
addresses ``nonattainment'' anywhere it may occur in other states,
not only in designated nonattainment areas nor any similar
formulation requiring that designations for downwind nonattainment
areas must first have occurred. See e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule,
70 FR 25162, 25265 (May 12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,
76 FR 48208, 48211 (August 8, 2011); Final Response to Petition from
New Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From the Portland
Generating Station, 76 FR 69052 (November 7, 2011) (finding facility
in violation of the prohibitions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS prior to
issuance of designations for that standard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
to designate areas as ``nonattainment,'' ``attainment,'' or
``unclassifiable'' pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. The
process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d) of the CAA. The CAA
requires EPA to complete the initial designations process within two
years of promulgating a new or revised standard. If the Administrator
has insufficient information to make these designations by that
deadline, EPA has the authority to extend the deadline for completing
designations by up to one year.
    EPA promulgated the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on June 2,
2010. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). EPA completed the first round of
designations (``round 1'') \4\ for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
on July 25, 2013, designating 29 areas in 16 states as nonattainment
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 78 FR 47191 (August 5,
2013). EPA signed Federal Register notices of promulgation for round 2
designations \5\ on June 30, 2016 (81 FR 45039 (July 12, 2016)) and on
November 29, 2016 (81 FR 89870 (December 13, 2016)), and round 3
designations \6\ on December 21, 2017 (83 FR 1098 (January 9,
2018)).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``round'' in this instance refers to which ``round
of designations.''
    \5\ EPA and state documents and public comments related to the
round 2 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464 and at EPA's website for
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
    \6\ EPA and state documents and public comments related to round
3 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003 and at EPA's website for
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
    \7\ Consent Decree, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case No. 3:13-cv-
3953-SI (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2015). This consent decree requires EPA
to sign for publication in the Federal Register notices of the
Agency's promulgation of area designations for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS by three specific deadlines: July 2, 2016
(``round 2''); December 31, 2017 (``round 3''); and December 31,
2020 (``round 4'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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). The DRR
requires state air agencies to characterize air quality, through air
dispersion modeling or monitoring, in areas associated with sources
that emitted 2,000 tons per year (tpy) or more of SO2, or
that have otherwise been listed under the DRR by EPA or state air
agencies. In lieu of modeling or monitoring, state air agencies, by
specified dates, could elect to impose federally-enforceable emissions
limitations on those sources restricting their annual SO2
emissions to less than 2,000 tpy, or provide documentation that the
sources have been shut down. EPA expected that the information
generated by implementation of the DRR would help inform designations
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS that must be completed by
December 31, 2020 (``round 4'').
    In rounds 1 and 3 of designations, EPA designated three
SO2 nonattainment areas and one unclassifiable area in
Florida. In round 1, EPA designated portions of Nassau and Hillsborough
counties as

nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS based on air
quality monitoring data (Nassau, FL Area and Hillsborough, FL Area,
respectively).\8\ In round 3, EPA designated portions of Hillsborough
and Polk counties (Hillsborough-Polk, FL Area) as nonattainment for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS based on air quality modeling.\9\ EPA
also designated portions of Hillsborough and Polk counties (Mulberry,
FL Area) as unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
round 3. The remaining counties in Florida were designated as
attainment/unclassifiable in round 3; therefore, no areas in Florida
will be designated in round 4.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Nassau and Hillsborough Areas are currently attaining
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS based on complete, quality-
assured, and certified air quality monitoring data for 2016-2018 and
air dispersion modeling showing attainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in the area. Florida submitted a request that
EPA redesignate both areas to attainment, and EPA approved the
redesignation request and associated maintenance plan for the Nassau
Area on April 24, 2019 (84 FR 17085). EPA approved the redesignation
request and associated maintenance plan for the Hillsborough Area on
November 12, 2019 (84 FR 60927). EPA approved the attainment
demonstration for the Nassau Area on July 3, 2017, and incorporated
the new allowable emission rates and control measures into the SIP,
making them permanent and enforceable. See 82 FR 30749. EPA's
redesignation of the Nassau Area was based, in part, on a modeled
attainment demonstration that included permanent and enforceable
SO2 controls and emissions limits at the Rayonier and
WestRock facilities showing attainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 standard by the statutory deadline.
    \9\ EPA designated a portion of Citrus County, Florida as
unclassifiable in round 3 designations on December 21, 2017 (83 FR
1098). However, on March 28, 2018, EPA withdrew the designation of
unclassifiable for the area and established a designation of
attainment/unclassifiable for that area based on complete, quality-
assured and certified air quality monitoring data from 2017
submitted by FDEP, and modeling showing attainment of the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS in the area. See 83 FR 14597 (April 5,
2018). On September 9, 2019 (84 FR 47216), EPA proposed approval of
Florida's February 15, 2019, draft redesignation requests and
maintenance plan for the round 3 Hillsborough-Polk County
SO2 nonattainment area, the redesignation request for the
Mulberry unclassifiable area, and adoption of new 24-hour
SO2 emission limits for the two primary emission sources
in the areas. The public comment period has closed, and EPA is not
reopening that comment period through this infrastructure proposal.
    \10\ See Technical Support Document: Chapter 9 Final Round 3
Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient
Air Quality Standard for Florida at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/09-fl-so2-rd3-final.pdf. See also
Technical Support Document: Chapter 9 Intended Round 3 Area
Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for Florida at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/9_fl_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Relevant Factors Used To Evaluate 2010 1-Hour SO2
Interstate Transport SIPs

