Air Plan Approval; Hawaii; Interstate Transport for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS, 53571-53576 [2021-20619]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules
and program-specific requirements
highlighted in the 2019 document
continue to apply, including the
extension of the inspection periodicity
for participating properties as outlined
in section V. HUD extends this
demonstration through April 30, 2023.
HUD may amend the demonstration
dates in response to changes in
programmatic and environmental
conditions through subsequent Federal
Register publications.
This notification provides operating
instructions and procedures in
connection with activities under a
Federal Register document that has
previously been subject to a required
environmental review. Accordingly,
under § 50.19(c)(4), this notification is
categorically excluded from
environmental review under the
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321, et seq.)
Dominique G. Blom,
General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public
and Indian Housing.
[FR Doc. 2021–21049 Filed 9–27–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2020–0567; FRL–9001–01–
R9]
Air Plan Approval; Hawaii; Interstate
Transport for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
state implementation plan (SIP)
submission from the State of Hawaii
addressing requirements in the Clean
Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) regarding
interstate transport for the 2015 ozone
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). Hawaii submitted a SIP
revision on November 12, 2019
addressing the CAA provision
prohibiting any source or other type of
emissions activity in one state from
emitting any air pollutant in amounts
that will contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other
state (‘‘the good neighbor provision’’).
The EPA is proposing to approve
Hawaii’s good neighbor SIP revision for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
SUMMARY:
01/13/2021-00098/economic-growth-regulatoryrelief-and-consumer-protection-actimplementation-of-national-standards.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 Sep 27, 2021
Jkt 253001
Any comments must arrive by
October 28, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2020–0567 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments at
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, or if
you need assistance in a language other
than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable
accommodation at no cost to you, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom
Kelly, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–3856,
kelly.thomasp@epa.gov. If you need
assistance in a language other than
English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable
accommodation at no cost to you, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
DATES:
I. Background
On October 1, 2015, the EPA
promulgated a revision to the ozone
NAAQS (‘‘2015 ozone NAAQS’’),
lowering the level of both the primary
and secondary standards to 0.070 parts
per million (ppm).1 Section 110(a)(1) of
the CAA requires states to submit,
within 3 years after promulgation of a
new or revised standard, SIP
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53571
submissions meeting the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(2).2 One
of these applicable requirements is
found in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
otherwise known as the good neighbor
provision, which generally requires SIPs
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 two socalled ‘‘prongs’’ within CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 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). The
EPA and states must give independent
significance to prong 1 and prong 2
when evaluating downwind air quality
problems under CAA 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 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,4 the CSAPR Update, and,
most recently, the Revised CSAPR
Update for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.5 6
Through the development and
implementation of CSAPR and other
regional rulemakings pursuant to the
good neighbor provision,7 the EPA,
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).
4 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
5 The Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (86 FR 23054;
April 30, 2021) was signed by the EPA
Administrator on March 15, 2021 and responded to
the remand of the CSAPR Update (81 FR 74504;
October 26, 2016) and the vacatur of a separate rule,
the CSAPR Close-Out (83 FR 65878; December 21,
2018) by the D.C. Circuit. Wisconsin v. EPA, 938
F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 2019); New York v. EPA, 781 F.
App’x. 4 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
6 In 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
remanded the CSAPR Update to the extent it failed
to require upwind states to eliminate their
significant contribution by the next applicable
attainment date by which downwind states must
come into compliance with the NAAQS, as
established under CAA section 181(a). 938 F.3d
303, 313.
7 In addition to the CSAPR rulemakings, other
regional rulemakings addressing ozone transport
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
Continued
28SEP1
53572
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules
working in partnership with states,
developed the following four-step
interstate transport framework to
address the requirements of the good
neighbor provision for the ozone
NAAQS: (1) Identify downwind air
quality problems; (2) identify upwind
states that impact those downwind air
quality problems sufficiently such that
they are considered ‘‘linked’’ and
therefore warrant further review and
analysis; (3) identify the emissions
reductions necessary (if any), applying a
multifactor analysis, to prevent linked
upwind states identified in step 2 from
contributing significantly to
nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS at the
locations of the downwind air quality
problems; and (4) adopt permanent and
enforceable measures needed to achieve
those emissions reductions.
The EPA has released several
documents containing information
relevant to evaluating interstate
transport with respect to the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. First, on January 6, 2017, the
EPA published a notice of data
availability (NODA) with preliminary
interstate ozone transport modeling
with projected ozone design values for
2023 using a 2011 base year platform,
on which we requested comment.8 In
the NODA, the EPA used the year 2023
as the analytic year for this preliminary
modeling because that year aligns with
the expected attainment year for
Moderate ozone nonattainment areas for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS.9 On October
27, 2017, we released a memorandum
(‘‘2017 memorandum’’) containing
updated modeling data for 2023, which
incorporated changes made in response
to comments on the NODA, and noted
that the modeling may be useful for
states developing SIPs to address good
neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.10 On March 27, 2018, we
issued a memorandum (‘‘March 2018
memorandum’’) noting that the same
2023 modeling data released in the 2017
memorandum could also be useful for
identifying potential downwind air
quality problems with respect to the
include the NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57356 (October 27,
1998), and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70
FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
8 See Notice of Availability of the Environmental
Protection Agency’s Preliminary Interstate Ozone
Transport Modeling Data for the 2015 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS),
82 FR 1733 (January 6, 2017).
9 82 FR 1735 (January 6, 2017).
10 See Information on the Interstate Transport
State Implementation Plan Submissions for the
2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017, available in the
docket for this action or at https://www.epa.gov/
interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-airpollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 Sep 27, 2021
Jkt 253001
2015 ozone NAAQS at step 1 of the
four-step interstate transport framework.
The March 2018 memorandum also
included the then newly available
contribution modeling results to assist
states in evaluating their impact on
potential downwind air quality
problems for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
under step 2 of the interstate transport
framework. The EPA subsequently
issued two additional memoranda in
August and October 2018, providing
additional information to states
developing good neighbor SIPs for the
2015 ozone NAAQS concerning,
respectively, potential contribution
thresholds that may be appropriate to
apply in step 2 of the framework, and
considerations for identifying
downwind areas that may have
problems maintaining the standard at
step 1 of the framework.11
On October 30, 2020, in the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for the Revised
CSAPR Update, the EPA released and
accepted public comment on updated
2023 modeling that used the 2016
emissions platform developed under the
EPA/Multi-Jurisdictional Organization
(MJO)/state collaborative project as the
primary source for the base year and
future year emissions data.12 On March
15, 2021, the EPA signed the final
Revised CSAPR Update using the same
modeling released at proposal.13
Although Hawaii relied in part on the
modeling included in the March 2018
memorandum to develop its SIP
submission, the EPA now proposes to
primarily rely on the updated and
newly available 2016 base year
modeling in evaluating this submission.
By using the updated modeling results,
EPA is using the most current and
technically appropriate information as
the primary basis for this proposed
rulemaking. EPA’s independent
analysis, which also evaluated historical
monitoring data, recent ambient air
monitoring design values, and
11 See Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for
Use in Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan
Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, August 31, 2018) (‘‘August
2018 memorandum’’), and Considerations for
Identifying Maintenance Receptors for Use in Clean
Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate
Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions
for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, October 19, 2018, available in the docket
for this action or at https://www.epa.gov/
airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-informationregarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozonenaaqs.
12 See 85 FR 68964, 68981. The results of this
modeling are included in a spreadsheet in the
docket for this action. The underlying modeling
files are available for public review in the docket
for the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA–HQ–OAR–
2020–0272).
