Air Plan Approval; ID; 2015 Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport Requirements, 65722-65727 [2020-21329]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
65722
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 201 / Friday, October 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
emission sources facility-wide);
Condition 14.A (applicable to Source
IDs 041, 050 and 051, Emergency
Generators and Diesel Fire Pump);
Conditions 15.B and 16.B (applicable to
Source IDs 033 and 039, Cleaver Brooks
Boilers 1 and 2); Condition 15.D
(applicable to Source ID 042, 4
combustion turbines); Condition 16.C
(applicable to Source IDs 041, 050,
050A, 051, 051A, and 051B, Emergency
Generators); and Condition 16.D
(applicable to Source ID 039, Cleaver
Brooks Boiler 2), which remain as RACT
requirements. See also
§ 52.2063(c)(143)(i)(B)(1) for prior RACT
approval.
(9) Cherokee Pharmaceuticals, LLC—
Incorporating by reference Permit No.
49–00007, issued April 24, 2017, as
redacted by Pennsylvania. All permit
conditions in the prior RACT Permit No.
OP–49–0007B, issued May 16, 2001
remain as RACT requirements. See also
§ 52.2063(d)(1)(v) for prior RACT
approval.
(10) Resilite Sports Products Inc—
Incorporating by reference Permit No.
49–00004, issued August 25, 2017, as
redacted by Pennsylvania. All permit
conditions in the prior RACT Permit No.
OP–49–0003 issued December 3, 1996,
remain as RACT requirements except for
Condition 5c, which is superseded by
the new permit. See also
§ 52.2063(c)(207)(i)(B)(1) for prior RACT
approval.
(11) NRG Energy Center Paxton,
LLC—Incorporating by reference Permit
No. 49–00004, issued March 16, 2018,
as redacted by Pennsylvania, which
supersedes the prior RACT Permit Nos.
OP–22–02005 and OP–22–02015, both
issued March 23, 1999, for Source IDs
032 and 033, Boilers No. 13 and 14.
However, RACT Permit No. OP–22–
02005 remains in effect as to Source IDs
031 and 034, Boilers No. 12 and 15,
except for Conditions 1(a), 7, 14, 16, 21;
and RACT Permit No. OP–22–02015
remains in effect as to Source IDs 102
and 103, Engines 1 and 2, except for
Conditions 1(a), 7, 8, 9, 10, 12(c), 13, 14.
See also § 52.2063(d)(1)(l) for prior
RACT approval.
(12) Containment Solutions, Inc./Mt.
Union Plant—Incorporating by reference
Permit No. 31–05005, issued July 10,
2018, as redacted by Pennsylvania,
which supersedes the prior RACT
Permit No. OP–31–02005, issued April
9, 1999. See also § 52.2063
(c)(149)(i)(B)(11) for prior RACT
approval.
(13) Armstrong World Industries,
Inc.—Marietta Ceiling Plant—
Incorporating by reference Permit No.
36–05001, issued June 28, 2018, as
redacted by Pennsylvania, which
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Oct 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
supersedes the prior RACT Permit No.
36–2001, issued July 3, 1999. See also
§ 52.2063(d)(1)(b) for prior RACT
approval.
(14) Jeraco Enterprises Inc.—
Incorporating by reference Permit No.
49–00014, issued January 26, 2018, as
redacted by Pennsylvania. All permit
conditions in the prior RACT Permit No.
OP–49–0014, issued April 6, 1997,
remain as RACT requirements. See also
§ 52.2063(d)(1)(h) for prior RACT
approval.
(15) Texas Eastern Transmission,
L.P.—Bernville—Incorporating by
reference Permit No. 06–05033, issued
March 16, 2018, as redacted by
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the
prior RACT Permit No. OP–06–1033,
issued January 31, 1997, except for
Conditions 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13
which remain as RACT requirements.
See also § 52.2063(c)(120)(i)(B)(1) for
prior RACT approval.
(16) Texas Eastern Transmission,
L.P.—Shermans Dale—Incorporating by
reference Permit No. 50–05001, issued
March 26, 2018, as redacted by
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the
prior RACT Permit No. OP–50–02001,
issued April 12, 1999. See also
§ 52.2063(d)(1)(n) for prior RACT
approval.
(17) Texas Eastern Transmission,
L.P.—Perulack—Incorporating by
reference Permit No. 34–05002, issued
March 16, 2018, as redacted by
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the
prior RACT Permit No. OP–34–2002,
issued January 31, 1997, except for
Conditions 5.c, 6.a and 15 which remain
as RACT requirements. See also
§ 52.2063(d)(1)(r) for prior RACT
approval.
(18) Texas Eastern Transmission,
L.P.—Grantville—Incorporating by
reference Permit No. 22–05010, issued
March 27, 2018, as redacted by
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the
prior RACT Permit No. 22–2010, issued
January 31, 1997. See also
§ 52.2063(d)(1)(f) for prior RACT
approval.
(19) Texas Eastern Transmission,
L.P.—Bechtelsville—Incorporating by
reference Permit No. 06–05034, issued
April 19, 2018, as redacted by
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the
prior RACT Permit No. OP–06–1034,
issued January 31, 1997. See also
§ 52.2063(c)(120)(i)(B)(2) for prior RACT
approval.
(b) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2020–21139 Filed 10–15–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2018–0824; FRL–10014–
79–Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; ID; 2015 Ozone
NAAQS Interstate Transport
Requirements
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Clean Air Act (CAA or
the Act) requires each State
Implementation Plan (SIP) to contain
adequate provisions prohibiting
emissions that will have certain adverse
air quality effects in other states. On
September 26, 2018, the State of Idaho
(Idaho or the State) made a submission
to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to address these requirements for
the 2015 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The EPA is approving the
submission as meeting the requirement
that each SIP contain adequate
provisions to prohibit emissions that
will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in any other state.
DATES: This action is effective on
November 16, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R10–OAR- 2018–0824. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Claudia Vaupel, (206) 553–6121, or
vaupel.claudia@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background Information
On January 23, 2020, the EPA
proposed to approve Idaho’s September
26, 2018 submission as meeting the
interstate transport requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS (84 FR
E:\FR\FM\16OCR1.SGM
16OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 201 / Friday, October 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
7854). Please refer to the January 23,
2020 notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) for an explanation of the CAA
requirements, a detailed analysis of the
submissions, and the EPA’s proposed
rationale for approval. The public
comment period for this NPRM ended
on February 24, 2020.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
II. Response to Comments
The EPA received two sets of
comments during the public comment
period. Both commenters disagreed with
the EPA’s interpretation of Wisconsin v.
