Air Plan Approval; Iowa; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 12232-12240 [2020-04229]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
12232
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 41 / Monday, March 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules
b. The Nij (calculated in accordance
with 49 CFR 571.208) must be below
1.0, where Nij = Fz/Fzc + My/Myc, and Nij
critical values are:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Fzc = 1,530 lbs for tension
Fzc = 1,385 lbs for compression
Myc = 229 lb-ft in flexion
Myc = 100 lb-ft in extension
c. Peak Fz must be below 937 lbs in
tension and 899 lbs in compression.
d. Rotation of the head about its
vertical axis relative to the torso is
limited to 105 degrees in either
direction from forward facing.
e. The neck must not impact any
surface that would produce
concentrated loading on the neck.
3. Spine and Torso Injury Criteria:
a. The lumbar spine tension (Fz)
cannot exceed 1,200 lbs.
b. Significant concentrated loading on
the occupant’s spine, in the area
between the pelvis and shoulders
during impact, including rebound, is
not acceptable. During this type of
contact, the interval for any rearward (X
direction) acceleration exceeding 20g
must be less than 3 milliseconds as
measured by the thoracic
instrumentation specified in 49 CFR
part 572, subpart E, filtered in
accordance with SAE recommended
practice J211/1, ‘‘Instrumentation for
Impact Test–Part 1–Electronic
Instrumentation.’’
c. The occupant must not interact
with the armrest or other seat
components in any manner significantly
different than would be expected for a
forward-facing seat installation.
4. Pelvis Criteria:
Any part of the load-bearing portion
of the bottom of the ATD pelvis must
not translate beyond the edges of the
seat bottom seat-cushion supporting
structure.
5. Femur Criteria:
Axial rotation of the upper leg (about
the Z-axis of the femur per SAE
Recommended Practice J211/1) must be
limited to 35 degrees from the nominal
seated position. Evaluation during
rebound does not need to be considered.
6. ATD and Test Conditions:
Longitudinal tests conducted to
measure the injury criteria above must
be performed with the FAA Hybrid III
ATD, as described in SAE 1999–01–
1609. The tests must be conducted with
an undeformed floor, at the most-critical
yaw cases for injury, and with all lateral
structural supports (e.g., armrests or
walls) installed.
Note: Boeing must demonstrate that the
installation of seats via plinths or pallets
meets all applicable requirements.
Compliance with the guidance contained in
policy memorandum PS–ANM–100–2000–
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Feb 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
00123, ‘‘Guidance for Demonstrating
Compliance with Seat Dynamic Testing for
Plinths and Pallets,’’ dated February 2, 2000,
is acceptable to the FAA.
7. Head Injury Criteria (HIC):
The HIC value must not exceed 1000
at any condition at which the
pretensioner does or does not deploy,
up to the maximum severity pulse that
corresponds to the test conditions
specified in § 25.562. Tests must be
performed to demonstrate this, taking
into account any necessary tolerances
for deployment.
8. Protection During Secondary
Impacts:
The pretensioner activation setting
must be demonstrated to maximize the
probability of the protection being
available when needed, considering
secondary impacts.
9. Protection of Occupants Other than
50th Percentile:
Protection of occupants for a range of
stature from a 2-year-old child to a 95th
percentile male must be shown. For
shoulder harnesses that include
pretensioners, protection of occupants
other than a 50th percentile male may
be shown by test or analysis. In
addition, the pretensioner must not
introduce a hazard to passengers due to
the following seating configurations:
a. The seat occupant is holding an
infant.
b. The seat occupant is a child in a
child-restraint device.
c. The seat occupant is a pregnant
woman.
10. Occupants Adopting the Brace
Position:
Occupants in the traditional brace
position when the pretensioner activates
must not experience adverse effects
from the pretensioner activation.
11. Inadvertent Pretensioner
Actuation:
a. The probability of inadvertent
pretensioner actuation must be shown
to be extremely remote (i.e., average
probability per flight hour of less than
10¥7).
b. The system must be shown not
susceptible to inadvertent pretensioner
actuation as a result of wear and tear, or
inertia loads resulting from in-flight or
ground maneuvers likely to be
experienced in service.
c. The seated occupant must not be
seriously injured as a result of
inadvertent pretensioner actuation.
d. Inadvertent pretensioner activation
must not cause a hazard to the airplane,
nor cause serious injury to anyone who
may be positioned close to the retractor
or belt (e.g., seated in an adjacent seat
or standing adjacent to the seat).
12. Availability of the Pretensioner
Function Prior to Flight:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The design must provide means for a
crewmember to verify the availability of
the pretensioner function prior to each
flight, or the probability of failure of the
pretensioner function must be
demonstrated to be extremely remote
(i.e., average probability per flight hour
of less than 10¥7) between inspection
intervals.
13. Incorrect Seat Belt Orientation:
The system design must ensure that
any incorrect orientation (twisting) of
the seat belt does not compromise the
pretensioner protection function.
14. Contamination Protection:
The pretensioner mechanisms and
controls must be protected from external
contamination associated with that
which could occur on or around
passenger seating.
15. Prevention of Hazards:
The pretensioner system must not
induce a hazard to passengers in case of
fire, nor create a fire hazard, if activated.
16. Functionality After Loss of Power:
The system must function properly
after loss of normal airplane electrical
power, and after a transverse separation
in the fuselage at the most critical
location. A separation at the location of
the system does not have to be
considered.
Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on
February 25, 2020.
James E. Wilborn,
Acting Manager, Transport Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–04180 Filed 2–28–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2020–0093; FRL–10005–
86–Region 7]
Air Plan Approval; Iowa; Infrastructure
State Implementation Plan
Requirements for the 2015 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
certain elements of a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submission from the Iowa Department
of Natural Resources (IDNR) addressing
the applicable requirements of section
110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the
2015 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). Section
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 41 / Monday, March 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules
110 requires that each state adopt and
submit a SIP revision to support the
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of each new or revised
NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. These
SIPs are commonly referred to as
‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. The infrastructure
requirements are designed to ensure that
the structural components of each
state’s air quality management program
are adequate to meet the State’s
responsibilities under the CAA. In this
action, the EPA is proposing to approve
the interstate transport portions of the
State’s 2015 Ozone NAAQS
infrastructure SIP submittal.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 1, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
OAR–2020–0093 to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Docket ID No. for this
rulemaking. Comments received will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov/, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Written Comments’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lachala Kemp, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air
Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219,
telephone number (913) 551–7214,
email address kemp.lachala@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Table of Contents
I. Written Comments
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. Have the requirements for approval of a
SIP revision been met?
IV. Background
A. General Framework for Analyzing
Interstate Transport
B. EPA Memoranda Regarding the 2015
Ozone NAAQS
V. Iowa’s SIP Submission
VI. EPA’s Analysis
A. Use of 2023 Analytic Year
B. Selection of the 1 ppb Threshold
1. Milwaukee Receptor
2. Allegan Receptor
VII. What action is the EPA taking?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Written Comments
Submit your comments, identified by
Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2020–
0093, at https://www.regulations.gov.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Feb 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
II. What is being addressed in this
document?
The EPA is proposing to approve
portions of the infrastructure SIP
submission received from the State on
November 30, 2018, in accordance with
section 110(a)(1) of the CAA.
Specifically, the EPA is proposing to
approve the following elements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—significant
contribution to nonattainment (prong 1),
and interference with maintenance of
the NAAQS (prong 2). The EPA will
address other elements of section
110(a)(2) including: (A) Through (C),
(D)(i)(II)—prevention of significant
deterioration of air quality (prong 3),
(D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through
(M) in a separate rulemaking. EPA
previously approved Iowa’s protection
of visibility (prong 4) SIP in a separate
action. See 84 FR 66075.
III. Have the requirements for approval
of a SIP revision been met?
The submission has met the public
notice requirements of 40 CFR 51.102.
The submission also satisfied the
completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V. The State provided a public
comment period for the submission
from September 18, 2018, to October 19,
2018. The State received two comments
during the comment period and
addressed them in the final SIP
submission to the EPA.
IV. Background
A. General Framework for Analyzing
Interstate Transport
On October 1, 2015, the EPA
promulgated a revision to the ozone
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12233
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), otherwise known as the
good neighbor provision, which
generally requires SIPs to contain
adequate provisions to prohibit in-state
emissions activities from having certain
adverse air quality effects on other states
due to interstate transport of pollution.
