Air Plan Approval; AK; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 17627-17630 [2018-08426]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
The format of this tribal consultation
meeting will consist of a panel of SBA
representatives who will preside over
the session. The oral and written
testimony as well as any comments SBA
receives will become part of the
administrative record for SBA’s
consideration. Written testimony may
be submitted in lieu of oral testimony.
SBA will analyze the testimony, both
oral and written, along with any written
comments received. SBA officials may
ask questions of a presenter to clarify or
further explain the testimony. The
purpose of the tribal consultation is to
assist SBA with gathering information to
guide SBA’s review process and to
potentially develop new proposals. SBA
requests that the comments focus on
SBA’s two planned rulemakings relating
to the 8(a) BD and HUBZone programs,
general issues as they pertain to the 8(a)
BD and HUBZone regulations, input
related to what changes could be made
to make these programs more attractive
to procuring agencies and small
businesses, or the unique concerns of
the Tribal communities. SBA requests
that commenters do not raise issues
pertaining to other SBA small business
programs. Presenters are encouraged to
provide a written copy of their
testimony. SBA will accept written
material that the presenter wishes to
provide that further supplements his or
her testimony. Electronic or digitized
copies are encouraged.
The tribal consultation meeting will
be held for one day. The meeting will
begin at 10:00 a.m. and end at 3:30 p.m.
(AKDT), with a break from 12:30 p.m. to
1:30 p.m. SBA will adjourn early if all
those scheduled have delivered their
testimony.
III. Registration
SBA respectfully requests that any
elected or appointed representative of
the tribal communities or principal of a
tribally-owned or ANC-owned 8(a) firm
that is interested in attending please
pre-register in advance and indicate
whether you would like to testify at the
hearing. Registration requests should be
received by SBA by May 2, 2018. Please
contact Chequita Carter of SBA’s Office
of Native American Affairs in writing at
Chequita.Carter@sba.gov or by facsimile
to (202) 481–2177. If you are interested
in testifying please include the
following information relating to the
person testifying: Name, Organization
affiliation, Address, Telephone number,
Email address and Fax number. SBA
will attempt to accommodate all
interested parties that wish to present
testimony. Based on the number of
registrants it may be necessary to
impose time limits to ensure that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:33 Apr 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
everyone who wishes to testify has the
opportunity to do so. SBA will confirm
in writing the registration of presenters
and attendees.
IV. Information on Service for
Individuals With Disabilities
For information on facilities or
services for individuals with disabilities
or to request special assistance at the
tribal consultation meeting, contact
Chequita Carter at the telephone number
or email address indicated under the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this notice.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 634 and E.O. 13175,
65 FR 67249.
Allen Gutierrez,
Associate Administrator for the Office of
Entrepreneurial Development.
[FR Doc. 2018–08410 Filed 4–20–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2016–0590; FRL–9977–06–
Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; AK; Interstate
Transport Requirements for the 2010
Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submittal from the Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation (Alaska
DEC) demonstrating that the SIP meets
certain interstate transport requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) promulgated in 2010 for
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur
dioxide (SO2). The EPA proposes to
determine that Alaska’s SIP contains
adequate provisions to ensure that air
emissions in Alaska do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with the maintenance of the 2010 NO2
and SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 23, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2016–0590, at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from regulations.gov.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17627
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 the disclosure of which 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, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Chi, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and
Waste (OAW–150), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 6th Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number:
206–553–1185; email address: chi.john@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is
intended to refer to the EPA.
Information is organized as follows:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. State Submittal
III. EPA Evaluation
A. NO2 Interstate Transport
B. SO2 Interstate Transport
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On January 22, 2010, the EPA
established a primary NO2 NAAQS at
100 parts per billion (ppb), averaged
over one hour and based on a 3-year
average, supplementing the existing
annual standard (75 FR 6474). On June
22, 2010, the EPA established a new
primary 1-hour SO2 NAAQS at 75 ppb
based on a 3-year average (75 FR 35520).
