Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for the 1997 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 4407-4411 [2019-02543]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 32 / Friday, February 15, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
maintenance of the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS in downwind
states. EPA requests comment on this
proposed approval of Florida’s SIP.16
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely proposes to approve state
law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this proposed
action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
16 EPA is not reopening for comment final
determinations made in the CSAPR Update or the
modeling conducted to support that rulemaking.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Feb 14, 2019
Jkt 247001
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other
area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), nor will it impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 5, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019–02542 Filed 2–14–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0799; FRL–9989–58–
Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Regional
Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for
the 1997 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2,
and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to take the
following four actions regarding the
Kentucky State Implementation Plan
(SIP): Approve Kentucky’s November
16, 2018, SIP submittal seeking to
change reliance from the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) to the Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for certain
regional haze requirements; convert
EPA’s limited approval/limited
disapproval of Kentucky’s regional haze
plan to a full approval; remove EPA’s
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for
Kentucky which replaced reliance on
CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to
address the deficiencies identified in
the limited disapproval of Kentucky’s
regional haze plan; and approve the
visibility prong of Kentucky’s
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4407
infrastructure SIP submittals for the
1997 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2), 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and
2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before March 18, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No EPA–R04–
OAR–2018–0799 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:
Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Notarianni can
be reached by telephone at (404) 562–
9031 or via electronic mail at
notarianni.michele@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Regional Haze Plans and Their
Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR
Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) requires states to
submit regional haze plans that contain
such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress towards the
natural visibility goal, including a
requirement that certain categories of
existing major stationary sources built
between 1962 and 1977 procure, install,
and operate Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) as determined by
the state. Under the Regional Haze Rule
(RHR), states are directed to conduct
BART determinations for such ‘‘BART-
E:\FR\FM\15FEP1.SGM
15FEP1
4408
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 32 / Friday, February 15, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
eligible’’ sources that may be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in a Class I area.
Rather than requiring source-specific
BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading
program or other alternative program as
long as the alternative provides greater
reasonable progress towards improving
visibility than BART. See 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2). EPA provided states with
this flexibility in the RHR, adopted in
1999, and further refined the criteria for
assessing whether an alternative
program provides for greater reasonable
progress in two subsequent
rulemakings. See 64 FR 35714 (July 1,
1999); 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005); 71 FR
60612 (October 13, 2006).
EPA demonstrated that CAIR would
achieve greater reasonable progress than
BART in revisions to the regional haze
program made in 2005.1 See 70 FR 39104
(July 6, 2005). In those revisions, EPA
amended its regulations to provide that
states participating in the CAIR cap-andtrade programs pursuant to an EPAapproved CAIR SIP or states that remain
subject to a CAIR FIP need not require
affected BART-eligible electric
generating units (EGUs) to install,
operate, and maintain BART for
emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides
(NOX). As a result of EPA’s
determination that CAIR was ‘‘betterthan-BART,’’ a number of states in the
CAIR region, including Kentucky, relied
on the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as
an alternative to BART for EGU
emissions of SO2 and NOX in designing
their regional haze plans. These states
also relied on CAIR as an element of a
long-term strategy (LTS) for achieving
their reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
for their regional haze programs.
However, in 2008, the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit)
remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur
to preserve the environmental benefits
provided by CAIR. North Carolina v.
EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir.
2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208),
acting on the D.C. Circuit’s remand, EPA
promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR
and issued FIPs to implement the rule
in CSAPR-subject states.2
1 CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to
reduce SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states
(and the District of Columbia), including Kentucky,
that contributed to downwind nonattainment or
interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
2 CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their
statewide emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to
mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully
impacting other states’ ability to attain or maintain
four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Feb 14, 2019
Jkt 247001
Implementation of CSAPR was
scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012,
when CSAPR would have superseded
the CAIR program.
Due to the D.C. Circuit’s 2008 ruling
that CAIR was ‘‘fatally flawed’’ and its
resulting status as a temporary measure
following that ruling, EPA could not
fully approve regional haze plans to the
extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy
the BART requirement and the
requirement for a LTS sufficient to
achieve the state-adopted RPGs. On
these grounds, on June 7, 2012 (77 FR
33642), EPA promulgated a FIP to
replace reliance on CAIR with reliance
on CSAPR to address the deficiencies in
Kentucky’s regional haze plan.3 EPA
had already finalized a limited
disapproval of Kentucky’s regional haze
plan on March 30, 2012 (77 FR 19098)
due to the deficiencies created by the
plan’s reliance on CAIR for certain
regional haze requirements.4 In the
same March 30, 2012, action, EPA also
finalized a limited approval of the
Commonwealth’s regional haze plan as
meeting the remaining applicable
regional haze requirements set forth in
the CAA and the RHR.
