Air Plan Approval; AL, FL, GA, NC, SC, TN; Interstate Transport (Prongs 1 and 2) for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 71854-71862 [2019-27695]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
71854
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
on (a) the cost and efficiency of
distribution proceedings and (b) the
likelihood of achieving settlements to
resolve both Allocation Phase and
Distribution Phase controversies.
In addition, the Judges inquire as to
the need for mechanisms and standards
to resolve any disputes as to the identity
of participants seeking to represent a
particular Allocation Phase category in
an Allocation Phase proceeding.
B. The Identification of Invalid Claims
The Judges are in agreement with the
CRT observation that its 1980 ruling
with respect to ineligible claims ‘‘may
not necessarily control any subsequent
distribution proceeding.’’ 1978
Proceeding at 63042 (emphasis added).
Therefore, the Judges also revisit the
identification and treatment of funds
that are unclaimed because a filed claim
is invalid or not validly represented in
a distribution proceeding (invalid
claims). The Judges request that
commenters provide an adequate factual
record to support their positions as to
the necessity and feasibility of proposed
approaches to the identification and
treatment of invalid claims, and the
consonance of their proposed
approaches with the establishment of
relative value. Commenters should
address how the treatment of invalid
claims may interrelate with the
establishment of Allocation Phase
categories. For instance, one rationale
for intra-category re-apportionment of
royalties attributable to invalid claims
(the status quo) is that the invalidlyclaimed programs have more in
common in terms of value creation with
the validly-claimed programs in the
same category than with the validlyclaimed programs in the other categories
(which also implicates the above-stated
inquiry regarding whether the categories
should be claimant-centric or programcentric). If the former, the argument for
maintaining intra-category re-allocations
of invalid claims may be weaker,
because claimant-centric categorization
is based on common representation, not
common relative program value.
The Judges also inquire as to the
likely impact any proposed rule for the
identification and treatment of ineligible
claims may have on (a) the cost and
efficiency of distribution proceedings
and (b) the likelihood of achieving
settlements to resolve both Allocation
Phase and Distribution Phase
controversies.
III. Submissions
With respect to both of the subjects of
inquiry, commenters should provide
narrative responses and proposed
regulatory language amending 37 CFR
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Dec 27, 2019
Jkt 250001
part 351. Commenters should include
relevant facts, legal and economic
analyses, and citation to authority for
each proposed regulatory provision.
After considering the proposals, the
Judges intend to publish a formal notice
of proposed rulemaking in accordance
with the provisions of the
Administrative Procedures Act.
Dated: December 20, 2019.
Jesse M. Feder,
Chief Copyright Royalty Judge.
[FR Doc. 2019–27970 Filed 12–27–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–72–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2019–0156; FRL–10003–
69–Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; AL, FL, GA, NC, SC,
TN; Interstate Transport (Prongs 1 and
2) for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Clean Air Act (CAA)
requires each State Implementation Plan
(SIP) to contain adequate provisions
prohibiting emissions that will have
certain adverse air quality effects in
other states. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is
proposing to approve State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee
(collectively, Southeast States)
addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) good neighbor interstate transport
infrastructure SIP requirements for the
2015 8-hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA is
proposing to approve the submission 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: Written comments must be
received on or before January 29, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2019–0156 at
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Information (CBI) or other information
the disclosure of which restricted by
statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment
is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. EPA will generally
not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Evan Adams of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
Mr. Adams can be reached by telephone
at (404) 562–9009, or via electronic mail
at adams.evan@epa.gov.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Southeast States’ Submissions and EPA’s
Analysis of the Southeast States’
Submissions
A. Analysis related to all Southeast States
B. Alabama
C. Florida
D. Georgia
E. North Carolina
F. South Carolina
G. Tennessee
III. Proposed Actions
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On October 1, 2015, 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 CAA
requires states to submit, within 3 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)(I),
otherwise known as the good neighbor
provision, which generally requires SIPs
1 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.
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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
from interfering with maintenance of
the NAAQS in another state (prong 2).
Under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the
CAA, EPA and states must give
independent significance to prong 1 and
prong 2 when evaluating downwind air
quality problems under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(i)(I).3
EPA notes that the Agency has
addressed the interstate transport
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to prior
ozone NAAQS in several regional
regulatory actions, including the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR),
which addressed interstate transport
with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS
as well as the 1997 and 2006 fine
particulate matter standards, and the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (CSAPR
Update).4 These actions only addressed
interstate transport in the eastern United
States 5 and did not address the 2015
ozone NAAQS.
Through the development and
implementation of CSAPR, the CSAPR
Update, and previous regional
rulemakings pursuant to the good
neighbor provision,6 EPA, working in
partnership with states, developed the
following four-step interstate transport
framework to address the requirements
of the good neighbor provision for the
3 See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909–
911 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
4 See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (i.e., CSAPR)
and 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016) (i.e., CSAPR
Update).
5 For purposes of CSAPR and the CSAPR Update
action, the Western U.S. (or the West) was
considered to consist of the 11 western contiguous
states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming. The Eastern U.S. (or the
East) was considered to consist of the 37 states east
of the 11 Western states.
6 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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Dec 27, 2019
Jkt 250001
ozone NAAQS: 7 (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.
EPA has released several documents
containing information relevant to
evaluating interstate transport with
respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. First,
on January 6, 2017, EPA published a
notice of data availability (NODA) with
preliminary interstate ozone transport
modeling with projected ozone design
values for 2023, on which EPA
requested comment.8 The year 2023 was
used as the analytic year for this
preliminary modeling because that year
aligns with the expected attainment year
for Moderate ozone nonattainment
areas.9 On October 27, 2017, EPA
released a memorandum (2017
memorandum) containing updated
modeling data for 2023, which
incorporated changes made in response
to comments on the NODA.10 Although
the 2017 memorandum also released
data for a 2023 modeling year, EPA
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. Additionally, on March 27,
2018, EPA issued a memorandum
(March 2018 memorandum) indicating
the same 2023 modeling data released in
the 2017 memorandum would also be
useful for evaluating potential
7 The four-step interstate 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).
8 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).
9 See 82 FR 1735.
10 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 at
https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollutiontransport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memosand-notices.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71855
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) in their
efforts to develop good neighbor SIPs for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS to address their
interstate transport obligations.11 EPA
subsequently issued two more
memoranda in August and October
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 framework.12
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, 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, following EPA’s historic ‘‘3 x 3’’
11 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 at
https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollutiontransport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memosand-notices.
12 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 (‘‘October 2018
memorandum’’), available at https://www.epa.gov/
airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-informationregarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozonenaaqs.
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
71856
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
approach to evaluating all sites; and
second, following 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).13
For purposes of identifying potential
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in 2023, EPA applied the same
approach used in the CSAPR Update,
wherein 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, EPA identified
nonattainment receptors as those
monitoring sites with measured
values 14 exceeding the NAAQS that
also have projected (i.e., in 2023)
average design values exceeding the
NAAQS. EPA identified maintenance
receptors as those monitoring sites with
projected maximum design values
exceeding the NAAQS. This included
sites with measured values below the
NAAQS but 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. 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, EPA next performed
nationwide, state-level ozone source
apportionment modeling to estimate the
expected impact from each state to each
nonattainment and maintenance
receptor.15 EPA included contribution
13 See March 2018 memorandum, p. 4, for more
detail on modeling approach. For the no water
approach, EPA eliminated from the design value
calculations those modeling data in grid cells that
are dominated by water (i.e., more than 50 percent
of the area in the grid cell is water) and that do not
contain a monitoring site (i.e., if a grid cell is more
than 50 percent water but contains an air quality
monitor, that cell would remain in the calculation).
For this action, EPA used no water averages to
identify each state’s impact on any downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptor, which can
be found in Attachment C of the March 2018
memorandum.
14 EPA used 2016 ozone design values, based on
2014–2016 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.
15 As discussed in the March 2018 memorandum,
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Dec 27, 2019
Jkt 250001
information resulting from the sourceapportionment 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.
In the CSAPR and the CSAPR Update,
EPA used a threshold of one 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 equal or exceed the one percent
threshold, the upwind state was not
‘‘linked’’ to a downwind air quality
problem, and 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 equaled or exceeded the one
percent threshold, the state’s emissions
were further evaluated in step 3, 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.
As noted previously, on August 31,
2018, EPA issued a memorandum (the
August 2018 memorandum) providing
guidance 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 one 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
EPA’s analysis of its most recent
modeling data, the amount of upwind
collective contribution captured using a
1 ppb threshold is generally
comparable, overall, to the amount
captured using a threshold equivalent to
one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Accordingly, EPA indicated that it may
be reasonable and appropriate for states
to use a 1 ppb contribution threshold, as
an alternative to the one percent
threshold, at step 2 of the four-step
framework in developing their SIP
revisions addressing the good neighbor
provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.16
16 See
PO 00000
August 2018 memorandum, p. 4.
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
While the March 2018 memorandum
presented information regarding EPA’s
latest analysis of ozone transport
following the approaches EPA has taken
in prior regional rulemaking actions,
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, EPA noted that states have
flexibility in developing their own SIPs
to follow different analytical approaches
than EPA’s, so long as their chosen
approach has an adequate technical
justification and is consistent with the
requirements of the CAA.
II. Southeast States’ Submissions and
EPA’s Analysis of the Southeast States’
Submissions
The following discussion summarizes
EPA’s analyses for the submissions from
the Southeast States intended to meet
prongs 1 and 2 requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 8-hour
Ozone NAAQS.
A. Analysis Related to All Southeast
States
EPA is proposing to rely on the 2023
modeling data identifying downwind
receptors and upwind state
contributions, as released in the March
2018 memorandum, to evaluate the
Southeast States’ good neighbor
obligation with respect to the 2015
ozone NAAQS. On September 13, 2019,
the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C.