    Although SO2 is emitted from a similar universe of point
and nonpoint sources as is directly emitted fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) and the precursors to ozone and PM2.5,
interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the transport of
PM2.5 or ozone because SO2 emissions sources
usually do not have long range SO2 impacts. The transport of
SO2 relative to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is more
analogous to the transport of lead (Pb) relative to the Pb NAAQS in
that emissions of SO2 typically result in 1-hour pollutant
impacts of possible concern only near the emissions source. However,
ambient 1-hour concentrations of SO2 do not decrease as
quickly with distance from the source as do 3-month average
concentrations of Pb, because SO2 gas is not removed by
deposition as rapidly as are Pb particles and because SO2
typically has a higher emissions release height than Pb. Emitted
SO2 has wider ranging impacts than emitted Pb, but it does
not have such wide-ranging impacts that treatment in a manner similar
to ozone or PM2.5 would be appropriate. Accordingly, while
the approaches that EPA has adopted for ozone or PM2.5
transport are too regionally focused, the approach for Pb transport is
too tightly circumscribed to the source. SO2 transport is
therefore a unique case and requires a different approach.
    In this proposed rulemaking, as in prior SO2 transport
analyses, EPA focuses on a 50 km-wide zone because the physical
properties of SO2 result in relatively localized pollutant
impacts near an emissions source that drop off with distance. Given the
properties of SO2, EPA selected a spatial scale with
dimensions from four to 50 kilometers (km) from point sources--the
``urban scale''--to assess trends in area-wide air quality that might
impact downwind states.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For the definition of spatial scales for SO2,
see 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.4 (``Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Design Criteria''). For further discussion on how
EPA applies these definitions with respect to interstate transport
of SO2, see EPA's proposed rulemaking on Connecticut's
SO2 transport SIP. See 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its SIP submission, FDEP identified a distance threshold to
reflect the transport properties of SO2. FDEP selected the
``urban scale'' as appropriate in assessing trends in both area-wide
air quality and the effectiveness of large-scale pollution control
strategies at such point sources. FDEP supported this transport
distance threshold with references to the March 1, 2011, EPA memorandum
titled ``Additional Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W
Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour NO2 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard,'' and noted that this clarification applies equally
to the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard.\12\ The memorandum offers a
general guideline for estimating the distance to maximum 1-hour impact
and the region of significant concentration gradients that may apply in
relatively flat terrain, which is approximately 10 times the source's
release height.\13\ FDEP states that no SO2 source in
Florida (which has flat terrain) has a stack height of more than 205
meters and thus, the maximum distance to a significant concentration
gradient from a Florida source is approximately 2,050 meters (i.e.,
2.05 km) from the source, after which a source's impacts decrease
significantly. Additionally, the memorandum indicates that the
inclusion of all emissions sources within 50 km of the source under
analysis is likely to produce an overly conservative result in most
cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA's March 1, 2011, memorandum, Additional Clarification
Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour
NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard, is available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/appwno2_2.pdf.
    \13\ Id. at pp. 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the properties of SO2, EPA preliminarily agrees
with Florida's selection of the urban scale to assess trends in area-
wide air quality that might impact downwind states. As discussed
further in section III.B, EPA believes that Florida's selection of the
urban scale is appropriate for assessing trends in both area-wide air
quality and the effectiveness of large-scale pollution control
strategies at SO2 point sources. Florida's selection of this
transport distance for SO2 is consistent with 40 CFR 58,
Appendix D, Section 4.4.4(4) ``Urban scale,'' which states that
measurements in this scale would be used to estimate SO2
concentrations over large portions of an urban area with dimensions
from four to 50 km. The American Meteorological Society/Environmental
Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) is EPA's preferred modeling
platform for regulatory purposes for near-field dispersion of emissions
for distances up to 50 km. See Appendix W of 40 CFR part 51. Thus, EPA
concurs 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, which is discussed further in section III.C.

    As discussed in sections III.C and III.D, EPA first reviewed
Florida's analysis to assess how the State evaluated the transport of
SO2 to other states, the types of information used in the
analysis, and the conclusions drawn by the State. EPA then conducted a
weight of evidence analysis based on a review of the State's submission
and other available information, including SO2 air quality
and available source modeling for other states' sources within 50 km of
the Florida border.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This proposed approval action is based on the information
contained in the administrative record for this action and does not
prejudge any other future EPA action that may make other
determinations regarding Florida's or any neighboring state's air
quality status. Any such future actions, such as area designations
under any NAAQS, will be based on their own administrative records
and EPA's analyses of information that become available at those
times. Future available information may include, and is not limited
to, monitoring data and modeling analyses conducted pursuant to the
DRR and information submitted to EPA by states, air agencies, and
third-party stakeholders such as citizen groups and industry
representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Florida's SIP Submission and EPA's Analysis

A. State Submission

    On September 18, 2018, 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. Florida conducted a weight of
evidence analysis to examine whether SO2 emissions from the
State adversely affect attainment or maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in downwind states.
    FDEP concluded that the State is meeting its prong 1 and prong 2
obligations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. FDEP based its
conclusions on: Trends in SO2 design values (DVs) \15\ at
the State's air quality monitors from 2007-2017; SO2 DVs for
monitors located within 50 km of the Florida border; SO2
emissions trends statewide from 2000-2017; the change in SO2
emissions from 2014-2017 at the largest sources of SO2
within 50 km of the border; available SO2 modeling data for
the State's round 3 DRR sources; and SIP-approved State and federal
regulations that establish requirements for sources of SO2
emissions. EPA's evaluation of Florida's September 18, 2018, SIP
submission is detailed in sections III.B, C, and D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Evaluation Methodology

    EPA believes that a reasonable starting point for determining which
sources and emissions activities in Florida are likely to impact
downwind air quality in other states with respect to the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS is by using information in EPA's National
Emissions Inventory (NEI).\16\ The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed
estimate of air emissions for criteria pollutants, criteria pollutant
precursors, and hazardous air pollutants from air emissions sources,
that is updated every three years using information provided by the
states and other information available to EPA. EPA evaluated data from
the 2014 NEI (version 2), the most recently available, complete, and
quality assured dataset of the NEI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EPA's NEI is available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDEP provided 2014 NEI SO2 emissions data statewide by
source category. FDEP states that fuel combustion by electric
generating units (EGUs) is the largest source of SO2
emissions in Florida, representing 60 percent of the State's
SO2 emissions. FDEP also states that other large sources of
SO2 emissions in Florida include chemical and allied product
manufacturing and fuel combustion at industrial sources, which, when
added to the EGU SO2 emissions, comprise 80 percent of
Florida's total SO2 emissions.
    As shown in Table 1, the majority of SO2 emissions in
Florida originate from fuel combustion at point sources.\17\ In 2014,
the total SO2 emissions from point sources in Florida
comprised approximately 83 percent of the total SO2
emissions in the State. Further analysis of these data show that
SO2 emissions from fuel combustion from point sources make
up approximately 68 percent of the State's total SO2
emissions. Because emissions from the other listed source categories
are more dispersed throughout the State, those categories are less
likely to cause high ambient concentrations when compared to a point
source on a ton-for-ton basis. Based on EPA's analysis of the 2014 NEI,
EPA believes that it is appropriate to focus the analysis on
SO2 emissions from Florida's larger point sources (i.e.,
emitting over 100 tpy of SO2 in 2017), which are located
within the ``urban scale,'' i.e., within 50 km of one or more state
borders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Florida's point sources listed in Table 1, for the purposes
of this proposed action, are comprised of all of the ``Fuel
Combustion'' categories and ``Industrial Processes (All
Categories),'' with the exception of residential fuel combustion.
Residential fuel consumption is considered a nonpoint source, and
thus, residential fuel combustion data is not included in the point
source fuel combustion data and related calculations.