Within three years after promulgation of
a new or revised NAAQS, states must
submit SIPs meeting the requirements of
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2), often
referred to as infrastructure
requirements. Section 110(a) of the CAA
requires states to make a SIP submission
to the EPA for a new or revised NAAQS,
but the contents of individual state
submissions may vary depending upon
the facts and circumstances. The
content of the revisions proposed in
such SIP submissions may also vary
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
17628
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules
depending upon what provisions the
state’s approved SIP already contains.
The EPA approved the Alaska SIP as
meeting all infrastructure requirements
for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS,
except for the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
provisions which we explained we
would address in a separate action (82
FR 22081, May 12, 2017).
The EPA’s most recent infrastructure
SIP guidance, the September 13, 2013,
‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements
under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2),’’ did not explicitly
include criteria for how the Agency
would evaluate infrastructure SIP
submissions intended to address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).1 With respect to
certain pollutants, such as ozone and
particulate matter, the EPA has
addressed interstate transport in eastern
states in the context of regional
rulemaking actions that quantify state
emission reduction obligations.2 In
other actions, such as EPA action on
western state SIPs addressing ozone and
particulate matter, the EPA has
considered a variety of factors on a caseby-case basis to determine whether
emissions from one state interfere with
the attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS in another state. In such
actions, the EPA has considered
available information such as current air
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
1 At the time the September 13, 2013, guidance
was issued, EPA was litigating challenges raised
with respect to its Cross State Air Pollution Rule
(‘‘CSAPR’’), 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011), designed
to address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
interstate transport requirements with respect to the
1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
CSAPR was vacated and remanded by the D.C.
Circuit in 2012 pursuant to EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7. EPA
subsequently sought review of the D.C. Circuit’s
decision by the Supreme Court, which was granted
in June 2013. As EPA was in the process of
litigating the interpretation of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at the time the infrastructure SIP
guidance was issued, EPA did not issue guidance
specific to that provision. The Supreme Court
subsequently vacated the D.C. Circuit’s decision
and remanded the case to that court for further
review. 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On July 28, 2015,
the D.C. Circuit issued a decision upholding
CSAPR, but remanding certain elements for
reconsideration. 795 F.3d 118.
2 Nitrogen Oxides (NO ) SIP Call, 63 FR 57371
X
(October 27, 1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),
70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); CSAPR, 76 FR 48208
(August 8, 2011).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:33 Apr 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
quality, emissions data and trends,
meteorology, and topography.3
For other pollutants such as lead (Pb),
the EPA has suggested that the
applicable interstate transport
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
can be met through a state’s assessment
as to whether or not emissions from Pb
sources located in close proximity to its
borders have emissions that impact a
neighboring state such that they
contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in that state. For example,
the EPA noted in an October 14, 2011,
memorandum titled, ‘‘Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under
Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the
2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ 4 that the
physical properties of Pb prevent its
emissions from experiencing the same
travel or formation phenomena as PM2.5
or ozone, and there is a sharp decrease
in Pb concentrations, at least in the
coarse fraction, as the distance from a
Pb source increases. Accordingly, while
it may be possible for a source in a state
to emit Pb in a location and in
quantities that may contribute
significantly to nonattainment in, or
interfere with maintenance by, any
other state, the EPA anticipates that this
would be a rare situation, e.g., where
large sources are in close proximity to
state boundaries.5 Our rationale and
explanation for approving the
applicable interstate transport
requirements under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS, consistent with the EPA’s
interpretation of the October 14, 2011,
guidance document, can be found,
among other instances, in the proposed
approval and a subsequent final
3 See, e.g., Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of California; Interstate
Transport of Pollution; Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment and Interference With Maintenance
Requirements, Proposed Rule, 76 FR 146516,
14616–14626 (March 17, 2011); Final Rule, 76 FR
34872 (June 15, 2011); Approval and Promulgation
of State Implementation Plans; State of Colorado;
Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 24Hour PM2.5 NAAQS, Proposed Rule, 80 FR 27121,
27124–27125 (May 12, 2015); Final Rule, 80 FR
47862 (August 10, 2015).
4 https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/
collection/cp2/20111014_page_lead_caa_110_
infrastructure_guidance.pdf.