EPA, 938 F.3d 303 (DC Cir. 2019)
(Wisconsin v. EPA) as limited to the
attainment dates for Moderate or higher
classifications under CAA section 181,
as well as the EPA’s use of 2023 as the
analytic year to determine whether
sources in Idaho will significantly
contribute to downwind nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the
2015 ozone NAAQS.1 One commenter
argued that the EPA must reevaluate
Idaho’s significant contribution or
interference with maintenance in
alignment with the Marginal area
attainment date. The other commenter
supported the EPA’s proposed approval
of Idaho’s SIP submission but argued
that the EPA’s approach to the treatment
of Marginal nonattainment areas is
inconsistent with Wisconsin v. EPA and
is arbitrary and capricious. The
commentator also disputed as arbitrary
and capricious guidance published by
the EPA in August 2018 indicating that,
based on the EPA’s analysis of its most
recent modeling data, the amount of
upwind collective contribution captured
using a 1 parts per billion (ppb)
contribution threshold is generally
comparable, overall, to the amount
captured using a threshold equivalent to
1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.2
The following section summarizes the
comments and provides the EPA’s
responses to them. The full set of
comments is available in the docket for
this action.
Comment 1: Commenters asserted that
the EPA’s proposed action improperly
focuses on the Moderate attainment date
(analytic year 2023), which commenters
1 The EPA used the 2023 as the analytic year
because that year aligns with the expected
attainment year for Moderate ozone nonattainment
areas. The attainment date for nonattainment areas
classified as Moderate for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
is August 3, 2024. See CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR
51.1303; 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
2 Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for Use in
Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate
Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions
for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, August 31, 2018, available in the docket
for this action or at https://www.epa.gov/
airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-informationregarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozonenaaqs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Oct 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
argued ignores the 2021 attainment year
faced by Marginal 2015 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas.3 These
commenters asserted that the EPA’s
decision to focus on the Moderate
attainment date, rather than the
Marginal attainment date, contravenes
the statutory text, the U.S. District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) Court’s
decision in Wisconsin v. EPA, and is
arbitrary and capricious.
One commenter specifically avers that
the distinction the EPA has drawn
between Marginal and Moderate areas is
‘‘unlawful’’ and that the EPA relies on
flawed assumptions in its interpretation
of Wisconsin v. EPA. Specifically, the
commenter asserted that although the
EPA acknowledged the Wisconsin v.
EPA decision in its proposal, the EPA
inappropriately claims that the ruling
does not apply to Marginal
nonattainment areas because such areas
do not have formal SIP planning
obligations and are presumed to rely on
in-place emission control measures to
reach attainment. The commenter stated
that the statute prohibits upwind states
from significantly contributing to
nonattainment, or interfering with
maintenance, in any other state,
‘‘regardless of the severity of the
downwind state’s nonattainment
classification.’’ Moreover, the
commenter stated that ‘‘it would be
illogical for the statute to contemplate
action to address significant
contribution to maintenance while
disregarding contribution to marginal
areas, which have worse air quality.’’
In support of the commenter’s
assertion that the EPA must consider
Marginal nonattainment areas in 2021,
the commenter argued that the EPA’s
methodology for classifying
nonattainment areas is inaccurate, and
therefore, the EPA cannot assume that
Marginal nonattainment areas will
attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS within 3
years. The commenter argues that
because the EPA’s ‘‘percent-above-thestandard’’ classification approach was
developed for the 1979 1-hour ozone
standard, it ‘‘will skew toward a lower
classification threshold (i.e., Marginal)
at a much greater rate’’ and the ppb
reductions needed to attain the NAAQS
within 3 years of designation ‘‘is
extremely unlikely to occur when
relying solely on existing control
programs.’’ The commenter further
asserts that there are many Marginal
nonattainment areas not likely to attain
the 2015 standard by the statutory
3 The attainment date for nonattainment areas
classified as Marginal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
is August 3, 2021. See CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR
51.1303; 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
65723
deadline. These areas will then be
reclassified as Moderate nonattainment
areas that will continue to struggle to
meet their obligations because,
according to the commentator, the EPA
does not enforce the Good Neighbor
provision.
Another commenter also disagreed
with the EPA’s interpretation that the
different statutory requirements
applying to Marginal and Moderate
ozone nonattainment areas provide a
basis for aligning upwind Good
Neighbor obligations with the Moderate
area attainment date. They supported
this argument by referring to the EPA’s
2013 guidance for infrastructure SIP
submissions. The commenter asserted
that ‘‘EPA incorrectly relies on data and
analysis that was flatly rejected by the
Wisconsin v EPA court case.’’ They
further asserted that ‘‘EPA must
reevaluate its decision for Idaho and
must evaluate interstate transport to
marginal areas by their marginal
attainment date of 2021.’’
Response 1: The commenters are
referring to a D.C. Circuit court decision
addressing, in part, the issue of the
relevant analytic year for the purposes
of evaluating interstate ozone transport
under the good neighbor provision,
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On
September 13, 2019, the D.C. Circuit
issued a decision in Wisconsin v. EPA,
remanding the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR) Update 4 to the extent that
Good Neighbor federal implementation
plans in the CSAPR Update did not
fully eliminate upwind states’
‘‘significant contribution’’ by the next
applicable attainment date 5 by which
downwind states must attain the 2008
ozone NAAQS. See 938 F.3d 303, 313.
As explained in the proposal of this
action, the EPA had interpreted that
holding as limited to the attainment
dates for Moderate or higher
classifications under CAA section 181
on the basis that Marginal
nonattainment areas have reduced
nonattainment SIP planning
requirements and other considerations.
See, e.g., 85 FR 3874, 3877–3878
(January 23, 2020).
On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit in
Maryland v. EPA, applying the
Wisconsin decision, held that the EPA
must assess the impacts of interstate
transport on air quality at the next
downwind attainment date, including
Marginal area attainment dates, in
evaluating the basis for the EPA’s denial
of a petition under CAA section 126(b).
