[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 88 (Friday, May 6, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27050-27059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09449]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0140; EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663; FRL-9782-01-R8]
Air Plan Approval; Colorado; Addressing Remanded Portions of the
Previously Approved Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 5, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit granted the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
motion for a voluntary remand without vacatur of two parts of EPA's
2020 final rule approving Colorado's infrastructure state
implementation plan (SIP) submission for the 2015 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) (2020 final rule). In this
document, EPA proposes to address those two remanded parts of the 2020
final rule: EPA's conclusion that Colorado's infrastructure SIP
submission met the State's good neighbor obligation under Clean Air Act
(CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); and EPA's conclusion that Colorado's
infrastructure SIP submission provided ``necessary assurances'' of the
State's authority to regulate agricultural sources under CAA section
110(a)(2)(E)(i). EPA is proposing to approve Colorado's infrastructure
SIP submission pursuant to CAA section 110.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 6, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified as Docket No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2019-0140, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov, following the online instructions for submitting
comments. Include Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0140 in the subject
line of the message.
Instructions: All submissions received must include Docket ID No.
EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0140. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Out
of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, EPA
Docket Center and Reading Room are open to the public by appointment
only to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center
staff also continues to provide remote customer service via email,
phone, and webform. For further information on EPA Docket Center
services and the current status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. Please email or call a person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section if you need to make alternative
arrangements for access to the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amrita Singh, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado, 80202-1129, telephone number: (303) 312-6103, email address:
[email protected]; or
[[Page 27051]]
Ellen Schmitt, telephone number: (303) 312-6728, email address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public participation: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0140, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from the docket. EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system).
There are two dockets supporting this proposed action, EPA-R08-OAR-
2019-0140 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663. Docket No. EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0140
contains information specific to Colorado, including the notice of
proposed rulemaking. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663 contains
additional modeling files, emissions inventory files, technical support
documents, and other relevant supporting documentation regarding
interstate transport of emissions for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS which
are being used to support this proposed action. All comments regarding
information in either of these dockets must be made in Docket No. EPA-
R08-OAR-2019-0140. For additional submission methods, please email or
call a person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. For the
full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
The index to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663 is available
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. While all documents in
that docket are listed in the index, some information may not be
publicly available due to docket file size restrictions or content
(e.g., CBI).
Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Statutory and Regulatory Background
1. Ozone Transport
a. Background on EPA's Ozone Transport Modeling Information
2. Necessary Assurances of State Authority
B. EPA's 2020 Action and the 2021 Voluntary Remand
II. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Approval of Colorado's
Infrastructure SIP Submission Under CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
and (E)(i)
A. Good Neighbor Provision
1. EPA's Approach to Evaluating Interstate Transport SIP
Submissions for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
2. Selection of Analytic Year
3. Step 1 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
4. Step 2 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
5. Step 3 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
6. Step 4 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
7. EPA's Evaluation of Colorado's CAA Section 110(a)(D)(i)(I)
Submission
8. Emissions Assumptions Used in Modeling
B. Colorado's Authority To Regulate Agricultural Emissions
1. EPA's Prior Approval
2. EPA's Revised Analysis on Remand Under CAA Section
110(a)(2)(E)(i)
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Statutory and Regulatory Background
On October 1, 2015, EPA promulgated a revision to the ozone NAAQS
(2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of both the primary and
secondary standards to 0.070 parts per million (ppm).\1\ Section
110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit, within three years
after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIP submissions
meeting the applicable requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final
Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). Although the level of the
standard is specified in the units of ppm, ozone concentrations are
also described in parts per billion (ppb). For example, 0.070 ppm is
equivalent to 70 ppb.
\2\ SIP submissions that are intended to meet the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are often
referred to as infrastructure SIPs and the applicable elements under
section 110(a)(2) are referred to as infrastructure requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Ozone Transport
One of the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) is found in
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as the ``interstate
transport'' or ``good neighbor'' provision, which generally requires
SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state emissions
activities from having certain adverse air quality effects on other
states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are two so-
called ``prongs'' within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). A SIP
submission for a new or revised NAAQS must contain adequate provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity within the
state from emitting air pollutants in amounts that will significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) or
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). EPA
and states must give independent significance to prong 1 and prong 2
when evaluating downwind air quality problems under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909-11 (D.C. Cir.
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is using the 4-step interstate transport framework (or 4-step
framework) to evaluate state SIP submissions addressing the interstate
transport provision for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has addressed
the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
with respect to prior ozone NAAQS in several regional regulatory
actions, including the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which
addressed interstate transport with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS as
well as the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter standards,\4\ and the
CSAPR Update,\5\ and the Revised CSAPR Update, both of which addressed
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of
Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals,
76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
\5\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS, 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
\6\ In 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit remanded the CSAPR Update to the extent it failed to require
upwind states to eliminate their significant contribution by the
next applicable attainment date by which downwind states must come
into compliance with the NAAQS, as established under CAA section
181(a). Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 313 (D.C. Cir. 2019). The
Revised CSAPR Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 86 FR 23054 (April
30, 2021), responded to the remand of the CSAPR Update in Wisconsin
and the vacatur of a separate rule, the ``CSAPR Close-Out,'' 83 FR
65878 (December 21, 2018), in New York v. EPA, 781 F. App'x. 4 (D.C.
