[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 5, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26041-26047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11764]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0823, FRL-9994-48-Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; AK: Interstate Transport Requirements for the
2015 Ozone Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed 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 is
proposing to approve 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: Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2018-0823, 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 electronically submit 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: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Air and
[[Page 26042]]
Radiation Division, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, at (206) 553-
6357 or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it means the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. State Submission
III. EPA Evaluation
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revision to the ozone
NAAQS (2015 ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of both the primary and
secondary standards to 0.070 parts per million (ppm).\1\ Section
110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to submit, within
three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs
meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2).\2\ One of
these applicable requirements is found in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
otherwise known as the good neighbor provision, which generally
requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state
emissions activities from having certain adverse air quality effects on
other states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are four
so-called ``prongs'' within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) contains prongs 1 and 2, while section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) includes prongs 3 and 4. This action addresses the
first two prongs under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Under prongs 1 and 2
of the good neighbor provision, 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 the
NAAQS in another state (prong 1) or that will interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). Under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, the EPA and states must give independent
significance to prong 1 and prong 2 when evaluating downwind air
quality problems.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final
Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). Although the level of the
standard is specified in the units of ppm, ozone concentrations are
also described in parts per billion (ppb). For example, 0.070 ppm is
equivalent to 70 ppb.
\2\ SIP revisions that are intended to meet the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are often
referred to as infrastructure SIPs and the applicable elements under
110(a)(2) are referred to as infrastructure requirements.
\3\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909-911 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Regulatory Actions
The EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 with respect to prior ozone
NAAQS in several regional regulatory actions, including the Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which addressed interstate transport for
purposes of the 1997 ozone NAAQS (as well as the 1997 and 2006 fine
particulate matter standards) and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
Update, which addressed interstate transport for purposes of the 2008
ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update).\4\ CSAPR and the CSAPR Update did not
address interstate transport for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and also made no
specific findings with respect to Alaska. Alaska is not part of the
contiguous United States and is not fully contained within the 12
kilometer (km) eastern modeling domain established to inform CSAPR and
the CSAPR Update. The 12 km eastern modeling domain identified the
Western United States (the West) as the 11 western contiguous states of
Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,
Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The Eastern United States (the
East) was identified as the 37 states east of the 11 western states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (i.e., CSAPR) and 81 FR
74504 (October 26, 2016) (i.e., CSAPR Update).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four-Step Framework
The EPA, working in partnership with states to develop and
implement CSAPR, the CSAPR Update, and previous regional rulemakings
pursuant to the good neighbor provision,\5\ developed the following
four-step framework to address the requirements of the good neighbor
provision for the ozone NAAQS: \6\ (1) Identify downwind air quality
problems; (2) identify upwind states that impact those downwind air
quality problems sufficiently such that they are considered ``linked''
and therefore warrant further review and analysis; (3) identify the
emissions reductions necessary (if any), considering cost and air
quality factors, to prevent linked upwind states identified in step 2
from contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS at the locations of the downwind air quality
problems; and (4) adopt permanent and enforceable measures needed to
achieve those emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Other regional rulemakings addressing ozone transport
include the NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998),
and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25162 (May 12,
2005).
\6\ The four-step framework has also been used to address
requirements of the good neighbor provision for some previous
particulate matter and ozone NAAQS, including in the western United
States. See, e.g., 83 FR 30380 (June 28, 2018) and 83 FR 5375, 5376-
77 (February 7, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data To Assist States
To assist states, the EPA released several documents containing
information relevant to evaluating interstate transport with respect to
the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and we describe those documents in the following
sections. However, none of these documents consider ozone precursor
emissions to or from Alaska, and none project design values at
monitoring sites located in Alaska, nor apportion specific downwind
impacts to Alaska. Nonetheless, we have included all background
information to provide a complete accounting of the EPA's data
releases.
