[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 81 (Monday, April 28, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23303-23306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09581]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0609; FRL-9909-97-OAR]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alaska: 
Interstate Transport of Pollution

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

[[Page 23304]]


ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve the State Implementation Plan submittals from Alaska to address 
the interstate transport provisions of the Clean Air Act in section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 fine particulate matter, 2008 ozone, 
and 2008 lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The Clean Air Act 
requires that each State Implementation Plan contain adequate 
provisions prohibiting air emissions that will have certain adverse air 
quality effects in other states. The EPA has determined that Alaska's 
State Implementation Plan submittals on March 29, 2011, and July 7, 
2012, contain adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions in 
Alaska do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere 
with maintenance of the 2006 fine particulate matter, 2008 ozone, and 
2008 lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards in any other state.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2011-0609, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Email: [email protected].
     Mail: Keith Rose, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and 
Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10 9th Floor Mailroom, 
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Keith Rose, 
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only 
accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements 
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2011-0609. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the 
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through 
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without 
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your 
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with 
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due 
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should 
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be 
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI 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. Publicly available 
docket materials are available either electronically in 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the 
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Rose at (206) 553-1949, 
[email protected], or the above EPA Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. 
Information is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Interstate 
Transport
    B. EPA Interstate Transport Regulatory Actions
    C. EPA Guidance on Interstate Transport
II. State Submittals
III. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Interstate Transport

    In recent years, the EPA revised the fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5), ozone, and lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS). The EPA revised the 1997 24-hour primary and 
secondary NAAQS for PM2.5 from 65 micrograms per cubic meter 
([micro]g/m\3\) to 35 [micro]g/m\3\ (71 FR 61144, October 17, 2006). 
Subsequently, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and secondary 
8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 to 0.075 parts per million (73 FR 
16436, March 12, 2008). Finally, the EPA revised the level of the 
primary and secondary Pb NAAQS from 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ to 0.15 [micro]g/
m\3\ (73 FR 66964, November 12, 2008).
    The interstate transport provisions in the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called ``good neighbor'' provisions) 
require each state to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that 
prohibits emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects 
in other states. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct 
elements related to the impacts of air pollutants transported across 
state lines. In this action, the EPA is addressing the first two 
elements of this section, specified at CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),\1\ for the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, and 
2008 Pb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This proposed action does not address the two elements of 
the interstate transport SIP provision in CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with measures required to 
prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect 
visibility in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that 
each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate measures to 
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the 
state from emitting air pollutants that will ``contribute significantly 
to nonattainment'' of the NAAQS in another state. The second element of 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP prohibit any 
source or other type of emissions activity in the state from emitting 
pollutants that will ``interfere with maintenance'' of the applicable 
NAAQS in any other state.

B. EPA Interstate Transport Regulatory Actions

    The EPA has addressed the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past regulatory actions.\2\ The EPA published the 
final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (Transport Rule) to address the 
first two elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern 
portion of the United States with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
(August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208). The Transport Rule was intended to

[[Page 23305]]

replace the earlier Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was 
judicially remanded.\3\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008). On August 21, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 
Circuit issued a decision vacating the Transport Rule. See EME Homer 
City Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The court 
also ordered the EPA to continue implementing CAIR in the interim. The 
United States Supreme Court granted the petitions of the United States 
and others and agreed to review the D.C. Circuit decision. Oral 
argument before the Supreme Court was held on December 10, 2013. Unless 
the EME Homer City decision is reversed or otherwise modified by the 
Supreme Court, the EPA intends to act in accordance with the D.C. 
Circuit opinion in EME Homer City.\4\ The State of Alaska was not 
covered by either CAIR or the Transport Rule, and the EPA made no 
determinations in either rule regarding whether emissions from sources 
in Alaska significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in another state. Thus, 
although the D.C. Circuit decision affects whether or not the 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP is considered a required SIP submission, the 
decision has no direct impact on EPA's evaluation of Alaska's SIP 
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998); 
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and 
Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 
(August 8, 2011).
    \3\ CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It did not address the 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. For more information on CAIR, see 
the July 30, 2012 proposal for Arizona regarding interstate 
transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 44551, 44552).
    \4\ In accordance with the D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer 
City, the EPA at this time is not treating the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
SIP submissions from Alaska for the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 
ozone and 2008 Pb NAAQS as required SIP submissions. See EME Homer 
City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F .3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. 
granted, 2013 U.S. Lexis 4801 (2013). Regardless of whether a 
particular SIP submission is considered ``required,'' section 
110(k)(2) of the CAA requires EPA to act on the submission. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to act on the portion of Alaska's SIP 
submissions that address the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. EPA Guidance on Interstate Transport

