[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 78 (Monday, April 23, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17627-17630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08426]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0590; FRL-9977-06-Region 10]


Air Plan Approval; AK; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 
2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from the Alaska 
Department of Environmental Conservation (Alaska DEC) demonstrating 
that the SIP meets certain interstate transport requirements of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) promulgated in 2010 for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and 
sulfur dioxide (SO2). The EPA proposes to determine that 
Alaska's SIP contains adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions 
in Alaska do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere 
with the maintenance of the 2010 NO2 and SO2 
NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2016-0590, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. 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 the disclosure of which 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, 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: John Chi, Air Planning Unit, Office of 
Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 6th 
Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: 206-553-1185; email 
address: [email protected].

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
II. State Submittal
III. EPA Evaluation
    A. NO2 Interstate Transport
    B. SO2 Interstate Transport
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On January 22, 2010, the EPA established a primary NO2 
NAAQS at 100 parts per billion (ppb), averaged over one hour and based 
on a 3-year average, supplementing the existing annual standard (75 FR 
6474). On June 22, 2010, the EPA established a new primary 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS at 75 ppb based on a 3-year average (75 FR 35520). 
Within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, states 
must submit SIPs meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 
(2), often referred to as infrastructure requirements. Section 110(a) 
of the CAA requires states to make a SIP submission to the EPA for a 
new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of individual state submissions 
may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. The content of the 
revisions proposed in such SIP submissions may also vary

[[Page 17628]]

depending upon what provisions the state's approved SIP already 
contains. The EPA approved the Alaska SIP as meeting all infrastructure 
requirements for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS, 
except for the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport 
provisions which we explained we would address in a separate action (82 
FR 22081, May 12, 2017).
    The EPA's most recent infrastructure SIP guidance, the September 
13, 2013, ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' did 
not explicitly include criteria for how the Agency would evaluate 
infrastructure SIP submissions intended to address section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\1\ With respect to certain pollutants, such as 
ozone and particulate matter, the EPA has addressed interstate 
transport in eastern states in the context of regional rulemaking 
actions that quantify state emission reduction obligations.\2\ In other 
actions, such as EPA action on western state SIPs addressing ozone and 
particulate matter, the EPA has considered a variety of factors on a 
case-by-case basis to determine whether emissions from one state 
interfere with the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in another 
state. In such actions, the EPA has considered available information 
such as current air quality, emissions data and trends, meteorology, 
and topography.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ At the time the September 13, 2013, guidance was issued, EPA 
was litigating challenges raised with respect to its Cross State Air 
Pollution Rule (``CSAPR''), 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011), designed to 
address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport 
requirements with respect to the 1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS. CSAPR was vacated and remanded by the D.C. 
Circuit in 2012 pursuant to EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 
696 F.3d 7. EPA subsequently sought review of the D.C. Circuit's 
decision by the Supreme Court, which was granted in June 2013. As 
EPA was in the process of litigating the interpretation of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at the time the infrastructure SIP guidance was 
issued, EPA did not issue guidance specific to that provision. The 
Supreme Court subsequently vacated the D.C. Circuit's decision and 
remanded the case to that court for further review. 134 S. Ct. 1584 
(2014). On July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision 
upholding CSAPR, but remanding certain elements for reconsideration. 
795 F.3d 118.
    \2\ Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 
(October 27, 1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 
(May 12, 2005); CSAPR, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    \3\ See, e.g., Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 
Plans; State of California; Interstate Transport of Pollution; 
Significant Contribution to Nonattainment and Interference With 
Maintenance Requirements, Proposed Rule, 76 FR 146516, 14616-14626 
(March 17, 2011); Final Rule, 76 FR 34872 (June 15, 2011); Approval 
and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; 
Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 24-Hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS, Proposed Rule, 80 FR 27121, 27124-27125 (May 
12, 2015); Final Rule, 80 FR 47862 (August 10, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For other pollutants such as lead (Pb), the EPA has suggested that 
the applicable interstate transport requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) can be met through a state's assessment as to 
whether or not emissions from Pb sources located in close proximity to 
its borders have emissions that impact a neighboring state such that 
they contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance in that state. For example, the EPA noted in an October 14, 
2011, memorandum titled, ``Guidance on Infrastructure State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) 
and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS),'' \4\ that the physical properties of Pb prevent its 
emissions from experiencing the same travel or formation phenomena as 
PM2.5 or ozone, and 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 location and 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.\5\ Our rationale and explanation for approving the 
applicable interstate transport requirements under section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, consistent with the EPA's 
interpretation of the October 14, 2011, guidance document, can be 
found, among other instances, in the proposed approval and a subsequent 
final approval of interstate transport SIPs submitted by Illinois, 
Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.\6\ In summary, the EPA's approaches 
to addressing interstate transport for NAAQS pollutants has been based 
on the characteristics of the pollutant, the interstate problem 
presented by emissions of that pollutant, the sources that emit the 
pollutant, and the information available to assess transport of that 
pollutant. The EPA's review and action on Alaska's CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport SIP revisions for the 2010 
NO2 and SO2 NAAQS is informed by these 
considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20111014_page_lead_caa_110_infrastructure_guidance.pdf.
    \5\ Id. at pp 7-8.
    \6\ See 79 FR 27241 at 27249 (May 13, 2014) and 79 FR 41439 
(July 16, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 10, 2016, the Alaska DEC submitted a SIP revision to 
address these remaining CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate 
transport provisions, also called ``good neighbor'' provisions. The 
first element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that for a new 
or revised NAAQS the SIP contains 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 the SIP prohibits 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.

