Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Interstate Transport (Prongs 1 and 2) for the 2010 1-Hour NO2, 8645-8647 [2019-04391]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 47 / Monday, March 11, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. This 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 CAA; and
• Does 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 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Mar 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 27, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019–04390 Filed 3–8–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0720; FRL–9990–66–
Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Interstate
Transport (Prongs 1 and 2) for the 2010
1-Hour NO2 Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of
Georgia, through the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division
(Georgia EPD), through a letter dated
July 24, 2018, for the purpose of
addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) ‘‘good neighbor’’ interstate
transport (prongs 1 and 2) infrastructure
SIP requirements for the 2010 1-hour
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) National
Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). The CAA requires that each
state adopt and submit a SIP for the
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by EPA, commonly
referred to as an ‘‘infrastructure SIP.’’
Specifically, EPA is proposing to
approve Georgia’s July 24, 2018, SIP
revision addressing prongs 1 and 2 to
ensure that air emissions in the State do
not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour NO2
NAAQS in any other state.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 10, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2018–0720 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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8645
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:
Evan Adams of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. Adams can be
reached by phone at (404) 562–9009 or
via electronic mail at adams.evan@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On January 22, 2010, EPA established
a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2
at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb),
based on a 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of the yearly distribution of
1-hour daily maximum
concentrations.1 See 75 FR 6474
(February 9, 2010). This NAAQS is
designed to protect against exposure to
the entire group of nitrogen oxides
(NOX). NO2 is the component of greatest
concern and is used as the indicator for
the larger group of NOX. Emissions that
lead to the formation of NO2 generally
also lead to the formation of other NOX.
Therefore, control measures that reduce
NO2 can generally be expected to reduce
population exposures to all gaseous
NOX which may have the co-benefit of
reducing the formation of ozone and
fine particles both of which pose
1 Subsequently, after careful consideration of the
scientific evidence and information available, on
April 18, 2018, EPA published a final action to
retain the current NO2 standard at the 2010 level
of 100 ppb. This action was taken after review of
the full body of available scientific evidence and
information, giving particular weight to the
assessment of the evidence in the 2016 NOX
Integrated Science Assessment; analyses and
considerations in the Policy Assessment; the advice
and recommendations of the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee; and public comments. See 83
FR 17226 (April 18, 2018).
E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM
11MRP1
8646
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 47 / Monday, March 11, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
significant public health threats. For
comprehensive information on the 2010
1-hour NO2 NAAQS, please refer to the
February 9, 2010 Federal Register
notice. See 75 FR 6474.
Whenever EPA promulgates a new or
revised NAAQS, CAA section 110(a)(1)
requires states to make SIP submissions
to provide for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the
NAAQS.2 This particular type of SIP
submission is commonly referred to as
an ‘‘infrastructure SIP.’’ These
submissions must meet the various
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2),
as applicable. Due to ambiguity in some
of the language of CAA section
110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret these provisions
in the specific context of acting on
infrastructure SIP submissions. EPA has
previously provided comprehensive
guidance on the application of these
provisions through a guidance
document for infrastructure SIP
submissions and through regional
actions on infrastructure submissions.3
Unless otherwise noted below, EPA is
following that existing approach in
acting on this submission. In addition,
in the context of acting on such
infrastructure submissions, EPA
evaluates the submitting state’s
implementation plan for compliance
with statutory and regulatory
requirements, not for the state’s
implementation of its SIP.4 EPA has
other authority to address any issues
concerning a state’s implementation of
the rules, regulations, consent orders,
etc. that comprise its SIP.
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
SIPs. 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
2 States were required to submit infrastructure
SIPs for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no
later than January 22, 2013.