Circuit) issued its decision in Wisconsin
v. EPA addressing legal challenges to
the CSAPR Update, in which EPA
partially addressed certain upwind
states’ good neighbor obligations for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. 938 F.3d 303.
While the court generally upheld the
rule as to most of the challenges raised
in the litigation, the court remanded the
CSAPR Update to the extent it failed to
require upwind states to eliminate their
significant contributions in accordance
with the attainment dates found in CAA
section 181 by which downwind states
must come into compliance with the
NAAQS. Id. at 313. In light of the
court’s decision, EPA is providing
further explanation regarding why it
proposes to find that it is appropriate
and consistent with the statute—as well
as the legal precedent—to use the 2023
analytic year for assessing good
neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
EPA believes that 2023 is an
appropriate year for analysis of good
neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS because the 2023 ozone season
is the last relevant ozone season during
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules
which achieved emissions reductions in
linked upwind states could assist
downwind states with meeting the
August 2, 2024 Moderate area
attainment date for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. EPA recognizes that the
attainment date for nonattainment areas
classified as Marginal for the 2015
ozone NAAQS is August 2, 2021, which
currently applies in several downwind
nonattainment areas evaluated in EPA’s
modeling.17 However, as explained
below, EPA does not believe that either
the statute or applicable case law
requires the evaluation of good neighbor
obligations in a future year aligned with
the attainment date for nonattainment
areas classified as Marginal.
The good neighbor provision instructs
EPA and states to apply its requirements
‘‘consistent with the provisions of’’ title
I of the CAA. CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i); see also North Carolina
v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 911–12 (D.C. Cir.
2008). This consistency instruction
follows the requirement that plans
‘‘contain adequate provisions
prohibiting’’ certain emissions in the
good neighbor provision. As the D.C.
Circuit held in North Carolina, and
more recently in Wisconsin, the good
neighbor provision must be applied in
a manner consistent with the
designation and planning requirements
in title I that apply in downwind states
and, in particular, the timeframe within
which downwind states are required to
implement specific emissions control
measures in nonattainment areas and
submit plans demonstrating how those
areas will attain, relative to the
applicable attainment dates. See North
Carolina, 896 F.3d at 912 (holding that
the good neighbor provision’s reference
to title I requires consideration of both
procedural and substantive provisions
in title I); Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 313–
18.
While EPA recognizes, as the court
held in North Carolina and Wisconsin,
that upwind emissions-reduction
obligations therefore must generally be
aligned with downwind receptors’
attainment dates, unique features of the
statutory requirements associated with
the Marginal area planning
requirements and attainment date under
CAA section 182 lead EPA to conclude
that it is more reasonable and
appropriate to require the alignment of
17 The Marginal area attainment date is not
applicable for nonattainment areas already
classified as Moderate or higher, such as the New
York Metropolitan Area. For the status of all
nonattainment areas under the 2015 ozone NAAQS,
see U.S. EPA, 8-Hour Ozone (2015) Designated
Area/State Information, https://www3.epa.gov/
airquality/greenbook/jbtc.html (last updated Sept.
30, 2019).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Dec 27, 2019
Jkt 250001
upwind good neighbor obligations with
later attainment dates applicable for
Moderate or higher classifications.
Under the CAA, states with areas
designated nonattainment are generally
required to submit, as part of their state
implementation plan, an ‘‘attainment
demonstration’’ that shows, usually
through air quality modeling, how an
area will attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date. See CAA
section 172(c)(1).18 Such plans must
also include, among other things, the
adoption of all ‘‘reasonably available’’
control measures on existing sources, a
demonstration of ‘‘reasonable further
progress’’ toward attainment, and
contingency measures, which are
specific controls that will take effect if
the area fails to attain by its attainment
date or fails to make reasonable further
progress toward attainment. See, e.g.,
CAA section 172(c)(1); 172(c)(2);
172(c)(9). Ozone nonattainment areas
classified as Marginal are excepted from
these general requirements under the
CAA—unlike other areas designated
nonattainment under the Act (including
for other NAAQS pollutants), Marginal
ozone nonattainment areas are
specifically exempted from submitting
an attainment demonstration and are
not required to implement any specific
emissions controls at existing sources in
order to meet the planning requirements
applicable to such areas. See CAA
section 182(a) (‘‘The requirements of
this subsection shall apply in lieu of any
requirement that the State submit a
demonstration that the applicable
implementation plan provides for
attainment of the ozone standard by the
applicable attainment date in any
Marginal Area.’’) 19 Marginal ozone
nonattainment areas are also exempted
from demonstrating reasonable further
progress towards attainment and
submitting contingency measures. See
CAA section 182(a) (does not include a
reasonable further progress requirement
and specifically notes that ‘‘Section
18 Part D of title I of the CAA provides the plan
requirements for all nonattainment areas. Subpart 1,
which includes section 172(c), applies to all
nonattainment areas. Congress provided in subparts
2–5 additional requirements specific to the various
NAAQS pollutants that nonattainment areas must
meet.
19 States with Marginal nonattainment areas are
required to implement new source review
permitting for new and modified sources, but the
purpose of those requirements is to ensure that
potential emissions increases do not interfere with
progress towards attainment, as opposed to
reducing existing emissions. Moreover, EPA
acknowledges that states within ozone transport
regions must implement certain emission control
measures at existing sources in accordance with
CAA section 184, but those requirements apply
regardless of the applicable area designation or
classification.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71857
[172(c)(9)] of this title (relating to
contingency measures) shall not apply
to Marginal Areas’’).
Existing regulations—either local,
state, or federal—are typically a part of
the reason why ‘‘additional’’ local
controls are not needed to bring
Marginal nonattainment areas into
attainment. As described in EPA’s
record for its final rule defining area
classifications for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS and establishing associated
attainment dates, history has shown that
the majority of areas classified as
Marginal for prior ozone standards
attained the respective standards by the
Marginal area attainment date (i.e.,
without being re-classified to a
Moderate designation). See 83 FR
10376. As part of a historical lookback,
EPA calculated that by the relevant
attainment date for areas classified as
Marginal, 85 percent of such areas
attained the 1979 1–hour ozone
NAAQS, and 64 percent attained the
2008 ozone NAAQS.20 Based on these
historical data, EPA expects that many
areas classified Marginal for the 2015
ozone NAAQS will also attain by the
relevant attainment date as a result of
emissions reductions that are already
expected to occur through
implementation of existing local, state,
and federal emissions reduction
programs. To the extent states have
concerns about meeting their attainment
date for a Marginal area, the CAA under
section 181(b)(3) provides authority for
them to voluntarily request a higher
classification for individual areas, if
needed.
Areas that are classified as Moderate
typically have more pronounced air
quality problems than Marginal areas or
have been unable to attain the NAAQS
under the minimal requirements that
apply to Marginal areas. See CAA
sections 181(a)(1) (classifying areas
based on the degree of nonattainment
relative to the NAAQS) and (b)(2)
(providing for reclassification to the
next highest designation upon failure to
attain the standard by the attainment
date). Thus, unlike Marginal areas, the
statute explicitly requires a state with an
ozone nonattainment area classified as
Moderate or higher to develop an
attainment plan demonstrating how the
state will address the more significant
air quality problem, which generally
requires the application of various
control measures to existing sources of
emissions located in the nonattainment
20 See Response to Comments on Implementation
of the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Ozone: Nonattainment Area Classifications
Approach (February 26, 2018), at section A.2.4,
available at https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0202-0122.
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
71858
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules
area. See generally CAA sections 172(c)
and 182(b)–(e).
Given that downwind states are not
required to demonstrate attainment by
the attainment date or impose
additional controls on existing sources
in a Marginal nonattainment area, EPA
believes that it would be inconsistent to
interpret the good neighbor provision as
requiring EPA to evaluate the necessity
for upwind state emissions reductions
based on air quality modeled in a future
year aligned with the Marginal area
attainment date. Rather, EPA believes it
is more appropriate and consistent with
the nonattainment planning provisions
in title I to evaluate downwind air
quality and upwind state contributions,
and, therefore, the necessity for upwind
state emissions reductions, in a year
aligned with an area classification in
connection with which downwind
states are also required to demonstrate
attainment and implement controls on
existing sources—i.e., with the
Moderate area attainment date, rather
than the Marginal area date. With
respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the
Moderate area attainment date will be in
the summer of 2024, and the last full
year of monitored ozone-season data
that will inform attainment
demonstrations is, therefore, 2023.
EPA’s interpretation of the good
neighbor requirements in relation to the
Marginal area attainment date is
consistent with the Wisconsin opinion.
For the reasons explained below, the
court’s holding does not contradict
EPA’s view that 2023 is an appropriate
analytic year in evaluating good
neighbor SIPs for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. The court in Wisconsin was
concerned that allowing upwind
emission reductions to be implemented
after the applicable attainment date
would require downwind states to
obtain more emissions reductions than
the Act requires of them, to make up for
the absence of sufficient emissions
reductions from upwind states. See 938
F.3d at 316. As discussed previously,
however, this equitable concern only
arises for nonattainment areas classified
as Moderate or higher for which
downwind states are required by the
CAA to develop attainment plans
securing reductions from existing
sources and demonstrating how such
areas will attain by the attainment date.
See, e.g., CAA section 182(b)(1) & (2)
(establishing ‘‘reasonable further
progress’’ and ‘‘reasonably available
control technology’’ requirements for
Moderate nonattainment areas). Ozone
nonattainment areas classified as
Marginal are not required to meet these
same planning requirements, and thus
the equitable concerns raised by the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Dec 27, 2019
Jkt 250001
Wisconsin court do not arise with
respect to downwind areas subject to
the Marginal area attainment date.
The distinction between planning
obligations for Marginal nonattainment
areas and higher classifications was not
before the court in Wisconsin. Rather,
the court was considering whether EPA,
in implementing its obligation to
promulgate federal implementation
plans under CAA section 110(c), was
required to fully resolve good neighbor
obligations by the 2018 Moderate area
attainment date for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. See 938 F.3d at 312–13.
