Indiana; Ohio; Wisconsin; Disapproval of Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 14025-14030 [2016-05953]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Technologies, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–4549. Email:
asrac@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Johanna Jochum, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–6307 Email:
Johanna.Jochum@Hq.Doe.Gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
January 20, 2016, ASRAC met and
unanimously passed the
recommendation to form a circulator
pumps working group. The purpose of
the working group is to discuss and, if
possible, reach consensus on a proposed
rule regarding definitions, test
procedures, and energy conservation
standards, as authorized by the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of
1975, as amended. The working group
consists of representatives of parties
having a defined stake in the outcome
of the proposed standards, and will
consult as appropriate with a range of
experts on technical issues. Per the
ASRAC Charter, the working group is
expected to make a concerted effort to
negotiate a final term sheet by
September 30, 2016. This notice
announces the next series of meetings
for this working group.
DOE will host public meetings and
webinars on the below dates.
• Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 12 p.m.
to 4 p.m. EST Webinar only.
• Thursday, March 31, 2016 from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m. EST at 950 L’Enfant Plaza,
6th Floor SW., Washington, DC.
• Friday, April 1, 2016 from 8 a.m. to
3 p.m. EST at 950 L’Enfant Plaza, 6th
Floor SW., Washington, DC.
Members of the public are welcome to
observe the business of the meeting and,
if time allows, may make oral
statements during the specified period
for public comment. To attend the
meeting and/or to make oral statements
regarding any of the items on the
agenda, email asrac@ee.doe.gov . In the
email, please indicate your name,
organization (if appropriate),
citizenship, and contact information.
Please note that foreign nationals
participating in the public meeting are
subject to advance security screening
procedures which require advance
notice prior to attendance at the public
meeting. If you are a foreign national,
and wish to participate in the public
meeting, please inform DOE as soon as
possible by contacting Ms. Regina
Washington at (202) 586–1214 or by
email: Regina.Washington@ee.doe.gov
so that the necessary procedures can be
completed. Anyone attending the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Mar 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
meeting will be required to present a
government photo identification, such
as a passport, driver’s license, or
government identification. Due to the
required security screening upon entry,
individuals attending should arrive
early to allow for the extra time needed.
Due to the REAL ID Act implemented
by the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) recent changes have
been made regarding ID requirements
for individuals wishing to enter Federal
buildings from specific states and U.S.
territories. Driver’s licenses from the
following states or territory will not be
accepted for building entry and one of
the alternate forms of ID listed below
will be required.
DHS has determined that regular
driver’s licenses (and ID cards) from the
following jurisdictions are not
acceptable for entry into DOE facilities:
Alaska, Louisiana, New York, American
Samoa, Maine, Oklahoma, Arizona,
Massachusetts, Washington, and
Minnesota.
Acceptable alternate forms of PhotoID include: U.S. Passport or Passport
Card; an Enhanced Driver’s License or
Enhanced ID-Card issued by the states
of Minnesota, New York or Washington
(Enhanced licenses issued by these
states are clearly marked Enhanced or
Enhanced Driver’s License); A military
ID or other Federal government issued
Photo-ID card.
Docket: The docket is available for
review at www.regulations.gov,
including Federal Register notices,
public meeting attendee lists and
transcripts, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index.
However, not all documents listed in
the index may be publicly available,
such as information that is exempt from
public disclosure.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 10,
2016.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
[FR Doc. 2016–05917 Filed 3–15–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14025
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0969; EPA–R05–
OAR–2014–0704; FRL–9943–76–Region 5]
Indiana; Ohio; Wisconsin; Disapproval
of Interstate Transport Requirements
for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to
disapprove elements of State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions
from Indiana and Ohio regarding the
infrastructure requirements of section
110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the
2008 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS), and to
partially approve and partially
disapprove elements of the SIP
submission from Wisconsin addressing
the same requirements. The
infrastructure requirements are designed
to ensure that the structural components
of each state’s air quality management
program are adequate to meet the state’s
responsibilities under the CAA. This
action pertains specifically to
infrastructure requirements concerning
interstate transport provisions. Ohio,
Indiana, and Wisconsin made SIP
submissions that, among other things,
certified that their existing SIPs were
sufficient to meet the interstate
transport infrastructure SIP
requirements for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. EPA is proposing to
disapprove portions of submissions
from Indiana and Ohio, and to partially
approve and partially disapprove a
portion of Wisconsin’s submission
addressing these requirements.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule
must be received on or before April 15,
2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2011–0969 (Indiana and Ohio)
and EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0704
(Wisconsin) at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
of submission, 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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM
16MRP1
14026
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
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, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–9401,
arra.sarah@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. Background
II. EPA’s Review
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Background
This rulemaking addresses CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements in
three infrastructure SIP submissions
addressing the applicable infrastructure
requirements with respect to the 2008
ozone NAAQS: a December 12, 2011,
submission from the Indiana
Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM), clarified in a May
24, 2012, letter; a December 27, 2012,
submission from the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio
EPA); and a June 20, 2013, submission
from the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR), clarified in
a January 28, 2015, letter.
The requirement for states to make a
SIP submission of this type arises out of
CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to
section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP
submissions ‘‘within 3 years (or such
shorter period as the Administrator may
prescribe) after the promulgation of a
national primary ambient air quality
standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and
these SIP submissions are to provide for
the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Mar 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
duty to make these SIP submissions,
and the requirement to make the
submissions is not conditioned upon
EPA’s taking any action other than
promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such
plan’’ submission must address. EPA
commonly refers to such state plans as
‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’
This rulemaking proposes action on
three CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
requirements of these submissions. In
particular, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of
emissions activity in one state from
contributing significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS (‘‘prong
one’’), or interfering with maintenance
of the NAAQS (‘‘prong two’’), by any
another state. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
requires that infrastructure SIPs include
provisions prohibiting any source or
other type of emissions activity in one
state from interfering with measures
required to prevent significant
deterioration (PSD) of air quality
(‘‘prong three’’) and to protect visibility
(‘‘prong four’’) in another state. This
rulemaking addresses prongs one, two,
and four of this CAA section. The
majority of the other infrastructure
elements were approved in rulemakings
on April 29, 2015 (80 FR 23713) for
Indiana; October 16, 2014 (79 FR 62019)
for Ohio; and September 11, 2015 (80
FR 54725) for Wisconsin.