3 EPA explains and elaborates on these
ambiguities and its approach to address them in its
September 13, 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance
(available at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/
urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_
Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_
FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf), as well as in numerous
agency actions, including EPA’s prior action on
Georgia’s infrastructure SIP to address other
110(a)(2) elements for the NO2 NAAQS entitled
‘‘Air Plan Approval; GA Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide
National Ambient Air Quality Standards;’’ in the
section ‘‘What is the EPA’s approach to the review
of infrastructure SIP submissions?’’ See 81 FR
41905 at 41906–41909 (June 28, 2017).
4 See Montana Environmental Information Center
v. Thomas, 902 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2018).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Mar 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
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). EPA sometimes refers to
the prong 1 and prong 2 conjointly as
the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provision of the
CAA. 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) and
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.
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).5 With respect to
certain pollutants, such as ozone and
particulate matter (PM), EPA has
addressed interstate transport in eastern
states in the context of regional
rulemaking actions that quantify state
emission reduction obligations.6 For
NO2, EPA has considered available
information from states such as current
air quality, emissions data and trends,
and regulatory provisions that control
source emissions to determine whether
emissions from one state interfere with
the attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS in another state. EPA’s review
5 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 (August 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 United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (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.
6 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and proposed action on Georgia’s CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate
transport SIP revision for the 2010 NO2
NAAQS is informed by these
considerations.
Through this proposed action, EPA is
proposing to approve Georgia’s July 24,
2018, SIP revision addressing the prong
1 and prong 2 requirements for the 2010
1-hour NO2 NAAQS.7 The State
addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
by providing information supporting its
conclusion that emissions from Georgia
do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour NO2
NAAQS. All other applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements for
Georgia for the 2010 1-hour NO2
NAAQS have been addressed in
separate rulemakings. See 80 FR 14019
(March 18, 2015), 81 FR 63106
(September 14, 2016), and 83 FR 19637
(May 4, 2018).
II. What is EPA’s analysis of how
Georgia addressed prongs 1 and 2?
In Georgia’s July 24, 2018, SIP
revision, the State concluded that its SIP
adequately addresses prongs 1 and 2
with respect to the 2010 1-hour NO2
NAAQS. Georgia provides the following
reasons for its determination: (1) There
are SIP-approved and state-only
regulations that directly or indirectly
control NOx emissions; (2) all areas in
the United States are designated as
unclassifiable/attainment for the 2010 1hour NO2 NAAQS; (3) monitored 1-hour
NO2 design values in Georgia and
surrounding states (Alabama, Florida,
North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Tennessee) are below the 2010
standard; 8 and (4) point source
emissions of NOx in the State have
trended downward. EPA preliminarily
agrees with the State’s conclusion based
on the rationale discussed below.
First, Georgia identifies SIP-approved
portions of the following State rules that
directly or indirectly control NOX
emissions: Georgia Rules for Air Quality
Control 391–3–1–.03—Permits; 391–3–
1–.02(7)—Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD); 391–3–1–
.02(2)(yy)—Emissions of Nitrogen
Oxides from Major Sources; 391–3–1–
.02(2)(jjj)—NOX Emissions from Electric
Utility Steam Generating Units; 391–3–
1–.02(2)(lll)—NOX Emissions From Fuel
Burning Equipment; 391–3–1–
7 EPA received this SIP revision on August 2,
2018.
8 A design value is a statistic that describes the
air quality status of a given area relative to the level
of the NAAQS. The design value for the 1-hour NO2
NAAQS is the 3-year average of annual 98th
percentile daily maximum 1-hour values for a
monitoring site.
E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM
11MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 47 / Monday, March 11, 2019 / Proposed Rules
.02(2)(rrr)—NOX Emissions From Small
Fuel-Burning Equipment; and 391–3–
20—Enhanced Inspection and
Maintenance. In addition to the SIPapproved rules mentioned above,
Georgia also identifies Rule 391–3–1–
.02(sss)—Multipollutant Control for
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units,
a rule that is not incorporated into the
SIP, as a measure that targets NOX
emissions.
