Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements To Address Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 15200-15205 [2016-06438]
Download as PDF
15200
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(d) A project description, including
the timeframe within which the project
is to be started and completed;
(e) The terms and conditions of the
agreement, including any reporting
requirements;
(f) All obligations of the parties; and
(g) The signatures of appropriate
individuals authorized to bind the
applicant and BOEM.
§ 583.305 What is the effective date of an
agreement?
The agreement will become effective
on the date when all parties to the
agreement have signed it.
§ 583.306 How will BOEM enforce the
agreement?
(a) Failure to comply with any
applicable law or any provision, term,
or condition of the agreement may result
in the termination of the agreement and/
or a referral to an appropriate Federal
and/or State agency/agencies for
enforcement. Termination of the
agreement for noncompliance will be in
the sole discretion of the Director.
(b) The failure to comply in a timely
and satisfactory manner with any
provision, term or condition of the
agreement may delay or prevent
BOEM’s approval of future requests for
use of OCS sand, gravel and shell
resources on the part of the parties to
the agreement.
§ 583.307 What is the term of the
agreement?
(a) An agreement will terminate upon
the following, whichever occurs first:
(1) The agreement expires by its own
terms, unless the term is extended prior
to expiration under § 583.309;
(2) The project is terminated, as set
forth in § 583.310; or
(3) A party to the agreement notifies
BOEM, in writing, that sufficient OCS
sand, gravel and shell resources, up to
the amount authorized in the agreement,
have been obtained to complete the
project.
(b) Absent extraordinary
circumstances, no agreement will be for
a term longer than 5 years from its
effective date.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 583.308 What debarment or suspension
obligations apply to transactions and
contracts related to a project?
The parties to an agreement must
ensure that all contracts and
transactions related to an agreement
issued under this part comply with 2
CFR part 180 and 2 CFR part 1400.
§ 583.309 What is the process for
modifying the agreement?
(a) Unless otherwise provided for in
the agreement, the parties to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Mar 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
agreement may submit to BOEM a
written request to extend, modify, or
change an agreement. BOEM is under no
obligation to extend an agreement and
cannot be held liable for the
consequences of the expiration of an
agreement. With the exception of
paragraph (b) of this section, any such
requests must be made at least 180 days
before the term of the agreement
expires. BOEM will respond to the
request for modification within 30 days
of receipt and request any necessary
information and evaluations to comply
with 30 CFR 583.301. BOEM may
approve the request, disapprove it, or
approve it with modifications subject to
the requirements of 30 CFR 583.301.
(1) If BOEM approves a request to
extend, modify or change an agreement,
BOEM will draft an agreement
modification for review by the parties to
the agreement in the form of an
amendment to the original agreement.
The amendment will include:
(i) The agreement number, as assigned
by BOEM;
(ii) The modification(s) agreed to;
(iii) Any additional mitigation
required; and
(iv) The signatures of the parties to
the agreement and BOEM.
(2) If BOEM disapproves a request to
extend, modify, or change an agreement,
BOEM will inform the parties to the
agreement of the reasons in writing.
Parties to the agreement may ask the
BOEM Director for reconsideration in
accordance with 30 CFR 583.105.
(b) By written request, for strictly
minor modifications that do not change
the substance of the project or the
analyzed environmental effects of the
project, including but not limited to, the
change of a business address, the
substitution of a different Federal, State
or local government agency contact, or
an extension of less than 30 days,
parties to the agreement may
memorialize the minor modification in
a letter from BOEM to the parties
indicating the request has been granted.
§ 583.310 When can the agreement be
terminated?
(a) The Director will terminate any
agreement issued under this part upon
proof that it was obtained by fraud or
misrepresentation, after notice and an
opportunity to be heard has been
afforded to the parties of the agreement.
(b) The Director may immediately
suspend and subsequently terminate
any agreement issued under this part
when:
(1) There is noncompliance with the
agreement, pursuant to 30 CFR
583.306(a); or
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(2) It is necessary for reasons of
national security or defense; or
(3) The Director determines that:
(i) Continued activity under the
agreement would cause serious harm or
damage to natural resources; life
(including human and wildlife);
property; the marine, coastal, or human
environment; or sites, structures, or
objects of historical or archaeological
significance;
(ii) The threat of harm or damage will
not disappear or decrease to an
acceptable extent within a reasonable
period of time; and
(iii) The advantages of termination
outweigh the advantages of continuing
the agreement.
(c) The Director will immediately
notify the parties to the agreement of the
suspension or termination. The Director
will also mail a letter to the parties to
the agreement at their record post office
address with notice of any suspension
or termination and the cause for such
action.
(d) In the event that BOEM terminates
an agreement under this section, none of
the parties to the agreement will be
entitled to compensation as a result of
expenses or lost revenues that may
result from the termination.
[FR Doc. 2016–06163 Filed 3–21–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0793; FRL–9944–08–
Region 9]
Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval of Air Quality State
Implementation Plans; Arizona;
Infrastructure Requirements To
Address Interstate Transport for the
2008 Ozone NAAQS
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially
approve and partially disapprove a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality on December 27,
2012, and supplemented on December
3, 2015, to address the interstate
transport requirements of Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) section 110(a)(2)(D) with
respect to the 2008 ozone (O3) national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).
We are proposing to approve the portion
of the Arizona SIP pertaining to
significant contribution to
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
nonattainment or interference with
maintenance in another state and
proposing to disapprove the portion of
Arizona’s SIP pertaining to interstate
transport visibility requirements. EPA’s
rationale for proposing to partially
approve and partially disapprove
Arizona’s December 27, 2012 SIP
revision and December 3, 2015
supplement is described in this notice.
EPA previously took two separate
actions on Arizona’s December 27, 2012
submittal, on July 14, 2015 and August
10, 2015. We are taking comments on
this proposal and plan to follow with a
final action no later than June 7, 2016.
Written comments must be
received on or before April 21, 2016.