II. EPA’s Review
On September 13, 2013, EPA issued
‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements
under Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2)’’ (2013 Guidance). This
guidance provides, among other things,
recommendations on the development
of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.1 As noted in the 2013
Guidance, pursuant to CAA section
110(a), states must provide reasonable
notice and opportunity for public
hearing for all infrastructure SIP
submissions. IDEM, Ohio EPA, and
WDNR provided public comment
opportunities on their SIP submissions.
1 The 2013 Guidance does not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP
submissions to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements—i.e., prongs one and two. EPA issued
the Guidance shortly after the D.C. Circuit decision
in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012),
which had interpreted the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of the uncertainty created
by that ongoing litigation, EPA elected at the time
to not provide additional guidance on those
requirements. As guidance is neither binding, nor
required by statute, whether EPA’s elects to provide
guidance on a particular section has no impact on
a state’s CAA obligations.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
In this action of proposed rulemaking,
EPA is also soliciting comment on our
evaluation of each state’s infrastructure
SIP submission. The states summarized
how various components of their SIPs
met each of the applicable requirements
in section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, as applicable. The following
review evaluates only the state’s
submissions for three CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements.
A. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Prongs
One and Two
IDEM’s submission addressing the
prong one and two requirements states
that it is currently ‘‘in the process of
promulgating rules’’ to implement
EPA’s 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR). IDEM noted, however,
that at the time of its submission CSAPR
was being implemented pursuant to a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).
IDEM did not cite any additional rules
or regulations controlling emissions
from the state or otherwise provide any
additional analysis regarding the
impacts of emissions from sources in
Indiana on air quality in other states
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Ohio EPA’s submission cited various
state rules related generally to interstate
transport of pollutants including rules
concerning stack height requirements,
acid rain permits and compliance, the
nitrogen oxide budget trading program,
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),
and the Clean Air Mercury Rule. Ohio
EPA also noted EPA’s development of
CAIR and regional haze programs that
help address interstate transport.
Finally, Ohio EPA noted that it has
‘‘responded to requests’’ from Indiana
and West Virginia to ameliorate
interstate transport by revising state
rules applicable to Hamilton and
Jefferson Counties. Ohio EPA did not
provide any additional analysis
regarding the impacts of emissions from
sources in Ohio on air quality in other
states with respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, particularly as to whether the
state rules identified in its submission
are sufficient to prohibit emissions that
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the standard in other
states.
WDNR’s submission states that the
Wisconsin SIP implements the state
portions of CAIR as a means of
addressing the interstate transport of
ozone precursors, and that current state
and regional controls are sufficient to
meet the state’s transport obligations.
WDNR also noted that it has ‘‘the
authority to develop’’ additional control
requirements once the EPA complies
with the DC Circuit’s opinion in EME
E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM
16MRP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Homer City Generation v. EPA, 696 F.3d
7 (2012), instructing EPA to quantify
each state’s significant contribution to
air quality problems in other states
before requiring states to submit SIPs
addressing such pollution. Subsequent
to WDNR’s submission, however, the
U.S. Supreme Court reversed the DC
Circuit. See EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation, 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014).
WDNR has not supplemented its initial
submission and did not provide any
additional analysis regarding the
impacts of emissions from sources in
Wisconsin on air quality in other states
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Although many of the programs and
rules cited by Ohio EPA, IDEM, and
WDNR reduce precursor emissions that
contribute to ozone formation and
interstate transport, they were not
developed to address interstate
transport for the more stringent 2008
ozone NAAQS. None of the states have
demonstrated how these programs and
rules provide sufficient controls on
emissions to address interstate transport
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. IDEM in
particular does not cite any rules
currently being implemented by the
state that are part of Indiana’s approved
SIP or that are being submitted as part
of the present SIP submission to address
interstate transport for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, instead Indiana refers only to
rules that it anticipates may be
implemented by the state in the future.
Ohio EPA and WDNR’s submissions
both rely on the states’ implementation
of CAIR, which was designed to address
the 1997 Ozone NAAQS, but not the
more stringent 2008 ozone standard
being evaluated in this action.
Regardless, neither the states nor EPA
are currently implementing the ozoneseason NOX trading program
promulgated in CAIR, as it has been
replaced by CSAPR.
In turn, CSAPR addresses interstate
transport requirements for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, 1997 ozone NAAQS, and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Because the three
submissions addressed by this action
concern states’ interstate transport
obligations for a different and more
stringent standard (the 2008 ozone
NAAQS), it is not sufficient to merely
cite as evidence of compliance that
these older programs have been
implemented by the states or EPA.2
These submissions all lack any
technical analysis evaluating or
demonstrating whether emissions in
each state impact air quality in other
2 This is particularly true where, as here, the
states have failed to include any analysis of the
downwind impacts of emissions originating within
their borders. See, e.g., Westar Energy Inc. v. EPA,
608 Fed. Appx. 1, 3–4 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Mar 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
states with respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. As such, the submissions
themselves do not provide EPA with a
basis to agree with the conclusions that
the states already have adequate
provisions in their SIPs to address CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Although these submissions contain
no data or analysis to support their
conclusions with respect to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA has recently
shared technical information with states
to facilitate their efforts to address
interstate transport requirements for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA developed
this technical information following the
same approach used to evaluate
interstate contribution in CSAPR in
order to support the recently proposed
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update
for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 80 FR
75706 (December 3, 2015) (‘‘CSAPR
Update Rule’’).