Second, there are no designated
nonattainment areas for the 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS nationwide. On February
17, 2012 (77 FR 9532), EPA designated
the entire country as ‘‘unclassifiable/
attainment’’ for the 2010 1-hour NO2
NAAQS, stating that ‘‘available
information does not indicate that the
air quality in these areas exceeds the
2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.’’
Third, the 2015–2017 NO2 design
values in Georgia are below the 2010 1hour NO2 NAAQS standard of 100 ppb.
The highest monitored design value in
the State is 56 ppb, which is 44 percent
below the standard. Additionally, the
highest monitored 2015–2017 valid
design values for the neighboring states
of Florida, North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Tennessee are below the
2010 standard (at 42, 38, 42, and 53 ppb,
respectively).9 EPA notes that the trends
in NO2 design values for the southeast
indicate a 42 percent decrease in
measured NO2 concentrations from
2000–2017.10
Fourth, emissions data provided in
the SIP submittal show that NOx
emissions decreased from 1990 to 2017
by approximately 58 percent. In 2017,
highway vehicles were the largest
contributors with 153,635 tons per year
(tpy), and off-highway vehicles were
second with 56,872 tpy.11
For all the reasons discussed above,
EPA has preliminarily determined that
Georgia does not contribute significantly
to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour NO2
NAAQS in any other state and that
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
9 Monitoring
sites must meet the data
completeness requirements listed in Appendix S to
40 CFR part 50 in order to have a valid design
value. Table 2 in Georgia’s submittal and EPA’s air
quality design value website—https://www.epa.gov/
air-trends/air-quality-design-values—indicate that
the highest reported 2015–2017 NO2 design values
are invalid for the neighboring states of Alabama,
Florida, and North Carolina (49, 45, and 39 ppb,
respectively). Additionally, Alabama has no valid
2015–2017 NO2 design values.
10 National Trends in Nitrogen Dioxide Levels for
the southeast are available on the EPA’s air trends
website at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/nitrogendioxide-trends.
11 See Figure 1 and Table 3 in Georgia’s submittal,
which is based on emissions trends data extracted
from the EPA website at https://www.epa.gov/airemissions-inventories/air-pullutants-emissionstrends-data.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Mar 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
Georgia’s SIP includes adequate
provisions to prevent emissions sources
within the State from significantly
contributing to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance of this
standard in any other state.
III. Proposed Action
As described above, EPA is proposing
to approve Georgia’s July 24, 2018, SIP
revision addressing prongs 1 and 2 of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2010
1-hour NO2 NAAQS.
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. This 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
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8647
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does 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 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 dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 27, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019–04391 Filed 3–8–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2018–0679; FRL–9990–50–
Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; OR: Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2015 Ozone
Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Whenever a new or revised
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) is promulgated, the Clean Air
Act requires each State to submit a plan
for the implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement of the standard,
commonly referred to as infrastructure
requirements. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality’s (ODEQ) State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted
on September 21, 2018, as meeting
infrastructure requirements for the 2015
ozone NAAQS. In addition, the EPA is
proposing to approve an Oregon
Administrative Rule, submitted as part
of the Cleaner Air Oregon program and
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM
11MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 47 (Monday, March 11, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8645-8647]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04391]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0720; FRL-9990-66-Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Interstate Transport (Prongs 1 and 2)
for the 2010 1-Hour NO2 Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Georgia, through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division
(Georgia EPD), through a letter dated July 24, 2018, for the purpose of
addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) ``good neighbor'' interstate
transport (prongs 1 and 2) infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2010
1-hour Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a
SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by EPA, commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP.''
Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's July 24, 2018, SIP
revision addressing prongs 1 and 2 to ensure that air emissions in the
State do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS in any other
state.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 10, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0720 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: Evan Adams of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Adams can be reached by phone at (404) 562-9009 or via
electronic mail at adams.evan@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On January 22, 2010, EPA established a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for
NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-
year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-
hour daily maximum concentrations.\1\ See 75 FR 6474 (February 9,
2010). This NAAQS is designed to protect against exposure to the entire
group of nitrogen oxides (NOX). NO2 is the
component of greatest concern and is used as the indicator for the
larger group of NOX. Emissions that lead to the formation of
NO2 generally also lead to the formation of other
NOX. Therefore, control measures that reduce NO2
can generally be expected to reduce population exposures to all gaseous
NOX which may have the co-benefit of reducing the formation
of ozone and fine particles both of which pose
[[Page 8646]]
significant public health threats. For comprehensive information on the
2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, please refer to the February 9, 2010
Federal Register notice. See 75 FR 6474.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Subsequently, after careful consideration of the scientific
evidence and information available, on April 18, 2018, EPA published
a final action to retain the current NO2 standard at the
2010 level of 100 ppb. This action was taken after review of the
full body of available scientific evidence and information, giving
particular weight to the assessment of the evidence in the 2016
NOX Integrated Science Assessment; analyses and
considerations in the Policy Assessment; the advice and
recommendations of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee; and
public comments. See 83 FR 17226 (April 18, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section
110(a)(1) requires states to make SIP submissions to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS.\2\ This
particular type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure SIP.'' These submissions must meet the various
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), as applicable. Due to ambiguity
in some of the language of CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it
is appropriate to interpret these provisions in the specific context of
acting on infrastructure SIP submissions. EPA has previously provided
comprehensive guidance on the application of these provisions through a
guidance document for infrastructure SIP submissions and through
regional actions on infrastructure submissions.\3\ Unless otherwise
noted below, EPA is following that existing approach in acting on this
submission. In addition, in the context of acting on such
infrastructure submissions, EPA evaluates the submitting state's
implementation plan for compliance with statutory and regulatory
requirements, not for the state's implementation of its SIP.\4\ EPA has
other authority to address any issues concerning a state's
implementation of the rules, regulations, consent orders, etc. that
comprise its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ States were required to submit infrastructure SIPs for the
2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22,
2013.
\3\ EPA explains and elaborates on these ambiguities and its
approach to address them in its September 13, 2013 Infrastructure
SIP Guidance (available at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf), as well as in numerous agency actions, including EPA's prior
action on Georgia's infrastructure SIP to address other 110(a)(2)
elements for the NO2 NAAQS entitled ``Air Plan Approval;
GA Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide
National Ambient Air Quality Standards;'' in the section ``What is
the EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP
submissions?'' See 81 FR 41905 at 41906-41909 (June 28, 2017).
\4\ See Montana Environmental Information Center v. Thomas, 902
F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 SIPs. 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). EPA sometimes refers to the prong 1 and prong 2 conjointly
as the ``good neighbor'' provision of the CAA. 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) and 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.
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).\5\ With respect to certain pollutants, such as
ozone and particulate matter (PM), EPA has addressed interstate
transport in eastern states in the context of regional rulemaking
actions that quantify state emission reduction obligations.\6\ For
NO2, EPA has considered available information from states
such as current air quality, emissions data and trends, and regulatory
provisions that control source emissions to determine whether emissions
from one state interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS in another state. EPA's review and proposed action on Georgia's
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport SIP revision for
the 2010 NO2 NAAQS is informed by these considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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 (August 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 United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (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.
\6\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through this proposed action, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's
July 24, 2018, SIP revision addressing the prong 1 and prong 2
requirements for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.\7\ The State
addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by providing information
supporting its conclusion that emissions from Georgia do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. All other applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements for Georgia for the 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS have been addressed in separate rulemakings. See
80 FR 14019 (March 18, 2015), 81 FR 63106 (September 14, 2016), and 83
FR 19637 (May 4, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA received this SIP revision on August 2, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. What is EPA's analysis of how Georgia addressed prongs 1 and 2?