DATES:
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2015–0793 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
Clancy.Maeve@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, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The 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.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Maeve Clancy, EPA Region IX, (415)
947–4105, Clancy.Maeve@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, the terms
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
I. Background
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require
states to address basic SIP requirements
to implement, maintain and enforce the
NAAQS no later than three years after
the promulgation of a new or revised
standard. Section 110(a)(2) outlines the
specific requirements that each state is
required to address in this SIP
submission that collectively constitute
the ‘‘infrastructure’’ of a state’s air
quality management program. SIP
submittals that address these
requirements are referred to as
‘‘infrastructure SIPs’’ (I–SIP). In
particular, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requires that each SIP for a new or
revised NAAQS contain adequate
provisions to prohibit any source or
other type of emissions activity within
the state from emitting air pollutants
that will ‘‘contribute significantly to
nonattainment’’ (prong 1) or ‘‘interfere
with maintenance’’ (prong 2) of the
applicable air quality standard in any
other state. CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIP
provisions that prevent interference
with measures required to be included
in the applicable implementation plan
for any other State under part C to
prevent significant deterioration of air
quality (prong 3) or to protect visibility
(prong 4). This action addresses the
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements of
prongs 1, 2 and 4 with respect to
Arizona’s I–SIP submissions.
On March 27, 2008, EPA issued a
revised NAAQS for ozone.1 This action
triggered a requirement for states to
submit an I–SIP to address the
applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2) within three years of issuance
of the revised NAAQS.
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),’’ which provides ‘‘advice
on the development of infrastructure
SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS . . . as
well as infrastructure SIPs for new or
revised NAAQS promulgated in the
future.’’ 2 EPA followed that guidance
with an additional memo specific to
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2)
requirements for the 2008 O3 standard
on January 22, 2015 entitled,
‘‘Information on the Interstate Transport
‘‘Good Neighbor’’ Provision for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS Under CAA Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)’’ (2015 transport
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. State Submittals
III. EPA’s Assessment
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Mar 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone; Final Rule, 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
2 Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1–10
(September 13, 2013).
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15201
memo).3 While this memo did not
provide specific guidance to western
states on interstate transport, it did
contain preliminary modeling
information for western states. This
2015 transport memo, following the
approach used in EPA’s prior CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR),4
provided data identifying ozone
monitoring sites that were projected to
be in nonattainment or have
maintenance problems for the 2008
ozone NAAQS in 2018. Also, EPA
provided the projected contribution
estimates from 2018 anthropogenic
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions in
each state to ozone concentrations at
each of the projected sites.
On August 4, 2015, EPA published a
Federal Register Notice entitled,
‘‘Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Protection Agency’s
Updated Ozone Transport Modeling
Data for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.’’ 5
This Notice of Data Availability (NODA)
is an update of the preliminary air
quality modeling data that was released
January 22, 2015. This NODA provided
data identifying ozone monitoring sites
that are projected to be nonattainment
or have maintenance problems
(following the CSAPR approach) for the
2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017.6 Also, EPA
provided the projected ozone
contribution estimates from 2017
anthropogenic NOX and VOC emissions
in each state to ozone concentrations at
each of the projected monitoring sites.
The 2017 modeling released in the
NODA was used to support EPA’s
proposed update to CSAPR to address
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements with respect to the 2008
ozone NAAQS in the eastern U.S.
(‘‘CSAPR Update Rule’’).7 CSAPR and
its predecessor transport rules, the NOX
SIP Call and CAIR, were designed to
address the collective contributions
from the 37 states in the eastern U.S.
and ozone contribution information was
not calculated to or from the 11 states
in the western U.S. The proposed
CSAPR Update Rule and the supportive
3 Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1–10
(January 22, 2015).
4 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208
(Aug. 8, 2011).
5 Notice of Availability of the Environmental
Protection Agency’s Updated Ozone Transport
Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 80 FR
46271 (August 4, 2015).
6 The EPA adopted 2017 as the analytic year for
the updated ozone modeling information. See 80 FR
46273.
7 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the
2008 Ozone NAAQS, 80 FR 75706 (December 3,
2015).
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
15202
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
modeling released in the NODA include
data relevant to the West but did not
evaluate potential interstate transport
impacts in 11 western states, including
Arizona. In this action, we are utilizing
these data to evaluate the state’s
submittals and any interstate transport
obligations under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
EPA is obligated, pursuant to a
judgement issued by the Northern
District of California in Sierra Club vs.
McCarthy, to take final action on
110(a)(2)(D) prongs 1, 2, and 4 of
Arizona’s December 2012 SIP revision
by June 7, 2016.8 In our July 2015 partial
approval and partial disapproval of
Arizona’s I–SIP submittals for the 2008
Pb and 2008 ozone NAAQS, for the I–
SIP elements C, D, J, and K, EPA
partially approved and partially
disapproved the submittals for purposes
of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 3 and
partially approved and partially
disapproved the submittals for purposes
of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (relating to CAA
sections 115 and 126). We also stated
our intention to propose action on the
I–SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
110(a)(2)(D)(i) prongs 1, 2, and 4 in a
separate action.9 We subsequently took
action on I–SIP elements A, B, E–H, L,
and M for the 2008 Pb and 2008 ozone
NAAQS in August 2015.10
II. State Submittals
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
On December 27, 2012, the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) submitted its 2008 ozone
NAAQS I–SIP (2012 submittal). This
submittal briefly summarized the CAA
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and EPA’s I–SIP action
for the previous 1997 ozone NAAQS,
but as to prongs 1, 2, and 4 did not
identify or address any potential
interstate transport impacts between
Arizona and other states or interstate
transport visibility requirements for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. On December 3,
2015, ADEQ submitted a supplement to
the 2012 submittal addressing
110(a)(2)(D)(i) prongs 1, 2, and 4.11 For
8 See Judgment, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case
4:14–cv–05091–YGR (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2015).
9 Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air
Quality State Implementation Plans; Arizona;
Infrastructure Requirements for Lead and Ozone. 80
FR 40905 (July 14, 2015).