There are four so-called ‘‘prongs’’
within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i):
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) contains
prongs 1 and 2, while section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) includes prongs 3 and
4. This proposed 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 interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another
State (prong 2). Under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, the EPA
and states must give independent
significance to prong 1 and prong 2
when evaluating downwind air quality
problems under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).3
We note that the EPA 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 2011 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
2016 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
Update (CSAPR Update), which
resolved certain good neighbor
obligations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
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 (2008).
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
12234
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 41 / Monday, March 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
and partially addressed interstate
transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.4
Through the development and
implementation of CSAPR, the CSAPR
Update, and previous regional
rulemakings pursuant to the good
neighbor provision,5 the EPA developed
the following four-step interstate
transport framework to address the
requirements of the good neighbor
provision for the ozone NAAQS. This
framework provides a reasonable and
logical structuring of the key elements
that should be considered in addressing
the requirements of the good neighbor
provision. While states are not
mandated to follow this structure in
preparing good neighbor SIPs, it has
been upheld as a reasonable approach to
address good neighbor requirements by
various courts, including the U.S.
Supreme Court, and the EPA generally
uses the framework to evaluate whether
state SIP submittals can be approved
under the good neighbor provision.
Step 1: Identify downwind air quality
problems relative to the ozone NAAQS.
The EPA historically identified
downwind areas with air quality
problems, or receptors, using air quality
modeling projections for a future
analytic year and, where appropriate,
considering monitored ozone data. The
agency relied on modeled and
monitored data to identify receptors
expected to be in nonattainment with
the ozone NAAQS in the future analytic
year, and relied on modeled data to
identify additional receptors that may
have difficulty maintaining the NAAQS
in the future analytic year,
notwithstanding clean monitored data
or projected attainment. These latter
receptors are sometimes referred to as
‘‘maintenance-only’’ receptors.
Step 2: Determine which upwind
states contribute to these identified
downwind air quality problems
sufficiently to warrant further analysis
to determine whether their emissions
violate the good neighbor provision.
These states are referred to as ‘‘linked’’
states. Historically, the EPA identified
such upwind states as those modeled to
impact a downwind receptor in the
future analytic year at or above an air
quality threshold equivalent to 1
percent of the ozone NAAQS. However,
4 See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (CSAPR) and
81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016) (CSAPR Update).
As discussed later in this document, the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Wisconsin v. EPA, 938
F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 2019), remanded the rule to the
extent it failed to eliminate states’ significant
contributions in accordance with downwind
attainment dates.
5 Other regional rulemakings addressing ozone
transport include the NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57356
(October 27, 1998), and the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Feb 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
as discussed below, the EPA recognizes
that there may be other methods of
defining a ‘‘contribution’’ threshold that
are reasonable and appropriate to apply.
Step 3: For states linked to downwind
air quality problems, identify upwind
emissions on a statewide basis that will
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of a standard at a receptor
in another state. In the EPA’s prior
rulemakings addressing interstate ozone
pollution transport, the agency has used
cost-based and air quality-based criteria
to evaluate regionally uniform NOX
control strategies that were then used to
quantify the amount of a linked upwind
state’s emissions, if any, that will
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in another state in the
future analytic year. The agency then
established emissions budgets reflecting
remaining emissions levels following
the reduction of emissions that
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS downwind.
Step 4: For upwind states that are
found to have emissions that will
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS downwind,
implement the necessary emissions
reductions within the state through
permanent and enforceable measures.
In the CSAPR Update, for instance, the
EPA implemented the emissions
budgets for upwind states found to have
good neighbor obligations via Federal
Implementation Plans (FIPs) requiring
certain large power plants in the
upwind states to participate in the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
Trading Program.
B. EPA Memoranda Regarding the 2015
Ozone NAAQS
The EPA has released several
documents containing information
relevant to evaluating interstate
transport with respect to the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. In these documents, the EPA
made clear that the information
provided is to assist states’ efforts to
develop good neighbor SIPs. While the
information in those documents,
including associated air quality data,
could be used to inform the
development of such SIPs, the
information is not a final determination
regarding states’ obligations under the
good neighbor provision.
On January 6, 2017, the EPA
published in the Federal Register a
notice of data availability (NODA) with
preliminary interstate ozone transport
modeling with projected ozone design
values for 2023, on which we requested
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
comment.6 The EPA used the 2023
analytic year for this preliminary
modeling because that year aligns with
the 2015 ozone NAAQS attainment year
for Moderate ozone nonattainment
areas.7 On October 27, 2017, we
released a memorandum (October 2017
memorandum) containing updated
projected ozone design values for 2023,
which incorporated changes made in
response to comments on the NODA.8 In
the October 2017 memorandum, we
specifically stated that the updated 2023
modeling data may be useful for states
developing SIPs to address remaining
good neighbor obligations for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. The October 2017
memorandum did not address the 2015
ozone NAAQS. Subsequently, on March
27, 2018, we issued a memorandum
(March 2018 memorandum) indicating
the same 2023 projected ozone design
values released in the October 2017
memorandum would also be useful for
evaluating potential downwind air
quality problems with respect to the
2015 ozone NAAQS (step 1 of the fourstep interstate transport framework).
The March 2018 memorandum also
included newly available contribution
modeling results to assist states in
evaluating their impact on projected
downwind air quality problems (step 2
of the four-step interstate transport
framework).9
The March 2018 memorandum
describes the methods and results of the
updated photochemical and sourceapportionment modeling used to project
ambient ozone concentrations for the
year 2023 and the state-by-state
contributions to 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 October 2017 and
6 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).
7 82 FR 1735 (January 6, 2017). The basis for
selection of the analytic year is further discussed in
Section IV.A below.
8 See Supplemental Information on the Interstate
Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions
for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards under Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017, available in the
docket for this action and at https://www.epa.gov/
interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-airpollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
9 See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
under Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
March 27, 2018, available in the docket for this
action or at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-airpollution-transport/interstate-air-pollutiontransport-memos-and-notices.
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 41 / Monday, March 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules
March 2018 memoranda, the EPA used
the Comprehensive Air Quality Model
with Extensions (CAMx version 6.40) to
model average and maximum design
values in 2023 to identify potential
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors (i.e., monitoring sites that are
projected to have problems attaining or
maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS).
The March 2018 memorandum presents
design values calculated in two ways:
First, following the EPA’s historical ‘‘3
x 3’’ approach 10 for 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).
For purposes of identifying potential
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in 2023 (step 1), the EPA
applied the same approach used in the
CSAPR Update, wherein the EPA
considered a combination of monitoring
data and modeling projections to
identify monitoring sites that are
projected to have problems attaining or
maintaining the NAAQS. Specifically,
the EPA identified nonattainment
receptors as those monitoring sites with
measured design values 11 exceeding the
NAAQS that also have projected average
design values (i.e., modeled average
2023 values) exceeding the NAAQS.
The EPA identified maintenance
receptors as those monitoring sites with
projected maximum design values (i.e.,
modeled maximum 2023 values)
exceeding the NAAQS. Sites identified
as only maintenance receptors included
sites with 2016 measured design 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. The EPA
included the design values and
monitoring data for all monitoring sites
projected to be potential nonattainment
or maintenance receptors based on the
updated 2023 modeling in attachment B
to the March 2018 memorandum.
As described further in the March
2018 memorandum, after identifying
potential downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors, the EPA next
performed nationwide, state-level ozone
source-apportionment modeling to
determine the expected impact from
each state to each nonattainment and
10 See
March 2018 memorandum, p. 4.
11 The 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Feb 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
maintenance receptor in 2023.12 The
EPA included contribution information
resulting from the source-apportionment
modeling in attachment C to the March
2018 memorandum. For more specific
information on the modeling and
analysis, please see the October 2017
and March 2018 memoranda, the NODA
for the preliminary interstate transport
assessment, and the supporting
technical documents included in the
docket for this proposed action.