    The EPA has issued two guidance documents relevant to CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On September 25, 2009, the EPA issued the 
``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for 
the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) NAAQS.'' On October 
14, 2011, the EPA issued the ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under 
Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) NAAQS.'' The EPA has 
not to date issued guidance related to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As discussed below, Alaska's analyses 
of its SIP with respect to the statutory requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) are consistent with the EPA's September 25, 2009, 
and October 14, 2011, guidance. The discussion below describes how 
Alaska's submittals have addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

II. State Submittals

    On March 29, 2011, the State submitted a SIP to address CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 and 2008 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS. The State addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by 
providing information supporting the conclusion that emissions from 
Alaska do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere 
with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 and 2008 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS in another state. The State's submittal noted that Alaska's 
southern-most border is separated from the nearest nonattainment areas 
in the State of Washington by over 600 miles. Specifically, the nearest 
2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area is located in Tacoma (Pierce 
County), Washington, and the nearest 2008 ozone nonattainment area is 
located in Chico (Butte County), California. The Yukon Territory and 
the Province of British Columbia, Canada, are located between these 
nonattainment areas and the border of Alaska. The State's submittal 
also stated that the Municipality of Anchorage and the Fairbanks North 
Star Borough, which have the highest emissions of PM2.5, 
ozone and PM2.5 precursors in Alaska, are located over 1400 
miles from the nearest nonattainment areas. In addition, the State's 
submittal pointed to aggregate manmade PM2.5 and ozone 
precursor levels that are minimal relative to national levels. A state-
wide emissions inventory showed that facilities in Alaska make up only 
0.1 percent of the total PM2.5 emissions in the United 
States. Similarly, precursor emissions to PM2.5 (e.g., 
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides) and precursor emissions to ozone 
(e.g., volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides) from facilities 
in Alaska make up less than 0.2 percent of United States' emissions for 
those pollutants. The State's submittal also stated that in Alaska, the 
regional, predominant low pressure wind patterns emanate from the Gulf 
of Alaska in the west and travel inland towards the east, circulating 
in a counterclockwise direction. These predominant low pressure wind 
patterns would not generally be expected to transport air pollutants 
from Alaska south to the States of Washington or California. The 
State's submittal concluded that emissions from Alaska do not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS in another state.
    On July 7, 2012, the State submitted a SIP to address the 2008 Pb 
NAAQS (Pb Interstate Transport SIP). The State's Pb Interstate 
Transport SIP specifically addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 
stated that there are no designated Pb nonattainment areas in Alaska or 
the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon, and Idaho). Potential 
sources of atmospheric Pb in Alaska are due primarily to the burning of 
aviation gasoline, which contains tetraethyl-lead, in piston-engine 
aircraft. The State's submittal referenced Pb monitoring conducted in 
the State and discussed the large geographic distance of Alaska from 
neighboring states, and predominant low pressure wind patterns which 
would not generally be expected to transport pollutants long distances 
from Alaska to neighboring states. The State concluded that emissions 
of Pb from Alaska do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in another state.
    As stated in the EPA's October 14, 2011, guidance, the EPA believes 
that the physical properties of Pb prevent Pb emissions from 
experiencing the same travel or formation phenomena as PM2.5 
or ozone. More specifically, there is a sharp decrease in Pb 
concentrations, at least in the coarse fraction, as the distance from a 
Pb source increases. Accordingly, while it may be possible for a source 
in a state to emit Pb in a localized area in quantities that may 
contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with 
maintenance by, any other state, the EPA anticipates that this would be 
a rare situation, e.g., where large sources are in close proximity to 
state boundaries. The EPA's experience with initial Pb designations 
suggests that sources that emit less than 0.5 tons per year or that are 
located more than two miles from a state border generally appear 
unlikely to contribute significantly to nonattainment in another state. 
The only source of Pb in Alaska that exceeds an emission rate of 0.5 
tons per year is the Red Dog Mine near Kotzebue, which is over 1,000 
miles from the border of the nearest state.

III. Proposed Action

    Based on the State's submittals, the EPA concludes the State has 
sufficiently

[[Page 23306]]

demonstrated that emissions from Alaska do not significantly contribute 
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 
PM2.5, 2008 ozone, or 2008 Pb NAAQS in another state. 
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve the March 29, 2011, and July 
7, 2012, submittals from the State of Alaska to address the interstate 
transport provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 
PM2.5, 2008 ozone, and 2008 Pb NAAQS. This action is being 
taken under CAA section 110.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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 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 Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal 
governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, and Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 10, 2014.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014-09581 Filed 4-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P