 Table 1--Summary of 2014 NEI (Version 2) SO2 Data for Florida by Source
                                  Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Percent of
                Category                     Emissions       total SO2
                                               (tpy)         emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Combustion: EGUs (All Fuel Types)..       99,362.87            60.4
Fuel Combustion: Industrial Boilers/           11,868.39             7.2
 Internal Combustion Engines (All Fuel
 Types).................................
Fuel Combustion: Commercial/                      188.60             0.1
 Institutional (All Fuel Types).........
Fuel Combustion: Residential (All Fuel             91.66             0.1
 Types).................................
Industrial Processes (All Categories)...       24,904.24            15.1
Mobile Sources (All Categories).........       12,534.89             7.6
Fires (All Types).......................       13,342.46             8.1
Waste Disposal..........................        2,161.72             1.3
Solvent Processes.......................            0.15               0
Miscellaneous (Non-Industrial)..........           13.50               0
                                         -------------------------------
    SO2 Emissions Total.................      164,468.48             100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in Section II, because the physical properties of
SO2 result in relatively localized pollutant impacts near an
emissions source that drop off with distance, in SO2
transport analyses, EPA focuses on a 50 km-wide zone. Thus, EPA focused
its evaluation on Florida's point sources of SO2 emissions
located within approximately 50 km of another state and their potential
impact on neighboring states.
    As discussed in section I.B., EPA's current implementation strategy
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS includes the flexibility to
characterize air quality for stationary sources subject to the DRR via
either data collected at ambient air quality monitors sited to capture
the points of maximum concentration, or air dispersion modeling
(hereinafter referred to as ``DRR monitors'' or ``DRR modeling,''
respectively). EPA's assessment of SO2 emissions from
Florida's point sources located within approximately 50 km of another
state and their potential impacts on neighboring states (see sections
III.C.1. and II.C.2 of this notice) and SO2 air quality data
at monitors within 50 km of the Florida border (see section III.C.3. of
this notice) is informed by all available data at the time of this
proposed rulemaking.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ EPA notes that the evaluation of other states' satisfaction
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS can be informed by similar factors found in this proposed
rulemaking but may not be identical to the approach taken in this or
any future rulemaking for Florida, depending on available
information and state-specific circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in Section III, EPA proposes to conclude that an
assessment of Florida's satisfaction of the prong 1 and 2 requirements
under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS may be reasonably based upon evaluating the
downwind impacts via modeling and an assessment of SO2
emissions from Florida's point sources emitting more than 100 tpy of
SO2 (including fuel combustion sources) that are located
within approximately 50 km of another state, and upon any federal
regulations and SIP-approved regulations affecting SO2
emissions of Florida's sources.

C. EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation--Significant Contribution to Nonattainment

    Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision requires states' plans to
prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment
of a NAAQS in another state. FDEP asserts in its submission that
Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other
state with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard. To
evaluate Florida's satisfaction of prong 1, EPA assessed the State's
SIP submission with respect to the following factors: (1) Potential
ambient impacts of SO2 emissions from certain facilities in
Florida on neighboring states based on available SO2
designation 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. A
detailed discussion of Florida's SIP submission with respect to each of
these factors follows.\19\ EPA proposes, based on the information
available at the time of this rulemaking, that these factors, taken
together, support the Agency's proposed determination that Florida will
not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in another state. As discussed in the following
sections, EPA's proposed conclusion is based, in part, on the fact that
modeling results for Florida's four DRR sources within 50 km of another
state's border indicate that the maximum impacts do not exceed the
level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Regarding three out-of-
state DRR sources within 50 km 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. In addition, 2017
SO2 emissions for Florida's non-DRR sources emitting over
100 tons of SO2 within 50 km of another state are at
distances or emit levels of SO2 that make it unlikely that
these SO2 emissions could interact with SO2
emissions from the neighboring states' sources in such a way as to
contribute significantly to nonattainment in neighboring states.
Finally, the downward trends in SO2 emissions and DVs for
air quality monitors in the State, combined with federal regulations
and SIP-approved regulations affecting SO2 emissions of
Florida's sources, further support EPA's proposed conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ EPA has reviewed Florida's submission, and where new or
more current information has become available, is including this
information as part of the Agency's evaluation of this submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. SO2 Designations Air Dispersion Modeling
a. State Submission
    In Appendix 2 to Florida's SIP revision, FDEP included the State's
January 13, 2017, modeling reports for the four DRR sources in the
State within 50 km of the Florida border: Jacksonville Electric
Authority (JEA)--Northside Generating Station (NGS)/St. Johns River
Power Park (SJRPP); 20 21 WestRock CP, LLC--Fernandina Beach
Mill (WestRock); Gulf Power Crist Plant (Crist Plant); and White
Springs Agricultural Chemical--Swift Creek Chemical Complex (White
Springs). Florida used AERMOD to evaluate the area around each of these
sources to satisfy the requirements of the DRR and ran the model for
the years 2012-2014 using actual emissions data and monitored
SO2 background concentrations. FDEP asserts that the
modeling results indicate that the area surrounding each facility is in
attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, as shown in the
modeling reports included in Appendix 2 of the State's 2018 submission.
FDEP included a table showing emissions decreases for these DRR sources
from 2014 to 2017 (see Table 2 of Appendix 1 to Florida's SIP
submission), and states that since 2014, actual emissions from these
sources have collectively decreased by 74 percent.\22\ A summary of the
modeling results for Florida's DRR sources within 50 km of the State's
border, including supplemental data EPA has reviewed as part of the
Agency's analysis, is shown in Table 2 of section III.C.1.b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ JEA owns and operates the combined NGS and SJRPP facility
in Jacksonville, Florida. Table 2 of Appendix 1 in Florida's
September 18, 2018, SIP submission lists JEA NGS and JEA SJRRP
separately; however, these sources are modeled as one source under
the DRR.
    \21\ Units 1 and 2 at St. John River Power Park shut down,
effective December 31, 2017.
    \22\ EPA notes that on page 5 of the State's September 18, 2018,
SIP submission, FDEP inadvertently states that since 2014, actual
emissions from the four DRR sources in Florida within 50 km of the
border have decreased by 65 percent. EPA has confirmed that the
value of 74 percent in Table 2 of Appendix 1 is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. EPA Analysis
    EPA evaluated the DRR modeling data in Florida's SIP submission for
sources in the State and supplemented this data with available DRR
modeling results for sources in adjacent states (i.e., Alabama and
Georgia) that are within 50 km of the Florida border.\23\ The purpose
of

evaluating modeling results in adjacent states within 50 km of the
Florida border is to ascertain whether any nearby sources in Florida
are impacting a violation of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ As discussed in section I.B., Florida used air dispersion
modeling to characterize air quality in the vicinity of certain
SO2 emitting sources to identify the maximum 1-hour
SO2 concentrations in ambient air which informed EPA's
round 3 SO2 designations. EPA's preferred modeling
platform for regulatory purposes is AERMOD (Appendix W of 40 CFR
part 51). In these DRR modeling analyses using AERMOD, the impacts
of the actual emissions for one or more of the recent 3-year periods
(e.g., 2012-2014, 2013-2015, 2014-2016) were considered, and in some
cases, the modeling was of currently effective limits on allowable
emissions in lieu of or as a supplement to modeling of actual
emissions. The available air dispersion modeling of certain
SO2 sources can support transport related conclusions
about whether sources in one state will potentially contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 standard in other states. While AERMOD
was not designed specifically to address interstate transport, the
50-km distance that EPA recommends for use with AERMOD aligns with
the concept that there are localized pollutant impacts of
SO2 near an emissions source that drop off with distance.
Thus, EPA believes that the use of AERMOD provides a reliable
indication of air quality for transport purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 provides a summary of the modeling results for the four
modeled DRR sources in Florida which are located within 50 km of
another state. The modeling analyses for these four DRR sources
resulted in no modeled violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS within the modeling domains for each facility. As a result, no
further analysis is necessary for assessing the impacts of the
interstate transport of SO2 pollution from these sources.