13 82 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
emissions trends, found that such
information provides additional support
and further substantiates the results of
the 2016 base year modeling as the basis
for this proposed rulemaking. Section II
of this document and the Air Quality
Modeling technical support document
(TSD) included in the docket for this
proposed action contain additional
detail on this modeling.14
In the CSAPR, CSAPR Update, and
the Revised CSAPR Update, the EPA
used a threshold of one percent of the
NAAQS to determine whether a given
upwind state was ‘‘linked’’ at step 2 of
the interstate transport framework and
would, therefore, contribute to
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance sites identified in step 1. If
a state’s impact did not equal or exceed
the one percent threshold, the upwind
state was not ‘‘linked’’ to a downwind
air quality problem, and the EPA,
therefore, concluded the state would not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in the
downwind states. However, if a state’s
impact equaled or exceeded the one
percent threshold, the state’s emissions
were further evaluated in step 3, to
determine what, if any, emissions might
be deemed ‘‘significant’’ and, thus, must
be eliminated under the good neighbor
provision. The EPA is proposing to rely
on the one percent threshold (i.e., 0.070
ppb) for the purpose of evaluating
Hawaii’s contributions to nonattainment
or maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in downwind areas.
Several D.C. Circuit court decisions
have addressed the issue of the relevant
analytic year for the purposes of
evaluating ozone transport air-quality
problems. On September 13, 2019, the
D.C. Circuit issued a decision in
Wisconsin v. EPA, remanding the
CSAPR Update to the extent that it
failed to require upwind states to
eliminate their significant contribution
by the next applicable attainment date
by which downwind states must come
into compliance with the NAAQS, as
established under CAA section 181(a).15
On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit
issued a decision in Maryland v. EPA
14 See ‘‘Air Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document for the Proposed Revised Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule Update,’’ 85 FR 68964 (October 30,
2020), available in the docket for this action or at
https://www.epa.gov/csapr/revised-cross-state-airpollution-rule-update. This TSD was originally
developed to support EPA’s proposed action in the
Revised CSAPR Update, as relating to outstanding
good neighbor obligations under the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. While developed in this separate context,
the data and modeling outputs, including
interpolated design values for 2021, may be
evaluated with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS
and used in support of this action.
15 938 F.3d 303, 313.
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules
that cited the Wisconsin decision in
holding that the EPA must assess the
impact 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).16 The court
noted that ‘‘section 126(b) incorporates
the Good Neighbor Provision,’’ and,
therefore, ‘‘the EPA must find a
violation [of section 126] if an upwind
source will significantly contribute to
downwind nonattainment at the next
downwind attainment deadline.
Therefore, the agency must evaluate
downwind air quality at that deadline,
not at some later date.’’ 17 The EPA
interprets the court’s holding in
Maryland as requiring the Agency,
under the good neighbor provision, to
assess downwind air quality by the next
applicable attainment date, including a
Marginal area attainment date under
section 181 for ozone nonattainment.18
The Marginal area attainment date for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS is August 3,
2021.19 Historically, the EPA has
considered the full ozone season prior
to the attainment date as supplying an
appropriate analytic year for assessing
good neighbor obligations. While this
would be 2020 for an August 2021
attainment date (which falls within the
2021 ozone season running from May 1
to September 30), in this circumstance,
when the 2020 ozone season is wholly
in the past, it is appropriate to focus on
2021 in order to address good neighbor
obligations to the extent possible by the
2021 attainment date. The EPA does not
believe it would be appropriate to select
an analytical year that is wholly in the
past, because the agency interprets the
good neighbor provision as forward
looking.20 Consequently, in this
proposed action the EPA will use the
analytical year of 2021 to evaluate
16 Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185, 1203–04 (D.C.
Cir. 2020).
17 Id. at 1204.
18 We note that the court in Maryland did not
have occasion to evaluate circumstances in which
EPA may determine that an upwind linkage to a
downwind air quality problem exists at steps 1 and
2 of the interstate transport 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 Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 320. The D.C.
Circuit noted in Wisconsin that upon a sufficient
showing, these circumstances may warrant
flexibility in effectuating the purpose of the good
neighbor provision. Such circumstances are not at
issue in the present action.
19 CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303; 83 FR
25776 (June 4, 2018, effective Aug. 3, 2018).
20 See 85 FR at 68981; see also Wisconsin, 938
F.3d at 322.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 Sep 27, 2021
Jkt 253001
Hawaii’s good neighbor obligations with
respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.21
II. HDOH SIP Submission
The Hawaii Department of Health
(HDOH) submitted its good neighbor SIP
submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
by letter dated November 12, 2019.22
The submittal included documentation
of public participation proceedings to
meet the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.102. The EPA
determined that the submittal was
complete on November 13, 2019.23
HDOH concluded that Hawaii does
not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state, citing the distance
from Hawaii to the continental U.S, the
relatively small quantity of ozone
precursor emissions in Hawaii, and an
evaluation of ozone transport using
trajectory analysis of emissions from
Hawaii to the continental U.S.
In the HDOH submittal, the State
notes that Hawaii is approximately
2,390 miles from the nearest state,
California. HDOH also points to
Hawaii’s 2016 Annual Summary of Air
Quality Data to note that Hawaii is in
attainment for all NAAQS and compares
Hawaii’s ozone precursor emissions to
those of California and Nevada.
Hawaii’s analysis states that emissions
of ozone precursors, nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds
(VOC), from Hawaii were 7.57 and 6.28
percent, respectively, of California’s
emissions in 2011 and 7.95 and 5.21
percent in 2014.24 Cumulatively,
emissions of ozone precursors from
Hawaii in 2011 and 2014 were 6.97 and
6.54 percent, respectively, of
California’s emissions. Furthermore,
HDOH points out that the State’s ozone
precursor emissions have exhibited a
downward trend, having decreased
since the 2011 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI), and notes that their
emissions continue to be relatively low
compared to California. To demonstrate
that Hawaii’s ozone precursor emissions
21 EPA recognizes that by the time final action is
taken with respect to this SIP submission, the 2021
ozone season will be wholly in the past. As
discussed below, the available modeling
information indicates that our analysis would not
change even using 2023 as the analytic year. The
2023 modeling results are included in the ‘‘Ozone
Design Values and Contributions Revised CSAPR
Update.xlsx’’, included in the docket for this action.
22 Letter dated November 12, 2019, from Bruce
Anderson, Ph.D., Director of Health, HDOH, to Mike
Stoker, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region
IX.
23 Letter dated November 13, 2019, from Elizabeth
J. Adams, Acting Director, Air Division, EPA Region
9, to Bruce Anderson, HDOH.
24 2014 data was the most recent available at the
time Hawaii prepared its submittal.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53573
would not significantly contribute to
interstate transport, even if California
and Hawaii were directly adjacent to
each other, the submittal compares
Hawaii’s ozone precursor emissions to
those of Nevada, which shares a border
with California, but does not
significantly contribute to interstate
transport to any other state.25 Emissions
of NOX and VOCs from Hawaii were
51.24 and 49.28 percent, respectively, of
Nevada’s emissions in 2014.
Cumulatively, emissions of ozone
precursors from Hawaii in 2014 were
50.35 percent of Nevada’s emissions.
Appendix 1 of the HDOH submittal
provides trajectories for emissions from
Hawaii’s Campbell Industrial Park,
which includes a refinery and power
generation facility, based on 2010
meteorological data during January and
July. HDOH found that a comparison
between the trajectory modeling results
and ozone monitoring data supports the
conclusion that it is highly unlikely that
Hawaii is currently impacting
nonattainment or maintenance areas of
other states and that it is highly unlikely
to do so in the future.