In the June 7, 2012, action, EPA also
amended the RHR to provide that
participation by a state’s EGUs in a
CSAPR trading program for a given
pollutant—either a CSAPR federal
trading program implemented through a
CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state
trading program implemented through
an approved CSAPR SIP revision—
qualifies as a BART alternative for those
EGUs for that pollutant. See 40 CFR
51.308(e)(4). Since EPA promulgated
this amendment, numerous states
covered by CSAPR have come to rely on
the provision through either SIPs or
FIPs.5
CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms
of maximum statewide ‘‘budgets’’ for emissions of
annual SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX
by each covered state’s large EGUs. The CSAPR
state budgets are implemented in two phases of
generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1
budgets applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016
and the Phase 2 budgets applying to emissions in
2017 and later years.
3 Throughout this document, references to
Kentucky’s (or the Commonwealth’s) ‘‘regional haze
plan’’ refer to Kentucky’s original June 25, 2008,
regional haze SIP submittal, as later amended in a
SIP revision submitted on May 28, 2010.
4 On May 11, 2012, EPA published a final rule
correcting an inadvertent error in the March 30,
2012, rule regarding the entry for Kentucky’s
regional haze plan in the table of non-regulatory
provisions at 40 CFR 52.920(e). See 77 FR 27626.
5 In 2012, EPA promulgated FIPs relying on
CSAPR participation for BART purposes for several
states, including Kentucky. See e.g., 77 FR33654.
EPA has also approved SIPs from several states
relying on CSAPR participation for BART purposes.
See, e.g., 82 FR 47393 (October 12, 2017) (Alabama);
82 FR 47930 (October 13, 2017) (Georgia); and 83
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Numerous parties filed petitions for
review of CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit,
and on August 21, 2012, the court
issued its ruling, vacating and
remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering
continued implementation of CAIR.
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v.
EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The
D.C. Circuit’s vacatur of CSAPR was
reversed by the United States Supreme
Court on April 29, 2014, and the case
was remanded to the D.C. Circuit to
resolve remaining issues in accordance
with the high court’s ruling. EPA v. EME
Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct.
1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C.
Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most
respects, but invalidated without
vacating some of the CSAPR budgets to
a number of states. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118
(D.C. Cir. 2015). The remanded budgets
included the Phase 2 SO2 emissions
budgets for four states and the Phase 2
ozone-season NOX budgets for 11 states.
This litigation ultimately delayed
implementation of CSAPR for three
years, from January 1, 2012, when
CSAPR’s cap-and-trade programs were
originally scheduled to replace the CAIR
cap-and-trade programs, to January 1,
2015. Thus, the rule’s Phase 2 budgets
that were originally promulgated to
begin on January 1, 2014, began on
January 1, 2017. EPA has now taken all
actions necessary to address the
remanded CSAPR budgets.
On September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45481),
EPA issued a final rule affirming the
continued validity of the Agency’s 2012
determination that participation in
CSAPR meets the RHR’s criteria for an
alternative to the application of sourcespecific BART.6 In that action, EPA
determined that changes to CSAPR’s
geographic scope resulting from the
actions EPA has taken in response to the
D.C. Circuit’s budget remand do not
affect the continued validity of
participation in CSAPR as a BART
alternative.
Kentucky’s November 16, 2018, SIP
submittal seeks to correct the
deficiencies identified in the March 30,
2012, limited disapproval of its regional
haze plan by replacing reliance on CAIR
with reliance on CSAPR. EPA is
proposing to approve Kentucky’s
request that EPA amend the
Commonwealth’s regional haze plan by
replacing its reliance on CAIR with
CSAPR. EPA is proposing to approve
FR 48237 (September 24, 2018) (South Carolina and
Tennessee).
6 Legal challenges to this rule are pending. Nat’l
Parks Conservation Ass’n v. EPA, No. 17–1253 (D.C.