Although the court noted that
petitioners had not ‘‘forfeited’’ an
argument with respect to the Marginal
area attainment date, see id. at 314, the
court did not address whether its
holding with respect to the 2018
Moderate area date would have applied
with equal force to the Marginal area
attainment date because that date had
already passed. Thus, the court did not
have the opportunity to consider these
differential planning obligations in
reaching its decision regarding EPA’s
obligations relative to the thenapplicable 2018 Moderate area
attainment date because such
considerations were not applicable to
the case before the court.21 For the
reasons discussed here, the equitable
concerns supporting the Wisconsin
court’s holding as to upwind state
obligations relative to the Moderate area
attainment date also support EPA’s
interpretation of the good neighbor
provision relative to the Marginal area
attainment date. Thus, EPA proposes to
conclude that its reliance on an
evaluation of air quality in the 2023
analytical year for purposes of assessing
good neighbor obligations with respect
to the 2015 ozone NAAQS is based on
a reasonable interpretation of the CAA
and legal precedent.
As previously discussed, the March
2018 memorandum identifies potential
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors, using the
21 The D.C. Circuit, in a short judgment,
subsequently vacated and remanded EPA’s action
purporting to fully resolve good neighbor
obligations for certain states for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, referred to as the CSAPR Close-Out, 83 FR
65878 (Dec. 21, 2018). New York v. EPA, No. 19–
1019 (Oct. 1, 2019). That result necessarily followed
from the Wisconsin decision, because as EPA
conceded, the Close-Out ‘‘relied upon the same
statutory interpretation of the Good Neighbor
Provision’’ rejected in Wisconsin. Id. slip op. at 3.
In the Close-Out, EPA had analyzed the year 2023,
which was two years after the Serious area
attainment date for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and not
aligned with any attainment date for that NAAQS.
Id. at 2. In New York, as in Wisconsin, the court
was not faced with addressing specific issues
associated with the unique planning requirements
associated with the Marginal area attainment date.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
definitions applied in the CSAPR
Update and using both the ‘‘3 x 3’’ and
the ‘‘no water’’ approaches to
calculating future year design values.
The March 2018 memorandum
identifies 57 potential nonattainment
and maintenance receptors in the West
in Arizona (2), California (49), and
Colorado (6).22 The March 2018
memorandum also provides
contribution data regarding the impact
of other states on the potential
receptors. For purposes of evaluating
the Southeast States’ 2015 ozone
NAAQS interstate transport SIP
submission, we propose that, at least
where a state’s impacts are less than one
percent to downwind nonattainment
and maintenance sites, it is reasonable
to conclude that the state’s impact will
not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other
state. EPA notes, nonetheless, that
consistent with the August 2018
memorandum, it may be reasonable and
appropriate for states to use a 1 ppb
contribution threshold, as an alternative
to a one percent threshold, at step 2 of
the four-step framework in developing
their SIP revisions addressing the good
neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. However, for the reasons
discussed below, it is unnecessary for
EPA to determine whether it may be
appropriate to apply a 1 ppb threshold
for purposes of this action.23
Further, EPA notes that—due to large
distance and a general prevailing west
to east wind flow—there is no evidence
that any of the Southeastern States will
impact potential receptors in the West.24
B. Alabama
On August 20, 2018, Alabama
submitted a SIP revision addressing the
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate
transport requirements for the 2015
ozone NAAQS. Alabama relied on the
results of EPA’s modeling for the 2015
ozone NAAQS, contained in the March
22 The number of receptors in the identified
western states is 57, irrespective of whether the ‘‘3
x 3’’ or ‘‘no water’’ approach is used. Further,
although EPA has indicated that states may have
flexibilities to apply a different analytic approach
to evaluating interstate transport, including
identifying downwind air quality problems,
because EPA is also concluding in this proposed
action that the Southeast States will have an
insignificant impact on any potential receptors
identified in its analysis, these Southeast States
need not definitively determine whether the
identified monitoring sites should be treated as
receptors for the 2015 ozone standard.
23 As further discussed below, because none of
Southeast States’ impacts exceed 0.70 ppb, they
necessarily also do not exceed the 1 ppb
contribution threshold discussed in the August
2018 memorandum.
24 See footnote 5, above, regarding states
considered to be in the West.
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2018 memorandum, to identify
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors that may be
impacted by emissions from sources in
Alabama. The Alabama Department of
Environmental Management (ADEM)
reviewed EPA’s preliminary 2023
modeling and determined that the
future year projections are appropriate
for the purposes of evaluating
Alabama’s impact on nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in other states.
Alabama concurred with EPA’s
preliminary photochemical modeling
results, which indicate that Alabama
does not contribute above one percent to
any downwind nonattainment and
maintenance sites. The August 20, 2018,
submittal from Alabama also included
additional programs that have led to the
reduction of ozone in the state.
Therefore, ADEM concluded that
emissions from Alabama sources will
not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state.
EPA’s updated 2023 modeling
discussed in the March 2018
memorandum indicates that Alabama’s
largest impact on any potential
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptor in the East are
0.37 ppb and 0.49 ppb, respectively.25
These values are less than 0.70 ppb (one
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS),26
and as a result, demonstrate that
emissions from Alabama are not linked
to any 2023 downwind potential
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors identified in the March 2018
memorandum. As discussed above,
there is no evidence that emissions from
Alabama will impact receptors in the
West. Accordingly, EPA proposes to
conclude that emissions from Alabama
will not contribute to any potential
receptors, and thus, the State will not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
25 EPA’s analysis indicates that Alabama will
have a 0.37 ppb impact at the potential
nonattainment receptor in Tarrant, Texas (Site ID
484392003), which has a 2023 projected average
design value of 72.5 ppb, a 2023 projected
maximum design value of 74.8 ppb, and had a
2014–2016 design value of 73 ppb. EPA’s analysis
further indicates that Alabama will have a 0.49 ppb
impact at a potential maintenance receptor in
Denton, Texas (Site ID 481210034), which has
which has a projected 2023 average design value of
69.7 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value
of 72.0 ppb, and had a 2014–2016 design value of
80 ppb. See the March 2018 memorandum,
attachment C.
26 Because none of Alabama’s impacts equal or
exceed 0.70 ppb, they necessarily also do not equal
or exceed the 1 ppb contribution threshold
discussed in the August 2018 memorandum.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Dec 27, 2019
Jkt 250001
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other
state.
C. Florida
On September 18, 2018,27 Florida
submitted a SIP revision addressing the
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate
transport requirements for the 2015
ozone NAAQS. Florida relied on the
results of EPA’s modeling for the 2015
ozone NAAQS, contained in the March
2018 memorandum, to identify
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors that may be
impacted by emissions from sources in
Florida. Based on Florida’s review of
EPA’s modeling assumptions and model
performance evaluation, Florida
determined that EPA’s future year
projections were appropriate for
purposes of evaluating Florida impact
on attainment and maintenance of the
2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. For
example, Florida found that EPA’s
modeling used emissions inventory
projections that were reasonable
considering the projected future decline
in Florida NOX emissions. Thus, Florida
concurred with EPA’s photochemical
modeling results that indicate Florida’s
greatest impacts on any potential
downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor would be 0.21
ppb and 0.53 ppb, respectively.28
Florida compared these values to a
screening threshold of 0.70 ppb,
representing one percent of the 2015
ozone NAAQS, and concluded that
because none of Florida’s impacts
exceed this threshold, emissions from
Florida sources will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in any other state. Additionally,
Florida’s submission identifies SIPapproved regulations that both directly
and indirectly regulate sources of ozone
precursor emissions that contribute to
ozone concentrations in ambient air.
EPA’s updated 2023 modeling
discussed in the March 2018
memorandum indicates that Florida’s
largest impact on any potential
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptor in the East are
27 EPA notes that the Florida submission was
received by EPA on September 26, 2018.
28 EPA’s analysis indicates that Florida will have
a 0.21 ppb impact at the potential nonattainment
receptor in Brazoria, Texas (Site ID 480391004),
which has a 2023 projected average design value of
74.0 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value
of 74.9 ppb, and had a 2014–2016 design value of
75 ppb. EPA’s analysis further indicates that Florida
will have a 0.53 ppb impact at a potential
maintenance receptor in Harris, Texas (Site ID
482011034), which has which has a projected 2023
projected average design value of 70.8 ppb, a 2023
projected maximum design value of 71.6 ppb, and
had a 2014–2016 design value of 73 ppb. See the
March 2018 memorandum, attachments C.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71859
0.21 ppb and 0.53 ppb, respectively.29
These values are less than 0.70 ppb (one
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS),30
and as a result, demonstrate that
emissions from Florida are not linked to
any 2023 downwind potential
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors identified in the March 2018
memorandum. As discussed above,
there is no evidence that emissions from
Florida will impact receptors in the
West. Accordingly, EPA proposes to
conclude that emissions from Florida
will not contribute to any potential
receptors, and thus, the State will not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other
state.
D. Georgia
On September 19, 2018,31 the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division (GA
EPD) submitted a SIP revision
addressing the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. Georgia relied on the results of
EPA’s modeling for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS, contained in the March 2018
memorandum, to identify downwind
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors that may be impacted by
emissions from sources in Georgia.32
Based on Georgia’s review of EPA’s
modeling assumptions and model
performance evaluation, Georgia
determined that EPA’s future year
projections were appropriate for
purposes of evaluating Georgia’s impact
on attainment and maintenance of the
2015 ozone NAAQS in other states.
