Air Plan Approval; AK: Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2015 Ozone Standard, 26041-26047 [2019-11764]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov
and at the EPA Region 4 office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
VII. Proposed Action
Region 4 is proposing to withdraw the
SIP call issued to North Carolina for
15A N.C. Admin. Code 2D .0535(c) and
15A N.C. Admin. Code 2D .0535(g)
pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5),
originally published on June 12, 2015.
In connection with this proposed
withdrawal, Region 4 proposes to find
that these state regulatory provisions
included in the North Carolina SIP are
not substantially inadequate to meet
CAA requirements.
Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA,
Region 4 is proposing to approve the
aforementioned changes to Rule .1423
and incorporate these changes into the
North Carolina SIP. Region 4 has
evaluated the changes to Rule .1423 as
included in North Carolina’s June 5,
2017, SIP revision, and is proposing to
determine that they meet the applicable
requirements of the CAA and its
implementing regulations.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
VIII. 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. 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.);
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:58 Jun 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
• 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
• Results from on a new
interpretation 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, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 20, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019–11758 Filed 6–4–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26041
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2018–0823, FRL–9994–48–
Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; AK: Interstate
Transport Requirements for the 2015
Ozone Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Clean Air Act requires
each State Implementation Plan (SIP) to
contain adequate provisions prohibiting
emissions that will have certain adverse
air quality effects in other states. On
October 25, 2018, the State of Alaska
made a submission to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to address these requirements for the
2015 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA is
proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as
meeting the requirement that each SIP
contain adequate provisions to prohibit
emissions that will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in any other state.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 5, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2018–0823, at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
electronically submit any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information the disclosure of which is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Air and
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05JNP1.SGM
05JNP1
26042
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Radiation Division, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101, at (206) 553–6357 or
hall.kristin@epa.gov.
prong 2 when evaluating downwind air
quality problems.3
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The EPA has addressed the interstate
transport requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 with
respect to prior ozone NAAQS in
several regional regulatory actions,
including the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR), which addressed
interstate transport for purposes of the
1997 ozone NAAQS (as well as the 1997
and 2006 fine particulate matter
standards) and the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule Update, which addressed
interstate transport for purposes of the
2008 ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update).4
CSAPR and the CSAPR Update did not
address interstate transport for the 2015
ozone NAAQS and also made no
specific findings with respect to Alaska.
Alaska is not part of the contiguous
United States and is not fully contained
within the 12 kilometer (km) eastern
modeling domain established to inform
CSAPR and the CSAPR Update. The 12
km eastern modeling domain identified
the Western United States (the West) as
the 11 western contiguous states of
Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon,
Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The
Eastern United States (the East) was
identified as the 37 states east of the 11
western states.
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it means
the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. State Submission
III. EPA Evaluation
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
On October 1, 2015, the EPA
promulgated a revision to the ozone
NAAQS (2015 ozone NAAQS), lowering
the level of both the primary and
secondary standards to 0.070 parts per
million (ppm).1 Section 110(a)(1) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to
submit, within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised
standard, SIPs meeting the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(2).2 One
of these applicable requirements is
found in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
otherwise known as the good neighbor
provision, which generally requires SIPs
to contain adequate provisions to
prohibit in-state emissions activities
from having certain adverse air quality
effects on other states due to interstate
transport of pollution. There are four socalled ‘‘prongs’’ within CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i): Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
contains prongs 1 and 2, while section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) includes prongs 3 and
4. This action addresses the first two
prongs under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Under prongs 1 and 2 of the good
neighbor provision, a SIP for a new or
revised NAAQS must contain adequate
provisions prohibiting any source or
other type of emissions activity within
the state from emitting air pollutants in
amounts that will significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the
NAAQS in another state (prong 1) or
that will interfere with maintenance of
the NAAQS in another state (prong 2).
Under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the
CAA, the EPA and states must give
independent significance to prong 1 and
1 See National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone, Final Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
Although the level of the standard is specified in
the units of ppm, ozone concentrations are also
described in parts per billion (ppb). For example,
0.070 ppm is equivalent to 70 ppb.
2 SIP revisions that are intended to meet the
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2)
of the CAA are often referred to as infrastructure
SIPs and the applicable elements under 110(a)(2)
are referred to as infrastructure requirements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:58 Jun 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
Regional Regulatory Actions
Four-Step Framework
The EPA, working in partnership with
states to develop and implement
CSAPR, the CSAPR Update, and
previous regional rulemakings pursuant
to the good neighbor provision,5
developed the following four-step
framework to address the requirements
of the good neighbor provision for the
ozone NAAQS: 6 (1) Identify downwind
air quality problems; (2) identify
upwind states that impact those
downwind air quality problems
sufficiently such that they are
considered ‘‘linked’’ and therefore
warrant further review and analysis; (3)
identify the emissions reductions
necessary (if any), considering cost and
3 See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909–
911 (2008).
4 See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (i.e., CSAPR)
and 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016) (i.e., CSAPR
Update).
5 Other regional rulemakings addressing ozone
transport include the NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57356
(October 27, 1998), and the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
6 The four-step framework has also been used to
address requirements of the good neighbor
provision for some previous particulate matter and
ozone NAAQS, including in the western United
States. See, e.g., 83 FR 30380 (June 28, 2018) and
83 FR 5375, 5376–77 (February 7, 2018).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
air quality factors, to prevent linked
upwind states identified in step 2 from
contributing significantly to
nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS at the
locations of the downwind air quality
problems; and (4) adopt permanent and
enforceable measures needed to achieve
those emissions reductions.
Data To Assist States
To assist states, the EPA released
several documents containing
information relevant to evaluating
interstate transport with respect to the
2015 ozone NAAQS, and we describe
those documents in the following
sections. However, none of these
documents consider ozone precursor
emissions to or from Alaska, and none
project design values at monitoring sites
located in Alaska, nor apportion specific
downwind impacts to Alaska.
Nonetheless, we have included all
background information to provide a
complete accounting of the EPA’s data
releases.
2017 Data Release and Memorandum
On January 6, 2017, the EPA
published a notice of data availability
(NODA) for preliminary interstate ozone
transport modeling with projected
ozone design values for 2023, on which
we requested comment.7 The year 2023
was used as the analytic year for this
preliminary modeling because that year
aligns with the expected attainment year
for ozone nonattainment areas classified
as Moderate.8 On October 27, 2017, we
released a memorandum (2017
memorandum) containing updated
modeling data for 2023, which
incorporated changes made in response
to comments on the NODA.9 Although
the 2017 memorandum also released
data for a 2023 modeling year, we
specifically stated that the modeling
may be useful for states developing SIPs
to address remaining good neighbor
obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
but did not address the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
2018 Data Release and Memoranda
On March 27, 2018, we issued a
memorandum (March 2018
7 See Notice of Availability of the Environmental
Protection Agency’s Preliminary Interstate Ozone
Transport Modeling Data for the 2015 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS),
82 FR 1733 (January 6, 2017).
8 82 FR 1735 (January 6, 2017).
9 See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2008
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
October 27, 2017, available in the docket for this
action or at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-airpollution-transport/interstate-air-pollutiontransport-memos-and-notices.