5 Id. at pp 7–8.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
approval of interstate transport SIPs
submitted by Illinois, Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin.6 In
summary, the EPA’s approaches to
addressing interstate transport for
NAAQS pollutants has been based on
the characteristics of the pollutant, the
interstate problem presented by
emissions of that pollutant, the sources
that emit the pollutant, and the
information available to assess transport
of that pollutant. The EPA’s review and
action on Alaska’s CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport SIP
revisions for the 2010 NO2 and SO2
NAAQS is informed by these
considerations.
On March 10, 2016, the Alaska DEC
submitted a SIP revision to address
these remaining CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
provisions, also called ‘‘good neighbor’’
provisions. The first element of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that for
a new or revised NAAQS the SIP
contains adequate measures to prohibit
any source or other type of emissions
activity within the state from emitting
air pollutants that will ‘‘contribute
significantly to nonattainment’’ of the
NAAQS in another state. The second
element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requires that the SIP prohibits any
source or other type of emissions
activity in the state from emitting
pollutants that will ‘‘interfere with
maintenance’’ of the applicable NAAQS
in any other state.
II. State Submittal
The state addressed CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by providing
information supporting the conclusion
that emissions from Alaska do not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour NO2
and 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The Alaska
DEC provided the same justification to
address both SO2 and NO2 interstate
transport.7
6 See 79 FR 27241 at 27249 (May 13, 2014) and
79 FR 41439 (July 16, 2014).
7 EPA notes Alaska’s submission with respect to
the SO2 NAAQS indicates that the state is not
subject to EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) or
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). While EPA
appreciates this information, neither CAIR nor
CSAPR addressed the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
17629
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules
The state’s submittal noted that
Alaska’s southern-most border is
separated by over 600 miles (966 km) of
mountainous terrain in Canada’s
Province of British Columbia separating
the southeastern border of Alaska from
the nearest state, Washington. The
state’s submittal also noted that in
Alaska, the regional, predominant low
pressure wind patterns emanate from
the Gulf of Alaska in the west and travel
inland towards the east, circulating in a
counterclockwise direction. The Alaska
DEC concluded that based on distance
from other states and weather patterns,
Alaska does not significantly contribute
to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the 2010 NO2, and SO2
NAAQS in any other state.
III. EPA Evaluation
A. NO2 Interstate Transport
In addition to reviewing Alaska’s
submittal, the EPA reviewed recent
monitoring data for NO2 throughout the
United States. Using previous EPA
methodology, the EPA evaluated
specific monitors identified as having
nonattainment and/or maintenance
problems, which we refer to as
‘‘receptors.’’ 8 The EPA identifies
nonattainment receptors as any monitor
that has violated the NO2 NAAQS in the
most recent three-year period (2014–
2016). Meanwhile, the EPA identifies
NO2 maintenance receptors as any
monitor that violated the NO2 NAAQS
in—either of the prior monitoring cycles
(2012–2014 and 2013–2015), but
attained in the most recent monitoring
cycle. During the three most recent
design value 9 periods of 2012 through
2014, 2013 through 2015, and 2014
through 2016, we found no monitors
violating the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in the
United States.10 Accordingly, the EPA
found no monitors meeting the criteria
as a nonattainment receptor and/or as a
maintenance receptor. Furthermore, we
note that available information indicates
that monitored values are well below
the 100 ppb 1-hour NO2 NAAQS in
Washington, the state closest to Alaska,
with a 3-year average of 28 ppb during
2014–2016 at the Mount VernonAnacortes, WA, monitor (AQS Site ID
530570018).4
The EPA also reviewed regulatory
provisions to control future new sources
of NOX emissions in Alaska. Alaska’s
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)/New Source Review (NSR)
program was originally approved by the
EPA on February 16, 1995 (60 FR 8943).
Updates to Alaska’s PSD/NSR program
were most recently approved by the
EPA on January 7, 2015 (80 FR 832).