                                    Table 2--Florida Sources With DRR Modeling Located Within 50 km of Another State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Modeled 99th
                                                           Approximate                             percentile daily
                                                          distance from       Other facilities    maximum 1-hour SO2   Model grid extends into  another
           DRR source                    County         source to adjacent      included  in        concentration                   state?
                                                            state (km)           modeling?              (ppb)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crist Plant.....................  Escambia...........  17 (AL)............  Yes--International   33.81 (based on      No.
                                                                             Paper Pensacola      2012-2014 actual
                                                                             Facility (FL).       emissions for both
                                                                                facilities).
JEA-NGS/SJRPP...................  Duval..............  35 (GA)............  Yes--Cedar Bay/      56.22 (based on      No.
                                                                             Generating Plant,    2012-2014 actual
                                                                             Renessenz            emissions for
                                                                             Jacksonville         SJRPP and
                                                                             Facility (now        Renessenz
                                                                             Symrise, Inc.),      Jacksonville
                                                                             Anchor Glass         Facility (now
                                                                             Jacksonville         Symrise, Inc.);
                                                                             Plant, and IFF       allowable emission
                                                                             Chemical Holdings    rates for Cedar
                                                                             (FL).                Bay, Anchor Glass,
                                                                                and IFF Chemical
                                                                                facilities).
WestRock \24\...................  Nassau.............  <5 (GA)............  Yes--Rayonier        66.09 (based on      Yes (approximately 3 km into a
                                                                             Performance Fibers   2012-2014 actual     portion of southern Georgia).
                                                                             (FL).                emissions for
                                                                                WestRock and
                                                                                Rayonier and
                                                                                permitted
                                                                                allowable
                                                                                emissions for
                                                                                three minor units
                                                                                at WestRock).
White Springs...................  Hamilton...........  16 (GA)............  Yes--PCS Suwannee    56.34 (based on      No.
                                                                             River Plant * (FL).  2012-2014 actual
                                                                                emissions for
                                                                                sulfuric acid
                                                                                plants E & F and
                                                                                permitted
                                                                                allowable
                                                                                emissions for the
                                                                                PCS Suwaneee River
                                                                                Plant and the
                                                                                remaining sources
                                                                                at White Springs
                                                                                River Plant
                                                                                equivalent to
                                                                                1,276 tpy).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The PCS Suwannee River Plant shut down most of its operations in 2014.

    There are three DRR sources in neighboring states which are located
within 50 km of Florida and which elected to provide air dispersion
modeling under the DRR: Alabama Power Company--James M. Barry Electric
Generating Plant (Plant Barry); Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals--
LeMoyne Site (AkzoNobel); and Escambia Operating Company--Big Escambia
Creek Plant (Big Escambia), which are located approximately 36, 41, and
8 km, respectively, from the Florida border. These sources are all
located in Alabama. With respect to the modeling and other information
submitted by Alabama under the DRR for these modeled Alabama sources,
EPA previously stated that the Agency does not have sufficient
information to determine whether the areas around these sources meet or
do not meet the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS or contribute to an
area that does not meet the standard, and thus designated these areas
as unclassifiable.\25\ Accordingly, the Agency has further assessed
AkzoNobel and Plant Barry in section III.C.2.b. of this action to
determine whether there is evidence of a violation in Alabama with
respect to interstate transport for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ As discussed in footnote 8, EPA's redesignation of the
Nassau Area was based, in part, on a modeled attainment
demonstration that included permanent and enforceable SO2
controls and emissions limits at the Rayonier and WestRock
facilities showing attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
standard.
    \25\ See EPA's initial and final technical support document
(TSDs) for Alabama at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/3_al_so2_rd3-final.pdf and https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/03-al-so2-rd3-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding Big Escambia, the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM) provided supplemental information to EPA in
correspondence dated September 5, 2019, September 20, 2019, and
September 25, 2019, December 2, 2019, and December 6, 2019
(collectively, the ``Big Escambia Supplement'') to address interstate
transport by evaluating potential SO2 ambient air impacts in
the neighboring state of Florida.\26\ On December 31, 2019 (84 FR
72278), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking containing an
evaluation of this supplemental information \27\ and proposing to
determine that ADEM's revised modeling for Big Escambia can be used for
evaluating interstate transport of SO2 emissions from this
facility to locations in Florida. Big Escambia is located 8 km from the
Florida border, 21 km northwest from Breitburn Operating, L.P
(Breitburn), the nearest SO2 source in Florida. Breitburn is
located less than 5 km from the Florida-Alabama border. 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 includes Breitburn as a modeled nearby source using its
permitted allowable emissions of 2,181 pounds per hour (9,553 tpy).
This modeling indicates that the maximum impacts do not exceed the

level of 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 Florida-Alabama border,
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). Breitburn's 2014-2018 SO2 emissions contained
in EPA's Emissions Inventory System (EIS) are shown in Table 3 below.
SO2 emissions have remained fairly constant from 2014-2018,
with the 2018 emissions representing the lowest emissions over that
time period. Breitburn's 2014-2018 emissions profile demonstrates that
Breitburn has consistently operated well below its permitted allowable
emission rate. Thus, Breitburn's actual contribution to SO2
concentrations in Alabama would likely be much less than the predicted
concentrations in the Big Escambia modeling. Based upon this
information, EPA proposes to find that SO2 emissions from
Breitburn will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in
Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Big Escambia Supplement is available in Docket ID: EPA-
R04-OAR-2018-0792.
    \27\ EPA prepared a TSD--titled ``Technical Support Document
(TSD) Addressing Big Escambia Data Requirements Rule (DRR) Modeling
for the Purpose of Evaluating Interstate Transport''--analyzing the
sufficiency of the model for use in evaluating interstate transport
from Big Escambia. The TSD is located in the docket for that
proposed rulemaking at Docket ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0792.