III. EPA Evaluation
As explained in Section I of this
document, in consideration of the
holdings in Wisconsin and Maryland,
the EPA’s four-step interstate transport
analysis relies on 2021 as the relevant
attainment year for evaluating Hawaii’s
good neighbor obligations with respect
to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.26 In step 1,
we identify locations where the Agency
expects there to be nonattainment or
maintenance receptors for the 2015
8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 2021
analytic future year. Where the EPA’s
analysis shows that a monitoring site
does not fall under the definition of a
25 Hawaii cited EPA’s 2015 Ozone NAAQS
Interstate Transport Assessment Design Values and
Contributions spreadsheet, released in a
memorandum from Peter Tsirigotis, to Regional Air
Division Directors, Region 1–10, dated March 27,
2018. See ‘‘2015 Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport
Assessment Design Values and Contributions’’ at
https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-andsupplemental-information-regarding-interstatetransport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs. File name:
Updated_2023_modeling_dvs_collective_
contributions.xlsx.
26 We recognize that Hawaii and other states may
have been influenced by EPA’s 2018 guidance
memos (issued prior to the Wisconsin and Maryland
decisions) in making good neighbor submissions
that relied on EPA’s modeling of 2023. When there
are intervening changes in relevant law or legal
interpretation of CAA requirements, states are
generally free to withdraw, supplement, and/or resubmit their SIP submissions with new analysis (in
compliance with CAA procedures for SIP
submissions). While Hawaii has not done this, as
explained in this section, the independent analysis
EPA has conducted at its discretion confirms that
the state’s submission in this instance is ultimately
approvable.
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
53574
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules
nonattainment or maintenance receptor,
that site is excluded from further
analysis under the EPA’s four-step
interstate transport framework. For
monitoring sites that are identified as
nonattainment or maintenance receptors
in 2021, we proceed to the next step of
our four-step framework by identifying
the upwind state’s contribution to those
receptors.
The EPA’s approach to identifying
ozone nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in this proposed action is
consistent with the approach used in
the CSAPR, the CSAPR Update, and the
Revised CSAPR Update. The EPA’s
approach gives independent
consideration to both the ‘‘contribute
significantly to nonattainment’’ and the
‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ prongs of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with
the D.C. Circuit’s direction in North
Carolina.27 Further, in its decision on
the remand of CSAPR from the Supreme
Court in the EME Homer City case, the
D.C. Circuit confirmed that the EPA’s
approach to identifying maintenance
receptors in CSAPR comported with the
court’s prior instruction to give
independent meaning to the ‘‘interfere
with maintenance’’ prong in the good
neighbor provision.28
For purposes of this proposed action,
the EPA identifies nonattainment
receptors as those monitoring sites that
are projected to have average design
values that exceed the NAAQS and that
are also measuring nonattainment based
on the most recent monitored design
values.29 This approach is consistent
with prior transport rulemakings, such
as the CSAPR Update, where the EPA
defined nonattainment receptors as
those areas that both currently monitor
nonattainment and that the EPA projects
will be in nonattainment in the future
analytic year.30 In addition, in this
27 531 F.3d at 910–911 (holding that the EPA
must give ‘‘independent significance’’ to each prong
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
28 EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795
F.3d 118, 136 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (EME Homer City II).
29 Average projected design values are based on
the average design value during the five-year base
monitoring period (i.e., 2014–2016, 2015–2017 and
2016–2018), as discussed in the Final Revised
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS (86 FR 23054, April 30, 2021) and
further clarified in the Air Quality Modeling
Technical Support Document for the Final Revised
Cross State Air Pollution Rule Update, which is
available in the docket for that rulemaking EPA–
HQ–OAR–2020–0272.
30 See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The
Revised CSAPR Update also used this approach.
See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021). This same
concept, relying on both current monitoring data
and modeling to define nonattainment receptors,
was also applied in CAIR. See 70 FR 25241 (January
14, 2005); see also North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 913–
14 (affirming as reasonable EPA’s approach to
defining nonattainment in CAIR).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 Sep 27, 2021
Jkt 253001
proposed action, the EPA identifies a
receptor to be a ‘‘maintenance’’ receptor
for purposes of defining interference
with maintenance, consistent with the
method used in CSAPR and upheld by
the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City
II.31 32
Recognizing that nonattainment
receptors are also, by definition,
maintenance receptors, the EPA often
uses the term ‘‘maintenance-only’’ to
refer to receptors that are not also
nonattainment receptors. Consistent
with the methodology described above,
monitoring sites with a projected
maximum design value that exceeds the
NAAQS, but with a projected average
design value that is below the NAAQS,
are identified as maintenance-only
receptors. In addition, those sites that
are currently measuring ozone
concentrations below the level of the
applicable NAAQS but are projected to
be nonattainment based on the average
design value and that, by definition, are
projected to have a maximum design
value above the standard are also
identified as maintenance-only
receptors.
To evaluate future air quality in steps
1 and 2 of the interstate transport
framework, the EPA is using the 2016
and 2023 base case emissions developed
under the EPA/MJO/state collaborative
emissions modeling platform project as
the primary source for base year and
2023 future year emissions data for this
proposed rule. Because this platform
does not include emissions for 2021, the
EPA developed an interpolation
technique based on modeling for 2023
and measured ozone data to determine
ozone concentrations for 2021. To
estimate average and maximum design
values for 2021, the EPA first performed
air quality modeling for 2016 and 2023
to obtain design values in 2023. The
2023 design values were then coupled
with the corresponding 2016 measured
design values to estimate design values
in 2021. Details on the modeling,
including the interpolation
methodology, can be found in the Air
Quality Modeling TSD, in the docket for
this proposed action.
To quantify the contribution of
emissions from specific upwind states
on 2021 8-hour design values for the
identified downwind nonattainment
and maintenance receptors, the EPA
first performed nationwide, state-level
ozone source apportionment modeling
for 2023. The source apportionment
modeling provided contributions to
31 See
795 F.3d at 136.
projected design values are based on
the maximum design value during the five-year
base monitoring period from 2014 to 2018.
32 Maximum
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ozone from precursor emissions of
anthropogenic NOX and VOCs in each
individual state. The modeled
contributions were then applied in a
relative sense to the 2021 average design
value to estimate the contributions in
2021 from each state to each receptor.
Details on the source apportionment
modeling and the methods for
determining contributions in 2021 are in
the Air Quality Modeling TSD in the
docket.
The EPA generally does not consider
modeling to be necessary for isolated
states like Hawaii for the purposes of
evaluating interstate transport.
Therefore, Hawaii was not included in
the modeling domain, and the
apportionment modeling analysis
described above does not calculate
emissions contributions from Hawaii to
the downwind nonattainment and
maintenance areas identified in step 1
in the contiguous United States. In lieu
of apportionment modeling, at step 2 of
the interstate transport framework, a
proper and well-supported weight of
evidence approach can provide
sufficient information for purposes of
addressing Hawaii’s interstate transport
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. In a weight
of evidence analysis, no single piece of
information is by itself dispositive of the
issue. Instead, the total weight of all the
evidence taken together is used to
evaluate significant contribution to
nonattainment or interference with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in another state. In the weight of
evidence analysis detailed below, we
consider (1) the distance between
sources in Hawaii and the
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors identified in step 1; (2) the
relative magnitude of state-wide
emissions of ozone precursors; (3) an
evaluation of prevailing wind direction
that may impact of transport of
emissions from Hawaii during the
summer ozone season; and (4) a
comparison of Hawaii’s impact on
California to California’s impact on
Connecticut.