Cir. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through the development and implementation of the CSAPR rulemakings
and prior regional rulemakings pursuant to the interstate transport
provision,\7\ EPA, working in partnership with states, developed the
following 4-step interstate transport framework to evaluate a state's
obligations to eliminate interstate transport emissions under the
interstate
[[Page 27052]]
transport provision for the ozone NAAQS: (1) Identify monitoring sites
that are projected to have problems attaining and/or maintaining the
NAAQS (i.e., nonattainment and/or maintenance receptors); (2) identify
states that impact those air quality problems in other (i.e., downwind)
states sufficiently such that the states are considered ``linked'' and
therefore warrant further review and analysis; (3) identify the
emissions reductions necessary (if any), applying a multifactor
analysis, to eliminate each linked upwind state's significant
contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the
NAAQS at the locations identified in step 1; and (4) adopt permanent
and enforceable measures needed to achieve those emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In addition to the CSAPR rulemakings, other regional
rulemakings addressing ozone transport include the ``NOX
SIP Call,'' 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998), and the ``Clean Air
Interstate Rule'' (CAIR), 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Background on EPA's Ozone Transport Modeling Information
In general, EPA has performed nationwide air quality modeling to
project ozone design values which are used in combination with measured
data to identify nonattainment and maintenance receptors. To quantify
the contribution of emissions from specific upwind states on 2023 ozone
design values for the identified downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors, EPA performed nationwide, state-level ozone source
apportionment modeling for 2023. The source apportionment modeling
provided contributions to ozone at receptors from precursor emissions
of anthropogenic nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOC) in individual upwind states.
EPA has released several documents containing projected ozone
design values, contributions, and information relevant to evaluating
interstate transport with respect to the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
First, on January 6, 2017, EPA published a notice of data availability
(NODA) in which we requested comment on preliminary interstate ozone
transport data including projected ozone design values and interstate
contributions for 2023 using a 2011 base year platform.\8\ In the NODA,
EPA used the year 2023 as the analytic year for this preliminary
modeling because that year aligns with the expected attainment year for
moderate ozone nonattainment areas for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\9\
On October 27, 2017, we released a memorandum (October 2017 memorandum)
containing updated modeling data for 2023, which incorporated changes
made in response to comments on the NODA, and noted that the modeling
may be useful for states developing SIPs to address interstate
transport obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\10\ On March 27, 2018,
we issued a memorandum (March 2018 memorandum) noting that the same
2023 modeling data released in the October 2017 memorandum could also
be useful for identifying potential downwind air quality problems with
respect to the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS at Step 1 of the 4-step
interstate transport framework.\11\ The March 2018 memorandum also
included the then newly available contribution modeling data to assist
states in evaluating their impact on potential downwind air quality
problems for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS under Step 2 of the 4-step
interstate transport framework.\12\ EPA subsequently issued two more
memoranda in August and October 2018, providing additional information
to states developing interstate transport SIP submissions for the 2015
ozone NAAQS concerning, respectively, potential contribution thresholds
that may be appropriate to apply in Step 2 of the 4-step framework, and
considerations for identifying downwind areas that may have problems
maintaining the standard at Step 1 of the 4-step framework.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport Modeling Data for
the 2015 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS),
82 FR 1733 (January 6, 2017).
\9\ 82 FR 1735.
\10\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017, available in Docket No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0663 or at https://www.epa.gov/node/194139/.
\11\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), March 27, 2018 (``March 2018 memorandum''),
available in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663 or at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
\12\ The March 2018 memorandum, however, provided, ``While the
information in this memorandum and the associated air quality
analysis data could be used to inform the development of these SIPs,
the information is not a final determination regarding states'
obligations under the good neighbor provision. Any such
determination would be made through notice-and-comment rulemaking.''
March 2018 memorandum at 2.
\13\ See Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean
Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, August 31, 2018 (``August 2018 memorandum''),
and Considerations for Identifying Maintenance Receptors for Use in
Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, October 19, 2018, available in Docket No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663 or at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the release of the modeling data shared in the March 2018
memorandum, EPA performed updated modeling using a 2016-based emissions
modeling platform (i.e., 2016v1). This emissions platform was developed
under the EPA/Multi-Jurisdictional Organization (MJO)/state
collaborative project.\14\ This collaborative project was a multi-year
joint effort by EPA, the MJOs, and states to develop a new, more recent
emissions platform for use by EPA and states in regulatory modeling as
an improvement over the dated 2011-based platform that EPA had used to
project ozone design values and contribution data provided in the 2017
and 2018 memoranda. EPA used the 2016v1 emissions to project ozone
design values and contributions for 2023. On October 30, 2020, in the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Revised CSAPR Update, EPA
released and accepted public comment on 2023 modeling that used the
2016v1 emissions platform.\15\ Although the Revised CSAPR Update
addressed transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the projected design
values and contributions from the 2016v1 platform are also useful for
identifying downwind ozone problems and linkages with respect to the
2015 ozone NAAQS.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The results of this modeling, as well as the underlying
modeling files, are included in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
\15\ See Revised CSAPR Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 85 FR
68964, 68981 (October 30, 2020).
\16\ See the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for
the Final Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update, included in
the Headquarters Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the final Revised CSAPR Update, EPA made further updates
to the 2016 emissions platform to include mobile emissions from EPA's
Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator MOVES3 model \17\ and updated
emissions projections for electric generating units (EGUs) that reflect
the emissions reductions from the Revised CSAPR Update, recent
information on plant closures, and other sector trends. The construct
of the updated emissions platform, 2016v2, is described in an emissions
modeling technical support document (TSD).\18\ EPA performed air
[[Page 27053]]
quality modeling of the 2016v2 emissions using the most recent public
release version of the Comprehensive Air-quality Model with extensions
(CAMx) photochemical modeling, version 7.10.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Additional details and documentation related to the MOVES3
model can be found at https://www.epa.gov/moves/latest-version-motor-vehicle-emission-simulator-moves.
\18\ See Technical Support Document (TSD) Preparation of
Emissions Inventories for the 2016v2 North American Emissions
Modeling Platform. Dated: February 2022. (2016v2 TSD). Included
under Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
\19\ Ramboll Environment and Health, January 2021, www.camx.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA now proposes to primarily rely on modeling based on the updated
and newly available 2016v2 emissions platform in evaluating these
submissions with respect to Steps 1 and 2 of the 4-step framework and
generally references it within this action as 2016v2 modeling for 2023.