In CSAPR, EPA used detailed air
quality analyses to determine whether
an eastern state’s contribution to
downwind air quality problems was at
or above specific thresholds. If a state’s
contribution did not exceed the
specified air quality screening
threshold, the state was not considered
‘‘linked’’ to identified downwind
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors and was therefore not
considered to significantly contribute or
interfere with maintenance of the
standard in those downwind areas. If a
state exceeded that threshold, the state’s
emissions were further evaluated, taking
into account both air quality and cost
considerations, to determine what, if
any, emissions reductions might be
necessary. For the reasons stated below,
we believe it is appropriate to use the
same approach we used in CSAPR to
establish an air quality screening
threshold for the evaluation of interstate
transport requirements for the 2008
ozone standard.
In CSAPR, EPA proposed an air
quality screening threshold of one
percent of the applicable NAAQS and
requested comment on whether one
percent was appropriate. EPA evaluated
the comments received and ultimately
determined that one percent was an
appropriately low threshold because
there were important, even if relatively
small, contributions to identified
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors from multiple upwind states.
In response to commenters who
advocated a higher or lower threshold
than one percent, EPA compiled the
contribution modeling results for
CSAPR to analyze the impact of
different possible thresholds for the
eastern United States. EPA’s analysis
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14027
showed that the one percent threshold
captures a high percentage of the total
pollution transport affecting downwind
states, while the use of higher
thresholds would exclude increasingly
larger percentages of total transport. For
example, at a five percent threshold, the
majority of interstate pollution transport
affecting downwind receptors would be
excluded. In addition, EPA determined
that it was important to use a relatively
lower one percent threshold because
there are adverse health impacts
associated with ambient ozone even at
low levels. EPA also determined that a
lower threshold such as 0.5 percent
would result in relatively modest
increases in the overall percentages of
fine particulate matter and ozone
pollution transport captured relative to
the amounts captured at the one-percent
level. EPA determined that a ‘‘0.5
percent threshold could lead to
emission reduction responsibilities in
additional states that individually have
a very small impact on those receptors—
an indicator that emission controls in
those states are likely to have a smaller
air quality impact at the downwind
receptor. We are not convinced that
selecting a threshold below one percent
is necessary or desirable.’’
In the final CSAPR, EPA determined
that one percent was a reasonable
choice considering the combined
downwind impact of multiple upwind
states in the eastern United States, the
health effects of low levels of fine
particulate matter and ozone pollution,
and EPA’s previous use of a one percent
threshold in CAIR. EPA used a single
‘‘bright line’’ air quality threshold equal
to one percent of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard, or 0.08 parts per million
(ppm). The projected contribution from
each state was averaged over multiple
days with projected high modeled
ozone, and then compared to the one
percent threshold. We concluded that
this approach for setting and applying
the air quality threshold for ozone was
appropriate because it provided a robust
metric, was consistent with the
approach for fine particulate matter
used in CSAPR, and because it took into
account, and would be applicable to,
any future ozone standards below 0.08
ppm. EPA has subsequently proposed to
use the same threshold for purposes of
evaluating interstate transport with
respect to the 2008 ozone standard in
the CSAPR Update Rule.
On August 4, 2015, EPA issued a
Notice of Data Availability (NODA)
containing air quality modeling data
that applies the CSAPR approach to
contribution projections for the year
2017 for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The modeling data released in this
E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM
16MRP1
14028
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
NODA was also used to support the
proposed CSAPR Update Rule. The
moderate area attainment date for the
2008 ozone standard is July 20, 2018. In
order to demonstrate attainment by this
attainment deadline, states will use
2015 through 2017 ambient ozone data.
Therefore, EPA proposed that 2017 is an
appropriate future year to model for the
purpose of examining interstate
transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
EPA used photochemical air quality
modeling to project ozone
concentrations at air quality monitoring
sites to 2017 and estimated state-bystate ozone contributions to those 2017
concentrations. This modeling used the
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with
Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to
model the 2011 base year, and the 2017
future base case emissions scenarios to
identify projected nonattainment and
maintenance sites with respect to the
2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. EPA used
nationwide state-level ozone source
apportionment modeling (CAMx Ozone
Source Apportionment Technology/
Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability
Analysis technique) to quantify the
contribution of 2017 base case NOX and
VOC emissions from all sources in each
state to the 2017 projected receptors.
The air quality model runs were
performed for a modeling domain that
covers the 48 contiguous United States
and adjacent portions of Canada and
Mexico. The NODA and the supporting
technical support documents have been
included in the docket for this SIP
action. The modeling data released in
the NODA on August 4, 2015, and the
CSAPR Update are the most up-to-date
information EPA has developed to
inform our analysis of upwind state
linkages to downwind air quality
problems. As discussed in the CSAPR
Update proposal for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, the air quality modeling: (1)
Identified locations in the U.S. where
EPA expects nonattainment or
maintenance problems in 2017 for the
2008 ozone NAAQS (i.e., nonattainment
or maintenance receptors), and (2)
quantified the projected contributions of
emissions from upwind states to
downwind ozone concentrations at
those receptors in 2017 (80 FR 75706,
75720–30, December 3, 2015).
Consistent with CSAPR, EPA proposed
to use a threshold of one percent of the
2008 ozone NAAQS (0.75 parts per
billion) to identify linkages between
upwind states and downwind
nonattainment or maintenance
receptors. EPA proposed that eastern
states with contributions to a specific
receptor that meet or exceed this
screening threshold are considered
‘‘linked’’ to that receptor, and were
analyzed further to quantify available
emissions reductions necessary to
address interstate transport to these
receptors.
