[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 18, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69331-69335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27162]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0823; FRL-10003-24-Region 10]


Air Plan Approval; AK: Interstate Transport Requirements for the 
2015 Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final 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 approves 
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: This final rule is effective January 17, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0823. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 
Confidential Business Information 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 form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov, or please 
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall (15-H13), Air and 
Radiation Division, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue (Suite 155), 
Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-6357, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it refers to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Response to Comment
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. Background

    On October 25, 2018, the Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation (ADEC) made a submission addressing the interstate 
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 
ozone NAAQS.\1\ This ``good neighbor'' provision of the CAA requires 
that 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 such NAAQS in any other state or that 
will interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 are 
addressing the remainder of the submission in separate actions on 
August 29, 2019 (84 FR 45419) and October 15, 2019 (84 FR 55094).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 5, 2019, we proposed to approve Alaska's SIP submission (84 
FR 26041). The reasons for our proposed approval are included in the 
proposed

[[Page 69332]]

action and will not be restated here. The public comment period for the 
proposed action closed on July 5, 2019. We received adverse comments 
from one anonymous commenter. Following is our response to each 
distinct issue raised by the commenter.

II. Response to Comment

    Comment 1: The commenter stated that the EPA should not approve 
Alaska's SIP submission because ADEC did not model Alaska emissions and 
the effect of those emissions on other states and Canada.
    Response 1: The commenter is correct that ADEC did not model Alaska 
emissions and the effect of those emission on other states and Canada. 
However, that is not a basis for disapproval in this instance. Alaska's 
SIP submission included information and analysis on the amount and 
sources of ozone precursor emissions from Alaska, trends in monitored 
ambient ozone levels, meteorological conditions, distances from Alaska 
to the nearest receptors in other states, and intervening geography 
that isolates Alaska from other areas that have ozone problems. ADEC 
concluded that emissions from Alaska sources do not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state 
and do not interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any 
other state.
    In our review, we evaluated Alaska's SIP submission and conducted 
our own weight of evidence analysis to determine whether we agreed with 
ADEC's conclusion. We assessed emissions inventory data, monitoring 
trends, geography, meteorology, and current SIP-approved provisions. We 
found these factors sufficiently informative regarding Alaska's 
potential to adversely impact air quality in downwind states without 
conducting modeling of emissions as suggested by the commenter, and 
therefore, proposed to approve the SIP submission. We note this is not 
a new approach. The EPA has conducted weight of evidence analyses to 
evaluate prior Alaska interstate transport SIP submissions, and we 
believe it to be a reasonable and appropriate approach in this 
instance.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Most recently, we took this approach in our June 27, 2018 
action approving the Alaska SIP for purposes of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2012 fine particulate matter 
NAAQS (83 FR 30048).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA further agrees that ADEC did not analyze potential 
transport to Canada, but that is not a deficiency in the State's 
analysis. The evaluation of international air quality impacts is not a 
requirement under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which is the only 
provision of the statute addressed in this action.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) and 115 address international 
pollution abatement. We proposed approval of this element for the 
2015 ozone NAAQS in a separate action on October 15, 2019 (84 FR 
55094). Alaska has no pending obligations under CAA section 115 with 
respect to Canada or any other foreign country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: The commenter stated, ``the EPA can't rely on relative 
emissions to justify [a finding of] no significant contribution or 
interference with maintenance'' of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The commenter 
also noted that, in our proposal, we showed that nitrogen oxide 
(NOX) emissions from certain Alaska sources ranked second 
highest in the region.
    Response 2: The commenter is correct that, based on the 2014 
National Emissions Inventory (2014 NEI), NOX emissions from 
mobile and stationary sources in Alaska ranked second highest of the 
Region 10 states.\4\ Our analysis, however, also compared Alaska 
emissions to those nationwide and determined that, based on the 2014 
NEI, NOX emissions from Alaska mobile and stationary sources 
totaled just one percent of national NOX emissions.\5\ This 
comparison of relative emissions puts Alaska emissions estimates into 
context and is a useful exercise in evaluating the Alaska ozone 
interstate transport SIP submission. Importantly, this was just one 
factor in our weight of evidence analysis and was considered in 
conjunction with other factors including monitoring trends, geography, 
meteorology, and current SIP-approved provisions. In particular, the 
fact that other, geographically-closer states with comparable or 
greater emission levels did not impermissibly impact downwind air 
quality problems supports the conclusion that Alaska emissions are not 
likely to be linked to identified nonattainment and maintenance 
receptors in any other state with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. We 
continue to find this to be true.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Alaska's stationary and mobile source NOX 
emissions were estimated to be 127,194 tons. Washington's emissions 
were higher (234,050 tons), while Oregon and Idaho's emissions are 
somewhat lower (125,626 and 81,135 tons, respectively).
    \5\ Based on the 2014 NEI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 3: The commenter took issue with the EPA's evaluation of 
in-state monitored ozone levels. The commenter asserted that in-state 
levels are not predictive of downwind levels.
    Response 3: We found it informative to review in-state monitored 
ozone levels as part of our weight of evidence analysis. This kind of 
information can shed light on whether in-state conditions are changing 
and whether those changes could have downwind implications. For 
example, if ozone levels at monitoring sites in Alaska were rising over 
time, it could suggest increased precursor emissions from Alaska 
sources which could also have impacts on downwind air quality in other 
states. In our proposal, we assessed monitored ozone trends in Alaska 
and determined that in-state ozone levels were well below the 2015 
ozone NAAQS. The table of design values in our proposal illustrated 
that trends have been generally flat from 2010 to 2017, suggesting that 
in-state sources of precursor emissions may not be changing much, and 
may not be a big factor potentially contributing to future transport 
problems.\6\ We reiterate that in-state monitored ozone levels were 
just one piece of information that helped to inform the EPA's analysis 
and conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Proposal published June 5, 2019, 84 FR 26041; at page 26045, 
Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 4: The commenter said we failed to mention that Alaska was 
not included in the EPA's modeling and suggested the EPA may have 
considered Alaska as an international contributor. The commenter 
concluded that we ignored Alaska emissions in our modeling and for that 
reason it is not appropriate to use the EPA's modeling data to identify 
downwind receptors in the first step of our analysis.
    Response 4: We disagree that the proposal failed to explain the 
scope of the modeling. Our proposal clearly stated that the EPA 
conducted modeling and released the data to states in the form of 
several memoranda, but that ``none [of the memoranda] project[ed] 
design values at monitoring sites located in Alaska, nor apportion[ed] 
specific downwind impacts to Alaska.'' \7\ We also stated that the 
memorandum released in March of 2018 helped to identify potential 
downwind receptors in the first step of our analysis, but that it did 
not inform whether Alaska was sufficiently linked to those receptors, 
under the second step of EPA's four-step analysis.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Proposal published June 5, 2019, 84 FR 26041; at page 26042, 
column 3.
    \8\ Ibid. at page 26044, column 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposal described the EPA's modeling domain (which included 
the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia) and 
referenced the 2018 memorandum, placed in the docket for this 
action.\9\ The EPA did not consider Alaska as an international 
contributor to downwind states, nor did we ignore Alaska emissions. Any 
pollutant concentrations from Alaska

