Air Plan Approval; Arkansas; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2010 1-Hour SO2, 38895-38898 [2019-16936]

Download as PDF jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules information concerning the meeting may contact Dr. Thomas Armitage, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; via telephone/voice mail (202) 564–2155, or email at armitage.thomas@epa.gov. General information concerning the SAB can be found on the EPA website at https:// www.epa.gov/sab. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the scientific and technical basis for agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the SAB will hold a public teleconference to conduct a consultation with EPA on mechanisms for secure access to personally identifying information (PII) and confidential business information (CBI) as discussed in the proposed rulemaking ‘‘Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science.’’ See (83 FR 18768, April 30, 2018) EPA’s proposed rulemaking (83 FR 18768, April 30, 2018) contains the following statements: (1) ‘‘When promulgating significant regulatory actions, the Agency shall ensure that dose response data and models underlying pivotal regulatory science are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation.’’ (2) ‘‘Information is considered publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation when it includes the information necessary for the public to understand, assess, and replicate findings.’’ (3) ‘‘Where the Agency is making data or models publicly available, it shall do so in a fashion that is consistent with law, protects privacy, confidentiality, confidential business information, and is sensitive to national and homeland security.’’ Therefore, EPA has requested a consultation with the SAB on mechanisms for secure access to personally identifying information (PII) and confidential business information (CBI) as discussed in the proposed rule consistent with existing laws and policies that protect PII and CBI. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:03 Aug 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 Availability of Meeting Materials: A meeting agenda and other materials for the meeting will be placed on the SAB website at https://epa.gov/sab. Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA’s federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA. Members of the public can submit relevant comments pertaining to the EPA’s charge, meeting materials, or the group providing advice. Input from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for the SAB to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the DFO directly. Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a public teleconference will be limited to three minutes. Persons interested in providing oral statements at the August 27, 2019, teleconference should contact Dr. Thomas Armitage, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by August 20, 2019, to be placed on the list of registered speakers. Written Statements: Written statements for the August 27, 2019, teleconference should be received in the SAB Staff Office by August 20, 2019, so that the information can be made available to the SAB for its consideration prior to the meeting. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO at the contact information above via email (preferred) or in hard copy with original signature. Submitters are requested to provide a signed and unsigned version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its websites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted to the SAB website. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder. Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Armitage at the phone number or email address noted above, preferably at least ten days prior to the meeting, to give the EPA as PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 38895 much time as possible to process your request. Dated: July 30, 2019. Khanna Johnston, Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office. [FR Doc. 2019–16791 Filed 8–7–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R06–OAR–2019–0438; FRL–9997–72– Region 6] Air Plan Approval; Arkansas; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2010 1Hour SO2 NAAQS Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the portion of Arkansas’ State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal addressing the CAA requirements pertaining to the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provision of the CAA for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The ‘‘good neighbor’’ provision requires each state’s implementation plan contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions which will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in other states. EPA is proposing to determine that consistent with the CAA, Arkansas’ SIP contains adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions in Arkansas will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 9, 2019. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– OAR–2019–0438, at https:// www.regulations.gov or via email to salem.nevine@epa.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM 08AUP1 38896 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact Ms. Nevine Salem, (214) 665– 7222, salem.nevine@epa.gov. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nevine Salem, EPA Region 6 Office, Infrastructure and Ozone Section, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, TX 75270, (214) 665–7222, salem.nevine@epa.gov. To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Ms. Salem or Mr. Bill Deese at (214) 665–7253. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. I. Background jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS A. General On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new primary 1-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a threeyear average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations.1 The CAA requires states to submit, within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, SIPs meeting the applicable ‘‘infrastructure’’ elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to interstate transport of pollution. 1 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:03 Aug 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 B. EPA’s Infrastructure SIP Requirements 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. 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. C. Interstate Pollution Transport Requirements Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires a state’s SIP to include adequate provisions prohibiting any emissions activity in the state that will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interferes with maintenance, of the NAAQS in any downwind state. The EPA sometimes refers to these requirements as prong 1 (contribute significantly to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance), or jointly as the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provision of the CAA. Further information can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this rulemaking action, which is available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA–R06–OAR–2019–0438. II. Summary of Arkansas’ SIP Submittal and EPA’s Evaluation A. Arkansas’ SIP Submittal On March 24, 2017, the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted an infrastructure SIP (i-SIP) addressing how the existing Arkansas SIP provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.2 On February 14, 2018 (83 FR 6470), the EPA approved most elements of Arkansas i-SIP submittal, but we took no action regarding the interstate transport provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) pertaining to significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1) and 2 This proposed approval action is based on the information contained in the administrative record for this action and does not prejudge any other future EPA action that may make other determinations regarding any of the subject state’s air quality status. Any such future actions, such as area designations under any NAAQS, will be based on their own administrative records and the EPA’s analyses of information that becomes available at those times. Future available information may include, and is not limited to, monitoring data and modeling analyses conducted pursuant to the EPA’s SO2 Data Requirements Rule (80 FR 51052, August 21, 2015) and information submitted to the EPA by states, air agencies, and third-party stakeholders such as citizen groups and industry representatives. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 interference with maintenance (prong 2) of the NAAQS in other states. The portions of Arkansas’ March 24, 2017 SIP submittal addressing interstate transport (for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) discuss how Arkansas will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. ADEQ evaluated SO2 monitoring data within Arkansas and its surrounding states (Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee), and concluded that its emissions will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. In its submittal Arkansas described several existing SIP-approved measures and other federally enforceable sourcespecific measures, including permitting requirements, that apply to SO2 sources within the state. B. EPA’s Evaluation For this CAA Section 110 (a)(2)(D)(i)(I) evaluation of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, EPA conducted a weight of evidence analysis for each prong separately,3 including available information such as air quality, emission sources, modeling and emission trends in Arkansas and the adjacent nearby states that border Arkansas. 1. EPA’s Prong 1 Evaluation— Contribute Significantly to Nonattainment Prong 1 of the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions requires states’ plans to prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state. ADEQ confirms in its submission that Arkansas’ SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent sources and other types of emission activities within the State from contributing significantly to nonattainment in other states with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard. The EPA’s evaluation 4 of whether Arkansas has met its Prong 1 transport 3 In North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d at 910–911 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the D.C. Circuit explained that the regulating authority must give prong 2 ‘‘independent significance’’ from prong 1 by evaluating the impact of upwind state emissions on downwind areas that, while currently in attainment, are at risk of future nonattainment. 4 A detailed review of EPA’s evaluation of emissions, air monitoring data, other technical information, and rationale for proposed approval of this SIP revision as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS may be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) attached to this docket. E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM 08AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS obligations was accomplished by considering these factors: (1) SO2 ambient air quality and emissions trends for Arkansas and neighboring states; (2) Potential ambient impacts of SO2 emissions from certain facilities 5 in Arkansas on neighboring states based on available air dispersion modeling results of SO2 sources in Arkansas and surrounding states and proximity analysis; (3) Analysis of the relationship of Arkansas sources with monitors in adjacent states which have recorded elevated SO2 concentrations; (4) Arkansas’ SIP-approved regulations specific to SO2 emissions and permit requirements; and, (5) Other SIP-approved or federally enforceable regulations which may reduce SO2 emissions either directly or indirectly. Based on EPA’s analysis and evaluation of Arkansas’ March 24, 2017 SIP submittal addressing the requirements of prong 1 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement, we agree with Arkansas’ conclusion that the existing Arkansas SIP is adequate to prevent sources in the state from contributing significantly to nonattainment in another state with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA proposes to determine that Arkansas’ March 24, 2017 SIP submittal satisfies the requirements of Prong 1 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This proposed determination is based on the following considerations: • There are no monitors recording violations of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS located in Arkansas or within 50 km of its border. Additionally, all monitors within 50 km of the Arkansas border have design values (DV) 6 that are well below the 75 ppb standard and are unlikely to violate the standard in the future, indicating no potential concern for Prong 1. Current DVs for Arkansas’ AQS SO2 monitors within 50 km of another state’s border have remained well below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS from 2015–2017; similarly; SO2 monitors for neighboring states (Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Missouri and Tennessee) within 50 km of Arkansas have 2017 DVs below 2010 1hour NAAQS standards; 5 The physical properties of SO result in 2 relatively localized pollutant impacts very near the emissions source. Therefore, the EPA selected a spatial scale with dimensions up to 50 km from point sources. 6 The design value is the 3-year average of the 99th percentile 1-hour daily maximums at a monitor. A control strategy should be designed to bring the value to attainment of the standard. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:03 Aug 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 • Modeling for the two Arkansas’ Data Requirements Rule (DRR) sources 7 within 50 km of an adjacent state’s border estimates impacts below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and modeling for the DRR sources in surrounding states within 50 km of Arkansas indicates that areas around these sources do not violate the 2010 SO2 NAAQS; • Significant downward SO2 emissions trends in Arkansas and its surrounding states (Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Missouri, and Tennessee), when considered together with the other factors discussed as part of EPA’s weight of evidence analysis, further decreases the probability that the State’s sources are significantly contributing to other states’ ability to attain the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS; • An analysis of Arkansas sources emitting over 100 tons of SO2 in 2017 show that these sources will not combine with emissions from the nearby sources in neighboring states to contribute significantly to nonattainment in those states. These analyses show the nearby sources have been modeled to show compliance of the 2010 standard or the modeling of the nearby sources included the Arkansas sources as background concentration or the Arkansas sources were well beyond 50 km from the adjacent states making it unlikely that Arkansas sources will contribute significantly to nonattainment in those states; and • EPA also evaluated the most recent monitoring data for DRR monitors located in states adjacent to Arkansas and within 50 km of the state’s border.8 There are three monitors that fall into this category, one in Oklahoma and two in Missouri. The Oklahoma monitor’s measurements meet the standard by a wide margin. So, Arkansas sources are 7 On August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052), EPA promulgated air quality characterization requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the Data Requirements Rule (DRR). The DRR required state air agencies to characterize air quality, through air dispersion modeling or monitoring, in areas associated with sources that emitted greater than 2,000 tons per year (tpy) of SO2, or that have otherwise been listed under the DRR by EPA or state air agencies. In lieu of modeling or monitoring, state air agencies, by specified dates, could elect to impose federallyenforceable