The state with the nearest
nonattainment receptors to Hawaii is
California, based on the modeling
supporting the Revised CSAPR
Update.33 The nearest California
33 Projected ozone 2021 receptor concentrations
and interstate contributions are contained in
spreadsheet titled, ozone_design_values_
contributions_proposed_revised_csapr_update.xlsx.
The spreadsheet and accompanying TSD, Air
Quality Modeling TSD for the Proposed Revised
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update, are
contained in the docket for the Proposed Revised
CSAPR Update, Docket Number EPA–HQ–OAR–
2020–0272, and have also been included in the
docket for this action. In total, in California 22
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules
nonattainment receptor is the Modesto14th Street monitor, located in
Stanislaus County, which is 2,384 miles
from the easternmost edge of Hawaii.34
The next closest nonattainment
receptors outside of California are
located in Douglas County, Jefferson
County, and Larimer County in
Colorado, and Davis County and Salt
Lake County in Utah.
The nearest California maintenanceonly receptor to Hawaii is the Tracy-
Airport monitor, located in San Joaquin
County, which is 2,363 miles from the
easternmost edge of Hawaii.35 The next
closest maintenance-only receptors
outside of California are in Yuma
County, Arizona; Clark County, Nevada;
Dona Ana County, New Mexico; and
Weber County, Utah.
Sheer distance alone makes it
unlikely that emissions from Hawaii
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance in these states.
53575
However, we also compare the
emissions of ozone precursors from
Hawaii to those of other western
states.36 Hawaii’s emissions of ozone
precursors are substantially lower than
emissions from other western states, as
shown in Table 1.37 The table represents
the most recent data available on
emissions of ozone precursors. NEI data,
which is released every three years, is
not yet available for 2020.
TABLE 1—EMISSIONS OF OZONE PRECURSORS
[Tons per year] a
Pollutant
NOX
Year
2011
HI ..............................................................
AZ .............................................................
CA ............................................................
NV ............................................................
OR ............................................................
UT ............................................................
VOC
2014
54,398
241,993
724,362
99,234
147,112
178,586
2017
43,061
215,643
546,495
84,746
125,922
172,488
40,809
163,779
466,555
69,539
115,886
90,975
2011
2014
38,781
167,951
617,658
68,526
152,142
217,880
26,593
120,100
539,159
50,601
103,811
176,188
2017
31,079
141,160
527,313
68,547
126,818
135,231
Source: Data lists all point, nonpoint, onroad and nonroad emissions from EPA’s National Emissions Inventory downloaded from EPA’s Emissions Information System, files 2017NEI_Apr2020, 2014 NEI Final V2, 2011 NEI V2.
a Biogenic emission from plants and soil and wildfire emissions have been excluded from this data.
The relative magnitude of Hawaii’s
emissions compared to Arizona,
California, Nevada, Oregon, and Utah,
coupled with the distance between
Hawaii and these states, further
indicates that Hawaii is unlikely to
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance in California, or any
other state.
The next step in our analysis is to
look at prevailing wind direction in
Hawaii. In the trajectory analysis in
Appendix 1 of the State’s submittal,
HDOH concluded that the predominant
transport patterns in January and July of
2010—which are from the northeast to
the southwest (i.e., generally opposite
the direction from Hawaii to the
location of nonattainment and
maintenance-only receptors in the
U.S.)—support the conclusion that
Hawaii is unlikely to contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in California or other
western states.38 While HDOH only
analyzed wind trajectories in January
and July of 2010, Hawaii’s 2017
Regional Haze SIP contains 2013 and
2015 wind rose plots, which also
illustrate that the predominant wind
transport patterns year-round blow from
northeast to southwest.39 This is further
verified by the National Weather
Service, which lists persistent trade
winds, the prevailing easterly winds 40
that circle the earth near the equator as
a result of the earth’s rotation, from the
northeast as a feature of Hawaii’s
climate.41 Based on the State’s trajectory
analysis and wind rose plots from its
2017 Regional Haze SIP, along with
information from the National Weather
Service, we expect emissions from
Hawaii would initially travel westwards
before turning eastwards on the vast
majority of days. This would make the
pathway to the continental U.S.
considerably longer than the more than
2,000 miles separating the continental
U.S. from Hawaii. These trajectories
further indicate that Hawaii is unlikely
to contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance in California
or any other state.
Finally, we compare the impact of
Hawaii on California, with California’s
impact on Connecticut, because the
distance between Hawaii and California,
and Connecticut and California, is
roughly equivalent. As previously
mentioned, we have modeled
contributions among the continental
states in the Revised CSAPR Update. In
terms of distance, Hawaii is slightly
farther to nonattainment and
maintenance-only receptors in
California, at 2,384 and 2,363 miles,
respectively, than California is to
nonattainment and maintenance only
counties have nonattainment receptors and 2
counties have maintenance-only receptors.
34 Determination of the nearest nonattainment
and maintenance-only receptors was based on final
2020 Ozone Design values. Final 2020 design value
reports can be found at https://www.epa.gov/airtrends/air-quality-design-values#report. California
has numerous other nonattainment receptors in the
following counties: Calaveras, El Dorado, Fresno,
Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Madera, Mariposa,
Merced, Nevada, Orange, Placer, Riverside,
Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San
Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tulare, and Tuolumne.
35 Monitor ID: 60773005.
36 Emissions estimates downloaded from the
EPA’s National Emissions Inventory, datasets:
2017NEI_Apr2020, 2014 NEI Final V2, on January
4 and 5, 2021, and saved as Excel spreadsheet files
in the docket for this action.
37 In this analysis, we focus primarily on 2017
emissions. The most recent available. The Docket
for this document contains additional information
about Event Emissions, which are comprised of
wildfire, prescribed fire and agricultural burning.
38 The U.S. EPA has also relied on this trajectory
analysis in approving Hawaii’s State
Implementation Plan submittals addressing
interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (84
FR 40266, September 13, 2019, see the proposed
rule at 84 FR 6736, February 28, 2019), and the
1997 ozone NAAQS (77 FR 47530, October 9, 2012).
See Technical Support Document, Evaluation of
2011 Hawaii Infrastructure SIP for 1997 Ozone;
1997 Particulate Matter; and 2006 Particulate Matter
NAAQS, U.S. EPA, Region 9, March 2012.
39 Appendix C, 5 Year Regional Haze Progress
Report for the Federal Implementation Plan, Hawaii
Department of Health, October 2017. The EPA
approved the Regional Haze Progress Report on
May 13, 2019 (84 FR 14634).
40 In meteorology, wind direction is described as
the direction from which the wind is blowing (i.e.,
the Hawaiian trade winds blow from the northeast
to the southwest), see https://www.weather.gov/cae/
weatherterms.html.
41 U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA).
‘‘Honolulu, HI.’’ Pacific Region Headquarters,
NOAA’s National Weather Service, https://
www.weather.gov/hfo/climate_summary, accessed
on June 28, 2021.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 Sep 27, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
53576
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules
receptors in Connecticut, which are
2,263 and 2,285 miles away,
respectively.42 California’s contribution
to these monitors is 0.03 ppb to both the
nonattainment and maintenance-only
receptors in 2021, which represents the
maximum contribution of California to
any nonattainment and maintenanceonly receptor in Connecticut. This is
well below the threshold of 1 percent of
the NAAQS that would link the two
states, triggering further review in steps
3 and 4 of the interstate transport
analysis framework. Given that the
distance between California and
Connecticut is comparable to the
distance between Hawaii and California,
and ozone precursor emissions from
California are more than 10 times larger
than ozone precursor emissions from
Hawaii, because California’s
contributions to Connecticut are well
below the 1 percent threshold, it is
reasonable to conclude that Hawaii’s
contribution to California would also be
below the 1 percent threshold.