Cir. filed November 28, 2017).
E:\FR\FM\15FEP1.SGM
15FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 32 / Friday, February 15, 2019 / Proposed Rules
this SIP submittal and amend the SIP
accordingly.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Infrastructure SIPs
By statute, plans meeting the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA are to be submitted by
states within three years (or less, if the
Administrator so prescribes) 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
monitoring, basic program
requirements, and legal authority that
are designed to assure attainment and
maintenance of the newly established or
revised NAAQS. More specifically,
section 110(a)(1) provides the
procedural and timing requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions. 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 ensuring
compliance with sections 115 and 126
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Feb 14, 2019
Jkt 247001
of the Act, relating to interstate and
international pollution abatement.
Through this action, EPA is proposing
to approve the prong 4 portions of
Kentucky’s infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 1997 ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,
as discussed in section III of this notice.
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 this proposal is provided
below. For comprehensive information
on these NAAQS, please refer to the
Federal Register notices cited in the
following subsections.
1. 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
On July 16, 1997, EPA promulgated a
new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour
average concentrations. The 8-hour
averaging period replaced the previous
1-hour averaging period, and the level of
the NAAQS was changed from 0.12
parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm.
See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). States
were required to submit infrastructure
SIP submissions for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than July
16, 2000. For the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, EPA is proposing to approve
the prong 4 element of the infrastructure
SIP submission submitted by Kentucky
on December 13, 2007.7
2. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the 1hour primary SO2 NAAQS to an hourly
standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb)
based on a 3-year average of the annual
99th percentile of 1-hour daily
maximum concentrations. See 75 FR
35520 (June 22, 2010). States were
required to submit infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2,
2013. For the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS,
EPA is proposing to approve prong 4 of
the infrastructure SIP submission
submitted by Kentucky on April 26,
2013.8
3. 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS
On January 22, 2010, EPA
promulgated a new 1-hour primary
NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 ppb,
based on a 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of the yearly distribution of 1hour daily maximum concentrations.
See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010).
7 EPA approved portions of Kentucky’s December
13, 2007, 1997 8-hour ozone infrastructure
submission in a separate action. See 76 FR 41088
(July 13, 2011).
8 EPA approved portions of Kentucky’s April 26,
2013, SO2 infrastructure submission in a separate
action. See 81 FR 87817 (December 6, 2016).
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4409
States were required to submit
infrastructure SIP submissions for the
2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no
later than January 22, 2013. For the 2010
1-hour NO2 NAAQS, EPA is proposing
to approve the prong 4 element of the
infrastructure SIP submission submitted
by Kentucky on April 26, 2013.9
4. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
On December 14, 2012, EPA revised
the annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS to
12.0 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/
m3). See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
States were required to submit
infrastructure SIP submissions for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than
December 14, 2015. For the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, EPA is proposing to approve
prong 4 of the infrastructure SIP
submission submitted by Kentucky on
February 8, 2016.10
II. What are the prong 4 requirements?
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
requires a state’s implementation plan
to contain provisions prohibiting
sources in that state from emitting
pollutants in amounts that interfere
with any other state’s efforts to protect
visibility under part C of the CAA
(which includes sections 169A and
169B). EPA most recently issued
guidance for infrastructure SIPs on
September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).11
The 2013 Guidance states that these
prong 4 requirements can be satisfied by
approved SIP provisions that EPA has
found to adequately address any
contribution of that state’s sources that
impacts the visibility program
requirements in other states. The 2013
Guidance also states that EPA interprets
this prong to be pollutant-specific, such
that the infrastructure SIP submission
need only address the potential for
interference with protection of visibility
caused by the pollutant (including
precursors) to which the new or revised
NAAQS applies.
The 2013 Guidance lays out how a
state’s infrastructure SIP submission
may satisfy prong 4. One way that a
state can meet the requirements is via
confirmation in its infrastructure SIP
submission that the state has an
approved regional haze plan that fully
9 EPA approved portions of Kentucky’s April 26,
2013, NO2 infrastructure submission in separate
actions. See 81 FR 83152 (November 21, 2016) and
80 FR 14019 (March 18, 2015).
10 EPA approved portions of Kentucky’s February
8, 2016, PM2.5 infrastructure submission in separate
actions. See 82 FR 37012 (August 8, 2017) and 83
FR 48387 (September 25, 2018).