958 F.3d at 1203–04. The EPA signed
the NPRM proposing approval of
4 81
FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303.
5 See
E:\FR\FM\16OCR1.SGM
16OCR1
65724
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 201 / Friday, October 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Idaho’s good neighbor SIP prior to the
D.C. Circuit’s decision in Maryland.
This decision also came after the close
of the comment period on our proposed
approval of Idaho’s SIP submittal.
However, this decision bears directly on
our consideration of these comments. In
accordance with the Maryland decision,
the Agency now, in taking this final
action approving the Idaho SIP, will
consider 2021 6 to be the relevant
analytic year for the purposes of
determining whether sources in Idaho
will significantly contribute to
downwind nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in any other states.7
The points raised by the commenters
to dispute the EPA’s proposal to use
2023 as the analytic year are now moot
because after the decision in Maryland
v. EPA, the EPA is using 2021 as the
analytic year in this final action. The
EPA need not address commentator’s
claim that the 2015 ozone NAAQS
designations were done incorrectly.
This issue is beyond the scope of this
action. As acknowledged by the
commentator, they have previously
raised this issue in comments on a
different action, and the EPA responded
to those comments in that context.8
Regardless, the rulemaking to evaluate
Idaho’s September 26, 2018, good
neighbor SIP submission is not the
appropriate forum to contest the 2015
ozone NAAQS area designations.
Idaho’s September 26, 2018 SIP
submission includes an interstate ozone
transport analysis for the Good Neighbor
provision that relied on the modeling
information provided in the EPA’s
March 2018 memorandum,9 which used
6 The attainment date for nonattainment areas
classified as Marginal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
is August 3, 2021. See CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR
51.1303; 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
7 The EPA notes that the court in Maryland did
not have occasion to evaluate circumstances in
which the EPA may determine that an upwind
linkage to a downwind air quality problem exists
at steps 1 and 2 of the four-step Good Neighbor
framework by a particular attainment date, but for
reasons of impossibility or profound uncertainty the
Agency is unable to mandate upwind pollution
controls by that date. See 938 F.3d at 319–320. The
D.C. Circuit noted in Wisconsin that upon a
sufficient showing, these circumstances may
warrant a certain degree of flexibility in effectuating
the implementation of the Good Neighbor
provision. Id. Such circumstances are not at issue
in the present action.
8 See ‘‘Implementation of the 2015 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone:
Nonattainment Area Classifications Approach,’’ 83
FR 10376, 10379 (March 9, 2018).
9 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/memos-and-notices-regardinginterstate-air-pollution-transport.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Oct 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
2023 as the analytic year (corresponding
with the 2024 Moderate area attainment
date).10 The State concluded that it has
no emissions reduction obligations for
purposes of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) on the basis that its
emissions are not linked to any
nonattainment or maintenance
receptors.
Relying in part on the same data that
informed its analysis of the year 2023,
the EPA finds it reasonable to conclude
that the impacts from emissions from
sources in Idaho will not exceed a
contribution threshold of 1 percent of
the 2015 ozone NAAQS to any
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance sites in 2021. This finding
is a sufficient basis for the EPA to
conclude that Idaho is not linked to any
downwind receptors at step 2 of the
four-step interstate transport
framework.11
Based on the contribution modeling
included in the March 2018
memorandum, the EPA concludes that
Idaho’s largest impact on any
downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptors in 2023 are 0.18
ppb and 0.19 ppb, respectively.12 These
values are both far less than 1 percent
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb). In
response to the Maryland decision,
using the best available information
(including the same data that informed
the EPA’s 2023 modeling) to analyze
Idaho’s air quality impacts in the year
2021, the EPA finds it reasonable to
conclude that Idaho’s impact on any
potential downwind nonattainment and
10 The year 2023 was used as the analytic year
because that year aligns with the expected
attainment year for Moderate ozone nonattainment
areas. The attainment date for nonattainment areas
classified as Moderate for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
is August 3, 2024. See CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR
51.1303; 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
11 Thus, it is not necessary for the EPA to proceed
to evaluate whether the State’s infrastructure SIP
submission may also be approvable using an
alternative contribution threshold of 1 ppb.
Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for Use in
Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate
Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions
for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, August 31, 2018, available in the docket
for this action or at https://www.epa.gov/
airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-informationregarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozonenaaqs.
12 The EPA’s analysis indicates that Idaho will
have a 0.18 ppb impact at the nonattainment
receptor in Douglas County, Colorado (Site ID
80350004), which has a 2023 projected average
design value of 71.1 ppb, and a 2023 projected
maximum design value of 73.2 ppb. The EPA’s
analysis further indicates that Idaho will have a
0.19 ppb impact at the maintenance receptor in
Arapahoe County, Colorado (Site ID 80050002),
which has a projected 2023 average design value
below the 2015 ozone NAAQS (69.3 ppb), and a
2023 projected maximum design value above the
NAAQS (71.3 ppb). See the March 2018
memorandum, attachment C.
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
maintenance receptor in 2021 would be
similar to those projected in 2023, and
likewise well below 1 percent of the
2015 ozone NAAQS, as detailed in the
methodology described in the following
paragraphs. Therefore, the EPA finds
that Idaho’s September 26, 2018
infrastructure SIP submission satisfies
the State’s Good Neighbor obligations
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA’s analysis of receptors and
contributions in 2021 relies in part on
the 2023 modeling used in the NPRM of
this action, the results of which were
included with the March 2018
memorandum. These data are the most
recent published applicable modeling
data available at the time of this final
action. To estimate Idaho’s maximum
contribution to a nonattainment or
maintenance receptor in 2021, the EPA
developed an interpolation analysis that
evaluates available modeling,
monitoring, and emissions data to assess
air quality in this year. In general, this
analysis utilizes 2019 measured design
values 13 and 2023 modeled design
values to estimate design values at each
monitoring site in 2021. Specifically,
2021 average and maximum design
values were calculated by straight-line
linear interpolation between the 2019
measured data and the 2023 modeled
data. The EPA believes that the linear
interpolation methodology using
measured data and 2023 model
projections provides a technically sound
basis for estimation of ozone design
values in 2021 in part because of the
relatively short two-year span between
2021 and 2023.
