[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 70 (Friday, April 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20165-20178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06685]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0140; FRL-10006-29-Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards; Colorado and North Dakota
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action on Colorado and North Dakota's Clean Air Act (CAA) state
implementation plan (SIP) submissions with respect to infrastructure
requirements for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). Specifically, the EPA is approving Colorado's September 17,
2018, infrastructure SIP in full, and approving North Dakota's November
6, 2018 infrastructure SIP in part (and disapproving in part). We are
also approving a portion of North Dakota's May 2, 2019, submission of
Chapter 33.1-15-15, the air pollution control rules of the State of
North Dakota, that updates the date of incorporation by reference (IBR)
of Federal rules.
[[Page 20166]]
DATES: This rule is effective on May 11, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0140 All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information whose disclosure 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 through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the persons identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amrita Singh, (303) 312-6103,
[email protected]; or Clayton Bean, (303) 312-6143,
[email protected]. Mail can be directed to the Air and Radiation
Division, U.S. EPA, Region 8, Mail-code 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.
I. Background
On March 12, 2008, the EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone,
revising the levels of primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards
from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). More
recently, on October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated and revised the NAAQS
for ozone, further strengthening the primary and secondary 8-hour
standards to 0.070 ppm (80 FR 65292). The October 1, 2015 standards are
known as the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA directs each state to make an
infrastructure SIP submission to the EPA within 3 years of promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS. Infrastructure requirements for SIPs are
provided in section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2)
lists the specific infrastructure elements that a SIP must contain or
satisfy. The elements that are the subject of the action are described
in detail in our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on July
29, 2019 (84 FR 36516).
II. Response to Comments
Comments on our NPRM were due on or before August 28, 2019. The EPA
received two substantive comments on the NPRM. The first comment,
pertaining to the Colorado portion of the NPRM, was submitted by the
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD); the second comment, pertaining
to the North Dakota portion of the NPRM, was submitted by the Dakota
Resource Council (DRC). The comments are summarized, and the EPA
responds to the comments in the following paragraphs.
Colorado Comment and Response
Comment: Commenter asserts that Colorado's Air Quality Control
Commission (AQCC) did not adequately consider its comments before
voting to approve Colorado's 2015 ozone infrastructure SIP for
submission to the EPA. The commenter states that the AQCC admitted on
the record at the public hearing that it had not reviewed its comment,
including the supporting exhibits that the commenter had submitted
prior to the public hearing and that Colorado's public comment period
was not adequate. The commenter maintains that it is arbitrary and
contrary to the public comment requirement for a state to grant an
opportunity for public comment, but then admit that it did not review
the submissions. The commenter acknowledges that the Colorado Air
Pollution Control Division (APCD) provided verbal responses to their
comments during the hearing, but characterizes these remarks as ``off
the cuff'' statements, which were insufficient because they were not
made by the decision-maker itself--the AQCC--and because the comments
could only be addressed by performing new air quality modeling.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CBD provided supporting material to its written comment in
the form of an audio file, which was delivered to the EPA Region 8
offices in Denver, CO. The regulations.gov site does not support the
upload of audio files into the docket, however, the audio file is
available for public inspection per our instructions in the
ADDRESSES section of the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: As noted, the Colorado 2015 ozone infrastructure SIP was
submitted to the EPA on September 17, 2018, following a public hearing
held by the State on August 16, 2018. Subsequently, on September 17,
2019, Colorado supplemented its submission and transmitted CBD's
original comment and exhibits to the EPA (available in the docket to
this action).
After reviewing the comment, exhibits, and audio file of the AQCC
hearing, the EPA concludes that CBD's comment fails to demonstrate that
the State's public comment period was not adequate. On the date of the
hearing, CBD sent an email to the State, commenting, in relevant part,
``Attached are two papers I intend to discuss in my comments today on
the proposed good neighbor SIP for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.'' The email
contained two exhibits: An article titled ``Unexpected slowdown of US
pollutant emission reduction in the past decade'' and an article titled
``Agriculture is a major source of NOX pollution in
California.'' At the hearing, CBD asserted that the AQCC must consider
the two reports. The first report, according to CBD, ``finds that the
reductions of NOX''--an ozone precursor--``are becoming much
slower than what was predicted.'' Thus, CBD concludes, the AQCC must
``take that into account.'' The second report concerns NOX
emissions from agricultural fertilizer in California. While CBD
acknowledges that the report addresses California, CBD claims the AQCC
must determine whether agricultural emissions are adequately accounted
for ``in all relevant states.''
The commenter had the opportunity, at the public hearing, to
explain the significance of the documents it submitted to support its
oral comments and, the commenter did so. The audio record of the
hearing indicates that a commissioner of the AQCC stated that because
the commenter had submitted the documents shortly before the hearing,
the AQCC had not had a chance to look at them. Nevertheless, a
commissioner of the AQCC invited a response from ``staff'' to the
issues raised by the commenter at the hearing. In response, a
representative from the APCD stated, in part, that its interstate
transport SIP submission is not designed to address other states'
contributions to Colorado's nonattainment areas. A second state
representative explained that Colorado's ``highest value is at 0.33
[ppb of ozone?], which is less than half of the value that is deemed
significant'' and there would need to be a ``dramatic change'' to show
that Colorado was significantly contributing to another state. These
statements indicate that the State did consider the commenters'
concerns at the public hearing, even if the State disagreed with the
commenter and the relevance of the submitted documents.
CAA section 110(a) requires that each state provide ``reasonable
notice and public hearing'' in connection with SIP submissions. The
EPA's regulations further require, in part, that states provide notice
and the opportunity to submit written comments. 40 CFR 51.102. Under
the specific circumstances, here, although Colorado's response to the
comment was not robust, the commenter has not demonstrated that
Colorado's public hearing was not adequate, nor that Colorado had
failed to provide an
[[Page 20167]]
opportunity to submit comments. Despite being provided the opportunity
to explain the significance of the submitted documents (either orally
or in writing), the commenter's remarks about the significance of the
documents were brief and general.\2\ The AQCC did not ignore the
commenter, but provided the commenter with an opportunity to explain
concerns based on the submitted documents, apparently attended to that
explanation, and invited (and received) input from APCD staff
concerning the material submitted by the commenter. The commenter's
suggestion that the remarks by APCD staff were speculative and
meaningless and that it was necessary for Colorado to re-run modeling
based on the submitted documents is not adequately supported.\3\ Under
the circumstances, including the commenter's very limited explanation
concerning the significance of the documents submitted at the hearing,
the input from APCD staff at the hearing, and the apparent nature of
the documents (including that they were prepared in other contexts and
not directly germane to the SIP submission at issue), Colorado not
conducting additional photochemical grid modeling based on a general
request to take the reports ``into account'' was reasonable. Given the
lack of specificity in CBD's comments and with respect to the
significance of the submitted documents, the agency does not agree that
the public comment opportunity provided by Colorado was not adequate.
It is a commenter's responsibility to make assertions with reasonable
specificity during the public comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ It is worth noting that the commenter, in submitting
comments in response to the NPRM, did not submit to the EPA the
papers it had tendered to the AQCC and it made only passing
reference to exhibits it had submitted to the AQCC. The commenter
made no attempt to meaningfully discuss the exhibits or clearly
explain the significance of the material.