                                                   Table 3--Breitburn SO2 Emissions Trends (2014-2018)
                                                                         [Tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Source                                      2014             2015             2016             2017             2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breitburn..........................................................           1,327            1,454            1,461            1,491          * 1,242
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data submitted to EIS by FDEP.

    EPA believes that the modeling results for the DRR sources located
in Florida (summarized in Table 2) and available information for the
areas surrounding the DRR sources in Alabama within 50 km of the
Florida border do not indicate there are violations of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in Alabama to which Florida sources could
contribute, based partially on the updated modeling completed by
Alabama which addresses the Breitburn facility, weighed along with the
other factors in this notice, support EPA's proposed conclusion that
sources in Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
2. SO2 Emissions Analysis
a. State Submission
    As discussed in section III.B, Florida's SIP revision presents
SO2 emissions from EPA's 2014 NEI by source category and
statewide SO2 emission trends for stationary industrial, on-
road, nonroad, and nonpoint sources from 2000 to 2017. The State notes
that SO2 emissions from stationary, on-road, nonroad, and
nonpoint sources have decreased by 90, 95, 99, and 61 percent,
respectively, since 2000. FDEP states that the largest source
categories of SO2 emissions in Florida according to the 2014
NEI are chemical and allied product manufacturing and fuel combustion
at electric utilities and industrial facilities. SO2
emissions from industrial sources have decreased by 90 percent since
the year 2000 due to unit shut downs, fuel switches from higher sulfur-
emitting fuels to lower sulfur-emitting fuels, and SO2
reductions due to sources' compliance with EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards (MATS). FDEP anticipates that emissions are expected to
decrease further in the coming years due to additional emission unit
shutdowns and fuel switches.
    In addition, FDEP included 2014 and 2017 emissions for Florida's
four DRR sources within 50 km of the State's border (discussed in
section III.C.1 and listed in Table 2). From 2014 to 2017, total annual
SO2 emissions from these four sources have decreased by
22,021 tons (74 percent) from 29,762 tons to 7,741 tons.
b. EPA Analysis
    EPA reviewed the SO2 emissions data from 1990 to 2017
for Florida and the adjacent states of Alabama and Georgia. EPA notes
that statewide SO2 emissions for these states, including
Florida, have decreased significantly over this time period. This data
specifically shows that Florida's statewide SO2 emissions
decreased from approximately 799,150 tons in 1990 to 100,850 tons in
2017.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ State annual emissions trends for criteria pollutants of 14
emission source categories (``Tier 1'') from 1990 to 2017 are
available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section III.B, EPA also finds that it is
appropriate to examine the impacts of SO2 emissions from
stationary sources emitting greater than 100 tons of SO2 in
Florida at distances ranging from zero km to 50 km from a neighboring
state's border. Therefore, in addition to those sources addressed in
section III.C.1.b. of this notice, EPA also assessed the potential
impacts of SO2 emissions from stationary sources not subject
to the DRR that emitted over 100 tons of SO2 in 2017 and are
located in Florida within 50 km from the border. EPA assessed this
information to evaluate whether the SO2 emissions from these
sources could interact with SO2 emissions from the nearest
source in a neighboring state in such a way as to impact a violation of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in that state. Table 4 lists the
four sources in Florida not regulated under the DRR that emitted
greater than 100 tpy of SO2 in 2017 and are located within
50 km of the State's border (i.e., Anchor Glass Container Corporation
(Anchor), Breitburn, IFF Chemical Holdings, Inc. (IFF), and Symrise).

                               Table 4--Florida Non-DRR SO2 Sources Emitting Greater Than 100 TPY Near Neighboring States
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Approximate
                                             2017 Annual     Approximate                                       distance to    Nearest neighboring state
                                            SO2 emissions    distance to                                         nearest      non-DRR SO2  source & 2017
              Florida source                   (tons)      Florida border      Closest neighboring state       neighboring    emissions  (>100 tons SO2)
                                                                (km)                                            state SO2
                                                                                source (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anchor...................................           117.1              26  Georgia.........................              92  Brunswick Cellulose LLC
                                                                                (281.4 tons).
Breitburn................................           1,491              <5  Alabama.........................              16  Georgia-Pacific Brewton LLC
                                                                                (103 tons).
IFF......................................           494.1              27  Georgia.........................              91  Brunswick Cellulose LLC
                                                                                (281.4 tons).

Symrise..................................           824.9              38  Georgia.........................              81  Brunswick Cellulose LLC
                                                                                (281.4 tons).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the monitoring and modeling data available to EPA does
not suggest that Alabama and Florida are impacted by SO2
emissions from the four Florida sources not subject to the DRR listed
in Table 4. Of these four Florida sources, Anchor, IFF, and Symrise are
located over 50 km from the nearest source in another state emitting
over 100 tons of SO2. EPA believes that the distances
greater than 50 km between sources make it unlikely that SO2
emissions from these three Florida sources could interact with
SO2 emissions from these out-of-state sources in such a way
as to contribute significantly to nonattainment in Alabama and Georgia.
    The remaining source, Breitburn, is located at or less than 50 km
from the nearest source in Alabama (Georgia-Pacific Brewton LLC) which
emits greater than 100 tons of SO2. EPA's evaluation of
potential SO2 impacts from Breitburn on Alabama is discussed
in Section III.C.1.b of this notice. Based upon the analysis of the
modeling for Alabama's Big Escambia in Section III.C.1.b, EPA believes
that emissions from Breitburn are not contributing significantly to
nonattainment in Alabama.
    In addition, EPA evaluated the 2017 SO2 emissions data
for AkzoNobel and Plant Barry, two of the DRR sources in Alabama
located within 50 km of the Florida border for which EPA could not rely
on existing DRR modeling. This was done to assess whether Florida
sources may potentially be impacting the areas surrounding these
Alabama sources under the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Table 5
provides annual 2017 SO2 emissions data for AkzoNobel and
Plant Barry, along with the distances to the closest neighboring
state's non-DRR sources emitting over 100 tpy of SO2. Table
6 shows the SO2 emissions trends for AkzoNobel and Plant
Barry from 2012-2017 (and 2018 if data is available).

                                 Table 5--Alabama DRR SO2 Sources Emitting Greater Than 100 TPY Near Neighboring States
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Approximate
                                             2017 Annual                                                       distance to    Nearest neighboring state
                                            SO2 emissions    Approximate                                         nearest     SO2 source & 2017 emissions
              Alabama source                   (tons)        distance to       Closest neighboring state       neighboring          (>100 tons SO2)
                                                            Alabama (km)                                        state SO2
                                                                                source (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant Barry..............................           4,218              40  Mississippi.....................              74  Mississippi Power Company--
                                                                                Plant Daniel (Plant
                                                                                Daniel) (204 tons).
AkzoNobel................................           2,201              39  Mississippi.....................              71  Plant Daniel (204 tons).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Table 6--Alabama DRR SO2 Sources Emitting Greater Than 100 TPY Near Neighboring States--Emissions Trends
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Alabama source                    2012            2013            2014            2015            2016            2017            2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant Barry *...........................          10,731          13,448          10,690           8,688           5,421           4,218           5,257
AkzoNobel...............................           3,293           2,752           2,320           3,587           3,646           2,201          ** N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* SO2 emissions for Plant Barry are from EPA's Air Markets Program Data (AMPD) accessible at: https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
** 2018 SO2 emissions not available for AkzoNobel.

