[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30380-30382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13861]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0060; FRL-9979-99--Region 10]


Air Plan Approval; Washington; Interstate Transport Requirements 
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that 
will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On 
February 7, 2018, the State of Washington made a submission to the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements. 
The EPA is proposing to approve the submission as meeting the 
requirement that each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit 
emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in any 
other state.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2018-0060 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: Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office 
of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 
1200 Sixth Ave., Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 
553-0256; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. This supplementary 
information section is arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?
II. What guidance or information is the EPA using to evaluate this 
SIP submission?
III. The EPA's Review
IV. What action is the EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?

    This rulemaking addresses a submission from the Washington 
Department of Ecology (Ecology) assessing interstate transport 
requirements for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 
requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises 
from section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), 
states must submit within 3 years (or such shorter period as the 
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national 
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof), a plan 
that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of 
such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make 
these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is 
not conditioned upon the EPA taking any action other than promulgating 
a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific 
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address. The EPA 
commonly refers to such state plans as ``infrastructure SIPs.'' 
Specifically, this rulemaking addresses the requirements under CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as the ``good neighbor'' 
provision, which requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to 
prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment 
or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state.

II. What guidance or information is the EPA using to evaluate this SIP 
submission?

    The most recent relevant document was a memorandum published on 
March 17, 2016, titled ``Information on the Interstate Transport ``Good

[[Page 30381]]

Neighbor'' Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' (memorandum). The memorandum describes the EPA's 
past approach to addressing interstate transport, and provides the 
EPA's general review of relevant modeling data and air quality 
projections as they relate to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 
The memorandum provides information relevant to the EPA Regional office 
review of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``good neighbor'' 
provision in infrastructure SIPs with respect to the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS. This rulemaking considers information provided 
in that memorandum.
    The memorandum also provides states and the EPA Regional offices 
with future year annual PM2.5 design values for monitors in 
the United States based on quality assured and certified ambient 
monitoring data and air quality modeling. The memorandum describes how 
these projected potential design values can be used to help determine 
which monitors should be further evaluated to potentially address 
whether emissions from other states significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS at those sites. The memorandum explains that the 
pertinent year for evaluating air quality for purposes of addressing 
interstate transport for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS is 2021, the 
attainment deadline for 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas 
classified as Moderate.
    Based on this approach, the potential receptors are outlined in the 
memorandum. Most of the potential receptors are in California, located 
in the San Joaquin Valley or South Coast nonattainment areas. However, 
there is also one potential receptor in Shoshone County, Idaho, and one 
potential receptor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The memorandum 
also indicates that for certain states with incomplete ambient 
monitoring data, additional information including the latest available 
data should be analyzed to determine whether there are potential 
downwind air quality problems that may be impacted by transported 
emissions.
    This rulemaking considers analysis in Washington's submission, as 
well as additional analysis conducted by the EPA during review of its 
submission. For more information on how we conducted our analysis, 
please see the technical support document (TSD) included in the docket 
for this action.

III. The EPA's Review

    This rulemaking proposes action on Washington's February 7, 2018, 
SIP submission addressing the good neighbor provision requirements of 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). State plans must address specific 
requirements of the good neighbor provisions (commonly referred to as 
``prongs''), including:

--Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one 
state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in 
another state (prong one); and
--Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one 
state from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state 
(prong two).

    The EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing the 
prong one and two interstate transport requirements with respect to the 
PM2.5 NAAQS in several previous federal rulemakings. The 
four basic steps of that framework include: (1) Identifying downwind 
receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining 
the relevant NAAQS; (2) identifying which upwind states contribute to 
these identified problems in amounts sufficient to warrant further 
review and analysis; (3) for states identified as contributing to 
downwind air quality problems, identifying upwind emissions reductions 
necessary to prevent an upwind state from significantly contributing to 
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the relevant NAAQS 
downwind; and (4) for states that are found to have emissions that 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the relevant NAAQS downwind, reducing the identified upwind 
emissions through adoption of permanent and enforceable measures. This 
framework was applied with respect to PM2.5 in the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), designed to address both the 1997 and 
2006 PM2.5 standards, as well as the 1997 ozone standard.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Washington was not part of the CSAPR rulemaking. The EPA 
approved the Washington SIP as meeting the CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 1997 ozone and 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS on January 13, 2009 (74 FR 1591) and the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS on July 30, 2015 (80 FR 45429).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its submission, Ecology generally mirrored the framework 
established by the EPA. Specifically: (1) Ecology reviewed past and 
current air quality nationwide to identify potential downwind receptors 
that may have problems attaining or maintaining the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) Ecology identified those western receptors 
from the broader nationwide list that may be impacted by Washington for 
further review and analysis; (3) Ecology then reviewed air quality 
reports, modeling results, designation letters, designation technical 
support documents, and available attainment plans to determine if 
emissions from Washington may impact these specific areas; (4) Lastly, 
Ecology conducted its own independent Hybrid Single Particle Lagrangian 
Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) back trajectory modeling for Shoshone 
County, Idaho to support the state's conclusion that sources in 
Washington are not significantly contributing to this receptor, or 
interfering with maintenance of this receptor. From this analysis, 
Ecology concluded that Washington does not significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.
    As discussed in the TSD for this action, we came to the same 
conclusion as the state. In our evaluation, potential downwind 
nonattainment and maintenance receptors were identified in other 
states. The EPA evaluated these potential receptors to determine first 
if, based on review of relevant data and other information, there would 
be downwind nonattainment or maintenance problems, and if so, whether 
Washington contributes to such problems in these areas. After reviewing 
air quality reports, modeling results, designation letters, designation 
technical support documents, attainment plans and other information for 
these areas, we find there is no contribution sufficient to warrant 
additional SIP measures. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the 
Washington SIP as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(i)(I) interstate 
transport requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

IV. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is proposing to approve Ecology's February 7, 2018, 
submission certifying that the Washington SIP is sufficient to meet the 
interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 
specifically prongs one and two, as set forth above. The EPA is 
requesting comments on the proposed approval.

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. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the

[[Page 30382]]

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 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 14, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018-13861 Filed 6-27-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P