\3\ The commenter ``cannot undermine'' a model simply by
``pointing to variable not taken into account that might conceivably
have pulled the analysis's sting.'' Appalachian Power v. EPA, 135
F.3d 791, 805 (D.C. Cir. 1998). CBD must show how that failure
``would have a significant effect'' on the outcome. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Commenter asserts that the EPA must disapprove the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (interstate transport prongs 1 and 2)
portion of Colorado's SIP for the 2015 ozone NAAQS because the proposed
approval relied on the EPA's source-apportionment modeling for the year
2023 that was released with the EPA's March 2018 Memo.\4\ The commenter
states that this modeling is not reliable because the ``EPA is actively
working to undo a number of major rules that underpin the 2023 modeling
results.'' The commenter specifically cites the EPA's proposed repeal
of the ``Glider Rule'' establishing emission requirements for glider
vehicles, glider engines, and glider kits; \5\ the Department of
Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
proposed repeal of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards
for light-duty vehicles and the EPA's simultaneous proposed repeal of
vehicle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) standards; \6\ and the proposed withdrawal
the Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for the oil and gas
industry.\7\ The commenter also cites the repeal of the Clean Power
Plan and its replacement with the ``more-polluting'' Affordable Clean
Energy (ACE) rule. The commenter states that all of these actions
``erode the accuracy of EPA's 2023 modeling projections and further
demonstrates the arbitrariness of EPA's reliance on that modeling to
approve Colorado's Good Neighbor provision.'' The commenter asserts
that reliance on the modeling is arbitrary with regard to both steps 1
and 2 of the EPA's analysis because it underestimates values at
downwind receptors as well as Colorado's contributions to those
receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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),'' (Mar. 27, 2018), available in the docket for
this action or at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-airpollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
\5\ See ``Repeal of Emission Requirements for Glider Vehicles,
Glider Engines, and Glider Kits'' 82 FR 53442 (Nov. 16, 2017).
\6\ See ``The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles
Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks,'' 83
FR 42986 (Aug. 24, 2018).
See ``2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards,'' 77 FR
62624, 62899-900 (Oct. 15, 2012).
\7\ See ``Notice of Proposed Withdrawal of the Control
Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry,'' 83 FR
10478 (Mar. 9, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter also states that the EPA's 2023 modeling projections
failed to account for non-air quality regulations that had been rolled
back, stating without reference ``both the coal combustion waste and
the steam electric effluent limitation guidance rules'' and ``state
level bailouts for dirty sources of pollution, like in Ohio.'' The
commenter states that ``these rollbacks are designed to make dirty
forms of energy more economic so that they are dispatched more, which
results in more pollution.''
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that its 2023
modeling projections are unreliable because of potential changes to
other regulations. The EPA first notes that the Agency has not
finalized proposed regulatory changes to the Glider Rule or the oil and
gas CTG. The EPA's normal practice is to only include changes in
emissions from final regulatory actions in its modeling because, until
such rules are finalized, any potential changes in NOX or
VOC emissions are speculative.
The EPA did finalize a portion of the revisions to the CAFE
standards for light duty vehicles, specifically the withdrawal of the
waiver the agency had previously provided to California for its GHG and
Zero Emissions Vehicle programs under section 209 of the CAA.\8\ This
final action does not have any impact on Colorado's modeled 2023
emissions. The model year 2017-2025 GHG regulations for cars and light
trucks were projected to yield small but measurable criteria and toxic
emissions reductions from vehicles. Because the vehicles affected by
the 2017-2025 GHG standards would still need to meet applicable
criteria pollutant emissions standards (e.g., the Tier 3 emissions
standards; 79 FR 23414), the regulatory impact analysis that
accompanied the proposed revision to the GHG standards estimated a very
limited impact on criteria and toxic pollutant emissions (increases in
upstream emissions \9\ and decreases in tailpipe emissions). Moreover,
the proposed SAFE Vehicles Rule specifically notes that none of the
regulatory alternatives considered ``would noticeably impact net
emissions of smog-forming or other `criteria' or toxic air
pollutants.'' 83 FR 42996. Although on September 19, 2019, the EPA
signed a final rule withdrawing a waiver for the State of California's
GHG and zero emissions vehicle programs under CAA section 209, the EPA
has not yet acted on the regulatory alternatives identified in the
proposed SAFE Vehicles Rule.\10\ In general, the mobile source and non-
EGU emissions inventories do not reflect changes in emissions resulting
from rulemakings finalized in calendar year 2016 or later, nor do they
reflect any rules proposed but not yet finalized since 2016, as only
[[Page 20168]]
finalized rules are reflected in modeling inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See ``The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles
Rule Part One: One National Program,'' 84 FR 51310 (Sep. 27, 2019).
\9\ In this context, ``upstream emissions'' refer to the
estimated emissions attributed to the extraction and transportation
of crude oil, refining of crude oil, and distribution and storage of
finished gasoline. See the NPRM for ``The Safer Affordable Fuel-
Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program,'' at
83 FR 42986, August 24, 2018.
\10\ See prepublication version of The Safer Affordable Fuel-
Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program, Final
Rule (signed September 19, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the commenter has not demonstrated that the potential
changes to nationally applicable rules noted by the commenter might
reasonably be expected to impact Colorado's modeled contributions to
projected downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors, to the
degree that Colorado sources might contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance at any of these receptors.
In the 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and the 2016 CSAPR
Update, the EPA used a threshold of one percent of the NAAQS (0.7 ppb
of ozone) 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 equal or exceed the one percent threshold, the
upwind state was not ``linked'' to a downwind air quality problem, and
on this basis the EPA concluded the state will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in the downwind states.
As stated in the NPRM, the EPA's updated 2023 modeling, discussed
in the March 2018 Memo, indicates that Colorado's largest impacts on
any potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptor in the
United States are 0.33 ppb and 0.27 ppb, respectively. These values are
less than half of 0.70 ppb, or the value equivalent to one percent of
the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\11\ The commenter has not provided any
information to demonstrate how ozone precursor emissions from sources
located in Colorado might be expected to increase in such a way as to
cause Colorado's projected impact to approach a 0.70 ppb contribution
at any downwind receptor. Therefore, the EPA disagrees with the
commenter that the EPA's 2023 modeling projections cannot be relied
upon to conclude that emissions from Colorado will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015
ozone NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Because none of Colorado's impacts to nonattainment or
maintenance receptors exceed 0.70 ppb, they necessarily also do not
exceed the 1 ppb contribution threshold discussed in the EPA's
memorandum ``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,'' (Aug. 31, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter also has not demonstrated that the potential changes
to nationally applicable rules noted by the commenter might reasonably
be expected to cause our 2023 modeling analysis to underestimate values
at downwind receptors, and specifically to underestimate these values
in such a way that would cause receptors to which Colorado contributes
above 0.70 ppb to be considered nonattainment and/or maintenance in
2023. Table 1 below lists the downwind receptors in the 2023 modeling
to which Colorado was projected to contribute above 0.70 ppb. As shown,
none of these downwind receptors is projected to come near the
nonattainment or maintenance level of 71.0 ppb. For this reason, even
if downwind receptor 2023 projections were expected to increase (which
we do not anticipate), such increases would be very unlikely to convert
these receptors to nonattainment or maintenance for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
Table 1--Downwind State Receptors With Colorado Contributions Above 0.70 ppb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 CO
Site ID State 2023 avg DV 2023 max DV contribution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
560210100............................. Wyoming................. 62.4 62.4 7.99
350451005............................. New Mexico.............. 55.3 57.0 2.04
350450009............................. New Mexico.............. 56.7 59.0 1.24
460930001............................. South Dakota............ 52.0 53.3 1.13
350450018............................. New Mexico.............. 62.0 62.0 1.00
560050123............................. Wyoming................. 59.3 60.5 0.80
400159008............................. Oklahoma................ 61.2 63.1 0.71
201730010............................. Kansas.................. 61.9 63.2 0.70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the commenter's assertion that the EPA's 2023 modeling
projections failed to account for non-air quality related ``rules'' and
``bailouts,'' \12\ the EPA finds that the commenter has failed to
provide any data or other information to show how these actions ``would
have a significant effect'' on the EPA's modeling results.\13\ Based on
this particular comment's lack of both context and information, the EPA
finds that the comment does not present evidence that the EPA's 2023
modeling projections are not a sufficient basis for the EPA to conclude
that Colorado does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in the downwind
states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ As noted, the commenter did not provide references for any
of these actions (other than an oblique reference to ``like in
Ohio''), and the EPA therefore lacks the context necessary to
accurately describe them.