2017 Data Release and Memorandum
On January 6, 2017, the EPA published a notice of data availability
(NODA) for preliminary interstate ozone transport modeling with
projected ozone design values for 2023, on which we requested
comment.\7\ The year 2023 was used as the analytic year for this
preliminary modeling because that year aligns with the expected
attainment year for ozone nonattainment areas classified as
Moderate.\8\ On October 27, 2017, we released a memorandum (2017
memorandum) containing updated modeling data for 2023, which
incorporated changes made in response to comments on the NODA.\9\
Although the 2017 memorandum also released data for a 2023 modeling
year, we specifically stated that the modeling may be useful for states
developing SIPs to address remaining good neighbor obligations for the
2008 ozone NAAQS but did not address the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport Modeling Data for
the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 82 FR
1733 (January 6, 2017).
\8\ 82 FR 1735 (January 6, 2017).
\9\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017, available in the docket for
this action or at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 Data Release and Memoranda
On March 27, 2018, we issued a memorandum (March 2018
[[Page 26043]]
memorandum) indicating the same 2023 modeling data released in the 2017
memorandum would also be useful for evaluating potential downwind air
quality problems with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS (step 1 of the
four-step framework). The March 2018 memorandum included newly
available contribution modeling results to assist states in evaluating
their impact on potential downwind air quality problems (step 2 of the
four-step framework) as part of efforts to develop good neighbor SIPs
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\10\ The EPA subsequently issued two more
memoranda in August and October of 2018, providing guidance to states
developing good neighbor SIPs for the 2015 ozone NAAQS concerning,
respectively, potential contribution thresholds that may be appropriate
to apply in step 2 and considerations for identifying downwind areas
that may have problems maintaining the standard (under prong 2 of the
good neighbor provision) at step 1 of the four-step framework.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), March 27, 2018, available in the docket for this
action and at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
\11\ See Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean
Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, August 31, 2018) (``August 2018
memorandum''), and Considerations for Identifying Maintenance
Receptors for Use in Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions for the
2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, October 19, 2018,
available in the docket for this action and at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2018 Memorandum
The March 2018 memorandum describes the process and results of the
updated photochemical and source-apportionment modeling used to project
ambient ozone concentrations for the year 2023 and the state-by-state
impacts on those concentrations. The March 2018 memorandum also
explains that the selection of the 2023 analytic year aligns with the
2015 ozone NAAQS attainment year for Moderate nonattainment areas. As
described in more detail in the 2017 and March 2018 memoranda, the EPA
used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version
6.40) to model average and maximum design values in 2023 to identify
potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors (i.e., monitoring
sites that are projected to have problems attaining or maintaining the
2015 ozone NAAQS). The March 2018 memorandum presents design values
calculated in two ways. First, the EPA followed its past approach \12\
of using model predictions from the 3 x 3 array of grid cells
surrounding the location of all monitoring sites (referred to as the
``3 x 3'' approach). Second, the EPA followed a modified approach for
coastal monitoring sites in which ``overwater'' modeling data were not
included in the calculation of future year design values (referred to
as the ``no water'' approach).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See March 2018 memorandum, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of identifying potential nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in 2023, the EPA applied the same approach used in the CSAPR
Update, wherein the EPA considered a combination of monitoring data and
modeling projections to identify monitoring sites that are projected to
have problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA
identified nonattainment receptors as those monitoring sites with
current measured values \13\ exceeding the NAAQS that also have
projected (i.e., in 2023) average design values exceeding the NAAQS.
The EPA identified maintenance receptors as those monitoring sites with
maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS. This included sites with
current measured values below the NAAQS with projected average and
maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS, and monitoring sites with
projected average design values below the NAAQS but with projected
maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS. The EPA included the design
values and monitoring data for all monitoring sites projected to be
potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors based on the updated
2023 modeling in attachment B to the March 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The EPA used 2016 ozone design values, based on 2014
through 2016 measured data, which were the most current data at the
time of the analysis. See attachment B of the March 2018 memorandum,
p. B-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After identifying potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors, the EPA next performed state-level ozone source-
apportionment modeling for the 48 contiguous United States and the
District of Columbia to estimate the expected impact from each state to
each nonattainment and maintenance receptor.\14\ The EPA included
contribution information resulting from the source-apportionment
modeling in attachment C to the March 2018 memorandum. For more
specific information on the modeling and analysis, please see the 2017
and March 2018 memoranda, the NODA for the preliminary interstate
transport assessment, and the supporting technical documents included
in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ As discussed in the March 2018 memorandum, the EPA
performed source-apportionment model runs for a modeling domain that
covers the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia,
and adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the CSAPR and the CSAPR Update, the EPA used a threshold of 1
percent of the NAAQS to determine whether a given upwind state was
``linked'' at step 2 of the four-step framework and would therefore
contribute to downwind nonattainment and maintenance sites identified
in step 1. If a state's impact did not exceed the 1 percent threshold,
the upwind state was not ``linked'' to a downwind air quality problem,
and the EPA therefore concluded the state will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in the downwind states. However, if a state's impact exceeded the 1
percent threshold, the state's emissions were further evaluated in step
three, taking into account both air quality and cost considerations, to
determine what, if any, emissions reductions might be necessary to
address the good neighbor provision.