emissions limitations on those sources restricting their annual SO2 emissions to 2,000 tpy or less, or provide documentation that the sources have been shut down. 8 There are five DRR monitored sources within 50 km of Arkansas the border. Two DRR sources are in Arkansas (Flint Creek Power Plan, in Benton County, Arkansas and Plum Point Energy Station in Mississippi County, Arkansas). Three DRR sources are outside of Arkansas (GRDA Power Plant in Mayes, Oklahoma, Noranda Aluminum Inc and New Madrid Power Plant Marston both in New Madrid, Missouri). PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 38897 not contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance at that monitor. The monitors in Missouri recorded exceedances of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for 2018, the only complete year of data. The nearest Arkansas sources, however, are of relatively small size (less than 300 tpy) and beyond the chosen 50 km spatial scale. Furthermore, the location of the Arkansas sources relative to Missouri DRR sources and the Missouri monitors that are recording exceedances are such that transport from the Arkansas sources could not significantly contribute to the monitors (or areas around the monitors) at the same time as the DRR sources are having their maximum impact. Therefore, the Arkansas sources will not have a significant impact on the measured exceedances; and, • Current Arkansas’ statutes, SIPapproved and federal emissions control regulations will continue to adequately control SO2 emissions from sources within Arkansas. Based on the analysis provided by Arkansas in its SIP submittal, the summary of EPA’s evaluation, and EPA’s supplemental Prong 1 analysis given in the TSD for this action, EPA proposes to find that sources within Arkansas will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. 2. EPA’s Prong 2 Evaluation— Interference With Maintenance Prong 2 of the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provision requires state plans to prohibit emissions that will interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in another state. For the Prong 2 analysis, EPA evaluated the SO2 emissions trends for Arkansas, evaluated air quality data, and assessed how future sources of SO2 are addressed through existing SIPapproved and federally enforceable regulations. As discussed in more detail in the TSD, current available modeling for areas in other states within 50 km of the Arkansas border show attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS supporting that sources within Arkansas will not interfere with neighboring states’ ability to maintain the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Emissions over time are not anticipated to increase relative to the baseline emissions modeled. EPA believes that federal and state regulations and statutes directly and indirectly reduced emissions of SO2 in Arkansas and help to ensure that the State does not interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. SO2 emissions from future major modifications and new major sources will be addressed by Arkansas’ SIPapproved major NSR regulations E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM 08AUP1 38898 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS described in more detail in the TSD. In addition, Arkansas has a SIP-approved minor NSR permit program addressing small emission sources of SO2. The permitting regulations contained within these programs are designed to ensure that emissions from these activities will not interfere with maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in Arkansas or any other state. EPA proposes to determine that Arkansas’ March 24, 2017 SIP submittal satisfies the requirements of Prong 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This determination is based on the following considerations: • Statewide SO2 emissions from 2000 to 2017 in Arkansas have declined significantly and are expected to continue to decline, tending to reduce background concentrations in neighboring states; • Current Arkansas statutes and SIPapproved measures and federal emissions control programs adequately control SO2 emissions from sources within Arkansas; • Arkansas’ SIP-approved PSD and minor source NSR permit programs will address future new and modified SO2 sources above major and minor permitting thresholds; • Current 2015–2017 DVs for Air Quality System (AQS) 9 SO2 monitors both in Arkansas within 50 km of another state’s border and in neighboring states (Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Missouri and Tennessee) within 50 km of Arkansas’ border are below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; and • Available modeling for DRR sources within 50 km of Arkansas’ border both within the State and in neighboring states demonstrates that Arkansas’ larger point sources of SO2 do not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state. Based on the analysis provided by Arkansas in its SIP submittal, EPA’s summary of its evaluation, and EPA’s supplemental Prong 2 analysis given in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action, EPA proposes to find that sources within Arkansas will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. 9 The Air Quality System (AQS) contains ambient air pollution data collected by EPA, state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies from over thousands of monitors. AQS also contains meteorological data, descriptive information about each monitoring station (including its geographic location and its operator), and data quality assurance/quality control information. AQS data is used to assess air quality, assist in attainment/nonattainment designations, evaluate State Implementation Plans for non-attainment areas, perform modeling for permit review analysis, and prepare reports for congress as mandated by the Clean Air Act. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:03 Aug 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 III. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve the remaining portions of the Arkansas’ March 24, 2017 SIP submittal addressing interstate transport for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS as these portions meet the requirements in section 110(a)(2)(i)(I) of the CAA. Based on the EPA’s analysis of the state’s submittal and the factors described in this document and the TSD, EPA proposes to determine Arkansas’ SIP contains adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions within Arkansas will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. 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. 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 that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, 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 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); PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 • 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). In addition, this proposed rule, addressing Arkansas’ interstate transport requirements for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not 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, Sulfur oxides. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: August 1, 2019. David Gray, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. 2019–16936 Filed 8–7–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R01–OAR–2019–0353; FRL–9997–89– Region 1] Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Transport Element for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) interstate transport SIP requirements, referred to as the good neighbor provision, for the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This submission addresses the interstate transport requirements of the CAA that SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM 08AUP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38895-38898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16936]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2019-0438; FRL-9997-72-Region 6]


