[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 95 (Monday, May 18, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28209-28215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11782]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0351; FRL-9927-81-Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of
Wyoming; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5
NAAQS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28210]]
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve portions of an August 19, 2011
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Wyoming
that are intended to demonstrate that its SIP meets certain interstate
transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) for the 2006
24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). This submission addresses the requirement
that Wyoming's SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting air
emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other
states. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the portion of the
Wyoming SIP submission that addresses the significant contribution to
nonattainment and interference with maintenance transport requirements
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to
approve the interference with prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) of air quality transport requirement for this NAAQS, and is not
proposing action on the interference with visibility transport
requirement at this time. EPA will address the visibility requirement
for this NAAQS in a separate future action.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 17, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2012-0351, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: [email protected].
Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
Mail: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129.
Hand Delivery: Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted
Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2012-0351. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I, General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7104,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The initials CAIR mean or refer to the Clean Air Interstate
Rule.
(iii) The initials CSAPR mean or refer to the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule.
(iv) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
(v) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
(vi) The initials NSR mean or refer to New Source Review.
(vii) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to fine particulate matter.
(viii) The initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of Significant
Deterioration.
(ix) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(x) The initials TSD mean or refer to Technical Support Document.
(xi) The initial ug/m3 mean or refer to micrograms per cubic meter.
(xii) The initials WDEQ mean or refer to the Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality.
(xiii) The words Wyoming and State mean the State of Wyoming,
unless the context indicates otherwise.
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. Background
A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport
B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS
C. EPA Guidance
III. Wyoming's Submittal
IV. EPA's Evaluation
A. Identification of Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptors
B. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment
C. Evaluation of Interference With Maintenance
D. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Prevent
Significant Deterioration
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
I. General Information
What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting confidential business information (CBI). Do not
submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information in a disk or CD
[[Page 28211]]
ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI
and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Background
A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport
On September 21, 2006, EPA promulgated a final rule revising the
1997 24-hour primary and secondary NAAQS for PM2.5 from 65
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ (October 17,
2006, 71 FR 61144).
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires each state to submit to EPA,
within three years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may
prescribe) after the promulgation of a primary or secondary NAAQS or
any revision thereof, a SIP that provides for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. EPA refers to these
specific submittals as ``infrastructure'' SIPs because they are
intended to address basic structural SIP requirements for new or
revised NAAQS. For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, these
infrastructure SIPs were due on September 21, 2009. CAA section
110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan
submission'' must meet.
The interstate transport provisions in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
(also called ``good neighbor'' provisions) require each state to submit
a SIP that prohibits emissions that will have certain adverse air
quality effects in other states. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies
four distinct elements related to the impacts of air pollutants
transported across state lines. The two elements under
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require SIPs to contain adequate provisions to
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the
state from emitting air pollutants that will (element 1) contribute
significantly to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any
such national primary or secondary NAAQS, and (element 2) interfere
with maintenance by any other state with respect to the same NAAQS. The
two elements under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) require SIPs to contain adequate
provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with measures
required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any
other state under part C (element 3) to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality or (element 4) to protect visibility. In
this action, EPA is addressing elements one, two and three of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
EPA has previously addressed the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past regulatory actions.\1\ Most recently, EPA
published the final Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR or
``Transport Rule'') to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the
eastern portion of the United States with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS (August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208). CSAPR replaces the
earlier Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was judicially
remanded.\2\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
On August 21, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
issued a decision vacating CSAPR, see EME Homer City Generation, L.P.
v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), and ordering EPA to continue
implementing CAIR in the interim. However, on April 29, 2014, the U.S.
Supreme Court reversed and remanded the D.C. Circuit's ruling and
upheld EPA's approach in the CSAPR. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation,
L.P., 134 S.Ct. 1584, 1610 (2014). After the U.S. Supreme Court
decision, EPA filed a motion to lift the stay on CSAPR and asked the
D.C. Circuit to toll CSAPR's compliance deadlines by three years. On
October 23, 2014 the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's motion and lifted the
stay on CSAPR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302
(D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014), Order at 3. EPA began CSAPR implementation
on January 1, 2015 pursuant to the D.C. Circuit's directive lifting the
stay. The State of Wyoming was not covered by CSAPR, and EPA made no
determinations in the rule regarding whether emissions from sources in
Wyoming significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another
state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998);
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and
Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208
(August 8, 2011).