Thus, Georgia concurred with EPA’s
photochemical modeling results that
indicate Georgia’s greatest impact on
any potential downwind nonattainment
or maintenance receptor would be 0.26
29 EPA’s analysis indicates that Florida will have
a 0.21 ppb impact at the potential nonattainment
receptor in Brazoria, Texas (Site ID 480391004),
which has a 2023 projected average design value of
74.0 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value
of 74.9 ppb, and had a 2014–2016 design value of
75 ppb. EPA’s analysis further indicates that Florida
will have a 0.53 ppb impact at a potential
maintenance receptor in Harris, Texas (Site ID
482011034), which has which has a projected 2023
projected average design value of 70.8 ppb, a 2023
projected maximum design value of 71.6 ppb, and
had a 2014–2016 design value of 73 ppb. See the
March 2018 memorandum, attachments B, C.
30 Because none of Florida’s impacts exceed 0.70
ppb, they necessarily also do not exceed the 1 ppb
contribution threshold discussed in the August
2018 memorandum.
31 EPA notes that the Georgia submission was
received by EPA on September 24, 2018.
32 See Table A–1 and Table A–2 in Appendix A
of Georgia’s submittal. EPD highlights Georgia’s
impact to nonattainment and maintenance sites in
the East. They also note that all values are less than
the defined threshold of 0.70 ppb.
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
71860
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules
ppb and 0.34 ppb, respectively. Georgia
compared these values to a screening
threshold and concluded that emissions
from Georgia sources will not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state. Additionally, the
Georgia submittal identified regulations
that have been approved into the
Georgia SIP to provide for the control of
NOX and VOCs, which are precursors
that contribute to ambient ozone
concentrations.
EPA’s updated 2023 modeling
discussed in the March 2018
memorandum indicates that Georgia’s
largest impact on any potential
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptor in the East are
0.26 ppb and 0.34 ppb, respectively.33
These values are less than 0.70 ppb (one
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS),34
and as a result, demonstrate that
emissions from Georgia are not linked to
any 2023 downwind potential
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors identified in the March 2018
memorandum. As discussed above,
there is no evidence that emissions from
Georgia will impact receptors in the
West. Accordingly, EPA proposes to
conclude that emissions from Georgia
will not contribute to any potential
receptors, and thus, the State will not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other
state.
E. North Carolina
On September 27, 2018, North
Carolina submitted a SIP revision
addressing the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. North Carolina relied on the
results of EPA’s modeling for the 2015
ozone NAAQS, contained in the March
2018 memorandum, to identify
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors that may be
impacted by emissions from sources in
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
33 EPA’s
analysis indicates that Georgia will have
a 0.26 ppb impact at the potential nonattainment
receptor in Tarrant, Texas (Site ID 484392003),
which has a 2023 projected average design value of
72.5 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value
of 74.8 ppb, and had a 2014–2016 design value of
73 ppb. EPA’s analysis further indicates that
Georgia will have a 0.34 ppb impact at a potential
maintenance receptor in Denton, Texas (Site ID
481210034), which has which has a projected 2023
projected average design value of 69.7 ppb, a 2023
projected maximum design value of 72.0 ppb, and
had a 2014–2016 design value of 80 ppb. See the
March 2018 memorandum, attachments B, C.
34 Because none of Georgia’s impacts exceed 0.70
ppb, they necessarily also do not exceed the 1 ppb
contribution threshold discussed in the August
2018 memorandum.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Dec 27, 2019
Jkt 250001
North Carolina. Based on North
Carolina’s review of EPA’s modeling
assumptions, the State determined that
EPA’s future year projections were
conservative for purposes of evaluating
North Carolina’s impact on attainment
and maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in other states. Thus, North
Carolina concurred with EPA’s
photochemical modeling results that
indicate North Carolina’s greatest
impact on any potential downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptor
would be 0.43 ppb and 0.42 ppb,
respectively. North Carolina compared
these values to a screening threshold of
0.70 ppb, representing one percent of
the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and concluded
that because North Carolina’s impacts to
neighboring states are projected to be
less than 0.70 ppb, emissions from
North Carolina sources will not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state. North Carolina
further performed back trajectory
analyses to confirm that North Carolina
did not significantly contribute to ozone
exceedances at ozone monitors in the
East, and identified SIP-approved
regulations that both directly and
indirectly impact ozone concentrations
in the State.
EPA’s updated 2023 modeling
discussed in the March 2018
memorandum indicates that North
Carolina’s largest impact on any
potential downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptor in the East are
0.43 ppb and 0.42 ppb, respectively.35
These values are less than 0.70 ppb (one
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS),36
and as a result, demonstrate that
emissions from North Carolina are not
linked to any 2023 downwind potential
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors identified in the March 2018
memorandum. As discussed above,
there is no evidence that emissions from
North Carolina will impact receptors in
the West. Accordingly, EPA proposes to
35 EPA’s analysis indicates that North Carolina
will have a 0.43 ppb impact at the potential
nonattainment receptor in Fairfield, Connecticut
(Site ID 90019003), which has a 2023 projected
average design value of 73.0 ppb, a 2023 projected
maximum design value of 75.9 ppb, and had a
2014–2016 design value of 85.0 ppb. EPA’s analysis
further indicates that North Carolina will have a
0.42 ppb impact at a potential maintenance receptor
in Harford, Maryland (Site ID 240251001), which
has which has a projected 2023 projected average
design value of 70.9 ppb, a 2023 projected
maximum design value of 73.3 ppb, and had a
2014–2016 design value of 73.0 ppb. See the March
2018 memorandum, attachments B, C.
36 Because none of North Carolina’s impacts
exceed 0.70 ppb, they necessarily also do not
exceed the 1 ppb contribution threshold discussed
in the August 2018 memorandum.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
conclude that emissions from North
Carolina will not contribute to any
potential receptors, and thus, the State
will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other
state.
F. South Carolina
On September 7, 2018, South Carolina
submitted a SIP revision addressing the
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate
transport requirements for the 2015
ozone NAAQS. South Carolina relied on
the results of EPA’s modeling for the
2015 ozone NAAQS, contained in the
March 2018 memorandum, to identify
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors that may be
impacted by emissions from sources in
South Carolina. Based on South
Carolina’s review of EPA’s modeling
assumptions, techniques, and data,
South Carolina determined that EPA’s
future year projections were appropriate
for purposes of evaluating South
Carolina’s impact on attainment and
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in other states. Thus, South Carolina
concurred with EPA’s photochemical
modeling results that indicate South
Carolina’s greatest impact on any
potential downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor would be 0.12
and 0.14 ppb, respectively. South
Carolina compared these values to a
screening threshold of 0.70 ppb,
representing one percent of the 2015
ozone NAAQS, and concluded that
because none of South Carolina’s
impacts exceed this threshold,
emissions from South Carolina sources
will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state. The South Carolina
SIP also includes several regulations
that address the attainment,
nonattainment and maintenance of the
ozone NAAQS.
EPA’s updated 2023 modeling
discussed in the March 2018
memorandum indicates that South
Carolina’s largest impact on any
potential downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptor in the East are
0.12 ppb and 0.14 ppb, respectively.37
37 EPA’s analysis indicates that South Carolina
will have a 0.12 ppb impact at the potential
nonattainment receptor in Fairfield, Connecticut
(Site ID 90019003), which has a 2023 projected
average design value of 73.0 ppb, a 2023 projected
maximum design value of 75.9 ppb, and had a
2014–2016 design value of 85 ppb. EPA’s analysis
further indicates that South Carolina will have a
0.14 ppb impact at a potential maintenance receptor
in Harris, Texas (Site ID 482010024), which has
which has a projected 2023 projected average
design value of 70.4 ppb, a 2023 projected
maximum design value of 72.8 ppb and had a 2014–
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
These values are less than 0.70 ppb (one
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS),38
and as a result, demonstrate that
emissions from South Carolina are not
linked to any 2023 downwind potential
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors identified in the March 2018
memorandum. As discussed above,
there is no evidence that emissions from
South Carolina will impact receptors in
the West. Accordingly, EPA proposes to
conclude that emissions from South
Carolina will not contribute to any
potential receptors, and thus, the State
will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other
state.
G. Tennessee
On September 13, 2018, Tennessee
submitted a SIP revision addressing the
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate
transport requirements for the 2015
ozone NAAQS. Tennessee relied on the
results of EPA’s modeling for the 2015
ozone NAAQS, contained in the March
2018 memorandum, to identify
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors that may be
impacted by emissions from sources in
Tennessee. Based on Tennessee’s review
of EPA’s modeling assumptions,
Tennessee determined that EPA’s future
year projections were appropriate for
purposes of evaluating Tennessee’s
impact on attainment and maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other
states. Thus, Tennessee concurred with
EPA’s photochemical modeling results
that indicate Tennessee’s greatest
impact on any potential downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptor
would be 0.31 ppb and 0.65 ppb,
respectively. Tennessee compared these
values to a screening threshold of 0.70
ppb, representing one percent of the
2015 ozone NAAQS, and concluded that
because none of Tennessee’s impacts
exceed this threshold, emissions from
Tennessee sources will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in any other state. Additionally,
the Tennessee SIP includes several
regulations that address the attainment,
nonattainment, and maintenance of the
ozone NAAQS.
EPA’s updated 2023 modeling
discussed in the March 2018
memorandum indicates that
Tennessee’s largest impact on any
potential downwind nonattainment and
2016 design value of 79 ppb. See the March 2018
memorandum, attachments B, C.
38 Because none of South Carolina’s impacts
exceed 0.70 ppb, they necessarily also do not
exceed the 1 ppb contribution threshold discussed
in the August 2018 memorandum.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Dec 27, 2019
Jkt 250001
maintenance receptor in the East are
0.31 ppb and 0.65 ppb, respectively.39
These values are less than 0.70 ppb (one
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS),40
and as a result, demonstrate that
emissions from Tennessee are not
linked to any 2023 downwind potential
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors identified in the March 2018
memorandum. As discussed above,
there is no evidence that emissions from
Tennessee will impact receptors in the
West. Accordingly, EPA proposes to
conclude that emissions from Tennessee
will not contribute to any potential
receptors, and thus, the State will not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other
state.