\13\ See Appalachian Power v. EPA, 135 F.3d at 805: ``The party
challenging the use'' of, in this case, an air quality modeling
analysis, ``must identify clearly major variables the omission of
which renders the analysis suspect,'' including ``data to support
the assertion that additional factors . . . would have a significant
effect'' on the modeling results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Commenter asserts that the EPA's reliance on the 2023
modeling projections from the March 2018 Memo was inappropriate because
the Marginal attainment date for the 2015 ozone NAAQS falls before
2023, and ``most of the downwind areas are marginal nonattainment
areas.'' The commenter explains that the EPA's use of the attainment
date for Moderate areas is contrary to the good neighbor provision of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as well as the CAA requirements for
expeditious attainment of the NAAQS. Thus, the commenter concludes that
the EPA must use a date in its future year modeling analysis no later
than the attainment date for marginal nonattainment areas, which would
both increase the number of nonattainment and maintenance receptors and
increase Colorado's contribution to those receptors.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that it is
inappropriate to rely on the EPA's modeling from the March 2018 Memo
because our 2023 projections are aligned with the Moderate rather than
Marginal attainment date for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA further
notes that, even if it were appropriate to evaluate downwind air
quality and upwind contributions consistent with the
[[Page 20169]]
Marginal area attainment date of 2021, Colorado's impacts on these
areas in 2021 would be similar to those projected in 2023, as detailed
further below. EPA modeling in support of the CSAPR Update Rule for the
2008 ozone NAAQS projected that Colorado's largest impact to any
downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2017 was 0.31
ppb.\14\ As noted, in the March 2018 Memo we projected a maximum impact
of 0.33 ppb to any downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor in
2023. Both of these maximum impacts were projected at the same receptor
in Tarrant County, Texas. To estimate Colorado's maximum contribution
to a potential nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2021, the EPA
used a linear interpolation which calculated the average contribution
from Colorado to the Tarrant County receptor using the underlying daily
2023 contribution data for the same days that were used to calculate
the average contribution for 2017. Specifically, the 2017 contribution
analysis included 5 days and we used the daily contributions from these
same 5 days to calculate the Transport Future Year 2023 average
contribution. Using this consistent methodology, the contribution from
Colorado to the Tarrant County receptor in 2023 is 0.3135 ppb,
virtually unchanged from the 0.3137 ppb contribution modeled in 2017.
The EPA calculated the linear rate of decline for contribution from
Colorado to the Tarrant County receptor to calculate a 2021
contribution of 0.3136 ppb.\15\ Based on this analysis, the EPA finds
it reasonable to conclude that Colorado impacts to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors in any years between 2017 and
2023, including 2021, would also be projected to be well below 0.70
ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See the EPA's ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document for the Final Cross State Air Pollution Rule Update''
(August 2016), in the docket for this action.
\15\ A spreadsheet with the calculations from this linear
interpolation is included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also believes that 2023 is an appropriate year for analysis
of good neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS because the 2023
ozone season is the last relevant ozone season during which achieved
emissions reductions in linked upwind states could assist downwind
states with meeting the August 2, 2024 Moderate area attainment date
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA recognizes that the attainment date
for nonattainment areas classified as Marginal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
is August 2, 2021, which currently applies in several nonattainment
areas downwind of Colorado evaluated in the EPA's modeling.\16\ The EPA
is further cognizant of the D.C. Circuit's September 13, 2019 decision
in Wisconsin v. EPA. 938 F.3d 303. In this ruling, the court addressed
legal challenges to the CSAPR Update, in which the EPA partially
addressed certain upwind states' prongs 1 and 2 obligations for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. While the court generally upheld the rule as to most
of the challenges raised in the litigation, the court remanded the
CSAPR Update to the extent it failed to require upwind states to
eliminate their significant contributions in accordance with the
attainment dates found in CAA section 181 by which downwind states must
come into compliance with the NAAQS. Id. at 313. However, as explained
below, the EPA does not believe that either the statute or applicable
case law requires the evaluation of good neighbor obligations in a
future year aligned with the attainment date for nonattainment areas
classified as Marginal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The Marginal area attainment date is not applicable for
nonattainment areas already classified as Moderate or higher, such
as the New York Metropolitan Area. For the status of all
nonattainment areas under the 2015 ozone NAAQS, see U.S. EPA, 8-Hour
Ozone (2015) Designated Area/State Information, https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/jbtc.html (last updated Sept. 30,
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The good neighbor provision instructs the EPA and states to apply
its requirements ``consistent with the provisions of'' title I of the
CAA. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i); see also North Carolina v. EPA, 531
F.3d 896, 911-12 (D.C. Cir. 2008). This consistency instruction follows
the requirement that plans ``contain adequate provisions prohibiting''
certain emissions in the good neighbor provision. As the D.C. Circuit
held in North Carolina, and more recently in Wisconsin, the good
neighbor provision must be applied in a manner consistent with the
designation and planning requirements in title I that apply in downwind
states and, in particular, the timeframe within which downwind states
are required to implement specific emissions control measures in
nonattainment areas and submit plans demonstrating how those areas will
attain, relative to the applicable attainment dates. See North
Carolina, 896 F.3d at 912 (holding that the good neighbor provision's
reference to title I requires consideration of both procedural and
substantive provisions in title I); Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 313-18.
While the EPA recognizes, as the court held in North Carolina and
Wisconsin, that upwind emissions-reduction obligations therefore must
generally be aligned with downwind receptors' attainment dates, unique
features of the statutory requirements associated with the Marginal
area planning requirements and attainment date under CAA section 182
lead the EPA to conclude that it is more reasonable and appropriate to
require the alignment of upwind good neighbor obligations with later
attainment dates applicable for Moderate or higher classifications.
Under the CAA, states with areas designated nonattainment are generally
required to submit, as part of their state implementation plan, an
``attainment demonstration'' that shows, usually through air quality
modeling, how an area will attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. See CAA section 172(c)(1).\17\ Such plans must also
include, among other things, the adoption of all ``reasonably
available'' control measures on existing sources, a demonstration of
``reasonable further progress'' toward attainment, and contingency
measures, which are specific controls that will take effect if the area
fails to attain by its attainment date or fails to make reasonable
further progress toward attainment. See, e.g., CAA section 172(c)(1);
172(c)(2); 172(c)(9). Ozone nonattainment areas classified as Marginal
are excepted from these general requirements under the CAA--unlike
other areas designated nonattainment under the Act (including for other
NAAQS pollutants), Marginal ozone nonattainment areas are specifically
exempt from submitting an attainment demonstration and are not required
to implement any specific emissions controls at existing sources in
order to meet the planning requirements applicable to such areas. See
CAA section 182(a) (``The requirements of this subsection shall apply
in lieu of any requirement that the State submit a demonstration that
the applicable implementation plan provides for attainment of the ozone
standard by the applicable attainment date in any Marginal Area.'')
\18\ Marginal ozone
[[Page 20170]]
nonattainment areas are also exempt from demonstrating reasonable
further progress towards attainment and submitting contingency
measures. See CAA section 182(a) (does not include a reasonable further
progress requirement and specifically notes that ``Section [172(c)(9)]
of this title (relating to contingency measures) shall not apply to
Marginal Areas'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Part D of title I of the Clean Air Act provides the plan
requirements for all nonattainment areas. Subpart 1, which includes
section 172(c), applies to all nonattainment areas. Congress
provided in subparts 2-5 additional requirements specific to the
various NAAQS pollutants that nonattainment areas must meet.