\2\ CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It did not address the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. EPA Guidance
On September 25, 2009, EPA issued a guidance memorandum that
provides recommendations to states for making submissions to meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006
PM2.5 standards (``2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance'' or ``Guidance'').\3\ With respect to element
1 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) to prohibit emissions that will
contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other
state, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance advised
states to include in their section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions
an adequate technical analysis to support their conclusions regarding
interstate pollution transport, e.g., information concerning emissions
in the state, meteorological conditions in the state and in potentially
impacted states, monitored ambient pollutant concentrations in the
state and in potentially impacted states, distances to the nearest
areas not attaining the NAAQS in other states, and air quality
modeling.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled ``Guidance
on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' September 25, 2009, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf.
\4\ The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance
stated that EPA was working on a new rule to replace CAIR that would
address issues raised by the court in the North Carolina case and
that would provide guidance to states in addressing the requirements
related to interstate transport in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. It also noted that
states could not rely on the CAIR rule for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submissions for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS because the CAIR rule did not address this NAAQS. See 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28212]]
With respect to element 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) to
prohibit emissions that would interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
by any other state, the Guidance stated that SIP submissions must
address this independent and distinct requirement of the statute and
provide technical information appropriate to support the State's
conclusions, and suggested consideration of the same technical
information that would be appropriate for element 1 of this CAA
requirement.
In this action, EPA is proposing to use the conceptual approach to
evaluating interstate pollution transport under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that EPA explained in the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance and CSAPR. As such, we find that the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from Wyoming may be evaluated
using a ``weight of evidence'' approach that takes into account
available relevant information, including the factors recommended in
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance. These
submissions can rely on modeling when acceptable modeling technical
analyses are available, but EPA does not believe that modeling is
necessarily required if other available information is sufficient to
evaluate the presence or degree of interstate transport in a given
situation.
With respect to the requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
which address elements 3 (PSD) and 4 (visibility), EPA most recently
issued an infrastructure guidance memo on September 13, 2013 that
included guidance on these two elements.\5\ For the purposes of this
action, this memo will hereon be referred to as the ``2013 I-SIP
Guidance.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)''
dated September 13, 2013, in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Wyoming's Submittal
On August 19, 2011, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
(WDEQ) made a submission certifying that Wyoming's SIP is adequate to
implement the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for all the
``infrastructure'' requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2). In this
analysis, WDEQ simply listed the regulatory and non-regulatory
documents that it felt demonstrated the Wyoming SIP's adequacy to meet
the 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ WDEQ's certification letter, dated August 19, 2011 is
included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To meet the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
(elements 1 and 2), WDEQ's submission referenced the State's May 3,
2007 interstate transport SIP. The May 3, 2007 SIP was determined by
EPA to meet the interstate transport requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, and was
therefore approved by EPA on May 8, 2008 (73 FR 26019). However,
Wyoming's May 3, 2007 SIP did not address the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. On April 23, 2015, WDEQ sent EPA a letter
clarifying that it considered the factors relied upon as part of the
May 3, 2007 submittal to also be applicable to a transport analysis for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Wyoming's clarification letter is available in the docket
for this action. Wyoming's May 3rd, 2007 Interstate Transport SIP
can be found in the docket for that action (EPA-R08-OAR-2007-0648).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To meet the element 3 (PSD) requirement of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), Wyoming referenced Wyoming Air Quality Standards and
Regulations (WAQSR) Chapter 6, section 2, Permit requirements for
construction, modification, and operation, as well as its May 3, 2007
Interstate Transport SIP. In its April 23, 2015 letter to EPA, Wyoming
clarified its element 3 submittal by indicating that it will issue
permits to sources locating in nonattainment areas pursuant to 40 CFR
part 51, appendix S until it has a SIP-approved nonattainment NSR
program.
IV. EPA's Evaluation
To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement
is satisfied, EPA first determines whether a state's emissions
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
in other states. If a state is determined not to have such contribution
or interference, then section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not require any
changes to that state's SIP.