The minor NSR program was most
recently updated on May 27, 2016 (80
FR 30161). These rules help ensure that
no new or modified source of NOX will
cause or contribute to violation of the
2010 NO2 NAAQS. The EPA proposes to
conclude that emissions from Alaska
will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS
in any other state. As previously noted,
the EPA already approved the Alaska
SIP as meeting the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) interstate transport
provisions (commonly called prongs 3 &
4) on May 12, 2017 (82 FR 22081).
B. SO2 Interstate Transport
In addition to reviewing Alaska’s
submittal, the EPA reviewed: (1) SO2
ambient air quality and emissions
trends; (2) SIP-approved regulations
specific to SO2 and permitting
requirements; and, (3) other SIPapproved or federally enforceable
regulations that while not directly
intended to address or reduce SO2, may
yield reductions of the pollutant.
Despite being emitted from a similar
universe of point and nonpoint sources,
interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the
transport of fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) or ozone. As the EPA has
addressed in other actions, SO2 is not a
regional mixing pollutant that
commonly contributes to widespread
nonattainment of the SO2 NAAQS over
a large (and often multi-state) area. From
an air quality management perspective,
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS can be considered
to be a largely ‘‘source-oriented’’
NAAQS rather than a ‘‘regional’’ one (79
FR 27445). Geographically, Alaska is
approximately 850 km (528 miles) from
the nearest state, Washington, and
approximately 2,800 km (1,740 miles)
from the nearest SO2 nonattainment area
in Gilia County, Arizona, for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. Given the distance from
the nearest state, Washington, the EPA
believes that emissions from Alaska will
not interfere with the maintenance in
another states. Therefore, the EPA
proposes to agree with Alaska DEC that
based on distance, emissions activity
from Alaska will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in
any other state.
While the State of Alaska has no areas
which would require SO2 monitoring
under 40 CFR 58, Appendix D,
paragraph 4.4.2 (requirement for
monitoring by the population weighted
emissions index), monitored ambient air
quality values for SO2 are available at
Alaska’s National Core Multi-pollutant
Monitoring Station, (NCore), in
Fairbanks, Alaska. These data indicate
the monitored values of SO2 at this site
have remained below the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. Relevant data from EPA’s
Air Quality System 11 (AQS) Design
Value (DV) 12 reports for recent and
complete 3-year periods are summarized
in Table 1. The design value for the
Fairbanks monitor has decreased from
42 ppb in 2014 to 36 ppb in 2016, below
50% of the NAAQS.
TABLE 1—TREND IN 3-YEAR SO2 DESIGN VALUES FOR AQS MONITOR IN ALASKA
2012–2014
(ppb)
AQS monitor site
City
02–090–0034 ..................................................
Fairbanks ........................................................
42
2013–2015
(ppb)
37
2014–2016
(ppb)
36
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
The NEI data summaries for Alaska
have shown a decrease in the total
statewide SO2 emissions by 6,447 tons
per year, from 2011 to 2014 (Table 2).
The highest source sector for both 2011
and 2014 inventory years was natural
8 See NO SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27,
X
1998); CAIR, 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and
Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76
FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
9 A ‘‘Design Value’’ is a statistic that describes the
air quality status of a given location relative to the
level of the NAAQS. The interpretation of the
primary 2010 SO2 NAAQS (set at 75 parts per
billion (ppb)) including the data handling
conventions and calculations necessary for
determining compliance with the NAAQS can be
found in Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50.
10 https://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
11 EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) contains
ambient air pollution data collected by EPA, state,
local, and tribal air pollution control agencies. See
https://www.epa.gov/aqs.
12 A ‘‘Design Value’’ is a statistic that describes
the air quality status of a given location relative to
the level of the NAAQS. The interpretation of the
primary 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS (set at 75 parts
per billion [ppb]) including the data handling
conventions and calculations necessary for
determining compliance with the NAAQS can be
found in Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:33 Apr 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
17630
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules
wildfires. The decreasing trend in the
NEI data support our proposed
conclusion that Alaska does not
contribute to the nonattainment of SO2
in other states and does not interfere
with the maintenance of SO2 in others
states.
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF NEI SO2 DATA FOR ALASKA
2011
(tpy)
Source sector
2014
(tpy)
Area, Excluding Wildfires .........................................................................................................................................