III. Proposed Actions
As discussed in the previous sections,
each of the Southeast States (Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Tennessee) concluded
that emissions from sources in the states
will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state. EPA’s evaluation of
the Southeast States’ submissions,
discussed above, confirms this finding.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve
the interstate transport portions of the
infrastructure SIP submissions from
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee
as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. EPA is requesting comments
on the proposed approvals.
39 EPA’s analysis indicates that Tennessee will
have a 0.31 ppb impact at three potential
nonattainment receptors: Fairfield, Connecticut
(Site ID 90013007), which has a 2023 projected
average design value of 71.0 ppb, a 2023 projected
maximum design value of 75.0 ppb, and had a
2014–2016 design value of 81 ppb; Milwaukee,
Wisconsin (Site ID 550790085), which has a 2023
projected average design value of 71.2 ppb, a 2023
projected maximum design value of 73 ppb and had
a 2014–2016 design value of 71 ppb; and
Sheboygan, Wisconsin (Site ID 551170006), which
has a 2023 projected average design value of 72.8
ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of
75.1 ppb and had a 2014–2016 design value of 79
ppb. EPA’s analysis further indicates that
Tennessee will have a 0.65 ppb impact at a
potential maintenance receptor Allegan, Michigan
(Site ID 260050003), which has which has a
projected 2023 projected average design value of
69.0 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value
of 71.7 ppb and had a 2014–2016 design value of
75 ppb. See the March 2018 memorandum,
attachments B, C.
40 Because none of Tennessee’s impacts exceed
0.70 ppb, they necessarily also do not exceed the
1 ppb contribution threshold discussed in the
August 2018 memorandum.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71861
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
CAA and applicable federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, these actions
merely approve state law as meeting
federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, these actions:
• Are not significant regulatory
actions subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Are not Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
actions because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Do not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Are certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Do not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Do not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Are not economically significant
regulatory actions based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not significant regulatory
actions subject to Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Do not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, for Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee,
the SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
71862
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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 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).
For South Carolina, because this
proposed action merely proposes to
approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law, this proposed
action for the State of South Carolina
does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Therefore, this proposed action will not
impose substantial direct costs on Tribal
governments or preempt Tribal law. The
Catawba Indian Nation (CIN)
Reservation is located within the
boundary of York County, South
Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba
Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code
Ann. 27–16–120 (Settlement Act), ‘‘all
state and local environmental laws and
regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian
Nation] and Reservation and are fully
enforceable by all relevant state and
local agencies and authorities.’’ The CIN
also retains authority to impose
regulations applying higher
environmental standards to the
Reservation than those imposed by state
law or local governing bodies, in
accordance with the Settlement Act.
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: December 12, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019–27695 Filed 12–27–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2019–0321; FRL–10003–
74–Region 9]
Air Plan Conditional Approval and
Disapproval; Arizona; Maricopa
County; Power Plants, Fuel Burning
Equipment, and Internal Combustion
Engines
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to
conditionally approve two revisions to
the Maricopa County portion of the
Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP)
concerning fuel-burning equipment and
internal combustion engines. The EPA
is also proposing to disapprove one
revision to the Maricopa County portion
of the Arizona SIP concerning power
plants. We are proposing action on
Maricopa County rules that regulate
these emission sources under the Clean
Air Act (CAA or the ‘‘Act’’). We are
taking comments on these proposals and
plan to follow with final actions.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
January 29, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2019–0321 at https://
www.regulations.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish
any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information 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
SUMMARY:
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 the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For 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:
Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA
94105. By phone: (415) 972–3073 or by
email at gong.kevin@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rule revisions?
II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation
criteria?
C. What are the deficiencies?
D. EPA Recommendations To Further
Improve the Rules
E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
On June 22, 2017, the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ, or the ‘‘State’’) electronically
submitted a SIP revision from the
Maricopa County Air Quality
Department (MCAQD, or the ‘‘County’’)
revising several rules. Table 1 lists the
rules on which the EPA is proposing
action, with the dates they were revised
by the MCAQD, the dates they were
submitted by the ADEQ, and the type of
action that the EPA is proposing in this
notice.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES
Rule No.
Rule title
Revised
Submitted
322 ...........
323 ...........
Power Plant Operations ........................................
Fuel Burning Equipment from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Sources.
Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE).
November 2, 2016 .........
November 2, 2016 .........
June 22, 2017 ...............
June 22, 2017 ...............
November 2, 2016 .........
June 22, 2017 ...............
324 ...........
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Dec 27, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
Proposed
action
Disapproval.
Conditional
Approval.
Conditional
Approval.
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71854-71862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27695]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0156; FRL-10003-69-Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; AL, FL, GA, NC, SC, TN; Interstate Transport
(Prongs 1 and 2) for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation
Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that
will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is proposing to approve
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee (collectively,
Southeast States) addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) good
neighbor interstate transport infrastructure SIP requirements for the
2015 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA is
proposing to approve the submission 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: Written comments must be received on or before January 29, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2019-0156 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information the disclosure of which restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Adams of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Adams can be
reached by telephone at (404) 562-9009, or via electronic mail at
[email protected].
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Southeast States' Submissions and EPA's Analysis of the
Southeast States' Submissions
A. Analysis related to all Southeast States
B. Alabama
C. Florida
D. Georgia
E. North Carolina
F. South Carolina
G. Tennessee
III. Proposed Actions
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On October 1, 2015, 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 CAA requires states to submit, within 3 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)(I), otherwise known as
the good neighbor provision, which generally requires SIPs
[[Page 71855]]
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 from interfering with maintenance
of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). Under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, EPA and states must give independent
significance to prong 1 and prong 2 when evaluating downwind air
quality problems under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(i)(I).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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 (D.C. Cir.
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes that the Agency has addressed the interstate transport
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to prior
ozone NAAQS in several regional regulatory actions, including the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which addressed interstate
transport with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and
2006 fine particulate matter standards, and the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update).\4\ These
actions only addressed interstate transport in the eastern United
States \5\ and did not address the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (i.e., CSAPR) and 81 FR
74504 (October 26, 2016) (i.e., CSAPR Update).
\5\ For purposes of CSAPR and the CSAPR Update action, the
Western U.S. (or the West) was considered to consist of the 11
western contiguous states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
The Eastern U.S. (or the East) was considered to consist of the 37
states east of the 11 Western states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through the development and implementation of CSAPR, the CSAPR
Update, and previous regional rulemakings pursuant to the good neighbor
provision,\6\ EPA, working in partnership with states, developed the
following four-step interstate transport framework to address the
requirements of the good neighbor provision for the ozone NAAQS: \7\
(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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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).
\7\ The four-step interstate 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has released several documents containing information relevant
to evaluating interstate transport with respect to the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. First, on January 6, 2017, EPA published a notice of data
availability (NODA) with preliminary interstate ozone transport
modeling with projected ozone design values for 2023, on which EPA
requested comment.\8\ The year 2023 was used as the analytic year for
this preliminary modeling because that year aligns with the expected
attainment year for Moderate ozone nonattainment areas.\9\ On October
27, 2017, EPA released a memorandum (2017 memorandum) containing
updated modeling data for 2023, which incorporated changes made in
response to comments on the NODA.\10\ Although the 2017 memorandum also
released data for a 2023 modeling year, EPA 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. Additionally, on March 27, 2018, EPA
issued a memorandum (March 2018 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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).
\9\ See 82 FR 1735.
\10\ 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 at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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) in their efforts to develop good neighbor SIPs for the 2015
ozone NAAQS to address their interstate transport obligations.\11\ EPA
subsequently issued two more memoranda in August and October 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 framework.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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 at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
\12\ 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
(``October 2018 memorandum''), available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 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, following EPA's historic ``3 x 3''
[[Page 71856]]
approach to evaluating all sites; and second, following 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).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See March 2018 memorandum, p. 4, for more detail on
modeling approach. For the no water approach, EPA eliminated from
the design value calculations those modeling data in grid cells that
are dominated by water (i.e., more than 50 percent of the area in
the grid cell is water) and that do not contain a monitoring site
(i.e., if a grid cell is more than 50 percent water but contains an
air quality monitor, that cell would remain in the calculation). For
this action, EPA used no water averages to identify each state's
impact on any downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor, which
can be found in Attachment C of the March 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of identifying potential nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in 2023, EPA applied the same approach used in the CSAPR
Update, wherein 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, EPA
identified nonattainment receptors as those monitoring sites with
measured values \14\ exceeding the NAAQS that also have projected
(i.e., in 2023) average design values exceeding the NAAQS. EPA
identified maintenance receptors as those monitoring sites with
projected maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS. This included
sites with measured values below the NAAQS but 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. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ EPA used 2016 ozone design values, based on 2014-2016
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, EPA next performed nationwide, state-level ozone source
apportionment modeling to estimate the expected impact from each state
to each nonattainment and maintenance receptor.\15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ As discussed in the March 2018 memorandum, 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, EPA used a threshold of one
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 equal or exceed the one percent
threshold, the upwind state was not ``linked'' to a downwind air
quality problem, and 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
equaled or exceeded the one percent threshold, the state's emissions
were further evaluated in step 3, 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.
As noted previously, on August 31, 2018, EPA issued a memorandum
(the August 2018 memorandum) providing guidance 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 one 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 EPA's analysis of its most recent modeling data, the amount of
upwind collective contribution captured using a 1 ppb threshold is
generally comparable, overall, to the amount captured using a threshold
equivalent to one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA
indicated that it may be reasonable and appropriate for states to use a
1 ppb contribution threshold, as an alternative to the one percent
threshold, at step 2 of the four-step framework in developing their SIP
revisions addressing the good neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See August 2018 memorandum, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the March 2018 memorandum presented information regarding
EPA's latest analysis of ozone transport following the approaches EPA
has taken in prior regional rulemaking actions, 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, EPA noted that states have flexibility in
developing their own SIPs to follow different analytical approaches
than EPA's, so long as their chosen approach has an adequate technical
justification and is consistent with the requirements of the CAA.