Therefore, it is not necessary to evaluate
potential NOX reductions as part of step
3 in the EPA’s four-step interstate
transport framework.
Based on the weight of evidence,
including (1) the distance between
Hawaii and California, (2) the relative
magnitude of ozone precursor emissions
from Hawaii, (3) the predominant wind
direction of the trade winds in Hawaii,
and (4) the comparison to the impact of
ozone precursor emissions from
California on Connecticut, we propose
to find that Hawaii will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance in any other state.
IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action
Based on our review of the interstate
transport SIP submission from HDOH to
address the 2015 ozone NAAQS and the
additional analysis discussed in this
document, we propose to find that
emissions from Hawaii will not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state. Accordingly, we
propose to approve the HDOH Submittal
as satisfying the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015
ozone NAAQS.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
42 Nonattainment Receptor at Monitor ID
90019003, Fairfield, CT and Maintenance-Only
Receptor at Monitor ID 90090027, New Haven, CT.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 Sep 27, 2021
Jkt 253001
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 proposed action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• 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
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogenoxides, Volatile
organic compounds, Interstate transport,
Infrastructure SIP.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 18, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021–20619 Filed 9–27–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA–R09–RCRA–2021–0431; FRL–8828–
03–R9]
Arizona: Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed action/decision/
authorization.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to authorize
changes to Arizona’s hazardous waste
program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
These changes were outlined in an
application to the EPA and correspond
to certain Federal rules promulgated
between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2020.
The EPA reviewed Arizona’s
application and has determined that
these changes satisfy all requirements
needed to qualify for final authorization.
Therefore, in the ‘‘Rules and
Regulations’’ section of this Federal
Register, we are authorizing Arizona for
these changes as a direct final
authorization without a prior proposed
action. If we receive no adverse
comment, we will not take further
action on this proposed authorization.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 28, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to
EPA, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–
R09–RCRA–2021–0431, at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 28, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53571-53576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20619]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0567; FRL-9001-01-R9]
Air Plan Approval; Hawaii; Interstate Transport for the 2015
Ozone NAAQS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) submission from the State of
Hawaii addressing requirements in the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'')
regarding interstate transport for the 2015 ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). Hawaii submitted a SIP revision on November
12, 2019 addressing the CAA provision prohibiting any source or other
type of emissions activity in one state from emitting any air pollutant
in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state (``the good
neighbor provision''). The EPA is proposing to approve Hawaii's good
neighbor SIP revision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by October 28, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2020-0567 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments at 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, or if you need assistance in a language other than English or
if you are a person with disabilities who needs a reasonable
accommodation at no cost to you, please contact the person identified
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Kelly, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3856, [email protected]. If you need assistance in a language other
than English or if you are a person with disabilities who needs a
reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
I. Background
On October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revision to the ozone
NAAQS (``2015 ozone NAAQS''), lowering the level of both the primary
and secondary standards to 0.070 parts per million (ppm).\1\ Section
110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit, within 3 years after
promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIP submissions meeting the
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2).\2\ One of these
applicable requirements is found in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
otherwise known as the good neighbor provision, which generally
requires SIPs 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 two
so-called ``prongs'' within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 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). The EPA and
states must give independent significance to prong 1 and prong 2 when
evaluating downwind air quality problems under CAA 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
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,\4\ the CSAPR Update, and, most
recently, the Revised CSAPR Update for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.5 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
\5\ The Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the
2008 Ozone NAAQS (86 FR 23054; April 30, 2021) was signed by the EPA
Administrator on March 15, 2021 and responded to the remand of the
CSAPR Update (81 FR 74504; October 26, 2016) and the vacatur of a
separate rule, the CSAPR Close-Out (83 FR 65878; December 21, 2018)
by the D.C. Circuit. Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir.
2019); New York v. EPA, 781 F. App'x. 4 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
\6\ In 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the
CSAPR Update to the extent it failed to require upwind states to
eliminate their significant contribution by the next applicable
attainment date by which downwind states must come into compliance
with the NAAQS, as established under CAA section 181(a). 938 F.3d
303, 313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through the development and implementation of CSAPR and other
regional rulemakings pursuant to the good neighbor provision,\7\ the
EPA,
[[Page 53572]]
working in partnership with states, developed the following four-step
interstate transport framework to address the requirements of the good
neighbor provision for the ozone NAAQS: (1) Identify downwind air
quality problems; (2) identify upwind states that impact those downwind
air quality problems sufficiently such that they are considered
``linked'' and therefore warrant further review and analysis; (3)
identify the emissions reductions necessary (if any), applying a
multifactor analysis, to prevent linked upwind states identified in
step 2 from contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering
with maintenance of the NAAQS at the locations of the downwind air
quality problems; and (4) adopt permanent and enforceable measures
needed to achieve those emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In addition to the CSAPR rulemakings, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has released several documents containing information
relevant to evaluating interstate transport with respect to the 2015
ozone NAAQS. First, on January 6, 2017, the EPA published a notice of
data availability (NODA) with preliminary interstate ozone transport
modeling with projected ozone design values for 2023 using a 2011 base
year platform, on which we requested comment.\8\ In the NODA, the EPA
used the year 2023 as the analytic year for this preliminary modeling
because that year aligns with the expected attainment year for Moderate
ozone nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\9\ On October 27,
2017, we released a memorandum (``2017 memorandum'') containing updated
modeling data for 2023, which incorporated changes made in response to
comments on the NODA, and noted that the modeling may be useful for
states developing SIPs to address good neighbor obligations for the
2008 ozone NAAQS.\10\ On March 27, 2018, we issued a memorandum
(``March 2018 memorandum'') noting that the same 2023 modeling data
released in the 2017 memorandum could also be useful for identifying
potential downwind air quality problems with respect to the 2015 ozone
NAAQS at step 1 of the four-step interstate transport framework. The
March 2018 memorandum also included the then newly available
contribution modeling results to assist states in evaluating their
impact on potential downwind air quality problems for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS under step 2 of the interstate transport framework. The EPA
subsequently issued two additional memoranda in August and October
2018, providing additional information to states developing good
neighbor SIPs for the 2015 ozone NAAQS concerning, respectively,
potential contribution thresholds that may be appropriate to apply in
step 2 of the framework, and considerations for identifying downwind
areas that may have problems maintaining the standard at step 1 of the
framework.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport Modeling Data for
the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 82 FR
1733 (January 6, 2017).
\9\ 82 FR 1735 (January 6, 2017).
\10\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017, available in the docket for
this action or at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
\11\ See Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean
Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, August 31, 2018) (``August 2018
memorandum''), and Considerations for Identifying Maintenance
Receptors for Use in Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions for the
2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, October 19, 2018,
available in the docket for this action or at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 30, 2020, in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the
Revised CSAPR Update, the EPA released and accepted public comment on
updated 2023 modeling that used the 2016 emissions platform developed
under the EPA/Multi-Jurisdictional Organization (MJO)/state
collaborative project as the primary source for the base year and
future year emissions data.\12\ On March 15, 2021, the EPA signed the
final Revised CSAPR Update using the same modeling released at
proposal.\13\ Although Hawaii relied in part on the modeling included
in the March 2018 memorandum to develop its SIP submission, the EPA now
proposes to primarily rely on the updated and newly available 2016 base
year modeling in evaluating this submission. By using the updated
modeling results, EPA is using the most current and technically
appropriate information as the primary basis for this proposed
rulemaking. EPA's independent analysis, which also evaluated historical
monitoring data, recent ambient air monitoring design values, and
emissions trends, found that such information provides additional
support and further substantiates the results of the 2016 base year
modeling as the basis for this proposed rulemaking. Section II of this
document and the Air Quality Modeling technical support document (TSD)
included in the docket for this proposed action contain additional
detail on this modeling.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 85 FR 68964, 68981. The results of this modeling are
included in a spreadsheet in the docket for this action. The
underlying modeling files are available for public review in the
docket for the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0272).