August and October 2018 Memoranda
As noted previously, on August 31, 2018, the EPA issued a
memorandum (the August 2018 memorandum) providing information
concerning potential contribution thresholds that may be appropriate to
apply with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS in step 2. Consistent with
the process for selecting the 1 percent threshold in CSAPR and the
CSAPR Update, the memorandum included analytical information regarding
the degree to which potential air quality thresholds would capture the
collective amount of upwind contribution from upwind states to downwind
receptors for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The August 2018 memorandum
indicated that, based on the EPA's analysis of its most recent modeling
data, the amount of upwind collective contribution captured using a 1
part per billion (ppb) threshold is generally comparable, overall, to
the amount captured using a threshold equivalent to 1 percent of the
2015 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, the EPA indicated that it may be
reasonable and appropriate for states to use a 1 ppb contribution
threshold, as an alternative to the 1 percent threshold, at step 2 of
the four-step framework in developing their SIP revisions addressing
the good
[[Page 26044]]
neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\15\ In addition, on
October 19, 2018, the EPA issued a memorandum presenting information
that states may consider as they evaluate the status of monitoring
sites that the EPA identified as potential maintenance receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See August 2018 memorandum, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the March 2018 memorandum presented information regarding the
EPA's latest analysis of ozone transport following the approaches the
EPA has taken in prior regional rulemaking actions, the EPA has not
made any final determinations regarding how states should identify
downwind receptors with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS at step 1 of
the four-step framework. Rather, the EPA noted that states have
flexibility in developing their own SIPs to follow different analytical
approaches than the EPA's, so long as their chosen approach has an
adequate technical justification and is consistent with the
requirements of the CAA.
II. State Submission
On October 25, 2018, the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC) made a submission addressing the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.\16\ The submission provides information supporting the state's
conclusion that emissions from Alaska do not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state. The submission focuses on the amount and sources of
ozone precursor emissions in the state, trends in monitored ambient
ozone levels, meteorological conditions, the distance from Alaska to
the nearest receptors in other states, and the intervening geography
that isolates Alaska from other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 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 intend
to address the remainder of the submission in separate, future
actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The submission states that aggregate anthropogenic ozone precursor
emissions (nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs)) from Alaska sources are very small compared to
emissions of ozone precursors on a nationwide basis. Specifically,
Alaska evaluated 2014 National Emissions Inventory data and determined
that anthropogenic NOX emissions from sources in Alaska make
up one percent of the national total anthropogenic NOX
emissions inventoried. In doing the same comparison for VOCs, Alaska
determined that anthropogenic emissions from Alaska sources make up
less than one-half percent of total anthropogenic VOC emissions
nationwide.