The results of EPA’s air quality
modeling with respect to Ohio, Indiana,
and Wisconsin are summarized in Table
1 below. That modeling indicates that
emissions from Ohio and Indiana are
linked to both nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in downwind
states, and that Wisconsin is linked only
to downwind maintenance receptors.
TABLE 1—CSAPR UPDATE PROPOSAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO DOWNWIND NONATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE AREAS
Largest
contribution to
nonattainment
Largest
contribution to
maintenance
Indiana ..............
6.24 ppb ...........
14.95 ppb .........
Connecticut and Wisconsin
Ohio ..................
2.18 ppb ...........
7.92 ppb ...........
Connecticut and Wisconsin
Wisconsin .........
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
State
0.34 ppb ...........
2.59 ppb ...........
..............................................
Accordingly, the most recent
technical analysis available to EPA
contradicts Indiana, Ohio, and
Wisconsin’s conclusion that each state’s
SIP contains adequate provisions to
address interstate transport as to the
2008 ozone standard.
EPA is proposing to disapprove the
Indiana and Ohio SIPs for both the
prong one and prong two requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). As
explained above, the IDEM and Ohio
EPA SIP submissions do not provide an
adequate technical analysis
demonstrating that each state’s SIP
contains adequate provisions
prohibiting emissions that will
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with the
2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
Moreover, EPA’s most recent modeling
indicates that emissions from those
states are projected to significantly
contribute to downwind nonattainment
and maintenance receptors in other
states.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Mar 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
Downwind nonattainment
receptors located in states
Downwind maintenance receptors located in states
Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York,
Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey,
New York, and Pennsylvania.
Michigan.
EPA is proposing to disapprove the
Wisconsin SIP for the prong two
requirement of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the
2008 ozone NAAQS. As explained
above, the WDNR SIP submission does
not provide an adequate technical
analysis demonstrating that the state’s
SIP contains adequate provisions
prohibiting emissions that will
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with the
2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
Moreover, EPA’s most recent modeling
indicates that emissions from Wisconsin
are projected to contribute to projected
downwind maintenance receptors in
another state.
However, EPA is proposing to
approve the Wisconsin SIP for the prong
one requirement of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the
2008 ozone NAAQS. Although WDNR
did not provide information or analyses
explaining why existing SIP provisions
are adequate to prevent significant
contribution to nonattainment in
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
downwind states, EPA’s independent
modeling presented in the NODA and
the CSAPR Update Rule indicates that
Wisconsin emissions are not linked to
any projected downwind nonattainment
receptors. Accordingly, EPA proposes to
find that the Wisconsin SIP has
adequate provisions to prevent such
significant contribution to
nonattainment as to the 2008 ozone
standard, and to accordingly approve
the SIP for the prong one requirement of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
B. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Prong
Four Only
No action is being taken today on
prong three relating to PSD. This prong
was approved for Indiana on April 29,
2015 (80 FR 23713) and for Ohio on
February 27, 2015 (80 FR 10591), and
will be acted on for Wisconsin in a
future rulemaking.
The 2013 Guidance states that section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)’s prong four
requirements can be satisfied by
approved SIP provisions that EPA has
E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM
16MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
found to adequately address any
contribution of a state’s sources to
impacts on visibility programs in other
states. The Guidance lays out two ways
in which a state’s infrastructure SIP may
comply with prong four. The first way
is through an air agency’s confirmation
in its infrastructure SIP submission that
it has an EPA-approved regional haze
SIP that fully meets the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. These sections
specifically require that a state
participating in a regional planning
process include all measures needed to
achieve its apportionment of emission
reduction obligations agreed upon
through that process. A fully approved
regional haze SIP will ensure that
emissions from sources under an air
agency’s jurisdiction are not interfering
with measures in other air agencies’
plans to protect visibility.
Alternatively, in the absence of a fully
approved regional haze SIP, a state may
meet its prong four requirements
through a demonstration in its
infrastructure SIP that emissions within
its jurisdiction do not interfere with
other air agencies’ plans to protect
visibility. Such a submission would
need to include measures to limit
visibility-impairing pollutants and
ensure that the reductions conform with
any mutually agreed regional haze
reasonable progress goals for mandatory
Class I areas in other states.
What is EPA’s assessment of the states’
prong four submissions?
For prong four, relating to protection
of visibility in another state, in this
rulemaking EPA is proposing to
disapprove the relevant portion of the
SIPs for Ohio and Indiana. On
September 11, 2015 (80 FR 54725), EPA
approved Wisconsin’s visibility
requirements for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Therefore, in this rulemaking,
no action is necessary regarding
Wisconsin’s prong four requirements.
IDEM’s submission acknowledges that
Indiana is subject to the regional haze
program, which addresses visibilityimpairing pollutants. EPA finalized a
limited approval of Indiana’s regional
haze SIP submission for, among other
things, BART for non-electric generating
units (EGUs) and PM from EGUs on
June 11, 2012 (77 FR 34218).
Ohio EPA’s submission also mentions
the regional haze program for
addressing visibility, as well as the air
agency’s work with Federal Land
Managers to address proposed major
new sources in the state. EPA finalized
a limited approval of Ohio’s regional
haze SIP submission for, among other
things, non-EGUs on July 2, 2012 (77 FR
39177).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Mar 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
However, Indiana and Ohio’s regional
haze plans both rely on CAIR for
addressing visibility for EGUs. EPA had
originally found that CAIR was an
acceptable solution for meeting the
requirement of the regional haze
program for EGUs.3 However, the D.C
Circuit remanded CAIR to EPA with
instructions to replace that rulemaking
with a new rulemaking consistent with
the Court’s opinion.4 Subsequently EPA
issued a rulemaking stating that CAIR’s
replacement, CSAPR, could be used to
satisfy the EGU portion of the regional
haze plans. June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642).