Non-Road .................................................................................................................................................................
On-Road ..................................................................................................................................................................
Commercial Marine Vessels ....................................................................................................................................
Aviation (Aircraft & GSE) .........................................................................................................................................
Point .........................................................................................................................................................................
Wildfires, Prescribed ................................................................................................................................................
Wildfires, Natural .....................................................................................................................................................
1,728
65
51
7,148
429
5,795
203
13,095
1,336
20
50
2,471
399
5,211
79
12,501
Total—All Sources ............................................................................................................................................
28,513
22,066
Lastly, Alaska has various provisions
and regulations to ensure that SO2
emissions are not expected to
substantially increase in the future,
further supporting the EPA’s proposed
conclusion that emissions from the state
will not have downwind interstate
transport impacts. The EPA reviewed
regulatory provisions to control future
new sources of SO2 emissions in Alaska.
As previously discussed with respect to
NO2, Alaska’s PSD/NSR program was
originally approved by the EPA on
February 16, 1995 (60 FR 8943) and
updates to Alaska’s PSD/NSR program
were most recently approved by the
EPA on August 28, 2017 (82 FR 40712).
The minor NSR program was also
updated on August 28, 2017 (82 FR
40712). These rules help ensure that no
new or modified source of SO2 will
cause or contribute to violation of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Based on the analysis provided by
Alaska DEC in its SIP submission and
the factors discussed above, the EPA
proposes to find that sources or
emissions activity within the state will
not contribute significantly to
nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
in any other state.
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. Proposed Action
The EPA has reviewed the March 10,
2016, submittal from the Alaska DEC
demonstrating that sources in Alaska do
not significantly contribute to
nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the 2010 NO2 and SO2
NAAQS in any other state. Based on our
review, we are proposing to find that the
Alaska SIP meets the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements for the 2010 NO2 and SO2
NAAQS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:33 Apr 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal
regulations.13 Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this proposed action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements, and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because actions such as SIP
approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
13 42
PO 00000
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
this rulemaking does not involve
technical standards; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action does
not 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. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Sulfur dioxide,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: April 13, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018–08426 Filed 4–20–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 78 (Monday, April 23, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17627-17630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08426]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0590; FRL-9977-06-Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; AK; Interstate Transport Requirements for the
2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation (Alaska DEC) demonstrating
that the SIP meets certain interstate transport requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) promulgated in 2010 for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and
sulfur dioxide (SO2). The EPA proposes to determine that
Alaska's SIP contains adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions
in Alaska do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with the maintenance of the 2010 NO2 and SO2
NAAQS in any other state.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2016-0590, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from regulations.gov. 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 the disclosure of which 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, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Chi, Air Planning Unit, Office of
Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 6th
Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: 206-553-1185; email
address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Information is organized as follows:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. State Submittal
III. EPA Evaluation
A. NO2 Interstate Transport
B. SO2 Interstate Transport
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On January 22, 2010, the EPA established a primary NO2
NAAQS at 100 parts per billion (ppb), averaged over one hour and based
on a 3-year average, supplementing the existing annual standard (75 FR
6474). On June 22, 2010, the EPA established a new primary 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS at 75 ppb based on a 3-year average (75 FR 35520).
Within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, states
must submit SIPs meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
(2), often referred to as infrastructure requirements. Section 110(a)
of the CAA requires states to make a SIP submission to the EPA for a
new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of individual state submissions
may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. The content of the
revisions proposed in such SIP submissions may also vary
[[Page 17628]]
depending upon what provisions the state's approved SIP already
contains. The EPA approved the Alaska SIP as meeting all infrastructure
requirements for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS,
except for the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
provisions which we explained we would address in a separate action (82
FR 22081, May 12, 2017).
