[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 247 (Thursday, December 26, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70913-70916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27765]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0513; FRL-10003-57-Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Transport State Implementation
Plan for the 2008 Ozone Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Connecticut that addresses the interstate transport of air
pollution requirements of the Clean Air Act for the 2008 ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) (i.e., ozone transport SIP). The
intended effect of this action is to propose approval of the transport
SIP as a revision to the Connecticut SIP. This action is being taken in
accordance with the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 27, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2019-0513 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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, 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 http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. (617)
918-1684, email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's Submittal
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On June 15, 2015, the Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) submitted a revision to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) consisting of an interstate transport SIP for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This interstate transport SIP, which we are
herein proposing to approve, was submitted to address the
infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act).
On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the level of the primary ozone
standard from 0.08 ppm to 0.075 ppm, based on a three-year average of
the annual
[[Page 70914]]
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average. See 73 FR 16436. Section
110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to address a new or
revised NAAQS within three years after promulgation of a standard, or
within a shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists
the elements that new SIPs must address, as applicable, including
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to interstate transport of
certain emissions.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four elements related to the
evaluation of impacts of interstate transport of air pollutants; in
this rulemaking, we are addressing the first two elements; EPA
addressed all other infrastructure SIP elements under section 110(a)(2)
for Connecticut for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in separate
rulemakings.\1\ Specifically, the portions that we are proposing to
approve pertain to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I): (1) Significant
contribution to nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS in any other state
(commonly called ``prong 1''); and (2) interference with maintenance of
the ozone NAAQS (commonly called ``prong 2'') by any other state. These
two provisions (or ``prongs'') are commonly referred to as the ``good
neighbor'' provisions of the CAA. The first provision requires that a
state's SIP for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate measures to
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in the state
from emitting pollutants in amounts that will ``contribute
significantly'' to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state. The
second provision requires that a state's SIP prohibit any source or
other type of emissions activity in the state from emitting pollutants
in amounts that will ``interfere with maintenance'' of the applicable
NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 80 FR 54471 (September 10, 2015); 81 FR 35636 (June 3,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's Analysis Related to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS
EPA developed technical information and related analyses to assist
states with meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS through SIPs and, as appropriate, to provide
backstop federal implementation plans (FIPs) in the event that states
failed to submit approvable SIPs.\2\ On October 26, 2016, EPA took
steps to develop this backstop role with respect to eastern states \3\
by finalizing an update to the 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(2011 CSAPR) ozone-season program that addresses good neighbor
obligations for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update).\4\ The
CSAPR Update established statewide nitrogen oxides (NOX)
budgets for certain affected electricity generating units (EGUs) in 22
eastern states for the May through September ozone season to reduce the
interstate transport of ozone pollution in the eastern United States,
and, thereby, help downwind states and communities meet and maintain
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 74506. The rule also determined
that emissions from 14 states (including Connecticut) would not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in downwind states. Accordingly, EPA determined
that it did not need to require further emission reductions from
sources in those states to address the good neighbor provision as to
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability on August 4,
2015, requesting comment on the modeling platform and air quality
modeling results that were used for the proposed Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update. See 80 FR 46271.
\3\ For purposes of the CSAPR Update, ``eastern'' states refer
to all contiguous states fully east of the Rocky Mountains (thus not
including the mountain states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, or New
Mexico).
\4\ See Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of
Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals,
Final Rule (2011 CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update),
81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit in Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303 (D.C.
Cir. 2019) upheld certain aspects of the CSAPR Update and remanded
others to EPA but did not vacate the rule. Our proposed approval of
Connecticut's Transport SIP relies in part on EPA's finding in the
CSAPR Update that emissions from Connecticut do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008
ozone NAAQS in any downwind state. See 84 FR at 40346-47 (citing 81 FR
at 74506). No party challenged that aspect of the CSAPR Update and
nothing in the court's opinion overturned that finding or called it
into doubt. Consequently, Wisconsin does not impact EPA's reliance on
the finding in the CSAPR Update to support approval of Connecticut's
Transport SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The CSAPR Update used the same framework that was used by EPA in
developing 2011 CSAPR.\5\ Through several previous rulemakings,\6\ EPA,
working in partnership with states, established a four-step interstate-
transport framework to address the requirements of the ``good
neighbor'' provision for the ozone NAAQS.\7\ The four steps are: Step
1--identify downwind receptors that are expected to have problems
attaining or maintaining the NAAQS; step 2--determine which upwind
states contribute enough to these identified downwind air quality
problems to warrant further review and analysis; step 3--identify the
emissions reductions necessary to prevent an identified upwind state
from contributing significantly to those downwind air quality problems;
and step 4--adopt permanent and enforceable measures needed to achieve
those emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Key elements of the four-step interstate transport framework
have been upheld by the Supreme Court in EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P., 572 U.S. 489 (2014).
\6\ NOX SIP Call. 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998);
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005); Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 75 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); and
CSAPR Update. 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
\7\ The four-step interstate framework has also been used to
address requirements of the good neighbor provision for some
previous particulate matter (PM) NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To apply the first and second steps of the four-step interstate-
transport framework to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA evaluated modeling
projections for air-quality monitoring sites in 2017 and considered
current (at the time) ozone monitoring data at these sites to identify
receptors \8\ anticipated to have problems attaining or maintaining the
2008 ozone NAAQS. Next, EPA used air-quality modeling to assess
contributions from upwind states to these downwind receptors and
evaluated the contributions relative to a screening threshold of one
percent (1%) of the 2008 NAAQS (i.e., 0.75 parts per billion (ppb)).