11 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13,
2013.
E:\FR\FM\15FEP1.SGM
15FEP1
4410
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 32 / Friday, February 15, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308 or 40 CFR 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308
and 51.309 specifically require that a
state participating in a regional planning
process include all measures needed to
achieve its apportionment of emission
reduction obligations agreed upon
through that process. A fully approved
regional haze plan will ensure that
emissions from sources under an air
agency’s jurisdiction are not interfering
with measures required to be included
in other air agencies’ plans to protect
visibility.
Alternatively, in the absence of a fully
approved regional haze plan, a state
may meet the requirements of prong 4
through a demonstration in its
infrastructure SIP submission that
emissions within its jurisdiction do not
interfere with other air agencies’ plans
to protect visibility. Such an
infrastructure SIP submission would
need to include measures to limit
visibility-impairing pollutants and
ensure that the reductions conform with
any mutually agreed regional haze RPGs
for mandatory Class I areas in other
states.
III. What is EPA’s analysis of how
Kentucky addressed prong 4 and
regional haze?
The Commonwealth’s December 13,
2007, 1997 8-hour ozone submission;
April 26, 2013, 2010 1-hour NO2 and
2010 1-hour SO2 submission; and
February 8, 2016, 2012 annual PM2.5
submission rely on Kentucky’s regional
haze plan to satisfy its prong 4
requirements. However, EPA has not
fully approved Kentucky’s regional haze
plan as the Agency issued a limited
disapproval of the plan on March 30,
2012 (77 FR 19098), due to its reliance
on CAIR. Kentucky submitted a SIP
revision on November 16, 2018, to
replace reliance on CAIR with reliance
on CSAPR for certain regional haze
provisions.
EPA is proposing to approve the
Commonwealth’s November 16, 2018,
SIP revision replacing reliance on CAIR
with CSAPR, and to convert EPA’s
previous action on Kentucky’s regional
haze plan from a limited approval/
limited disapproval to a full approval
because final approval of the SIP
revision would correct the deficiencies
that led to EPA’s limited approval/
limited disapproval of the
Commonwealth’s regional haze plan.
Specifically, EPA’s approval of
Kentucky’s November 16, 2018, SIP
revision would satisfy the SO2 and NOX
BART requirements; the
Commonwealth’s reasonable progress
obligations with respect to SO2
emissions from EGUs formerly subject
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Feb 14, 2019
Jkt 247001
to CAIR; and, in part, the requirement
that the Commonwealth’s LTS contain
the measures necessary to achieve
reasonable progress. Thus, EPA is also
proposing to remove EPA’s FIP for
Kentucky which replaced reliance on
CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to
address the deficiencies identified in
the limited disapproval of Kentucky’s
regional haze plan. Because a state may
satisfy prong 4 requirements through a
fully approved regional haze plan, EPA
is therefore also proposing to approve
the prong 4 portion of Kentucky’s
December 13, 2007, 1997 8-hour ozone
submission; April 26, 2013, 2010 1-hour
NO2 and 2010 1-hour SO2 submission;
and February 8, 2016, 2012 annual
PM2.5 submission.