Air Plan Approval; Arkansas; Interstate Transport Requirements 
for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the 
portion of Arkansas' State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal 
addressing the CAA requirements pertaining to the ``good neighbor'' 
provision of the CAA for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The ``good neighbor'' 
provision requires each state's implementation plan contain adequate 
provisions prohibiting emissions which will contribute significantly to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 
NAAQS in other states. EPA is proposing to determine that consistent 
with the CAA, Arkansas' SIP contains adequate provisions to ensure that 
air emissions in Arkansas will not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 
NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 9, 
2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2019-0438, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to 
[email protected]. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public 
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia

[[Page 38896]]

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, please contact Ms. Nevine 
Salem, (214) 665-7222, [email protected]. For the full EPA public 
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and 
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA 
Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas. While all 
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may 
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location 
(e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nevine Salem, EPA Region 6 Office, 
Infrastructure and Ozone Section, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, 
TX 75270, (214) 665-7222, [email protected]. To inspect the hard 
copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Ms. Salem or Mr. 
Bill Deese at (214) 665-7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and 
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

A. General

    On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new primary 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a three-
year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 
concentrations.\1\ The CAA requires states to submit, within three 
years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, SIPs meeting the 
applicable ``infrastructure'' elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). 
One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor'' provisions 
to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states 
due to interstate transport of pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Infrastructure SIP Requirements

    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. 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.

