Implementation Plan and Redesignation Request for the Muscogee County, Georgia Lead Nonattainment Area

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[GA-42-1-9908a; FRL-6321-1]

Implementation Plan and Redesignation Request for the Muscogee

County, Georgia Lead Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is simultaneously approving the lead state implementation

plan (SIP) and redesignation request for the Muscogee County, Georgia,

lead nonattainment area. Both plans dated September 28, 1998, were

submitted by the State of Georgia for the purpose of demonstrating that

the Muscogee County area has attained the lead National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (NAAQS).

DATES: This direct final rule is effective June 11, 1999 without

further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 12, 1999. If

adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of

the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public

that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Kimberly Bingham at the EPA Region

4 address listed below. Copies of the material submitted by Georgia

Environmental Protection Division (EPD) may be examined during normal

business hours at the following locations:

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC 20460.

Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, Region 4 Air

Planning Branch, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division, Air Protection Branch, 4244

International Parkway, Suite 120, Atlanta, Georgia 30354.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Bingham, Regulatory Planning

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management

Division, Region 4, Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal

Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. The telephone

number is (404)562-9038.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background--Lead SIP

Section 107(d)(5) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA)

provides for areas to be designated as attainment, nonattainment, or

unclassifiable with respect to the lead NAAQS. Governors are required

to submit recommended designations for areas within their states. When

an area is designated nonattainment, the state must prepare and submit

a SIP pursuant to sections 110(a)(2) and 172(c) of the CAA showing how

the area will be brought into attainment.

On January 6, 1992, EPA designated the portion of Muscogee County

around the GNB, Inc., lead smelter and battery production facility as

nonattainment for lead. This nonattainment designation was based on

lead NAAQS violations from monitors located near the GNB facility that

were recorded the first, second, and fourth quarter of the calendar

year 1991.

On July 23, 1993, Georgia EPD submitted a lead SIP for attaining

the NAAQS in the Muscogee County lead nonattainment area. EPA found the

SIP to be inadequate because it did not meet the requirements of

section 172(c) of the CAA and requested that Georgia EPD make the

necessary corrections and submit supplemental information to address

the deficiencies. To comply, Georgia EPD submitted a supplemental

modeling demonstration for the base

[[Page 17552]]

year 1996. Significant changes in the emission sources occurred at the

GNB lead facility rendering the modeling inappropriate for the 1993 SIP

submittal and inapplicable for the redesignation request. Specifically,

the 1996 modeling showed a relaxation of the limits, the addition of

new emission sources, revised stack heights, deleted sources, and

relocated sources not addressed in the 1993 SIP submittal. Even though

the total facility emissions and maximum modeling impacts decreased

somewhat, the inventory was not reflective of the 1993 SIP inventory

and the SIP emission limits were relaxed. As a result, Georgia EPD

requested that the 1993 lead SIP be withdrawn and replaced with the new

lead SIP submittal and redesignation request dated September 28, 1998.

II. Analysis of the State Submittal

The 1998 SIP revision was reviewed using the criteria established

by the CAA in section 110(a)(2). Section 172(c) of the CAA specifies

the provisions applicable to areas designated as nonattainment for any

of the NAAQS. EPA has also issued a General Preamble describing how EPA

will review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under Title I of the CAA,

including those state submittals containing lead nonattainment area SIP

requirements (see generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR

18070 (April 28, 1992)). Because the EPA is describing its

interpretations here only in broad terms, the reader should refer to

the General Preamble for a more detailed discussion of the

interpretations of Title I advanced in today's approval and the

supporting rationale (57 FR 13549, April 16, 1992).

A. Attainment Demonstration

Section 192(a) of the CAA requires that SIPs must provide for

attainment of the lead NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but not

later than five years from the date of an area's nonattainment

designation. The lead nonattainment designation for the Muscogee County

area was effective on January 6, 1992; therefore, the latest attainment

date permissible by statute would be January 6, 1997. The Muscogee

County area has air quality data showing attainment of the lead NAAQS

for the years 1992 through 1998 and to date for 1999, which meets the

statutory requirement.