States with contributions that equaled or exceeded the 1% threshold
were identified as warranting further analysis for ``significant
contribution to nonattainment'' or ``interference with maintenance'' of
the NAAQS. In the CSAPR Update, EPA found that Connecticut did not
contribute at or above the 1% threshold to any downwind nonattainment
or maintenance receptor. See 81 FR 74506. Therefore, EPA did not issue
FIP requirements for sources in Connecticut
[[Page 70915]]
as part of CSAPR Update. See id. at 74553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Within the CSAPR framework, the term ``receptor'' indicates
a monitoring site. Under CSAPR Update, nonattainment receptors are
downwind monitoring sites that are projected to have an average
design value that exceed the NAAQS and that have a current monitored
design value above the NAAQS, while maintenance receptors are
downwind monitoring sites that are projected to have maximum design
values that exceed the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's Submittal
On December 28, 2012, CT DEEP submitted most of its infrastructure
SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to EPA. On June 3, 2016, EPA fully
approved most, and conditionally approved some portions, of that
submittal. See 81 FR 35636. However, that submittal did not include the
``good neighbor'' provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On June 15,
2015, Connecticut submitted a SIP revision to address this unmet SIP
obligation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In today's action, we are
proposing to approve that submittal.
In its June 2015 submittal, Connecticut examined the results of
EPA's transport modeling for 2017 and ambient monitoring data at key
downwind sites to demonstrate that the state meets its good neighbor
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. CT DEEP referenced modeling
results for EPA's 2011 CSAPR, which showed that emissions from
Connecticut were projected to have a maximum impact in 2018 of 0.41 ppb
at the monitor in Suffolk County, NY, with impacts at all other
monitors of concern being 0.08 ppb or less, well below the 1% screening
threshold of 0.75 ppb for the 2008 NAAQS.
EPA's August 2016 CSAPR Update Modeling TSD also projected the
largest contributions of emissions from Connecticut to nonattainment
and maintenance receptors at well below the threshold of 1% of the
NAAQS. Specifically, this modeling indicated that Connecticut's largest
impact on any projected downwind nonattainment receptor in 2017 was
0.00 ppb and the largest impact on any projected downwind maintenance-
only site was 0.46 ppb.\9\ As a result, in the CSAPR Update, EPA
``determined that emissions from [Connecticut] do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008
ozone NAAQS in downwind states'' and that EPA ``need not require
further emission reductions from sources in [Connecticut] to address
the good neighbor provision as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.'' 81 FR at
74506.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See CSAPR Update Modeling TSD at Table 4-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut examined the results of EPA's transport modeling for
2017 and CT DEEP projected state-emissions trends to demonstrate that
the state meets its good-neighbor requirements for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Based on their analysis, total NOX emissions are
projected to decline 18% between 2017 and 2025. CT DEEP also expects
additional NOX emission reductions in the post-2017 period
because their analysis did not include the state's recent revisions to
its low emission vehicle (LEV) regulations, EPA's Tier 3 vehicle and
fuel standards, and updates to its NOX RACT regulations.
These additional NOX reductions expected to occur in future
years (described below) further help to ensure that the state will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states.
CT DEEP identified regulations that have been approved into the
Connecticut SIP to provide for the control of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the primary
precursors to the formation of ground level ozone. Reasonably available
control technology (RACT) has been required for major sources of
NOX in Connecticut since 1996, with multiple updates since.
On July 31, 2017, EPA approved Connecticut's Regulations of State
Agencies (RCSA) sections 22a-174-22e, Control of nitrogen oxides
emissions, -22f, High daily NOX emitting units at non-major
sources of NOX, and -38, Municipal Waste Combustors. See 82
FR 35454.
In addition to these programs, CT DEEP noted that it implements
regulations modeled after California's LEV program, has established a
stringent new motor vehicle control program, and implements a statewide
vehicle emission inspection and maintenance program and state and
federal incentive programs for diesel vehicle retrofits and
replacements. Connecticut also implements a variety of energy
efficiency strategies, including its Comprehensive Energy Strategy20.
In light of the EPA's determination made in the CSAPR Update
finding that emissions from Connecticut will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008
ozone NAAQS in downwind states, we propose that Connecticut has met its
CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``good neighbor'' SIP obligation for the
2008 ozone NAAQS.
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve Connecticut's June 15, 2015, SIP
submission as meeting the CAA requirements of prongs 1 and 2 under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on
other relevant matters.\10\ These comments will be considered before
taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed
rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of
this Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ However, the EPA notes that it is not, in this action,
reopening for public comment or otherwise reconsidering the analytic
analysis conducted for or the determinations made in the final CSAPR
Update rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. 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, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed 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 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);
Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this action is not significant 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
[[Page 70916]]
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 EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: December 18, 2019.
Dennis Deziel,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2019-27765 Filed 12-23-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P