IV. Proposed Action
As described above, EPA is proposing
to take the following actions: (1)
Approve Kentucky’s November 16,
2018, SIP submission to change reliance
from CAIR to CSAPR in its regional haze
plan; (2) convert EPA’s limited
approval/limited disapproval of
Kentucky’s regional haze plan to a full
approval; (3) remove EPA’s FIP for
Kentucky which replaced reliance on
CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to
address the deficiencies identified in
the limited disapproval of Kentucky’s
regional haze plan; and (4) approve the
prong 4 portion of Kentucky’s December
13, 2007, 1997 8-hour ozone
submission; April 26, 2013, 2010 1-hour
NO2 and 2010 1-hour SO2 submission;
and February 8, 2016, 2012 annual
PM2.5 submission. All other applicable
infrastructure requirements for the
infrastructure SIP submissions have
been or will be addressed in separate
rulemakings.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided they meet the criteria of the
CAA. These actions merely propose to
approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and remove a FIP and do
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, these proposed actions:
• Are not significant regulatory
actions 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);
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Are not Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
actions because these actions are either
exempted or not significant under
Executive Order 12866;
• Do not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Are 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.);
• Do 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);
• Do not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Are not economically significant
regulatory actions based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not significant regulatory
actions subject to Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Do not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed actions do not
have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), nor will they
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
E:\FR\FM\15FEP1.SGM
15FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 32 / Friday, February 15, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Dated: February 5, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019–02543 Filed 2–14–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0523; FRL–9989–57–
Region 4]
Air Plan Approval and Designation of
Areas; FL; Redesignation of the
Nassau County 2010 1-Hour Sulfur
Dioxide Nonattainment Area to
Attainment
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In a letter dated June 7, 2018,
the State of Florida, through the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP), submitted a request for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to redesignate the Nassau County sulfur
dioxide (SO2) nonattainment area
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Nassau
County Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’) to attainment
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 primary
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) and to approve an
accompanying state implementation
plan (SIP) revision containing a
maintenance plan for the Area. The
submittal was received by EPA on June
12, 2018. EPA is proposing to determine
that the Nassau County Area attained
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS by its
applicable attainment date of October 4,
2018; to approve the SIP revision
containing the State’s plan for
maintaining attainment of the 2010 1hour SO2 standard and to incorporate
the maintenance plan into the SIP; and
to redesignate the Nassau County Area
to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received on
or before March 18, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2018–0523 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,
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Feb 14, 2019
Jkt 247001
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:
Madolyn Sanchez, 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. Ms. Sanchez may
be reached by phone at (404) 562–9644
or via electronic mail at
sanchez.madolyn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. What are the actions EPA is
proposing to take?
EPA is proposing to take the following
three separate but related actions: (1) To
determine that the Nassau County Area
attained the 2010 SO2 NAAQS by its
applicable attainment date of October 4,
2018; (2) to approve Florida’s
maintenance plan for maintaining the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the Area
and incorporate it into the SIP; and (3)
to redesignate the Nassau County Area
to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. The Nassau County Area is
comprised of the portion of Nassau
County encompassing the circular
boundary with the center being
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)
Easting 455530 meters, UTM Northing
3391737 meters, UTM zone 17, using
the NAD83 datum (the location of the
ambient SO2 monitor in the Area) and
the radius being 2.4 kilometers (km).
The only point source of SO2 emissions
within the Nassau County Area is a pulp
and paper mill—Rayonier Performance
Fibers, LLC Fernandina Beach Sulfite
Pulp Mill (Rayonier). An additional
pulp and paper mill—WestRock CP,
LLC Fernandina Beach Mill
(WestRock)—is located immediately
adjacent to the Area and is the largest
source of SO2 within 25 km outside of
the nonattainment area.
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Nassau County Area attained the
2010 SO2 NAAQS by its applicable
attainment date of October 4, 2018. EPA
is also proposing to approve Florida’s
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4411
SIP revision containing the maintenance
plan for the Nassau County Area in
accordance with the requirements of
section 175A of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act). The maintenance plan
submitted with Florida’s request for
redesignation is intended to help keep
the Nassau County Area in attainment of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS through
the year 2032.
EPA is also proposing to determine
that the Nassau County Area has met the
requirements for redesignation under
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
approve a request to change the legal
designation of the portion of Nassau
County that is designated nonattainment
to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS.
II. Background
On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the
primary SO2 NAAQS, establishing a
new 1-hour SO2 standard of 75 parts per
billion (ppb). See 75 FR 35520 (June 22,
2010). Under EPA’s regulations at 40
CFR part 50, the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS is met at a monitoring site
when the 3-year average of the annual
99th percentile of daily maximum 1hour average concentrations is less than
or equal to 75 ppb (based on the
rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50,
appendix T). See 40 CFR 50.17.
Ambient air quality monitoring data for
the 3-year period must meet a data
completeness requirement. A year meets
data completeness requirements when
all four quarters are complete, and a
quarter is complete when at least 75
percent of the sampling days for each
quarter have complete data. A sampling
day has complete data if 75 percent of
the hourly concentration values,
including state-flagged data affected by
exceptional events which have been
approved for exclusion by the
Administrator, are reported.1
Upon promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA
to designate as nonattainment any area
that does not meet (or that contributes
to ambient air quality in a nearby area
that does not meet) the NAAQS. EPA
designated the Area as nonattainment
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS,
effective on October 4, 2013, using
2009–2011 complete, quality assured,
and certified ambient air quality data.
See 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013).
