[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 18, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69331-69335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27162]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0823; FRL-10003-24-Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; AK: Interstate Transport Requirements for the
2015 Ozone Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act requires each State Implementation Plan
(SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will
have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On October
25, 2018, the State of Alaska made a submission to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements for the 2015
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA approves
the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirement that each SIP contain
adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015
ozone NAAQS in any other state.
DATES: This final rule is effective January 17, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0823. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information the disclosure
of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall (15-H13), Air and
Radiation Division, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue (Suite 155),
Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-6357, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it refers to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Response to Comment
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review
I. Background
On October 25, 2018, the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC) made a submission addressing the interstate
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015
ozone NAAQS.\1\ This ``good neighbor'' provision of the CAA requires
that 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 such NAAQS in any other state or that
will interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Alaska's October 25, 2018 submission addresses all CAA
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure requirements for the 2015
ozone NAAQS (including interstate transport prongs 1 and 2) and
includes regulatory updates and permitting rule revisions for
approval into the SIP. This action addresses the portion of the
submission related to interstate transport prongs 1 and 2. We are
addressing the remainder of the submission in separate actions on
August 29, 2019 (84 FR 45419) and October 15, 2019 (84 FR 55094).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 5, 2019, we proposed to approve Alaska's SIP submission (84
FR 26041). The reasons for our proposed approval are included in the
proposed
[[Page 69332]]
action and will not be restated here. The public comment period for the
proposed action closed on July 5, 2019. We received adverse comments
from one anonymous commenter. Following is our response to each
distinct issue raised by the commenter.
II. Response to Comment
Comment 1: The commenter stated that the EPA should not approve
Alaska's SIP submission because ADEC did not model Alaska emissions and
the effect of those emissions on other states and Canada.
Response 1: The commenter is correct that ADEC did not model Alaska
emissions and the effect of those emission on other states and Canada.
However, that is not a basis for disapproval in this instance. Alaska's
SIP submission included information and analysis on the amount and
sources of ozone precursor emissions from Alaska, trends in monitored
ambient ozone levels, meteorological conditions, distances from Alaska
to the nearest receptors in other states, and intervening geography
that isolates Alaska from other areas that have ozone problems. ADEC
concluded that emissions from Alaska sources do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state
and do not interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any
other state.
In our review, we evaluated Alaska's SIP submission and conducted
our own weight of evidence analysis to determine whether we agreed with
ADEC's conclusion. We assessed emissions inventory data, monitoring
trends, geography, meteorology, and current SIP-approved provisions. We
found these factors sufficiently informative regarding Alaska's
potential to adversely impact air quality in downwind states without
conducting modeling of emissions as suggested by the commenter, and
therefore, proposed to approve the SIP submission. We note this is not
a new approach. The EPA has conducted weight of evidence analyses to
evaluate prior Alaska interstate transport SIP submissions, and we
believe it to be a reasonable and appropriate approach in this
instance.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Most recently, we took this approach in our June 27, 2018
action approving the Alaska SIP for purposes of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2012 fine particulate matter
NAAQS (83 FR 30048).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA further agrees that ADEC did not analyze potential
transport to Canada, but that is not a deficiency in the State's
analysis. The evaluation of international air quality impacts is not a
requirement under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which is the only
provision of the statute addressed in this action.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) and 115 address international
pollution abatement. We proposed approval of this element for the
2015 ozone NAAQS in a separate action on October 15, 2019 (84 FR
55094). Alaska has no pending obligations under CAA section 115 with
respect to Canada or any other foreign country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: The commenter stated, ``the EPA can't rely on relative
emissions to justify [a finding of] no significant contribution or
interference with maintenance'' of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The commenter
also noted that, in our proposal, we showed that nitrogen oxide
(NOX) emissions from certain Alaska sources ranked second
highest in the region.
Response 2: The commenter is correct that, based on the 2014
National Emissions Inventory (2014 NEI), NOX emissions from
mobile and stationary sources in Alaska ranked second highest of the
Region 10 states.\4\ Our analysis, however, also compared Alaska
emissions to those nationwide and determined that, based on the 2014
NEI, NOX emissions from Alaska mobile and stationary sources
totaled just one percent of national NOX emissions.\5\ This
comparison of relative emissions puts Alaska emissions estimates into
context and is a useful exercise in evaluating the Alaska ozone
interstate transport SIP submission. Importantly, this was just one
factor in our weight of evidence analysis and was considered in
conjunction with other factors including monitoring trends, geography,
meteorology, and current SIP-approved provisions. In particular, the
fact that other, geographically-closer states with comparable or
greater emission levels did not impermissibly impact downwind air
quality problems supports the conclusion that Alaska emissions are not
likely to be linked to identified nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in any other state with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. We
continue to find this to be true.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Alaska's stationary and mobile source NOX
emissions were estimated to be 127,194 tons. Washington's emissions
were higher (234,050 tons), while Oregon and Idaho's emissions are
somewhat lower (125,626 and 81,135 tons, respectively).