In that same rulemaking, EPA issued
limited disapprovals of Indiana and
Ohio’s regional haze SIP submissions,
among other states, and issued FIPs that
allowed CSAPR to meet the regional
haze requirements for EGUs in
applicable states (77 FR 33642).
Although both Indiana and Ohio have
approved regional haze plans for their
non-EGUs, they do not have fully
approved regional haze SIPs in place
because both States’ EGU-related
obligations are satisfied by EPA’s
CSAPR-based FIPs. Furthermore,
neither Indiana nor Ohio has provided
a demonstration in its infrastructure SIP
submission showing that emissions
within its jurisdiction do not interfere
with other air agencies’ plans to protect
visibility. Because the States have failed
to meet either option for satisfying their
prong four obligations laid out in the
2013 Guidance, EPA is proposing to
disapprove prong four for the
infrastructure element under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 ozone
standard.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to disapprove a
portion of submissions from Indiana,
Ohio, and Wisconsin certifying that
each of their current SIPs are sufficient
to meet the required infrastructure
element under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, specifically prongs one, two,
and four for Indiana and Ohio, and
prong two for Wisconsin. In addition,
EPA is proposing to approve the prong
one portion of Wisconsin’s SIP
submission with respect to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i).
3 ‘‘Technical Support Document for the Final
Clean Air Interstate Rule: Demonstration that CAIR
Satisfies the ‘‘Better-than-BART’’ Test As proposed
in the Guidelines for Making BART
Determinations.’’ March 2005.
4 See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896;
modified by 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14029
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was therefore not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This rulemaking does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the PRA.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The Administrator certifies that this
proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the RFA.
In making this determination, the
impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small
entities. An agency may certify that a
rulemaking will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, has no net
burden or otherwise has a positive
economic effect on the small entities
subject to the rule. This action merely
proposes to disapprove state law as not
meeting Federal requirements and
imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does
not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The action imposes no
enforceable duty on any state, local or
tribal governments or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. It will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this proposed rule.
E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM
16MRP1
14030
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because
EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children because it proposes to
disapprove a state rule.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
EPA believes the human health or
environmental risk addressed by this
action will not have potential
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority, low-income or indigenous
populations.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: March 7, 2016.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
I. General Information
[FR Doc. 2016–05953 Filed 3–15–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0032; FRL–9942–86]
Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions
Filed for Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals in or on Various
Commodities
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and
request for comment.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Mar 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
This document announces the
Agency’s receipt of several initial filings
of pesticide petitions requesting the
establishment or modification of
regulations for residues of pesticide
chemicals in or on various commodities.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 15, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number and the pesticide petition
number (PP) of interest as shown in the
body of this document, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/
DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001.
• Hand Delivery: To make special
arrangements for hand delivery or
delivery of boxed information, please
follow the instructions at https://www.
epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
Additional instructions on commenting
or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is
available at https://www.epa.gov/
dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Lewis, Registration Division (RD)
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001. Main telephone
number: (703) 305–7090; email address:
RDFRNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
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. The following
list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers
determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT for the division listed at the
end of the pesticide petition summary of
interest.
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 email. 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 preparing and submitting your
comments, see the commenting tips at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
comments.html.
3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to
achieve environmental justice, the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement
of any group, including minority and/or
low-income populations, in the
development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. To help
address potential environmental justice
issues, the Agency seeks information on
any groups or segments of the
population who, as a result of their
location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or
disproportionately high and adverse
human health impacts or environmental
effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared
to the general population.
II. What action is the agency taking?
EPA is announcing its receipt of
several pesticide petitions filed under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.
346a, requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations in 40 CFR
part 180 for residues of pesticide
chemicals in or on various food
commodities. The Agency is taking
public comment on the requests before
responding to the petitioners. EPA is not
proposing any particular action at this
time. EPA has determined that the
pesticide petitions described in this
document contain the data or
E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM
16MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14025-14030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05953]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0969; EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0704; FRL-9943-76-Region 5]
Indiana; Ohio; Wisconsin; Disapproval of Interstate Transport
Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
disapprove elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from
Indiana and Ohio regarding the infrastructure requirements of section
110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS), and to partially approve and partially
disapprove elements of the SIP submission from Wisconsin addressing the
same requirements. The infrastructure requirements are designed to
ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality
management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities
under the CAA. This action pertains specifically to infrastructure
requirements concerning interstate transport provisions. Ohio, Indiana,
and Wisconsin made SIP submissions that, among other things, certified
that their existing SIPs were sufficient to meet the interstate
transport infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA
is proposing to disapprove portions of submissions from Indiana and
Ohio, and to partially approve and partially disapprove a portion of
Wisconsin's submission addressing these requirements.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before
April 15, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2011-0969 (Indiana and Ohio) and EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0704 (Wisconsin)
at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov.
For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, 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
[[Page 14026]]
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, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-9401, arra.sarah@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. Background
II. EPA's Review
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
This rulemaking addresses CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements
in three infrastructure SIP submissions addressing the applicable
infrastructure requirements with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS: a
December 12, 2011, submission from the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM), clarified in a May 24, 2012, letter; a
December 27, 2012, submission from the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency (Ohio EPA); and a June 20, 2013, submission from the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), clarified in a January 28,
2015, letter.
The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type
arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1),
states must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter
period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a
national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision
thereof),'' and these SIP submissions are to provide for the
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP
submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address. EPA
commonly refers to such state plans as ``infrastructure SIPs.''