II. Southeast States' Submissions and EPA's Analysis of the Southeast
States' Submissions
The following discussion summarizes EPA's analyses for the
submissions from the Southeast States intended to meet prongs 1 and 2
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.
A. Analysis Related to All Southeast States
EPA is proposing to rely on the 2023 modeling data identifying
downwind receptors and upwind state contributions, as released in the
March 2018 memorandum, to evaluate the Southeast States' good neighbor
obligation with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On September 13, 2019,
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(D.C. Circuit) issued its decision in Wisconsin v. EPA addressing legal
challenges to the CSAPR Update, in which EPA partially addressed
certain upwind states' good neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. 938 F.3d 303. While the court generally upheld the rule as to
most of the challenges raised in the litigation, the court remanded the
CSAPR Update to the extent it failed to require upwind states to
eliminate their significant contributions in accordance with the
attainment dates found in CAA section 181 by which downwind states must
come into compliance with the NAAQS. Id. at 313. In light of the
court's decision, EPA is providing further explanation regarding why it
proposes to find that it is appropriate and consistent with the
statute--as well as the legal precedent--to use the 2023 analytic year
for assessing good neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
EPA believes that 2023 is an appropriate year for analysis of good
neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS because the 2023 ozone
season is the last relevant ozone season during
[[Page 71857]]
which achieved emissions reductions in linked upwind states could
assist downwind states with meeting the August 2, 2024 Moderate area
attainment date for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA recognizes that the
attainment date for nonattainment areas classified as Marginal for the
2015 ozone NAAQS is August 2, 2021, which currently applies in several
downwind nonattainment areas evaluated in EPA's modeling.\17\ However,
as explained below, EPA does not believe that either the statute or
applicable case law requires the evaluation of good neighbor
obligations in a future year aligned with the attainment date for
nonattainment areas classified as Marginal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The Marginal area attainment date is not applicable for
nonattainment areas already classified as Moderate or higher, such
as the New York Metropolitan Area. For the status of all
nonattainment areas under the 2015 ozone NAAQS, see U.S. EPA, 8-Hour
Ozone (2015) Designated Area/State Information, https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/jbtc.html (last updated Sept. 30,
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The good neighbor provision instructs EPA and states to apply its
requirements ``consistent with the provisions of'' title I of the CAA.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i); see also North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d
896, 911-12 (D.C. Cir. 2008). This consistency instruction follows the
requirement that plans ``contain adequate provisions prohibiting''
certain emissions in the good neighbor provision. As the D.C. Circuit
held in North Carolina, and more recently in Wisconsin, the good
neighbor provision must be applied in a manner consistent with the
designation and planning requirements in title I that apply in downwind
states and, in particular, the timeframe within which downwind states
are required to implement specific emissions control measures in
nonattainment areas and submit plans demonstrating how those areas will
attain, relative to the applicable attainment dates. See North
Carolina, 896 F.3d at 912 (holding that the good neighbor provision's
reference to title I requires consideration of both procedural and
substantive provisions in title I); Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 313-18.
While EPA recognizes, as the court held in North Carolina and
Wisconsin, that upwind emissions-reduction obligations therefore must
generally be aligned with downwind receptors' attainment dates, unique
features of the statutory requirements associated with the Marginal
area planning requirements and attainment date under CAA section 182
lead EPA to conclude that it is more reasonable and appropriate to
require the alignment of upwind good neighbor obligations with later
attainment dates applicable for Moderate or higher classifications.
Under the CAA, states with areas designated nonattainment are generally
required to submit, as part of their state implementation plan, an
``attainment demonstration'' that shows, usually through air quality
modeling, how an area will attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. See CAA section 172(c)(1).\18\ Such plans must also
include, among other things, the adoption of all ``reasonably
available'' control measures on existing sources, a demonstration of
``reasonable further progress'' toward attainment, and contingency
measures, which are specific controls that will take effect if the area
fails to attain by its attainment date or fails to make reasonable
further progress toward attainment. See, e.g., CAA section 172(c)(1);
172(c)(2); 172(c)(9). Ozone nonattainment areas classified as Marginal
are excepted from these general requirements under the CAA--unlike
other areas designated nonattainment under the Act (including for other
NAAQS pollutants), Marginal ozone nonattainment areas are specifically
exempted from submitting an attainment demonstration and are not
required to implement any specific emissions controls at existing
sources in order to meet the planning requirements applicable to such
areas. See CAA section 182(a) (``The requirements of this subsection
shall apply in lieu of any requirement that the State submit a
demonstration that the applicable implementation plan provides for
attainment of the ozone standard by the applicable attainment date in
any Marginal Area.'') \19\ Marginal ozone nonattainment areas are also
exempted from demonstrating reasonable further progress towards
attainment and submitting contingency measures. See CAA section 182(a)
(does not include a reasonable further progress requirement and
specifically notes that ``Section [172(c)(9)] of this title (relating
to contingency measures) shall not apply to Marginal Areas'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Part D of title I of the CAA provides the plan requirements
for all nonattainment areas. Subpart 1, which includes section
172(c), applies to all nonattainment areas. Congress provided in
subparts 2-5 additional requirements specific to the various NAAQS
pollutants that nonattainment areas must meet.
\19\ States with Marginal nonattainment areas are required to
implement new source review permitting for new and modified sources,
but the purpose of those requirements is to ensure that potential
emissions increases do not interfere with progress towards
attainment, as opposed to reducing existing emissions. Moreover, EPA
acknowledges that states within ozone transport regions must
implement certain emission control measures at existing sources in
accordance with CAA section 184, but those requirements apply
regardless of the applicable area designation or classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing regulations--either local, state, or federal--are
typically a part of the reason why ``additional'' local controls are
not needed to bring Marginal nonattainment areas into attainment. As
described in EPA's record for its final rule defining area
classifications for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and establishing associated
attainment dates, history has shown that the majority of areas
classified as Marginal for prior ozone standards attained the
respective standards by the Marginal area attainment date (i.e.,
without being re-classified to a Moderate designation). See 83 FR
10376. As part of a historical lookback, EPA calculated that by the
relevant attainment date for areas classified as Marginal, 85 percent
of such areas attained the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and 64 percent
attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\20\ Based on these historical data, EPA
expects that many areas classified Marginal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
will also attain by the relevant attainment date as a result of
emissions reductions that are already expected to occur through
implementation of existing local, state, and federal emissions
reduction programs. To the extent states have concerns about meeting
their attainment date for a Marginal area, the CAA under section
181(b)(3) provides authority for them to voluntarily request a higher
classification for individual areas, if needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Response to Comments on Implementation of the 2015
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment Area
Classifications Approach (February 26, 2018), at section A.2.4,
available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0202-0122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas that are classified as Moderate typically have more
pronounced air quality problems than Marginal areas or have been unable
to attain the NAAQS under the minimal requirements that apply to
Marginal areas. See CAA sections 181(a)(1) (classifying areas based on
the degree of nonattainment relative to the NAAQS) and (b)(2)
(providing for reclassification to the next highest designation upon
failure to attain the standard by the attainment date). Thus, unlike
Marginal areas, the statute explicitly requires a state with an ozone
nonattainment area classified as Moderate or higher to develop an
attainment plan demonstrating how the state will address the more
significant air quality problem, which generally requires the
application of various control measures to existing sources of
emissions located in the nonattainment
[[Page 71858]]
area. See generally CAA sections 172(c) and 182(b)-(e).
Given that downwind states are not required to demonstrate
attainment by the attainment date or impose additional controls on
existing sources in a Marginal nonattainment area, EPA believes that it
would be inconsistent to interpret the good neighbor provision as
requiring EPA to evaluate the necessity for upwind state emissions
reductions based on air quality modeled in a future year aligned with
the Marginal area attainment date. Rather, EPA believes it is more
appropriate and consistent with the nonattainment planning provisions
in title I to evaluate downwind air quality and upwind state
contributions, and, therefore, the necessity for upwind state emissions
reductions, in a year aligned with an area classification in connection
with which downwind states are also required to demonstrate attainment
and implement controls on existing sources--i.e., with the Moderate
area attainment date, rather than the Marginal area date. With respect
to the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the Moderate area attainment date will be in
the summer of 2024, and the last full year of monitored ozone-season
data that will inform attainment demonstrations is, therefore, 2023.
EPA's interpretation of the good neighbor requirements in relation
to the Marginal area attainment date is consistent with the Wisconsin
opinion. For the reasons explained below, the court's holding does not
contradict EPA's view that 2023 is an appropriate analytic year in
evaluating good neighbor SIPs for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The court in
Wisconsin was concerned that allowing upwind emission reductions to be
implemented after the applicable attainment date would require downwind
states to obtain more emissions reductions than the Act requires of
them, to make up for the absence of sufficient emissions reductions
from upwind states. See 938 F.3d at 316. As discussed previously,
however, this equitable concern only arises for nonattainment areas
classified as Moderate or higher for which downwind states are required
by the CAA to develop attainment plans securing reductions from
existing sources and demonstrating how such areas will attain by the
attainment date. See, e.g., CAA section 182(b)(1) & (2) (establishing
``reasonable further progress'' and ``reasonably available control
technology'' requirements for Moderate nonattainment areas). Ozone
nonattainment areas classified as Marginal are not required to meet
these same planning requirements, and thus the equitable concerns
raised by the Wisconsin court do not arise with respect to downwind
areas subject to the Marginal area attainment date.