C. Interstate Pollution Transport Requirements

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires a state's SIP to 
include adequate provisions prohibiting any emissions activity in the 
state that will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or 
interferes with maintenance, of the NAAQS in any downwind state. The 
EPA sometimes refers to these requirements as prong 1 (contribute 
significantly to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with 
maintenance), or jointly as the ``good neighbor'' provision of the CAA. 
Further information can be found in the Technical Support Document 
(TSD) for this rulemaking action, which is available online at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R06-OAR-2019-0438.

II. Summary of Arkansas' SIP Submittal and EPA's Evaluation

A. Arkansas' SIP Submittal

    On March 24, 2017, the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 
(ADEQ) submitted an infrastructure SIP (i-SIP) addressing how the 
existing Arkansas SIP provides for the implementation, maintenance, and 
enforcement of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\2\ On February 14, 
2018 (83 FR 6470), the EPA approved most elements of Arkansas i-SIP 
submittal, but we took no action regarding the interstate transport 
provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) pertaining to significant 
contribution to nonattainment (prong 1) and interference with 
maintenance (prong 2) of the NAAQS in other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This proposed approval action is based on the information 
contained in the administrative record for this action and does not 
prejudge any other future EPA action that may make other 
determinations regarding any of the subject state's air quality 
status. Any such future actions, such as area designations under any 
NAAQS, will be based on their own administrative records and the 
EPA's analyses of information that becomes available at those times. 
Future available information may include, and is not limited to, 
monitoring data and modeling analyses conducted pursuant to the 
EPA's SO2 Data Requirements Rule (80 FR 51052, August 21, 
2015) and information submitted to the EPA by states, air agencies, 
and third-party stakeholders such as citizen groups and industry 
representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The portions of Arkansas' March 24, 2017 SIP submittal addressing 
interstate transport (for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) discuss how 
Arkansas will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or 
interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS. ADEQ evaluated SO2 monitoring 
data within Arkansas and its surrounding states (Oklahoma, Texas, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee), and concluded that its 
emissions will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 
any other state. In its submittal Arkansas described several existing 
SIP-approved measures and other federally enforceable source-specific 
measures, including permitting requirements, that apply to 
SO2 sources within the state.

B. EPA's Evaluation

    For this CAA Section 110 (a)(2)(D)(i)(I) evaluation of the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS, EPA conducted a weight of evidence analysis for 
each prong separately,\3\ including available information such as air 
quality, emission sources, modeling and emission trends in Arkansas and 
the adjacent nearby states that border Arkansas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d at 910-911 (D.C. Cir. 
2008), the D.C. Circuit explained that the regulating authority must 
give prong 2 ``independent significance'' from prong 1 by evaluating 
the impact of upwind state emissions on downwind areas that, while 
currently in attainment, are at risk of future nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation--Contribute Significantly to Nonattainment
    Prong 1 of the ``good neighbor'' provisions requires states' plans 
to prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to 
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state. ADEQ confirms in its 
submission that Arkansas' SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent 
sources and other types of emission activities within the State from 
contributing significantly to nonattainment in other states with 
respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard. The EPA's 
evaluation \4\ of whether Arkansas has met its Prong 1 transport

[[Page 38897]]