E:\FR\FM\05JNP1.SGM
05JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
memorandum) indicating the same 2023
modeling data released in the 2017
memorandum would also be useful for
evaluating potential downwind air
quality problems with respect to the
2015 ozone NAAQS (step 1 of the fourstep framework). The March 2018
memorandum included newly available
contribution modeling results to assist
states in evaluating their impact on
potential downwind air quality
problems (step 2 of the four-step
framework) as part of efforts to develop
good neighbor SIPs for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.10 The EPA subsequently
issued two more memoranda in August
and October of 2018, providing
guidance to states developing good
neighbor SIPs for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS concerning, respectively,
potential contribution thresholds that
may be appropriate to apply in step 2
and considerations for identifying
downwind areas that may have
problems maintaining the standard
(under prong 2 of the good neighbor
provision) at step 1 of the four-step
framework.11
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
March 2018 Memorandum
The March 2018 memorandum
describes the process and results of the
updated photochemical and sourceapportionment modeling used to project
ambient ozone concentrations for the
year 2023 and the state-by-state impacts
on those concentrations. The March
2018 memorandum also explains that
the selection of the 2023 analytic year
aligns with the 2015 ozone NAAQS
attainment year for Moderate
nonattainment areas. As described in
more detail in the 2017 and March 2018
memoranda, the EPA used the
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with
Extensions (CAMx version 6.40) to
model average and maximum design
values in 2023 to identify potential
nonattainment and maintenance
10 See Information on the Interstate Transport
State Implementation Plan Submissions for the
2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), March 27, 2018, available in the
docket for this action and at https://www.epa.gov/
interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-airpollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
11 See Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for
Use in Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan
Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, August 31, 2018) (‘‘August
2018 memorandum’’), and Considerations for
Identifying Maintenance Receptors for Use in Clean
Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate
Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions
for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, October 19, 2018, available in the docket
for this action and at https://www.epa.gov/
airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-informationregarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozonenaaqs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:58 Jun 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
receptors (i.e., monitoring sites that are
projected to have problems attaining or
maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS).
The March 2018 memorandum presents
design values calculated in two ways.
First, the EPA followed its past
approach 12 of using model predictions
from the 3 x 3 array of grid cells
surrounding the location of all
monitoring sites (referred to as the ‘‘3 x
3’’ approach). Second, the EPA followed
a modified approach for coastal
monitoring sites in which ‘‘overwater’’
modeling data were not included in the
calculation of future year design values
(referred to as the ‘‘no water’’ approach).
For purposes of identifying potential
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in 2023, the EPA applied the
same approach used in the CSAPR
Update, wherein the EPA considered a
combination of monitoring data and
modeling projections to identify
monitoring sites that are projected to
have problems attaining or maintaining
the NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA
identified nonattainment receptors as
those monitoring sites with current
measured values 13 exceeding the
NAAQS that also have projected (i.e., in
2023) average design values exceeding
the NAAQS. The EPA identified
maintenance receptors as those
monitoring sites with maximum design
values exceeding the NAAQS. This
included sites with current measured
values below the NAAQS with projected
average and maximum design values
exceeding the NAAQS, and monitoring
sites with projected average design
values below the NAAQS but with
projected maximum design values
exceeding the NAAQS. The EPA
included the design values and
monitoring data for all monitoring sites
projected to be potential nonattainment
or maintenance receptors based on the
updated 2023 modeling in attachment B
to the March 2018 memorandum.
After identifying potential downwind
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors, the EPA next performed statelevel ozone source-apportionment
modeling for the 48 contiguous United
States and the District of Columbia to
estimate the expected impact from each
state to each nonattainment and
maintenance receptor.14 The EPA
12 See
March 2018 memorandum, p. 4.
EPA used 2016 ozone design values, based
on 2014 through 2016 measured data, which were
the most current data at the time of the analysis.
See attachment B of the March 2018 memorandum,
p. B–1.
14 As discussed in the March 2018 memorandum,
the EPA performed source-apportionment model
runs for a modeling domain that covers the 48
contiguous United States and the District of
Columbia, and adjacent portions of Canada and
Mexico.
13 The
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26043
included contribution information
resulting from the source-apportionment
modeling in attachment C to the March
2018 memorandum. For more specific
information on the modeling and
analysis, please see the 2017 and March
2018 memoranda, the NODA for the
preliminary interstate transport
assessment, and the supporting
technical documents included in the
docket for this action.
In the CSAPR and the CSAPR Update,
the EPA used a threshold of 1 percent
of the NAAQS to determine whether a
given upwind state was ‘‘linked’’ at step
2 of the four-step framework and would
therefore contribute to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance sites
identified in step 1. If a state’s impact
did not exceed the 1 percent threshold,
the upwind state was not ‘‘linked’’ to a
downwind air quality problem, and the
EPA therefore concluded the state will
not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in the
downwind states. However, if a state’s
impact exceeded the 1 percent
threshold, the state’s emissions were
further evaluated in step three, taking
into account both air quality and cost
considerations, to determine what, if
any, emissions reductions might be
necessary to address the good neighbor
provision.
August and October 2018 Memoranda
As noted previously, on August 31,
2018, the EPA issued a memorandum
(the August 2018 memorandum)
providing information concerning
potential contribution thresholds that
may be appropriate to apply with
respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS in
step 2. Consistent with the process for
selecting the 1 percent threshold in
CSAPR and the CSAPR Update, the
memorandum included analytical
information regarding the degree to
which potential air quality thresholds
would capture the collective amount of
upwind contribution from upwind
states to downwind receptors for the
2015 ozone NAAQS. The August 2018
memorandum indicated that, based on
the EPA’s analysis of its most recent
modeling data, the amount of upwind
collective contribution captured using a
1 part per billion (ppb) threshold is
generally comparable, overall, to the
amount captured using a threshold
equivalent to 1 percent of the 2015
ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, the EPA
indicated that it may be reasonable and
appropriate for states to use a 1 ppb
contribution threshold, as an alternative
to the 1 percent threshold, at step 2 of
the four-step framework in developing
their SIP revisions addressing the good
E:\FR\FM\05JNP1.SGM
05JNP1
26044
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.15 In addition, on October 19,
2018, the EPA issued a memorandum
presenting information that states may
consider as they evaluate the status of
monitoring sites that the EPA identified
as potential maintenance receptors.
While the March 2018 memorandum
presented information regarding the
EPA’s latest analysis of ozone transport
following the approaches the EPA has
taken in prior regional rulemaking
actions, the EPA has not made any final
determinations regarding how states
should identify downwind receptors
with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS
at step 1 of the four-step framework.
Rather, the EPA noted that states have
flexibility in developing their own SIPs
to follow different analytical approaches
than the EPA’s, so long as their chosen
approach has an adequate technical
justification and is consistent with the
requirements of the CAA.
II. State Submission
On October 25, 2018, the Alaska
Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC) made a
submission addressing the requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs
1 and 2 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.16
The submission provides information
supporting the state’s conclusion that
emissions from Alaska do not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state. The submission
focuses on the amount and sources of
ozone precursor emissions in the state,
trends in monitored ambient ozone
levels, meteorological conditions, the
distance from Alaska to the nearest
receptors in other states, and the
intervening geography that isolates
Alaska from other states.