The EPA calculated ozone
contributions in 2021 by applying the
following two-step process. First, the
contributions (in ppb) from each state to
each monitoring site in 2023 were
converted to a fractional portion of the
2023 average design value by dividing
the contribution by the 2023 design
value. In the second step, the resulting
contribution fractions were multiplied
by the estimated 2021 average design
value to produce 2021 contributions
from each state to each monitoring
site.14 15
The 2021 design values and
contributions were examined to
determine if Idaho contributes at or
above 1 percent of the 2015 ozone
13 The 2019 design values at each monitoring site
nationwide are available at https://www.epa.gov/
air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
14 Note that the method used here for calculating
contributions in 2021 is similar to the method used
by the EPA to calculate the 2023 contributions from
2023 air quality modeling.
15 Design values for 2019, 2021, and 2023 along
with the contributions in 2021 and 2023 are
provided in a file in the docket for this rule.
E:\FR\FM\16OCR1.SGM
16OCR1
65725
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 201 / Friday, October 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
NAAQS threshold (0.70 ppb) to a
downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor. The data indicate
that the highest contribution in 2021
from Idaho to a downwind receptor is
0.49 ppb to the nonattainment receptor
site 490353006 in Salt Lake County,
Utah. Based on this analysis, the EPA
finds it reasonable to conclude that
Idaho will contribute less than 1 percent
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS to any
potential nonattainment or maintenance
receptors in 2021.
The EPA also analyzed ozone
precursor emissions trends in Idaho to
support the findings from the air quality
analysis. In evaluating emissions trends,
we focused on state-wide emissions of
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) in
Idaho.16 17 Emissions from mobile
sources, electricity generating units
(EGUs), industrial facilities, gasoline
vapors, and chemical solvents are some
of the major anthropogenic sources of
ozone precursors. This evaluation looks
at both past emissions trends, as well as
projected trends.
As shown in Table 1 of this preamble,
between 2011 and 2017, annual total
NOX and VOC emissions have declined,
by 19 percent and 8 percent,
respectively. The projected reductions
are a result of ‘‘on the books’’ and ‘‘on
the way’’ regulations that will continue
to decrease NOX and VOC emissions in
Idaho, as indicated by our 2023
projected emissions. The large decrease
in NOX emissions between 2017
emissions and projected 2023 emissions
in Idaho are primarily driven by
reductions in emissions from onroad
and nonroad vehicles. The EPA projects
that the downward trend in both VOC
and NOX emissions from 2011 through
2017 will continue at a steady rate to
2023 and further into the future due to
the replacement of higher emissions
vehicles with lower emitting vehicles as
a result of several mobile source control
programs.18 This downward trend in
emissions in Idaho adds support to the
air quality analysis presented
previously, which indicates that the
impact of emissions from sources in
Idaho to ozone in downwind states will
continue to decline and remain below 1
percent of the NAAQS.
TABLE 1—ANNUAL EMISSIONS OF NOX AND VOC FROM ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSION SOURCES IN IDAHO
[Tons]
2011
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
NOX ..................................
VOC .................................
2012
90
90
2013
87
89
2014
84
88
2015
82
87
2016
78
86
Projected
2023
2017
76
84
73
82
49
63
Additionally, the EPA proposed in the
NPRM to find that emissions from Idaho
will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
at the Fort Hall Reservation in southeast
Idaho in 2023.19 The EPA has reassessed
air quality impacts of emissions sources
in Idaho on the Fort Hall Reservation for
2021 and continues to believe Idaho
will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
at the Fort Hall Reservation. As
discussed in the proposal of this action,
the EPA’s modeling in the March 2018
memorandum did not identify receptors
in Idaho in 2023. Additionally, the
ozone monitoring sites in Idaho are
projected to remain below the current
standard in 2023. The Idaho Falls area
monitoring site (Site ID 160230101),
which is nearest to the Fort Hall
Reservation, had a 2014–2016 design
value of 60 ppb and the EPA’s modeling
projects a 2023 maximum design value
of 60.2 ppb and a 2023 average design
value of 59.6 ppb, both below the 70
ppb standard.20 The Boise area
monitoring site with the highest 2023
projected ozone concentrations (Site ID
160010017) had a 2014–2016 design
value of 67 ppb and the EPA’s modeling
projects a 2023 maximum design value
of 59.8 ppb and a 2023 average design
value of 59.4 ppb. Because each of these
monitoring sites were both attaining in
2016 and are projected to attain in 2023,
and given the downward annual NOX
and VOC emissions trends identified in
the Table 1 of this preamble, the EPA
therefore finds it reasonable to conclude
that emissions from Idaho will not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
at the Fort Hall Reservation in 2021.
Thus, the EPA concludes that the air
quality and emission analyses indicate
that emissions from Idaho will not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state, including the Fort
Hall Reservation, in 2021. Therefore, the
EPA concludes that Idaho’s
infrastructure SIP submission satisfies
the State’s Good Neighbor obligations
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Comment 2: One commenter
disagreed with the EPA’s 1 ppb alternate
contribution threshold for determining
significant contributions. The
commenter’s reasoning was that ‘‘a 1
ppb threshold would be a departure
from the EPA’s precedent of using 1
percent of the ozone NAAQS as the
screening threshold’’ and that this
reversal of the EPA’s ‘‘longstanding
practice without adequate explanation
is arbitrary, capricious and
unreasonable.’’ The commenter asserts
that ‘‘reducing the amount of total
upwind contribution that is required to
be addressed in an upwind state’s state
or federal implementation plan will
necessarily increase the amount of
ozone that a downwind state will be
required to address on its own,’’ shifting
responsibility for reductions from
upwind states to downwind states and
16 This is because ground-level ozone is not
emitted directly into the air but is a secondary air
pollutant created by chemical reactions between
ozone precursors, chiefly NOX and non-methane
VOCs, in the presence of sunlight.
17 81 FR 74504, 74513–14. (October 26, 2016).
18 Tier 3 Standards (March 2014), the Light-Duty
Greenhouse Gas Rule (March 2013), Heavy (and
Medium)-Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule (August 2011),
the Renewable Fuel Standard (February 2010), the
Light Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule (April 2010), the
Corporate-Average Fuel Economy standards for
2008–2011 (April 2010), the 2007 Onroad HeavyDuty Rule (February 2009), and the Final Mobile
Source Air Toxics Rule (MSAT2) (February 2007).