[[Page 69333]]

emissions would have been included as part of the boundary condition 
concentrations used as inputs to the model. These boundary conditions 
along the perimeter of our modeling domain were derived from 
simulations of the GEOSChem global chemistry model for the year 
2011.\10\ A description of the GEOSChem modeling platform leveraged for 
these boundary conditions has been placed in the docket for this 
action.\11\ We continue to believe it is appropriate to use the 
modeling data released in the EPA's March 2018 memorandum to identify 
potential downwind receptors at the first step in our analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Ibid. at page 26043, column 2.
    \10\ The modeling domain is the area within the purple rectangle 
in Figure 2-1 of the EPA's Air Quality Modeling Technical Support 
Document for the Updated 2023 Projected Ozone Design Values, dated 
December 2018.
    \11\ B.H. Henderson et al.: A database and tool for boundary 
conditions for regional air quality modeling: Description and 
evaluation, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 339-360, 2014 (published February 
18, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 5: The commenter claimed that the EPA erred in calculating 
and using geographic distance and the relative emissions of intervening 
states as factors in our analysis. The commenter argued that it would 
be hard to imagine other states making this kind of assertion and the 
EPA treating it as a valid approach.
    Response 5: We believe it is appropriate and reasonable to consider 
the approximately 1,000-mile distance from Alaska's southernmost border 
to the nearest identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors 
(located in Sacramento, California) as part of our weight of evidence 
analysis in this action. We also believe it is appropriate to compare 
Alaska's emissions to those of intervening states (Washington and 
Oregon), which are closer to the Sacramento, California nonattainment 
and maintenance receptors, and which are not linked by the EPA's 
modeling to those Sacramento receptors. Our weight of evidence 
analytical approach is specific to Alaska and the submission before us, 
and functions, in the absence of the contribution data available with 
respect to impacts on downwind states within our modeling domain, to 
provide a screening level of analysis that Alaska's emissions are not 
significantly contributing to a downwind air quality problem.\12\ Our 
evaluation considers not just that the intervening states have higher 
emissions, but that at those higher levels, the impact on downwind air 
quality problems does not exceed the 1% air quality threshold. Thus, it 
is reasonable for the EPA to conclude that Alaska, at a greater 
distance and with lower emission levels, will also not exceed that 
threshold. The EPA has in fact employed this rationale in other actions 
under the good neighbor provision, where contribution modeling data was 
unavailable.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Proposal published June 5, 2019, 84 FR 26041; at page 
26045.
    \13\ See prior interstate transport actions with respect to the 
2012 fine particulate matter NAAQS. For example, the September 11, 
2019 action on the Utah SIP (84 FR 47893) and the August 20, 2018 
action on the Washington SIP (83 FR 42031).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 6: The commenter said the EPA should not point to the 
Alaska SIP-approved major new source review permitting programs as 
programs that help address potential future interstate transport of 
pollutants. The commenter claimed no such program has ever prevented a 
source from being constructed due to interstate transport concerns. The 
commenter further claimed that state permitting officials routinely 
``look the other way'' and that source owners and operators try to find 
loopholes or restrict their modeling to avoid performing analyses which 
would show impacts to nearby states.
    Response 6: In our proposal, we pointed to Alaska's SIP-approved 
preconstruction permitting programs (known as ``new source review'') as 
one piece of evidence in our weight of evidence analysis. We believe it 
is appropriate for the EPA to evaluate the current Federally-approved 
Alaska SIP on its face for measures that control emissions of ozone 
precursors. Alaska's new source review permitting programs are 
Federally-enforceable measures designed to control emissions from 
proposed new and modified stationary sources of regulated air 
pollutants, including NOX and VOCs as precursors to ozone.
    We most recently approved revisions to Alaska's new source review 
permitting programs on August 29, 2019 (84 FR 45419). Alaska routinely 
evaluates new source review permit applications from subject sources in 
Alaska and issues permits containing emission limits, work practice 
standards, monitoring requirements and other controls designed to 
ensure compliance with emission limits and provide for continued 
attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The EPA cited this program as helping to 
ensure that future changes in emissions from Alaska are not likely to 
lead to impermissible impacts on air quality in downwind states. 
Nonetheless, because the EPA finds in this action that Alaska will not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS downwind based on current emission levels, 