By using the updated modeling results, EPA is using the most current
and technically appropriate information for this proposed rulemaking.
Section III of this document and the Air Quality Modeling TSD for 2015
Ozone NAAQS Transport SIP Proposed Actions, included in Docket No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0663 for this proposal, contain additional detail on EPA's
2016v2 modeling. EPA is accepting public comment on this updated 2023
modeling, which uses a 2016v2 emissions platform as the modeling
pertains to this proposed action. Comments on EPA's air quality
modeling as used in this proposed action should be submitted in the
Regional docket for this action, Docket No. EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0140. EPA
is not accepting comments in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
2. Necessary Assurances of State Authority
CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires that a state provide
``necessary assurances'' that it will have, among other things,
adequate authority under state law to carry out its SIP to meet CAA
requirements with respect to the relevant NAAQS.\20\ Specifically, a
state's infrastructure SIP submission should show that the state has
the legal authority to carry out the provisions identified in the
state's infrastructure SIP submission and is not prohibited by federal
or state law from carrying out the SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(E)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. EPA's 2020 Action and the 2021 Voluntary Remand
On September 17, 2018, the State of Colorado submitted to EPA its
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On July 29,
2019, EPA proposed to approve Colorado's submission with respect to all
relevant CAA elements.\21\ EPA proposed approval of the portion of
Colorado's infrastructure SIP related to prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), primarily relying on the 2023 modeling (2011 base
year platform) presented in the March 2018 memorandum.\22\ EPA's
analysis of the 2023 modeling indicated that Colorado's largest impacts
at any identified downwind receptor would be less than 1 percent (0.70
ppb) of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\23\ Thus, EPA proposed to find that
Colorado's emissions would not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in
any other state.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards; Colorado and North Dakota, 84 FR 36516 (July 29,
2019). In the same rulemaking EPA also proposed to act on North
Dakota's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
EPA's final action with respect to North Dakota's SIP submission was
neither challenged nor remanded and thus is not addressed in this
action.
\22\ 84 FR 36516, 36524-25.
\23\ Id. n.24.
\24\ 84 FR 36524-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 13, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit issued a decision in Wisconsin v. EPA, remanding the CSAPR
Update to the extent that it failed to require upwind states to
eliminate their significant contribution by the next applicable
attainment date by which downwind states must come into compliance with
the NAAQS, as established under CAA section 181(a).\25\ In our 2020
final rule (published on April 10, 2020), EPA defended the use of the
2023 analytical year on the basis of what was then, in the Agency's
view, a position consistent with Wisconsin--specifically that the
Wisconsin holding did not apply with respect to the attainment date for
marginal areas.\26\ However, EPA also offered an alternative rationale.
EPA used linear interpolation to estimate Colorado's maximum
contribution to a potential receptor in 2021 and concluded that even if
it were appropriate to use the 2021 marginal area date rather than the
2023 moderate area date, Colorado's impacts would be similar to those
projected for 2023 and thus it would not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in other states.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 938 F.3d at 313.
\26\ Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan
Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards; Colorado and North Dakota, 85 FR
20169, 20169-71 (April 10, 2020).
\27\ Id. at 20169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit issued a ruling in Maryland v.
EPA that cited the Wisconsin decision in holding that EPA must assess
the impact of interstate transport on air quality at the next downwind
attainment date, including marginal area attainment dates, in
evaluating the basis for EPA's denial of a petition under CAA section
126(b).\28\ The court noted that ``section 126(b) incorporates the Good
Neighbor Provision,'' and, therefore, ``EPA must find a violation [of
section 126] if an upwind source will significantly contribute to
downwind nonattainment at the next downwind attainment deadline.
Therefore, the Agency must evaluate downwind air quality at that
deadline, not at some later date.'' Id. at 1204 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 958 F.3d 1185, 1203-04 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 9, 2020, the Center for Biological Diversity (Center) filed
a petition for review of the 2020 final rule in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Tenth Circuit).\29\ The Center
challenged two sub-elements of the SIP approval: (1) EPA's conclusion
that Colorado's infrastructure SIP submission satisfies the good
neighbor provision, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); and (2) EPA's
conclusion that the State's infrastructure SIP submission satisfies
Colorado's obligation to provide necessary assurances that the State
has authority to regulate all agricultural sources of air pollution as
may be required by the CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i).\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, No. 20-9560 (Tenth
Cir.).
\30\ Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, No. 20-9560 (Tenth
Cir.), Petitioner's Opening Brief at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In challenging EPA's approval of the portion of Colorado's
infrastructure SIP submission addressing CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the Center argued that EPA's analysis focused on
the wrong analytical year, failed to adequately analyze all of the
relevant potential out-of-state receptor locations, and should have
accounted for air quality impacts from various proposed and final
federal rules.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the state authority issue, the Center argued that a
provision of state law, Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 25-7-109(8)(a), bars
Colorado from regulating agricultural sources other than those that are
major sources. The Center argued that this means that Colorado's
infrastructure SIP submission failed to provide ``necessary
assurances'' of the State's authority to regulate all agricultural
sources, as may be needed to comply with CAA requirements for SIPs,
pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 31, 2020, EPA filed a motion for a voluntary remand
without vacatur of the two challenged parts of the 2020 final rule. EPA
stated that it
[[Page 27054]]
intended to consider additional information, including the Maryland
decision and new information developed after EPA issued the 2020 final
rule that was not available in the administrative record for the 2020
final rule.\33\ The Tenth Circuit granted EPA's motion on January 5,
2021.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, No. 20-9560 (Tenth
Cir.), EPA's Motion for Voluntary Remand, Ex. 1, Declaration in
Support of Motion for Voluntary Remand, at ] 8-10.