On August 31, 2018, the 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. Similar to the process
for selecting the 1 percent threshold for
the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS in
CSAPR and the CSAPR Update,
respectively, the memorandum included
analytical information regarding the
degree to which potential air quality
thresholds would capture the collective
amount of pollution transported from
upwind states to downwind receptors
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The August
2018 memorandum indicated that,
based on the EPA’s analysis of its most
recent modeling data, the amount of
upwind collective contribution captured
using a 1 ppb threshold is generally
comparable, overall (i.e., on average
across all receptors), to the amount
captured using a threshold equivalent to
1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
(i.e., 0.70 ppb). Specifically, the data
indicated that using a 1 percent
threshold captures 77 percent of the
total upwind contribution when
summed across all receptors and using
a 1 ppb threshold captures 70 percent
when summed across all receptors. By
contrast, using a 2 ppb threshold
captures 55 percent of the total upwind
contribution, much less of the total
contribution summed across all
receptors. Accordingly, the EPA
indicated that it may be reasonable and
appropriate for states to use a 1 ppb
contribution threshold, as an alternative
to the 1 percent threshold, at step 2 of
the four-step interstate transport
framework in developing their SIP
revisions addressing the good neighbor
provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.13
V. Iowa’s SIP Submission
On November 30, 2018, Iowa
submitted a SIP revision addressing the
12 As discussed in the March 2018 memorandum,
the EPA performed source-apportionment model
runs for a modeling domain that covers the 48
contiguous United States and the District of
Columbia, and adjacent portions of Canada and
Mexico.
13 See August 2018 memorandum, p. 4.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12235
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate
transport requirements for the 2015
ozone NAAQS. Iowa chose to rely on
the results of EPA’s 2023 modeling, as
presented in the March 2018
memorandum, to identify downwind
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors that may be impacted by
emissions from sources in Iowa. Based
on Iowa’s review of the EPA’s modeling
assumptions and model performance
evaluation, Iowa determined that EPA’s
future year projections were appropriate
for purposes of evaluating Iowa’s impact
on attainment and maintenance of the
2015 ozone NAAQS in other states.
Iowa relied on EPA’s 2023 modeling
to conclude that the state does not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state. Iowa referred to the
analytic information in EPA’s August
2018 memorandum as a basis to use a
1 ppb contribution threshold when
evaluating the state’s contribution to
downwind receptors at step 2 of EPA’s
four-step interstate transport framework.
Using EPA’s modeling, Iowa identified
that it is projected to contribute below
1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
(i.e., less than 0.70 ppb) to all but two
downwind receptors: The
nonattainment receptor in Milwaukee
County, Wisconsin (Milwaukee
receptor), and the maintenance-only
receptor in Allegan County, Michigan
(Allegan receptor). Iowa’s contribution
to these two receptors is between 1
percent and 1 ppb. Iowa concluded that
1 ppb is an appropriate contribution
threshold to apply with respect to the
2015 ozone NAAQS and that Iowa’s
emissions therefore do not contribute to
nonattainment or maintenance problems
at either receptor.
Iowa notes that its 2023 modeled
contribution to the Milwaukee receptor
is 0.79 ppb, and its 2023 modeled
contribution to the Allegan receptor is
0.77 ppb. Consistent with the regional
analysis provided in the August 2018
memorandum, Iowa further notes that
application of the 1 ppb threshold
captures 83 percent of the upwind
contribution captured at the 1 percent
threshold at the Milwaukee receptor and
94 percent of the upwind contribution
captured at the 1 percent threshold at
the Allegan receptor. Based on these
data, Iowa concludes that the 1 ppb
threshold is therefore appropriate
because it captures a ‘‘substantial
portion’’ of the transported contribution
from upwind states when compared to
the 1 percent threshold at both
receptors. Because the state’s impact on
both receptors is below the 1 ppb
threshold, the state concluded that its
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
12236
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 41 / Monday, March 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules
emissions will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2015
ozone NAAQS in downwind states.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
VI. EPA’s Analysis
The EPA proposes to approve Iowa’s
SIP submittal concluding that the State
will not contribute significantly to
downwind nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in other states, including its
reliance on the information and
modeling presented in EPA’s October
2017 and 2018 memoranda. The EPA
presents additional analysis in support
of the use of the 2023 analytic year, as
well as the State’s selection of the 1 ppb
contribution threshold.
A. Use of 2023 Analytic Year
On September 13, 2019, the D.C.
Circuit issued its decision in Wisconsin
v. EPA addressing legal challenges to
the CSAPR Update, in which the 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, the EPA is providing
further explanation regarding why it
proposes to find that it is appropriate
and consistent with the statute—as well
as legal precedent—to use the 2023
analytic year for assessing good
neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
The 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
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. The 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 the
EPA’s modeling.14 However, as
14 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Feb 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
explained below, the 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
the 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 the 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 the
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 SIP, 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).15 Such plans must
Area/State Information, https://www3.epa.gov/
airquality/greenbook/jbtc.html (last updated Sept.
30, 2019).
15 Part D of title I of the Clean Air Act 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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 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.’’) 16 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’’).
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 the 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
various NAAQS pollutants that nonattainment areas
must meet.
16 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, the EPA
acknowledges that states within ozone transport
regions must implement certain emissions control
measures at existing sources in accordance with
CAA section 184, but those requirements apply
regardless of the applicable area designation or
classification.
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 41 / Monday, March 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Marginal area attainment date (i.e.,
without being re-classified to a
Moderate designation). 83 FR 10376
(March 9, 2018). As part of a historical
lookback, the 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. See Response
to Comments, section A.2.4.17 Based on
these historical data, the 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
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, the
EPA believes that it would be
inconsistent to interpret the good
neighbor provision as requiring the 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, the EPA believes it is more
appropriate and consistent with the
nonattainment planning provisions in
title I to evaluate downwind air quality
17 Available at https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0202-0122.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Feb 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
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.
The 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 the
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
emissions 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 the
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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12237
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 the
EPA’s obligations relative to the thenapplicable 2018 Moderate area
attainment date because such
considerations were not applicable to
the case before the court.18 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 the EPA’s
interpretation of the good neighbor
provision relative to the Marginal area
attainment date. Thus, the 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.
B. Selection of the 1 ppb Threshold
As previously discussed, the March
2018 memorandum identifies potential
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors. The March 2018
memorandum also provides state-bystate contribution data for each
nonattainment and maintenance
receptor. The 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 Iowa’s
good neighbor obligation with respect to
the 2015 ozone NAAQS and to find
Iowa’s reliance on EPA’s modeling and
identification of receptors reasonable
and approvable.
The 2023 modeling projects that
emissions from Iowa impact two
18 The D.C. Circuit, in a short judgment,
subsequently vacated and remanded the 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 (December 21, 2018). New York v. EPA, No.
19–1019 (D.C. Cir. October 1, 2019). That result
necessarily followed from the Wisconsin decision,
because as the 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, the 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.
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12238
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 41 / Monday, March 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules
potential receptors (the Milwaukee
nonattainment receptor and Allegan
maintenance-only receptor) above the 1
percent threshold that the EPA has
recently applied in CSAPR and the
CSAPR Update to address the 1997 and
2008 ozone NAAQS, respectively.
However, based on the EPA’s August
2018 memorandum, Iowa provides an
analysis intended to demonstrate that a
1 ppb contribution threshold is
appropriate for analyzing its linkages to
the identified receptors. We propose to
approve the State’s conclusion that it
does not contribute to any receptors for
the purposes of the good neighbor
provision, based on the information and
analysis provided in the State’s SIP
submittal and additional analysis as
presented below.
Consistent with the EPA’s approach to
both the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS
in CSAPR and the CSAPR Update
described earlier, the EPA proposes to
conclude that, at least where a state’s
impacts to downwind nonattainment
and maintenance receptors are less than
1 percent of the NAAQS, it is reasonable
to conclude that the state’s impact will
not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS at such
locations. As discussed earlier, Iowa’s
impacts on all but two potential
receptors identified in the March 2018
memorandum are below 1 percent of the
2015 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, where
Iowa’s impacts are less than 1 percent
at a given receptor, the EPA proposes to
find that this serves as a wholly
sufficient basis to determine that the
state will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance at that receptor for
purposes of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
As discussed in its August 2018
memorandum, the EPA believes that it
may be reasonable and appropriate for
states to use a 1 ppb contribution
threshold, as an alternative to a 1
percent threshold, at step 2 of the fourstep interstate transport framework, for
the purposes of identifying linkages to
downwind receptors. In this action, the
EPA proposes to determine, for the
reasons discussed below, that it is
appropriate to apply a 1 ppb threshold
for purposes of evaluating upwind state
linkages at the Allegan County,
Michigan and Milwaukee County,
Wisconsin receptors.