The EPA's most recent infrastructure SIP guidance, the September
13, 2013, ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' did
not explicitly include criteria for how the Agency would evaluate
infrastructure SIP submissions intended to address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\1\ With respect to certain pollutants, such as
ozone and particulate matter, the EPA has addressed interstate
transport in eastern states in the context of regional rulemaking
actions that quantify state emission reduction obligations.\2\ In other
actions, such as EPA action on western state SIPs addressing ozone and
particulate matter, the EPA has considered a variety of factors on a
case-by-case basis to determine whether emissions from one state
interfere with the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state. In such actions, the EPA has considered available information
such as current air quality, emissions data and trends, meteorology,
and topography.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ At the time the September 13, 2013, guidance was issued, EPA
was litigating challenges raised with respect to its Cross State Air
Pollution Rule (``CSAPR''), 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011), designed to
address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements with respect to the 1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. CSAPR was vacated and remanded by the D.C.
Circuit in 2012 pursuant to EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA,
696 F.3d 7. EPA subsequently sought review of the D.C. Circuit's
decision by the Supreme Court, which was granted in June 2013. As
EPA was in the process of litigating the interpretation of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at the time the infrastructure SIP guidance was
issued, EPA did not issue guidance specific to that provision. The
Supreme Court subsequently vacated the D.C. Circuit's decision and
remanded the case to that court for further review. 134 S. Ct. 1584
(2014). On July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision
upholding CSAPR, but remanding certain elements for reconsideration.
795 F.3d 118.
\2\ Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) SIP Call, 63 FR 57371
(October 27, 1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172
(May 12, 2005); CSAPR, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
\3\ See, e.g., Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; State of California; Interstate Transport of Pollution;
Significant Contribution to Nonattainment and Interference With
Maintenance Requirements, Proposed Rule, 76 FR 146516, 14616-14626
(March 17, 2011); Final Rule, 76 FR 34872 (June 15, 2011); Approval
and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of Colorado;
Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, Proposed Rule, 80 FR 27121, 27124-27125 (May
12, 2015); Final Rule, 80 FR 47862 (August 10, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For other pollutants such as lead (Pb), the EPA has suggested that
the applicable interstate transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) can be met through a state's assessment as to
whether or not emissions from Pb sources located in close proximity to
its borders have emissions that impact a neighboring state such that
they contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in that state. For example, the EPA noted in an October 14,
2011, memorandum titled, ``Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS),'' \4\ that the physical properties of Pb prevent its
emissions from experiencing the same travel or formation phenomena as
PM2.5 or ozone, and there is a sharp decrease in Pb
concentrations, at least in the coarse fraction, as the distance from a
Pb source increases. Accordingly, while it may be possible for a source
in a state to emit Pb in a location and in quantities that may
contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state, the EPA anticipates that this would be
a rare situation, e.g., where large sources are in close proximity to
state boundaries.\5\ Our rationale and explanation for approving the
applicable interstate transport requirements under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, consistent with the EPA's
interpretation of the October 14, 2011, guidance document, can be
found, among other instances, in the proposed approval and a subsequent
final approval of interstate transport SIPs submitted by Illinois,
Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.\6\ In summary, the EPA's approaches
to addressing interstate transport for NAAQS pollutants has been based
on the characteristics of the pollutant, the interstate problem
presented by emissions of that pollutant, the sources that emit the
pollutant, and the information available to assess transport of that
pollutant. The EPA's review and action on Alaska's CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport SIP revisions for the 2010
NO2 and SO2 NAAQS is informed by these
considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20111014_page_lead_caa_110_infrastructure_guidance.pdf.
\5\ Id. at pp 7-8.
\6\ See 79 FR 27241 at 27249 (May 13, 2014) and 79 FR 41439
(July 16, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 10, 2016, the Alaska DEC submitted a SIP revision to
address these remaining CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate
transport provisions, also called ``good neighbor'' provisions. The
first element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that for a new
or revised NAAQS the SIP contains adequate measures to prohibit any
source or other type of emissions activity within the state from
emitting air pollutants that will ``contribute significantly to
nonattainment'' of the NAAQS in another state. The second element of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that the SIP prohibits any
source or other type of emissions activity in the state from emitting
pollutants that will ``interfere with maintenance'' of the applicable
NAAQS in any other state.