The submission states that aggregate
anthropogenic ozone precursor
emissions (nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs))
from Alaska sources are very small
compared to emissions of ozone
precursors on a nationwide basis.
Specifically, Alaska evaluated 2014
National Emissions Inventory data and
determined that anthropogenic NOX
emissions from sources in Alaska make
up one percent of the national total
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
15 See
August 2018 memorandum, p. 4.
October 25, 2018 submission
addresses all CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2)
infrastructure requirements for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS (including interstate transport prongs 1 and
2) and includes regulatory updates and permitting
rule revisions for approval into the SIP. This action
addresses the portion of the submission related to
interstate transport prongs 1 and 2. We intend to
address the remainder of the submission in
separate, future actions.
16 Alaska’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:58 Jun 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
anthropogenic NOX emissions
inventoried. In doing the same
comparison for VOCs, Alaska
determined that anthropogenic
emissions from Alaska sources make up
less than one-half percent of total
anthropogenic VOC emissions
nationwide.
Alaska also included information on
monitored ozone levels within the state.
ADEC has historically monitored ozone
at numerous sites in and around
Anchorage and Fairbanks, the two mostpopulated areas. The submission states
that the single highest 8-hour ozone
concentration in Alaska was recorded at
0.057 ppm on May 11, 2014 at the
Fairbanks National Core (NCORE) site,
which is still well below the 2015 ozone
standard of 0.070 ppm. The most recent
locations for ozone monitoring in
Alaska are the Fairbanks National Core
site and the Palmer site in the
Anchorage area, both of which have
2015 through 2017 design values less
than 85 percent of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.17 The 2015 through 2017
design value at the Fairbanks NCore site
is 0.043 ppm and the 2015 through 2017
design value at the Palmer site is 0.044
ppm. The submission asserts that
ambient ozone measured in Alaska
consistently trends very low.
The submission highlights the
geographic isolation of the State of
Alaska. Alaska borders no other state in
the United States and the intervening
geography between Alaska and any
other state is significant. The
southernmost Alaskan border is
geographically separated from the
nearest state, Washington, by hundreds
of miles of mountainous terrain in
British Columbia, Canada. The
submission also describes
meteorological factors that influence
potential interstate transport from
Alaska sources. In the summer months,
regional, predominant low-pressure
wind patterns emanate from the Gulf of
Alaska in the west and travel inland
towards the east, circulating in a
counterclockwise direction. The
submission states these predominant
low-pressure wind patterns would not
generally be expected to transport air
pollutants from Alaska south to the
contiguous United States.
Alaska’s submission points generally
to SIP-approved regulations that
implement the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The
submission highlights Alaska’s SIPapproved stationary source
preconstruction permitting program set
17 Design values below 85 percent of the NAAQS
are a factor in determining the EPA’s minimum
ozone monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part 58,
Appendix D.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
forth in Articles 3 and 5 of Alaska
Administrative Code Title 18,
Environmental Conservation, Chapter
50, Air Quality Control (18 AAC 50).
Alaska’s preconstruction permitting
program is designed to control future
potential NOX and VOC emissions from
major and minor stationary sources in
the state. The submission also notes
other SIP-approved rules that serve to
limit NOX and VOCs, including
incinerator emission standards,
emission limits for industrial processes,
and emission limits for fuel burning
equipment.
III. EPA Evaluation
We have employed the four-step
interstate transport framework to
evaluate whether the Alaska SIP meets
the requirements of the good neighbor
provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
At step 1, we refer to the EPA’s March
2018 memorandum to identify
downwind air quality problems. This
memo lists receptors at specific
monitoring sites that are projected to
have problems attaining or maintaining
the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Specifically,
the EPA identified nonattainment
receptors as those monitoring sites with
2014 through 2016 measured design
values exceeding the NAAQS that also
have projected average 2023 design
values that exceed the NAAQS. The
EPA identified maintenance receptors as
those monitoring sites with maximum
projected 2023 design values exceeding
the NAAQS. This includes sites with
2014 through 2016 measured design
values below the NAAQS with projected
average and maximum design values
exceeding the NAAQS, and monitoring
sites with projected average design
values below the NAAQS but with
projected maximum design values
exceeding the NAAQS. Receptors
identified by the EPA are in the states
of Arizona, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, New
York, Texas, and Wisconsin.18
While the EPA’s March 2018
memorandum helps to identify potential
downwind receptors in step 1, it does
not inform whether Alaska is
sufficiently linked to those receptors, as
is required in step 2 of the EPA’s fourstep framework. The EPA did not
include Alaska in the state-level ozone
source-apportionment modeling that
estimated the expected impact from
each state to each nonattainment and
maintenance receptor.19
In the absence of such modeling and
state level source apportionment data at
step 2, we have used a ‘‘weight of
18 See
19 See
E:\FR\FM\05JNP1.SGM
March 2018 memorandum, attachment B.
March 2018 memorandum, attachment C.
05JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
evidence’’ approach to evaluate factors
that together help determine whether
Alaska emissions are sufficiently linked
to potential nonattainment or
maintenance receptors in other states.
The factors evaluated for purposes of
this proposed action include emissions
inventory data, monitoring trends,
geography, meteorology, and SIPapproved provisions that limit current
and future emissions of ozone
precursors, as described in the following
paragraphs.
Emissions Inventory Data
According to the most recent,
publicly-available census data, Alaska’s
population is less than a million people
(737,438).20 Stationary and mobile
source emissions are related, in part, to
an area’s population. As stated in the
submission, and confirmed by 2014
26045
National Emissions Inventory data,
Alaska’s stationary and mobile source
emissions of NOX and VOCs as
precursors to ozone formation comprise
a very small fraction of emissions
nationwide, totaling just one percent
and one-half percent, respectively.21
Compared to other states in the
northwest, Alaska’s NOX emissions are
in the middle of the range, while
Alaska’s VOC emissions are low.
TABLE 1—2014 NEI STATIONARY AND MOBILE SOURCE NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS
[Tons] 22
Pollutant
Nationwide
NOX ......................................................................................
VOCs ....................................................................................
Monitoring Trends
Alaska
12,233,224
12,388,288
Idaho
127,194
63,408
81,135
86,332
125,626
134,431
Washington
234,050
241,561
number of ozone monitors that are
required in areas of each state.24 The
following table shows ozone design
values calculated from 2010 to the
present. All are well below the 2015
ozone NAAQS (0.070 ppm).
National Park Service also monitors for
ozone at Denali National Park.23
Minimum monitoring requirements for
ozone are established in 40 CFR part 58,
Appendix D, and make use of
population data and design value
history to determine the minimum
In addition to emissions inventory
data, we have evaluated historic ozone
monitoring data within Alaska. ADEC
has monitored ozone in Anchorage and
Fairbanks over the last 10 years. The
Oregon
TABLE 2—ALASKA OZONE DESIGN VALUE TRENDS
[ppm] 25
Site ID
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
020200018
020680003
020900034
021700012
Location
2010–2012
2011–2013
2012–2014
2013–2015
2014–2016
2015–2017
Anchorage, Garden .....