19 On January 19, 2017, the EPA determined that
the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall
Reservation were eligible for treatment in the same
manner as a state for CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D) and
126. The EPA’s determination is available in the
docket for this action. See also https://
www.epa.gov/tribal/tribes-approved-treatmentstate-tas.
20 The EPA previously provided the 2023
projected ozone design values at individual
monitoring sites nationwide. 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 or at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-airpollution-transport/memos-and-notices-regardinginterstate-air-pollution-transport. For data for the
Idaho monitors, see page A–10 of attachment A.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Oct 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\16OCR1.SGM
16OCR1
65726
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 201 / Friday, October 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
further impeding the ability of
downwind states to attain the NAAQS.
Response 2: It is unnecessary for the
EPA to determine whether it may be
appropriate to approve a state’s use of
an alternative 1 ppb threshold for the
purposes of this action. The EPA’s
proposal, and this final action, are based
on a finding that Idaho will not
contribute above one percent of the
2015 ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) at any
projected nonattainment or maintenance
receptor in 2021. Therefore, there is no
need to evaluate any potential higher
contribution threshold, as discussed in
the August 2018 memorandum, in the
present final action.
III. Final Action
The EPA is approving Idaho’s
September 26, 2018 submission as
meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
interstate transport requirements for the
2015 ozone NAAQS.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
IV. Statutory and Executive Orders
Review
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Clean Air Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42
U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus,
in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s
role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Oct 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255; August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355; May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications and it 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).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing this action
and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by December 15,
2020 Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this action for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See CAA
section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: September 22, 2020.
Christopher Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region10.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as
follows:
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 N—Idaho
2. In § 52.670, the table in paragraph
(e) is amended by adding an entry at the
end of the table for ‘‘Interstate Transport
Requirements for the 2015 Ozone
NAAQS’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 52.670
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
E:\FR\FM\16OCR1.SGM
16OCR1
*
*
65727
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 201 / Friday, October 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED IDAHO NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES
Name of SIP provision
*
*
Interstate Transport Requirements for the
2015 Ozone NAAQS.
Applicable
geographic or
nonattainment
area
State submittal
date
EPA approval date
*
State-wide ......
*
9/26/2018
*
10/16/20, [Insert
Federal Register
citation].
[FR Doc. 2020–21329 Filed 10–15–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0268; FRL–10015–
02–Region 3]
Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards Second
Maintenance Plan for the Franklin
County Area
I. Background
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. This revision pertains to
the Commonwealth’s plan, submitted by
the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), for
maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) (referred to as the ‘‘1997
ozone NAAQS’’) in the Franklin County,
Pennsylvania area (Franklin County
Area). EPA is approving these revisions
to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance
with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA).
DATES: This final rule is effective on
November 16, 2020.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0268. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Oct 15, 2020
Jkt 253001
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Talley, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air &
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103. The telephone number is (215)
814–2117. Mr. Talley can also be
reached via electronic mail at
talley.david@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On August 3, 2020 (85 FR 46576),
EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the
NPRM, EPA proposed approval of
Pennsylvania’s plan for maintaining the
1997 ozone NAAQS in the Franklin
County Area through July 25, 2027, in
accordance with CAA section 175A. The
formal SIP revision was submitted by
DEP on March 10, 2020.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA
Analysis
On July 25, 2007 (72 FR 40746
effective July 25, 2007), EPA approved
a redesignation request (and
maintenance plan) from DEP for the
Franklin County Area. In accordance
with section 175A(b), at the end of the
eighth year after the effective date of the
redesignation, the state must also
submit a second maintenance plan to
ensure ongoing maintenance of the
standard for an additional 10 years.
CAA section 175A sets forth the criteria
for adequate maintenance plans. In
addition, EPA has published
longstanding guidance that provides
further insight on the content of an
approvable maintenance plan,
explaining that a maintenance plan
should address five elements: (1) An
attainment emissions inventory; (2) a
maintenance demonstration; (3) a
commitment for continued air quality
monitoring; (4) a process for verification
of continued attainment; and (5) a
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Comments
*
This
action
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
*
addresses
CAA
contingency plan.1 DEP’s March 10,
2020 submittal fulfills Pennsylvania’s
obligation to submit a second
maintenance plan and addresses each of
the five necessary elements.
As discussed in the August 3, 2020
NPRM, EPA allows the submittal of a
less rigorous, limited maintenance plan
(LMP) to meet the CAA section 175A
requirements by demonstrating that the
area’s design value 2 is well below the
NAAQS and that the historical stability
of the area’s air quality levels shows that
the area is unlikely to violate the
NAAQS in the future. EPA evaluated
DEP’s March 10, 2020 submittal for
consistency with all applicable EPA
guidance and CAA requirements. EPA
found that the submittal met CAA
section 175A and all CAA requirements,
and proposed approval of the LMP for
the Franklin County Area as a revision
to the Pennsylvania SIP. The effect of
this action makes certain commitments
related to the maintenance of the 1997
ozone NAAQS Federally enforceable as
part of the Pennsylvania SIP.
Other specific requirements of DEP’s
March 10, 2020 submittal and the
rationale for EPA’s proposed action are
explained in the NPRM and will not be
restated here. No public comments were
received on the NPRM.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS limited maintenance
plan for the Franklin County as a
revision to the Pennsylvania SIP.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
1 ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (Calcagni
Memo).
2 The ozone design value for a monitoring site is
the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations.
The design value for an ozone nonattainment area
is the highest design value of any monitoring site
in the area.
E:\FR\FM\16OCR1.SGM
16OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 201 (Friday, October 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65722-65727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21329]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0824; FRL-10014-79-Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; ID; 2015 Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport
Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) requires each State
Implementation Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting
emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other
states. On September 26, 2018, the State of Idaho (Idaho or the State)
made a submission to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
address these requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA is approving the submission as
meeting the requirement that each SIP contain adequate provisions to
prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any
other state.