To demonstrate that the area will continue to be in attainment with

the lead NAAQS, emission limits were obtained from the application of

reasonable achievable control technologies (RACT) and workplace

standards at the GNB facility. The emission limits were evaluated using

air dispersion modeling. This modeling predicts the impact of emissions

on the environment surrounding the facility and whether or not the area

will attain the lead NAAQS. The modeling demonstration submitted by

Georgia EPD for the GNB facility shows a predicted maximum ambient air

lead concentration of 0.98 micro grams per cubic meter (g/

m3) which is below the NAAQS for lead of 1.5 (g/

m3)

B. Emissions Inventory

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires that nonattainment plan

provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of

actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants in the

nonattainment area. Because it is necessary to support an area's

attainment demonstration, the emission inventory must be received with

the SIP submission.

Georgia EPD submitted an emissions inventory for the base year

1996. The inventory identifies the secondary lead smelter owned and

operated by GNB as the sole major source of lead emissions in the

Muscogee County area when violations were recorded. The EPA is

approving the emissions inventory because it is accurate and

comprehensive, and provides a sufficient basis for determining the

adequacy of the attainment demonstration for this area consistent with

the requirements of the CAA.

C. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) (Including Reasonably

Available Control Technology (RACT))

States with lead nonattainment areas must submit provisions to

assure that RACM (including RACT) are implemented (see sections

172(c)(1)). Control measures have already been implemented at the GNB

facility and include baghouses on several emissions points,

environmental controls on blast furnaces, and improved lead related

work practices and controls to minimize fugitive lead dust emissions.

The control measures employed at the GNB facility were evaluated for

reasonableness and technological and economical feasibility. EPA has

determined that requirements for RACM (including RACT) have been met.

D. Other Measures including Emission Limitations, and Timetables

Pursuant to 172(c)(6) of the CAA, all nonattainment SIPs must

contain enforceable emission limitations, other control measures, and

schedules and timetables for compliance.

The emission limits for the GNB facility were submitted as a part

of the lead SIP and used in the modeling study. The facility-wide

emissions of lead for GNB are limited to 1.612 pounds per hour (lbs/

hr). Any relaxation of the emission limits which results in a computer

modeling prediction of a maximum quarterly lead concentration off the

GNB plant property exceeding 0.98 g/m3 will require

a revision of this lead SIP.

The CAA also requires that nonattainment SIPs include other

measures and schedules and timetables for compliance that may be needed

to ensure the attainment of the relevant NAAQS by the applicable

attainment date. Because the Muscogee County area has been attaining

the lead NAAQS since 1992 and met the attainment date of January 6,

1997, it was not necessary to require other control measures or a

schedule and timetable for compliance with the NAAQS.

E. Computer Modeling

Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires the use of air quality

modeling to predict the effect on ambient air quality from any

emissions of an air pollutant for which a NAAQS has been established.

Therefore, Georgia EPD was required to submit a modeling demonstration

with the lead SIP. Georgia EPD used the current long-term ISCLT3 and

short-term ISCST3 models. The 1996 modeling results reveal that the

maximum quarterly lead concentration was 0.98 g/m3

which is below the 1.5 g/m3 lead NAAQS.

Furthermore, it is predicted that the maximum quarterly lead

concentration in the year 2009, which is the required year for

maintenance, shall be either at or below the 1996 value.

F. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

The SIP must provide for RFP, defined in section 171(1) of the CAA

as such reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are

required by section 172(c)(2), or may reasonably be required by the

Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable

NAAQS by the applicable date.

The EPA reviewed the attainment demonstration for the area to

determine whether annual incremental reductions different from those

provided in the SIP should be required in order to ensure attainment of

the lead NAAQS. The EPA found that the emission controls which have

been implemented at the GNB facility in response to the 1991 NAAQS

violations, have resulted in swift improvement in air quality in the

Muscogee County nonattainment area. Furthermore, the air quality

monitoring data indicates no exceedances of the

[[Page 17553]]

lead NAAQS since 1991 and the modeling study predicts no future

exceedances. Therefore, no additional incremental reductions in

emissions are needed.