Denali National Park ....
Fairbanks, NCORE ......
Anchorage, Palmer ......
0.045
0.052
........................
........................
........................
0.052
........................
........................
........................
0.053
0.046
........................
........................
0.054
0.045
........................
........................
0.053
0.041
........................
........................
0.050
0.043
0.044
Geography and Meteorology
Another factor for consideration is
that Alaska is geographically vast and
isolated from any other state in the
United States. Alaska is over 586,000
square miles in area and shares no
borders with other states.26 Alaska is
bordered to the east by the Yukon
Territory and British Columbia, Canada.
To the south is the Gulf of Alaska and
the Pacific Ocean. To the west is the
Bering Sea, Bering Strait, and Chukchi
Sea. The Arctic Ocean lies to the north.
Alaska is distant from the
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors identified in the EPA’s March
2018 memorandum. The closest
identified nonattainment receptor is in
Sacramento, California (Site ID
60675003) and the closest identified
maintenance receptor is also in
Sacramento (Site ID 60670012).
California is over 1000 miles from
Alaska’s southernmost border and the
intervening topography in Alaska and
British Columbia, Canada are varied and
includes mountainous and complex
terrain.27 Geographically situated
between Alaska and California are the
states of Washington and Oregon. Each
intervening state has equivalent or
higher ozone precursor emissions
compared to Alaska,28 and each has
been determined by the EPA to
contribute less than 1 percent to
identified receptors in any other state,
including California.29
Meteorology is also a factor that can
limit potential transport of emissions
from Alaska to identified receptors.
According to Alaska’s submission and
the 2015 Alaska Air Quality Monitoring
Network Assessment, weather in Alaska
during the summer months is
influenced by the jet stream and lowpressure systems that tend to move
weather patterns from south-central
Alaska up into the Interior, not south to
the contiguous United States.30 The
summer months are when ozone levels
are generally higher, and that holds true
20 United States Census Bureau population
estimate for Alaska, July 1, 2018, published at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/
ak,US/PST045218.
21 ‘‘Biogenic sources’’ and ‘‘Fire sources’’ are not
included. See EPA 2014 National Emissions
Inventory Report, published at https://
gispub.epa.gov/neireport/2014/.
22 Ibid.
23 Clean Air Status and Trends Network
(CASTNET).
24 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, Network Design
Criteria for Ambient Air Quality Monitoring, Table
D–2. The 2018 Alaska monitoring network plan was
approved by the EPA on October 19, 2018. The EPA
approval letter is in the docket for this action.
25 EPA 2017 Ozone Design Value Report, Table 6,
Monitor Trends, https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/
air-quality-design-values.
26 2015Alaska Air Quality Monitoring Network
Assessment, p. 8, published at https://
dec.alaska.gov/air/air-monitoring/networkassessments.
27 Ibid, p. 10.
28 See ‘‘Table 1: 2014 NEI Stationary and Mobile
Source NOX and VOC Emissions (tons)’’ in the
preceding paragraph.
29 Washington and Oregon’s modeled
contribution to the Sacramento nonattainment
receptor (Site ID 60675003) is 0.14 ppb and 0.45
ppb, respectively. Washington and Oregon’s
modeled contribution to the Sacramento
maintenance receptor (Site ID 60670012) is 0.20
ppb and 0.57 ppb, respectively. See March 2018
memorandum, attachment C.
30 Ibid, p. 23.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:58 Jun 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05JNP1.SGM
05JNP1
26046
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
at the Sacramento, California
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors, which are those EPAidentified receptors closest to Alaska,
discussed in the previous paragraph.31
Alaska SIP
It is helpful to review a state’s existing
SIP-approved regulations as part of a
weight of evidence analysis. Therefore,
we have evaluated the current federallyapproved Alaska SIP and those rules in
the SIP that are designed to limit
emissions of NOX and VOCs from
existing and future sources. Alaska
generally regulates emissions of NOX
and VOCs through its SIP-approved
stationary source preconstruction
permitting programs, set forth in
Articles 3 and 5 of 18 AAC 50, in
addition to other regulations approved
into the SIP and described in this
section. Stationary source
preconstruction permitting is known as
new source review (NSR) and
establishes requirements based on a
source’s size and location, among other
things. New and modified major
stationary sources located in designated
nonattainment areas are subject to
nonattainment NSR permitting
requirements (NNSR) for the
nonattainment pollutant. New and
modified major stationary sources in
designated attainment and
unclassifiable areas are subject to
prevention of significant deterioration
permitting requirements (PSD). Alaska’s
SIP approved NNSR and PSD programs
are found in Article 3 of 18 AAC 50.
Minor new and modified stationary
sources are regulated by Alaska’s SIPapproved minor NSR program found in
Article 5 of 18 AAC 50.
All of Alaska is designated
‘‘attainment/unclassifiable’’ for the 2015
ozone NAAQS.32 Therefore, with
respect to ozone precursor emissions,
stationary sources seeking to construct
or modify in Alaska are subject to PSD
and minor NSR, depending on the size
of the source. The Alaska PSD
permitting program in Article 3 of 18
AAC 50 references a suite of regulations
approved into the Alaska SIP and makes
use of certain federal PSD requirements,
set forth in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), and incorporated by
reference into the Alaska SIP in 18 AAC
50.040. See 40 CFR 52.96. The EPA
most recently approved updates and
revisions to the Alaska PSD permitting
31 The high ozone season is May through October
in the Sacramento area. Sacramento Regional 8hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further
Progress plan, Chapter 1, page 1–1, which can be
found at https://www.airquality.org/businesses/airquality-plans/federal-planning.
32 40 CFR 81.302.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:58 Jun 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
program on August 28, 2017 (82 FR
40712). The current SIP-approved
Alaska PSD permitting program
incorporates by reference specific
federal requirements in 40 CFR 52.21,
40 CFR 51.166, and 40 CFR part 51,
Appendix W, as of July 1, 2017. The
program has been updated for the 2015
ozone NAAQS and regulates NOX and
VOCs as precursors to ozone formation,
consistent with the EPA’s implementing
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166.
Turning to minor sources, Article 5 of
18 AAC 50 requires pre-construction
permitting for subject new and modified
minor stationary sources. SIP-approved
minor NSR programs and revisions to
such programs must be consistent with
the EPA’s implementing regulations at
40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164. Alaska’s
minor NSR program was originally
approved into the Alaska SIP on July 5,
1983 (48 FR 30623). We have approved
subsequent revisions, most recently on
August 28, 2017 (82 FR 40712). Both
Alaska’s PSD and minor NSR programs
are designed to limit potential future
emissions of NOX and VOCs.
In addition to permitting
requirements, Alaska’s SIP contains
other rules that also serve to limit NOX
and VOCs. These rules include
incinerator emission standards (18 AAC
50.050) and emission limits for
industrial processes and fuel burning
equipment (18 AAC 50.055).
Based on the factors evaluated and
discussed in this proposal and
supporting material in the docket for
this action, the EPA believes it is
reasonable to conclude that emissions
from Alaska are not likely to be linked
to nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in the contiguous United
States. We propose to find that Alaska’s
SIP contains adequate provisions that
are designed to limit future potential
NOX and VOC emissions, and therefore,
the state is unlikely to be linked to
downwind receptors in the future.