DATES: This action is effective on November 16, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR- 2018-0824. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the For
Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia Vaupel, (206) 553-6121, or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background Information
On January 23, 2020, the EPA proposed to approve Idaho's September
26, 2018 submission as meeting the interstate transport requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS (84 FR
[[Page 65723]]
7854). Please refer to the January 23, 2020 notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for an explanation of the CAA requirements, a
detailed analysis of the submissions, and the EPA's proposed rationale
for approval. The public comment period for this NPRM ended on February
24, 2020.
II. Response to Comments
The EPA received two sets of comments during the public comment
period. Both commenters disagreed with the EPA's interpretation of
Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303 (DC Cir. 2019) (Wisconsin v. EPA) as
limited to the attainment dates for Moderate or higher classifications
under CAA section 181, as well as the EPA's use of 2023 as the analytic
year to determine whether sources in Idaho will significantly
contribute to downwind nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of
the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\1\ One commenter argued that the EPA must
reevaluate Idaho's significant contribution or interference with
maintenance in alignment with the Marginal area attainment date. The
other commenter supported the EPA's proposed approval of Idaho's SIP
submission but argued that the EPA's approach to the treatment of
Marginal nonattainment areas is inconsistent with Wisconsin v. EPA and
is arbitrary and capricious. The commentator also disputed as arbitrary
and capricious guidance published by the EPA in August 2018 indicating
that, based on the EPA's analysis of its most recent modeling data, the
amount of upwind collective contribution captured using a 1 parts per
billion (ppb) contribution threshold is generally comparable, overall,
to the amount captured using a threshold equivalent to 1 percent of the
2015 ozone NAAQS.\2\ The following section summarizes the comments and
provides the EPA's responses to them. The full set of comments is
available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The EPA used the 2023 as the analytic year because that year
aligns with the expected attainment year for Moderate ozone
nonattainment areas. The attainment date for nonattainment areas
classified as Moderate for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2024.
See CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303; 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
\2\ Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean Air Act
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State Implementation
Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, August 31, 2018, available in the docket for this action
or at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 1: Commenters asserted that the EPA's proposed action
improperly focuses on the Moderate attainment date (analytic year
2023), which commenters argued ignores the 2021 attainment year faced
by Marginal 2015 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas.\3\ These commenters
asserted that the EPA's decision to focus on the Moderate attainment
date, rather than the Marginal attainment date, contravenes the
statutory text, the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit)
Court's decision in Wisconsin v. EPA, and is arbitrary and capricious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The attainment date for nonattainment areas classified as
Marginal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2021. See CAA section
181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303; 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter specifically avers that the distinction the EPA has
drawn between Marginal and Moderate areas is ``unlawful'' and that the
EPA relies on flawed assumptions in its interpretation of Wisconsin v.
EPA. Specifically, the commenter asserted that although the EPA
acknowledged the Wisconsin v. EPA decision in its proposal, the EPA
inappropriately claims that the ruling does not apply to Marginal
nonattainment areas because such areas do not have formal SIP planning
obligations and are presumed to rely on in-place emission control
measures to reach attainment. The commenter stated that the statute
prohibits upwind states from significantly contributing to
nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, in any other state,
``regardless of the severity of the downwind state's nonattainment
classification.'' Moreover, the commenter stated that ``it would be
illogical for the statute to contemplate action to address significant
contribution to maintenance while disregarding contribution to marginal
areas, which have worse air quality.''
In support of the commenter's assertion that the EPA must consider
Marginal nonattainment areas in 2021, the commenter argued that the
EPA's methodology for classifying nonattainment areas is inaccurate,
and therefore, the EPA cannot assume that Marginal nonattainment areas
will attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS within 3 years. The commenter argues
that because the EPA's ``percent-above-the-standard'' classification
approach was developed for the 1979 1-hour ozone standard, it ``will
skew toward a lower classification threshold (i.e., Marginal) at a much
greater rate'' and the ppb reductions needed to attain the NAAQS within
3 years of designation ``is extremely unlikely to occur when relying
solely on existing control programs.'' The commenter further asserts
that there are many Marginal nonattainment areas not likely to attain
the 2015 standard by the statutory deadline. These areas will then be
reclassified as Moderate nonattainment areas that will continue to
struggle to meet their obligations because, according to the
commentator, the EPA does not enforce the Good Neighbor provision.
Another commenter also disagreed with the EPA's interpretation that
the different statutory requirements applying to Marginal and Moderate
ozone nonattainment areas provide a basis for aligning upwind Good
Neighbor obligations with the Moderate area attainment date. They
supported this argument by referring to the EPA's 2013 guidance for
infrastructure SIP submissions. The commenter asserted that ``EPA
incorrectly relies on data and analysis that was flatly rejected by the
Wisconsin v EPA court case.'' They further asserted that ``EPA must
reevaluate its decision for Idaho and must evaluate interstate
transport to marginal areas by their marginal attainment date of
2021.''
Response 1: The commenters are referring to a D.C. Circuit court
decision addressing, in part, the issue of the relevant analytic year
for the purposes of evaluating interstate ozone transport under the
good neighbor provision, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On September
13, 2019, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in Wisconsin v. EPA,
remanding the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update \4\ to the
extent that Good Neighbor federal implementation plans in the CSAPR
Update did not fully eliminate upwind states' ``significant
contribution'' by the next applicable attainment date \5\ by which
downwind states must attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 938 F.3d 303,
313. As explained in the proposal of this action, the EPA had
interpreted that holding as limited to the attainment dates for
Moderate or higher classifications under CAA section 181 on the basis
that Marginal nonattainment areas have reduced nonattainment SIP
planning requirements and other considerations. See, e.g., 85 FR 3874,
3877-3878 (January 23, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
\5\ See CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit in Maryland v. EPA, applying the
Wisconsin decision, held that the EPA must assess the impacts of
interstate transport on air quality at the next downwind attainment
date, including Marginal area attainment dates, in evaluating the basis
for the EPA's denial of a petition under CAA section 126(b). 958 F.3d
at 1203-04. The EPA signed the NPRM proposing approval of
[[Page 65724]]
Idaho's good neighbor SIP prior to the D.C. Circuit's decision in
Maryland. This decision also came after the close of the comment period
on our proposed approval of Idaho's SIP submittal. However, this
decision bears directly on our consideration of these comments. In
accordance with the Maryland decision, the Agency now, in taking this
final action approving the Idaho SIP, will consider 2021 \6\ to be the
relevant analytic year for the purposes of determining whether sources
in Idaho will significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other
states.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The attainment date for nonattainment areas classified as
Marginal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2021. See CAA section
181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303; 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
\7\ The EPA notes that the court in Maryland did not have
occasion to evaluate circumstances in which the EPA may determine
that an upwind linkage to a downwind air quality problem exists at
steps 1 and 2 of the four-step Good Neighbor framework by a
particular attainment date, but for reasons of impossibility or
profound uncertainty the Agency is unable to mandate upwind
pollution controls by that date. See 938 F.3d at 319-320. The D.C.