II. State Submittal

    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 2010 1-hour NO2 and 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The 
Alaska DEC provided the same justification to address both 
SO2 and NO2 interstate transport.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA notes Alaska's submission with respect to the 
SO2 NAAQS indicates that the state is not subject to 
EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) or Cross-State Air Pollution 
Rule (CSAPR). While EPA appreciates this information, neither CAIR 
nor CSAPR addressed the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

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

[[Page 17629]]

    The state's submittal noted that Alaska's southern-most border is 
separated by over 600 miles (966 km) of mountainous terrain in Canada's 
Province of British Columbia separating the southeastern border of 
Alaska from the nearest state, Washington. The state's submittal also 
noted 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. The 
Alaska DEC concluded that based on distance from other states and 
weather patterns, Alaska does not significantly contribute to 
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2010 
NO2, and SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

III. EPA Evaluation

A. NO2 Interstate Transport

    In addition to reviewing Alaska's submittal, the EPA reviewed 
recent monitoring data for NO2 throughout the United States. 
Using previous EPA methodology, the EPA evaluated specific monitors 
identified as having nonattainment and/or maintenance problems, which 
we refer to as ``receptors.'' \8\ The EPA identifies nonattainment 
receptors as any monitor that has violated the NO2 NAAQS in 
the most recent three-year period (2014-2016). Meanwhile, the EPA 
identifies NO2 maintenance receptors as any monitor that 
violated the NO2 NAAQS in--either of the prior monitoring 
cycles (2012-2014 and 2013-2015), but attained in the most recent 
monitoring cycle. During the three most recent design value \9\ periods 
of 2012 through 2014, 2013 through 2015, and 2014 through 2016, we 
found no monitors violating the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in the United 
States.\10\ Accordingly, the EPA found no monitors meeting the criteria 
as a nonattainment receptor and/or as a maintenance receptor. 
Furthermore, we note that available information indicates that 
monitored values are well below the 100 ppb 1-hour NO2 NAAQS 
in Washington, the state closest to Alaska, with a 3-year average of 28 
ppb during 2014-2016 at the Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA, monitor (AQS 
Site ID 530570018).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998); 
CAIR, 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and Transport Rule or Cross-State 
Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    \9\ A ``Design Value'' is a statistic that describes the air 
quality status of a given location relative to the level of the 
NAAQS. The interpretation of the primary 2010 SO2 NAAQS 
(set at 75 parts per billion (ppb)) including the data handling 
conventions and calculations necessary for determining compliance 
with the NAAQS can be found in Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50.
    \10\ http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also reviewed regulatory provisions to control future new 
sources of NOX emissions in Alaska. Alaska's Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD)/New Source Review (NSR) program was 
originally approved by the EPA on February 16, 1995 (60 FR 8943). 
Updates to Alaska's PSD/NSR program were most recently approved by the 
EPA on January 7, 2015 (80 FR 832). The minor NSR program was most 
recently updated on May 27, 2016 (80 FR 30161). These rules help ensure 
that no new or modified source of NOX will cause or 
contribute to violation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The EPA 
proposes to conclude that emissions from Alaska will not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2010 
NO2 NAAQS in any other state. As previously noted, the EPA 
already approved the Alaska SIP as meeting the CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) interstate transport provisions (commonly called 
prongs 3 & 4) on May 12, 2017 (82 FR 22081).