\18\ States with Marginal nonattainment areas are required to
implement new source review permitting for new and modified sources,
but the purpose of those requirements is to ensure that potential
emissions increases do not interfere with progress towards
attainment, as opposed to reducing existing emissions. Moreover, the
EPA acknowledges that states within ozone transport regions must
implement certain emission control measures at existing sources in
accordance with CAA section 184, but those requirements apply
regardless of the applicable area designation or classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing regulations--either local, state, or Federal--are
typically a part of the reason why ``additional'' local controls are
not needed to bring Marginal nonattainment areas into attainment. As
described in the EPA's record for its final rule defining area
classifications for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and establishing associated
attainment dates, history has shown that the majority of areas
classified as Marginal for prior ozone standards attained the
respective standards by the Marginal area attainment date (i.e.,
without being re-classified to a Moderate designation). 83 FR 10376. As
part of a historical lookback, the EPA calculated that by the relevant
attainment date for areas classified as Marginal, 85 percent of such
areas attained the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and 64 percent attained the
2008 ozone NAAQS. See Response to Comments, section A.2.4.\19\ Based on
these historical data, the EPA expects that many areas classified
Marginal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS will also attain by the relevant
attainment date as a result of emissions reductions that are already
expected to occur through implementation of existing local, state, and
Federal emissions reduction programs. To the extent states have
concerns about meeting their attainment date for a Marginal area, the
CAA under section 181(b)(3) provides authority for them to voluntarily
request a higher classification for individual areas, if needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0202-0122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas that are classified as Moderate typically have more
pronounced air quality problems than Marginal areas or have been unable
to attain the NAAQS under the minimal requirements that apply to
Marginal areas. See CAA sections 181(a)(1) (classifying areas based on
the degree of nonattainment relative to the NAAQS) and (b)(2)
(providing for reclassification to the next highest designation upon
failure to attain the standard by the attainment date). Thus, unlike
Marginal areas, the statute explicitly requires a state with an ozone
nonattainment area classified as Moderate or higher to develop an
attainment plan demonstrating how the state will address the more
significant air quality problem, which generally requires the
application of various control measures to existing sources of
emissions located in the nonattainment area. See generally CAA sections
172(c) and 182(b)-(e).
Given that downwind states are not required to demonstrate
attainment by the attainment date or impose additional controls on
existing sources in a Marginal nonattainment area, the EPA believes
that it would be inconsistent to interpret the good neighbor provision
as requiring the EPA to evaluate the necessity for upwind state
emissions reductions based on air quality modeled in a future year
aligned with the Marginal area attainment date. Rather, the EPA
believes it is more appropriate and consistent with the nonattainment
planning provisions in title I of the Act to evaluate downwind air
quality and upwind state contributions, and, therefore, the necessity
for upwind state emissions reductions, in a year aligned with an area
classification in connection with which downwind states are also
required to demonstrate attainment and implement controls on existing
sources -- i.e., with the Moderate area attainment date, rather than
the Marginal area date. With respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the
Moderate area attainment date will be in the summer of 2024, and the
last full year of monitored ozone-season data that will inform
attainment demonstrations is, therefore, 2023.
The EPA's interpretation of the good neighbor requirements in
relation to the Marginal area attainment date is consistent with the
Wisconsin opinion. For the reasons explained below, the court's holding
does not contradict the EPA's view that 2023 is an appropriate analytic
year in evaluating good neighbor SIPs for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The
court in Wisconsin was concerned that allowing upwind emission
reductions to be implemented after the applicable attainment date would
require downwind states to obtain more emissions reductions than the
Act requires of them, to make up for the absence of sufficient
emissions reductions from upwind states. See 938 F.3d at 316. As
discussed previously, however, this equitable concern only arises for
nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or higher for which downwind
states are required by the CAA to develop attainment plans securing
reductions from existing sources and demonstrating how such areas will
attain by the attainment date. See, e.g., CAA section 182(b)(1) & (2)
(establishing ``reasonable further progress'' and ``reasonably
available control technology'' requirements for Moderate nonattainment
areas). Ozone nonattainment areas classified as Marginal are not
required to meet these same planning requirements, and thus the
equitable concerns raised by the Wisconsin court do not arise with
respect to downwind areas subject to the Marginal area attainment date.
The distinction between planning obligations for Marginal
nonattainment areas and higher classifications was not before the court
in Wisconsin. Rather, the court was considering whether the EPA, in
implementing its obligation to promulgate Federal implementation plans
under CAA section 110(c), was required to fully resolve good neighbor
obligations by the 2018 Moderate area attainment date for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. See 938 F.3d at 312-13. Although the court noted that
petitioners had not ``forfeited'' an argument with respect to the
Marginal area attainment date, see id. at 314, the court did not
address whether its holding with respect to the 2018 Moderate area date
would have applied with equal force to the Marginal area attainment
date because that date had already passed. Thus, the court did not have
the opportunity to consider these differential planning obligations in
reaching its decision regarding the EPA's obligations relative to the
then-applicable 2018 Moderate area attainment date because such
considerations were not applicable to the case before the court.\20\
For the reasons discussed here, the equitable concerns supporting the
Wisconsin court's holding as to upwind state obligations relative to
the Moderate area attainment date also support the EPA's interpretation
of the good neighbor
[[Page 20171]]
provision relative to the Marginal area attainment date. Thus, the EPA
concludes that its reliance on an evaluation of air quality in the 2023
analytical year for purposes of assessing good neighbor obligations
with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS is based on a reasonable
interpretation of the CAA and legal precedent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The D.C. Circuit, in a short judgment, subsequently vacated
and remanded the EPA's action purporting to fully resolve good
neighbor obligations for certain states for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
referred to as the CSAPR Close-Out, 83 FR 65878 (Dec. 21, 2018). New
York v. EPA, No. 19-1019 (Oct. 1, 2019). That result necessarily
followed from the Wisconsin decision, because as the EPA conceded,
the Close-Out ``relied upon the same statutory interpretation of the
Good Neighbor Provision'' rejected in Wisconsin. Id. slip op. at 3.
In the Close-Out, the EPA had analyzed the year 2023, which was two
years after the Serious area attainment date for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS and not aligned with any attainment date for that NAAQS. Id.
at 2. In New York, as in Wisconsin, the court was not faced with
addressing specific issues associated with the unique planning
requirements associated with the Marginal area attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Commenter asserts that the EPA must disapprove the SIP
under CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) (Adequate resources and authority)
because the State of Colorado lacks adequate legal authority to
regulate emissions from agriculture sources. The commenter quotes
Colorado Revised Statues 25-7-109(8)(a) to state that this provision
prohibits Colorado from being able to protect visibility and air
quality in Class 1 areas from agricultural sources. Furthermore, the
commenter asserts that the EPA must disapprove the SIP under CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(D) (interstate transport prong 4) and 110(a)(2)(J)
(consultation with government officials, public notification, and PSD
and visibility protection) because of visibility impairment caused by
agricultural emissions. Finally, the commenter also calls on the EPA to
disapprove the SIP under CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) (emissions limits and
other control measures) by explaining the State is unable to maintain
the NAAQS because Colorado lacks the authority to control emissions
from agriculture and pesticides, ``even if such sources are not major
stationary sources . . . .''
Response: Colorado's infrastructure SIP submission confirms that
``[t]here are no state or federal provisions prohibiting the
implementation of any provision of the Colorado SIP.'' Specifically,
Colorado cites to ``general authority to adopt the rules and
regulations necessary to implement the SIP'' as ``set out in the
Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act Section 25-7-105 of
the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.),'' general authority to
administer and enforce the program in 25-7-111, C.R.S, additional
authority to regulate air pollution and implement provisions in the SIP
in the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act, Article 7 of
title 25, and authority delegated under Sections 42-4-301 through 42-4-
316, C.R.S. (concerning motor vehicle emissions) and 42-4-414, C.R.S.