\34\ Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, No. 20-9560 (Tenth
Cir.), January 5, 2021 Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this document, EPA proposes to address the two remanded portions
of EPA's 2020 final rule by proposing to approve Colorado's
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2015 ozone standards with respect
to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (E)(i). EPA seeks comment on its
conclusions under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (E)(i) in this
proposed approval. We are not otherwise addressing or reopening for
comment any of the other portions of our 2020 final rule. We will deem
any comments on such portions beyond the scope of this action.
II. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Approval of Colorado's Infrastructure
SIP Submission Under CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (E)(i)
A. Good Neighbor Provision
1. EPA's Approach to Evaluating Interstate Transport SIP Submissions
for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
EPA proposes to apply a consistent set of policy judgments across
all states for purposes of evaluating interstate transport obligations
and the approvability of interstate transport SIP submissions for the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These policy judgments reflect consistency
with relevant case law and past agency practice as reflected in the
CSAPR and related rulemakings. Nationwide consistency in approach is
particularly important in the context of interstate ozone transport,
which is a regional-scale pollution problem involving many smaller
contributors. Effective policy solutions to the problem of interstate
ozone transport going back to the NOX SIP Call have
necessitated the application of a uniform framework of policy judgments
in order to ensure an ``efficient and equitable'' approach.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 572 U.S. 489, 519
(2014). As discussed later in this section, EPA recognizes that the
nature of high ozone levels due to wintertime inversion conditions
in the Uinta Basin in Utah raises unique analytical challenges in
assessing whether there is transport from Colorado during those
wintertime episodes. EPA has separately analyzed that unique
situation and proposes to conclude that emissions from Colorado do
not contribute to high ozone levels in Utah. That analysis, however,
is separate from the generally applicable 4-step analytical
framework for ozone transport described here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remainder of this section describes EPA's proposed framework
with respect to analytic year, definition of nonattainment and
maintenance receptors, selection of contribution threshold, and
multifactor control strategy assessment.
2. Selection of Analytic Year
In general, the states and EPA must implement the interstate
transport provision in a manner ``consistent with the provisions of
[title I of the CAA].'' \36\ This requires, among other things, that
these obligations are addressed consistently with the timeframes for
downwind areas to meet their CAA obligations. With respect to ozone
NAAQS, under CAA section 181(a), this means obligations must be
addressed ``as expeditiously as practicable'' and no later than the
schedule of attainment dates provided in CAA section 181(a)(1).\37\ As
discussed in Section I of this proposed rulemaking, recent case law
makes clear that the states and the Agency are obligated, under the
good neighbor provision, to assess downwind air quality as
expeditiously as practicable and no later than the next applicable
attainment date. This is now the moderate area attainment date under
CAA section 181 for ozone nonattainment. The moderate area attainment
date for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2024.\38\ EPA
believes that 2023 is now the appropriate year for analysis of
interstate transport obligations for the 2015 8-hour 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 3, 2024, moderate area
attainment date for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i).
\37\ For attainment dates for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, refer
to 42 U.S.C. 7511(a), 40 CFR 51.1303, and Additional Air Quality
Designations for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018, effective August 3, 2018).
\38\ See 42 U.S.C. 7511(a); 40 CFR 51.1303; 83 FR 25776.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA recognizes that the attainment date for nonattainment areas
classified as marginal for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS was August 3,
2021. Under the Maryland holding, any necessary emissions reductions to
satisfy interstate transport obligations should have been implemented
by no later than this date. At the time of the statutory deadline to
submit interstate transport SIPs (October 1, 2018), many states,
including Colorado, relied upon EPA modeling of the year 2023, and no
state provided an alternative analysis using a 2021 analytic year (or
the prior 2020 ozone season). EPA appreciates that among the arguments
raised by the Center in challenging the 2020 final rule was the failure
to analyze a year earlier than 2023. However, EPA must act on SIP
submissions--even in this action on remand--using the information
available at the time it takes such action. In this circumstance, EPA
does not believe it would be appropriate to evaluate Colorado's
obligations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as of an attainment
date that is wholly in the past, because the Agency interprets the
interstate transport provision as forward looking.\39\ It would not
make sense to analyze air quality, contribution levels, or emissions
control strategies for the 2021 attainment date, for purposes of
interstate transport obligations, when no emissions reductions, if
shown to be needed, could be implemented by that date anyway.\40\
Consequently, in this proposal EPA will use the analytical year of 2023
to evaluate Colorado's CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission
with respect to the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See 86 FR 23074; see also Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 322.
\40\ Nor does EPA view 2022 as a reasonable analytic year for a
similar reason: it would be impossible to finalize this action and
implement any emissions reductions measures that could be shown to
be needed by the 2022 ozone season. Thus, 2023 is the appropriate
analytic year and also aligns with the next attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Step 1 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
In Step 1, EPA identifies monitoring sites that are projected to
have problems attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS in the 2023
analytic year. Where EPA's analysis shows that a site does not fall
under the definition of a nonattainment or maintenance receptor, that
site is excluded from further analysis under EPA's 4-step interstate
transport framework. For sites that are identified as a nonattainment
or maintenance receptor in 2023, we proceed to the next step of our 4-
step interstate transport framework by identifying the upwind state's
contribution to those receptors.