obligations was accomplished by considering these factors:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A detailed review of EPA's evaluation of emissions, air 
monitoring data, other technical information, and rationale for 
proposed approval of this SIP revision as meeting CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS may be 
found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) attached to this 
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) SO2 ambient air quality and emissions trends for 
Arkansas and neighboring states;
    (2) Potential ambient impacts of SO2 emissions from 
certain facilities \5\ in Arkansas on neighboring states based on 
available air dispersion modeling results of SO2 sources in 
Arkansas and surrounding states and proximity analysis;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The physical properties of SO2 result in 
relatively localized pollutant impacts very near the emissions 
source. Therefore, the EPA selected a spatial scale with dimensions 
up to 50 km from point sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Analysis of the relationship of Arkansas sources with monitors 
in adjacent states which have recorded elevated SO2 
concentrations;
    (4) Arkansas' SIP-approved regulations specific to SO2 
emissions and permit requirements; and,
    (5) Other SIP-approved or federally enforceable regulations which 
may reduce SO2 emissions either directly or indirectly.
    Based on EPA's analysis and evaluation of Arkansas' March 24, 2017 
SIP submittal addressing the requirements of prong 1 of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement, we agree with Arkansas' conclusion that 
the existing Arkansas SIP is adequate to prevent sources in the state 
from contributing significantly to nonattainment in another state with 
respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA proposes to 
determine that Arkansas' March 24, 2017 SIP submittal satisfies the 
requirements of Prong 1 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This 
proposed determination is based on the following considerations:
     There are no monitors recording violations of the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS located in Arkansas or within 50 km of its border. 
Additionally, all monitors within 50 km of the Arkansas border have 
design values (DV) \6\ that are well below the 75 ppb standard and are 
unlikely to violate the standard in the future, indicating no potential 
concern for Prong 1. Current DVs for Arkansas' AQS SO2 
monitors within 50 km of another state's border have remained well 
below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS from 2015-2017; similarly; 
SO2 monitors for neighboring states (Oklahoma, Texas, 
Louisiana, Missouri and Tennessee) within 50 km of Arkansas have 2017 
DVs below 2010 1-hour NAAQS standards;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The design value is the 3-year average of the 99th 
percentile 1-hour daily maximums at a monitor. A control strategy 
should be designed to bring the value to attainment of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Modeling for the two Arkansas' Data Requirements Rule 
(DRR) sources \7\ within 50 km of an adjacent state's border estimates 
impacts below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and modeling for 
the DRR sources in surrounding states within 50 km of Arkansas 
indicates that areas around these sources do not violate the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ On August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052), EPA promulgated air 
quality characterization requirements for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in the Data Requirements Rule (DRR). The DRR 
required state air agencies to characterize air quality, through air 
dispersion modeling or monitoring, in areas associated with sources 
that emitted greater than 2,000 tons per year (tpy) of 
SO2, or that have otherwise been listed under the DRR by 
EPA or state air agencies. In lieu of modeling or monitoring, state 
air agencies, by specified dates, could elect to impose federally-
enforceable emissions limitations on those sources restricting their 
annual SO2 emissions to 2,000 tpy or less, or provide 
documentation that the sources have been shut down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Significant downward SO2 emissions trends in 
Arkansas and its surrounding states (Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, 
Missouri, and Tennessee), when considered together with the other 
factors discussed as part of EPA's weight of evidence analysis, further 
decreases the probability that the State's sources are significantly 
contributing to other states' ability to attain the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS;
     An analysis of Arkansas sources emitting over 100 tons of 
SO2 in 2017 show that these sources will not combine with 
emissions from the nearby sources in neighboring states to contribute 
significantly to nonattainment in those states. These analyses show the 
nearby sources have been modeled to show compliance of the 2010 
standard or the modeling of the nearby sources included the Arkansas 
sources as background concentration or the Arkansas sources were well 
beyond 50 km from the adjacent states making it unlikely that Arkansas 
sources will contribute significantly to nonattainment in those states; 
and
     EPA also evaluated the most recent monitoring data for DRR 
monitors located in states adjacent to Arkansas and within 50 km of the 
state's border.\8\ There are three monitors that fall into this 
category, one in Oklahoma and two in Missouri. The Oklahoma monitor's 
measurements meet the standard by a wide margin. So, Arkansas sources 
are not contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance 
at that monitor. The monitors in Missouri recorded exceedances of the 
2010 SO2 NAAQS for 2018, the only complete year of data. The 
nearest Arkansas sources, however, are of relatively small size (less 
than 300 tpy) and beyond the chosen 50 km spatial scale. Furthermore, 
the location of the Arkansas sources relative to Missouri DRR sources 
and the Missouri monitors that are recording exceedances are such that 
transport from the Arkansas sources could not significantly contribute 
to the monitors (or areas around the monitors) at the same time as the 
DRR sources are having their maximum impact. Therefore, the Arkansas 
sources will not have a significant impact on the measured exceedances; 
and,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ There are five DRR monitored sources within 50 km of 
Arkansas the border. Two DRR sources are in Arkansas (Flint Creek 
Power Plan, in Benton County, Arkansas and Plum Point Energy Station 
in Mississippi County, Arkansas). Three DRR sources are outside of 
Arkansas (GRDA Power Plant in Mayes, Oklahoma, Noranda Aluminum Inc 
and New Madrid Power Plant Marston both in New Madrid, Missouri).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Current Arkansas' statutes, SIP-approved and federal 
emissions control regulations will continue to adequately control 
SO2 emissions from sources within Arkansas.
    Based on the analysis provided by Arkansas in its SIP submittal, 
the summary of EPA's evaluation, and EPA's supplemental Prong 1 
analysis given in the TSD for this action, EPA proposes to find that 
sources within Arkansas will not significantly contribute to 
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other 
state.
2. EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation--Interference With Maintenance
    Prong 2 of the ``good neighbor'' provision requires state plans to 
prohibit emissions that will interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in 
another state. For the Prong 2 analysis, EPA evaluated the 
SO2 emissions trends for Arkansas, evaluated air quality 
data, and assessed how future sources of SO2 are addressed 
through existing SIP-approved and federally enforceable regulations. As 
discussed in more detail in the TSD, current available modeling for 
areas in other states within 50 km of the Arkansas border show 
attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS supporting that 
sources within Arkansas will not interfere with neighboring states' 
ability to maintain the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Emissions 
over time are not anticipated to increase relative to the baseline 
emissions modeled. EPA believes that federal and state regulations and 
statutes directly and indirectly reduced emissions of SO2 in 
Arkansas and help to ensure that the State does not interfere with 
maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. SO2 emissions 
from future major modifications and new major sources will be addressed 
by Arkansas' SIP-approved major NSR regulations