Circuit noted in Wisconsin that upon a sufficient showing, these
circumstances may warrant a certain degree of flexibility in
effectuating the implementation of the Good Neighbor provision. Id.
Such circumstances are not at issue in the present action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The points raised by the commenters to dispute the EPA's proposal
to use 2023 as the analytic year are now moot because after the
decision in Maryland v. EPA, the EPA is using 2021 as the analytic year
in this final action. The EPA need not address commentator's claim that
the 2015 ozone NAAQS designations were done incorrectly. This issue is
beyond the scope of this action. As acknowledged by the commentator,
they have previously raised this issue in comments on a different
action, and the EPA responded to those comments in that context.\8\
Regardless, the rulemaking to evaluate Idaho's September 26, 2018, good
neighbor SIP submission is not the appropriate forum to contest the
2015 ozone NAAQS area designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See ``Implementation of the 2015 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment Area Classifications
Approach,'' 83 FR 10376, 10379 (March 9, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho's September 26, 2018 SIP submission includes an interstate
ozone transport analysis for the Good Neighbor provision that relied on
the modeling information provided in the EPA's March 2018
memorandum,\9\ which used 2023 as the analytic year (corresponding with
the 2024 Moderate area attainment date).\10\ The State concluded that
it has no emissions reduction obligations for purposes of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) on the basis that its emissions are not linked to
any nonattainment or maintenance receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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/memos-and-notices-regarding-interstate-air-pollution-transport.
\10\ The year 2023 was used as the analytic year because that
year aligns with the expected attainment year for Moderate ozone
nonattainment areas. The attainment date for nonattainment areas
classified as Moderate for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2024.
See CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303; 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relying in part on the same data that informed its analysis of the
year 2023, the EPA finds it reasonable to conclude that the impacts
from emissions from sources in Idaho will not exceed a contribution
threshold of 1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS to any downwind
nonattainment and maintenance sites in 2021. This finding is a
sufficient basis for the EPA to conclude that Idaho is not linked to
any downwind receptors at step 2 of the four-step interstate transport
framework.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Thus, it is not necessary for the EPA to proceed to
evaluate whether the State's infrastructure SIP submission may also
be approvable using an alternative contribution threshold of 1 ppb.
Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan
Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, August 31, 2018, available in the docket for this action
or at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the contribution modeling included in the March 2018
memorandum, the EPA concludes that Idaho's largest impact on any
downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2023 are 0.18 ppb
and 0.19 ppb, respectively.\12\ These values are both far less than 1
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb). In response to the Maryland
decision, using the best available information (including the same data
that informed the EPA's 2023 modeling) to analyze Idaho's air quality
impacts in the year 2021, the EPA finds it reasonable to conclude that
Idaho's impact on any potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptor in 2021 would be similar to those projected in 2023, and
likewise well below 1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, as detailed in
the methodology described in the following paragraphs. Therefore, the
EPA finds that Idaho's September 26, 2018 infrastructure SIP submission
satisfies the State's Good Neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The EPA's analysis indicates that Idaho will have a 0.18
ppb impact at the nonattainment receptor in Douglas County, Colorado
(Site ID 80350004), which has a 2023 projected average design value
of 71.1 ppb, and a 2023 projected maximum design value of 73.2 ppb.
The EPA's analysis further indicates that Idaho will have a 0.19 ppb
impact at the maintenance receptor in Arapahoe County, Colorado
(Site ID 80050002), which has a projected 2023 average design value
below the 2015 ozone NAAQS (69.3 ppb), and a 2023 projected maximum
design value above the NAAQS (71.3 ppb). See the March 2018
memorandum, attachment C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's analysis of receptors and contributions in 2021 relies in
part on the 2023 modeling used in the NPRM of this action, the results
of which were included with the March 2018 memorandum. These data are
the most recent published applicable modeling data available at the
time of this final action. To estimate Idaho's maximum contribution to
a nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2021, the EPA developed an
interpolation analysis that evaluates available modeling, monitoring,
and emissions data to assess air quality in this year. In general, this
analysis utilizes 2019 measured design values \13\ and 2023 modeled
design values to estimate design values at each monitoring site in
2021. Specifically, 2021 average and maximum design values were
calculated by straight-line linear interpolation between the 2019
measured data and the 2023 modeled data. The EPA believes that the
linear interpolation methodology using measured data and 2023 model
projections provides a technically sound basis for estimation of ozone
design values in 2021 in part because of the relatively short two-year
span between 2021 and 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The 2019 design values at each monitoring site nationwide
are available at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA calculated ozone contributions in 2021 by applying the
following two-step process. First, the contributions (in ppb) from each
state to each monitoring site in 2023 were converted to a fractional
portion of the 2023 average design value by dividing the contribution
by the 2023 design value. In the second step, the resulting
contribution fractions were multiplied by the estimated 2021 average
design value to produce 2021 contributions from each state to each
monitoring site.14 15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Note that the method used here for calculating
contributions in 2021 is similar to the method used by the EPA to
calculate the 2023 contributions from 2023 air quality modeling.
\15\ Design values for 2019, 2021, and 2023 along with the
contributions in 2021 and 2023 are provided in a file in the docket
for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2021 design values and contributions were examined to determine
if Idaho contributes at or above 1 percent of the 2015 ozone
[[Page 65725]]
NAAQS threshold (0.70 ppb) to a downwind nonattainment or maintenance
receptor. The data indicate that the highest contribution in 2021 from
Idaho to a downwind receptor is 0.49 ppb to the nonattainment receptor
site 490353006 in Salt Lake County, Utah. Based on this analysis, the
EPA finds it reasonable to conclude that Idaho will contribute less
than 1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS to any potential nonattainment
or maintenance receptors in 2021.