\5\ Based on the 2014 NEI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: The commenter took issue with the EPA's evaluation of
in-state monitored ozone levels. The commenter asserted that in-state
levels are not predictive of downwind levels.
Response 3: We found it informative to review in-state monitored
ozone levels as part of our weight of evidence analysis. This kind of
information can shed light on whether in-state conditions are changing
and whether those changes could have downwind implications. For
example, if ozone levels at monitoring sites in Alaska were rising over
time, it could suggest increased precursor emissions from Alaska
sources which could also have impacts on downwind air quality in other
states. In our proposal, we assessed monitored ozone trends in Alaska
and determined that in-state ozone levels were well below the 2015
ozone NAAQS. The table of design values in our proposal illustrated
that trends have been generally flat from 2010 to 2017, suggesting that
in-state sources of precursor emissions may not be changing much, and
may not be a big factor potentially contributing to future transport
problems.\6\ We reiterate that in-state monitored ozone levels were
just one piece of information that helped to inform the EPA's analysis
and conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Proposal published June 5, 2019, 84 FR 26041; at page 26045,
Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: The commenter said we failed to mention that Alaska was
not included in the EPA's modeling and suggested the EPA may have
considered Alaska as an international contributor. The commenter
concluded that we ignored Alaska emissions in our modeling and for that
reason it is not appropriate to use the EPA's modeling data to identify
downwind receptors in the first step of our analysis.
Response 4: We disagree that the proposal failed to explain the
scope of the modeling. Our proposal clearly stated that the EPA
conducted modeling and released the data to states in the form of
several memoranda, but that ``none [of the memoranda] project[ed]
design values at monitoring sites located in Alaska, nor apportion[ed]
specific downwind impacts to Alaska.'' \7\ We also stated that the
memorandum released in March of 2018 helped to identify potential
downwind receptors in the first step of our analysis, but that it did
not inform whether Alaska was sufficiently linked to those receptors,
under the second step of EPA's four-step analysis.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Proposal published June 5, 2019, 84 FR 26041; at page 26042,
column 3.
\8\ Ibid. at page 26044, column 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our proposal described the EPA's modeling domain (which included
the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia) and
referenced the 2018 memorandum, placed in the docket for this
action.\9\ The EPA did not consider Alaska as an international
contributor to downwind states, nor did we ignore Alaska emissions. Any
pollutant concentrations from Alaska
[[Page 69333]]
emissions would have been included as part of the boundary condition
concentrations used as inputs to the model. These boundary conditions
along the perimeter of our modeling domain were derived from
simulations of the GEOSChem global chemistry model for the year
2011.\10\ A description of the GEOSChem modeling platform leveraged for
these boundary conditions has been placed in the docket for this
action.\11\ We continue to believe it is appropriate to use the
modeling data released in the EPA's March 2018 memorandum to identify
potential downwind receptors at the first step in our analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Ibid. at page 26043, column 2.
\10\ The modeling domain is the area within the purple rectangle
in Figure 2-1 of the EPA's Air Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document for the Updated 2023 Projected Ozone Design Values, dated
December 2018.
\11\ B.H. Henderson et al.: A database and tool for boundary
conditions for regional air quality modeling: Description and
evaluation, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 339-360, 2014 (published February
18, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 5: The commenter claimed that the EPA erred in calculating
and using geographic distance and the relative emissions of intervening
states as factors in our analysis. The commenter argued that it would
be hard to imagine other states making this kind of assertion and the
EPA treating it as a valid approach.
Response 5: We believe it is appropriate and reasonable to consider
the approximately 1,000-mile distance from Alaska's southernmost border
to the nearest identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors
(located in Sacramento, California) as part of our weight of evidence
analysis in this action. We also believe it is appropriate to compare
Alaska's emissions to those of intervening states (Washington and
Oregon), which are closer to the Sacramento, California nonattainment
and maintenance receptors, and which are not linked by the EPA's
modeling to those Sacramento receptors. Our weight of evidence
analytical approach is specific to Alaska and the submission before us,
and functions, in the absence of the contribution data available with
respect to impacts on downwind states within our modeling domain, to
provide a screening level of analysis that Alaska's emissions are not
significantly contributing to a downwind air quality problem.\12\ Our
evaluation considers not just that the intervening states have higher
emissions, but that at those higher levels, the impact on downwind air
quality problems does not exceed the 1% air quality threshold. Thus, it
is reasonable for the EPA to conclude that Alaska, at a greater
distance and with lower emission levels, will also not exceed that
threshold. The EPA has in fact employed this rationale in other actions
under the good neighbor provision, where contribution modeling data was
unavailable.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Proposal published June 5, 2019, 84 FR 26041; at page
26045.