Under the CAA, nonattainment areas
must attain the NAAQS as expeditiously
as practicable but not later than five
years after the October 4, 2013, effective
date of the designation. See CAA section
192(a). Therefore, the Nassau County
1 See
E:\FR\FM\15FEP1.SGM
40 CFR part 50, appendix T, section 3(b).
15FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 32 (Friday, February 15, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4407-4411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02543]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0799; FRL-9989-58-Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4
(Visibility) for the 1997 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to take
the following four actions regarding the Kentucky State Implementation
Plan (SIP): Approve Kentucky's November 16, 2018, SIP submittal seeking
to change reliance from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for certain regional haze
requirements; convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of
Kentucky's regional haze plan to a full approval; remove EPA's Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) for Kentucky which replaced reliance on CAIR
with reliance on CSAPR to address the deficiencies identified in the
limited disapproval of Kentucky's regional haze plan; and approve the
visibility prong of Kentucky's infrastructure SIP submittals for the
1997 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), 2010 Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2), and 2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 18, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0799 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: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached by telephone
at (404) 562-9031 or via electronic mail at notarianni.michele@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Regional Haze Plans and Their Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR
Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires
states to submit regional haze plans that contain such measures as may
be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility
goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and
operate Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) as determined by the
state. Under the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), states are directed to
conduct BART determinations for such ``BART-
[[Page 4408]]
eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to
any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than requiring
source-specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to
adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program as long
as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards
improving visibility than BART. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA provided
states with this flexibility in the RHR, adopted in 1999, and further
refined the criteria for assessing whether an alternative program
provides for greater reasonable progress in two subsequent rulemakings.
See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005); 71 FR 60612
(October 13, 2006).
EPA demonstrated that CAIR would achieve greater reasonable
progress than BART in revisions to the regional haze program made in
2005.\1\ See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). In those revisions, EPA
amended its regulations to provide that states participating in the
CAIR cap-and-trade programs pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or
states that remain subject to a CAIR FIP need not require affected
BART-eligible electric generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and
maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides
(NOX). As a result of EPA's determination that CAIR was
``better-than-BART,'' a number of states in the CAIR region, including
Kentucky, relied on the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as an alternative
to BART for EGU emissions of SO2 and NOX in
designing their regional haze plans. These states also relied on CAIR
as an element of a long-term strategy (LTS) for achieving their
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for their regional haze programs.
However, in 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur
to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR. North Carolina
v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR
48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to
replace CAIR and issued FIPs to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject
states.\2\ Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1,
2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce
SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states
(and the District of Columbia), including Kentucky, that contributed
to downwind nonattainment or interfered with maintenance of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
\2\ CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their statewide
emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to
mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other
states' ability to attain or maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone
NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR
emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide
``budgets'' for emissions of annual SO2, annual
NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX by each covered
state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state budgets are implemented in two
phases of generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets
applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2 budgets
applying to emissions in 2017 and later years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the D.C. Circuit's 2008 ruling that CAIR was ``fatally
flawed'' and its resulting status as a temporary measure following that
ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze plans to the extent
that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the
requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. On
these grounds, on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), EPA promulgated a FIP to
replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the
deficiencies in Kentucky's regional haze plan.\3\ EPA had already
finalized a limited disapproval of Kentucky's regional haze plan on
March 30, 2012 (77 FR 19098) due to the deficiencies created by the
plan's reliance on CAIR for certain regional haze requirements.\4\ In
the same March 30, 2012, action, EPA also finalized a limited approval
of the Commonwealth's regional haze plan as meeting the remaining
applicable regional haze requirements set forth in the CAA and the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Throughout this document, references to Kentucky's (or the
Commonwealth's) ``regional haze plan'' refer to Kentucky's original
June 25, 2008, regional haze SIP submittal, as later amended in a
SIP revision submitted on May 28, 2010.
\4\ On May 11, 2012, EPA published a final rule correcting an
inadvertent error in the March 30, 2012, rule regarding the entry
for Kentucky's regional haze plan in the table of non-regulatory
provisions at 40 CFR 52.920(e). See 77 FR 27626.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the June 7, 2012, action, EPA also amended the RHR to provide
that participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR trading program for a
given pollutant--either a CSAPR federal trading program implemented
through a CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state trading program
implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision--qualifies as a BART
alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4).