10 Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2008 Lead (Pb) and the 2008
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). 80 FR 47859 (August 10,
2015).
11 ‘‘Arizona State Implementation Plan Revisions
for 2008 Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide Under
Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D) . . .’’ Signed
December 3, 2015. And see email from Heidi
Haggerty of ADEQ. ‘‘AZ 2015 Ozone Transport I–
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Mar 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
the purposes of this action, we will refer
to the supplemental submittal as the
‘‘2015 submittal.’’ The 2015 submittal
represents ADEQ’s comprehensive
analysis of ozone transport from
Arizona to surrounding states and
addresses potential interstate transport
linkages between Arizona and the El
Centro, CA and Los Angeles, CA
nonattainment receptors that were
identified in the 2015 ozone transport
memo and the 2015 NODA. The 2015
submittal also addresses the
requirements of prong 4 (interstate
transport visibility requirements).
In the 2015 submittal, ADEQ
summarizes the state’s impact on
downwind states. While Arizona’s
impact on the El Centro and Los
Angeles monitors is in each case above
1%, Arizona impacts only one of the
seven projected nonattainment or
maintenance receptors in the Los
Angeles area, and contributes less than
1% to all other maintenance and
nonattainment receptors. ADEQ further
states that, ‘‘In eastern states, the EPA
has chosen a 1% of the standard
threshold as a significant contribution.
However, Arizona considers the
southwest to be different.’’ The state
goes on to say that, ‘‘It is unclear at this
point what threshold is significant for
southwestern states.’’ EPA’s assessment
of these statements is described in the
next section. The submittal also
summarizes sources of VOCs and NOX
statewide, outlining the controls on
anthropogenic emission sources with a
focus on efforts to reduce NOX through
controls implemented via Arizona’s
Regional Haze SIP and EPA’s Regional
Haze Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
and current and future Maricopa County
stationary source controls in the
Arizona SIP. For more information on
Arizona’s source categories and
emissions controls, please see the
technical support document (TSD)
associated with today’s proposed
rulemaking.
III. EPA’s Assessment
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Prong 1 and Prong 2
EPA proposes to approve Arizona’s
SIP submissions pertaining to CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prongs 1 and 2,
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
As explained below, EPA’s proposal is
based on the state’s submission and
EPA’s analysis of several factors and
available data.
To determine whether the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prongs 1 and 2
requirement is satisfied, EPA first must
determine whether a state’s emissions
SIP Submittal Clarification.’’ Sent December 9,
2015.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
will contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of a NAAQS in other
states. If a state is determined not to
make such contribution or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS, then EPA
can conclude that the state’s SIP
complies with the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In several prior
federal rulemakings interpreting section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA has evaluated
whether a state will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of a NAAQS by first
identifying downwind receptors that are
expected to have problems attaining or
maintaining the NAAQS.12 EPA has
then determined which upwind states
contribute to these identified air quality
problems in amounts sufficient to
warrant further evaluation to determine
if the state can make emission
reductions to reduce its contribution.
CSAPR and the proposed CSAPR
Update used a screening threshold (1%
of the NAAQS) to identify such
contributing upwind states warranting
further review and analysis. EPA’s
NODA used air quality modeling to
evaluate contributions from upwind
states to downward receptors. Applying
the methodology used in CSAPR, the
NODA modeling information indicates
that emissions from Arizona contribute
amounts exceeding the CSAPR 1%
threshold at two projected downwind
nonattainment sites in El Centro,
California, and Los Angeles,
California.13
EPA notes that it disagrees with
ADEQ’s contention that it is unclear
what screening threshold is significant
for southwestern states when addressing
interstate transport contributions. EPA
believes contribution from an individual
state equal to or above 1% of the
NAAQS could be considered significant
where the collective contribution of
emissions from one or more upwind
states is responsible for a considerable
portion of the downwind air quality
problem regardless of where the
receptor is geographically located.14
Accordingly, although EPA’s
modeling indicates that emissions from
12 NO SIP Call, Final Rule, 63 FR 57371 (October
X
27, 1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), Final
Rule, 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR), Final Rule, 76 FR 48208
(August 8, 2011); CSAPR Update Rule, Proposed
Rule, 80 FR 75706 (Dec. 3, 2015).
13 Data file with 2017 Ozone Contributions.
Included in docket for: Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Protection Agency’s Updated Ozone
Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS),
80 FR 46271 (August 4, 2015).
14 EPA has previously noted there may be
additional criteria to evaluate regarding collective
contribution of transported air pollution at certain
locations in the West. See footnotes 4 and 7.
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Arizona contribute above the 1%
threshold to two projected downwind
air quality problems, EPA examined
several factors to determine whether
Arizona should be considered to
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS at those
sites, including the air quality and
contribution modeling, receptor data,
and the statewide measures reducing
emissions of VOCs and NOX. EPA notes
that no single piece of information is by
itself dispositive of the issue for
purposes of this analysis. Instead, EPA
has considered the total weight of all the
evidence taken together to evaluate
whether Arizona significantly
contributes to nonattainment or
interferes with maintenance of the 2008
ozone NAAQS in those areas.
One such factor that EPA considers
relevant to determining the nature of a
projected receptor’s interstate transport
problem is the magnitude of ozone
attributable to transport from all upwind
states collectively contributing to the air
quality problem. In CSAPR and the
CSAPR Update Rule, EPA used the 1%
air quality threshold to identify linkages
between upwind states and downwind
maintenance receptors. States whose
contributions to a specific receptor meet
or exceed the threshold were considered
to be linked to that receptor. The linked
states’ emissions (and available
emission reductions) were then
analyzed further as a second step to
EPA’s contribution analysis. States
whose contributions to all receptors
were below the 1% threshold did not
require further evaluation to address
interstate transport and we therefore
found those states were determined to
make insignificant contributions to
downwind air quality. Therefore, the
states below the threshold do not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in other
states. EPA used the 1% threshold in
the East because prior analysis showed
that, in general, nonattainment
problems result from a combined impact
of relatively small individual
contributions from upwind states, along
with contributions from in-state sources.