    Table 5 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 closest sources in another state to
AkzoNobel and Plant Barry are located in Mississippi; therefore, there
are no Florida sources within 50 km of AkzoNobel and Plant Barry which
could interact with SO2 emissions from these Alabama sources
in Table 4 in such a way as to contribute significantly to
nonattainment in Alabama. Table 5 shows that SO2 emissions
have declined from 2012 to 2017/2018 for these Alabama sources.
    EPA also considered whether any changes in controls or operations
had occurred at AkzoNobel and Plant Barry. AkzoNobel entered into a
consent decree with EPA which required more stringent emissions limits
that have reduced SO2 emissions at the facility by 2,340
tpy.\29\ Plant Barry has retired Unit 3, and Units 1 and 2 are
restricted to burn only natural gas as of January 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The consent decree, entered on November 21, 2019, is
available at: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decree/file/1201231/download. A press release is available at: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/settlement-reached-nouryon-functional-chemicals-llc-fka-akzo-nobel-functional-chemicals.

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

    EPA also evaluated data from the Agency's Air Quality System (AQS)
\30\ 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 DV for this monitor is
11 ppb. EPA believes that the SO2 emissions trends
information in Florida's submission, the Agency's analysis of the
sources in Tables 4 and 5, and the SO2 emissions trends for
AkzoNobel and Plant Barry in Table 6, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. SO2 Ambient Air Quality
a. State Submission
    In its September 18, 2018, SIP submission, FDEP included a table
showing DV trends from 2007 to 2017 for Florida's 23 existing
SO2 air quality monitors. All of Florida's SO2
air quality monitors have 2015-2017 SO2 DVs below the level
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. FDEP notes that the majority
of these 2015-2017 DVs are ``well below'' the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS and that several monitors show ``significant
decreases'' in their SO2 DVs over time.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Table 3 of Appendix 1 of Florida's September 18, 2018,
SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDEP also identified recent maximum 1-hour SO2
concentrations at the one monitor in Mobile County, Alabama, that is
within 50 km of the Florida border and notes that these
concentrations--30.1 ppb in 2016 and 23.9 ppb in 2017--are well below
the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. FDEP also included
the 2017 DV (5 ppb) for the next nearest SO2 monitor--
located in Georgia--and notes that this monitor's DV is seven percent
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\32\ In addition, FDEP
identified the closest SO2 nonattainment areas outside of
Florida, with the nearest one located approximately 145 km away in St.
Bernard Parish in New Orleans, Louisiana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ FDEP inadvertently identified the nearest monitor in
Georgia--located in Savannah, Georgia, approximately 155 km from the
State's border--as AQS ID 13-021-0012. EPA has confirmed that the
monitor with this ID is located in Macon, Georgia, approximately 241
km from the Florida border, and it has 2016, 2017, and 2018 DVs of
9, 5, and 4 ppb, respectively. The monitor located in Savannah,
Georgia, is AQS ID 13-051-1002, and it has 2016, 2017, and 2018 DVs
of 52, 48, 45 ppb, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDEP notes that on August 5, 2013 (78 FR 47191), EPA designated an
area in Nassau County, Florida, as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS based on ambient SO2 monitoring data in
the area for the three-year period 2009-2011 (round 1 designations). In
Florida's SIP submission, the State indicates that this is the only
SO2 nonattainment area within 50 km of another state
(approximately 4 km from the Georgia border). FDEP submitted a
redesignation request and maintenance plan for the area on June 7,
2018. EPA notes that, subsequent to the state's submission, the Agency
approved Florida's request to redesignate the Nassau County area to
attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and the
accompanying SIP revision containing the maintenance plan for the area
on April 24, 2019 (effective May 24, 2019). See 84 FR 17085.
b. EPA Analysis
    Since the time of development of Florida's SIP submission, DVs
based on more recent certified monitoring data from monitors in EPA's
AQS (``AQS monitors'') have become available for Florida and the
surrounding states. The most recent certified 3-year DV period is 2016-
2018. EPA has summarized the DVs from 2012 to 2018 for AQS monitors in
Florida within 50 km of another state in Table 7. The 2010 1-hour
SO2 standard is violated at an ambient air quality
monitoring site (or in the case of dispersion modeling, at an ambient
air quality receptor location) when the 3-year average of the annual
99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations
exceeds 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with Appendix T of 40 CFR
part 50.

                            Table 7--Trend in 1-Hour SO2 DVs (ppb) for AQS Monitors in Florida Within 50 km of Another State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Approximate
                                                                                distance to
             County                AQS site code   2010-2012    2011-2013    2012-2014    2013-2015    2014-2016    2015-2017    2016-2018      state
                                                                                border (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duval...........................     12-031-0032           16           17           17           16           16           16           18      39 (GA)
Duval...........................   * 12-031-0080           13           11           17           17           17           10        ** ND      37 (GA)
Duval...........................     12-031-0081           29           29           27           23           20           12           11      38 (GA)
Duval...........................   * 12-031-0097           18           21           21           23           18           14        ** ND      43 (GA)
Escambia........................     12-033-0004           27           22           25           24           16            8            6      20 (AL)
Hamilton........................     12-047-0015           23           25        ** ND        ** ND        ** ND        ** ND        ** ND      19 (GA)
Nassau..........................     12-089-0005          122           70           57           58           51           43           37       6 (GA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA approved the discontinuation of two SO2 monitors in Duval County (AQS IDs: 12-031-0080 and 12-031-0097) in 2018.
** ND indicates ``No Data'' due to monitor startup or shutdown (operated less than three years), data quality issues, or incomplete data.