As stated in the Iowa SIP submission,
the EPA’s updated 2023 modeling
discussed in the March 2018
memorandum indicates that Iowa is
shown to have an impact below 1
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS to all
but two downwind nonattainment and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Feb 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
maintenance receptors: The
nonattainment receptor in Milwaukee
County, Wisconsin, and the
maintenance receptor in Allegan
County, Michigan, to which Iowa’s
impacts are 0.79 ppb and 0.77 ppb,
respectively.19 These values are greater
than 0.70 ppb (1 percent of the 2015
ozone NAAQS) and less than a 1 ppb
threshold. Therefore further analysis is
required to determine whether or not a
1 ppb threshold is reasonable and
appropriate to apply as a contribution
threshold for evaluation of these
receptors in step 2 of the four-step
interstate transport framework.
In the August 2018 memorandum,
EPA stated that the amount of upwind
contribution captured with the 1
percent and 1 ppb thresholds is
generally comparable, overall (i.e., on
average across all receptors), and
therefore EPA believes it may be
reasonable and appropriate for states to
use a 1 ppb contribution threshold at
step 2 of the four-step interstate
transport framework. To determine the
appropriateness of using a 1 ppb
contribution threshold for purposes of
this action, the EPA first assessed
whether the general observation in the
August 2018 memorandum that a 1 ppb
threshold captures a comparable
amount of upwind collective
contribution as a 1 percent threshold
holds true for the specific receptors at
issue here. The EPA also considered the
following additional quantitative factors
to further evaluate the reasonableness
and appropriateness of using a 1 ppb
threshold at each receptor:
1. How does the impact of in-state
emissions on ozone levels at this
receptor compare to collective upwind
impacts?
2. What are the impacts of individual
upwind states linked at 1 ppb or higher
to the receptor?
3. Are individual upwind states
impacting this receptor between 1
percent and 1 ppb linked above 1 ppb
to other receptors?
For the reasons that follow, the EPA
proposes to evaluate these factors in a
weight-of-the-evidence analysis to
determine whether it is appropriate to
apply a 1 ppb threshold for the Allegan
and Milwaukee receptors at step 2 of the
four-step interstate transport framework.
As to the first additional factor that
the EPA proposes to consider, the
magnitude of in-state emissions
compared to collective upwind impacts
at a receptor can indicate whether or not
the ozone problem at a given receptor is
largely driven by transport from upwind
19 See
the March 2018 memorandum, attachment
C.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
states or by in-state emissions sources.
A relatively large collective upwind
impact compared to the in-state impact
at a given receptor indicates that the
ozone problem at the receptor is driven
to an important degree by transport from
upwind states, which may support
applying a lower threshold. Conversely,
if the in-state impact far exceeds the
collective impact from upwind states,
then this comparison could indicate the
that transport from upwind states is not
an important part of the ozone problem
at the receptor of interest, which may
support applying a higher threshold.
As to the second additional factor, we
consider the impacts of individual
upwind states linked at 1 ppb or more
to the receptor. When discussing the
rationale for the threshold in the August
2018 memorandum, the EPA described
that a comparable amount of emissions
reductions from states with individual
impacts below the 1 percent threshold
would have a relatively small impact on
the downwind receptors relative to
other states with higher impacts. While
greater than the impact of emissions
reductions from states with impact
below 1 percent, the relative air quality
impact of emissions reductions from
states with contributions between 1
percent and 1 ppb could be less
important than states with contributions
higher than 1 ppb. As stated in the
August 2018 memorandum ‘‘the use of
a 1 ppb threshold to identify linked
upwind states still provides the
potential, at step 3, for meaningful
emissions reductions in linked upwind
states in order to aid downwind states
with attainment and maintenance of the
2015 NAAQS.’’
As to the third additional factor, we
consider whether individual upwind
states that impact the receptor between
1 percent and 1 ppb are also linked to
other receptor(s) at levels above 1 ppb.
We would expect states to evaluate
emissions reductions as part of a step 3
analysis in their SIPs regarding their
contributions to the other receptor(s).
Any resulting emissions reductions
would also likely benefit the receptor to
which the states contribute between 1
percent and 1 ppb.
The EPA evaluated each of these
factors for the two downwind receptors
(i.e., Milwaukee and Allegan) to which
Iowa’s impacts are greater than 1
percent of the NAAQS but less than 1
ppb.
1. Milwaukee Receptor
EPA’s modeling shows the 2023
average design value at the Milwaukee,
Wisconsin receptor is 71.2 ppb. At the
Milwaukee receptor, the collective
upwind ozone contribution captured
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 41 / Monday, March 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules
with a 1 percent threshold is 28.4 ppb
and with a 1 ppb threshold it is 23.6
ppb. Thus, a 1 ppb threshold captures
83 percent of the upwind contribution
that would be captured using a 1
percent threshold. Consistent with the
August 2018 memorandum, these data
indicate that the percent of upwind
contribution captured at 1 ppb is
generally comparable to the percent
captured at 1 percent of the NAAQS,
indicating that the 1 ppb threshold may
be appropriate to apply to the
Milwaukee receptor. We therefore
proceeded to further examine data
regarding the upwind impacts at this
receptor using the three additional
weight-of-evidence factors.
Under the first additional factor,
transport of emissions from upwind
states collectively contributes 46
percent (32.5 ppb) to the 2023 average
ozone design value as compared to a 19
percent (13.3 ppb) impact from in-state
emissions, highlighting that both
upwind and in-state emissions have
substantial impact at the Milwaukee
receptor. In general, this factor would
tend to weigh in favor of recognizing the
importance of addressing upwind
contributions at this receptor.
Under the second factor, the EPA’s
analysis shows that four upwind states
contribute above 1 ppb to the
Milwaukee receptor, and as noted
above, the collective contribution from
these four states is 23.6 ppb, which
represents 72 percent of the total
contribution of all the upwind states. By
contrast, Iowa’s contribution to the
Milwaukee receptor is 0.79 ppb and
represents 2 percent of the total
contribution of all upwind states. This
factor tends to support the view that a
substantial amount of upwind
contribution from states linked above 1
ppb to this receptor will be captured
and further assessed for potential
emissions reduction at step 3 of the
interstate transport framework.
Under the third factor, in addition to
Iowa, there are five other upwind states
that contribute between 1 percent and 1
ppb to the Milwaukee receptor. The
collective contribution of these five
additional states linked between 1
percent and 1 ppb is 4.1 ppb, which
represents 12 percent of the total
contribution of all the upwind states.
Unlike Iowa, all five of these other
upwind States that are linked between
1 percent and 1 ppb to the Milwaukee,
Wisconsin receptor are also linked
above 1 ppb to additional projected
2023 nonattainment or maintenance
receptors. Thus, even though we would
not expect these States to make
emissions reductions to address the
Milwaukee receptor if a 1 ppb threshold
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Feb 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
is applied, we do expect these States to
evaluate their potential for additional
emissions reductions to address their
linkage to other receptors, which would
also provide co-benefits to the
Milwaukee receptor.
Based on this analysis, EPA finds that
for the Milwaukee, Wisconsin receptor,
a vast majority (85 percent) of the
upwind states’ emissions will be
captured for further evaluation for
possible control at step 3 of the fourstep interstate transport framework from
states which contribute above the 1 ppb
threshold to this receptor or from states
which contribute between 1 percent and
1 ppb to the Milwaukee receptor and
above 1 ppb to at least one other
receptor. This demonstrates that for the
Milwaukee receptor, the effect of
applying a 1 ppb threshold rather than
a 1 percent threshold is likely less
consequential than if a major share of
contribution from upwind states
contributing between 1 percent and 1
ppb to the Milwaukee receptor did not
contribute above 1 ppb to any other
receptor.
Given the technical information and
analysis discussed above, the EPA finds
that Iowa’s use of the 1 ppb contribution
threshold is reasonable and appropriate
to support the conclusion that it will not
contribute to the Milwaukee, Wisconsin
nonattainment receptor.
2. Allegan Receptor
In assessing Iowa’s conclusions as to
the Allegan, Michigan receptor, the EPA
applied the weight-of-evidence analysis
identified above, again using the 2023
contribution data. EPA’s modeling
shows that the 2023 average design
value at the Allegan, Michigan receptor
is 69.0 ppb. The upwind ozone
collectively captured at Allegan,
Michigan is 38.8 ppb and 36.6 ppb,
respectively for the 1 percent and 1 ppb
contribution thresholds, which
indicates that a 1 ppb threshold
captures nearly all (i.e., 94 percent) of
the amount of contribution captured
using a 1 percent threshold. The August
2018 memorandum states that if the
amount captured at 1 ppb is generally
comparable to the amount captured at 1
percent of the NAAQS, then the 1 ppb
threshold may be appropriate. The EPA
proposes to find that the amounts
captured by the two thresholds for the
Allegan receptor are comparable. We
therefore proceeded to further examine
the receptor using the three additional
weight of evidence factors.