EPA has observed that a relatively large
portion of the air quality problem at
most ozone nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in the East is the
result of the collective contribution from
a number of upwind states.
Specifically, EPA found the total
upwind states’ contribution to ozone
concentration (from linked and
unlinked states) based on modeling for
2017 ranges from 17% to 67% to
identified downwind air quality
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Mar 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
problems in the East, with between 4
and 12 states each contributing above
1% to the downwind air quality
problem.15 16 Thus, irrespective of the
1% air quality threshold in the East,
EPA has found that the collective
contributions from upwind states
represent a large portion of the ozone
concentrations at projected air quality
problems. Further, in the East, EPA
found that the 1% threshold is
appropriate to capture a high percentage
of the total pollution transport affecting
downwind receptors. By comparison,
according to EPA’s modeling, the total
upwind (linked or unlinked) states’
contribution to ozone concentration at
the projected nonattainment sites in El
Centro, California and Los Angeles,
California, is comparatively small, with
only one state contributing above 1% to
the downwind air quality problem.
Arizona is the only state that
contributes greater than the 1%
threshold to the projected 2017 levels of
the 2008 ozone NAAQS at the El Centro
receptor. The total contribution from all
states to the El Centro receptor is 4.4%
of the total ozone concentration at this
receptor. Arizona is also the only state
that contributes greater than 1% to the
projected 2017 levels of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS at the Los Angeles receptor,
and the total contribution from all states
is 2.5% of the ozone concentration at
this receptor. EPA believes that a 4.4%
and 2.5% cumulative ozone
contribution from all upwind states is
negligible, particularly when compared
to the relatively large contributions from
upwind states in the East or in certain
other areas of the West. For these
reasons, EPA believes the emissions that
result in transported ozone from
upwind states have limited impacts on
the projected air quality problems in El
Centro, California and Los Angeles,
California, and therefore should not be
treated as receptors for purposes of
determining the interstate transport
obligations of upwind states under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Additionally, EPA has evaluated the
Arizona VOC and NOX emissions
inventory and emissions projections and
agrees that emissions will be decreasing
over time. Given that emissions within
the state are expected to decrease over
time due to regional haze measures,
Federal engine and fuel standards, and
15 The stated range is based on the highest
nonattainment or maintenance receptor in each
area. All nonattainment and maintenance receptors
had upwind contributions of well over 17%, except
for some receptors in Dallas and Houston.
16 Memo to Docket from EPA, Air Quality Policy
Division. ‘‘Contribution Analysis of Receptors in
the Updated CSAPR Proposal.’’ March 10, 2016.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15203
other Federal, State, and local rules,17
EPA believes that the Arizona SIP
contains adequate provisions to ensure
that air emissions in Arizona do not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
in California or any other state in the
future.
The modeling data show that Arizona
contributes either less than 1% of the
NAAQS to projected air quality
problems in other states, or where it
contributes above 1% of the NAAQS to
a projected downwind air quality
problem in California, EPA proposes to
find, based on the overall weight of
evidence, that these particular receptors
are not significantly impacted by
transported ozone from upwind states.
Emissions reductions from Arizona are
not necessary to address interstate
transport because the total collective
upwind state ozone contribution to
these receptors is relatively low
compared to the air quality problems
typically addressed by the good
neighbor provision. Additionally,
Arizona has demonstrated that both
VOC and NOX emissions are going
down and will continue to go down.
EPA therefore believes that Arizona’s
contributions to downwind receptors in
California are considered insignificant.
EPA proposes to find that Arizona does
not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
in other states.
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Prong 4
EPA believes that ozone precursor
emissions of NOX may contribute to
visibility impairment in Class I areas.
EPA’s 2013 I–SIP guidance clarifies that
a state can rely upon a fully EPAapproved Regional Haze SIP to satisfy
the requirements of this sub-element.
Arizona’s Regional Haze SIP shows that
sources in Arizona impact visibility in
Colorado (Great Sand Dunes National
Monument, Mesa Verde National Park,
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National
Park, La Garita Wilderness, and
Weminuche Wilderness), New Mexico
(Bandelier National Monument, San
Pedro Parks Wilderness, Pecos
Wilderness, Bosque del Apache
National Wildlife Reserve, and Gila
Wilderness), and Utah (Zion National
Park, Bryce Canyon National Park,
Capitol Reef National Park,
Canyonlands National Park, and Arches
17 See TSD for details on other emissions control
measures.
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
15204
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
National Park).18 Arizona’s Regional
Haze SIP is not fully approved by EPA.
Instead, Arizona’s 2012 and 2015
submittals rely, in part, on regulations
imposed by FIPs to address visibility
impairment in Class 1 Areas caused by
NOX, SO2, and PM. These regulations
include emission limits on the following
facilities: Arizona Public Service Cholla
Power Plant,19 Salt River Project
Coronado Generating Station,20 Freeport
McMoran Miami Smelter,21 ASARCO
Hayden Smelter,22 Sundt Generating
Station Unit 4,23 and Nelson Lime Plant
Kilns 1 and 2.24 Emissions limits have
been incorporated into the state SIP,
replacing a previous FIP, at AEPCO
Apache Station Units 1, 2, and 3.25
Because Arizona’s 2012 and 2015
submittals rely in part on FIPs to
address interstate transport visibility
requirements, they do not meet the
requirements of prong 4 for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. However, because FIPs
are already in place, no additional FIP
obligation would be triggered by a final
disapproval of this portion of Arizona’s
infrastructure SIP. EPA will continue to
work with Arizona to incorporate
emission limits to address the
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule
into the Arizona SIP. For further
discussion of our analysis of prong 4,
please see the TSD associated with this
proposal and in the docket for today’s
rulemaking.