G. New Source Review (NSR)

Section 172(c)(5)of the CAA requires that the submittal include a

permit program for the construction and operation of new and modified

major stationary sources. The federally approved Rule 391-3-1-.03--

subsection (8)(c) of the Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control

identifies the current specific permitting requirements for

nonattainment areas in the State of Georgia. The federally approved

Rule 391-2-1-.02 subsection (7)--Prevention of Significant

Deterioration of Air Quality will replace this rule once the Muscogee

County lead nonattainment area is redesignated to attainment. An

analysis of the redesignation request is discussed later in this

document. This rule meets the requirements of the CAA.

H. Contingency Measures

As provided in section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, all nonattainment area

SIPs that demonstrate attainment must include contingency measures.

Contingency measures should consist of other available measures that

are not part of the area's control strategy. These measures must take

effect without further action by the state or EPA, upon a determination

that the area has failed to meet RFP or attain the lead NAAQS by the

applicable attainment date.

The Georgia lead SIP contains the following three contingency

measures: (1) speed breaker control of truck speed and minimization of

re-entrainment of fugitive dust on the roadway; (2) enclosure of the

drum dump for the oxide vacuum system, smelter vacuum system, and

fugitive baghouses to contain any lead dust generated during cleaning;

and (3) connection of the discharge from both vacuum systems to

baghouses to provide secondary filtration. The SIP provides that all

three measures be implemented within 60 days after notification to GNB

by Georgia EPD that the NAAQS has been violated in the Muscogee County

area.

The EPA is approving the lead SIP for Muscogee County, Georgia

because it meets the requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2) and

172(c) of the CAA.

III. Background and Analysis of the Redesignation Request

On February 23, 1994, Georgia EPD submitted a request to

redesignate the Muscogee County area to attainment for lead. The EPA

could not approve this request because it did not meet the requirements

sets forth in the CAA for redesignation requests. Subsequently, Georgia

EPD requested that EPA withdraw the 1994 redesignation request and

approve the new request dated September 28, 1998.

Pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, five requirements must

be met before a nonattainment area can be redesignated to attainment.

The following describes how each of the five requirements has been

achieved.

A. Attainment of the Lead NAAQS

The EPA requires eight consecutive quarters or 2 calendar years of

air quality monitoring data showing attainment to justify a

redesignation to attainment. To demonstrate that the Muscogee County

area is in attainment with the NAAQS for lead, Georgia EPD included air

quality data for the years 1992-1998 in the submittal. The data has

been quality assured, and can be found in EPA's Aerometric Information

Retrieval System. This monitoring data which covers over 25 consecutive

quarters without an exceedance, is adequate to demonstrate attainment

of the lead NAAQS.

Modeling is also required to redesignate an area to attainment. The

EPA believes that the modeling analysis included in the 1998 lead SIP

also being approved in this document satisfies this requirement.

Georgia EPD will continue to monitor the air quality of the Muscogee

County area to verify continued maintenance of the lead NAAQS.

B. Section 110(k) SIP Approval

The SIP for the area must be fully approved under section 110(k)

and must satisfy all requirements that apply to the area. Approval

actions on SIP elements and the redesignation request may occur

simultaneously as in the case of this lead SIP and redesignation

request. The SIP elements for the lead SIP were discussed previously in

the ``Analysis of the State Submittal'' section of this document. The

EPA has determined that the approval of the lead SIP for the Muscogee

County area meets the requirements of section 110(k).

C. Permanent and Enforceable Improvement in Air Quality

A state must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement in air

quality to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. The

implementation of RACM (including RACT) by the GNB facility provides

enforceable and permanent emission reductions needed to attain and

maintain the lead NAAQS. This is evidenced by the area having more than

25 consecutive quarters of clean air quality data. Furthermore, the

modeling study shows that the area will remain in attainment through

the year 2009. Subsequently, EPA has determined that there is a

permanent and enforceable improvement in the air quality in Muscogee

County.