EPA's approach to identifying ozone nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in this action is consistent with the approach used in
previous transport rulemakings. EPA's approach gives independent
consideration to both the ``contribute significantly to nonattainment''
and the ``interfere with maintenance'' prongs of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with the
[[Page 27055]]
D.C. Circuit's direction in North Carolina v. EPA.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See 531 F.3d at 910-11 (holding that EPA must give
``independent significance'' to each prong of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this proposal, EPA identifies nonattainment receptors as those
monitoring sites that are projected to have average design values that
exceed the NAAQS and that are also measuring nonattainment based on the
most recent monitored design values. This approach is consistent with
prior transport rulemakings, such as the CSAPR Update, where EPA
defined nonattainment receptors as those areas that both currently
measure nonattainment and that EPA projects will be in nonattainment in
the future analytic year (i.e., 2023).\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See 81 FR 74504. This same concept, relying on both current
monitoring data and modeling to define nonattainment receptor, was
also applied in CAIR. See 70 FR at 25241, 25249 (January 14, 2005);
see also North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 913-14 (affirming as reasonable
EPA's approach to defining nonattainment in CAIR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, in this proposal, EPA identifies a receptor to be a
``maintenance'' receptor for purposes of defining interference with
maintenance, consistent with the method used in the CSAPR and upheld by
the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA.\43\
Specifically, EPA identified maintenance receptors as those receptors
that would have difficulty maintaining the relevant NAAQS in a scenario
that takes into account historical variability in air quality at that
receptor. The variability in air quality was determined by evaluating
the ``maximum'' future design value at each receptor based on a
projection of the maximum measured design value over the relevant
period. EPA interprets the projected maximum future design value to be
a potential future air quality outcome consistent with the meteorology
that yielded maximum measured concentrations in the ambient data set
analyzed for that receptor (i.e., ozone conducive meteorology). EPA
also recognizes that previously experienced meteorological conditions
(e.g., dominant wind direction, temperatures, air mass patterns)
promoting ozone formation that led to maximum concentrations in the
measured data may reoccur in the future. The maximum design value gives
a reasonable projection of future air quality at the receptor under a
scenario in which such conditions do, in fact, reoccur. The projected
maximum design value is used to identify upwind emissions that, under
those circumstances, could interfere with the downwind area's ability
to maintain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 795 F.3d 118, 136 (D.C. Cir. 2015); see 76 FR 48208 (August
8, 2011). CSAPR Update and Revised CSAPR Update also used this
approach. See 81 FR 74504 and 86 FR 23054.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing that nonattainment receptors are also, by definition,
maintenance receptors, EPA often uses the term ``maintenance-only'' to
refer to those receptors that are not nonattainment receptors.
Consistent with the concepts for maintenance receptors, as described
above, EPA identifies ``maintenance-only'' receptors as those
monitoring sites that have projected average design values above the
level of the applicable NAAQS, but that are not currently measuring
nonattainment based on the most recent official design values. In
addition, those monitoring sites with projected average design values
below the NAAQS, but with projected maximum design values above the
NAAQS are also identified as ``maintenance-only'' receptors, even if
they are currently measuring nonattainment based on the most recent
official design values.
4. Step 2 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
In Step 2, EPA quantifies the contribution of each upwind state to
each receptor in the 2023 analytic year. The contribution metric used
in Step 2 is defined as the average impact from each state to each
receptor on the days with the highest ozone concentrations at the
receptor based on the 2023 modeling. If a state's contribution value
does not equal or exceed the threshold of 1 percent of the NAAQS (i.e.,
0.70 ppb for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS), the upwind state is not
``linked'' to a downwind air quality problem, and EPA, therefore,
concludes that the state does not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in the
downwind states. However, if a state's contribution equals or exceeds
the 1 percent threshold, the state's emissions are further evaluated in
Step 3, considering both air quality and cost as part of a multi-factor
analysis, to determine what, if any, emissions might be deemed
``significant'' and, thus, must be eliminated under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA is proposing to rely in the first instance on
the 1 percent threshold for the purpose of evaluating a state's
contribution to nonattainment or maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (i.e., 0.70 ppb) at downwind receptors. This is consistent with
the Step 2 approach that EPA applied in CSAPR for the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
which has subsequently been applied in the CSAPR Update when evaluating
interstate transport obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA
continues to find 1 percent to be an appropriate threshold.
For ozone, as EPA found in the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),
CSAPR, and CSAPR Update, a portion of the nonattainment problems from
anthropogenic sources in the United States results from the combined
impact of relatively small contributions from many upwind states, along
with contributions from in-state sources and, in some cases,
substantially larger contributions from a subset of particular upwind
states. EPA's analysis shows that much of the ozone transport problem
being analyzed in this proposed rule is still the result of the
collective impacts of contributions from many upwind states. Therefore,
application of a consistent contribution threshold is necessary to
identify those upwind states that should have responsibility for
addressing their contribution to the downwind nonattainment and
maintenance problems to which they collectively contribute. Continuing
to use 1 percent of the NAAQS as the screening metric to evaluate
collective contribution from many upwind states also allows EPA (and
states) to apply a consistent framework to evaluate interstate
emissions transport under the interstate transport provision from one
NAAQS to the next.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See 81 FR 74518. See also 86 FR 23085 (reviewing and
explaining rationale from CSAPR, 76 FR 48237-38, for selection of 1
percent threshold).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Step 3 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
Consistent with EPA's longstanding approach to eliminating
significant contribution or interference with maintenance, at Step 3,
states linked at Steps 1 and 2 are generally expected to prepare a
multifactor assessment of potential emissions controls. EPA's analysis
at Step 3 in prior federal actions addressing interstate transport
requirements has focused primarily on an evaluation of cost-
effectiveness of potential emissions controls (on a marginal cost-per-
ton basis), the total emissions reductions that may be achieved by
requiring such controls (if applied across all linked upwind states),
and an evaluation of the air quality impacts such emissions reductions
would have on the downwind receptors to which a state is linked; other
factors may potentially be relevant if adequately supported. In
general, where EPA's or alternative air quality and contribution
modeling establishes that a state is linked at Steps 1 and 2, it will
[[Page 27056]]
be insufficient at Step 3 for a state merely to point to its existing
rules requiring control measures as a basis for approval. In general,
the emissions-reducing effects of all existing emissions control
requirements are already reflected in the air quality results of the
modeling for Steps 1 and 2. If the state is shown to still be linked to
one or more downwind receptor(s), states must provide a well-documented
evaluation determining whether their emissions constitute significant
contribution or interference with maintenance by evaluating additional
available control opportunities by preparing a multifactor assessment.