(concerning emissions from diesel-powered vehicles).
The statutory provision cited by commenter does not bar the State
from carrying out its existing SIP; indeed, the provision requires
regulation of agricultural, horticultural, or floricultural production,
certain animal feeding operations, and pesticide application ``if they
are `major stationary sources', . . . or are required by Part C
(prevention of significant deterioration), Part D (nonattainment), or
Title V (minimum elements of a permit program) . . . .'' Whether
Colorado will need additional emission limitations and other control
measures for areas designated nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
will be reviewed and acted upon as part of the State's attainment plan
under CAA title I part D through a separate process at a later time.
While the EPA recognizes the commenter's concern about the impact
of agricultural and pesticide emissions, in the context of this
rulemaking, the EPA does not find the State deficient in its ability to
carry out its infrastructure SIP requirements.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (interstate transport prong 4)
generally requires a SIP to contain adequate provisions prohibiting
emissions within the state from ``interfering with measures required to
be in the applicable implementation plan for any other State under part
C of this subchapter . . . to protect visibility.'' Under the 2013
Infrastructure SIP guidance,\21\ a state's infrastructure SIP
submission may satisfy prong 4 through confirmation that the state has
a fully-approved regional haze SIP. The EPA approved Colorado's
Regional Haze SIP for the first implementation period for regional haze
on December 31, 2012 (77 FR 76871), which the State identified to
demonstrate that Colorado does not interfere with visibility in any
other state. The EPA subsequently approved an update to Colorado's
Regional Haze SIP on July 5, 2018, meaning that the Colorado Regional
Haze SIP for the first implementation period remains fully approved (83
FR 31332). Accordingly, this is a sufficient basis on which to approve
the State's prong 4 submittal here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) (consultation with
government officials, public notification, and PSD and visibility
protection), the EPA also disagrees with the commenter. Section
110(a)(2)(J) visibility requirements do not need to be addressed in
this rulemaking because a state's requirements relating to visibility
protection are not affected when the EPA establishes or revises a
NAAQS. As the EPA noted in the 2013 Infrastructure SIP guidance, when
the EPA establishes or revises a NAAQS, the visibility requirements
under Part C of title I of the CAA do not change. There are no new
visibility protection requirements under Part C as a result of the
revised NAAQS. Accordingly, air agencies do not need to address the
visibility sub-element of Element J in an infrastructure SIP
submission.
The EPA recognizes the concern for meeting visibility requirements.
However, Colorado has a fully approved regional haze SIP for the first
implementation period, and the EPA and states, including Colorado,
along with various stakeholders have been engaged in an ongoing process
of developing SIPs for the second implementation period under the
regional haze regulations, 40 CFR part 51, subpart P, which are due to
the EPA by July 31, 2021.
Comment: Commenter asserts that the EPA must disapprove the SIP
under CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 110(a)(2)(L) stating that in the
NPRM, the EPA fails to provide analyses that prove Colorado's resources
are adequate. Commenter believes Colorado lacks adequate funding
because the State ``has missed the statutory deadline to make a final
decision'' on renewal applications for ``dozens of Title V facilities''
(asserting that ``Colorado does not have the resources to hire enough
title V permit writers.'' Moreover, commenter assumes Colorado lacks
adequate resources to enforce its air program because the State ``has
approximately 9 inspectors to inspect . . . 50,000 plus oil and gas
wells.'' Commenter believes Colorado's ``Taxpayer Bill of Rights''
(TABOR) amendment operates as a legal impediment to the State's budget
that impacts its ability to implement the SIP.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's conclusions
concerning the adequacy of the Colorado infrastructure SIP with respect
to both CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (L). As stated in the NPRM,
CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires that each SIP provides, in part,
``necessary assurances that the State . . . will have adequate
personnel, funding, and authority under State . . . law to carry out
such implementation plan'' and CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) requires that
each state have a permit fee program (although the requirement is
suspended when the EPA approves the state's title V fee program, which
does not need to be approved into the SIP).
With respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i), the EPA evaluates the
submitting state's infrastructure SIP submission for evidence that the
state has adequate resources. Element E does
[[Page 20172]]
not require an audit of resources or personnel. As stated in the NPRM
for this action, Colorado's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2015
ozone NAQQS indicated that ``[t]he Divison has staff and annual budget
to operate its six programs (Stationary Sources, Mobile Sources, Indoor
Environment, Technical Services, Planning and Policy, Administrative
Services).'' Further, the Division employed 176 people and had a budget
of about $18 million for fiscal year 2018. Of the total budget, about
17 percent was derived from Federal grants, 30 percent from mobile
source fees, 50 percent from stationary source fees, and 3 percent from
other cash sources. These budget and staff levels have been consistent
over the past number of years and over these years Colorado has been
able to meet its statutory commitments, including submitting the
required air quality data, attainment plans, and monitoring
networks.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See, e.g., 76 FR 43906 (July 22, 2011) (EPA-R08-OAR-2009-
0809-004 for FY2006); 78 FR 58186 (Sept. 23, 2013) (EPA-R08-OAR-
0810-0002 for FY2009); 80 FR 50205 (Aug. 19, 2015) (EPA-R08-OAR-
2012-0972-0002 for FY2011); 82 FR 39030 (Aug. 17, 2017) (EPA-R08-
OAR-2013-0557-0004 for FY2012 and EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0557-0002 for
FY2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter expresses specific concerns that Colorado ``has
approximately 9 inspectors to inspect its 50,000 plus oil and gas
wells,'' and concludes from this that the State ``lacks the resources
to adequately enforce its air program.'' In general, the EPA believes
that questions about the specific number of inspectors needed in a
given state involve the issue of enforcement discretion and are thus
within the state's discretion, within reason. The EPA notes that it
does not require physical inspection of every stationary source of
emissions. The EPA's stationary source compliance monitoring guidance
explains that states are encouraged to use a variety of techniques to
determine compliance, including, for example, on-site compliance
evaluations and off-site record reviews.\23\ Furthermore, state choices
such as focusing resources on and targeting inspections to larger
sources (such as title V major stationary sources) are consistent with
the EPA's inspection guidance, which calls for more frequent
inspections of larger sources but does not specify an inspection
frequency for smaller sources. And though commenter asserts that there
are ``50,000 plus oil and gas wells'' in Colorado, commenter does not
differentiate between smaller sources (or even inactive wells) and
major stationary sources, which must be permitted in accordance with
the CAA. Indeed, a recent report suggests that only 11,000 of those
wells are ``permitted'' wells.\24\ Because the report does not specify
the type of permit that the State issued (e.g., whether the permitted
source is a major source or a minor source), in evaluation of this
comment the EPA has reviewed the Colorado's title V operating permits
database \25\ and identified only one permit for an oil and gas
production facility.\26\ Although the State issued numerous permits
(but fewer than 60) for compressor stations that may be located at or
near a well-site, such sources may not necessitate a site-visit to
assess compliance.\27\ Accordingly, commenter's assertion does not, at
this juncture, contravene Colorado's assurance that the State has
adequate resources and personnel to carry out its SIP. Accordingly, the
EPA concludes that Colorado's Infrastructure SIP submission provides
the necessary assurances that the State has the staffing and resources
needed to meet its SIP obligations in accordance with section
110(a)(2)(E) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ CAA Stationary Source Compliance Monitoring Strategy
(October 4, 2016), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/cmspolicy.pdf. The EPA's guidance
even notes that some regulated facilities may not require an on-site
visit to assess compliance, such as gas-fired compressor stations.
\24\ https://www.denverpost.com/2019/04/21/colorado-air-pollution-oil-gas-sites/.