Since EPA promulgated this amendment, numerous states covered by CSAPR
have come to rely on the provision through either SIPs or FIPs.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In 2012, EPA promulgated FIPs relying on CSAPR participation
for BART purposes for several states, including Kentucky. See e.g.,
77 FR33654. EPA has also approved SIPs from several states relying
on CSAPR participation for BART purposes. See, e.g., 82 FR 47393
(October 12, 2017) (Alabama); 82 FR 47930 (October 13, 2017)
(Georgia); and 83 FR 48237 (September 24, 2018) (South Carolina and
Tennessee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C.
Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating
and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of
CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir.
2012). The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United
States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded to
the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the
high court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct.
1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most
respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the CSAPR budgets to
a number of states. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d
118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The remanded budgets included the Phase 2
SO2 emissions budgets for four states and the Phase 2 ozone-
season NOX budgets for 11 states. This litigation ultimately
delayed implementation of CSAPR for three years, from January 1, 2012,
when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs were originally scheduled to
replace the CAIR cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 2015. Thus, the
rule's Phase 2 budgets that were originally promulgated to begin on
January 1, 2014, began on January 1, 2017. EPA has now taken all
actions necessary to address the remanded CSAPR budgets.
On September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45481), EPA issued a final rule
affirming the continued validity of the Agency's 2012 determination
that participation in CSAPR meets the RHR's criteria for an alternative
to the application of source-specific BART.\6\ In that action, EPA
determined that changes to CSAPR's geographic scope resulting from the
actions EPA has taken in response to the D.C. Circuit's budget remand
do not affect the continued validity of participation in CSAPR as a
BART alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Legal challenges to this rule are pending. Nat'l Parks
Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, No. 17-1253 (D.C. Cir. filed November 28,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky's November 16, 2018, SIP submittal seeks to correct the
deficiencies identified in the March 30, 2012, limited disapproval of
its regional haze plan by replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on
CSAPR. EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's request that EPA amend
the Commonwealth's regional haze plan by replacing its reliance on CAIR
with CSAPR. EPA is proposing to approve
[[Page 4409]]
this SIP submittal and amend the SIP accordingly.
B. Infrastructure SIPs
By statute, plans meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years (or
less, if the Administrator so prescribes) 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 monitoring, basic program requirements, and
legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance
of the newly established or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section
110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions. 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 ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the
Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
Through this action, EPA is proposing to approve the prong 4
portions of Kentucky's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 1997
ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, as discussed in section III of this notice. 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 this proposal is
provided below. For comprehensive information on these NAAQS, please
refer to the Federal Register notices cited in the following
subsections.
1. 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
On July 16, 1997, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-
hour average concentrations. The 8-hour averaging period replaced the
previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was
changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm. See 62 FR 38856
(July 18, 1997). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than July
16, 2000. For the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA is proposing to approve
the prong 4 element of the infrastructure SIP submission submitted by
Kentucky on December 13, 2007.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA approved portions of Kentucky's December 13, 2007, 1997
8-hour ozone infrastructure submission in a separate action. See 76
FR 41088 (July 13, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the 1-hour primary SO2
NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-
year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). States were required
to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2, 2013. For the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS, EPA is proposing to approve prong 4 of the
infrastructure SIP submission submitted by Kentucky on April 26,
2013.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ EPA approved portions of Kentucky's April 26, 2013,
SO2 infrastructure submission in a separate action. See
81 FR 87817 (December 6, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS
On January 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for
NO2 at a level of 100 ppb, based on a 3-year average of the
98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). States were required
to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013. For the
2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, EPA is proposing to approve the prong
4 element of the infrastructure SIP submission submitted by Kentucky on
April 26, 2013.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ EPA approved portions of Kentucky's April 26, 2013,
NO2 infrastructure submission in separate actions. See 81
FR 83152 (November 21, 2016) and 80 FR 14019 (March 18, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the annual primary
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\).
See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). States were required to submit
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to
EPA no later than December 14, 2015. For the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, EPA is proposing to approve prong 4 of the infrastructure SIP
submission submitted by Kentucky on February 8, 2016.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ EPA approved portions of Kentucky's February 8, 2016,
PM2.5 infrastructure submission in separate actions. See
82 FR 37012 (August 8, 2017) and 83 FR 48387 (September 25, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. What are the prong 4 requirements?