\13\ See prior interstate transport actions with respect to the
2012 fine particulate matter NAAQS. For example, the September 11,
2019 action on the Utah SIP (84 FR 47893) and the August 20, 2018
action on the Washington SIP (83 FR 42031).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6: The commenter said the EPA should not point to the
Alaska SIP-approved major new source review permitting programs as
programs that help address potential future interstate transport of
pollutants. The commenter claimed no such program has ever prevented a
source from being constructed due to interstate transport concerns. The
commenter further claimed that state permitting officials routinely
``look the other way'' and that source owners and operators try to find
loopholes or restrict their modeling to avoid performing analyses which
would show impacts to nearby states.
Response 6: In our proposal, we pointed to Alaska's SIP-approved
preconstruction permitting programs (known as ``new source review'') as
one piece of evidence in our weight of evidence analysis. We believe it
is appropriate for the EPA to evaluate the current Federally-approved
Alaska SIP on its face for measures that control emissions of ozone
precursors. Alaska's new source review permitting programs are
Federally-enforceable measures designed to control emissions from
proposed new and modified stationary sources of regulated air
pollutants, including NOX and VOCs as precursors to ozone.
We most recently approved revisions to Alaska's new source review
permitting programs on August 29, 2019 (84 FR 45419). Alaska routinely
evaluates new source review permit applications from subject sources in
Alaska and issues permits containing emission limits, work practice
standards, monitoring requirements and other controls designed to
ensure compliance with emission limits and provide for continued
attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The EPA cited this program as helping to
ensure that future changes in emissions from Alaska are not likely to
lead to impermissible impacts on air quality in downwind states.
Nonetheless, because the EPA finds in this action that Alaska will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS downwind based on current emission levels,
Alaska does not have an obligation to prohibit any specific level of
emissions in the State under the good neighbor provision. Other
provisions of the CAA (e.g., sections 110(k)(5) and 126(b)) provide
bases for reevaluating this conclusion if future changes in emissions
change Alaska's impact on downwind states.
With respect to the commenter's concerns about implementation of
permitting programs, the comment is vague and lacks supporting evidence
or documentation. Moreover, this comment is related to implementation
of the SIP, and is therefore outside the scope of this action. In the
context of acting on infrastructure and interstate transport
submissions, the EPA evaluates the submitting state's SIP for facial
compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, not for the
state's implementation of its SIP.\14\ The EPA has other authority to
address any issues concerning a state's implementation of the rules,
regulations, consent orders, etc. that comprise its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision in
Montana Environmental Information Center v. EPA, No. 16-71933 (Aug.
30, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 7: The commenter asserted the EPA should perform modeling
and affirmatively determine whether Alaska sources significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state
or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other
state.
Response 7: To help states develop interstate transport SIPs for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the EPA modeled the contiguous United States and
the District of Columbia and produced data projecting future design
values at monitoring sites and apportioning specific downwind impacts
to upwind states.\15\ The EPA's modeling did not quantify Alaska's
contribution to downwind receptors, however nothing in the CAA requires
the EPA to do so where other reasonable means are available for
evaluating Alaska' s impact to downwind receptors. The EPA did not
include Alaska in the modeling domain primarily because it is remote
and isolated in relation to other states with identified nonattainment
and/or maintenance receptors for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA relied on the best information available to inform its
decision and evaluated Alaska's SIP submission through a weight of
evidence analysis of information, including emissions inventory data,
monitoring trends, geography, meteorology, and SIP-approved
[[Page 69334]]
provisions that limit current and future emissions of ozone precursors.
The EPA has used a weight of evidence analysis to assess Alaska
interstate transport SIP submissions in the past, most recently on June
27, 2018 (83 FR 30048).\16\ None of the comments justify altering our
proposed approval of Alaska's interstate transport SIP submission for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, we are finalizing our action as
proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ This action approved the Alaska SIP for purposes of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2012 fine particulate
matter NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Final Action
We approve the Alaska SIP as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. This action is being taken under
section 110 of the CAA.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 18, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 2, 2019.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart C--Alaska
0
2. In Sec. 52.70, amend the table in paragraph (e) by adding the entry
``Interstate Transport Requirements--2015 Ozone NAAQS'' at the end of
the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.70 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 69335]]
EPA-Approved Alaska Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or submittal EPA approval date Explanations
nonattainment area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Interstate Transport Statewide................ 10/25/2018 12/18/2019, [Insert Approves SIP for
Requirements--2015 Ozone NAAQS. Federal Register purposes of CAA
citation]. section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I
) for the 2015
Ozone NAAQS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-27162 Filed 12-17-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P