Under the first factor, transport of
emissions from upwind states
collectively contribute 62 percent to the
2023 average ozone design value
compared to a 5 percent contribution
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12239
from in-state emissions, highlighting
that upwind emissions have a large
impact at the Allegan, Michigan
receptor. In general, this factor would
tend to weigh in favor of recognizing the
importance of upwind contributions at
this receptor.
Under the second factor, seven
upwind states contribute above 1 ppb to
the Allegan, Michigan receptor, and as
noted above the collective impact from
these states is 36.6 ppb, which
represents 85 percent of the total impact
of all the upwind states. By contrast,
Iowa’s contribution to Allegan,
Michigan is 0.77 ppb and represents 2
percent of the total contribution of all
upwind states. This factor strongly
supports the view that a substantial
amount of upwind contribution will be
captured by states linked above 1 ppb to
this receptor and further assessed for
potential emissions reduction at step 3
of the interstate transport framework.
Under the third factor, in addition to
Iowa, there are two other upwind states
that contribute between 1 percent and 1
ppb to Allegan, Michigan. The
collective contribution of these two
states linked between 1 percent and 1
ppb is 1.4 ppb and this represents 3
percent of the total contribution of all
the upwind states. One of the two
additional states linked between 1
percent and 1 ppb to the Allegan,
Michigan receptor is also linked above
1 ppb to other 2023 nonattainment or
maintenance receptors. Thus, even
though we would not expect this State
to make emissions reductions to address
the Allegan receptor if a 1 ppb threshold
is applied, we do expect this State to
evaluate its potential for additional
emissions reductions due to its linkage
to other receptors, which would also
provide co-benefits to the Allegan
receptor.
Based on this analysis, the EPA finds
that for the Allegan, Michigan receptor,
a vast majority (85 percent) of the
contribution from upwind states will be
captured using a 1 ppb threshold.
Emissions in the upwind states that
contribute above 1 ppb to this receptor
or which contribute between 1 percent
and 1 ppb to the Allegan receptor and
above 1 ppb to at least one other
receptor will be evaluated for possible
control at step 3. The analysis presented
here demonstrates that the effect of
applying a 1 ppb threshold rather than
a 1 percent threshold to the Allegan
receptor is likely less consequential
than if a major share of the total upwind
contribution to the receptor came from
states contributing between 1 percent
and 1 ppb to the Milwaukee receptor
and not contributing above 1 ppb to any
other receptor.
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
12240
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 41 / Monday, March 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Given the technical information and
analysis discussed above, EPA finds that
the state of Iowa’s use of the 1 ppb
contribution threshold is reasonable and
appropriate to support the conclusion
that it will not contribute to the Allegan,
Michigan maintenance receptor.
VII. What action is the EPA taking?
The EPA is proposing to approve
Iowa’s November 30, 2018, submission
addressing certain infrastructure
elements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Specifically, the EPA is proposing to
approve the following elements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—significant
contribution to nonattainment of the
NAAQS (prong 1) and interference with
maintenance of the NAAQS (prong 2).
The EPA is processing this as a
proposed action because it is soliciting
comments. Final rulemaking will occur
after consideration of any comments.
VII. 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 review state choices,
and approve them if they meet the
criteria and requirements of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTA) because this
rulemaking does not involve technical
standards; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Air quality control
region, Incorporation by reference,
Infrastructure, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping.
Dated: February 25, 2020.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart Q—Iowa
2. In § 52.820, the table in paragraph
(e) is amended by adding the entry
‘‘(53)’’ in numerical order to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.820
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED IOWA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS
Applicable
geographic or
nonattainment
area
Name of nonregulatory SIP provision
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
(53) Section 110(a)(2) (D)(i)(I)—significant con- Statewide ...............
tribution to nonattainment (prong 1), and interfering with maintenance of the NAAQs (prong 2)
(Interstate Transport) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 Ozone (O3) NAAQS.
State
submittal
date
11/30/2018
EPA approval date
Explanation
*
*
[Date of publication of
the final rule in the
Federal Register],
[Federal Register citation of the final rule].
*
This action approves the
following CAA elements: 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2 (D)(i)(I)—
prongs 1 and 2. [EPA–
R07–OAR–2020–
0093; FRL–10005–86–
Region 7].
[FR Doc. 2020–04229 Filed 2–28–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Feb 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 41 (Monday, March 2, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12232-12240]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04229]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R07-OAR-2020-0093; FRL-10005-86-Region 7]
Air Plan Approval; Iowa; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
Requirements for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve certain elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submission from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)
addressing the applicable requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). Section
[[Page 12233]]
110 requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP revision to support
the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each new or revised
NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. These SIPs are commonly referred to as
``infrastructure'' SIPs. The infrastructure requirements are designed
to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality
management program are adequate to meet the State's responsibilities
under the CAA. In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve the
interstate transport portions of the State's 2015 Ozone NAAQS
infrastructure SIP submittal.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 1, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2020-0093 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lachala Kemp, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219, telephone number (913) 551-7214, email
address [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Written Comments
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
IV. Background
A. General Framework for Analyzing Interstate Transport
B. EPA Memoranda Regarding the 2015 Ozone NAAQS
V. Iowa's SIP Submission
VI. EPA's Analysis
A. Use of 2023 Analytic Year
B. Selection of the 1 ppb Threshold
1. Milwaukee Receptor
2. Allegan Receptor
VII. What action is the EPA taking?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Written Comments
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2020-
0093, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
II. What is being addressed in this document?
The EPA is proposing to approve portions of the infrastructure SIP
submission received from the State on November 30, 2018, in accordance
with section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. Specifically, the EPA is proposing
to approve the following elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--
significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1), and interference
with maintenance of the NAAQS (prong 2). The EPA will address other
elements of section 110(a)(2) including: (A) Through (C), (D)(i)(II)--
prevention of significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3),
(D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through (M) in a separate rulemaking.
EPA previously approved Iowa's protection of visibility (prong 4) SIP
in a separate action. See 84 FR 66075.
III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
The submission has met the public notice requirements of 40 CFR
51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40
CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided a public comment period for
the submission from September 18, 2018, to October 19, 2018. The State
received two comments during the comment period and addressed them in
the final SIP submission to the EPA.
IV. Background
A. General Framework for Analyzing Interstate Transport
On October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revision to the ozone
NAAQS (2015 ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of both the primary and
secondary standards to 0.070 parts per million (ppm).\1\ Section
110(a)(1) of the 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), otherwise known as
the good neighbor provision, which generally requires SIPs to contain
adequate provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities from
having certain adverse air quality effects on other states due to
interstate transport of pollution. There are four so-called ``prongs''
within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) contains
prongs 1 and 2, while section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) includes prongs 3 and
4. This proposed 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 interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another State
(prong 2). Under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, the EPA and
states must give independent significance to prong 1 and prong 2 when
evaluating downwind air quality problems under section
110(a)(2)(D)(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 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that the EPA 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 2011
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 2016 Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule Update (CSAPR Update), which resolved certain good
neighbor obligations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
[[Page 12234]]
and partially addressed interstate transport for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (CSAPR) and 81 FR 74504
(October 26, 2016) (CSAPR Update). As discussed later in this
document, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Wisconsin v. EPA, 938
F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 2019), remanded the rule to the extent it failed
to eliminate states' significant contributions in accordance with
downwind attainment dates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through the development and implementation of CSAPR, the CSAPR
Update, and previous regional rulemakings pursuant to the good neighbor
provision,\5\ the EPA developed the following four-step interstate
transport framework to address the requirements of the good neighbor
provision for the ozone NAAQS. This framework provides a reasonable and
logical structuring of the key elements that should be considered in
addressing the requirements of the good neighbor provision. While
states are not mandated to follow this structure in preparing good
neighbor SIPs, it has been upheld as a reasonable approach to address
good neighbor requirements by various courts, including the U.S.