Alaska also included information on monitored ozone levels within
the state. ADEC has historically monitored ozone at numerous sites in
and around Anchorage and Fairbanks, the two most-populated areas. The
submission states that the single highest 8-hour ozone concentration in
Alaska was recorded at 0.057 ppm on May 11, 2014 at the Fairbanks
National Core (NCORE) site, which is still well below the 2015 ozone
standard of 0.070 ppm. The most recent locations for ozone monitoring
in Alaska are the Fairbanks National Core site and the Palmer site in
the Anchorage area, both of which have 2015 through 2017 design values
less than 85 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\17\ The 2015 through 2017
design value at the Fairbanks NCore site is 0.043 ppm and the 2015
through 2017 design value at the Palmer site is 0.044 ppm. The
submission asserts that ambient ozone measured in Alaska consistently
trends very low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Design values below 85 percent of the NAAQS are a factor in
determining the EPA's minimum ozone monitoring requirements in 40
CFR part 58, Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The submission highlights the geographic isolation of the State of
Alaska. Alaska borders no other state in the United States and the
intervening geography between Alaska and any other state is
significant. The southernmost Alaskan border is geographically
separated from the nearest state, Washington, by hundreds of miles of
mountainous terrain in British Columbia, Canada. The submission also
describes meteorological factors that influence potential interstate
transport from Alaska sources. In the summer months, 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 submission states these predominant
low-pressure wind patterns would not generally be expected to transport
air pollutants from Alaska south to the contiguous United States.
Alaska's submission points generally to SIP-approved regulations
that implement the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The submission highlights Alaska's
SIP-approved stationary source preconstruction permitting program set
forth in Articles 3 and 5 of Alaska Administrative Code Title 18,
Environmental Conservation, Chapter 50, Air Quality Control (18 AAC
50). Alaska's preconstruction permitting program is designed to control
future potential NOX and VOC emissions from major and minor
stationary sources in the state. The submission also notes other SIP-
approved rules that serve to limit NOX and VOCs, including
incinerator emission standards, emission limits for industrial
processes, and emission limits for fuel burning equipment.
III. EPA Evaluation
We have employed the four-step interstate transport framework to
evaluate whether the Alaska SIP meets the requirements of the good
neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. At step 1, we refer to the
EPA's March 2018 memorandum to identify downwind air quality problems.
This memo lists receptors at specific monitoring sites that are
projected to have problems attaining or maintaining the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA identified nonattainment receptors as
those monitoring sites with 2014 through 2016 measured design values
exceeding the NAAQS that also have projected average 2023 design values
that exceed the NAAQS. The EPA identified maintenance receptors as
those monitoring sites with maximum projected 2023 design values
exceeding the NAAQS. This includes sites with 2014 through 2016
measured design values below the NAAQS with projected average and
maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS, and monitoring sites with
projected average design values below the NAAQS but with projected
maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS. Receptors identified by the
EPA are in the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Maryland, Michigan, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See March 2018 memorandum, attachment B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the EPA's March 2018 memorandum helps to identify potential
downwind receptors in step 1, it does not inform whether Alaska is
sufficiently linked to those receptors, as is required in step 2 of the
EPA's four-step framework. The EPA did not include Alaska in the state-
level ozone source-apportionment modeling that estimated the expected
impact from each state to each nonattainment and maintenance
receptor.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See March 2018 memorandum, attachment C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the absence of such modeling and state level source
apportionment data at step 2, we have used a ``weight of
[[Page 26045]]
evidence'' approach to evaluate factors that together help determine
whether Alaska emissions are sufficiently linked to potential
nonattainment or maintenance receptors in other states. The factors
evaluated for purposes of this proposed action include emissions
inventory data, monitoring trends, geography, meteorology, and SIP-
approved provisions that limit current and future emissions of ozone
precursors, as described in the following paragraphs.
Emissions Inventory Data
According to the most recent, publicly-available census data,
Alaska's population is less than a million people (737,438).\20\
Stationary and mobile source emissions are related, in part, to an
area's population. As stated in the submission, and confirmed by 2014
National Emissions Inventory data, Alaska's stationary and mobile
source emissions of NOX and VOCs as precursors to ozone
formation comprise a very small fraction of emissions nationwide,
totaling just one percent and one-half percent, respectively.\21\
Compared to other states in the northwest, Alaska's NOX
emissions are in the middle of the range, while Alaska's VOC emissions
are low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ United States Census Bureau population estimate for Alaska,
July 1, 2018, published at: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ak,US/PST045218.
\21\ ``Biogenic sources'' and ``Fire sources'' are not included.