\25\ https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/operating-permits-company-index.
\26\ See SandRidge Exploration and Production Company--Bighorn
Pad, https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1YqoDMY5a0jSZaMOV8qBNPFh_32CLwQnv.
\27\ CAA Stationary Source Compliance Monitoring Strategy, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter's reliance on the alleged title V permit backlog and
perceived shortage of inspectors are not determinative. While the
agency agrees that permitting delays are problematic, such delays are
not necessarily evidence of insufficient state resources that rise to
the level of an inability to implement the requirements of a SIP. In
addition, approved title V programs are not a component of a state's
SIP and such programs, therefore, are not part of the requirements that
states must address in the context of an Infrastructure SIP submission.
Commenter also fails to explain why Colorado's submission does not
satisfy CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) and, indeed, fails to acknowledge that
Colorado has an EPA-approved fee program under title V (see 65 FR
49919). To the extent commenter alleges that Colorado is not adequately
administering and enforcing its title V program, the EPA's review and
approval of an infrastructure SIP is not the appropriate time to raise
those issues. Instead, CAA section 502(i) authorizes the Administrator
to consider such allegations.
Lastly, commenter's general concern with respect to Colorado's
constitutional amendment does not provide an adequate basis to
disapprove Colorado's SIP with respect to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i)
or 110(a)(2)(L). Commenter provides no explanation as to how the TABOR
undermines Colorado's assurances that the State will have adequate
personnel, funding, and authority to carry out its SIP or invalidates
the EPA-approved fee program under title V.
Comment: Commenter asserts that the EPA must disapprove all of the
PSD related infrastructure elements (i.e., 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i) (prong
3) and (J)) because of the State's ``90 day timing rule.'' The
commenter explains that the rule allows major stationary sources to
construct ``without a PSD or NSSR [sic] permit'' in violation of the
CAA.
Response: Although commenter does not offer a citation to a ``90
day timing rule,'' the EPA believes commenter intended to refer to AQCC
Regulation No. 3, Part A, Sec. II.D.1.lll (Exemptions from Air
Pollutant Emission Notice Requirements: Oil and exploration and
production operations). That rule requires owners or operators of oil
and gas exploration and production operations to file an Air Pollution
Emission Notice (APEN) no later than ninety days following the first
day of production ``[i]f production will result in reportable
emissions.'' Commenter presumably believes that because an APEN need
not be filed until after production begins, this rule exempts major
stationary sources from new source review permitting (i.e., PSD or
NNSR).
The EPA believes commenter may be misunderstanding AQCC regulations
and, accordingly, disagrees with commenter's conclusion. AQCC
Regulation 3, Part A, Sec. II addresses Colorado's APEN requirements.
Under that program, ``no person shall allow emission of air pollutants
from, or construction, modification or alteration of, any facility,
process, or activity which constitutes a stationary source, except
residential structures, from which air pollutants are, or are to be,
emitted unless and until'' an APEN has been filed with the Division.
See AQCC Regulation 3, Part A, Sec. II.A. Each APEN must specify the
location at which the proposed emission will occur and provide certain
details concerning the facility, process, or activity, including an
estimate of the quantity
[[Page 20173]]
and composition of the expected emission, among other information. Id.
If a source is exempted from the filing of an APEN under Part A,
such sources may also be exempted from the State's construction permit
program under Part B. See AQCC Regulation 3, Part B, Sec. II.D.1.a.
However, Colorado's Part B construction permit program is not the
State's EPA-approved major source new source review program, which is
found in AQCC Regulation 3, Part D. This may be the source of
commenter's misunderstanding. AQCC Regulation 3, Part B is clear that
``[p]ermit exemptions taken under this section do not affect the
applicability of any State or Federal regulations that are otherwise
applicable to the source.'' See AQCC Regulation 3, Part B, Sec. II.D.
Thus, otherwise applicable permitting requirements in Regulation 3,
Part D are not affected by the exemptions in Part B.
Furthermore, AQCC Regulation 3, Part A, Sec. II.D.1 also expressly
states that any source that is exempt from filing an APEN ``must
nevertheless comply with all requirements that are otherwise applicable
. . . including, but not limited to: Title V, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration, nonattainment New Source Review, opacity limitations,
odor limitations, particulate matter limitations and volatile organic
compounds controls.'' Further, AQCC Regulation 3, Part D (Colorado's
major stationary source new source review and PSD program) expressly
states that ``[a]ny new major stationary source or major modification,
to which the requirements of this Part D apply, shall not begin actual
construction in a nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable area
unless a permit has been issued containing all applicable state and
federal requirements.'' AQCC Regulation 3, Part D, Sec. I.A.1.
Accordingly, the EPA disagrees with commenter's allegation that the
``90-day timing rule'' allows major stationary sources to construct
without a PSD or NNSR permit in violation of the CAA.
North Dakota Comment and Response
Comment: The DRC submitted a comment letter and supporting
documentation to the EPA on August 28, 2019, in which the DRC raises
concerns that North Dakota's SIP does not adequately regulate VOC
emissions for upstream oil and gas industry operations, and therefore
the State risks future ozone nonattainment status. Specifically, the
DRC contends that the North Dakota infrastructure SIP submittal is
deficient because oil and gas activities ``are not covered by North
Dakota's minor source permitting program.'' The DRC asserts that while
oil and gas production facilities are required to file registration
notices, these sources are otherwise exempt from permitting. The DRC
explains that upstream oil and gas facilities have a significant
emissions impact (pointing to the EPA's 2014 National Emissions
Inventory) and will continue to grow over the coming years. The DRC
believes North Dakota has failed to aggregate emissions from production
facilities because of a lack of personnel and funding (contrary to CAA
section 110(a)(2)(E)). Accordingly, the DRC declares that the EPA has a
mandatory duty to reject North Dakota's SIP and issue a SIP call for a
revised plan for its deficiencies under section 110(a)(2)(C).
Response: The EPA recognizes that the DRC is concerned that North
Dakota's minor NSR program exempts upstream oil and gas facilities from
more rigorous permitting and believes North Dakota's SIP should include
mandatory emission limits, monitoring, and recordkeeping for such
sources. However, the EPA disagrees with the DRC's conclusion that the
North Dakota infrastructure SIP submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is
thereby deficient.
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to make SIP submissions
to establish they already have, or are adding, the SIP infrastructure
to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a
new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of
such NAAQS, or within such shorter period as the EPA may prescribe.
Specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing
requirements for such SIPs (commonly referred to as infrastructure
SIPs), and section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that a state's
infrastructure SIP must meet for a newly established or revised NAAQS.
These requirements include basic SIP elements, such as requirements for
monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority, that are
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Consequently, the EPA considers action on infrastructure SIP
submissions required by sections 110(a)(1) and (2) to be an exercise to
assure that a state's SIP meets the basic structural requirements for
the new or revised NAAQS.
For example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with
respect to the PSD program requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program
requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural
PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD
program to address construction and modification of major sources and
all regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases, in accordance
with the requirements of the EPA's PSD regulation at 40 CFR 51.166.