Supreme Court, and the EPA generally uses the framework to evaluate
whether state SIP submittals can be approved under the good neighbor
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Other regional rulemakings addressing ozone transport
include the NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998),
and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25162 (May 12,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: Identify downwind air quality problems relative to the
ozone NAAQS. The EPA historically identified downwind areas with air
quality problems, or receptors, using air quality modeling projections
for a future analytic year and, where appropriate, considering
monitored ozone data. The agency relied on modeled and monitored data
to identify receptors expected to be in nonattainment with the ozone
NAAQS in the future analytic year, and relied on modeled data to
identify additional receptors that may have difficulty maintaining the
NAAQS in the future analytic year, notwithstanding clean monitored data
or projected attainment. These latter receptors are sometimes referred
to as ``maintenance-only'' receptors.
Step 2: Determine which upwind states contribute to these
identified downwind air quality problems sufficiently to warrant
further analysis to determine whether their emissions violate the good
neighbor provision. These states are referred to as ``linked'' states.
Historically, the EPA identified such upwind states as those modeled to
impact a downwind receptor in the future analytic year at or above an
air quality threshold equivalent to 1 percent of the ozone NAAQS.
However, as discussed below, the EPA recognizes that there may be other
methods of defining a ``contribution'' threshold that are reasonable
and appropriate to apply.
Step 3: For states linked to downwind air quality problems,
identify upwind emissions on a statewide basis that will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of a standard
at a receptor in another state. In the EPA's prior rulemakings
addressing interstate ozone pollution transport, the agency has used
cost-based and air quality-based criteria to evaluate regionally
uniform NOX control strategies that were then used to
quantify the amount of a linked upwind state's emissions, if any, that
will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in another state in the future analytic year. The agency
then established emissions budgets reflecting remaining emissions
levels following the reduction of emissions that significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
downwind.
Step 4: For upwind states that are found to have emissions that
will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS downwind, implement the necessary emissions
reductions within the state through permanent and enforceable measures.
In the CSAPR Update, for instance, the EPA implemented the emissions
budgets for upwind states found to have good neighbor obligations via
Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) requiring certain large power
plants in the upwind states to participate in the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program.
B. EPA Memoranda Regarding the 2015 Ozone NAAQS
The EPA has released several documents containing information
relevant to evaluating interstate transport with respect to the 2015
ozone NAAQS. In these documents, the EPA made clear that the
information provided is to assist states' efforts to develop good
neighbor SIPs. While the information in those documents, including
associated air quality data, could be used to inform the development of
such SIPs, the information is not a final determination regarding
states' obligations under the good neighbor provision.
On January 6, 2017, the EPA published in the Federal Register a
notice of data availability (NODA) with preliminary interstate ozone
transport modeling with projected ozone design values for 2023, on
which we requested comment.\6\ The EPA used the 2023 analytic year for
this preliminary modeling because that year aligns with the 2015 ozone
NAAQS attainment year for Moderate ozone nonattainment areas.\7\ On
October 27, 2017, we released a memorandum (October 2017 memorandum)
containing updated projected ozone design values for 2023, which
incorporated changes made in response to comments on the NODA.\8\ In
the October 2017 memorandum, we specifically stated that the updated
2023 modeling data may be useful for states developing SIPs to address
remaining good neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The
October 2017 memorandum did not address the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Subsequently, on March 27, 2018, we issued a memorandum (March 2018
memorandum) indicating the same 2023 projected ozone design values
released in the October 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 interstate transport
framework). The March 2018 memorandum also included newly available
contribution modeling results to assist states in evaluating their
impact on projected downwind air quality problems (step 2 of the four-
step interstate transport framework).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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).
\7\ 82 FR 1735 (January 6, 2017). The basis for selection of the
analytic year is further discussed in Section IV.A below.
\8\ See Supplemental Information on the Interstate Transport
State Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2008 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017, available in the docket for
this action and at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
\9\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), March 27, 2018, available in the docket for this
action or at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The March 2018 memorandum describes the methods 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
contributions to 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 October 2017 and
[[Page 12235]]
March 2018 memoranda, the EPA used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model
with Extensions (CAMx version 6.40) to model average and maximum design
values in 2023 to identify potential nonattainment and maintenance
receptors (i.e., monitoring sites that are projected to have problems
attaining or maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS). The March 2018
memorandum presents design values calculated in two ways: First,
following the EPA's historical ``3 x 3'' approach \10\ for 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See March 2018 memorandum, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of identifying potential nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in 2023 (step 1), the EPA applied the same approach used in
the CSAPR Update, wherein the EPA considered a combination of
monitoring data and modeling projections to identify monitoring sites
that are projected to have problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS.
Specifically, the EPA identified nonattainment receptors as those
monitoring sites with measured design values \11\ exceeding the NAAQS
that also have projected average design values (i.e., modeled average
2023 values) exceeding the NAAQS. The EPA identified maintenance
receptors as those monitoring sites with projected maximum design
values (i.e., modeled maximum 2023 values) exceeding the NAAQS. Sites
identified as only maintenance receptors included sites with 2016
measured design 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. The EPA included the design
values and monitoring data for all monitoring sites projected to be
potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors based on the updated
2023 modeling in attachment B to the March 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described further in the March 2018 memorandum, after
identifying potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors,
the EPA next performed nationwide, state-level ozone source-
apportionment modeling to determine the expected impact from each state
to each nonattainment and maintenance receptor in 2023.\12\ The EPA
included contribution information resulting from the source-
apportionment modeling in attachment C to the March 2018 memorandum.
For more specific information on the modeling and analysis, please see
the October 2017 and March 2018 memoranda, the NODA for the preliminary
interstate transport assessment, and the supporting technical documents
included in the docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ As discussed in the March 2018 memorandum, the EPA
performed source-apportionment model runs for a modeling domain that
covers the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia,
and adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 31, 2018, the 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. Similar to the process for selecting the 1
percent threshold for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS in CSAPR and the
CSAPR Update, respectively, the memorandum included analytical
information regarding the degree to which potential air quality
thresholds would capture the collective amount of pollution transported
from upwind states to downwind receptors for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The
August 2018 memorandum indicated that, based on the EPA's analysis of
its most recent modeling data, the amount of upwind collective
contribution captured using a 1 ppb threshold is generally comparable,
overall (i.e., on average across all receptors), to the amount captured
using a threshold equivalent to 1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
(i.e., 0.70 ppb). Specifically, the data indicated that using a 1
percent threshold captures 77 percent of the total upwind contribution
when summed across all receptors and using a 1 ppb threshold captures
70 percent when summed across all receptors. By contrast, using a 2 ppb
threshold captures 55 percent of the total upwind contribution, much
less of the total contribution summed across all receptors.
Accordingly, the EPA indicated that it may be reasonable and
appropriate for states to use a 1 ppb contribution threshold, as an
alternative to the 1 percent threshold, at step 2 of the four-step
interstate transport framework in developing their SIP revisions
addressing the good neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See August 2018 memorandum, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Iowa's SIP Submission
On November 30, 2018, Iowa submitted a SIP revision addressing the
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Iowa chose to rely on the results of EPA's 2023
modeling, as presented in the March 2018 memorandum, to identify
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors that may be impacted
by emissions from sources in Iowa. Based on Iowa's review of the EPA's
modeling assumptions and model performance evaluation, Iowa determined
that EPA's future year projections were appropriate for purposes of
evaluating Iowa's impact on attainment and maintenance of the 2015
ozone NAAQS in other states.
Iowa relied on EPA's 2023 modeling to conclude that the state does
not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Iowa referred
to the analytic information in EPA's August 2018 memorandum as a basis
to use a 1 ppb contribution threshold when evaluating the state's
contribution to downwind receptors at step 2 of EPA's four-step
interstate transport framework. Using EPA's modeling, Iowa identified
that it is projected to contribute below 1 percent of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS (i.e., less than 0.70 ppb) to all but two downwind receptors: The
nonattainment receptor in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (Milwaukee
receptor), and the maintenance-only receptor in Allegan County,
Michigan (Allegan receptor). Iowa's contribution to these two receptors
is between 1 percent and 1 ppb. Iowa concluded that 1 ppb is an
appropriate contribution threshold to apply with respect to the 2015
ozone NAAQS and that Iowa's emissions therefore do not contribute to
nonattainment or maintenance problems at either receptor.
Iowa notes that its 2023 modeled contribution to the Milwaukee
receptor is 0.79 ppb, and its 2023 modeled contribution to the Allegan
receptor is 0.77 ppb. Consistent with the regional analysis provided in
the August 2018 memorandum, Iowa further notes that application of the
1 ppb threshold captures 83 percent of the upwind contribution captured
at the 1 percent threshold at the Milwaukee receptor and 94 percent of
the upwind contribution captured at the 1 percent threshold at the
Allegan receptor. Based on these data, Iowa concludes that the 1 ppb
threshold is therefore appropriate because it captures a ``substantial
portion'' of the transported contribution from upwind states when
compared to the 1 percent threshold at both receptors. Because the
state's impact on both receptors is below the 1 ppb threshold, the
state concluded that its
[[Page 12236]]
emissions will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in downwind states.