See EPA 2014 National Emissions Inventory Report, published at
https://gispub.epa.gov/neireport/2014/.
Table 1--2014 NEI Stationary and Mobile Source NOX and VOC Emissions
[Tons] \22\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Nationwide Alaska Idaho Oregon Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX............................. 12,233,224 127,194 81,135 125,626 234,050
VOCs............................ 12,388,288 63,408 86,332 134,431 241,561
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring Trends
In addition to emissions inventory data, we have evaluated historic
ozone monitoring data within Alaska. ADEC has monitored ozone in
Anchorage and Fairbanks over the last 10 years. The National Park
Service also monitors for ozone at Denali National Park.\23\ Minimum
monitoring requirements for ozone are established in 40 CFR part 58,
Appendix D, and make use of population data and design value history to
determine the minimum number of ozone monitors that are required in
areas of each state.\24\ The following table shows ozone design values
calculated from 2010 to the present. All are well below the 2015 ozone
NAAQS (0.070 ppm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Ibid.
\23\ Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET).
\24\ 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, Network Design Criteria for
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring, Table D-2. The 2018 Alaska
monitoring network plan was approved by the EPA on October 19, 2018.
The EPA approval letter is in the docket for this action.
Table 2--Alaska Ozone Design Value Trends
[ppm] \25\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site ID Location 2010-2012 2011-2013 2012-2014 2013-2015 2014-2016 2015-2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
020200018 Anchorage, Garden........ 0.045 .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
020680003 Denali National Park..... 0.052 0.052 0.053 0.054 0.053 0.050
020900034 Fairbanks, NCORE......... .............. .............. 0.046 0.045 0.041 0.043
021700012 Anchorage, Palmer........ .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 0.044
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geography and Meteorology
Another factor for consideration is that Alaska is geographically
vast and isolated from any other state in the United States. Alaska is
over 586,000 square miles in area and shares no borders with other
states.\26\ Alaska is bordered to the east by the Yukon Territory and
British Columbia, Canada. To the south is the Gulf of Alaska and the
Pacific Ocean. To the west is the Bering Sea, Bering Strait, and
Chukchi Sea. The Arctic Ocean lies to the north. Alaska is distant from
the nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the EPA's
March 2018 memorandum. The closest identified nonattainment receptor is
in Sacramento, California (Site ID 60675003) and the closest identified
maintenance receptor is also in Sacramento (Site ID 60670012).
California is over 1000 miles from Alaska's southernmost border and the
intervening topography in Alaska and British Columbia, Canada are
varied and includes mountainous and complex terrain.\27\ Geographically
situated between Alaska and California are the states of Washington and
Oregon. Each intervening state has equivalent or higher ozone precursor
emissions compared to Alaska,\28\ and each has been determined by the
EPA to contribute less than 1 percent to identified receptors in any
other state, including California.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ EPA 2017 Ozone Design Value Report, Table 6, Monitor
Trends, https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
\26\ 2015Alaska Air Quality Monitoring Network Assessment, p. 8,
published at http://dec.alaska.gov/air/air-monitoring/network-assessments.
\27\ Ibid, p. 10.
\28\ See ``Table 1: 2014 NEI Stationary and Mobile Source
NOX and VOC Emissions (tons)'' in the preceding
paragraph.
\29\ Washington and Oregon's modeled contribution to the
Sacramento nonattainment receptor (Site ID 60675003) is 0.14 ppb and
0.45 ppb, respectively. Washington and Oregon's modeled contribution
to the Sacramento maintenance receptor (Site ID 60670012) is 0.20
ppb and 0.57 ppb, respectively. See March 2018 memorandum,
attachment C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meteorology is also a factor that can limit potential transport of
emissions from Alaska to identified receptors. According to Alaska's
submission and the 2015 Alaska Air Quality Monitoring Network
Assessment, weather in Alaska during the summer months is influenced by
the jet stream and low-pressure systems that tend to move weather
patterns from south-central Alaska up into the Interior, not south to
the contiguous United States.\30\ The summer months are when ozone
levels are generally higher, and that holds true
[[Page 26046]]
at the Sacramento, California nonattainment and maintenance receptors,
which are those EPA-identified receptors closest to Alaska, discussed
in the previous paragraph.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Ibid, p. 23.