B. SO2 Interstate Transport

    In addition to reviewing Alaska's submittal, the EPA reviewed: (1) 
SO2 ambient air quality and emissions trends; (2) SIP-
approved regulations specific to SO2 and permitting 
requirements; and, (3) other SIP-approved or federally enforceable 
regulations that while not directly intended to address or reduce 
SO2, may yield reductions of the pollutant.
    Despite being emitted from a similar universe of point and nonpoint 
sources, interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the transport 
of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) or ozone. As the EPA has 
addressed in other actions, SO2 is not a regional mixing 
pollutant that commonly contributes to widespread nonattainment of the 
SO2 NAAQS over a large (and often multi-state) area. From an 
air quality management perspective, the 2010 SO2 NAAQS can 
be considered to be a largely ``source-oriented'' NAAQS rather than a 
``regional'' one (79 FR 27445). Geographically, Alaska is approximately 
850 km (528 miles) from the nearest state, Washington, and 
approximately 2,800 km (1,740 miles) from the nearest SO2 
nonattainment area in Gilia County, Arizona, for the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS. Given the distance from the nearest state, 
Washington, the EPA believes that emissions from Alaska will not 
interfere with the maintenance in another states. Therefore, the EPA 
proposes to agree with Alaska DEC that based on distance, emissions 
activity from Alaska will not significantly contribute to nonattainment 
or interfere with maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in any other 
state.
    While the State of Alaska has no areas which would require 
SO2 monitoring under 40 CFR 58, Appendix D, paragraph 4.4.2 
(requirement for monitoring by the population weighted emissions 
index), monitored ambient air quality values for SO2 are 
available at Alaska's National Core Multi-pollutant Monitoring Station, 
(NCore), in Fairbanks, Alaska. These data indicate the monitored values 
of SO2 at this site have remained below the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS. Relevant data from EPA's Air Quality System \11\ 
(AQS) Design Value (DV) \12\ reports for recent and complete 3-year 
periods are summarized in Table 1. The design value for the Fairbanks 
monitor has decreased from 42 ppb in 2014 to 36 ppb in 2016, below 50% 
of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) contains ambient air 
pollution data collected by EPA, state, local, and tribal air 
pollution control agencies. See https://www.epa.gov/aqs.
    \12\ A ``Design Value'' is a statistic that describes the air 
quality status of a given location relative to the level of the 
NAAQS. The interpretation of the primary 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS (set at 75 parts per billion [ppb]) including the data 
handling conventions and calculations necessary for determining 
compliance with the NAAQS can be found in Appendix T to 40 CFR part 
50.

                      Table 1--Trend in 3-Year SO2 Design Values for AQS Monitor in Alaska
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     2012-2014       2013-2015       2014-2016
           AQS monitor site                       City                 (ppb)           (ppb)           (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
02-090-0034...........................  Fairbanks...............              42              37              36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NEI data summaries for Alaska have shown a decrease in the 
total statewide SO2 emissions by 6,447 tons per year, from 
2011 to 2014 (Table 2). The highest source sector for both 2011 and 
2014 inventory years was natural

[[Page 17630]]

wildfires. The decreasing trend in the NEI data support our proposed 
conclusion that Alaska does not contribute to the nonattainment of 
SO2 in other states and does not interfere with the 
maintenance of SO2 in others states.

               Table 2--Summary of NEI SO2 Data for Alaska
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Source sector                 2011 (tpy)      2014 (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area, Excluding Wildfires...............           1,728           1,336
Non-Road................................              65              20
On-Road.................................              51              50
Commercial Marine Vessels...............           7,148           2,471
Aviation (Aircraft & GSE)...............             429             399
Point...................................           5,795           5,211
Wildfires, Prescribed...................             203              79
Wildfires, Natural......................          13,095          12,501
                                         -------------------------------
    Total--All Sources..................          28,513          22,066
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, Alaska has various provisions and regulations to ensure 
that SO2 emissions are not expected to substantially 
increase in the future, further supporting the EPA's proposed 
conclusion that emissions from the state will not have downwind 
interstate transport impacts. The EPA reviewed regulatory provisions to 
control future new sources of SO2 emissions in Alaska. As 
previously discussed with respect to NO2, Alaska's PSD/NSR 
program was originally approved by the EPA on February 16, 1995 (60 FR 
8943) and updates to Alaska's PSD/NSR program were most recently 
approved by the EPA on August 28, 2017 (82 FR 40712). The minor NSR 
program was also updated on August 28, 2017 (82 FR 40712). These rules 
help ensure that no new or modified source of SO2 will cause 
or contribute to violation of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    Based on the analysis provided by Alaska DEC in its SIP submission 
and the factors discussed above, the EPA proposes to find that sources 
or emissions activity within the state will not contribute 
significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 
2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA has reviewed the March 10, 2016, submittal from the Alaska 
DEC demonstrating that sources in Alaska do not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2010 
NO2 and SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Based on 
our review, we are proposing to find that the Alaska SIP meets the CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 
2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations.\13\ 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 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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 actions such as 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 this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; 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 proposed action does not 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 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, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Sulfur 
dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 13, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018-08426 Filed 4-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P