VI. EPA's Analysis
The EPA proposes to approve Iowa's SIP submittal concluding that
the State will not contribute significantly to downwind nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states,
including its reliance on the information and modeling presented in
EPA's October 2017 and 2018 memoranda. The EPA presents additional
analysis in support of the use of the 2023 analytic year, as well as
the State's selection of the 1 ppb contribution threshold.
A. Use of 2023 Analytic Year
On September 13, 2019, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision in
Wisconsin v. EPA addressing legal challenges to the CSAPR Update, in
which the 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, the EPA is providing further
explanation regarding why it proposes to find that it is appropriate
and consistent with the statute--as well as legal precedent--to use the
2023 analytic year for assessing good neighbor obligations for the 2015
ozone NAAQS.
The 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 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. The 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 the EPA's modeling.\14\ However, as
explained below, the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 SIP, 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).\15\ 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 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.'')
\16\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Part D of title I of the Clean Air Act 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.
\16\ 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, the
EPA acknowledges that states within ozone transport regions must
implement certain emissions 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 the 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
[[Page 12237]]
Marginal area attainment date (i.e., without being re-classified to a
Moderate designation). 83 FR 10376 (March 9, 2018). As part of a
historical lookback, the 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. See Response to Comments, section A.2.4.\17\ Based on
these historical data, the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 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 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, the EPA believes
that it would be inconsistent to interpret the good neighbor provision
as requiring the 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, the 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.
The 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 the 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 emissions
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 the 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 the 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.\18\
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 the EPA's interpretation
of the good neighbor provision relative to the Marginal area attainment
date. Thus, the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The D.C. Circuit, in a short judgment, subsequently vacated
and remanded the 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 (December 21, 2018).
New York v. EPA, No. 19-1019 (D.C. Cir. October 1, 2019). That
result necessarily followed from the Wisconsin decision, because as
the 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, the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Selection of the 1 ppb Threshold
As previously discussed, the March 2018 memorandum identifies
potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors. The March
2018 memorandum also provides state-by-state contribution data for each
nonattainment and maintenance receptor. The 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
Iowa's good neighbor obligation with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS
and to find Iowa's reliance on EPA's modeling and identification of
receptors reasonable and approvable.
The 2023 modeling projects that emissions from Iowa impact two
[[Page 12238]]
potential receptors (the Milwaukee nonattainment receptor and Allegan
maintenance-only receptor) above the 1 percent threshold that the EPA
has recently applied in CSAPR and the CSAPR Update to address the 1997
and 2008 ozone NAAQS, respectively. However, based on the EPA's August
2018 memorandum, Iowa provides an analysis intended to demonstrate that
a 1 ppb contribution threshold is appropriate for analyzing its
linkages to the identified receptors. We propose to approve the State's
conclusion that it does not contribute to any receptors for the
purposes of the good neighbor provision, based on the information and
analysis provided in the State's SIP submittal and additional analysis
as presented below.
Consistent with the EPA's approach to both the 1997 and 2008 ozone
NAAQS in CSAPR and the CSAPR Update described earlier, the EPA proposes
to conclude that, at least where a state's impacts to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors are less than 1 percent of the
NAAQS, it is reasonable to conclude that the state's impact will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the NAAQS at such locations. As discussed earlier, Iowa's impacts on
all but two potential receptors identified in the March 2018 memorandum
are below 1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, where Iowa's
impacts are less than 1 percent at a given receptor, the EPA proposes
to find that this serves as a wholly sufficient basis to determine that
the state will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance at that receptor for purposes of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
As discussed in its August 2018 memorandum, the EPA believes that
it may be reasonable and appropriate for states to use a 1 ppb
contribution threshold, as an alternative to a 1 percent threshold, at
step 2 of the four-step interstate transport framework, for the
purposes of identifying linkages to downwind receptors. In this action,
the EPA proposes to determine, for the reasons discussed below, that it
is appropriate to apply a 1 ppb threshold for purposes of evaluating
upwind state linkages at the Allegan County, Michigan and Milwaukee
County, Wisconsin receptors.
As stated in the Iowa SIP submission, the EPA's updated 2023
modeling discussed in the March 2018 memorandum indicates that Iowa is
shown to have an impact below 1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS to all
but two downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors: The
nonattainment receptor in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, and the
maintenance receptor in Allegan County, Michigan, to which Iowa's
impacts are 0.79 ppb and 0.77 ppb, respectively.\19\ These values are
greater than 0.70 ppb (1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS) and less than
a 1 ppb threshold. Therefore further analysis is required to determine
whether or not a 1 ppb threshold is reasonable and appropriate to apply
as a contribution threshold for evaluation of these receptors in step 2
of the four-step interstate transport framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See the March 2018 memorandum, attachment C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the August 2018 memorandum, EPA stated that the amount of upwind
contribution captured with the 1 percent and 1 ppb thresholds is
generally comparable, overall (i.e., on average across all receptors),
and therefore EPA believes it may be reasonable and appropriate for
states to use a 1 ppb contribution threshold at step 2 of the four-step
interstate transport framework. To determine the appropriateness of
using a 1 ppb contribution threshold for purposes of this action, the
EPA first assessed whether the general observation in the August 2018
memorandum that a 1 ppb threshold captures a comparable amount of
upwind collective contribution as a 1 percent threshold holds true for
the specific receptors at issue here. The EPA also considered the
following additional quantitative factors to further evaluate the
reasonableness and appropriateness of using a 1 ppb threshold at each
receptor:
1. How does the impact of in-state emissions on ozone levels at
this receptor compare to collective upwind impacts?
2. What are the impacts of individual upwind states linked at 1 ppb
or higher to the receptor?
3. Are individual upwind states impacting this receptor between 1
percent and 1 ppb linked above 1 ppb to other receptors?
For the reasons that follow, the EPA proposes to evaluate these
factors in a weight-of-the-evidence analysis to determine whether it is
appropriate to apply a 1 ppb threshold for the Allegan and Milwaukee
receptors at step 2 of the four-step interstate transport framework.
As to the first additional factor that the EPA proposes to
consider, the magnitude of in-state emissions compared to collective
upwind impacts at a receptor can indicate whether or not the ozone
problem at a given receptor is largely driven by transport from upwind
states or by in-state emissions sources. A relatively large collective
upwind impact compared to the in-state impact at a given receptor
indicates that the ozone problem at the receptor is driven to an
important degree by transport from upwind states, which may support
applying a lower threshold. Conversely, if the in-state impact far
exceeds the collective impact from upwind states, then this comparison
could indicate the that transport from upwind states is not an
important part of the ozone problem at the receptor of interest, which
may support applying a higher threshold.
As to the second additional factor, we consider the impacts of
individual upwind states linked at 1 ppb or more to the receptor. When
discussing the rationale for the threshold in the August 2018
memorandum, the EPA described that a comparable amount of emissions
reductions from states with individual impacts below the 1 percent
threshold would have a relatively small impact on the downwind
receptors relative to other states with higher impacts. While greater
than the impact of emissions reductions from states with impact below 1
percent, the relative air quality impact of emissions reductions from
states with contributions between 1 percent and 1 ppb could be less
important than states with contributions higher than 1 ppb. As stated
in the August 2018 memorandum ``the use of a 1 ppb threshold to
identify linked upwind states still provides the potential, at step 3,
for meaningful emissions reductions in linked upwind states in order to
aid downwind states with attainment and maintenance of the 2015
NAAQS.''
As to the third additional factor, we consider whether individual
upwind states that impact the receptor between 1 percent and 1 ppb are
also linked to other receptor(s) at levels above 1 ppb. We would expect
states to evaluate emissions reductions as part of a step 3 analysis in
their SIPs regarding their contributions to the other receptor(s). Any
resulting emissions reductions would also likely benefit the receptor
to which the states contribute between 1 percent and 1 ppb.
The EPA evaluated each of these factors for the two downwind
receptors (i.e., Milwaukee and Allegan) to which Iowa's impacts are
greater than 1 percent of the NAAQS but less than 1 ppb.