\31\ The high ozone season is May through October in the
Sacramento area. Sacramento Regional 8-hour Ozone Attainment and
Reasonable Further Progress plan, Chapter 1, page 1-1, which can be
found at http://www.airquality.org/businesses/air-quality-plans/federal-planning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska SIP
It is helpful to review a state's existing SIP-approved regulations
as part of a weight of evidence analysis. Therefore, we have evaluated
the current federally-approved Alaska SIP and those rules in the SIP
that are designed to limit emissions of NOX and VOCs from
existing and future sources. Alaska generally regulates emissions of
NOX and VOCs through its SIP-approved stationary source
preconstruction permitting programs, set forth in Articles 3 and 5 of
18 AAC 50, in addition to other regulations approved into the SIP and
described in this section. Stationary source preconstruction permitting
is known as new source review (NSR) and establishes requirements based
on a source's size and location, among other things. New and modified
major stationary sources located in designated nonattainment areas are
subject to nonattainment NSR permitting requirements (NNSR) for the
nonattainment pollutant. New and modified major stationary sources in
designated attainment and unclassifiable areas are subject to
prevention of significant deterioration permitting requirements (PSD).
Alaska's SIP approved NNSR and PSD programs are found in Article 3 of
18 AAC 50. Minor new and modified stationary sources are regulated by
Alaska's SIP-approved minor NSR program found in Article 5 of 18 AAC
50.
All of Alaska is designated ``attainment/unclassifiable'' for the
2015 ozone NAAQS.\32\ Therefore, with respect to ozone precursor
emissions, stationary sources seeking to construct or modify in Alaska
are subject to PSD and minor NSR, depending on the size of the source.
The Alaska PSD permitting program in Article 3 of 18 AAC 50 references
a suite of regulations approved into the Alaska SIP and makes use of
certain federal PSD requirements, set forth in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), and incorporated by reference into the Alaska SIP in
18 AAC 50.040. See 40 CFR 52.96. The EPA most recently approved updates
and revisions to the Alaska PSD permitting program on August 28, 2017
(82 FR 40712). The current SIP-approved Alaska PSD permitting program
incorporates by reference specific federal requirements in 40 CFR
52.21, 40 CFR 51.166, and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, as of July 1,
2017. The program has been updated for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and
regulates NOX and VOCs as precursors to ozone formation,
consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 40 CFR 81.302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turning to minor sources, Article 5 of 18 AAC 50 requires pre-
construction permitting for subject new and modified minor stationary
sources. SIP-approved minor NSR programs and revisions to such programs
must be consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR
51.160 through 51.164. Alaska's minor NSR program was originally
approved into the Alaska SIP on July 5, 1983 (48 FR 30623). We have
approved subsequent revisions, most recently on August 28, 2017 (82 FR
40712). Both Alaska's PSD and minor NSR programs are designed to limit
potential future emissions of NOX and VOCs.
In addition to permitting requirements, Alaska's SIP contains other
rules that also serve to limit NOX and VOCs. These rules
include incinerator emission standards (18 AAC 50.050) and emission
limits for industrial processes and fuel burning equipment (18 AAC
50.055).
Based on the factors evaluated and discussed in this proposal and
supporting material in the docket for this action, the EPA believes it
is reasonable to conclude that emissions from Alaska are not likely to
be linked to nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the contiguous
United States. We propose to find that Alaska's SIP contains adequate
provisions that are designed to limit future potential NOX
and VOC emissions, and therefore, the state is unlikely to be linked to
downwind receptors in the future. Accordingly, we have stopped our
evaluation at step 2 of the four-step framework.
IV. Proposed Action
As discussed in section II in this preamble, Alaska concluded that
emissions from sources in the state will not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state. The EPA's evaluation, discussed in section III in
this preamble, confirms this finding. We are proposing to approve the
Alaska SIP as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for
the 2015 ozone 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. 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 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:
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 it 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, 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
[[Page 26047]]
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, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 21, 2019.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2019-11764 Filed 6-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P