IV. Proposed Action
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
EPA is proposing to approve
Arizona’s SIP as meeting the interstate
transport requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing
this approval based on the overall
weight of evidence from information
and analysis provided by Arizona, as
well as the recent air quality modeling
released in EPA’s August 4, 2015
NODA, and other data analysis that
confirms that emissions from Arizona
will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
18 Arizona State Implementation Plan, Regional
Haze Under Section 308 of the Federal Regional
Haze Rule (January 2011), section 12.4.1.
19 FIP promulgated at 77 FR 72514 (December 5,
2012).
20 Id.
21 FIP promulgated at 79 FR 5240 (September 3,
2014).
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 SIP approval promulgated for Unit 1 and FIP
promulgated for Units 2 and 3 at 77 FR 72511
(December 5, 2012). SIP revision for emissions
limits for Unit 1 and SIP approval for Units 2 and
3 promulgated at 80 FR 19220 (April 10, 2015).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Mar 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
in California or any other state.
EPA is proposing to disapprove
Arizona’s SIP with respect to the
interstate transport requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Because
Arizona’s 2012 and 2015 submittals
rely, in part, on FIPs to address
interstate transport visibility
requirements, they do not meet the
requirements of this portion of CAA
§ 110(a)(2)(D) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. However, because FIPs are
already in place, no additional FIP
obligation would be triggered by a final
disapproval of this portion of Arizona’s
infrastructure SIP. EPA will continue to
work with Arizona to incorporate
emission limits to address the
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule
into the Arizona SIP.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
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 action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
PRA because this action does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This action will not
impose any requirements on small
entities 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. This action does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to
the private sector, will result from this
action.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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: Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175, because the SIP is not
approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area
where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction, and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern
environmental health or safety risks that
the EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 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)
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs
the EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. The EPA believes that this
action is not subject to the requirements
of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA.
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Population
The EPA lacks the discretionary
authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Approval and
promulgation of implementation plans,
Environmental protection, Incorporation
by reference, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone,
and Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: March 15, 2016.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2016–06438 Filed 3–21–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0798; FRL–9943–88–
Region 4]
Air Plan Disapprovals; MS; Prong 4–
2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, SO2, and 2012
PM2.5
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to
disapprove the visibility transport
(prong 4) portions of revisions to the
Mississippi State Implementation Plan
(SIP), submitted by the Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ), addressing the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) infrastructure SIP
requirements for the 2008 8-hour Ozone,
2010 1-hour Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2),
2010 1-hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and
2012 annual Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires
that each state adopt and submit a SIP
for the implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by EPA, commonly
referred to as an ‘‘infrastructure SIP.’’
Specifically, EPA is proposing to
disapprove the prong 4 portions of
Mississippi’s May 29, 2012, 2008 8-hour
Ozone infrastructure SIP submission;
July 26, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone
infrastructure SIP resubmission;
February 28, 2013, 2010 1-hour NO2
infrastructure SIP submission; June 20,
2013, 2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure
SIP submission; and December 8, 2015,
2012 annual PM2.5 infrastructure SIP
submission. All other applicable
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Mar 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
infrastructure requirements for these SIP
submissions have been or will be
addressed in separate rulemakings.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 21, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2015–0798 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. EPA will generally
not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr.
Lakeman can be reached by telephone at
(404) 562–9043 or via electronic mail at
lakeman.sean@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
By statute, SIPs meeting the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA are to be submitted by
states within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the new or revised
NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to
these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as
‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions.
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states
to address basic SIP elements such as
for monitoring, basic program
requirements, and legal authority that
are designed to assure attainment and
maintenance of the newly established or
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15205
revised NAAQS. More specifically,
section 110(a)(1) provides the
procedural and timing requirements for
infrastructure SIPs. Section 110(a)(2)
lists specific elements that states must
meet for the infrastructure SIP
requirements related to a newly
established or revised NAAQS. The
contents of an infrastructure SIP
submission may vary depending upon
the data and analytical tools available to
the state, as well as the provisions
already contained in the state’s
implementation plan at the time in
which the state develops and submits
the submission for a new or revised
NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two
components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
includes four distinct components,
commonly referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that
must be addressed in infrastructure SIP
submissions. The first two prongs,
which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that
prohibit any source or other type of
emissions activity in one state from
contributing significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 1) and from interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 2). The third and fourth
prongs, which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that
prohibit emissions activity in one state
from interfering with measures required
to prevent significant deterioration of air
quality in another state (prong 3) or
from interfering with measures to
protect visibility in another state (prong
4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs
to include provisions insuring
compliance with sections 115 and 126
of the Act, relating to interstate and
international pollution abatement.
Through this action, EPA is proposing
to disapprove the prong 4 portions of
Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone,
2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. All other
applicable infrastructure SIP
requirements for these SIP submissions
have been or will be addressed in
separate rulemakings. A brief
background regarding the NAAQS
relevant to today’s proposal is provided
below. For comprehensive information
on these NAAQS, please refer to the
Federal Register notices cited in the
following subsections.
a. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the
8-hour Ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per
million. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27,
2008). States were required to submit
infrastructure SIP submissions for the
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15200-15205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06438]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0793; FRL-9944-08-Region 9]
Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State
Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements To Address
Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
partially approve and partially disapprove a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality on December 27, 2012, and supplemented on December 3, 2015, to
address the interstate transport requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) section 110(a)(2)(D) with respect to the 2008 ozone
(O3) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). We are
proposing to approve the portion of the Arizona SIP pertaining to
significant contribution to
[[Page 15201]]
nonattainment or interference with maintenance in another state and
proposing to disapprove the portion of Arizona's SIP pertaining to
interstate transport visibility requirements. EPA's rationale for
proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove Arizona's
December 27, 2012 SIP revision and December 3, 2015 supplement is
described in this notice. EPA previously took two separate actions on
Arizona's December 27, 2012 submittal, on July 14, 2015 and August 10,
2015. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a
final action no later than June 7, 2016.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 21, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2015-0793 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
Clancy.Maeve@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, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The 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: Maeve Clancy, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4105, Clancy.Maeve@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. State Submittals
III. EPA's Assessment
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP
requirements to implement, maintain and enforce the NAAQS no later than
three years after the promulgation of a new or revised standard.