1. Milwaukee Receptor
EPA's modeling shows the 2023 average design value at the
Milwaukee, Wisconsin receptor is 71.2 ppb. At the Milwaukee receptor,
the collective upwind ozone contribution captured
[[Page 12239]]
with a 1 percent threshold is 28.4 ppb and with a 1 ppb threshold it is
23.6 ppb. Thus, a 1 ppb threshold captures 83 percent of the upwind
contribution that would be captured using a 1 percent threshold.
Consistent with the August 2018 memorandum, these data indicate that
the percent of upwind contribution captured at 1 ppb is generally
comparable to the percent captured at 1 percent of the NAAQS,
indicating that the 1 ppb threshold may be appropriate to apply to the
Milwaukee receptor. We therefore proceeded to further examine data
regarding the upwind impacts at this receptor using the three
additional weight-of-evidence factors.
Under the first additional factor, transport of emissions from
upwind states collectively contributes 46 percent (32.5 ppb) to the
2023 average ozone design value as compared to a 19 percent (13.3 ppb)
impact from in-state emissions, highlighting that both upwind and in-
state emissions have substantial impact at the Milwaukee receptor. In
general, this factor would tend to weigh in favor of recognizing the
importance of addressing upwind contributions at this receptor.
Under the second factor, the EPA's analysis shows that four upwind
states contribute above 1 ppb to the Milwaukee receptor, and as noted
above, the collective contribution from these four states is 23.6 ppb,
which represents 72 percent of the total contribution of all the upwind
states. By contrast, Iowa's contribution to the Milwaukee receptor is
0.79 ppb and represents 2 percent of the total contribution of all
upwind states. This factor tends to support the view that a substantial
amount of upwind contribution from states linked above 1 ppb to this
receptor will be captured and further assessed for potential emissions
reduction at step 3 of the interstate transport framework.
Under the third factor, in addition to Iowa, there are five other
upwind states that contribute between 1 percent and 1 ppb to the
Milwaukee receptor. The collective contribution of these five
additional states linked between 1 percent and 1 ppb is 4.1 ppb, which
represents 12 percent of the total contribution of all the upwind
states. Unlike Iowa, all five of these other upwind States that are
linked between 1 percent and 1 ppb to the Milwaukee, Wisconsin receptor
are also linked above 1 ppb to additional projected 2023 nonattainment
or maintenance receptors. Thus, even though we would not expect these
States to make emissions reductions to address the Milwaukee receptor
if a 1 ppb threshold is applied, we do expect these States to evaluate
their potential for additional emissions reductions to address their
linkage to other receptors, which would also provide co-benefits to the
Milwaukee receptor.
Based on this analysis, EPA finds that for the Milwaukee, Wisconsin
receptor, a vast majority (85 percent) of the upwind states' emissions
will be captured for further evaluation for possible control at step 3
of the four-step interstate transport framework from states which
contribute above the 1 ppb threshold to this receptor or from states
which contribute between 1 percent and 1 ppb to the Milwaukee receptor
and above 1 ppb to at least one other receptor. This demonstrates that
for the Milwaukee receptor, the effect of applying a 1 ppb threshold
rather than a 1 percent threshold is likely less consequential than if
a major share of contribution from upwind states contributing between 1
percent and 1 ppb to the Milwaukee receptor did not contribute above 1
ppb to any other receptor.
Given the technical information and analysis discussed above, the
EPA finds that Iowa's use of the 1 ppb contribution threshold is
reasonable and appropriate to support the conclusion that it will not
contribute to the Milwaukee, Wisconsin nonattainment receptor.
2. Allegan Receptor
In assessing Iowa's conclusions as to the Allegan, Michigan
receptor, the EPA applied the weight-of-evidence analysis identified
above, again using the 2023 contribution data. EPA's modeling shows
that the 2023 average design value at the Allegan, Michigan receptor is
69.0 ppb. The upwind ozone collectively captured at Allegan, Michigan
is 38.8 ppb and 36.6 ppb, respectively for the 1 percent and 1 ppb
contribution thresholds, which indicates that a 1 ppb threshold
captures nearly all (i.e., 94 percent) of the amount of contribution
captured using a 1 percent threshold. The August 2018 memorandum states
that if the amount captured at 1 ppb is generally comparable to the
amount captured at 1 percent of the NAAQS, then the 1 ppb threshold may
be appropriate. The EPA proposes to find that the amounts captured by
the two thresholds for the Allegan receptor are comparable. We
therefore proceeded to further examine the receptor using the three
additional weight of evidence factors.
Under the first factor, transport of emissions from upwind states
collectively contribute 62 percent to the 2023 average ozone design
value compared to a 5 percent contribution from in-state emissions,
highlighting that upwind emissions have a large impact at the Allegan,
Michigan receptor. In general, this factor would tend to weigh in favor
of recognizing the importance of upwind contributions at this receptor.
Under the second factor, seven upwind states contribute above 1 ppb
to the Allegan, Michigan receptor, and as noted above the collective
impact from these states is 36.6 ppb, which represents 85 percent of
the total impact of all the upwind states. By contrast, Iowa's
contribution to Allegan, Michigan is 0.77 ppb and represents 2 percent
of the total contribution of all upwind states. This factor strongly
supports the view that a substantial amount of upwind contribution will
be captured by states linked above 1 ppb to this receptor and further
assessed for potential emissions reduction at step 3 of the interstate
transport framework.
Under the third factor, in addition to Iowa, there are two other
upwind states that contribute between 1 percent and 1 ppb to Allegan,
Michigan. The collective contribution of these two states linked
between 1 percent and 1 ppb is 1.4 ppb and this represents 3 percent of
the total contribution of all the upwind states. One of the two
additional states linked between 1 percent and 1 ppb to the Allegan,
Michigan receptor is also linked above 1 ppb to other 2023
nonattainment or maintenance receptors. Thus, even though we would not
expect this State to make emissions reductions to address the Allegan
receptor if a 1 ppb threshold is applied, we do expect this State to
evaluate its potential for additional emissions reductions due to its
linkage to other receptors, which would also provide co-benefits to the
Allegan receptor.
Based on this analysis, the EPA finds that for the Allegan,
Michigan receptor, a vast majority (85 percent) of the contribution
from upwind states will be captured using a 1 ppb threshold. Emissions
in the upwind states that contribute above 1 ppb to this receptor or
which contribute between 1 percent and 1 ppb to the Allegan receptor
and above 1 ppb to at least one other receptor will be evaluated for
possible control at step 3. The analysis presented here demonstrates
that the effect of applying a 1 ppb threshold rather than a 1 percent
threshold to the Allegan receptor is likely less consequential than if
a major share of the total upwind contribution to the receptor came
from states contributing between 1 percent and 1 ppb to the Milwaukee
receptor and not contributing above 1 ppb to any other receptor.
[[Page 12240]]
Given the technical information and analysis discussed above, EPA
finds that the state of Iowa's use of the 1 ppb contribution threshold
is reasonable and appropriate to support the conclusion that it will
not contribute to the Allegan, Michigan maintenance receptor.
VII. What action is the EPA taking?
The EPA is proposing to approve Iowa's November 30, 2018,
submission addressing certain infrastructure elements for the 2015
ozone NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to approve the
following elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--significant
contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS (prong 1) and interference
with maintenance of the NAAQS (prong 2). The EPA is processing this as
a proposed action because it is soliciting comments. Final rulemaking
will occur after consideration of any comments.
VII. 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 review state choices, and
approve them if they meet the criteria and requirements of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Air quality
control region, Incorporation by reference, Infrastructure,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and record-keeping.
Dated: February 25, 2020.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart Q--Iowa
0
2. In Sec. 52.820, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the
entry ``(53)'' in numerical order to read as follows:
Sec. 52.820 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Iowa Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of nonregulatory SIP Applicable geographic or State
provision nonattainment area submittal date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(53) Section 110(a)(2) Statewide................. 11/30/2018 [Date of This action
(D)(i)(I)--significant publication of approves the
contribution to nonattainment the final rule following CAA
(prong 1), and interfering in the Federal elements:
with maintenance of the NAAQs Register], 110(a)(1) and
(prong 2) (Interstate [Federal 110(a)(2
Transport) Infrastructure Register (D)(i)(I)--prong
Requirements for the 2015 citation of the s 1 and 2. [EPA-
Ozone (O3) NAAQS. final rule]. R07-OAR-2020-009
3; FRL-10005-86-
Region 7].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2020-04229 Filed 2-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