While EPA has not prescribed a particular method for this assessment,
EPA expects states at a minimum to present a sufficient technical
evaluation. This would typically include information on emissions
sources, applicable control technologies, emissions reductions, costs,
cost effectiveness, and downwind air quality impacts of the estimated
reductions, before concluding that no additional emissions controls
should be required.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ As examples of general approaches for how such an analysis
could be conducted for their sources, states could look to the CSAPR
Update, 81 FR 74504, 74539-51; CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48246-63; CAIR,
70 FR 25162, 25195-229; or the NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57356,
57399-405. See also Revised CSAPR Update, 86 FR 23054, 23086-23116.
Consistently across these rulemakings, EPA has developed emissions
inventories, analyzed different levels of control stringency at
different cost thresholds, and assessed resulting downwind air
quality improvements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Step 4 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
At Step 4, states (or EPA) develop permanent and federally
enforceable control strategies to achieve the emissions reductions
determined to be necessary at Step 3 to eliminate significant
contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the
NAAQS. For a state linked at Steps 1 and 2 to rely on an emissions
control measure at Step 3 to address its interstate transport
obligations, that measure must be included in the state's SIP so that
it is permanent and federally enforceable.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D) (``Each such [SIP] shall . . .
contain adequate provisions . . . .''); see also 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2)(A); Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169,
1175-76 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that measures relied on by state to
meet CAA requirements must be included in the SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. EPA's Evaluation of Colorado's CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
Submission
As mentioned above, the State of Colorado submitted a SIP
submission to EPA on September 17, 2018, to meet the good neighbor
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. In its prong 1 and prong 2
analysis, Colorado's SIP submission relies on analysis of the year 2023
(using a 2011 base year platform), among other things, to conclude that
the State does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other
state.\47\ As explained in Section I of this proposed rulemaking, EPA
has conducted an updated analysis for the 2023 analytical year (using a
2016 base year platform) and proposes to rely primarily on this updated
modeling to evaluate Colorado's transport SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Letter from Dr. Larry Wolk, Executive Director, Colorado
Department of Health & Environment, to Douglas Benevento, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 8, Attachment 9, Adopted SIP at 4-5
(August 16, 2018) (Colorado SIP Submission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in Section I, EPA performed air quality modeling to
project design values and contributions for 2023 using the 2016v2
emissions platform. EPA examined these data to determine if emissions
in Colorado contribute at or above the threshold of 1 percent of the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) to any downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor in this most recent round of modeling. The data
\48\ indicate that the highest contribution in 2023 from Colorado to a
downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor is 0.06 ppb and 0.20
ppb, respectively.\49\ Specifically, EPA's analysis indicates that
Colorado will have a 0.06 ppb impact at the projected nonattainment
receptor in Kenosha County, Wisconsin (Site ID 550590019), which has a
2023 projected average design value of 72.8 ppb and a 2023 projected
maximum design value of 73.7 ppb. EPA's analysis further indicates that
Colorado will have a 0.20 ppb impact at a projected maintenance
receptor in Denton County, Texas (Site ID 481210034), which has a
projected 2023 average design value of 70.4 ppb and a 2023 projected
maximum design value of 72.2 ppb. The data also indicate that the only
contribution in 2023 from Colorado to any downwind monitor above the 1
percent threshold is to a monitor in San Juan, New Mexico (0.99 ppb).
This monitor's 2023 average and maximum design values are projected to
be below the 2015 ozone NAAQS and the monitor is therefore not
projected to be a nonattainment and/or maintenance receptor for the
2015 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA proposes to conclude that the most
recent data support EPA's conclusion that Colorado does not contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Design values and contributions at individual monitoring
sites nationwide are provided in the file
``2016v2_DVs_state_contributions.xlsx,'' which is included in Docket
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
\49\ Both 0.06 ppb and 0.20 ppb are below the 1 percent
threshold of the 2015 ozone NAAQS (.70 ppb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its comments on the 2020 rule and in its brief in the Tenth
Circuit litigation, the Center identified several downwind areas that
it argued may have been in nonattainment in 2020 but that EPA had
screened out by using the incorrect analytic year of 2023. These
included: Tarrant and Denton County, Texas; the Northern and Southern
Wasatch Fronts in Utah; and monitors in New Mexico.\50\ In response to
this argument, EPA is providing in Table 1 the projected 2023 design
values (DV) and associated contributions from Colorado for all monitors
located in these areas for which EPA's modeling provides valid
contribution data.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, No. 20-9560 (Tenth
Cir.), Petitioner's Opening Brief at 29-31.
\51\ As described in the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document 2015 Ozone NAAQS Transport SIP Proposed Actions, EPA's
method for calculating an average contribution metric for use in
Step 2 of the 4-step transport framework is based on the average of
daily contributions on the top 10 ozone concentrations days as
modeled in 2023. However, in order to avoid including contributions
on days with low ozone concentrations, EPA requires at least 5 days
with model-predicted maximum daily average 8-hour ozone
concentrations greater than or equal to 60 ppb. In EPA's method,
contribution metric values are not calculated for monitors with
fewer than 5 days that meet the 60 ppb threshold. As a result of
applying this criterion, there were three monitoring sites in the
areas identified by the Center, excluding the Uinta Basin, that are
projected to have problems attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS in
2023 for which EPA did not calculate contribution metric values.
These monitors include two sites in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, and
one site in Toole County, Utah. Although EPA does not have
contribution data for these specific monitors, the data at near-by
monitors indicate that the contributions from Colorado to Dona Ana
and Toole Counties are expected to be well below the 1 percent
threshold. Specifically, the contribution from Colorado to a
monitoring site in El Paso, Texas, which is in the Dona Ana-El Paso
interstate nonattainment area, is 0.04 ppb and, as indicated in
Table 1, the contributions from Colorado to monitoring sites in Salt
Lake County, which is closer to Colorado than Toole County, are 0.03
ppb.