The distinction between planning obligations for Marginal
nonattainment areas and higher classifications was not before the court
in Wisconsin. Rather, the court was considering whether EPA, in
implementing its obligation to promulgate federal implementation plans
under CAA section 110(c), was required to fully resolve good neighbor
obligations by the 2018 Moderate area attainment date for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. See 938 F.3d at 312-13. Although the court noted that
petitioners had not ``forfeited'' an argument with respect to the
Marginal area attainment date, see id. at 314, the court did not
address whether its holding with respect to the 2018 Moderate area date
would have applied with equal force to the Marginal area attainment
date because that date had already passed. Thus, the court did not have
the opportunity to consider these differential planning obligations in
reaching its decision regarding EPA's obligations relative to the then-
applicable 2018 Moderate area attainment date because such
considerations were not applicable to the case before the court.\21\
For the reasons discussed here, the equitable concerns supporting the
Wisconsin court's holding as to upwind state obligations relative to
the Moderate area attainment date also support EPA's interpretation of
the good neighbor provision relative to the Marginal area attainment
date. Thus, EPA proposes to conclude that its reliance on an evaluation
of air quality in the 2023 analytical year for purposes of assessing
good neighbor obligations with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS is based
on a reasonable interpretation of the CAA and legal precedent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The D.C. Circuit, in a short judgment, subsequently vacated
and remanded EPA's action purporting to fully resolve good neighbor
obligations for certain states for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, referred to
as the CSAPR Close-Out, 83 FR 65878 (Dec. 21, 2018). New York v.
EPA, No. 19-1019 (Oct. 1, 2019). That result necessarily followed
from the Wisconsin decision, because as EPA conceded, the Close-Out
``relied upon the same statutory interpretation of the Good Neighbor
Provision'' rejected in Wisconsin. Id. slip op. at 3. In the Close-
Out, EPA had analyzed the year 2023, which was two years after the
Serious area attainment date for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and not
aligned with any attainment date for that NAAQS. Id. at 2. In New
York, as in Wisconsin, the court was not faced with addressing
specific issues associated with the unique planning requirements
associated with the Marginal area attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously discussed, the March 2018 memorandum identifies
potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors, using the
definitions applied in the CSAPR Update and using both the ``3 x 3''
and the ``no water'' approaches to calculating future year design
values. The March 2018 memorandum identifies 57 potential nonattainment
and maintenance receptors in the West in Arizona (2), California (49),
and Colorado (6).\22\ The March 2018 memorandum also provides
contribution data regarding the impact of other states on the potential
receptors. For purposes of evaluating the Southeast States' 2015 ozone
NAAQS interstate transport SIP submission, we propose that, at least
where a state's impacts are less than one percent to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance sites, it is reasonable to conclude that
the state's impact will not significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state. EPA
notes, nonetheless, that consistent with the August 2018 memorandum, it
may be reasonable and appropriate for states to use a 1 ppb
contribution threshold, as an alternative to a one percent threshold,
at step 2 of the four-step framework in developing their SIP revisions
addressing the good neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
However, for the reasons discussed below, it is unnecessary for EPA to
determine whether it may be appropriate to apply a 1 ppb threshold for
purposes of this action.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The number of receptors in the identified western states is
57, irrespective of whether the ``3 x 3'' or ``no water'' approach
is used. Further, although EPA has indicated that states may have
flexibilities to apply a different analytic approach to evaluating
interstate transport, including identifying downwind air quality
problems, because EPA is also concluding in this proposed action
that the Southeast States will have an insignificant impact on any
potential receptors identified in its analysis, these Southeast
States need not definitively determine whether the identified
monitoring sites should be treated as receptors for the 2015 ozone
standard.
\23\ As further discussed below, because none of Southeast
States' impacts exceed 0.70 ppb, they necessarily also do not exceed
the 1 ppb contribution threshold discussed in the August 2018
memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, EPA notes that--due to large distance and a general
prevailing west to east wind flow--there is no evidence that any of the
Southeastern States will impact potential receptors in the West.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See footnote 5, above, regarding states considered to be in
the West.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Alabama
On August 20, 2018, Alabama submitted a SIP revision addressing the
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Alabama relied on the results of EPA's modeling
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, contained in the March
[[Page 71859]]
2018 memorandum, to identify downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors that may be impacted by emissions from sources in Alabama.
The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) reviewed
EPA's preliminary 2023 modeling and determined that the future year
projections are appropriate for the purposes of evaluating Alabama's
impact on nonattainment and maintenance receptors in other states.
Alabama concurred with EPA's preliminary photochemical modeling
results, which indicate that Alabama does not contribute above one
percent to any downwind nonattainment and maintenance sites. The August
20, 2018, submittal from Alabama also included additional programs that
have led to the reduction of ozone in the state. Therefore, ADEM
concluded that emissions from Alabama sources will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015
ozone NAAQS in any other state.
EPA's updated 2023 modeling discussed in the March 2018 memorandum
indicates that Alabama's largest impact on any potential downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptor in the East are 0.37 ppb and
0.49 ppb, respectively.\25\ These values are less than 0.70 ppb (one
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS),\26\ and as a result, demonstrate that
emissions from Alabama are not linked to any 2023 downwind potential
nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the March 2018
memorandum. As discussed above, there is no evidence that emissions
from Alabama will impact receptors in the West. Accordingly, EPA
proposes to conclude that emissions from Alabama will not contribute to
any potential receptors, and thus, the State will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ EPA's analysis indicates that Alabama will have a 0.37 ppb
impact at the potential nonattainment receptor in Tarrant, Texas
(Site ID 484392003), which has a 2023 projected average design value
of 72.5 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of 74.8 ppb, and
had a 2014-2016 design value of 73 ppb. EPA's analysis further
indicates that Alabama will have a 0.49 ppb impact at a potential
maintenance receptor in Denton, Texas (Site ID 481210034), which has
which has a projected 2023 average design value of 69.7 ppb, a 2023
projected maximum design value of 72.0 ppb, and had a 2014-2016
design value of 80 ppb. See the March 2018 memorandum, attachment C.
\26\ Because none of Alabama's impacts equal or exceed 0.70 ppb,
they necessarily also do not equal or exceed the 1 ppb contribution
threshold discussed in the August 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Florida
On September 18, 2018,\27\ Florida submitted a SIP revision
addressing the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Florida relied on the results of
EPA's modeling for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, contained in the March 2018
memorandum, to identify downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors that may be impacted by emissions from sources in Florida.
Based on Florida's review of EPA's modeling assumptions and model
performance evaluation, Florida determined that EPA's future year
projections were appropriate for purposes of evaluating Florida impact
on attainment and maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states.
For example, Florida found that EPA's modeling used emissions inventory
projections that were reasonable considering the projected future
decline in Florida NOX emissions. Thus, Florida concurred
with EPA's photochemical modeling results that indicate Florida's
greatest impacts on any potential downwind nonattainment or maintenance
receptor would be 0.21 ppb and 0.53 ppb, respectively.\28\ Florida
compared these values to a screening threshold of 0.70 ppb,
representing one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and concluded that
because none of Florida's impacts exceed this threshold, emissions from
Florida sources will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
Additionally, Florida's submission identifies SIP-approved regulations
that both directly and indirectly regulate sources of ozone precursor
emissions that contribute to ozone concentrations in ambient air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ EPA notes that the Florida submission was received by EPA
on September 26, 2018.
\28\ EPA's analysis indicates that Florida will have a 0.21 ppb
impact at the potential nonattainment receptor in Brazoria, Texas
(Site ID 480391004), which has a 2023 projected average design value
of 74.0 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of 74.9 ppb, and
had a 2014-2016 design value of 75 ppb. EPA's analysis further
indicates that Florida will have a 0.53 ppb impact at a potential
maintenance receptor in Harris, Texas (Site ID 482011034), which has
which has a projected 2023 projected average design value of 70.8
ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of 71.6 ppb, and had a
2014-2016 design value of 73 ppb. See the March 2018 memorandum,
attachments C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's updated 2023 modeling discussed in the March 2018 memorandum
indicates that Florida's largest impact on any potential downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptor in the East are 0.21 ppb and
0.53 ppb, respectively.\29\ These values are less than 0.70 ppb (one
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS),\30\ and as a result, demonstrate that
emissions from Florida are not linked to any 2023 downwind potential
nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the March 2018
memorandum. As discussed above, there is no evidence that emissions
from Florida will impact receptors in the West. Accordingly, EPA
proposes to conclude that emissions from Florida will not contribute to
any potential receptors, and thus, the State will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ EPA's analysis indicates that Florida will have a 0.21 ppb
impact at the potential nonattainment receptor in Brazoria, Texas
(Site ID 480391004), which has a 2023 projected average design value
of 74.0 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of 74.9 ppb, and
had a 2014-2016 design value of 75 ppb. EPA's analysis further
indicates that Florida will have a 0.53 ppb impact at a potential
maintenance receptor in Harris, Texas (Site ID 482011034), which has
which has a projected 2023 projected average design value of 70.8
ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of 71.6 ppb, and had a
2014-2016 design value of 73 ppb. See the March 2018 memorandum,
attachments B, C.
\30\ Because none of Florida's impacts exceed 0.70 ppb, they
necessarily also do not exceed the 1 ppb contribution threshold
discussed in the August 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Georgia
On September 19, 2018,\31\ the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division (GA EPD) submitted a SIP revision addressing the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. Georgia relied on the results of EPA's modeling for the 2015
ozone NAAQS, contained in the March 2018 memorandum, to identify
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors that may be impacted
by emissions from sources in Georgia.\32\ Based on Georgia's review of
EPA's modeling assumptions and model performance evaluation, Georgia
determined that EPA's future year projections were appropriate for
purposes of evaluating Georgia's impact on attainment and maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. Thus, Georgia concurred with
EPA's photochemical modeling results that indicate Georgia's greatest
impact on any potential downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor
would be 0.26
[[Page 71860]]
ppb and 0.34 ppb, respectively. Georgia compared these values to a
screening threshold and concluded that emissions from Georgia sources
will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Additionally,
the Georgia submittal identified regulations that have been approved
into the Georgia SIP to provide for the control of NOX and
VOCs, which are precursors that contribute to ambient ozone
concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ EPA notes that the Georgia submission was received by EPA
on September 24, 2018.