In Georgia's July 24, 2018, SIP revision, the State concluded that
its SIP adequately addresses prongs 1 and 2 with respect to the 2010 1-
hour NO2 NAAQS. Georgia provides the following reasons for
its determination: (1) There are SIP-approved and state-only
regulations that directly or indirectly control NOx emissions; (2) all
areas in the United States are designated as unclassifiable/attainment
for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS; (3) monitored 1-hour
NO2 design values in Georgia and surrounding states
(Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee) are
below the 2010 standard; \8\ and (4) point source emissions of NOx in
the State have trended downward. EPA preliminarily agrees with the
State's conclusion based on the rationale discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A design value is a statistic that describes the air quality
status of a given area relative to the level of the NAAQS. The
design value for the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS is the 3-year
average of annual 98th percentile daily maximum 1-hour values for a
monitoring site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, Georgia identifies SIP-approved portions of the following
State rules that directly or indirectly control NOX
emissions: Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control 391-3-1-.03--Permits;
391-3-1-.02(7)--Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD); 391-3-
1-.02(2)(yy)--Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides from Major Sources; 391-3-
1-.02(2)(jjj)--NOX Emissions from Electric Utility Steam Generating
Units; 391-3-1-.02(2)(lll)--NOX Emissions From Fuel Burning Equipment;
391-3-1-
[[Page 8647]]
.02(2)(rrr)--NOX Emissions From Small Fuel-Burning Equipment; and 391-
3-20--Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance. In addition to the SIP-
approved rules mentioned above, Georgia also identifies Rule 391-3-
1-.02(sss)--Multipollutant Control for Electric Utility Steam
Generating Units, a rule that is not incorporated into the SIP, as a
measure that targets NOX emissions.
Second, there are no designated nonattainment areas for the 2010 1-
hour NO2 NAAQS nationwide. On February 17, 2012 (77 FR
9532), EPA designated the entire country as ``unclassifiable/
attainment'' for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, stating that
``available information does not indicate that the air quality in these
areas exceeds the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.''
Third, the 2015-2017 NO2 design values in Georgia are
below the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS standard of 100 ppb. The
highest monitored design value in the State is 56 ppb, which is 44
percent below the standard. Additionally, the highest monitored 2015-
2017 valid design values for the neighboring states of Florida, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee are below the 2010 standard (at
42, 38, 42, and 53 ppb, respectively).\9\ EPA notes that the trends in
NO2 design values for the southeast indicate a 42 percent
decrease in measured NO2 concentrations from 2000-2017.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Monitoring sites must meet the data completeness
requirements listed in Appendix S to 40 CFR part 50 in order to have
a valid design value. Table 2 in Georgia's submittal and EPA's air
quality design value website--https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values--indicate that the highest reported 2015-2017
NO2 design values are invalid for the neighboring states
of Alabama, Florida, and North Carolina (49, 45, and 39 ppb,
respectively). Additionally, Alabama has no valid 2015-2017
NO2 design values.
\10\ National Trends in Nitrogen Dioxide Levels for the
southeast are available on the EPA's air trends website at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/nitrogen-dioxide-trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, emissions data provided in the SIP submittal show that
NOx emissions decreased from 1990 to 2017 by approximately
58 percent. In 2017, highway vehicles were the largest contributors
with 153,635 tons per year (tpy), and off-highway vehicles were second
with 56,872 tpy.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Figure 1 and Table 3 in Georgia's submittal, which is
based on emissions trends data extracted from the EPA website at
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pullutants-emissions-trends-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all the reasons discussed above, EPA has preliminarily
determined that Georgia does not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS in any other state and that Georgia's SIP includes
adequate provisions to prevent emissions sources within the State from
significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of this standard in any other state.
III. Proposed Action
As described above, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's July 24,
2018, SIP revision addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.
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. This 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 CAA; and
Does 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 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 dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 27, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019-04391 Filed 3-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