This rulemaking proposes action on three CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements of these submissions. In particular,
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS (``prong
one''), or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS (``prong two''),
by any another state. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that
infrastructure SIPs include provisions prohibiting any source or other
type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures
required to prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality
(``prong three'') and to protect visibility (``prong four'') in another
state. This rulemaking addresses prongs one, two, and four of this CAA
section. The majority of the other infrastructure elements were
approved in rulemakings on April 29, 2015 (80 FR 23713) for Indiana;
October 16, 2014 (79 FR 62019) for Ohio; and September 11, 2015 (80 FR
54725) for Wisconsin.
II. EPA's Review
On September 13, 2013, EPA issued ``Guidance on Infrastructure
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' (2013 Guidance). This guidance provides,
among other things, recommendations on the development of
infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\1\ As noted in the 2013
Guidance, pursuant to CAA section 110(a), states must provide
reasonable notice and opportunity for public hearing for all
infrastructure SIP submissions. IDEM, Ohio EPA, and WDNR provided
public comment opportunities on their SIP submissions. In this action
of proposed rulemaking, EPA is also soliciting comment on our
evaluation of each state's infrastructure SIP submission. The states
summarized how various components of their SIPs met each of the
applicable requirements in section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
as applicable. The following review evaluates only the state's
submissions for three CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2013 Guidance does not make recommendations with respect
to infrastructure SIP submissions to address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements--i.e., prongs one and two. EPA
issued the Guidance shortly after the D.C. Circuit decision in EME
Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), which had interpreted the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of the
uncertainty created by that ongoing litigation, EPA elected at the
time to not provide additional guidance on those requirements. As
guidance is neither binding, nor required by statute, whether EPA's
elects to provide guidance on a particular section has no impact on
a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Prongs One and Two
IDEM's submission addressing the prong one and two requirements
states that it is currently ``in the process of promulgating rules'' to
implement EPA's 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). IDEM
noted, however, that at the time of its submission CSAPR was being
implemented pursuant to a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). IDEM did
not cite any additional rules or regulations controlling emissions from
the state or otherwise provide any additional analysis regarding the
impacts of emissions from sources in Indiana on air quality in other
states with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Ohio EPA's submission cited various state rules related generally
to interstate transport of pollutants including rules concerning stack
height requirements, acid rain permits and compliance, the nitrogen
oxide budget trading program, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), and
the Clean Air Mercury Rule. Ohio EPA also noted EPA's development of
CAIR and regional haze programs that help address interstate transport.
Finally, Ohio EPA noted that it has ``responded to requests'' from
Indiana and West Virginia to ameliorate interstate transport by
revising state rules applicable to Hamilton and Jefferson Counties.
Ohio EPA did not provide any additional analysis regarding the impacts
of emissions from sources in Ohio on air quality in other states with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, particularly as to whether the state
rules identified in its submission are sufficient to prohibit emissions
that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the standard in other states.
WDNR's submission states that the Wisconsin SIP implements the
state portions of CAIR as a means of addressing the interstate
transport of ozone precursors, and that current state and regional
controls are sufficient to meet the state's transport obligations. WDNR
also noted that it has ``the authority to develop'' additional control
requirements once the EPA complies with the DC Circuit's opinion in EME
[[Page 14027]]
Homer City Generation v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (2012), instructing EPA to
quantify each state's significant contribution to air quality problems
in other states before requiring states to submit SIPs addressing such
pollution. Subsequent to WDNR's submission, however, the U.S. Supreme
Court reversed the DC Circuit. See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation,
134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). WDNR has not supplemented its initial
submission and did not provide any additional analysis regarding the
impacts of emissions from sources in Wisconsin on air quality in other
states with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Although many of the programs and rules cited by Ohio EPA, IDEM,
and WDNR reduce precursor emissions that contribute to ozone formation
and interstate transport, they were not developed to address interstate
transport for the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS. None of the states
have demonstrated how these programs and rules provide sufficient
controls on emissions to address interstate transport for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. IDEM in particular does not cite any rules currently being
implemented by the state that are part of Indiana's approved SIP or
that are being submitted as part of the present SIP submission to
address interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, instead Indiana
refers only to rules that it anticipates may be implemented by the
state in the future.
Ohio EPA and WDNR's submissions both rely on the states'
implementation of CAIR, which was designed to address the 1997 Ozone
NAAQS, but not the more stringent 2008 ozone standard being evaluated
in this action. Regardless, neither the states nor EPA are currently
implementing the ozone-season NOX trading program
promulgated in CAIR, as it has been replaced by CSAPR.
In turn, CSAPR addresses interstate transport requirements for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 1997 ozone NAAQS, and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Because the three submissions addressed by this
action concern states' interstate transport obligations for a different
and more stringent standard (the 2008 ozone NAAQS), it is not
sufficient to merely cite as evidence of compliance that these older
programs have been implemented by the states or EPA.\2\ These
submissions all lack any technical analysis evaluating or demonstrating
whether emissions in each state impact air quality in other states with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As such, the submissions themselves do
not provide EPA with a basis to agree with the conclusions that the
states already have adequate provisions in their SIPs to address CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This is particularly true where, as here, the states have
failed to include any analysis of the downwind impacts of emissions
originating within their borders. See, e.g., Westar Energy Inc. v.
EPA, 608 Fed. Appx. 1, 3-4 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although these submissions contain no data or analysis to support
their conclusions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA has
recently shared technical information with states to facilitate their
efforts to address interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. EPA developed this technical information following the same
approach used to evaluate interstate contribution in CSAPR in order to
support the recently proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for
the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 80 FR 75706 (December 3, 2015) (``CSAPR Update
Rule'').