Similarly, section 110(a)(2)(C), includes, among other things, the
requirement that states have a program to regulate construction of
minor new sources, but the EPA's regulations provide states with more
discretion than the EPA's PSD regulations as to which sources must be
covered by such a program. Thus, to satisfy the sub-element for
preconstruction regulation of the modification and construction of
minor stationary sources and the minor modification of major stationary
sources, an infrastructure SIP submission should identify the existing
EPA-approved SIP provisions and/or include new provisions that govern
the minor source pre-construction program that regulates emissions of
the relevant NAAQS pollutant(s). The EPA's rules addressing SIP
requirements for such programs are at 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.614. The
EPA's focus in the infrastructure SIP context is on evaluation of
whether the state has an EPA-approved minor NSR program and whether the
program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context
of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, therefore, the EPA does
not think it is necessary to re-review each and every provision of a
state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in the existing
SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and the EPA's
regulations that pertain to such programs.\28\ We have previously found
that North Dakota's program meets all minor new source review
permitting requirements set forth at 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164,
including the requirement that a SIP-approved minor source program
specifically identify the types and sizes of facilities that will be
subject to review (see 40 CFR 51.160(e)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See, e.g., 82 FR 22082, May 12, 2017 (final rule); 82 FR
39090, August 17, 2017 (proposed rule); 80 FR 13315, March 13, 2015
(proposed rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the North Dakota infrastructure SIP submission
presently before us, the EPA reviewed the submission itself, and
evaluated the text of its provisions for compliance with the relevant
elements of section 110(a)(2). In the NPRM, the EPA explicitly
evaluated the State's infrastructure SIP submission on a requirement-
by-requirement basis and explained its views on the adequacy of the
State's submission for purposes of meeting the applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements. Specifically, we
[[Page 20174]]
found that North Dakota has EPA-approved minor NSR and major NSR
permitting programs, which regulate ozone precursors for the purposes
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, North Dakota's infrastructure SIP
submission satisfies the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to
include a program in the SIP that regulates the modification and
construction of stationary sources as necessary to assure the
maintenance and attainment of the NAAQS. See 2013 Infrastructure SIP
guidance at page 24.
Nevertheless, the EPA appreciates and takes seriously the DRC's
concern and assertions that North Dakota's minor NSR permitting program
may not adequately capture upstream oil and gas emissions, and that the
aggregate emissions from the oil and gas industry may interfere with
attainment and maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS now or in the
future. However, these concerns are best addressed outside the context
of an infrastructure SIP action. The EPA has previously explained, as
part of infrastructure SIP approvals, that EPA does not need to
reconsider whether it should have approved or disapproved a state's
existing minor NSR program.\29\ The statutory requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable flexibility in designing
minor NSR programs. Furthermore, states have some discretion with
respect to sources that are subject to minor NSR permitting
requirements, and the EPA has previously approved the States' exercise
of that discretion with regard to their minor NSR programs.\30\ A
detailed re-review of how the State has chosen to exercise this
discretion is not needed in the context of an infrastructure SIP review
to ensure that the minor NSR portion of a SIP meets basic structural
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See, e.g., 77 FR 58957, September 25, 2012; 79 FR 62838,
October 21, 2014; 84 FR 18187, April 30, 2019; 85 FR 55, January 2,
2020.
\30\ See, e.g., 76 FR 81373-76, Dec. 28, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because this action involves a review of the infrastructure SIP and
North Dakota already has an approved minor source NSR program that
covers the necessary pollutants, we have not conducted a detailed
examination of the DRC's assertions concerning the perceived inadequate
regulation of upstream oil and gas production facilities in the State's
minor NSR program. The EPA understands that North Dakota's previously-
approved regulations exempt certain oil and gas production facilities
from needing a permit to construct (provided there is no Federal
requirement for a permit or approval for construction or operation),
but such sources are subject to registration and reporting requirements
under North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC) Chapter 33.1-15-20. That
regulation requires registration forms to ``contain sufficient
information to allow the department to determine if the oil or gas well
and associated production facility is in compliance with all applicable
sections of this chapter,'' and mandates compliance with major source
permitting under PSD for any oil or gas well production facility that
is a major stationary source (or that has undertaken a major
modification). Chapter 33.1-15-20-04 also contains requirements for the
control of production facility emissions and specifically notes that
``any volatile organic compound gas or vapor may be subject to controls
as specified in chapter 33.1-15-07.'' Accordingly, upstream oil and gas
production facilities are not wholly exempt from regulation in the
State's SIP.
If the DRC believes these previously-approved provisions are
substantively inadequate considering the nature of oil and gas
operations in North Dakota, the DRC can petition the EPA to evaluate
the merits of these assertions, separate from this action. We note that
multiple statutory tools and avenues exist that the EPA can use to
rectify potential deficiencies with a SIP and a state's implementation
thereof, and the existence of these tools is consistent with the EPA's
interpretation of section 110(a)(2) with respect to the EPA's role in
reviewing infrastructure SIP submissions. For example, the CAA provides
the EPA the authority to issue a SIP call, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(5); make a
finding of failure to implement, id. sections[thinsp]7410(m),
7509(a)(4); and take measures to address specific permits pursuant to
the EPA's case-by-case permitting oversight. See, e.g., id.
section[thinsp]7661d(b). The appropriateness of employing these
authorities depends on the nature and extent of the particular problems
at issue; however, the public is encouraged to use such avenues and
tools to provide the EPA with notice of any alleged problem or
deficiency.
In the meantime, the EPA is finalizing its approval of the North
Dakota infrastructure SIP submission that is currently before the EPA
with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C). If the
EPA was to later determine that the scope of the minor source
permitting program administered by the State is not sufficient to
protect the NAAQS, we could at that time take appropriate action to
ensure those problems and deficiencies are rectified using whatever
statutory tools are appropriate. The EPA is committed to working with
states and the public to correct SIP deficiencies.
Finally, addressing the commenter's assertion that North Dakota has
a deficiency pertaining to section 110(a)(2)(E), i.e., a lack of
personnel and funding, given that the DRC has not provided any
information to support this claim or to counter our prior analysis of
the State's submittal with respect to section 110(a)(2)(E), we are
approving this action in accordance with our analysis from the NPRM.
Comment: The DRC asserts that the North Dakota submittal has
problematic ozone monitoring data, which ``masks rising ozone pollution
in North Dakota.'' The DRC also explains that they expect ``that when
the 2016 data falls away and is replaced by the 2019 data from this
year, that North Dakota's 3-year average ozone emissions in western
North Dakota will increase significantly.'' Accordingly, the DRC
concludes that the EPA must ``object to North Dakota's plan now,
because this SIP is intended to carry North Dakota well into the future
. . . .''
Response: The EPA disagrees with the DRC that North Dakota's
submittal is erroneous, and we disagree that the monitoring data \31\
provided by the State disguises ozone data. The State's submission
includes a time-series bar graph (without discrete values noted)
showing nine distinct monitoring sites' ozone design values in
increments of 5 parts per billion (ppb), beginning in 2003 and ending
in 2017. The EPA notes that this State-provided graph \32\ depicts
ozone design value data for monitoring sites, not annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration monitoring data. A
design value is a statistical representation of the air quality status
of a given location relative to the level of the NAAQS. The DRC has
calculated its own data table in page three of their comment; the
values that DRC has calculated correspond to the EPA's own truncated
\33\ data for annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration monitoring data. Although a design value for an ozone air
quality monitoring site is related to the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration (the design value being the
rolling three-year average of that data), the values are not
[[Page 20175]]
equivalent. The EPA has provided a table of design values that supports
the graph provided by the State. See Table 2. Furthermore, the EPA has
provided a graph (current to year 2018) of the ozone design value long-
term trends for North Dakota; both Oliver County and Williams County
are labeled as to their design value trends. See Graph 1. We also note
that design values are typically used to designate and classify
nonattainment areas, as well as to assess progress towards meeting the
NAAQS. It should be noted that North Dakota has not violated the 2008
or 2015 ozone NAAQS, nor is North Dakota classified as nonattainment
for the 2008 or 2015 ozone NAAQS; moreover, the trend lines in Graph 1
indicate generally that the design values for ozone monitoring sites in
North Dakota show a somewhat downward to level trend, excluding Oliver
and Williams counties which show a slight upward trend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See North Dakota's 2015 ozone NAAQS submittal, attachment
2, ``North Dakota Ozone Monitoring Data'' at 21.
\32\ The original spreadsheet which North Dakota used to create
the graph is included in the docket.