[[Page 27057]]
Table 1--Colorado Contributions and Select Monitors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado
Monitor (AQS site ID) State County Projected 2023 Projected 2023 contribution
average DV maximum DV (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
350010029................................ New Mexico.................. Bernalillo................. 62.0 62.7 0.27
350450018................................ New Mexico.................. San Juan................... 64.7 66.6 1.00
350610008................................ New Mexico.................. Valencia................... 62.2 63.9 0.30
481210034................................ Texas....................... Denton..................... 70.4 72.2 0.20
481211032................................ Texas....................... Denton..................... 67.2 69.0 0.22
484393009................................ Texas....................... Tarrant.................... 68.0 68.7 0.17
481410029................................ Texas....................... El Paso.................... 62.3 64.6 0.04
490030003................................ Utah........................ Box Elder.................. 65.2 66.5 0.02
490110004................................ Utah........................ Davis...................... 72.9 75.1 0.03
490353006................................ Utah........................ Salt Lake.................. 73.6 75.3 0.03
490353013................................ Utah........................ Salt Lake.................. 74.4 74.9 0.03
490570002................................ Utah........................ Weber...................... 70.6 72.5 0.02
490571003................................ Utah........................ Weber...................... 70.5 71.5 0.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 shows that there are six monitors predicted to be violating
the 2015 ozone NAAQS in 2023, one in Texas and five in Utah.\52\
However, Colorado's projected contribution to each of these monitors is
below the 1 percent threshold. Thus, no further analysis is required to
address Colorado's good neighbor obligations for the areas relevant to
the listed monitors at Step 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See monitors 481210034, 490110004, 490353006, 490353013,
490570002, and 490571003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Center also claimed that it could not find any documents in the
record which address Colorado's contribution to nonattainment in the
Uinta Basin.\53\ EPA projected the design values for several of the
monitoring sites in Duchesne County and Uintah County, Utah, but the
Agency's modeling represents summertime ozone conditions and is not
designed to capture the conditions that result in the high wintertime
ozone concentrations in the Uinta Basin nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, No. 20-9560 (Tenth
Cir.), Petitioner's Opening Brief at 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to characterize potential transport from Colorado to the
Uinta Basin nonattainment area in the absence of reliable modeling to
inform wintertime ozone levels and contributions, EPA conducted a
separate analysis for the Uinta Basin, which is provided in a Uinta
Basin TSD accompanying this action and included in Docket EPA-R08-OAR-
2019-0140.\54\ To summarize EPA's TSD findings, the ozone levels in the
Uinta Basin nonattainment area are caused by a combination of
meteorological inversion conditions, the unique topography of the Uinta
Basin, and significant emissions of ozone precursors from sources
within Utah. Generally, EPA concludes that ozone-precursor emissions do
not transport into the Uinta Basin from outside the area during
wintertime inversion episodes that produce high ozone conditions.
Further, with respect to the portion of Colorado located within the
regional Uinta Basin, available data shows that, because of low wind
speed during wintertime inversion conditions and the unique
topographical features within the regional Uinta Basin, emissions from
the relevant area of Colorado are unlikely to transport to the Utah
portion of the Uinta Basin.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ EPA, Technical Support Document, Ozone Transport Analysis:
Colorado and the Uinta Basin Nonattainment Area, April 2022 (Uinta
Basin TSD).
\55\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA reaches these conclusions recognizing the unique challenges
associated with characterizing wintertime ozone concentrations and
contributions in the Uinta Basin. As such, for this portion of the
analysis, EPA is supplementing the consistently applied 4-step
interstate transport framework used to characterize ozone transport at
a broader, regional scale and during the summertime ozone season. Based
on the information and analysis presented in the Uinta Basin TSD, EPA
proposes to find that it is reasonable to conclude that Colorado does
not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in the Utah portion of the Uinta
Basin.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, based on the analyses provided in this document and in
the Uinta Basin TSD, EPA proposes to conclude that emissions from
sources in Colorado will not contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
Accordingly, EPA proposes to approve Colorado's infrastructure SIP
submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
8. Emissions Assumptions Used in Modeling
The Center argued that in the context of evaluating Colorado's good
neighbor SIP submission, EPA should have accounted for air quality
impacts from various proposed and final federal rules.\57\ EPA's normal
practice is to include in its modeling only changes in emissions from
final regulatory actions because, until such rules are finalized, any
potential changes in NOX or VOC emissions are speculative.
EPA's updated 2023 modeling using the 2016v2 platform reflects an
updated assessment of the emissions inventory nationwide based on
changes in federal and state rules and other relevant changes in the
emissions inventory known at the time this latest modeling was
conducted. All assumptions that formed the basis of the updated 2023
modeling (2016v2) are available in the emissions modeling TSD.\58\ EPA
encourages commenters to review this information, which supports the
updated basis for this proposed action. This information supersedes the
older modeling of 2023 that had been used in the 2020 final rule (2011
base year platform).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, No. 20-9560 (Tenth
Cir.), Petitioner's Opening Brief at 33-37.
\58\ See generally 2016v2 TSD; see also, e.g., 2016v2 TSD
Section 4, 157-213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Colorado's Authority To Regulate Agricultural Emissions
1. EPA's Prior Approval
CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires that a state must provide
``necessary assurances'' that it has, among other things, adequate
authority under state law to carry out the provisions of its SIP with
respect to the relevant NAAQS. In the context of an infrastructure SIP
submission, EPA expects states to
[[Page 27058]]
provide such necessary assurances for the new or revised NAAQS at
issue.