Accordingly, we have stopped our
evaluation at step 2 of the four-step
framework.
IV. Proposed Action
As discussed in section II in this
preamble, Alaska concluded that
emissions from sources in the state will
not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state. The EPA’s evaluation,
discussed in section III in this preamble,
confirms this finding. We are proposing
to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided they meet the criteria of the
CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action
merely approves state law as meeting
federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because 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
it does not involve technical standards;
and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
E:\FR\FM\05JNP1.SGM
05JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Tracey Casburn, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air
Planning and Development Branch,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa,
Kansas 66219; telephone number (913)
551–7016; email address
casburn.tracey@epa.gov.
Dated: May 21, 2019.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2019–11764 Filed 6–4–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2019–0315; FRL–9994–57–
Region 7]
Air Plan Approval; Missouri;
Compliance Monitoring Usage
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
revisions to the Missouri State
Implementation Plan (SIP) received on
February 15, 2019. The submission
revises a Missouri regulation that
establishes alternate monitoring
methods for certifying compliance and
alternate methods to establish whether a
violation has occurred at a source.
Specifically, the revisions to the rule:
Clarify that there are no definitions
specific to the rule; add language
clarifying the date of an incorporation
by reference (IBR) and where the public
can get a copy of the IBR; add a state
rule to the list of state rules that
presumptively identify credible testing,
monitoring, or information gathering
methods; and make other minor edits.
These revisions are administrative in
nature and do not impact the stringency
of the SIP or air quality. Approval of
these revisions will ensure consistency
between state and federally-approved
rules.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 5, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:58 Jun 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
OAR–2019–0315 to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Docket ID No. for this
rulemaking. Comments received will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov/, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Written Comments’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Table of Contents
I. Written Comments
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. Have the requirements for approval of a
SIP revision been met?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Written Comments
Submit your comments, identified by
Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2019–
0315, at https://www.regulations.gov.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26047
II. What is being addressed in this
document?
The EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the Missouri SIP received
on February 15, 2019. The revisions are
to a state rule at Title 10, Division 10 of
the Code of State Regulations, 10 CSR
10–6.280 Compliance Monitoring Usage,
which establishes alternate compliance
certification methods for monitoring
requirements.
The revisions are administrative in
nature and do not impact air quality.
The EPA’s analysis of the revisions can
be found in the technical support
document (TSD) included in this
docket.
III. Have the requirements for approval
of a SIP revision been met?
The state submission has met the
public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR
51.102. The submission also satisfied
the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part
51, appendix V. The state provided
public notice of the revisions from June
15, 2018, to September 6, 2018, and
held a public hearing on August 30,
2018. The state received and one
comment; the comment was from the
EPA and was a general comment
regarding SIP revisions. No changes
were made to the proposed rule text in
response to the EPA’s comment. The SIP
revision submission meets the
substantive requirements of the CAA,
including section 110 and implementing
regulations.
IV. What action is EPA taking?
The EPA is proposing to amend the
Missouri SIP by approving the State’s
request to revise 10 CSR 10–6.280
Compliance Monitoring Usage.
Approval of these revisions will ensure
consistency between state and federallyapproved rules. The EPA has
determined that these changes will not
adversely impact air quality.
The EPA is processing this as a
proposed action because we are
soliciting comments on the action. Final
rulemaking will occur after
consideration of any comments.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is
proposing to include regulatory text in
a final rule that includes incorporation
by reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
the Missouri Regulations described in
the proposed amendments to 40 CFR
part 52 set forth below. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
E:\FR\FM\05JNP1.SGM
05JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 5, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26041-26047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11764]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0823, FRL-9994-48-Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; AK: Interstate Transport Requirements for the
2015 Ozone Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act requires each State Implementation Plan
(SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will
have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On October
25, 2018, the State of Alaska made a submission to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements for the 2015
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA is
proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirement that
each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2018-0823, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not electronically submit any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Air and
[[Page 26042]]
Radiation Division, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, at (206) 553-
6357 or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it means the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. State Submission
III. EPA Evaluation
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revision to the ozone
NAAQS (2015 ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of both the primary and
secondary standards to 0.070 parts per million (ppm).\1\ Section
110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to submit, within
three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs
meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2).\2\ One of
these applicable requirements is found in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
otherwise known as the good neighbor provision, which generally
requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state
emissions activities from having certain adverse air quality effects on
other states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are four
so-called ``prongs'' within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) contains prongs 1 and 2, while section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) includes prongs 3 and 4. This action addresses the
first two prongs under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Under prongs 1 and 2
of the good neighbor provision, a SIP for a new or revised NAAQS must
contain adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of
emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants in
amounts that will significantly contribute to nonattainment of the
NAAQS in another state (prong 1) or that will interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). Under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, the EPA and states must give independent
significance to prong 1 and prong 2 when evaluating downwind air
quality problems.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final
Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). Although the level of the
standard is specified in the units of ppm, ozone concentrations are
also described in parts per billion (ppb). For example, 0.070 ppm is
equivalent to 70 ppb.
\2\ SIP revisions that are intended to meet the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are often
referred to as infrastructure SIPs and the applicable elements under
110(a)(2) are referred to as infrastructure requirements.
\3\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909-911 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Regulatory Actions
The EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 with respect to prior ozone
NAAQS in several regional regulatory actions, including the Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which addressed interstate transport for
purposes of the 1997 ozone NAAQS (as well as the 1997 and 2006 fine
particulate matter standards) and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
Update, which addressed interstate transport for purposes of the 2008
ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update).\4\ CSAPR and the CSAPR Update did not
address interstate transport for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and also made no
specific findings with respect to Alaska. Alaska is not part of the
contiguous United States and is not fully contained within the 12
kilometer (km) eastern modeling domain established to inform CSAPR and
the CSAPR Update. The 12 km eastern modeling domain identified the
Western United States (the West) as the 11 western contiguous states of
Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,
Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The Eastern United States (the
East) was identified as the 37 states east of the 11 western states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (i.e., CSAPR) and 81 FR
74504 (October 26, 2016) (i.e., CSAPR Update).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four-Step Framework
The EPA, working in partnership with states to develop and
implement CSAPR, the CSAPR Update, and previous regional rulemakings
pursuant to the good neighbor provision,\5\ developed the following
four-step framework to address the requirements of the good neighbor
provision for the ozone NAAQS: \6\ (1) Identify downwind air quality
problems; (2) identify upwind states that impact those downwind air
quality problems sufficiently such that they are considered ``linked''
and therefore warrant further review and analysis; (3) identify the
emissions reductions necessary (if any), considering cost and air
quality factors, to prevent linked upwind states identified in step 2
from contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS at the locations of the downwind air quality
problems; and (4) adopt permanent and enforceable measures needed to
achieve those emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Other regional rulemakings addressing ozone transport
include the NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998),
and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25162 (May 12,
2005).