\13\ 82 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021).
\14\ See ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for
the Proposed Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update,'' 85 FR
68964 (October 30, 2020), available in the docket for this action or
at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/revised-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-update. This TSD was originally developed to support EPA's proposed
action in the Revised CSAPR Update, as relating to outstanding good
neighbor obligations under the 2008 ozone NAAQS. While developed in
this separate context, the data and modeling outputs, including
interpolated design values for 2021, may be evaluated with respect
to the 2015 ozone NAAQS and used in support of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the CSAPR, CSAPR Update, and the Revised CSAPR Update, the EPA
used a threshold of one percent of the NAAQS to determine whether a
given upwind state was ``linked'' at step 2 of the interstate transport
framework and would, therefore, contribute to downwind nonattainment
and maintenance sites identified in step 1. If a state's impact did not
equal or exceed the one percent threshold, the upwind state was not
``linked'' to a downwind air quality problem, and the EPA, therefore,
concluded the state would not significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in the downwind states.
However, if a state's impact equaled or exceeded the one percent
threshold, the state's emissions were further evaluated in step 3, to
determine what, if any, emissions might be deemed ``significant'' and,
thus, must be eliminated under the good neighbor provision. The EPA is
proposing to rely on the one percent threshold (i.e., 0.070 ppb) for
the purpose of evaluating Hawaii's contributions to nonattainment or
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in downwind areas.
Several D.C. Circuit court decisions have addressed the issue of
the relevant analytic year for the purposes of evaluating ozone
transport air-quality problems. On September 13, 2019, the D.C. Circuit
issued a decision in Wisconsin v. EPA, remanding the CSAPR Update to
the extent that it failed to require upwind states to eliminate their
significant contribution by the next applicable attainment date by
which downwind states must come into compliance with the NAAQS, as
established under CAA section 181(a).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 938 F.3d 303, 313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in Maryland v.
EPA
[[Page 53573]]
that cited the Wisconsin decision in holding that the EPA must assess
the impact 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).\16\ The court noted that ``section 126(b) incorporates
the Good Neighbor Provision,'' and, therefore, ``the EPA must find a
violation [of section 126] if an upwind source will significantly
contribute to downwind nonattainment at the next downwind attainment
deadline. Therefore, the agency must evaluate downwind air quality at
that deadline, not at some later date.'' \17\ The EPA interprets the
court's holding in Maryland as requiring the Agency, under the good
neighbor provision, to assess downwind air quality by the next
applicable attainment date, including a Marginal area attainment date
under section 181 for ozone nonattainment.\18\ The Marginal area
attainment date for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2021.\19\
Historically, the EPA has considered the full ozone season prior to the
attainment date as supplying an appropriate analytic year for assessing
good neighbor obligations. While this would be 2020 for an August 2021
attainment date (which falls within the 2021 ozone season running from
May 1 to September 30), in this circumstance, when the 2020 ozone
season is wholly in the past, it is appropriate to focus on 2021 in
order to address good neighbor obligations to the extent possible by
the 2021 attainment date. The EPA does not believe it would be
appropriate to select an analytical year that is wholly in the past,
because the agency interprets the good neighbor provision as forward
looking.\20\ Consequently, in this proposed action the EPA will use the
analytical year of 2021 to evaluate Hawaii's good neighbor obligations
with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185, 1203-04 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
\17\ Id. at 1204.
\18\ We note that the court in Maryland did not have occasion to
evaluate circumstances in which EPA may determine that an upwind
linkage to a downwind air quality problem exists at steps 1 and 2 of
the interstate transport 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
Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 320. The D.C. Circuit noted in Wisconsin that
upon a sufficient showing, these circumstances may warrant
flexibility in effectuating the purpose of the good neighbor
provision. Such circumstances are not at issue in the present
action.
\19\ CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303; 83 FR 25776 (June 4,
2018, effective Aug. 3, 2018).
\20\ See 85 FR at 68981; see also Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 322.
\21\ EPA recognizes that by the time final action is taken with
respect to this SIP submission, the 2021 ozone season will be wholly
in the past. As discussed below, the available modeling information
indicates that our analysis would not change even using 2023 as the
analytic year. The 2023 modeling results are included in the ``Ozone
Design Values and Contributions Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx'',
included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. HDOH SIP Submission
The Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) submitted its good neighbor
SIP submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS by letter dated November 12,
2019.\22\ The submittal included documentation of public participation
proceedings to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40
CFR 51.102. The EPA determined that the submittal was complete on
November 13, 2019.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Letter dated November 12, 2019, from Bruce Anderson, Ph.D.,
Director of Health, HDOH, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator,
U.S. EPA, Region IX.
\23\ Letter dated November 13, 2019, from Elizabeth J. Adams,
Acting Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, to Bruce Anderson,
HDOH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HDOH concluded that Hawaii does not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in
any other state, citing the distance from Hawaii to the continental
U.S, the relatively small quantity of ozone precursor emissions in
Hawaii, and an evaluation of ozone transport using trajectory analysis
of emissions from Hawaii to the continental U.S.
In the HDOH submittal, the State notes that Hawaii is approximately
2,390 miles from the nearest state, California. HDOH also points to
Hawaii's 2016 Annual Summary of Air Quality Data to note that Hawaii is
in attainment for all NAAQS and compares Hawaii's ozone precursor
emissions to those of California and Nevada. Hawaii's analysis states
that emissions of ozone precursors, nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOC), from Hawaii were 7.57 and 6.28
percent, respectively, of California's emissions in 2011 and 7.95 and
5.21 percent in 2014.\24\ Cumulatively, emissions of ozone precursors
from Hawaii in 2011 and 2014 were 6.97 and 6.54 percent, respectively,
of California's emissions. Furthermore, HDOH points out that the
State's ozone precursor emissions have exhibited a downward trend,
having decreased since the 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), and
notes that their emissions continue to be relatively low compared to
California. To demonstrate that Hawaii's ozone precursor emissions
would not significantly contribute to interstate transport, even if
California and Hawaii were directly adjacent to each other, the
submittal compares Hawaii's ozone precursor emissions to those of
Nevada, which shares a border with California, but does not
significantly contribute to interstate transport to any other
state.\25\ Emissions of NOX and VOCs from Hawaii were 51.24
and 49.28 percent, respectively, of Nevada's emissions in 2014.
Cumulatively, emissions of ozone precursors from Hawaii in 2014 were
50.35 percent of Nevada's emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 2014 data was the most recent available at the time Hawaii
prepared its submittal.
\25\ Hawaii cited EPA's 2015 Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport
Assessment Design Values and Contributions spreadsheet, released in
a memorandum from Peter Tsirigotis, to Regional Air Division
Directors, Region 1-10, dated March 27, 2018. See ``2015 Ozone NAAQS
Interstate Transport Assessment Design Values and Contributions'' at
https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs. File name:
Updated_2023_modeling_dvs_collective_contributions.xlsx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix 1 of the HDOH submittal provides trajectories for
emissions from Hawaii's Campbell Industrial Park, which includes a
refinery and power generation facility, based on 2010 meteorological
data during January and July. HDOH found that a comparison between the
trajectory modeling results and ozone monitoring data supports the
conclusion that it is highly unlikely that Hawaii is currently
impacting nonattainment or maintenance areas of other states and that
it is highly unlikely to do so in the future.
