[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 153 (Thursday, August 10, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37371-37374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16826]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0321; FRL-9966-00-Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; Interstate Transport
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve North Carolina's December 9, 2015 State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submission pertaining to the Clean Air Act's (CAA or Act) ``good
neighbor'' provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2008 8-
hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The good
neighbor provision requires each state's SIP to address the interstate
transport of air pollution in amounts that contribute significantly to
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other
state. In this action, EPA is proposing to determine that North
Carolina's SIP contains adequate provisions to prohibit emissions
within the state from contributing significantly to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any
other state.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 11, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2017-0321 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically 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). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashten Bailey, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Bailey can also be reached via telephone at (404) 562-
9164 and via electronic mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated an ozone NAAQS that revised the
levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards from 0.08
parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm. See 73 FR 16436. Pursuant to CAA
section 110(a)(1), within three years after promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS (or shorter, if EPA prescribes), states must submit SIPs
that meet the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2). EPA has
historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as
``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. One of the structural requirements
of section 110(a)(2) is section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) which generally
requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state
emissions activities from having certain adverse air quality effects on
neighboring states due to interstate transport of air pollution. There
are four sub-elements, or ``prongs,'' within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of
the CAA. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the ``good
neighbor'' provision, requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting
any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from
emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the
NAAQS in another state. The two provisions of this section are referred
to as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2
(interference with maintenance). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires
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 to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3) or to protect
visibility (prong 4). This proposed action addresses only prongs 1 and
2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). All other infrastructure SIP elements for
North Carolina for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS were addressed in
separate rulemakings.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 80 FR 68453 (November 5, 2015), 81 FR 35634 (June 3,
2016), and 81 FR 63107 (September 14, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. State Submittal
On December 9, 2015, the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality (NCDEQ) submitted a SIP submittal containing a certification
\2\ that North Carolina is meeting the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because, based on
available emissions and air quality modeling data, emissions activities
within North Carolina will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in any other state.\3\ NCDEQ reviewed preliminary air quality
modeling and data files that EPA disseminated in an August 4, 2015
Notice of Data Availability to assess interstate transport of ozone for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\4\ See Notice of
[[Page 37372]]
Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's Updated Ozone
Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, 80 FR 46271
(2015 NODA). NCDEQ disagrees with the 2015 NODA's preliminary
projection that North Carolina emissions may impact a projected
maintenance receptor in Baltimore County, Maryland. Specifically, NCDEQ
asserts that the 2015 NODA modeling analysis ``is associated with
inaccurate emissions inventories and deficiencies in the performance of
the air quality modeling.'' In its SIP submittal, NCDEQ asserts that
the modeled contribution from North Carolina to the maintenance
receptor in Baltimore County, Maryland, should accordingly be reduced,
and the State should thus not be considered ``linked'' to any downwind
state in EPA's preliminary modeling. NCDEQ notes that the State is on
track to comply and meet the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
Phase 1 and 2 annual electric generation unit (EGU) state-wide
allowance trading program requirements that reduce annual emissions of
NOX and SO2.\5\ In addition, NCDEQ cites
information related to emissions trends--such as reductions in ozone
precursor emissions and back trajectories, monitored ozone values in
North Carolina, SEMAP modeling, and controls on North Carolina coal
plants--as further evidence that emissions from the State will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This submittal revises a November 2, 2012 submittal
addressing other infrastructure SIP elements for North Carolina for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See, e.g., 80 FR 68453. North Carolina
previously withdrew the portions of the November 2, 2012 submittal
related to prongs 1 and 2.
\3\ On July 13, 2015, EPA published a final rulemaking that
finalized findings of failure to submit for 24 states, including
North Carolina. See 80 FR 39961. The findings of failure to submit
established a 2-year deadline for EPA to promulgate a federal
implementation plan to address the interstate transport SIP
requirements pertaining to significant contribution to nonattainment
and interference with maintenance unless, prior to EPA promulgating
a FIP, the state submits, and EPA approves, a SIP that meets these
requirements. Additional background on the findings of failure to
submit--including North Carolina's finding--can be found in the
preamble to the final rule making the finding.
\4\ NCDEQ refers to this NODA as having been released on July
23, 2015, which was the signature date of the NODA's accompanying
memo. In addition, the comments received on the NODA were used to
inform the CSAPR Update. 81 FR at 74505.