In CSAPR, EPA used detailed air quality analyses to determine
whether an eastern state's contribution to downwind air quality
problems was at or above specific thresholds. If a state's contribution
did not exceed the specified air quality screening threshold, the state
was not considered ``linked'' to identified downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors and was therefore not considered to significantly
contribute or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those
downwind areas. If a state exceeded that threshold, the state's
emissions were further evaluated, taking into account both air quality
and cost considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions
reductions might be necessary. For the reasons stated below, we believe
it is appropriate to use the same approach we used in CSAPR to
establish an air quality screening threshold for the evaluation of
interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone standard.
In CSAPR, EPA proposed an air quality screening threshold of one
percent of the applicable NAAQS and requested comment on whether one
percent was appropriate. EPA evaluated the comments received and
ultimately determined that one percent was an appropriately low
threshold because there were important, even if relatively small,
contributions to identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors
from multiple upwind states. In response to commenters who advocated a
higher or lower threshold than one percent, EPA compiled the
contribution modeling results for CSAPR to analyze the impact of
different possible thresholds for the eastern United States. EPA's
analysis showed that the one percent threshold captures a high
percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states,
while the use of higher thresholds would exclude increasingly larger
percentages of total transport. For example, at a five percent
threshold, the majority of interstate pollution transport affecting
downwind receptors would be excluded. In addition, EPA determined that
it was important to use a relatively lower one percent threshold
because there are adverse health impacts associated with ambient ozone
even at low levels. EPA also determined that a lower threshold such as
0.5 percent would result in relatively modest increases in the overall
percentages of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution transport
captured relative to the amounts captured at the one-percent level. EPA
determined that a ``0.5 percent threshold could lead to emission
reduction responsibilities in additional states that individually have
a very small impact on those receptors--an indicator that emission
controls in those states are likely to have a smaller air quality
impact at the downwind receptor. We are not convinced that selecting a
threshold below one percent is necessary or desirable.''
In the final CSAPR, EPA determined that one percent was a
reasonable choice considering the combined downwind impact of multiple
upwind states in the eastern United States, the health effects of low
levels of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution, and EPA's
previous use of a one percent threshold in CAIR. EPA used a single
``bright line'' air quality threshold equal to one percent of the 1997
8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 parts per million (ppm). The projected
contribution from each state was averaged over multiple days with
projected high modeled ozone, and then compared to the one percent
threshold. We concluded that this approach for setting and applying the
air quality threshold for ozone was appropriate because it provided a
robust metric, was consistent with the approach for fine particulate
matter used in CSAPR, and because it took into account, and would be
applicable to, any future ozone standards below 0.08 ppm. EPA has
subsequently proposed to use the same threshold for purposes of
evaluating interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone standard
in the CSAPR Update Rule.
On August 4, 2015, EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability (NODA)
containing air quality modeling data that applies the CSAPR approach to
contribution projections for the year 2017 for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The modeling data released in this
[[Page 14028]]
NODA was also used to support the proposed CSAPR Update Rule. The
moderate area attainment date for the 2008 ozone standard is July 20,
2018. In order to demonstrate attainment by this attainment deadline,
states will use 2015 through 2017 ambient ozone data. Therefore, EPA
proposed that 2017 is an appropriate future year to model for the
purpose of examining interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA
used photochemical air quality modeling to project ozone concentrations
at air quality monitoring sites to 2017 and estimated state-by-state
ozone contributions to those 2017 concentrations. This modeling used
the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11)
to model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 future base case emissions
scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance sites
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. EPA used nationwide
state-level ozone source apportionment modeling (CAMx Ozone Source
Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Analysis
technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017 base case
NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each state to the
2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs were performed for
a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United States and
adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. The NODA and the supporting
technical support documents have been included in the docket for this
SIP action. The modeling data released in the NODA on August 4, 2015,
and the CSAPR Update are the most up-to-date information EPA has
developed to inform our analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind
air quality problems. As discussed in the CSAPR Update proposal for the
2008 ozone NAAQS, the air quality modeling: (1) Identified locations in
the U.S. where EPA expects nonattainment or maintenance problems in
2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (i.e., nonattainment or maintenance
receptors), and (2) quantified the projected contributions of emissions
from upwind states to downwind ozone concentrations at those receptors
in 2017 (80 FR 75706, 75720-30, December 3, 2015). Consistent with
CSAPR, EPA proposed to use a threshold of one percent of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS (0.75 parts per billion) to identify linkages between upwind
states and downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptors. EPA
proposed that eastern states with contributions to a specific receptor
that meet or exceed this screening threshold are considered ``linked''
to that receptor, and were analyzed further to quantify available
emissions reductions necessary to address interstate transport to these
receptors.
The results of EPA's air quality modeling with respect to Ohio,
Indiana, and Wisconsin are summarized in Table 1 below. That modeling
indicates that emissions from Ohio and Indiana are linked to both
nonattainment and maintenance receptors in downwind states, and that
Wisconsin is linked only to downwind maintenance receptors.
Table 1--CSAPR Update Proposal Contributions to Downwind Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Downwind
Largest contribution Largest contribution nonattainment Downwind maintenance
State to nonattainment to maintenance receptors located receptors located in
in states states
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana............... 6.24 ppb.............. 14.95 ppb............. Connecticut and Kentucky, Maryland,
Wisconsin. Michigan, New
Jersey, New York,
Ohio and
Pennsylvania.
Ohio.................. 2.18 ppb.............. 7.92 ppb.............. Connecticut and Connecticut,
Wisconsin. Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, New
Jersey, New York,
and Pennsylvania.
Wisconsin............. 0.34 ppb.............. 2.59 ppb.............. ................. Michigan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the most recent technical analysis available to EPA
contradicts Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin's conclusion that each state's
SIP contains adequate provisions to address interstate transport as to
the 2008 ozone standard.