III. EPA Evaluation
As explained in Section I of this document, in consideration of the
holdings in Wisconsin and Maryland, the EPA's four-step interstate
transport analysis relies on 2021 as the relevant attainment year for
evaluating Hawaii's good neighbor obligations with respect to the 2015
ozone NAAQS.\26\ In step 1, we identify locations where the Agency
expects there to be nonattainment or maintenance receptors for the 2015
8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 2021 analytic future year. Where the EPA's
analysis shows that a monitoring site does not fall under the
definition of a
[[Page 53574]]
nonattainment or maintenance receptor, that site is excluded from
further analysis under the EPA's four-step interstate transport
framework. For monitoring sites that are identified as nonattainment or
maintenance receptors in 2021, we proceed to the next step of our four-
step framework by identifying the upwind state's contribution to those
receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ We recognize that Hawaii and other states may have been
influenced by EPA's 2018 guidance memos (issued prior to the
Wisconsin and Maryland decisions) in making good neighbor
submissions that relied on EPA's modeling of 2023. When there are
intervening changes in relevant law or legal interpretation of CAA
requirements, states are generally free to withdraw, supplement,
and/or re-submit their SIP submissions with new analysis (in
compliance with CAA procedures for SIP submissions). While Hawaii
has not done this, as explained in this section, the independent
analysis EPA has conducted at its discretion confirms that the
state's submission in this instance is ultimately approvable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's approach to identifying ozone nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in this proposed action is consistent with the
approach used in the CSAPR, the CSAPR Update, and the Revised CSAPR
Update. The EPA's approach gives independent consideration to both the
``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' and the ``interfere with
maintenance'' prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with the
D.C. Circuit's direction in North Carolina.\27\ Further, in its
decision on the remand of CSAPR from the Supreme Court in the EME Homer
City case, the D.C. Circuit confirmed that the EPA's approach to
identifying maintenance receptors in CSAPR comported with the court's
prior instruction to give independent meaning to the ``interfere with
maintenance'' prong in the good neighbor provision.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 531 F.3d at 910-911 (holding that the EPA must give
``independent significance'' to each prong of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
\28\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 136
(D.C. Cir. 2015) (EME Homer City II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of this proposed action, the EPA identifies
nonattainment receptors as those monitoring sites that are projected to
have average design values that exceed the NAAQS and that are also
measuring nonattainment based on the most recent monitored design
values.\29\ This approach is consistent with prior transport
rulemakings, such as the CSAPR Update, where the EPA defined
nonattainment receptors as those areas that both currently monitor
nonattainment and that the EPA projects will be in nonattainment in the
future analytic year.\30\ In addition, in this proposed action, the EPA
identifies a receptor to be a ``maintenance'' receptor for purposes of
defining interference with maintenance, consistent with the method used
in CSAPR and upheld by the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City
II.31 32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Average projected design values are based on the average
design value during the five-year base monitoring period (i.e.,
2014-2016, 2015-2017 and 2016-2018), as discussed in the Final
Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS (86 FR 23054, April 30, 2021) and further clarified in the Air
Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for the Final Revised
Cross State Air Pollution Rule Update, which is available in the
docket for that rulemaking EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0272.
\30\ See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The Revised CSAPR
Update also used this approach. See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021).
This same concept, relying on both current monitoring data and
modeling to define nonattainment receptors, was also applied in
CAIR. See 70 FR 25241 (January 14, 2005); see also North Carolina,
531 F.3d at 913-14 (affirming as reasonable EPA's approach to
defining nonattainment in CAIR).
\31\ See 795 F.3d at 136.
\32\ Maximum projected design values are based on the maximum
design value during the five-year base monitoring period from 2014
to 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing that nonattainment receptors are also, by definition,
maintenance receptors, the EPA often uses the term ``maintenance-only''
to refer to receptors that are not also nonattainment receptors.
Consistent with the methodology described above, monitoring sites with
a projected maximum design value that exceeds the NAAQS, but with a
projected average design value that is below the NAAQS, are identified
as maintenance-only receptors. In addition, those sites that are
currently measuring ozone concentrations below the level of the
applicable NAAQS but are projected to be nonattainment based on the
average design value and that, by definition, are projected to have a
maximum design value above the standard are also identified as
maintenance-only receptors.
To evaluate future air quality in steps 1 and 2 of the interstate
transport framework, the EPA is using the 2016 and 2023 base case
emissions developed under the EPA/MJO/state collaborative emissions
modeling platform project as the primary source for base year and 2023
future year emissions data for this proposed rule. Because this
platform does not include emissions for 2021, the EPA developed an
interpolation technique based on modeling for 2023 and measured ozone
data to determine ozone concentrations for 2021. To estimate average
and maximum design values for 2021, the EPA first performed air quality
modeling for 2016 and 2023 to obtain design values in 2023. The 2023
design values were then coupled with the corresponding 2016 measured
design values to estimate design values in 2021. Details on the
modeling, including the interpolation methodology, can be found in the
Air Quality Modeling TSD, in the docket for this proposed action.
To quantify the contribution of emissions from specific upwind
states on 2021 8-hour design values for the identified downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors, the EPA first performed
nationwide, state-level ozone source apportionment modeling for 2023.
The source apportionment modeling provided contributions to ozone from
precursor emissions of anthropogenic NOX and VOCs in each
individual state. The modeled contributions were then applied in a
relative sense to the 2021 average design value to estimate the
contributions in 2021 from each state to each receptor. Details on the
source apportionment modeling and the methods for determining
contributions in 2021 are in the Air Quality Modeling TSD in the
docket.
The EPA generally does not consider modeling to be necessary for
isolated states like Hawaii for the purposes of evaluating interstate
transport. Therefore, Hawaii was not included in the modeling domain,
and the apportionment modeling analysis described above does not
calculate emissions contributions from Hawaii to the downwind
nonattainment and maintenance areas identified in step 1 in the
contiguous United States. In lieu of apportionment modeling, at step 2
of the interstate transport framework, a proper and well-supported
weight of evidence approach can provide sufficient information for
purposes of addressing Hawaii's interstate transport for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. In a weight of evidence analysis, no single piece of information
is by itself dispositive of the issue. Instead, the total weight of all
the evidence taken together is used to evaluate significant
contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the
2015 ozone NAAQS in another state. In the weight of evidence analysis
detailed below, we consider (1) the distance between sources in Hawaii
and the nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in step 1;
(2) the relative magnitude of state-wide emissions of ozone precursors;
(3) an evaluation of prevailing wind direction that may impact of
transport of emissions from Hawaii during the summer ozone season; and
(4) a comparison of Hawaii's impact on California to California's
impact on Connecticut.
The state with the nearest nonattainment receptors to Hawaii is
California, based on the modeling supporting the Revised CSAPR
Update.\33\ The nearest California
[[Page 53575]]
nonattainment receptor is the Modesto-14th Street monitor, located in
Stanislaus County, which is 2,384 miles from the easternmost edge of
Hawaii.\34\ The next closest nonattainment receptors outside of
California are located in Douglas County, Jefferson County, and Larimer
County in Colorado, and Davis County and Salt Lake County in Utah.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Projected ozone 2021 receptor concentrations and interstate
contributions are contained in spreadsheet titled,
ozone_design_values_contributions_proposed_revised_csapr_update.xlsx.