II. State Submittal
The state addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by providing
information supporting the conclusion that emissions from Alaska do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2010 1-hour NO2 and 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The
Alaska DEC provided the same justification to address both
SO2 and NO2 interstate transport.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA notes Alaska's submission with respect to the
SO2 NAAQS indicates that the state is not subject to
EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) or Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR). While EPA appreciates this information, neither CAIR
nor CSAPR addressed the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17629]]
The state's submittal noted that Alaska's southern-most border is
separated by over 600 miles (966 km) of mountainous terrain in Canada's
Province of British Columbia separating the southeastern border of
Alaska from the nearest state, Washington. The state's submittal also
noted that in Alaska, the regional, predominant low pressure wind
patterns emanate from the Gulf of Alaska in the west and travel inland
towards the east, circulating in a counterclockwise direction. The
Alaska DEC concluded that based on distance from other states and
weather patterns, Alaska does not significantly contribute to
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2010
NO2, and SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
III. EPA Evaluation
A. NO2 Interstate Transport
In addition to reviewing Alaska's submittal, the EPA reviewed
recent monitoring data for NO2 throughout the United States.
Using previous EPA methodology, the EPA evaluated specific monitors
identified as having nonattainment and/or maintenance problems, which
we refer to as ``receptors.'' \8\ The EPA identifies nonattainment
receptors as any monitor that has violated the NO2 NAAQS in
the most recent three-year period (2014-2016). Meanwhile, the EPA
identifies NO2 maintenance receptors as any monitor that
violated the NO2 NAAQS in--either of the prior monitoring
cycles (2012-2014 and 2013-2015), but attained in the most recent
monitoring cycle. During the three most recent design value \9\ periods
of 2012 through 2014, 2013 through 2015, and 2014 through 2016, we
found no monitors violating the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in the United
States.\10\ Accordingly, the EPA found no monitors meeting the criteria
as a nonattainment receptor and/or as a maintenance receptor.
Furthermore, we note that available information indicates that
monitored values are well below the 100 ppb 1-hour NO2 NAAQS
in Washington, the state closest to Alaska, with a 3-year average of 28
ppb during 2014-2016 at the Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA, monitor (AQS
Site ID 530570018).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998);
CAIR, 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and Transport Rule or Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
\9\ A ``Design Value'' is a statistic that describes the air
quality status of a given location relative to the level of the
NAAQS. The interpretation of the primary 2010 SO2 NAAQS
(set at 75 parts per billion (ppb)) including the data handling
conventions and calculations necessary for determining compliance
with the NAAQS can be found in Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50.
\10\ https://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also reviewed regulatory provisions to control future new
sources of NOX emissions in Alaska. Alaska's Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD)/New Source Review (NSR) program was
originally approved by the EPA on February 16, 1995 (60 FR 8943).
Updates to Alaska's PSD/NSR program were most recently approved by the
EPA on January 7, 2015 (80 FR 832). The minor NSR program was most
recently updated on May 27, 2016 (80 FR 30161). These rules help ensure
that no new or modified source of NOX will cause or
contribute to violation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The EPA
proposes to conclude that emissions from Alaska will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2010
NO2 NAAQS in any other state. As previously noted, the EPA
already approved the Alaska SIP as meeting the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) interstate transport provisions (commonly called
prongs 3 & 4) on May 12, 2017 (82 FR 22081).
B. SO2 Interstate Transport
In addition to reviewing Alaska's submittal, the EPA reviewed: (1)
SO2 ambient air quality and emissions trends; (2) SIP-
approved regulations specific to SO2 and permitting
requirements; and, (3) other SIP-approved or federally enforceable
regulations that while not directly intended to address or reduce
SO2, may yield reductions of the pollutant.
Despite being emitted from a similar universe of point and nonpoint
sources, interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the transport
of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) or ozone. As the EPA has
addressed in other actions, SO2 is not a regional mixing
pollutant that commonly contributes to widespread nonattainment of the
SO2 NAAQS over a large (and often multi-state) area. From an
air quality management perspective, the 2010 SO2 NAAQS can
be considered to be a largely ``source-oriented'' NAAQS rather than a
``regional'' one (79 FR 27445). Geographically, Alaska is approximately
850 km (528 miles) from the nearest state, Washington, and
approximately 2,800 km (1,740 miles) from the nearest SO2
nonattainment area in Gilia County, Arizona, for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. Given the distance from the nearest state,
Washington, the EPA believes that emissions from Alaska will not
interfere with the maintenance in another states. Therefore, the EPA
proposes to agree with Alaska DEC that based on distance, emissions
activity from Alaska will not significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in any other
state.