D. Compliance With Sections 110(a)(2) and Part D of the CAA

To be redesignated to attainment, section 107(d)(3)(E) requires

that an area must have met all applicable requirements of section

110(a)(2) and Part D of the CAA. The EPA has determined that the lead

SIP for the Muscogee County area of Georgia meets the requirements of

section 110(a)(2) and Part D of the CAA and is approving the submittal

in this document. A detailed explanation of the requirements can be

found in the ``Analysis of the State Submittal'' section of this

document.

E. Maintenance Plan

Section 175(A) of the CAA requires states that submit a

redesignation request to include a maintenance plan to ensure that the

attainment of NAAQS for any pollutant is maintained. The plan must

demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least

ten years after the approval of a redesignation to attainment. Eight

years after the redesignation, states must submit a revised maintenance

plan demonstrating attainment for the ten years following the initial

ten year period. To provide for the possibility of future NAAQS

violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures

as the Administrator deems necessary to assure that a state will

promptly correct any violation of the standard that occurs after

redesignation. The contingency provisions are to include a requirement

that a state will implement all measures for controlling the air

pollutant concerned that were contained in the SIP prior to

redesignation.

Georgia EPD demonstrated that the lead SIP also being approved in

this action is adequate to maintain compliance with the lead NAAQS for

at least ten years. The EPA agrees that the lead SIP satisfies the

requirements of section 175(A) of the CAA to show maintenance of the

lead NAAQS. The control measures and lead emission limits included in

the SIP have been implemented at the GNB facility to ensure the

continued attainment of the lead NAAQS. The modeling demonstration

supporting the lead SIP shows maintenance of the lead standard through

2009, meeting the requirement to show maintenance for ten years. The

lead SIP also includes contingency

[[Page 17554]]

measures that will take effect if a violation of the lead NAAQS occurs.

Since these measures were not implemented to attain the lead NAAQS,

they can be used as contingency measure for maintenance. Georgia EPD

has committed to submit a demonstration of maintenance for an

additional ten years within eight years of approval of the

redesignation request.

IV. Final action

EPA is approving the lead SIP and redesignation of the Muscogee

County lead nonattainment area to attainment because the submittal

meets the requirements of the CAA as discussed in this document. The

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal

Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will

serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse

comments be filed. This rule will be effective June 11, 1999 without

further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by May 12,

1999.

If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document

withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will

not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting

should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public

is advised that this rule will be effective on June 11, 1999 and no

further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled

``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local

or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those

governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office

of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875

requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal

governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development

of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''

Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal

governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these

entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875

do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA

has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.

If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate

the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on

children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other

potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered

by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those

governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop

an effective process permitting elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters

that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''

Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve

or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create

any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is

already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not

create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);

42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;

or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective

[[Page 17555]]

and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the

rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of

$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in

the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves

pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior

to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a

``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for

judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 11, 1999. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule

does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such

rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings

to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Lead,

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relation, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: March 18, 1999.

Michael V. Peyton,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

Chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as

follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart L--Georgia

2. Section 52.570 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(45) to read as

follows:

Sec. 52.570 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(45) The State of Georgia submitted a lead SIP for the Muscogee

County lead nonattainment area dated September 28, 1998.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

State Implementation Plan for Lead Columbus, Georgia Muscogee

County, Requirements for the GNB facility that were adopted on

September 28, 1998.

(ii) Other material. None.

* * * * *

PART 81--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

2. In Sec. 81.311, the attainment status table for lead is amended

by revising the designation type and date entry for Muscogee County

(part).

Sec. 81.311 [Amended]

Georgia--Lead

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

Designation Classification

Designated Area -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date Type Date Type

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

* * * * * * *

Muscogee County (part)--That portion June 11, 1999 Attainment

of the county which includes a

circle with a radius of 2.3

kilometers with the GNB, Inc., lead

smelting and battery production

facility in the center.

* * * * * * *

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

[FR Doc. 99-8944 Filed 4-9-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P