    As shown in Table 7, the 2012-2018 DVs for six of the seven
monitoring sites in Florida within 50 km of another state's border have
remained below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, with
the exception of the Nassau County monitor which had a 122 ppb DV for
the 2010-2012 period. The DVs at the Nassau County monitor have
declined over the 2013 through 2018 DV time periods, and these DVs are
all below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The
Hamilton County monitor has 2012 and 2013 DVs of 23 and 25 ppb,
respectively, and incomplete data for the remaining DV time periods
(2014-2018). The Hamilton County monitor has not measured a daily
exceedance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS since 2013.
    There is one AQS monitor in Alabama (Mobile County) which is
located within 50 km of the Florida border. This monitor is
approximately 45 km from Florida and began operation on January 1,
2016. The monitor has a complete, quality-assured 2016-2018 DV of 11
ppb, which is 85 percent below the level of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. The Mobile County monitor has measured no daily
exceedances of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS during its years of
operation.
    EPA also evaluated monitoring data provided to date for AQS
monitors located in states adjacent to Florida and neighboring states
within 50 km of the State's border that were established to
characterize the air quality around

specific sources subject to EPA's DRR to inform the Agency's future
round 4 designations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in lieu
of modeling. No sources in Florida elected to establish monitors under
the DRR and there are no DRR monitors within 50 km of the Florida
border located in the adjacent states of Alabama and Georgia.
    EPA believes that the air quality data for monitors within 50 km of
the Florida border within the State and in surrounding states support
EPA's proposed conclusion that Florida will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
in any other state.
4. SIP-Approved Regulations Addressing SO2 Emissions
a. State Submission
    In its September 18, 2018, SIP submission, Florida identified SIP-
approved measures which help ensure that SO2 emissions in
the State do not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. FDEP indicates that
many of the current SIP-approved rules are adopted under the authority
of subsection 403.061(35), Florida Statutes. FDEP lists the following
SIP-approved Florida rule chapters of the Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.) which establish emission limits and other control measures for
SO2: Chapter 62-210, F.A.C., Stationary Sources--General
Requirements; Chapter 62-212, F.A.C., Stationary Sources--
Preconstruction Review; and Chapter 62-296, F.A.C., Stationary
Sources--Emission Standards. Chapter 62-210, F.A.C establishes
definitions and the general requirements for major and minor stationary
sources of air pollutant emissions. Chapter 62-212, F.A.C. establishes
the preconstruction review requirements for proposed new emissions
units, new facilities, and modifications to existing units and
facilities. Chapter 62-296, F.A.C. establishes emission limiting
standards and compliance requirements for stationary sources of air
pollutant emissions, including SIP emission limits that restrict
SO2 emissions from various source categories (e.g., EGUs
(Rule 62-296.405, F.A.C.) and sulfuric acid plants (Rule 62-296.402,
F.A.C.)) and source-specific SO2 emission limits that form
the basis of Florida's SO2 nonattainment area SIPs.
b. EPA Analysis
    As part of EPA's weight of evidence approach to evaluating 2010
SO2 transport SIPs, EPA considered Florida's SIP-approved
measures summarized in III.C.4.a. of this notice, which establish
emission limits, permitting requirements, and other control measures
for SO2. For the purposes of ensuring that SO2
emissions at new major sources or major modifications at existing major
sources in Florida do not contribute significantly to nonattainment of
the NAAQS, the State has a SIP-approved major source new source review
(NSR) program. Chapters 62-210 and 62-212, F.A.C. collectively regulate
the construction of any new major stationary source or any modification
at an existing major stationary source in an area designated as
nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable. The State's SIP-approved
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regulations are found in
Chapters 62-210, F.A.C., Stationary Sources--General Requirements, and
62-212, F.A.C., Stationary Sources--Preconstruction Review, F.A.C.,
which apply to the construction of any new major stationary source or
major modification at an existing major stationary source in an area
designated as attainment or unclassifiable or not yet designated.
Florida's SIP-approved rules, 62-210.300, F.A.C., and 62-212.300,
F.A.C., collectively govern the preconstruction permitting of
modifications to and construction of minor stationary sources. These
major and minor NSR 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 of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states.
5. Federal Regulations Addressing SO2 Emissions in Florida
a. State Submission
    FDEP notes that MATS has helped to reduce SO2 emissions
from industrial sources as discussed in section III.C.2.a of this
notice.
b. EPA Analysis
    EPA agrees that MATS is a federal control measure which has helped
to reduce SO2 emissions in Florida, along with other federal
regulatory programs such as: 2007 Heavy-Duty Highway Rule; Acid Rain
Program; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; New
Source Performance Standards; Nonroad Diesel Rule; and Tier 1 and 2
Mobile Source Rules. EPA believes that MATS, along with the other
federal measures EPA identified, have and continue to lower
SO2 emissions, which, in turn, supports EPA's proposed
conclusion that SO2 emissions from Florida will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in another state.
6. Conclusion
    EPA proposes to determine that Florida's September 18, 2018, SIP
submission satisfies the requirements of prong 1 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This proposed determination is based on the
following considerations: DVs for six of Florida's seven AQS
SO2 monitors within 50 km of another state's border have
remained below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS since 2013 and six
of these monitors have had DVs well below the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS since 2011 (the seventh monitor in Hamilton
County, Florida, has no data to calculate DVs for the 2012-2014 through
the 2016-2018 time periods); the 2018 99th percentile 1-hour
SO2 concentrations for Alabama's Mobile County monitor
within 50 km of Florida's border is well below the level of the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS for the 2016-2018 time period; modeling for
the DRR sources within 50 km of the Florida border both within the
State and in Alabama estimates impacts below the level of the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS; downward SO2 emissions trends in
Florida; SO2 emissions from Florida sources not subject to
the DRR which each emitted over 100 tons of SO2 in 2017 are
not likely interacting with SO2 emissions from the nearest
out-of-state source in a bordering state in such a way as to cause a
violation in Alabama and Georgia due to either distances over 50 km
between the sources or, in the case of Breitburn, modeling which
includes this source at much higher permitted emissions shows impacts
below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; and current
Florida SIP-approved measures and federal emissions control programs
ensure control of SO2 emissions from sources within Florida.
    Based on the analysis provided by Florida in its SIP submission and
EPA's analysis of the factors described in section III.C, EPA proposes
to find that sources within Florida will not contribute significantly
to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state.

D. EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation--Interference With Maintenance of the NAAQS

    Prong 2 of the good neighbor provision requires state plans to
prohibit emissions that will interfere