While the State of Alaska has no areas which would require
SO2 monitoring under 40 CFR 58, Appendix D, paragraph 4.4.2
(requirement for monitoring by the population weighted emissions
index), monitored ambient air quality values for SO2 are
available at Alaska's National Core Multi-pollutant Monitoring Station,
(NCore), in Fairbanks, Alaska. These data indicate the monitored values
of SO2 at this site have remained below the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. Relevant data from EPA's Air Quality System \11\
(AQS) Design Value (DV) \12\ reports for recent and complete 3-year
periods are summarized in Table 1. The design value for the Fairbanks
monitor has decreased from 42 ppb in 2014 to 36 ppb in 2016, below 50%
of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) contains ambient air
pollution data collected by EPA, state, local, and tribal air
pollution control agencies. See https://www.epa.gov/aqs.
\12\ A ``Design Value'' is a statistic that describes the air
quality status of a given location relative to the level of the
NAAQS. The interpretation of the primary 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS (set at 75 parts per billion [ppb]) including the data
handling conventions and calculations necessary for determining
compliance with the NAAQS can be found in Appendix T to 40 CFR part
50.
Table 1--Trend in 3-Year SO2 Design Values for AQS Monitor in Alaska
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012-2014 2013-2015 2014-2016
AQS monitor site City (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
02-090-0034........................... Fairbanks............... 42 37 36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NEI data summaries for Alaska have shown a decrease in the
total statewide SO2 emissions by 6,447 tons per year, from
2011 to 2014 (Table 2). The highest source sector for both 2011 and
2014 inventory years was natural
[[Page 17630]]
wildfires. The decreasing trend in the NEI data support our proposed
conclusion that Alaska does not contribute to the nonattainment of
SO2 in other states and does not interfere with the
maintenance of SO2 in others states.
Table 2--Summary of NEI SO2 Data for Alaska
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source sector 2011 (tpy) 2014 (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area, Excluding Wildfires............... 1,728 1,336
Non-Road................................ 65 20
On-Road................................. 51 50
Commercial Marine Vessels............... 7,148 2,471
Aviation (Aircraft & GSE)............... 429 399
Point................................... 5,795 5,211
Wildfires, Prescribed................... 203 79
Wildfires, Natural...................... 13,095 12,501
-------------------------------
Total--All Sources.................. 28,513 22,066
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, Alaska has various provisions and regulations to ensure
that SO2 emissions are not expected to substantially
increase in the future, further supporting the EPA's proposed
conclusion that emissions from the state will not have downwind
interstate transport impacts. The EPA reviewed regulatory provisions to
control future new sources of SO2 emissions in Alaska. As
previously discussed with respect to NO2, Alaska's PSD/NSR
program was originally approved by the EPA on February 16, 1995 (60 FR
8943) and updates to Alaska's PSD/NSR program were most recently
approved by the EPA on August 28, 2017 (82 FR 40712). The minor NSR
program was also updated on August 28, 2017 (82 FR 40712). These rules
help ensure that no new or modified source of SO2 will cause
or contribute to violation of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Based on the analysis provided by Alaska DEC in its SIP submission
and the factors discussed above, the EPA proposes to find that sources
or emissions activity within the state will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
IV. Proposed Action
The EPA has reviewed the March 10, 2016, submittal from the Alaska
DEC demonstrating that sources in Alaska do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2010
NO2 and SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Based on
our review, we are proposing to find that the Alaska SIP meets the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the
2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations.\13\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's
role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria
of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law
as meeting Federal requirements, and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because actions such as SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and
Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action does not 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. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Sulfur
dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 13, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018-08426 Filed 4-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