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a state's implementation
plan to contain provisions prohibiting sources in that state from
emitting pollutants in amounts that interfere with any other state's
efforts to protect visibility under part C of the CAA (which includes
sections 169A and 169B). EPA most recently issued guidance for
infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).\11\ The 2013
Guidance states that these prong 4 requirements can be satisfied by
approved SIP provisions that EPA has found to adequately address any
contribution of that state's sources that impacts the visibility
program requirements in other states. The 2013 Guidance also states
that EPA interprets this prong to be pollutant-specific, such that the
infrastructure SIP submission need only address the potential for
interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant
(including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2013 Guidance lays out how a state's infrastructure SIP
submission may satisfy prong 4. One way that a state can meet the
requirements is via confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission
that the state has an approved regional haze plan that fully
[[Page 4410]]
meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 40 CFR 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308
and 51.309 specifically require that a state participating in a
regional planning process include all measures needed to achieve its
apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through
that process. A fully approved regional haze plan will ensure that
emissions from sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not
interfering with measures required to be included in other air
agencies' plans to protect visibility.
Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze
plan, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a
demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions
within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans
to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need
to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure
that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed regional haze RPGs
for mandatory Class I areas in other states.
III. What is EPA's analysis of how Kentucky addressed prong 4 and
regional haze?
The Commonwealth's December 13, 2007, 1997 8-hour ozone submission;
April 26, 2013, 2010 1-hour NO2 and 2010 1-hour
SO2 submission; and February 8, 2016, 2012 annual
PM2.5 submission rely on Kentucky's regional haze plan to
satisfy its prong 4 requirements. However, EPA has not fully approved
Kentucky's regional haze plan as the Agency issued a limited
disapproval of the plan on March 30, 2012 (77 FR 19098), due to its
reliance on CAIR. Kentucky submitted a SIP revision on November 16,
2018, to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR for certain
regional haze provisions.
EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth's November 16, 2018,
SIP revision replacing reliance on CAIR with CSAPR, and to convert
EPA's previous action on Kentucky's regional haze plan from a limited
approval/limited disapproval to a full approval because final approval
of the SIP revision would correct the deficiencies that led to EPA's
limited approval/limited disapproval of the Commonwealth's regional
haze plan. Specifically, EPA's approval of Kentucky's November 16,
2018, SIP revision would satisfy the SO2 and NOX
BART requirements; the Commonwealth's reasonable progress obligations
with respect to SO2 emissions from EGUs formerly subject to
CAIR; and, in part, the requirement that the Commonwealth's LTS contain
the measures necessary to achieve reasonable progress. Thus, EPA is
also proposing to remove EPA's FIP for Kentucky which replaced reliance
on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the deficiencies identified
in the limited disapproval of Kentucky's regional haze plan. Because a
state may satisfy prong 4 requirements through a fully approved
regional haze plan, EPA is therefore also proposing to approve the
prong 4 portion of Kentucky's December 13, 2007, 1997 8-hour ozone
submission; April 26, 2013, 2010 1-hour NO2 and 2010 1-hour
SO2 submission; and February 8, 2016, 2012 annual
PM2.5 submission.
IV. Proposed Action
As described above, EPA is proposing to take the following actions:
(1) Approve Kentucky's November 16, 2018, SIP submission to change
reliance from CAIR to CSAPR in its regional haze plan; (2) convert
EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of Kentucky's regional haze
plan to a full approval; (3) remove EPA's FIP for Kentucky which
replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the
deficiencies identified in the limited disapproval of Kentucky's
regional haze plan; and (4) approve the prong 4 portion of Kentucky's
December 13, 2007, 1997 8-hour ozone submission; April 26, 2013, 2010
1-hour NO2 and 2010 1-hour SO2 submission; and
February 8, 2016, 2012 annual PM2.5 submission. All other
applicable infrastructure requirements for the infrastructure SIP
submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided they meet the criteria of the CAA. These actions merely
propose to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and remove
a FIP and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, these proposed actions:
Are not significant regulatory actions 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);
Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory actions because these actions are either exempted or
not significant under Executive Order 12866;
Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Are 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.);
Do 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);
Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed
actions do not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will they impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
[[Page 4411]]
Dated: February 5, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019-02543 Filed 2-14-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P