with maintenance of a NAAQS in another state.
1. State Submission
    In its September 18, 2018, SIP submission, FDEP confirms that
Florida will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 standard in any other state. FDEP bases its conclusion
for prong 2 on: The localized nature of SO2 dispersion,
emissions, and monitoring data presented in the submission and
discussed in sections III.C.2.a and III.C.3.a of this notice, and DRR
modeling for large SO2 sources within 50 km of the State
border which shows the areas around these sources are not exceeding the
level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. As discussed in sections
III.C.4 and III.C.5, FDEP has SIP-approved measures which address
sources of SO2 emissions in Florida and there are also
federal measures that control SO2 emissions in the State.
Specifically, FDEP notes that SIP-approved sections of Chapters 62-210
and 62-212, F.A.C., require any new major source or major modification
to undergo PSD or nonattainment NSR permitting to demonstrate that the
source will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS in
Florida or any other state. FDEP also states that Florida's SIP
contains other emission limiting standards such as Chapter 62-296,
F.A.C., which includes SIP emissions limits that restrict
SO2 emissions from various source categories.
2. EPA Analysis
    In North Carolina v. EPA, the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) explained that the
regulating authority must give prong 2 ``independent significance''
from prong 1 by evaluating the impact of upwind state emissions on
downwind areas that, while currently in attainment, are at risk of
future nonattainment. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 910-11 (D.C.
Cir. 2008). EPA interprets prong 2 to require an evaluation of the
potential impact of a state's emissions on areas that are currently
measuring clean data, but that may have issues maintaining that air
quality. Therefore, in addition to the analysis presented by Florida,
EPA has also reviewed additional information on SO2 air
quality and emission trends to evaluate the State's conclusion that
Florida will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in downwind states. This evaluation builds on the
analysis regarding significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1).
    For the prong 2 analysis, EPA evaluated the data discussed in
section III.C. of this notice for prong 1, with a specific focus on
evaluating emissions trends in Florida, analyzing air quality data, and
assessing how future sources of SO2 are addressed through
existing SIP-approved and federal regulations. Given the continuing
trend of decreasing SO2 emissions from sources within
Florida, and the fact that all areas in other states within 50 km of
the Florida border which have existing monitors have DVs attaining the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, EPA believes that evaluating whether
these decreases in emissions can be maintained over time is a
reasonable criterion to ensure that sources within Florida do not
interfere with its neighboring states' ability to maintain the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS.
    With respect to air quality data trends, the 2016-2018 DVs for AQS
SO2 monitors both in Florida within 50 km of another state's
border and in Alabama within 50 km of Florida's border are below the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Further, modeling results for DRR
sources within 50 km of Florida's border within the State demonstrate
attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and thus,
demonstrate that Florida's largest point sources of SO2 are
not expected to interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in another state.
    EPA believes that federal and SIP-approved State regulations
discussed in sections III.C.4 and III.C.5 that both directly and
indirectly reduce emissions of SO2 in Florida help ensure
that the State does not interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in
another state. SO2 emissions from future major modifications
and new major sources will be addressed by Florida's SIP-approved major
NSR regulations described in section III.C.4. In addition, Florida has
a SIP-approved minor NSR permit program addressing small emission
sources of SO2. The permitting regulations contained within
these programs are designed to ensure that emissions from these
activities do not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in the State or in any other state.
3. Conclusion
    EPA proposes to determine that Florida's September 18, 2018, SIP
submission satisfies the requirements of prong 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This determination is based on the following
considerations: SO2 emissions statewide from 2000 to 2017 in
Florida have declined significantly; SO2 emissions from
Florida's non-DRR sources emitting greater than 100 tpy in 2017 listed
in Table 4 of this notice are not likely interacting with
SO2 emissions from the nearest out-of-state source in a
bordering state in such a way as to interfere with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Alabama and Georgia due to either
distances over 50 km between the sources or, in the case of Breitburn
modeling which includes this source at much higher permitted emissions
shows impacts below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS;
current Florida SIP-approved measures and federal emissions control
programs ensure control of SO2 emissions from sources within
Florida; Florida's SIP-approved PSD and minor source NSR permit
programs will address future large and small SO2 sources;
current DVs for AQS SO2 monitors both in Florida within 50
km of another state's border and in Alabama within 50 km of Florida's
border are below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; and
modeling for DRR sources within 50 km of Florida's border both within
the State and in Alabama demonstrate that Florida's largest point
sources of SO2 are not expected to interfere with
maintenance of current attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in another state. Based on the analysis provided by Florida in
its SIP submission and EPA's supplemental analysis of the factors
described in section III.C and III.D of this notice, EPA proposes to
find that emission sources within Florida will not interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

IV. Proposed Action

    In light of the above analysis, EPA is proposing to approve
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.

V. 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 proposed action
merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this proposed 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.

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.

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

    Dated: January 30, 2020.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2020-02502 Filed 2-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 55)]
[Notices]
[Page 14522-14524]
[DOCID:fr22mr06-69]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0537; FRL-7767-8]

Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petitions for Establishment of
Regulations for Residues of Ethofumesate and Its Metabolites in or on
Various Food Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide
petitions proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of
the herbicide ethofumesate (2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-
benzofuranyl methanesulfonate) and its metabolites NC 8493 and NC 9607
(both calculated as the parent compound) in or on carrots (with
regional restriction for use in Washington and Oregon only), garden
beets (tops and roots), onion dry bulb, garlic bulb, and shallots.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 21, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0537 and pesticide petition numbers (PPs)
3E6564, 3E6565, and 5E6914, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
(PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001.
     Hand Delivery: Public Information and Records Integrity
Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801
S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0537. The docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
docket facility is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0537. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line
at http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going at
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be captured automatically and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment,
EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information
in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For
additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket
Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm/.

     Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
regulation.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Public Information

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall
2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Madden, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; 703-
305-6463; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
     2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing a summary of each pesticide petition received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C.346a, proposing the establishment or amendment of regulations in
40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various
food commodities. EPA has determined that these pesticide petitions
contain data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA
section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated

the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
support granting of these pesticide petitions. Additional data may be
needed before EPA rules on these pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each petition included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner along with a description of the
analytical method available for the detection and measurement of the
pesticide chemical residues is available on EPA's Electronic Docket at
http://www.regulations.gov/. To locate this information on the home

page of EPA's Electronic Docket, select ``Quick Search'' and type the
OPP docket ID number. Once the search has located the docket, clicking
on the ``Docket ID'' will bring up a list of all documents in the
docket for the pesticide including the petition summary.

New Tolerances

    1. PP 3E6564. Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), 681 U.
S. Highway No. 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390, proposes to
establish a tolerance for residues of the herbicide ethofumesate (2-
ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate) and
its metabolites NC 8493 and NC 9607 (both calculated as the parent
compound) in or on food commodities garden beet tops at 4.0 parts per
million (ppm) and garden beet roots at 0.5 ppm; and
    2. PP 3E6565. Carrots (with regional restriction for use in
Washington and Oregon only) at 10.0 ppm; and
    3. PP 5E6914. Onion dry bulb, garlic bulb, and shallots at 0.3 ppm.
    Analytical methods have been developed and validated for the
determination of ethofumesate and its metabolites NC 9607 and NC 8493
in sugar beet (roots and tops), meat, and milk. The method has also
been shown to capture NC 20645 as NC 9607 in sugar beet and milk.
Therefore, reported residues of NC 9607 include any NC 20645 that may
be present. Ethofumesate and its related residues are extracted in a
two-part process and quantified using gas chromatography equipped with
flame photometric detector (GC-NPD) operated in sulfur mode. The method
limit of quantification is 0.05 ppm. Therefore, adequate analytical
methodology is available for enforcement purposes and it allows
detection of residues at or above the proposed tolerances.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: March 13, 2006.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 06-2635 Filed 3-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S