\6\ The four-step framework has also been used to address
requirements of the good neighbor provision for some previous
particulate matter and ozone NAAQS, including in the western United
States. See, e.g., 83 FR 30380 (June 28, 2018) and 83 FR 5375, 5376-
77 (February 7, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data To Assist States
To assist states, the EPA released several documents containing
information relevant to evaluating interstate transport with respect to
the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and we describe those documents in the following
sections. However, none of these documents consider ozone precursor
emissions to or from Alaska, and none project design values at
monitoring sites located in Alaska, nor apportion specific downwind
impacts to Alaska. Nonetheless, we have included all background
information to provide a complete accounting of the EPA's data
releases.
2017 Data Release and Memorandum
On January 6, 2017, the EPA published a notice of data availability
(NODA) for preliminary interstate ozone transport modeling with
projected ozone design values for 2023, on which we requested
comment.\7\ The year 2023 was used as the analytic year for this
preliminary modeling because that year aligns with the expected
attainment year for ozone nonattainment areas classified as
Moderate.\8\ On October 27, 2017, we released a memorandum (2017
memorandum) containing updated modeling data for 2023, which
incorporated changes made in response to comments on the NODA.\9\
Although the 2017 memorandum also released data for a 2023 modeling
year, we specifically stated that the modeling may be useful for states
developing SIPs to address remaining good neighbor obligations for the
2008 ozone NAAQS but did not address the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport Modeling Data for
the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 82 FR
1733 (January 6, 2017).
\8\ 82 FR 1735 (January 6, 2017).
\9\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017, available in the docket for
this action or at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 Data Release and Memoranda
On March 27, 2018, we issued a memorandum (March 2018
[[Page 26043]]
memorandum) indicating the same 2023 modeling data released in the 2017
memorandum would also be useful for evaluating potential downwind air
quality problems with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS (step 1 of the
four-step framework). The March 2018 memorandum included newly
available contribution modeling results to assist states in evaluating
their impact on potential downwind air quality problems (step 2 of the
four-step framework) as part of efforts to develop good neighbor SIPs
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\10\ The EPA subsequently issued two more
memoranda in August and October of 2018, providing guidance to states
developing good neighbor SIPs for the 2015 ozone NAAQS concerning,
respectively, potential contribution thresholds that may be appropriate
to apply in step 2 and considerations for identifying downwind areas
that may have problems maintaining the standard (under prong 2 of the
good neighbor provision) at step 1 of the four-step framework.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), March 27, 2018, available in the docket for this
action and at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
\11\ See Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean
Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, August 31, 2018) (``August 2018
memorandum''), and Considerations for Identifying Maintenance
Receptors for Use in Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions for the
2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, October 19, 2018,
available in the docket for this action and at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2018 Memorandum
The March 2018 memorandum describes the process and results of the
updated photochemical and source-apportionment modeling used to project
ambient ozone concentrations for the year 2023 and the state-by-state
impacts on those concentrations. The March 2018 memorandum also
explains that the selection of the 2023 analytic year aligns with the
2015 ozone NAAQS attainment year for Moderate nonattainment areas. As
described in more detail in the 2017 and March 2018 memoranda, the EPA
used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version
6.40) to model average and maximum design values in 2023 to identify
potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors (i.e., monitoring
sites that are projected to have problems attaining or maintaining the
2015 ozone NAAQS). The March 2018 memorandum presents design values
calculated in two ways. First, the EPA followed its past approach \12\
of using model predictions from the 3 x 3 array of grid cells
surrounding the location of all monitoring sites (referred to as the
``3 x 3'' approach). Second, the EPA followed a modified approach for
coastal monitoring sites in which ``overwater'' modeling data were not
included in the calculation of future year design values (referred to
as the ``no water'' approach).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See March 2018 memorandum, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of identifying potential nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in 2023, the EPA applied the same approach used in the CSAPR
Update, wherein the EPA considered a combination of monitoring data and
modeling projections to identify monitoring sites that are projected to
have problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA
identified nonattainment receptors as those monitoring sites with
current measured values \13\ exceeding the NAAQS that also have
projected (i.e., in 2023) average design values exceeding the NAAQS.
The EPA identified maintenance receptors as those monitoring sites with
maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS. This included sites with
current measured values below the NAAQS with projected average and
maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS, and monitoring sites with
projected average design values below the NAAQS but with projected
maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS. The EPA included the design
values and monitoring data for all monitoring sites projected to be
potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors based on the updated
2023 modeling in attachment B to the March 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The EPA used 2016 ozone design values, based on 2014
through 2016 measured data, which were the most current data at the
time of the analysis. See attachment B of the March 2018 memorandum,
p. B-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After identifying potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors, the EPA next performed state-level ozone source-
apportionment modeling for the 48 contiguous United States and the
District of Columbia to estimate the expected impact from each state to
each nonattainment and maintenance receptor.\14\ The EPA included
contribution information resulting from the source-apportionment
modeling in attachment C to the March 2018 memorandum. For more
specific information on the modeling and analysis, please see the 2017
and March 2018 memoranda, the NODA for the preliminary interstate
transport assessment, and the supporting technical documents included
in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ As discussed in the March 2018 memorandum, the EPA
performed source-apportionment model runs for a modeling domain that
covers the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia,
and adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the CSAPR and the CSAPR Update, the EPA used a threshold of 1
percent of the NAAQS to determine whether a given upwind state was
``linked'' at step 2 of the four-step framework and would therefore
contribute to downwind nonattainment and maintenance sites identified
in step 1. If a state's impact did not exceed the 1 percent threshold,
the upwind state was not ``linked'' to a downwind air quality problem,
and the EPA therefore concluded the state will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in the downwind states. However, if a state's impact exceeded the 1
percent threshold, the state's emissions were further evaluated in step
three, taking into account both air quality and cost considerations, to
determine what, if any, emissions reductions might be necessary to
address the good neighbor provision.
August and October 2018 Memoranda
As noted previously, on August 31, 2018, the EPA issued a
memorandum (the August 2018 memorandum) providing information
concerning potential contribution thresholds that may be appropriate to
apply with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS in step 2. Consistent with
the process for selecting the 1 percent threshold in CSAPR and the
CSAPR Update, the memorandum included analytical information regarding
the degree to which potential air quality thresholds would capture the
collective amount of upwind contribution from upwind states to downwind
receptors for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The August 2018 memorandum
indicated that, based on the EPA's analysis of its most recent modeling
data, the amount of upwind collective contribution captured using a 1
part per billion (ppb) threshold is generally comparable, overall, to
the amount captured using a threshold equivalent to 1 percent of the
2015 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, the EPA indicated that it may be
reasonable and appropriate for states to use a 1 ppb contribution
threshold, as an alternative to the 1 percent threshold, at step 2 of
the four-step framework in developing their SIP revisions addressing
the good
[[Page 26044]]
neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\15\ In addition, on
October 19, 2018, the EPA issued a memorandum presenting information
that states may consider as they evaluate the status of monitoring
sites that the EPA identified as potential maintenance receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See August 2018 memorandum, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the March 2018 memorandum presented information regarding the
EPA's latest analysis of ozone transport following the approaches the
EPA has taken in prior regional rulemaking actions, the EPA has not
made any final determinations regarding how states should identify
downwind receptors with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS at step 1 of
the four-step framework. Rather, the EPA noted that states have
flexibility in developing their own SIPs to follow different analytical
approaches than the EPA's, so long as their chosen approach has an
adequate technical justification and is consistent with the
requirements of the CAA.