\5\ As amended (including the 2016 CSAPR Update), CSAPR requires
27 Eastern states to limit their statewide emissions of
SO2 and/or NOX in order to mitigate
transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other states' ability
to attain or maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. CSAPR achieves these
reductions through emissions trading programs in two phases: Phase 1
began in January 2015 for the annual programs and May 2015 for the
ozone season program; and Phase 2 began in January 2017 for the
annual programs and May 2017 for the ozone season program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. EPA's Analysis Related to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS
EPA developed technical information and related analyses to assist
states with meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS through SIPs and, as appropriate, to provide
backstop federal implementation plans in the event that states failed
to submit approvable SIPs. On October 26, 2016, EPA took steps to
effectuate this backstop role with respect to emissions in 22 eastern
states \6\ (not including North Carolina), by finalizing an update to
the CSAPR ozone season program that addresses good neighbor obligations
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (``CSAPR Update''). See 81 FR 74504. This
CSAPR Update establishes statewide NOX budgets for certain
affected EGUs in the May-September ozone season to reduce the
interstate transport of ozone pollution in the eastern United States,
and thereby help downwind states and communities meet and maintain the
2008 ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR Update includes technical information and
related analysis to assist states with meeting the good neighbor
requirements of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For purposes of the CSAPR Update, ``eastern'' states refer
to all contiguous states fully east of the Rocky Mountains (thus not
including the mountain states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, or New
Mexico).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CSAPR Update uses the same framework EPA used when developing
the original CSAPR, EPA's transport rule addressing the 1997 ozone
NAAQS as well as the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS. The CSAPR framework establishes the following
four-step process to address the requirements of the good neighbor
provision: (1) Identify downwind receptors that are expected to have
problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS; (2) determine which upwind
states contribute to these identified problems in amounts sufficient to
``link'' them to the downwind air quality problems; (3) identify and
quantify, for states linked to downwind air quality problems, upwind
emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of a NAAQS; and (4) reduce the identified upwind
emissions for states that are found to have emissions that
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the NAAQS downwind by adopting permanent and enforceable measures in
a FIP or SIP. In the CSAPR Update, EPA used this four-step framework to
determine each linked upwind state's significant contribution to
nonattainment or interference with maintenance of downwind air quality.
As explained below, the CSAPR Update's four-step analysis supports the
conclusions of NCDEQ's analysis regarding prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
In the technical analysis supporting the CSAPR Update, EPA used
detailed air quality analyses to determine where projected
nonattainment or maintenance areas would be and whether emissions from
an eastern state contribute to downwind air quality problems at those
projected nonattainment or maintenance receptors. Specifically, EPA
determined whether each state's contributing emissions were at or above
a specific threshold (i.e., one percent of the ozone NAAQS). If a
state's contribution did not exceed the one-percent threshold, the
state was not considered ``linked'' to identified downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors and was therefore not
considered to contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the standard in those downwind areas. If a state's
contribution was equal to or exceeded the one-percent threshold, that
state was considered ``linked'' to the downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor(s) and the state's emissions were further
evaluated, taking into account both air quality and cost
considerations, to determine whether any emissions reductions might be
necessary to address the state's obligation pursuant to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
As discussed in the final CSAPR Update, the air quality modeling
contained in EPA's technical analysis: (1) Identified locations in the
U.S. where EPA anticipates nonattainment or maintenance issues in 2017
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (these are identified as nonattainment
or maintenance receptors, respectively), and (2) quantified the
projected contributions from emissions from upwind states to downwind
ozone concentrations at the receptors in 2017. See 81 FR 74526. This
modeling used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx
version 6.11) to model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 future base
case emissions scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and
maintenance sites with respect to the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS in 2017.
EPA used nationwide state-level ozone source apportionment modeling
(the CAMx Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor
Culpability Analysis technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017
base case NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each
state to the 2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs were
performed for a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United
States, the District of Columbia, and adjacent portions of Canada and
Mexico. 81 FR 74526-527. The updated modeling data released to support
the final CSAPR Update are the most up-to-date information EPA has
developed to inform the Agency's analysis of upwind state linkages to
[[Page 37373]]
downwind air quality problems for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See ``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support
Document for the Final CSAPR Update'' (CSAPR Update Modeling TSD),
available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0575.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the framework established in the original CSAPR
rulemaking, EPA's technical analysis in support of the CSAPR Update
applied an air quality screening threshold of 0.75 ppb (one percent of
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb) to identify linkages between
upwind states and the downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors.