Section 110(a)(2) outlines the specific requirements that each state is
required to address in this SIP submission that collectively constitute
the ``infrastructure'' of a state's air quality management program. SIP
submittals that address these requirements are referred to as
``infrastructure SIPs'' (I-SIP). In particular, CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS
contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of
emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that
will ``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' (prong 1) or
``interfere with maintenance'' (prong 2) of the applicable air quality
standard in any other state. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires
SIP provisions that prevent interference with measures required to be
included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State
under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong
3) or to protect visibility (prong 4). This action addresses the
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements of prongs 1, 2 and 4 with respect
to Arizona's I-SIP submissions.
On March 27, 2008, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for ozone.\1\ This
action triggered a requirement for states to submit an I-SIP to address
the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years of
issuance of the revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone; Final
Rule, 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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),'' which provides ``advice on the development
of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS . . . as well as
infrastructure SIPs for new or revised NAAQS promulgated in the
future.'' \2\ EPA followed that guidance with an additional memo
specific to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) requirements for the
2008 O3 standard on January 22, 2015 entitled, ``Information
on the Interstate Transport ``Good Neighbor'' Provision for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS Under CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' (2015 transport
memo).\3\ While this memo did not provide specific guidance to western
states on interstate transport, it did contain preliminary modeling
information for western states. This 2015 transport memo, following the
approach used in EPA's prior Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR),\4\
provided data identifying ozone monitoring sites that were projected to
be in nonattainment or have maintenance problems for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS in 2018. Also, EPA provided the projected contribution estimates
from 2018 anthropogenic oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in each state to ozone
concentrations at each of the projected sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors,
Regions 1-10 (September 13, 2013).
\3\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors,
Regions 1-10 (January 22, 2015).
\4\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 4, 2015, EPA published a Federal Register Notice
entitled, ``Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS.'' \5\ This Notice of Data Availability (NODA) is an update of
the preliminary air quality modeling data that was released January 22,
2015. This NODA provided data identifying ozone monitoring sites that
are projected to be nonattainment or have maintenance problems
(following the CSAPR approach) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017.\6\
Also, EPA provided the projected ozone contribution estimates from 2017
anthropogenic NOX and VOC emissions in each state to ozone
concentrations at each of the projected monitoring sites. The 2017
modeling released in the NODA was used to support EPA's proposed update
to CSAPR to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the eastern U.S. (``CSAPR Update
Rule'').\7\ CSAPR and its predecessor transport rules, the
NOX SIP Call and CAIR, were designed to address the
collective contributions from the 37 states in the eastern U.S. and
ozone contribution information was not calculated to or from the 11
states in the western U.S. The proposed CSAPR Update Rule and the
supportive
[[Page 15202]]
modeling released in the NODA include data relevant to the West but did
not evaluate potential interstate transport impacts in 11 western
states, including Arizona. In this action, we are utilizing these data
to evaluate the state's submittals and any interstate transport
obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 80 FR 46271 (August
4, 2015).
\6\ The EPA adopted 2017 as the analytic year for the updated
ozone modeling information. See 80 FR 46273.
\7\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS, 80 FR 75706 (December 3, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is obligated, pursuant to a judgement issued by the Northern
District of California in Sierra Club vs. McCarthy, to take final
action on 110(a)(2)(D) prongs 1, 2, and 4 of Arizona's December 2012
SIP revision by June 7, 2016.\8\ In our July 2015 partial approval and
partial disapproval of Arizona's I-SIP submittals for the 2008 Pb and
2008 ozone NAAQS, for the I-SIP elements C, D, J, and K, EPA partially
approved and partially disapproved the submittals for purposes of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 3 and partially approved and partially
disapproved the submittals for purposes of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (relating
to CAA sections 115 and 126). We also stated our intention to propose
action on the I-SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prongs 1,
2, and 4 in a separate action.\9\ We subsequently took action on I-SIP
elements A, B, E-H, L, and M for the 2008 Pb and 2008 ozone NAAQS in
August 2015.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Judgment, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case 4:14-cv-05091-
YGR (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2015).
\9\ Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality
State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for
Lead and Ozone. 80 FR 40905 (July 14, 2015).
\10\ Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead (Pb) and the
2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 80
FR 47859 (August 10, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. State Submittals
On December 27, 2012, the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) submitted its 2008 ozone NAAQS I-SIP (2012 submittal).
This submittal briefly summarized the CAA requirements of sections
110(a)(2)(D)(i), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and EPA's I-SIP action for the
previous 1997 ozone NAAQS, but as to prongs 1, 2, and 4 did not
identify or address any potential interstate transport impacts between
Arizona and other states or interstate transport visibility
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On December 3, 2015, ADEQ
submitted a supplement to the 2012 submittal addressing 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
prongs 1, 2, and 4.\11\ For the purposes of this action, we will refer
to the supplemental submittal as the ``2015 submittal.'' The 2015
submittal represents ADEQ's comprehensive analysis of ozone transport
from Arizona to surrounding states and addresses potential interstate
transport linkages between Arizona and the El Centro, CA and Los
Angeles, CA nonattainment receptors that were identified in the 2015
ozone transport memo and the 2015 NODA. The 2015 submittal also
addresses the requirements of prong 4 (interstate transport visibility
requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Arizona State Implementation Plan Revisions for 2008
Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide Under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D) . . .'' Signed December 3, 2015. And see email from
Heidi Haggerty of ADEQ. ``AZ 2015 Ozone Transport I-SIP Submittal
Clarification.'' Sent December 9, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2015 submittal, ADEQ summarizes the state's impact on
downwind states. While Arizona's impact on the El Centro and Los
Angeles monitors is in each case above 1%, Arizona impacts only one of
the seven projected nonattainment or maintenance receptors in the Los
Angeles area, and contributes less than 1% to all other maintenance and
nonattainment receptors. ADEQ further states that, ``In eastern states,
the EPA has chosen a 1% of the standard threshold as a significant
contribution. However, Arizona considers the southwest to be
different.'' The state goes on to say that, ``It is unclear at this
point what threshold is significant for southwestern states.'' EPA's
assessment of these statements is described in the next section. The
submittal also summarizes sources of VOCs and NOX statewide,
outlining the controls on anthropogenic emission sources with a focus
on efforts to reduce NOX through controls implemented via
Arizona's Regional Haze SIP and EPA's Regional Haze Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) and current and future Maricopa County
stationary source controls in the Arizona SIP. For more information on
Arizona's source categories and emissions controls, please see the
technical support document (TSD) associated with today's proposed
rulemaking.