Alaska does not have an obligation to prohibit any specific level of 
emissions in the State under the good neighbor provision. Other 
provisions of the CAA (e.g., sections 110(k)(5) and 126(b)) provide 
bases for reevaluating this conclusion if future changes in emissions 
change Alaska's impact on downwind states.
    With respect to the commenter's concerns about implementation of 
permitting programs, the comment is vague and lacks supporting evidence 
or documentation. Moreover, this comment is related to implementation 
of the SIP, and is therefore outside the scope of this action. In the 
context of acting on infrastructure and interstate transport 
submissions, the EPA evaluates the submitting state's SIP for facial 
compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, not for the 
state's implementation of its SIP.\14\ The EPA has other authority to 
address any issues concerning a state's implementation of the rules, 
regulations, consent orders, etc. that comprise its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision in 
Montana Environmental Information Center v. EPA, No. 16-71933 (Aug. 
30, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 7: The commenter asserted the EPA should perform modeling 
and affirmatively determine whether Alaska sources significantly 
contribute to nonattainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state 
or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other 
state.
    Response 7: To help states develop interstate transport SIPs for 
the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the EPA modeled the contiguous United States and 
the District of Columbia and produced data projecting future design 
values at monitoring sites and apportioning specific downwind impacts 
to upwind states.\15\ The EPA's modeling did not quantify Alaska's 
contribution to downwind receptors, however nothing in the CAA requires 
the EPA to do so where other reasonable means are available for 
evaluating Alaska' s impact to downwind receptors. The EPA did not 
include Alaska in the modeling domain primarily because it is remote 
and isolated in relation to other states with identified nonattainment 
and/or maintenance receptors for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA relied on the best information available to inform its 
decision and evaluated Alaska's SIP submission through a weight of 
evidence analysis of information, including emissions inventory data, 
monitoring trends, geography, meteorology, and SIP-approved

[[Page 69334]]

provisions that limit current and future emissions of ozone precursors. 
The EPA has used a weight of evidence analysis to assess Alaska 
interstate transport SIP submissions in the past, most recently on June 
27, 2018 (83 FR 30048).\16\ None of the comments justify altering our 
proposed approval of Alaska's interstate transport SIP submission for 
the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, we are finalizing our action as 
proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ This action approved the Alaska SIP for purposes of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2012 fine particulate 
matter NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    We approve the Alaska SIP as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. This action is being taken under 
section 110 of the CAA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    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 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 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).
    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 tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the 
rule does not have tribal implications and it 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).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by February 18, 2020. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: December 2, 2019.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart C--Alaska

0
2. In Sec.  52.70, amend the table in paragraph (e) by adding the entry 
``Interstate Transport Requirements--2015 Ozone NAAQS'' at the end of 
the table to read as follows:


Sec.  52.70  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

[[Page 69335]]



                   EPA-Approved Alaska Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
      Name of SIP provision        Applicable geographic or   submittal   EPA approval date      Explanations
                                      nonattainment area        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Interstate Transport              Statewide................  10/25/2018  12/18/2019, [Insert  Approves SIP for
 Requirements--2015 Ozone NAAQS.                                          Federal Register     purposes of CAA
                                                                          citation].           section
                                                                                               110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I
                                                                                               ) for the 2015
                                                                                               Ozone NAAQS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-27162 Filed 12-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P