[[Page 38898]]

described in more detail in the TSD. In addition, Arkansas has a SIP-
approved minor NSR permit program addressing small emission sources of 
SO2. The permitting regulations contained within these 
programs are designed to ensure that emissions from these activities 
will not interfere with maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in 
Arkansas or any other state.
    EPA proposes to determine that Arkansas' March 24, 2017 SIP 
submittal satisfies the requirements of Prong 2 of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This determination is based on the following 
considerations:
     Statewide SO2 emissions from 2000 to 2017 in 
Arkansas have declined significantly and are expected to continue to 
decline, tending to reduce background concentrations in neighboring 
states;
     Current Arkansas statutes and SIP-approved measures and 
federal emissions control programs adequately control SO2 
emissions from sources within Arkansas;
     Arkansas' SIP-approved PSD and minor source NSR permit 
programs will address future new and modified SO2 sources 
above major and minor permitting thresholds;
     Current 2015-2017 DVs for Air Quality System (AQS) \9\ 
SO2 monitors both in Arkansas within 50 km of another 
state's border and in neighboring states (Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, 
Missouri and Tennessee) within 50 km of Arkansas' border are below the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Air Quality System (AQS) contains ambient air pollution 
data collected by EPA, state, local, and tribal air pollution 
control agencies from over thousands of monitors. AQS also contains 
meteorological data, descriptive information about each monitoring 
station (including its geographic location and its operator), and 
data quality assurance/quality control information. AQS data is used 
to assess air quality, assist in attainment/non-attainment 
designations, evaluate State Implementation Plans for non-attainment 
areas, perform modeling for permit review analysis, and prepare 
reports for congress as mandated by the Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Available modeling for DRR sources within 50 km of 
Arkansas' border both within the State and in neighboring states 
demonstrates that Arkansas' larger point sources of SO2 do 
not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 
in another state.
    Based on the analysis provided by Arkansas in its SIP submittal, 
EPA's summary of its evaluation, and EPA's supplemental Prong 2 
analysis given in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action, 
EPA proposes to find that sources within Arkansas will not interfere 
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other 
state.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the remaining portions of the Arkansas' 
March 24, 2017 SIP submittal addressing interstate transport for the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS as these portions meet the 
requirements in section 110(a)(2)(i)(I) of the CAA. Based on the EPA's 
analysis of the state's submittal and the factors described in this 
document and the TSD, EPA proposes to determine Arkansas' SIP contains 
adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions within Arkansas will 
not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

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. 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 that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, 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 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).
    In addition, this proposed rule, addressing Arkansas' interstate 
transport requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, does 
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply 
in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not 
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, Sulfur oxides.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.


    Dated: August 1, 2019.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2019-16936 Filed 8-7-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.