The spreadsheet and accompanying TSD, Air Quality Modeling TSD for
the Proposed Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update, are
contained in the docket for the Proposed Revised CSAPR Update,
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0272, and have also been included in
the docket for this action. In total, in California 22 counties have
nonattainment receptors and 2 counties have maintenance-only
receptors.
\34\ Determination of the nearest nonattainment and maintenance-
only receptors was based on final 2020 Ozone Design values. Final
2020 design value reports can be found at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report. California has numerous
other nonattainment receptors in the following counties: Calaveras,
El Dorado, Fresno, Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Madera, Mariposa,
Merced, Nevada, Orange, Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, San
Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tulare, and
Tuolumne.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The nearest California maintenance-only receptor to Hawaii is the
Tracy-Airport monitor, located in San Joaquin County, which is 2,363
miles from the easternmost edge of Hawaii.\35\ The next closest
maintenance-only receptors outside of California are in Yuma County,
Arizona; Clark County, Nevada; Dona Ana County, New Mexico; and Weber
County, Utah.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Monitor ID: 60773005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheer distance alone makes it unlikely that emissions from Hawaii
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in these
states. However, we also compare the emissions of ozone precursors from
Hawaii to those of other western states.\36\ Hawaii's emissions of
ozone precursors are substantially lower than emissions from other
western states, as shown in Table 1.\37\ The table represents the most
recent data available on emissions of ozone precursors. NEI data, which
is released every three years, is not yet available for 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Emissions estimates downloaded from the EPA's National
Emissions Inventory, datasets: 2017NEI_Apr2020, 2014 NEI Final V2,
on January 4 and 5, 2021, and saved as Excel spreadsheet files in
the docket for this action.
\37\ In this analysis, we focus primarily on 2017 emissions. The
most recent available. The Docket for this document contains
additional information about Event Emissions, which are comprised of
wildfire, prescribed fire and agricultural burning.
Table 1--Emissions of Ozone Precursors
[Tons per year] \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant NOX VOC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2011 2014 2017 2011 2014 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI...................................................... 54,398 43,061 40,809 38,781 26,593 31,079
AZ...................................................... 241,993 215,643 163,779 167,951 120,100 141,160
CA...................................................... 724,362 546,495 466,555 617,658 539,159 527,313
NV...................................................... 99,234 84,746 69,539 68,526 50,601 68,547
OR...................................................... 147,112 125,922 115,886 152,142 103,811 126,818
UT...................................................... 178,586 172,488 90,975 217,880 176,188 135,231
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Data lists all point, nonpoint, onroad and nonroad emissions from EPA's National Emissions Inventory downloaded from EPA's Emissions Information
System, files 2017NEI_Apr2020, 2014 NEI Final V2, 2011 NEI V2.
\a\ Biogenic emission from plants and soil and wildfire emissions have been excluded from this data.
The relative magnitude of Hawaii's emissions compared to Arizona,
California, Nevada, Oregon, and Utah, coupled with the distance between
Hawaii and these states, further indicates that Hawaii is unlikely to
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in
California, or any other state.
The next step in our analysis is to look at prevailing wind
direction in Hawaii. In the trajectory analysis in Appendix 1 of the
State's submittal, HDOH concluded that the predominant transport
patterns in January and July of 2010--which are from the northeast to
the southwest (i.e., generally opposite the direction from Hawaii to
the location of nonattainment and maintenance-only receptors in the
U.S.)--support the conclusion that Hawaii is unlikely to contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in California or other
western states.\38\ While HDOH only analyzed wind trajectories in
January and July of 2010, Hawaii's 2017 Regional Haze SIP contains 2013
and 2015 wind rose plots, which also illustrate that the predominant
wind transport patterns year-round blow from northeast to
southwest.\39\ This is further verified by the National Weather
Service, which lists persistent trade winds, the prevailing easterly
winds \40\ that circle the earth near the equator as a result of the
earth's rotation, from the northeast as a feature of Hawaii's
climate.\41\ Based on the State's trajectory analysis and wind rose
plots from its 2017 Regional Haze SIP, along with information from the
National Weather Service, we expect emissions from Hawaii would
initially travel westwards before turning eastwards on the vast
majority of days. This would make the pathway to the continental U.S.
considerably longer than the more than 2,000 miles separating the
continental U.S. from Hawaii. These trajectories further indicate that
Hawaii is unlikely to contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in California or any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ The U.S. EPA has also relied on this trajectory analysis in
approving Hawaii's State Implementation Plan submittals addressing
interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (84 FR 40266,
September 13, 2019, see the proposed rule at 84 FR 6736, February
28, 2019), and the 1997 ozone NAAQS (77 FR 47530, October 9, 2012).
See Technical Support Document, Evaluation of 2011 Hawaii
Infrastructure SIP for 1997 Ozone; 1997 Particulate Matter; and 2006
Particulate Matter NAAQS, U.S. EPA, Region 9, March 2012.
\39\ Appendix C, 5 Year Regional Haze Progress Report for the
Federal Implementation Plan, Hawaii Department of Health, October
2017. The EPA approved the Regional Haze Progress Report on May 13,
2019 (84 FR 14634).
\40\ In meteorology, wind direction is described as the
direction from which the wind is blowing (i.e., the Hawaiian trade
winds blow from the northeast to the southwest), see https://www.weather.gov/cae/weatherterms.html.
\41\ U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Association (NOAA). ``Honolulu, HI.'' Pacific Region
Headquarters, NOAA's National Weather Service, https://www.weather.gov/hfo/climate_summary, accessed on June 28, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we compare the impact of Hawaii on California, with
California's impact on Connecticut, because the distance between Hawaii
and California, and Connecticut and California, is roughly equivalent.
As previously mentioned, we have modeled contributions among the
continental states in the Revised CSAPR Update. In terms of distance,
Hawaii is slightly farther to nonattainment and maintenance-only
receptors in California, at 2,384 and 2,363 miles, respectively, than
California is to nonattainment and maintenance only
[[Page 53576]]
receptors in Connecticut, which are 2,263 and 2,285 miles away,
respectively.\42\ California's contribution to these monitors is 0.03
ppb to both the nonattainment and maintenance-only receptors in 2021,
which represents the maximum contribution of California to any
nonattainment and maintenance-only receptor in Connecticut. This is
well below the threshold of 1 percent of the NAAQS that would link the
two states, triggering further review in steps 3 and 4 of the
interstate transport analysis framework. Given that the distance
between California and Connecticut is comparable to the distance
between Hawaii and California, and ozone precursor emissions from
California are more than 10 times larger than ozone precursor emissions
from Hawaii, because California's contributions to Connecticut are well
below the 1 percent threshold, it is reasonable to conclude that
Hawaii's contribution to California would also be below the 1 percent
threshold. Therefore, it is not necessary to evaluate potential
NOX reductions as part of step 3 in the EPA's four-step
interstate transport framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Nonattainment Receptor at Monitor ID 90019003, Fairfield,
CT and Maintenance-Only Receptor at Monitor ID 90090027, New Haven,
CT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the weight of evidence, including (1) the distance between
Hawaii and California, (2) the relative magnitude of ozone precursor
emissions from Hawaii, (3) the predominant wind direction of the trade
winds in Hawaii, and (4) the comparison to the impact of ozone
precursor emissions from California on Connecticut, we propose to find
that Hawaii will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance in any other state.
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
Based on our review of the interstate transport SIP submission from
HDOH to address the 2015 ozone NAAQS and the additional analysis
discussed in this document, we propose to find that emissions from
Hawaii will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
Accordingly, we propose to approve the HDOH Submittal as satisfying the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogenoxides, Volatile organic compounds, Interstate
transport, Infrastructure SIP.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 18, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021-20619 Filed 9-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