III. EPA's Assessment
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Prong 1 and Prong 2
EPA proposes to approve Arizona's SIP submissions pertaining to CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prongs 1 and 2, with respect to the 2008
ozone NAAQS. As explained below, EPA's proposal is based on the state's
submission and EPA's analysis of several factors and available data.
To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prongs 1
and 2 requirement is satisfied, EPA first must determine whether a
state's emissions will contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in other states. If a state is
determined not to make such contribution or interfere with maintenance
of the NAAQS, then EPA can conclude that the state's SIP complies with
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In several prior
federal rulemakings interpreting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA has
evaluated whether a state will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS by first
identifying downwind receptors that are expected to have problems
attaining or maintaining the NAAQS.\12\ EPA has then determined which
upwind states contribute to these identified air quality problems in
amounts sufficient to warrant further evaluation to determine if the
state can make emission reductions to reduce its contribution. CSAPR
and the proposed CSAPR Update used a screening threshold (1% of the
NAAQS) to identify such contributing upwind states warranting further
review and analysis. EPA's NODA used air quality modeling to evaluate
contributions from upwind states to downward receptors. Applying the
methodology used in CSAPR, the NODA modeling information indicates that
emissions from Arizona contribute amounts exceeding the CSAPR 1%
threshold at two projected downwind nonattainment sites in El Centro,
California, and Los Angeles, California.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ NOX SIP Call, Final Rule, 63 FR 57371 (October
27, 1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), Final Rule, 70 FR 25172
(May 12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), Final Rule,
76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); CSAPR Update Rule, Proposed Rule, 80
FR 75706 (Dec. 3, 2015).
\13\ Data file with 2017 Ozone Contributions. Included in docket
for: Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's
Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 80 FR 46271 (August 4, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes that it disagrees with ADEQ's contention that it is
unclear what screening threshold is significant for southwestern states
when addressing interstate transport contributions. EPA believes
contribution from an individual state equal to or above 1% of the NAAQS
could be considered significant where the collective contribution of
emissions from one or more upwind states is responsible for a
considerable portion of the downwind air quality problem regardless of
where the receptor is geographically located.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ EPA has previously noted there may be additional criteria
to evaluate regarding collective contribution of transported air
pollution at certain locations in the West. See footnotes 4 and 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, although EPA's modeling indicates that emissions from
[[Page 15203]]
Arizona contribute above the 1% threshold to two projected downwind air
quality problems, EPA examined several factors to determine whether
Arizona should be considered to significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS at those
sites, including the air quality and contribution modeling, receptor
data, and the statewide measures reducing emissions of VOCs and
NOX. EPA notes that no single piece of information is by
itself dispositive of the issue for purposes of this analysis. Instead,
EPA has considered the total weight of all the evidence taken together
to evaluate whether Arizona significantly contributes to nonattainment
or interferes with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in those areas.
One such factor that EPA considers relevant to determining the
nature of a projected receptor's interstate transport problem is the
magnitude of ozone attributable to transport from all upwind states
collectively contributing to the air quality problem. In CSAPR and the
CSAPR Update Rule, EPA used the 1% air quality threshold to identify
linkages between upwind states and downwind maintenance receptors.
States whose contributions to a specific receptor meet or exceed the
threshold were considered to be linked to that receptor. The linked
states' emissions (and available emission reductions) were then
analyzed further as a second step to EPA's contribution analysis.
States whose contributions to all receptors were below the 1% threshold
did not require further evaluation to address interstate transport and
we therefore found those states were determined to make insignificant
contributions to downwind air quality. Therefore, the states below the
threshold do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. EPA used the 1%
threshold in the East because prior analysis showed that, in general,
nonattainment problems result from a combined impact of relatively
small individual contributions from upwind states, along with
contributions from in-state sources. EPA has observed that a relatively
large portion of the air quality problem at most ozone nonattainment
and maintenance receptors in the East is the result of the collective
contribution from a number of upwind states.
Specifically, EPA found the total upwind states' contribution to
ozone concentration (from linked and unlinked states) based on modeling
for 2017 ranges from 17% to 67% to identified downwind air quality
problems in the East, with between 4 and 12 states each contributing
above 1% to the downwind air quality problem.15 16 Thus,
irrespective of the 1% air quality threshold in the East, EPA has found
that the collective contributions from upwind states represent a large
portion of the ozone concentrations at projected air quality problems.
Further, in the East, EPA found that the 1% threshold is appropriate to
capture a high percentage of the total pollution transport affecting
downwind receptors. By comparison, according to EPA's modeling, the
total upwind (linked or unlinked) states' contribution to ozone
concentration at the projected nonattainment sites in El Centro,
California and Los Angeles, California, is comparatively small, with
only one state contributing above 1% to the downwind air quality
problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The stated range is based on the highest nonattainment or
maintenance receptor in each area. All nonattainment and maintenance
receptors had upwind contributions of well over 17%, except for some
receptors in Dallas and Houston.
\16\ Memo to Docket from EPA, Air Quality Policy Division.