In its September 17, 2018 infrastructure SIP submission, Colorado
stated that ``[t]here are no state or federal provisions prohibiting
the implementation of any provision of the Colorado SIP.''
Specifically, Colorado cited to its ``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 C.R.S. 25-7-111; 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 C.R.S. 42-4-301 through 42-4-
414 (concerning motor vehicle emissions) and 42-4-414, C.R.S.
(concerning emissions from diesel-powered vehicles).\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Colorado SIP Submission, Attachment 9, Adopted SIP at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Center commented on EPA's proposed approval of the State's
infrastructure SIP submission, stating that C.R.S. 25-7-109(8)(a)
prohibits Colorado from regulating agricultural sources of air
pollution unless they are major sources. EPA evaluated the Center's
concern with respect to Colorado's authority. In response, EPA
explained that the provision cited by the Center does not bar the State
from carrying out its existing SIP, and that in fact, the provision
requires regulation of agricultural sources if they are major
stationary sources, or if regulation is required by Part C, Part D, or
title V of the CAA. In other words, EPA interpreted the provision to
mean that if it is necessary to regulate agricultural sources beyond
those that are major sources in order to attain and maintain the NAAQS,
then the State has authority to do so. EPA noted that whether Colorado
will need additional emission limitations and other control measures
for areas designated nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS will be
evaluated by the State and EPA as part of the State's attainment plan
under CAA title I part D through a separate process. Thus, EPA found
that Colorado does not lack authority to implement the SIP and
concluded instead that Colorado's infrastructure SIP satisfied CAA
section 110(a)(2)(E)(i).\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ 85 FR 20171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. EPA's Revised Analysis on Remand Under CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i)
In its brief filed in the Tenth Circuit litigation, the Center
renewed its argument challenging EPA's approval of Colorado's
infrastructure SIP submission as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i)
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The Center argued that EPA erred in approving
Colorado's infrastructure SIP submittal under CAA section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) because C.R.S. 25-7-109(8)(A) bars Colorado from
regulating agricultural sources other than those that are major
sources. In particular, the Center argued that agricultural emissions
are largely not from major stationary sources, but rather from fugitive
emissions due to pesticide application, gases emitted from soil after
fertilizer application, minor stationary sources, and mobile sources.
The Center argued that Colorado state law thus is inadequate to provide
authority to control these sources of pollution.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, No. 20-9560 (Tenth
Cir.), Petitioner's Opening Brief at 38-44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the 2020 final rule, EPA disagreed with the
Center's interpretation of the C.R.S. 25-7-109(8)(A) and instead
concluded that Colorado is not prohibited under state law from
regulating emissions from agricultural sources (however small) \62\ as
necessary to implement the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\63\ In relevant part, the
agricultural provision states that ``the [State] shall regulate
emissions from [agriculture, horticultural, or floricultural
production, including 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), . . . .'' \64\ Thus, as stated in the
2020 final rule, the statute plainly requires regulation of emissions
from agricultural sources, including from nonpoint sources, soils and
pesticides, mobile sources, and minor sources, if required under the
CAA, including as necessary under Part D for attainment of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Emissions from agricultural sources make up a very small
portion of NOX and VOC emissions statement in the Denver
Metro/Northern Front Range nonattainment area. See 2017 NEI
NOX VOC table, which is included in the docket for this
action.
\63\ 85 FR 20171.
\64\ C.R.S. 25-7-109(8)(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On remand, EPA verified that it properly interpreted Colorado law
with respect to the State's authority to regulate agricultural sources,
and, in particular, that Colorado law does not limit that regulatory
authority to major sources. Indeed, Colorado has confirmed that it
agrees with EPA's interpretation of C.R.S. 25-7-109(8)(A). In a letter
submitted to EPA on July 29, 2021, Colorado acknowledged that C.R.S.
25-7-109(8)(A) includes a ``limited restriction'' on the State's
authority to regulate emissions from agricultural production activities
but explains that there are ``important carve-outs'' to that limited
restriction. Colorado confirmed that the State has explicit authority
to regulate major stationary sources. Colorado further explained that
the sources that qualify as ``major stationary sources'' depends on the
classification of the nonattainment area at issue--the higher the
classification the lower the emissions threshold to qualify as a major
stationary source. Additionally, Colorado confirmed in the letter that
the State has ``authority to regulate emissions from agricultural
production, regardless of the size of the source, to the extent that
such regulations are required by Part C (prevention of significant
deterioration), Part D (nonattainment), or Title V (minimum elements of
a permit program) of the federal [CAA].'' Moreover, Colorado confirmed
that the State has explicit authority to regulate emissions from
agricultural production to the extent that such regulation is required
by CAA section 111 (new source performance standards) and explained
that such regulation is conducted through the State's minor source,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration, New Source Review, and Title V
permitting programs. Finally, Colorado explained that the State has
authority to promulgate, administer, and enforce emissions regulations
that impact emissions from agricultural production, including mobile
sources.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Letter to Deb Thomas, Regional Administrator (Acting) and
Deputy Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 8, from Garrison Kaufman, Director, Air Pollution Control
Division, July 29, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the above analysis and Colorado's July 29, 2021 letter,
EPA has now verified its interpretation of the State's authority to
regulate agricultural sources, as necessary to meet CAA requirements.
Colorado has thus provided necessary assurances of the State's
authority to regulate agricultural sources as required in 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2)(E)(i). Accordingly, EPA is again proposing to approve
Colorado's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS with
respect to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i).
[[Page 27059]]
III. Proposed Action
In this action, EPA proposes to conclude that Colorado's
infrastructure SIP satisfies the interstate transport provision of the
CAA, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and that the
State has provided the necessary assurances of the State's authority to
regulate all agricultural sources as may be required by the CAA under
section 110(a)(2)(E)(i).
IV. 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, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve 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);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 26, 2022.
K.C. Becker,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2022-09449 Filed 5-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P