The EPA also analyzed ozone precursor emissions trends in Idaho to
support the findings from the air quality analysis. In evaluating
emissions trends, we focused on state-wide emissions of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in
Idaho.16 17 Emissions from mobile sources, electricity
generating units (EGUs), industrial facilities, gasoline vapors, and
chemical solvents are some of the major anthropogenic sources of ozone
precursors. This evaluation looks at both past emissions trends, as
well as projected trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ This is because ground-level ozone is not emitted directly
into the air but is a secondary air pollutant created by chemical
reactions between ozone precursors, chiefly NOX and non-
methane VOCs, in the presence of sunlight.
\17\ 81 FR 74504, 74513-14. (October 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 1 of this preamble, between 2011 and 2017, annual
total NOX and VOC emissions have declined, by 19 percent and
8 percent, respectively. The projected reductions are a result of ``on
the books'' and ``on the way'' regulations that will continue to
decrease NOX and VOC emissions in Idaho, as indicated by our
2023 projected emissions. The large decrease in NOX
emissions between 2017 emissions and projected 2023 emissions in Idaho
are primarily driven by reductions in emissions from onroad and nonroad
vehicles. The EPA projects that the downward trend in both VOC and
NOX emissions from 2011 through 2017 will continue at a
steady rate to 2023 and further into the future due to the replacement
of higher emissions vehicles with lower emitting vehicles as a result
of several mobile source control programs.\18\ This downward trend in
emissions in Idaho adds support to the air quality analysis presented
previously, which indicates that the impact of emissions from sources
in Idaho to ozone in downwind states will continue to decline and
remain below 1 percent of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Tier 3 Standards (March 2014), the Light-Duty Greenhouse
Gas Rule (March 2013), Heavy (and Medium)-Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule
(August 2011), the Renewable Fuel Standard (February 2010), the
Light Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule (April 2010), the Corporate-Average
Fuel Economy standards for 2008-2011 (April 2010), the 2007 Onroad
Heavy-Duty Rule (February 2009), and the Final Mobile Source Air
Toxics Rule (MSAT2) (February 2007).
Table 1--Annual Emissions of NOX and VOC From Anthropogenic Emission Sources in Idaho
[Tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX............................................. 90 87 84 82 78 76 73 49
VOC............................................. 90 89 88 87 86 84 82 63
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the EPA proposed in the NPRM to find that emissions
from Idaho will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS at the Fort Hall
Reservation in southeast Idaho in 2023.\19\ The EPA has reassessed air
quality impacts of emissions sources in Idaho on the Fort Hall
Reservation for 2021 and continues to believe Idaho will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS at the Fort Hall Reservation. As discussed in
the proposal of this action, the EPA's modeling in the March 2018
memorandum did not identify receptors in Idaho in 2023. Additionally,
the ozone monitoring sites in Idaho are projected to remain below the
current standard in 2023. The Idaho Falls area monitoring site (Site ID
160230101), which is nearest to the Fort Hall Reservation, had a 2014-
2016 design value of 60 ppb and the EPA's modeling projects a 2023
maximum design value of 60.2 ppb and a 2023 average design value of
59.6 ppb, both below the 70 ppb standard.\20\ The Boise area monitoring
site with the highest 2023 projected ozone concentrations (Site ID
160010017) had a 2014-2016 design value of 67 ppb and the EPA's
modeling projects a 2023 maximum design value of 59.8 ppb and a 2023
average design value of 59.4 ppb. Because each of these monitoring
sites were both attaining in 2016 and are projected to attain in 2023,
and given the downward annual NOX and VOC emissions trends
identified in the Table 1 of this preamble, the EPA therefore finds it
reasonable to conclude that emissions from Idaho will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015
ozone NAAQS at the Fort Hall Reservation in 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ On January 19, 2017, the EPA determined that the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation were eligible for
treatment in the same manner as a state for CAA sections
110(a)(2)(D) and 126. The EPA's determination is available in the
docket for this action. See also https://www.epa.gov/tribal/tribes-approved-treatment-state-tas.
\20\ The EPA previously provided the 2023 projected ozone design
values at individual monitoring sites nationwide. 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 or at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/memos-and-notices-regarding-interstate-air-pollution-transport. For data for the Idaho
monitors, see page A-10 of attachment A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the EPA concludes that the air quality and emission analyses
indicate that emissions from Idaho will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in
any other state, including the Fort Hall Reservation, in 2021.
Therefore, the EPA concludes that Idaho's infrastructure SIP submission
satisfies the State's Good Neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
Comment 2: One commenter disagreed with the EPA's 1 ppb alternate
contribution threshold for determining significant contributions. The
commenter's reasoning was that ``a 1 ppb threshold would be a departure
from the EPA's precedent of using 1 percent of the ozone NAAQS as the
screening threshold'' and that this reversal of the EPA's
``longstanding practice without adequate explanation is arbitrary,
capricious and unreasonable.'' The commenter asserts that ``reducing
the amount of total upwind contribution that is required to be
addressed in an upwind state's state or federal implementation plan
will necessarily increase the amount of ozone that a downwind state
will be required to address on its own,'' shifting responsibility for
reductions from upwind states to downwind states and
[[Page 65726]]
further impeding the ability of downwind states to attain the NAAQS.
Response 2: It is unnecessary for the EPA to determine whether it
may be appropriate to approve a state's use of an alternative 1 ppb
threshold for the purposes of this action. The EPA's proposal, and this
final action, are based on a finding that Idaho will not contribute
above one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) at any projected
nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2021. Therefore, there is no
need to evaluate any potential higher contribution threshold, as
discussed in the August 2018 memorandum, in the present final action.
III. Final Action
The EPA is approving Idaho's September 26, 2018 submission as
meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
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 section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and it 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).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 15, 2020 Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: September 22, 2020.
Christopher Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region10.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:
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 N--Idaho
0
2. In Sec. 52.670, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry at the end of the table for ``Interstate Transport Requirements
for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.670 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 65727]]
EPA-Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable geographic State
Name of SIP provision or nonattainment area submittal date EPA approval date Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Interstate Transport State-wide............ 9/26/2018 10/16/20, [Insert This action
Requirements for the 2015 Ozone Federal Register addresses CAA
NAAQS. citation]. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I
).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2020-21329 Filed 10-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