\32\ See Table A-1 and Table A-2 in Appendix A of Georgia's
submittal. EPD highlights Georgia's impact to nonattainment and
maintenance sites in the East. They also note that all values are
less than the defined threshold of 0.70 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's updated 2023 modeling discussed in the March 2018 memorandum
indicates that Georgia's largest impact on any potential downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptor in the East are 0.26 ppb and
0.34 ppb, respectively.\33\ These values are less than 0.70 ppb (one
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS),\34\ and as a result, demonstrate that
emissions from Georgia are not linked to any 2023 downwind potential
nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the March 2018
memorandum. As discussed above, there is no evidence that emissions
from Georgia will impact receptors in the West. Accordingly, EPA
proposes to conclude that emissions from Georgia will not contribute to
any potential receptors, and thus, the State will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ EPA's analysis indicates that Georgia will have a 0.26 ppb
impact at the potential nonattainment receptor in Tarrant, Texas
(Site ID 484392003), which has a 2023 projected average design value
of 72.5 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of 74.8 ppb, and
had a 2014-2016 design value of 73 ppb. EPA's analysis further
indicates that Georgia will have a 0.34 ppb impact at a potential
maintenance receptor in Denton, Texas (Site ID 481210034), which has
which has a projected 2023 projected average design value of 69.7
ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of 72.0 ppb, and had a
2014-2016 design value of 80 ppb. See the March 2018 memorandum,
attachments B, C.
\34\ Because none of Georgia's impacts exceed 0.70 ppb, they
necessarily also do not exceed the 1 ppb contribution threshold
discussed in the August 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. North Carolina
On September 27, 2018, North Carolina submitted a SIP revision
addressing the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. North Carolina relied on the
results of EPA's modeling for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, contained in the
March 2018 memorandum, to identify downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors that may be impacted by emissions from sources in
North Carolina. Based on North Carolina's review of EPA's modeling
assumptions, the State determined that EPA's future year projections
were conservative for purposes of evaluating North Carolina's impact on
attainment and maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states.
Thus, North Carolina concurred with EPA's photochemical modeling
results that indicate North Carolina's greatest impact on any potential
downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor would be 0.43 ppb and
0.42 ppb, respectively. North Carolina compared these values to a
screening threshold of 0.70 ppb, representing one percent of the 2015
ozone NAAQS, and concluded that because North Carolina's impacts to
neighboring states are projected to be less than 0.70 ppb, emissions
from North Carolina sources will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in
any other state. North Carolina further performed back trajectory
analyses to confirm that North Carolina did not significantly
contribute to ozone exceedances at ozone monitors in the East, and
identified SIP-approved regulations that both directly and indirectly
impact ozone concentrations in the State.
EPA's updated 2023 modeling discussed in the March 2018 memorandum
indicates that North Carolina's largest impact on any potential
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptor in the East are 0.43
ppb and 0.42 ppb, respectively.\35\ These values are less than 0.70 ppb
(one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS),\36\ and as a result, demonstrate
that emissions from North Carolina are not linked to any 2023 downwind
potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the
March 2018 memorandum. As discussed above, there is no evidence that
emissions from North Carolina will impact receptors in the West.
Accordingly, EPA proposes to conclude that emissions from North
Carolina will not contribute to any potential receptors, and thus, the
State will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ EPA's analysis indicates that North Carolina will have a
0.43 ppb impact at the potential nonattainment receptor in
Fairfield, Connecticut (Site ID 90019003), which has a 2023
projected average design value of 73.0 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum
design value of 75.9 ppb, and had a 2014-2016 design value of 85.0
ppb. EPA's analysis further indicates that North Carolina will have
a 0.42 ppb impact at a potential maintenance receptor in Harford,
Maryland (Site ID 240251001), which has which has a projected 2023
projected average design value of 70.9 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum
design value of 73.3 ppb, and had a 2014-2016 design value of 73.0
ppb. See the March 2018 memorandum, attachments B, C.
\36\ Because none of North Carolina's impacts exceed 0.70 ppb,
they necessarily also do not exceed the 1 ppb contribution threshold
discussed in the August 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. South Carolina
On September 7, 2018, South Carolina submitted a SIP revision
addressing the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. South Carolina relied on the
results of EPA's modeling for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, contained in the
March 2018 memorandum, to identify downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors that may be impacted by emissions from sources in
South Carolina. Based on South Carolina's review of EPA's modeling
assumptions, techniques, and data, South Carolina determined that EPA's
future year projections were appropriate for purposes of evaluating
South Carolina's impact on attainment and maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in other states. Thus, South Carolina concurred with EPA's
photochemical modeling results that indicate South Carolina's greatest
impact on any potential downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor
would be 0.12 and 0.14 ppb, respectively. South Carolina compared these
values to a screening threshold of 0.70 ppb, representing one percent
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and concluded that because none of South
Carolina's impacts exceed this threshold, emissions from South Carolina
sources will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state. The South
Carolina SIP also includes several regulations that address the
attainment, nonattainment and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.
EPA's updated 2023 modeling discussed in the March 2018 memorandum
indicates that South Carolina's largest impact on any potential
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptor in the East are 0.12
ppb and 0.14 ppb, respectively.\37\
[[Page 71861]]
These values are less than 0.70 ppb (one percent of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS),\38\ and as a result, demonstrate that emissions from South
Carolina are not linked to any 2023 downwind potential nonattainment
and maintenance receptors identified in the March 2018 memorandum. As
discussed above, there is no evidence that emissions from South
Carolina will impact receptors in the West. Accordingly, EPA proposes
to conclude that emissions from South Carolina will not contribute to
any potential receptors, and thus, the State will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ EPA's analysis indicates that South Carolina will have a
0.12 ppb impact at the potential nonattainment receptor in
Fairfield, Connecticut (Site ID 90019003), which has a 2023
projected average design value of 73.0 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum
design value of 75.9 ppb, and had a 2014-2016 design value of 85
ppb. EPA's analysis further indicates that South Carolina will have
a 0.14 ppb impact at a potential maintenance receptor in Harris,
Texas (Site ID 482010024), which has which has a projected 2023
projected average design value of 70.4 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum
design value of 72.8 ppb and had a 2014-2016 design value of 79 ppb.
See the March 2018 memorandum, attachments B, C.
\38\ Because none of South Carolina's impacts exceed 0.70 ppb,
they necessarily also do not exceed the 1 ppb contribution threshold
discussed in the August 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Tennessee
On September 13, 2018, Tennessee submitted a SIP revision
addressing the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Tennessee relied on the results
of EPA's modeling for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, contained in the March 2018
memorandum, to identify downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors that may be impacted by emissions from sources in Tennessee.
Based on Tennessee's review of EPA's modeling assumptions, Tennessee
determined that EPA's future year projections were appropriate for
purposes of evaluating Tennessee's impact on attainment and maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. Thus, Tennessee concurred with
EPA's photochemical modeling results that indicate Tennessee's greatest
impact on any potential downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor
would be 0.31 ppb and 0.65 ppb, respectively. Tennessee compared these
values to a screening threshold of 0.70 ppb, representing one percent
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and concluded that because none of Tennessee's
impacts exceed this threshold, emissions from Tennessee sources will
not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Additionally,
the Tennessee SIP includes several regulations that address the
attainment, nonattainment, and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.
EPA's updated 2023 modeling discussed in the March 2018 memorandum
indicates that Tennessee's largest impact on any potential downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptor in the East are 0.31 ppb and
0.65 ppb, respectively.\39\ These values are less than 0.70 ppb (one
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS),\40\ and as a result, demonstrate that
emissions from Tennessee are not linked to any 2023 downwind potential
nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the March 2018
memorandum. As discussed above, there is no evidence that emissions
from Tennessee will impact receptors in the West. Accordingly, EPA
proposes to conclude that emissions from Tennessee will not contribute
to any potential receptors, and thus, the State will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ EPA's analysis indicates that Tennessee will have a 0.31
ppb impact at three potential nonattainment receptors: Fairfield,
Connecticut (Site ID 90013007), which has a 2023 projected average
design value of 71.0 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of
75.0 ppb, and had a 2014-2016 design value of 81 ppb; Milwaukee,
Wisconsin (Site ID 550790085), which has a 2023 projected average
design value of 71.2 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of
73 ppb and had a 2014-2016 design value of 71 ppb; and Sheboygan,
Wisconsin (Site ID 551170006), which has a 2023 projected average
design value of 72.8 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of
75.1 ppb and had a 2014-2016 design value of 79 ppb. EPA's analysis
further indicates that Tennessee will have a 0.65 ppb impact at a
potential maintenance receptor Allegan, Michigan (Site ID
260050003), which has which has a projected 2023 projected average
design value of 69.0 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of
71.7 ppb and had a 2014-2016 design value of 75 ppb. See the March
2018 memorandum, attachments B, C.
\40\ Because none of Tennessee's impacts exceed 0.70 ppb, they
necessarily also do not exceed the 1 ppb contribution threshold
discussed in the August 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Proposed Actions
As discussed in the previous sections, each of the Southeast States
(Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Tennessee) concluded that emissions from sources in the states will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state. EPA's evaluation of the
Southeast States' submissions, discussed above, confirms this finding.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the interstate transport
portions of the infrastructure SIP submissions from Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee as meeting CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA
is requesting comments on the proposed approvals.
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 CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, these
actions merely approve state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, these actions:
Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory actions because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, for Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
Tennessee, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other
[[Page 71862]]
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 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).
For South Carolina, because this proposed action merely proposes to
approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law, this
proposed action for the State of South Carolina does not have Tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000). Therefore, this proposed action will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
The Catawba Indian Nation (CIN) Reservation is located within the
boundary of York County, South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian
Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120 (Settlement Act), ``all
state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the
[Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by
all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.'' The CIN also
retains authority to impose regulations applying higher environmental
standards to the Reservation than those imposed by state law or local
governing bodies, in accordance with the Settlement Act.
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: December 12, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019-27695 Filed 12-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