II. State Submission
On October 25, 2018, the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC) made a submission addressing the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.\16\ The submission provides information supporting the state's
conclusion that emissions from Alaska do not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state. The submission focuses on the amount and sources of
ozone precursor emissions in the state, trends in monitored ambient
ozone levels, meteorological conditions, the distance from Alaska to
the nearest receptors in other states, and the intervening geography
that isolates Alaska from other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Alaska's October 25, 2018 submission addresses all CAA
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure requirements for the 2015
ozone NAAQS (including interstate transport prongs 1 and 2) and
includes regulatory updates and permitting rule revisions for
approval into the SIP. This action addresses the portion of the
submission related to interstate transport prongs 1 and 2. We intend
to address the remainder of the submission in separate, future
actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The submission states that aggregate anthropogenic ozone precursor
emissions (nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs)) from Alaska sources are very small compared to
emissions of ozone precursors on a nationwide basis. Specifically,
Alaska evaluated 2014 National Emissions Inventory data and determined
that anthropogenic NOX emissions from sources in Alaska make
up one percent of the national total anthropogenic NOX
emissions inventoried. In doing the same comparison for VOCs, Alaska
determined that anthropogenic emissions from Alaska sources make up
less than one-half percent of total anthropogenic VOC emissions
nationwide.
Alaska also included information on monitored ozone levels within
the state. ADEC has historically monitored ozone at numerous sites in
and around Anchorage and Fairbanks, the two most-populated areas. The
submission states that the single highest 8-hour ozone concentration in
Alaska was recorded at 0.057 ppm on May 11, 2014 at the Fairbanks
National Core (NCORE) site, which is still well below the 2015 ozone
standard of 0.070 ppm. The most recent locations for ozone monitoring
in Alaska are the Fairbanks National Core site and the Palmer site in
the Anchorage area, both of which have 2015 through 2017 design values
less than 85 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\17\ The 2015 through 2017
design value at the Fairbanks NCore site is 0.043 ppm and the 2015
through 2017 design value at the Palmer site is 0.044 ppm. The
submission asserts that ambient ozone measured in Alaska consistently
trends very low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Design values below 85 percent of the NAAQS are a factor in
determining the EPA's minimum ozone monitoring requirements in 40
CFR part 58, Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The submission highlights the geographic isolation of the State of
Alaska. Alaska borders no other state in the United States and the
intervening geography between Alaska and any other state is
significant. The southernmost Alaskan border is geographically
separated from the nearest state, Washington, by hundreds of miles of
mountainous terrain in British Columbia, Canada. The submission also
describes meteorological factors that influence potential interstate
transport from Alaska sources. In the summer months, regional,
predominant low-pressure wind patterns emanate from the Gulf of Alaska
in the west and travel inland towards the east, circulating in a
counterclockwise direction. The submission states these predominant
low-pressure wind patterns would not generally be expected to transport
air pollutants from Alaska south to the contiguous United States.
Alaska's submission points generally to SIP-approved regulations
that implement the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The submission highlights Alaska's
SIP-approved stationary source preconstruction permitting program set
forth in Articles 3 and 5 of Alaska Administrative Code Title 18,
Environmental Conservation, Chapter 50, Air Quality Control (18 AAC
50). Alaska's preconstruction permitting program is designed to control
future potential NOX and VOC emissions from major and minor
stationary sources in the state. The submission also notes other SIP-
approved rules that serve to limit NOX and VOCs, including
incinerator emission standards, emission limits for industrial
processes, and emission limits for fuel burning equipment.
III. EPA Evaluation
We have employed the four-step interstate transport framework to
evaluate whether the Alaska SIP meets the requirements of the good
neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. At step 1, we refer to the
EPA's March 2018 memorandum to identify downwind air quality problems.
This memo lists receptors at specific monitoring sites that are
projected to have problems attaining or maintaining the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA identified nonattainment receptors as
those monitoring sites with 2014 through 2016 measured design values
exceeding the NAAQS that also have projected average 2023 design values
that exceed the NAAQS. The EPA identified maintenance receptors as
those monitoring sites with maximum projected 2023 design values
exceeding the NAAQS. This includes sites with 2014 through 2016
measured design values below the NAAQS with projected average and
maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS, and monitoring sites with
projected average design values below the NAAQS but with projected
maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS. Receptors identified by the
EPA are in the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Maryland, Michigan, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See March 2018 memorandum, attachment B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the EPA's March 2018 memorandum helps to identify potential
downwind receptors in step 1, it does not inform whether Alaska is
sufficiently linked to those receptors, as is required in step 2 of the
EPA's four-step framework. The EPA did not include Alaska in the state-
level ozone source-apportionment modeling that estimated the expected
impact from each state to each nonattainment and maintenance
receptor.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See March 2018 memorandum, attachment C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the absence of such modeling and state level source
apportionment data at step 2, we have used a ``weight of
[[Page 26045]]
evidence'' approach to evaluate factors that together help determine
whether Alaska emissions are sufficiently linked to potential
nonattainment or maintenance receptors in other states. The factors
evaluated for purposes of this proposed action include emissions
inventory data, monitoring trends, geography, meteorology, and SIP-
approved provisions that limit current and future emissions of ozone
precursors, as described in the following paragraphs.
Emissions Inventory Data
According to the most recent, publicly-available census data,
Alaska's population is less than a million people (737,438).\20\
Stationary and mobile source emissions are related, in part, to an
area's population. As stated in the submission, and confirmed by 2014
National Emissions Inventory data, Alaska's stationary and mobile
source emissions of NOX and VOCs as precursors to ozone
formation comprise a very small fraction of emissions nationwide,
totaling just one percent and one-half percent, respectively.\21\
Compared to other states in the northwest, Alaska's NOX
emissions are in the middle of the range, while Alaska's VOC emissions
are low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ United States Census Bureau population estimate for Alaska,
July 1, 2018, published at: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ak,US/PST045218.
\21\ ``Biogenic sources'' and ``Fire sources'' are not included.
See EPA 2014 National Emissions Inventory Report, published at
https://gispub.epa.gov/neireport/2014/.
Table 1--2014 NEI Stationary and Mobile Source NOX and VOC Emissions
[Tons] \22\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Nationwide Alaska Idaho Oregon Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX............................. 12,233,224 127,194 81,135 125,626 234,050
VOCs............................ 12,388,288 63,408 86,332 134,431 241,561
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring Trends
In addition to emissions inventory data, we have evaluated historic
ozone monitoring data within Alaska. ADEC has monitored ozone in
Anchorage and Fairbanks over the last 10 years. The National Park
Service also monitors for ozone at Denali National Park.\23\ Minimum
monitoring requirements for ozone are established in 40 CFR part 58,
Appendix D, and make use of population data and design value history to
determine the minimum number of ozone monitors that are required in
areas of each state.\24\ The following table shows ozone design values
calculated from 2010 to the present. All are well below the 2015 ozone
NAAQS (0.070 ppm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Ibid.