Consistent with the first step of EPA's approach in the 1998
NOX SIP call, the 2005 CAIR, and the 2011 CSAPR, EPA
evaluated impacts of emissions from Wyoming with respect to specific
ambient air monitors identified as having nonattainment and/or
maintenance problems, which we refer to as ``receptors.'' To evaluate
these impacts, and in the absence of relevant modeling of Wyoming
emissions, EPA examined factors suggested by the 2006 Guidance such as
monitoring data, topography, and meteorology. EPA notes that no single
piece of information is by itself dispositive of the issue. Instead,
the total weight of all the evidence taken together is used to evaluate
significant contributions to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another
state.
As noted above, Wyoming's August 19, 2011 submission does not
include a technical demonstration specific to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Rather, the State relied on the transport
analysis it conducted for a previous PM2.5 NAAQS, later
clarifying that it had considered parts of this analysis to be relevant
for the purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 standard. While EPA does
not agree with the State's position that the analysis from its May 3,
2007 is also applicable to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, we
agree with Wyoming's determination that the existing SIP has adequate
provisions to meet the CAA requirements based on EPA's supplemental
evaluation. For this reason, we propose to approve the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of the submission based on EPA's
supplemental evaluation of relevant technical information. Our
evaluation demonstrates that emissions from Wyoming do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state and that
the existing Wyoming SIP is, therefore, adequate to meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Our supplemental evaluation considers several factors, including
identification of the ambient air monitors in other states that are
appropriate ``nonattainment receptors'' or ``maintenance receptors,''
consistent with EPA's approach in the CSAPR, and additional technical
information to evaluate whether emissions from Wyoming contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at these receptors.
Our Technical Support Document (TSD) contains a detailed evaluation
and is available in the public docket for this rulemaking, which may be
accessed online at http://www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R08-
OAR-2012-0351. Below, we provide a summary of our analysis.
A. Identification of Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptors
EPA evaluated data from existing monitors over three overlapping 3-
year periods (i.e., 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-2013) to determine
which areas are expected to be violating the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and which
[[Page 28213]]
areas might have difficulty maintaining attainment of the standard. If
a monitoring site measured a violation of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS during the most recent 3-year period (2011-
2013), then that monitor location was evaluated for purposes of the
significant contribution to nonattainment (element 1) of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). If, on the other hand, a monitoring site shows
attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during the most
recent 3-year period (2011-2013) but a violation in at least one of the
previous two 3-year periods (2010-2012 or 2009-2011), then that monitor
location was evaluated for purposes of the interfere with maintenance
(element 2) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
This approach is similar to that used in the modeling done during
the development of CSAPR, but differs in that it relies on monitoring
data (rather than modeling) for the western states not included in the
CSAPR modeling domain.\8\ By this method, EPA has identified those
areas with monitors to be considered ``nonattainment receptors'' or
``maintenance receptors'' for evaluating whether the emissions from
sources in another state could significantly contribute to
nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance in, that particular
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ As noted, the State of Wyoming was not included in the CSAPR
modeling domain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA continues to believe that the more widespread and serious
transport problems in the eastern United States are analytically
distinct. For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA believes
that nonattainment and maintenance problems in the western United
States are relatively local in nature with only limited impacts from
interstate transport. In CSAPR, EPA did not calculate the portion of
any downwind state's predicted PM2.5 concentrations that
would result from emissions from individual western states, such as
Wyoming. Accordingly, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP
submissions for states outside the geographic area analyzed to develop
CSAPR may be evaluated using a ``weight of evidence'' approach that
takes into account available relevant information, such as that
recommended by the EPA in the Guidance. Such information may include,
but is not limited to, the amount of emissions in the state relevant to
the NAAQS in question, the meteorological conditions in the area, the
distance from the state to the nearest monitors in other states that
are appropriate receptors, or such other information as may be
probative to consider as to whether sources in the state may contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. These submissions
can rely on modeling when acceptable modeling technical analyses are
available, but EPA does not believe that modeling is necessarily
required if other available information is sufficient to evaluate the
presence or degree of interstate transport in a given situation.
B. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment
EPA reviewed technical information to evaluate the potential for
Wyoming emissions to contribute significantly to nonattainment of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at specified monitoring sites in
the Western U.S.\9\ EPA first identified as ``nonattainment receptors''
all monitoring sites in the western states that had recorded
PM2.5 design values above the level of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (35 [mu]g/m3) during the years 2011-2013.\10\
See Section III of our TSD for more a more detailed description of
EPA's methodology for selection of nonattainment receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ EPA also considered potential PM2.5 transport
from Wyoming to the nearest nonattainment and maintenance receptors
located in the eastern, midwestern and southern states covered by
CSAPR and believes it is reasonable to conclude that, given the
significant distance from Wyoming to the nearest such receptor (in
Wisconsin) and the relatively insignificant amount of emissions from
Wyoming that could potentially be transported such a distance when
compared to downwind states whose contribution was modeled for
CSAPR, emissions from Wyoming sources do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at this location. These same
factors also support a finding that emissions from Wyoming sources
neither contribute significantly to nonattainment nor interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at any
location further east. See TSD at section I.B.3.
\10\ Because CAIR did not cover states in the Western United
States, these data are not significantly impacted by the remanded
CAIR and thus could be considered in this analysis. In contrast,
recent air quality data in the eastern, midwestern and southern
states are significantly impacted by reductions associated with CAIR
and because CSAPR was developed to replace CAIR, EPA could not
consider reductions associated with the CAIR in the base case
transport analysis for those states. See 76 FR at 48223-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because geographic distance is a relevant factor in the assessment
of potential pollution transport, EPA first reviewed information
related to potential transport of PM2.5 pollution from
Wyoming to the nonattainment receptors in states bordering Wyoming,
which were located in Idaho, Montana and Utah. As detailed in our TSD,
the following factors support a finding that emissions from Wyoming do
not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in Idaho, Montana and Utah: (1) Technical
information, such as data from monitors in the vicinity of these
nonattainment receptors, related to the nature of local emissions; (2)
topographical considerations such as intervening mountain ranges which
tend to create physical impediments for pollution transport; and (3)
meteorological considerations such as prevailing winds. While none of
these factors by itself would necessarily show non-contribution, when
taken together in a weight-of-evidence assessment they are sufficient
for EPA to determine that emissions from Wyoming do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment at the Idaho, Montana and Utah receptors.
EPA also evaluated potential PM2.5 transport to
nonattainment receptors in the more distant western states of Oregon
and California. The following factors support a finding that emissions
from Wyoming do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any of these states: (1) The
significant distance from Wyoming to the nonattainment receptors in
these states; (2) technical information, such as data from nearby
monitors related to the nature of local emissions; and (3) the presence
of intervening mountain ranges, which tend to impede pollution
transport.
Based on our evaluation, we propose to conclude that emissions of
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from sources in
the State of Wyoming do not significantly contribute to nonattainment
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards in any other state, that
the existing SIP for the State of Wyoming is adequate to satisfy the
``significant contribution'' requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standards, and that the State of Wyoming therefore does not need to
adopt additional controls for purposes of implementing the
``significant contribution to nonattainment'' requirement of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to that NAAQS at this time.
C. Evaluation of Interference With Maintenance
We also reviewed technical information to evaluate the potential
for Wyoming emissions to interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standards at specified monitoring sites in the Western
U.S. EPA first identified as ``maintenance receptors'' all monitoring
sites in the western states that had recorded PM2.5 design
values above the level of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35
[mu]g/m\3\) during the 2009-2011 and/or 2010-2012 periods but below
this standard during the
[[Page 28214]]
2011-2013 period. See section III of our TSD for more information
regarding EPA's methodology for selection of maintenance receptors. All
of the maintenance receptors in the western states are located in
California, Utah and Montana. EPA therefore evaluated the potential for
transport of Wyoming emissions to the maintenance receptors located in
these states. As detailed in our TSD, the following factors support a
finding that emissions from Wyoming do not interfere with maintenance
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in those states: (1)
Technical information, such as data from monitors near maintenance
receptors, relating to the nature of local emissions, and (2) the
significant distance between Wyoming and these maintenance receptors.
Based on this evaluation, EPA proposes to conclude that emissions
of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from sources
in the State of Wyoming do not interfere with maintenance of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 standards in any other state, that the
existing SIP for the State of Wyoming is adequate to satisfy the
``interfere with maintenance'' requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and that the State of Wyoming therefore does not
need to adopt additional controls for purposes of implementing the
``interfere with maintenance'' requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to that NAAQS at this time.
D. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Prevent Significant
Deterioration
With regard to the PSD portion of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II),
this requirement may be met by a state's confirmation in an
infrastructure SIP submission that new major sources and major
modifications in the state are subject to a comprehensive EPA-approved
PSD permitting program in the SIP that applies to all regulated new
source review (NSR) pollutants and that satisfies the requirements of
EPA's PSD implementation rules.\11\ On December 6, 2013, EPA approved
CAA section 110(a)(2) elements (C) and (J) for Wyoming's infrastructure
SIP for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to PSD
requirements for regulated NSR pollutants (78 FR 73445). As discussed
in detail in the proposed rulemaking for that final action, the
concurrent approval of PSD-related revisions which incorporated certain
requirements of the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule to the Wyoming
SIP action ensured that Wyoming's SIP-approved PSD program meets the
current structural requirements of 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) to have a PSD
program that applies to all regulated NSR pollutants.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 2013 I-SIP Guidance.
\12\ As described in the proposed action (78 FR 54828, September
6, 2013) for the final December 6, 2013 rulemaking, EPA did not
approve certain portions of the State's incorporation of the 2010
PM2.5 Increment Rule because these portions were
ultimately removed from EPA's PSD regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in the 2013 I-SIP Guidance, in-state sources not subject
to PSD for any one or more of the pollutants subject to regulation
under the CAA because they are in a nonattainment area for a NAAQS
related to those particular pollutants may also have the potential to
interfere with PSD in an attainment or unclassifiable area of another
state. One way a state may satisfy element 3 with respect to these
sources is by citing an air agency's EPA-approved nonattainment NSR
provisions addressing any pollutants for which the state has designated
nonattainment areas. Alternatively, if an air agency makes a submission
indicating that it issues permits pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, appendix
S in a nonattainment area because a nonattainment NSR program for a
particular NAAQS pollutant has not yet been approved by EPA for that
area, that permitting program may generally be considered adequate for
purposes of meeting the requirements of element 3 with respect to
sources and pollutants subject to such program. Where neither of the
circumstances described above exist, it may also be possible for EPA to
find, given the facts of the situation, that other SIP provisions and/
or physical conditions are adequate to prohibit interference by such
sources with other air agencies' measures to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality.
EPA recently finalized a rulemaking which disapproved a portion of
Wyoming's May 10, 2011 SIP revision that attempted to add nonattainment
NSR permitting requirements to the state plan for the first time (80 FR
9194, February 20, 2015). In this partial disapproval, EPA found that
this SIP revision failed to create unambiguous and enforceable
obligations for sources that would be subject to the nonattainment NSR
requirements. Accordingly, the State does not currently have any SIP-
approved nonattainment NSR permitting provisions which would subject
sources locating in nonattainment areas in the State to regulation. The
State has confirmed, via a clarification letter sent to EPA on April
23, 2015, that it will issue permits to sources locating in such
nonattainment areas pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, appendix S until it has
a SIP-approved nonattainment NSR program.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ EPA notes that the State's application of appendix S would
only currently apply to the Upper Green River Basin 2008 ozone
nonattainment area. Wyoming has had a construction ban in place and
approved into the SIP for over twenty years in order to meet
nonattainment NSR requirements in the Sheridan coarse particulate
matter (PM10) nonattainment area (See WAQSR, Chapter 6,
section 2(c)(ii)(B)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the State has committed to applying appendix S until it has
a SIP-approved nonattainment NSR program, EPA is proposing to approve
the infrastructure SIP submission with regard to the requirements of
element 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
V. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of
Wyoming's August 19, 2011 submission. We propose to approve elements 1
and 2 of this portion of the submission based on EPA's supplemental
evaluation of relevant technical information, which supports a finding
that emissions from Wyoming do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state and that the existing Wyoming
SIP is, therefore, adequate to meet the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA is also proposing to approve element 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) from
Wyoming's August 19, 2011 submission, based on a finding that the
Wyoming SIP is adequate to meet the PSD requirement of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
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
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions
[[Page 28215]]
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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 1, 2015.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2015-11782 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P