``Contribution Analysis of Receptors in the Updated CSAPR
Proposal.'' March 10, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona is the only state that contributes greater than the 1%
threshold to the projected 2017 levels of the 2008 ozone NAAQS at the
El Centro receptor. The total contribution from all states to the El
Centro receptor is 4.4% of the total ozone concentration at this
receptor. Arizona is also the only state that contributes greater than
1% to the projected 2017 levels of the 2008 ozone NAAQS at the Los
Angeles receptor, and the total contribution from all states is 2.5% of
the ozone concentration at this receptor. EPA believes that a 4.4% and
2.5% cumulative ozone contribution from all upwind states is
negligible, particularly when compared to the relatively large
contributions from upwind states in the East or in certain other areas
of the West. For these reasons, EPA believes the emissions that result
in transported ozone from upwind states have limited impacts on the
projected air quality problems in El Centro, California and Los
Angeles, California, and therefore should not be treated as receptors
for purposes of determining the interstate transport obligations of
upwind states under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Additionally, EPA has evaluated the Arizona VOC and NOX
emissions inventory and emissions projections and agrees that emissions
will be decreasing over time. Given that emissions within the state are
expected to decrease over time due to regional haze measures, Federal
engine and fuel standards, and other Federal, State, and local
rules,\17\ EPA believes that the Arizona SIP contains adequate
provisions to ensure that air emissions in Arizona do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008
ozone NAAQS in California or any other state in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See TSD for details on other emissions control measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The modeling data show that Arizona contributes either less than 1%
of the NAAQS to projected air quality problems in other states, or
where it contributes above 1% of the NAAQS to a projected downwind air
quality problem in California, EPA proposes to find, based on the
overall weight of evidence, that these particular receptors are not
significantly impacted by transported ozone from upwind states.
Emissions reductions from Arizona are not necessary to address
interstate transport because the total collective upwind state ozone
contribution to these receptors is relatively low compared to the air
quality problems typically addressed by the good neighbor provision.
Additionally, Arizona has demonstrated that both VOC and NOX
emissions are going down and will continue to go down. EPA therefore
believes that Arizona's contributions to downwind receptors in
California are considered insignificant. EPA proposes to find that
Arizona does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states.
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Prong 4
EPA believes that ozone precursor emissions of NOX may
contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas. EPA's 2013 I-SIP
guidance clarifies that a state can rely upon a fully EPA-approved
Regional Haze SIP to satisfy the requirements of this sub-element.
Arizona's Regional Haze SIP shows that sources in Arizona impact
visibility in Colorado (Great Sand Dunes National Monument, Mesa Verde
National Park, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, La Garita
Wilderness, and Weminuche Wilderness), New Mexico (Bandelier National
Monument, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Pecos Wilderness, Bosque del
Apache National Wildlife Reserve, and Gila Wilderness), and Utah (Zion
National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Capitol Reef National Park,
Canyonlands National Park, and Arches
[[Page 15204]]
National Park).\18\ Arizona's Regional Haze SIP is not fully approved
by EPA. Instead, Arizona's 2012 and 2015 submittals rely, in part, on
regulations imposed by FIPs to address visibility impairment in Class 1
Areas caused by NOX, SO2, and PM. These
regulations include emission limits on the following facilities:
Arizona Public Service Cholla Power Plant,\19\ Salt River Project
Coronado Generating Station,\20\ Freeport McMoran Miami Smelter,\21\
ASARCO Hayden Smelter,\22\ Sundt Generating Station Unit 4,\23\ and
Nelson Lime Plant Kilns 1 and 2.\24\ Emissions limits have been
incorporated into the state SIP, replacing a previous FIP, at AEPCO
Apache Station Units 1, 2, and 3.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Arizona State Implementation Plan, Regional Haze Under
Section 308 of the Federal Regional Haze Rule (January 2011),
section 12.4.1.
\19\ FIP promulgated at 77 FR 72514 (December 5, 2012).
\20\ Id.
\21\ FIP promulgated at 79 FR 5240 (September 3, 2014).
\22\ Id.
\23\ Id.
\24\ Id.
\25\ SIP approval promulgated for Unit 1 and FIP promulgated for
Units 2 and 3 at 77 FR 72511 (December 5, 2012). SIP revision for
emissions limits for Unit 1 and SIP approval for Units 2 and 3
promulgated at 80 FR 19220 (April 10, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Arizona's 2012 and 2015 submittals rely in part on FIPs to
address interstate transport visibility requirements, they do not meet
the requirements of prong 4 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. However, because
FIPs are already in place, no additional FIP obligation would be
triggered by a final disapproval of this portion of Arizona's
infrastructure SIP. EPA will continue to work with Arizona to
incorporate emission limits to address the requirements of the Regional
Haze Rule into the Arizona SIP. For further discussion of our analysis
of prong 4, please see the TSD associated with this proposal and in the
docket for today's rulemaking.
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve Arizona's SIP as meeting the interstate
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing this approval based on the
overall weight of evidence from information and analysis provided by
Arizona, as well as the recent air quality modeling released in EPA's
August 4, 2015 NODA, and other data analysis that confirms that
emissions from Arizona will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
California or any other state.
EPA is proposing to disapprove Arizona's SIP with respect to the
interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
prong 4 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Because Arizona's 2012 and 2015
submittals rely, in part, on FIPs to address interstate transport
visibility requirements, they do not meet the requirements of this
portion of CAA Sec. 110(a)(2)(D) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. However,
because FIPs are already in place, no additional FIP obligation would
be triggered by a final disapproval of this portion of Arizona's
infrastructure SIP. EPA will continue to work with Arizona to
incorporate emission limits to address the requirements of the Regional
Haze Rule into the Arizona SIP.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
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 action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities 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. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.
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: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 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)
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.
[[Page 15205]]
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population
The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Approval and promulgation of implementation
plans, Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Oxides of
nitrogen, Ozone, and Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: March 15, 2016.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2016-06438 Filed 3-21-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P