\33\ See 40 CFR part 50, appendix I--Interpretation of the 8-
Hour Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the EPA acknowledges that ozone monitoring data may change
over time, such factors are not relevant to the EPA's review of the
State's infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Data source: EPA Air Quality System (AQS).
Table 2--Three-Year Average of Annual Fourth-Highest Daily Maximum 8-Hour Average Ozone Concentration (Design Values) \34\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozone monitoring site design values (ppm)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Billings Burke Burleigh Cass Dunn McKenzie Mercer Oliver Ward Williams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000...................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
2001...................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
2002...................................... 0.059 ......... ......... 0.062 ......... ......... 0.058 0.056 ......... .........
2003...................................... ......... ......... ......... 0.063 0.06 0.062 0.062 0.058 ......... .........
2004...................................... ......... ......... ......... 0.061 0.058 0.063 0.06 0.056 ......... .........
2005...................................... ......... ......... ......... 0.06 0.056 0.062 0.058 0.056 ......... .........
2006...................................... 0.06 0.057 ......... 0.06 0.055 0.06 0.059 0.057 ......... .........
2007...................................... 0.063 0.058 ......... 0.06 0.057 0.062 0.061 0.06 ......... .........
2008...................................... 0.063 0.059 0.059 0.058 0.059 0.064 0.062 0.061 ......... .........
2009...................................... 0.06 0.059 0.056 0.055 0.057 0.061 0.058 0.058 ......... .........
2010...................................... 0.059 0.06 0.057 0.058 0.057 0.06 0.059 0.059 ......... .........
2011...................................... 0.058 0.06 0.057 0.059 0.055 0.059 0.058 0.058 ......... .........
2012...................................... 0.058 0.059 0.058 0.061 0.056 0.059 0.06 0.058 ......... .........
2013...................................... 0.057 0.058 0.058 0.059 0.056 0.058 0.059 0.058 ......... .........
2014...................................... 0.056 0.057 0.059 0.06 0.057 0.057 0.058 0.059 ......... .........
2015...................................... 0.058 0.061 0.061 0.058 0.059 0.058 0.057 0.061 ......... 0.058
2016...................................... 0.058 0.059 0.057 0.056 0.058 0.057 0.055 0.059 ......... 0.056
2017...................................... 0.06 0.059 0.057 0.057 0.058 0.058 0.057 0.06 ......... 0.057
2018...................................... 0.059 0.058 0.055 0.059 0.057 0.058 0.059 0.059 ......... 0.058
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 20176]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AP20.000
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
III. Final Action
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Id. This graph, printed here in grayscale, is also
available in color at Design Value History for ND--EPA in the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is approving multiple elements and disapproving a single
element of the following infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to
infrastructure requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS for Colorado and
North Dakota.
With respect to Colorado, the EPA is approving Colorado's September
17, 2018 infrastructure SIP submission as meeting all of the CAA
section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
With respect to North Dakota, the EPA is approving North Dakota's
November 6, 2018 SIP submission \36\ for the following CAA section
110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS: (A), (B),
(C), (D)(i)(I) Prong 1 Interstate transport--significant contribution,
(D)(i)(I) Prong 2 Interstate transport--interference with maintenance,
(D)(i)(II) Prong 3 Interstate
[[Page 20177]]
transport--prevention of significant deterioration, (D)(ii), (E), (F),
(G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The EPA notes that in few instances our July 29, 2019 NPRM
(84 FR 36516) erroneously referenced certain North Dakota rules and
regulations that had been renumbered due to the transfer of
authority from the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) to the
North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) (for more
information, please see footnote 1 in our July 29, 2019 NPRM). The
NDDH rules and regulations were EPA-approved, however with the
transfer of authority to the NDEQ, those rules and regulations were
repealed and have been recodified and EPA-approved (see 84 FR 1610,
February 5, 2019). The difference between the rule and regulation
changes from NDDH to NDEQ is resolved by adding a ``decimal point
one'' (.1); e.g. under the NDDH, North Dakota Administrative Code
(NDAC) 33-15 changed to NDAC 33.1-15 under the NDEQ. We further note
that the State's submittal correctly references the EPA-approved
NDEQ rules and regulations. Although our July 29, 2019 NPRM contains
these errors in some instances, our analysis for the July 29, 2019
NPRM evaluated the approvability of the North Dakota infrastructure
SIP submission based on the correct NDEQ statutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons stated in the NPRM, the EPA is partially
disapproving North Dakota's SIP submittal as to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
prong 4 Interstate transport--visibility. 84 FR 36527. As noted in the
NPRM, the EPA is not required to take further action with regard to the
prong 4 disapproval. The EPA has an obligation to disapprove prong 4
requirements as a result of disapproving portions of a state's regional
haze SIP submission. However, as discussed in the NPRM, FIP
requirements promulgated by the EPA are already in effect that correct
all regional haze SIP deficiencies for the first planning period for
North Dakota. All of North Dakota's obligations under 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, including those relevant to participation in a regional haze
planning process and achieving the State's apportionment of emission
reduction obligations as to Class I areas in other states, are being
addressed either through FIPs or SIPs for the first planning period.
This ensures that emissions from sources within North Dakota are not
interfering with measures required to be included in other air
agencies' plans to protect visibility. Under the EPA's 2013 iSIP
guidance, this is sufficient to satisfy prong 4 requirements for the
first planning period. See 2013 Guidance at 33. Thus, there are no
additional practical consequences from this disapproval for the State,
the sources within its jurisdiction, or the EPA. See id. at 34-35. The
EPA finds its prong 4 obligations for North Dakota for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS are satisfied.
Finally, we are approving a portion of North Dakota's May 2, 2019
submission of Chapter 33.1-15-15, the air pollution control rules of
the State of North Dakota, which updates the date of IBR of Federal
rules. The EPA is solely approving the revision applicable to the IBR
date for 40 CFR 52.21(l)(1).
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of
North Dakota Administrative Code Chapter 33.1-15-15 described in
Section III of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov
and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the persons identified
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for
more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the
EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been
incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully
federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the
effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will
be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See 62 FR 27968, May 22, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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, 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).
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 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).
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 June 9, 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,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds.
[[Page 20178]]
Dated: March 25, 2020.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
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 G--Colorado
0
2. Section 52.353 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.353 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.
* * * * *
(e) The Colorado Department of Environmental Quality submitted
certification of Colorado's infrastructure SIP for the 2015
O3 NAAQS on September 17, 2018. Colorado's infrastructure
certification demonstrates how the State, where applicable, has plans
in place that meet the requirements of section 110 for the 2015
O3 NAAQS. The State's Infrastructure SIP for 2015
O3 NAAQS is approved with respect to CAA section 110(a)(1)
and (2).
Subpart JJ--North Dakota
0
3. In Sec. 52.1820, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``33.1-15-15-01.2'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1820 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State EPA effective Final rule
Rule No. Rule title effective date date citation/date Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33.1-15-15. Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33.1-15-15-01.2.............. Scope.......... 1/1/2019 5/11/2020 [insert Federal Originally
Register approved as 33-
citation], 4/ 15-15-01 on 10/
10/2020. 21/2016, 81 FR
72718.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
4. Section 52.1833 is amended by adding paragraph (i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1833 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.
* * * * *
(i) The North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality submitted
certification of North Dakota's infrastructure SIP for the 2015
O3 NAAQS on November 6, 2018. North Dakota's infrastructure
certification demonstrates how the State, where applicable, has plans
in place that meet the requirements of section 110 for (A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(I) (Prongs 1 and 2), (D)(i)(II) (Prong 3), (D)(ii), (E), (F),
(G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). The EPA is disapproving (D)(i)(II)
(Prong 4).
[FR Doc. 2020-06685 Filed 4-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P