See CSAPR Update at 81 FR 74518-519. EPA considered an eastern state
``linked'' to a specific downwind receptor when the state's
contributions to that receptor meet or exceed the threshold, in which
case EPA analyzed the state's emissions further to determine whether
emissions reductions might be required in order to address the downwind
air quality problem. An eastern state with contributions to a specific
receptor below the screening threshold is not considered linked to that
receptor, and EPA thereby concludes that the state does not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS at that downwind receptor. EPA determined that one percent was an
appropriate threshold to use in this analysis because there were
important, even if relatively small, contributions to identified
nonattainment and maintenance receptors from multiple upwind states at
that threshold. In response to commenters who advocated for thresholds
higher or lower than one percent, EPA compiled the contribution
modeling results for the CSAPR Update to analyze the impact of
different possible thresholds for the eastern United States. EPA's
analysis showed that the one-percent threshold captures a high
percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states.
EPA's analysis further showed that the application of a lower threshold
would result in relatively modest increases in the overall percentage
of ozone transport pollution captured, while the use of higher
thresholds would result in a relatively large reduction in the overall
percentage of ozone pollution transport captured relative to the levels
captured at one percent at the majority of the receptors. Id.; see also
Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document for the
Final CSAPR Update, Appendix F, Analysis of Contribution Thresholds.
This approach is consistent with the use of a one-percent threshold to
identify those states ``linked'' to air quality problems with respect
to the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS in the original CSAPR rulemaking,
wherein EPA noted that there are adverse health impacts associated with
ambient ozone even at low levels. See 76 FR 48208, 48236-237 (August 8,
2011).
EPA's air quality modeling for the final CSAPR Update projects that
North Carolina's emissions are projected to contribute below one
percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS to all receptors. The modeling
indicates that North Carolina's largest contribution to any projected
downwind nonattainment site in 2017 is 0.51 ppb and North Carolina's
largest contribution to any projected downwind maintenance-only site in
2017 is 0.50 ppb.\8\ These values are below the one-percent screening
threshold of 0.75 ppb, and therefore there are no identified linkages
between North Carolina and 2017 downwind projected nonattainment and
maintenance sites. As a result of the modeling, EPA did not finalize a
federal implementation plan that required NOX emission
reductions from North Carolina in the CSAPR Update because EPA's
analysis performed to support the final rule does not indicate that the
state is linked to any identified downwind nonattainment or maintenance
receptors with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Rather, in the
CSAPR Update, EPA took final action to determine that emissions from
North Carolina will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other states.
81 FR 74506, 74555. Additionally, the CSAPR Update addressed a United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit remand in
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
with respect to the interstate transport responsibility of North
Carolina under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA removed North Carolina
from the CSAPR ozone season trading program beginning in 2017, prior to
implementation of the Phase 2 ozone season emission budgets.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ CSAPR Update Modeling TSD at Table 4-2.
\9\ 81 FR 74523-524.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. What is EPA's analysis of the North Carolina submittal?
As discussed above, North Carolina's submittal certifies that
emission activities from the State will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in any other state.\10\ EPA's updated modeling for the final
CSAPR Update is consistent with the State's determination. In the
modeling conducted to support the proposed CSAPR Update, North Carolina
was linked to one maintenance receptor in Baltimore County, Maryland
(site 240053001). See 81 FR 74537-538. However, in developing the final
CSAPR Update--after considering comments from North Carolina and other
stakeholders in developing a revised modeling analysis--EPA no longer
projects that site 240053001 in Baltimore County, Maryland, will be a
maintenance receptor because the site's 2017 average and maximum design
values are projected to be below the NAAQS. Id. In addition, North
Carolina is not linked to any other nonattainment or maintenance
receptor, based on the final rule modeling. Id. Because North Carolina
is not linked to any downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptors,
EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's SIP as meeting the
requirements of prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ EPA notes that North Carolina submitted similar comments
during the CSAPR Update rulemaking, including attaching the December
9, 2015 Submittal. See Comments by the North Carolina Division of
Air Quality, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0273. EPA accepted some of the
comments provided by North Carolina, including those related to
emissions projections. See Cross State Air Pollution Update Rule--
Response to Comment, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0572.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's December 9, 2015 SIP
submission demonstrating that North Carolina's SIP is sufficient to
address the CAA requirements of prongs 1 and 2 under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In the CSAPR
Update, EPA has already taken a final action to determine that
emissions from North Carolina will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in downwind states. Accordingly, EPA proposes to find that North
Carolina's SIP is consistent with this final determination. EPA
requests comment on this proposed approval of North Carolina's SIP.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ EPA is not reopening for comment final determinations made
in the context of the CSAPR Update based on the modeling conducted
to support that rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission
[[Page 37374]]
that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal
regulations. See 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 and does not
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
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 Clean Air Act; 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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
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: July 28, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-16826 Filed 8-9-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P