\23\ Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET).
\24\ 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, Network Design Criteria for
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring, Table D-2. The 2018 Alaska
monitoring network plan was approved by the EPA on October 19, 2018.
The EPA approval letter is in the docket for this action.
Table 2--Alaska Ozone Design Value Trends
[ppm] \25\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site ID Location 2010-2012 2011-2013 2012-2014 2013-2015 2014-2016 2015-2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
020200018 Anchorage, Garden........ 0.045 .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
020680003 Denali National Park..... 0.052 0.052 0.053 0.054 0.053 0.050
020900034 Fairbanks, NCORE......... .............. .............. 0.046 0.045 0.041 0.043
021700012 Anchorage, Palmer........ .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 0.044
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geography and Meteorology
Another factor for consideration is that Alaska is geographically
vast and isolated from any other state in the United States. Alaska is
over 586,000 square miles in area and shares no borders with other
states.\26\ Alaska is bordered to the east by the Yukon Territory and
British Columbia, Canada. To the south is the Gulf of Alaska and the
Pacific Ocean. To the west is the Bering Sea, Bering Strait, and
Chukchi Sea. The Arctic Ocean lies to the north. Alaska is distant from
the nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the EPA's
March 2018 memorandum. The closest identified nonattainment receptor is
in Sacramento, California (Site ID 60675003) and the closest identified
maintenance receptor is also in Sacramento (Site ID 60670012).
California is over 1000 miles from Alaska's southernmost border and the
intervening topography in Alaska and British Columbia, Canada are
varied and includes mountainous and complex terrain.\27\ Geographically
situated between Alaska and California are the states of Washington and
Oregon. Each intervening state has equivalent or higher ozone precursor
emissions compared to Alaska,\28\ and each has been determined by the
EPA to contribute less than 1 percent to identified receptors in any
other state, including California.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ EPA 2017 Ozone Design Value Report, Table 6, Monitor
Trends, https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
\26\ 2015Alaska Air Quality Monitoring Network Assessment, p. 8,
published at https://dec.alaska.gov/air/air-monitoring/network-assessments.
\27\ Ibid, p. 10.
\28\ See ``Table 1: 2014 NEI Stationary and Mobile Source
NOX and VOC Emissions (tons)'' in the preceding
paragraph.
\29\ Washington and Oregon's modeled contribution to the
Sacramento nonattainment receptor (Site ID 60675003) is 0.14 ppb and
0.45 ppb, respectively. Washington and Oregon's modeled contribution
to the Sacramento maintenance receptor (Site ID 60670012) is 0.20
ppb and 0.57 ppb, respectively. See March 2018 memorandum,
attachment C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meteorology is also a factor that can limit potential transport of
emissions from Alaska to identified receptors. According to Alaska's
submission and the 2015 Alaska Air Quality Monitoring Network
Assessment, weather in Alaska during the summer months is influenced by
the jet stream and low-pressure systems that tend to move weather
patterns from south-central Alaska up into the Interior, not south to
the contiguous United States.\30\ The summer months are when ozone
levels are generally higher, and that holds true
[[Page 26046]]
at the Sacramento, California nonattainment and maintenance receptors,
which are those EPA-identified receptors closest to Alaska, discussed
in the previous paragraph.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Ibid, p. 23.
\31\ The high ozone season is May through October in the
Sacramento area. Sacramento Regional 8-hour Ozone Attainment and
Reasonable Further Progress plan, Chapter 1, page 1-1, which can be
found at https://www.airquality.org/businesses/air-quality-plans/federal-planning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska SIP
It is helpful to review a state's existing SIP-approved regulations
as part of a weight of evidence analysis. Therefore, we have evaluated
the current federally-approved Alaska SIP and those rules in the SIP
that are designed to limit emissions of NOX and VOCs from
existing and future sources. Alaska generally regulates emissions of
NOX and VOCs through its SIP-approved stationary source
preconstruction permitting programs, set forth in Articles 3 and 5 of
18 AAC 50, in addition to other regulations approved into the SIP and
described in this section. Stationary source preconstruction permitting
is known as new source review (NSR) and establishes requirements based
on a source's size and location, among other things. New and modified
major stationary sources located in designated nonattainment areas are
subject to nonattainment NSR permitting requirements (NNSR) for the
nonattainment pollutant. New and modified major stationary sources in
designated attainment and unclassifiable areas are subject to
prevention of significant deterioration permitting requirements (PSD).
Alaska's SIP approved NNSR and PSD programs are found in Article 3 of
18 AAC 50. Minor new and modified stationary sources are regulated by
Alaska's SIP-approved minor NSR program found in Article 5 of 18 AAC
50.
All of Alaska is designated ``attainment/unclassifiable'' for the
2015 ozone NAAQS.\32\ Therefore, with respect to ozone precursor
emissions, stationary sources seeking to construct or modify in Alaska
are subject to PSD and minor NSR, depending on the size of the source.
The Alaska PSD permitting program in Article 3 of 18 AAC 50 references
a suite of regulations approved into the Alaska SIP and makes use of
certain federal PSD requirements, set forth in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), and incorporated by reference into the Alaska SIP in
18 AAC 50.040. See 40 CFR 52.96. The EPA most recently approved updates
and revisions to the Alaska PSD permitting program on August 28, 2017
(82 FR 40712). The current SIP-approved Alaska PSD permitting program
incorporates by reference specific federal requirements in 40 CFR
52.21, 40 CFR 51.166, and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, as of July 1,
2017. The program has been updated for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and
regulates NOX and VOCs as precursors to ozone formation,
consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 40 CFR 81.302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turning to minor sources, Article 5 of 18 AAC 50 requires pre-
construction permitting for subject new and modified minor stationary
sources. SIP-approved minor NSR programs and revisions to such programs
must be consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR
51.160 through 51.164. Alaska's minor NSR program was originally
approved into the Alaska SIP on July 5, 1983 (48 FR 30623). We have
approved subsequent revisions, most recently on August 28, 2017 (82 FR
40712). Both Alaska's PSD and minor NSR programs are designed to limit
potential future emissions of NOX and VOCs.
In addition to permitting requirements, Alaska's SIP contains other
rules that also serve to limit NOX and VOCs. These rules
include incinerator emission standards (18 AAC 50.050) and emission
limits for industrial processes and fuel burning equipment (18 AAC
50.055).
Based on the factors evaluated and discussed in this proposal and
supporting material in the docket for this action, the EPA believes it
is reasonable to conclude that emissions from Alaska are not likely to
be linked to nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the contiguous
United States. We propose to find that Alaska's SIP contains adequate
provisions that are designed to limit future potential NOX
and VOC emissions, and therefore, the state is unlikely to be linked to
downwind receptors in the future. Accordingly, we have stopped our
evaluation at step 2 of the four-step framework.
IV. Proposed Action
As discussed in section II in this preamble, Alaska concluded that
emissions from sources in the state will not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state. The EPA's evaluation, discussed in section III in
this preamble, confirms this finding. We are proposing to approve the
Alaska SIP as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because 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 it does not involve technical standards; and
Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a
[[Page 26047]]
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 21, 2019.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2019-11764 Filed 6-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