EPA is proposing to disapprove the Indiana and Ohio SIPs for both
the prong one and prong two requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). As explained above, the IDEM and Ohio EPA SIP
submissions do not provide an adequate technical analysis demonstrating
that each state's SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting
emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Moreover, EPA's
most recent modeling indicates that emissions from those states are
projected to significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in other states.
EPA is proposing to disapprove the Wisconsin SIP for the prong two
requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008
ozone NAAQS. As explained above, the WDNR SIP submission does not
provide an adequate technical analysis demonstrating that the state's
SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with the 2008
ozone NAAQS in any other state. Moreover, EPA's most recent modeling
indicates that emissions from Wisconsin are projected to contribute to
projected downwind maintenance receptors in another state.
However, EPA is proposing to approve the Wisconsin SIP for the
prong one requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Although WDNR did not provide information or
analyses explaining why existing SIP provisions are adequate to prevent
significant contribution to nonattainment in downwind states, EPA's
independent modeling presented in the NODA and the CSAPR Update Rule
indicates that Wisconsin emissions are not linked to any projected
downwind nonattainment receptors. Accordingly, EPA proposes to find
that the Wisconsin SIP has adequate provisions to prevent such
significant contribution to nonattainment as to the 2008 ozone
standard, and to accordingly approve the SIP for the prong one
requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
B. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Prong Four Only
No action is being taken today on prong three relating to PSD. This
prong was approved for Indiana on April 29, 2015 (80 FR 23713) and for
Ohio on February 27, 2015 (80 FR 10591), and will be acted on for
Wisconsin in a future rulemaking.
The 2013 Guidance states that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)'s prong
four requirements can be satisfied by approved SIP provisions that EPA
has
[[Page 14029]]
found to adequately address any contribution of a state's sources to
impacts on visibility programs in other states. The Guidance lays out
two ways in which a state's infrastructure SIP may comply with prong
four. The first way is through an air agency's confirmation in its
infrastructure SIP submission that it has an EPA-approved regional haze
SIP that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. These
sections specifically require that a state participating in a regional
planning process include all measures needed to achieve its
apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through
that process. A fully approved regional haze SIP will ensure that
emissions from sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not
interfering with measures in other air agencies' plans to protect
visibility.
Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze
SIP, a state may meet its prong four requirements through a
demonstration in its infrastructure SIP that emissions within its
jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans to protect
visibility. Such a submission would need to include measures to limit
visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure that the reductions conform
with any mutually agreed regional haze reasonable progress goals for
mandatory Class I areas in other states.
What is EPA's assessment of the states' prong four submissions?
For prong four, relating to protection of visibility in another
state, in this rulemaking EPA is proposing to disapprove the relevant
portion of the SIPs for Ohio and Indiana. On September 11, 2015 (80 FR
54725), EPA approved Wisconsin's visibility requirements for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in this rulemaking, no action is necessary
regarding Wisconsin's prong four requirements.
IDEM's submission acknowledges that Indiana is subject to the
regional haze program, which addresses visibility-impairing pollutants.
EPA finalized a limited approval of Indiana's regional haze SIP
submission for, among other things, BART for non-electric generating
units (EGUs) and PM from EGUs on June 11, 2012 (77 FR 34218).
Ohio EPA's submission also mentions the regional haze program for
addressing visibility, as well as the air agency's work with Federal
Land Managers to address proposed major new sources in the state. EPA
finalized a limited approval of Ohio's regional haze SIP submission
for, among other things, non-EGUs on July 2, 2012 (77 FR 39177).
However, Indiana and Ohio's regional haze plans both rely on CAIR
for addressing visibility for EGUs. EPA had originally found that CAIR
was an acceptable solution for meeting the requirement of the regional
haze program for EGUs.\3\ However, the D.C Circuit remanded CAIR to EPA
with instructions to replace that rulemaking with a new rulemaking
consistent with the Court's opinion.\4\ Subsequently EPA issued a
rulemaking stating that CAIR's replacement, CSAPR, could be used to
satisfy the EGU portion of the regional haze plans. June 7, 2012 (77 FR
33642). In that same rulemaking, EPA issued limited disapprovals of
Indiana and Ohio's regional haze SIP submissions, among other states,
and issued FIPs that allowed CSAPR to meet the regional haze
requirements for EGUs in applicable states (77 FR 33642).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Technical Support Document for the Final Clean Air
Interstate Rule: Demonstration that CAIR Satisfies the ``Better-
than-BART'' Test As proposed in the Guidelines for Making BART
Determinations.'' March 2005.
\4\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896; modified by 550
F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although both Indiana and Ohio have approved regional haze plans
for their non-EGUs, they do not have fully approved regional haze SIPs
in place because both States' EGU-related obligations are satisfied by
EPA's CSAPR-based FIPs. Furthermore, neither Indiana nor Ohio has
provided a demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission showing
that emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air
agencies' plans to protect visibility. Because the States have failed
to meet either option for satisfying their prong four obligations laid
out in the 2013 Guidance, EPA is proposing to disapprove prong four for
the infrastructure element under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the
2008 ozone standard.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to disapprove a portion of submissions from
Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin certifying that each of their current SIPs
are sufficient to meet the required infrastructure element under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, specifically prongs
one, two, and four for Indiana and Ohio, and prong two for Wisconsin.
In addition, EPA is proposing to approve the prong one portion of
Wisconsin's SIP submission with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This rulemaking does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the PRA.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is
any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency
may certify that a rulemaking will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves
regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive
economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action
merely proposes to disapprove state law as not meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
proposed rule.
[[Page 14030]]
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children
because it proposes to disapprove a state rule.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by
this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or
indigenous populations.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 7, 2016.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2016-05953 Filed 3-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
