83 FR 17627 - Air Plan Approval; AK; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 78 (April 23, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 78 (April 23, 2018)
| Page Range | 17627-17630 | |
| FR Document | 2018-08426 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 78 (Monday, April 23, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 17627-17630] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-08426] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0590; FRL-9977-06-Region 10] Air Plan Approval; AK; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (Alaska DEC) demonstrating that the SIP meets certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated in 2010 for nitrogen dioxide (NO2 ) and sulfur dioxide (SO2 ). The EPA proposes to determine that Alaska's SIP contains adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions in Alaska do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with the maintenance of the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS in any other state. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10- OAR-2016-0590, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from regulations.gov. The 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 the disclosure of which 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. The 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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Chi, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: 206-553-1185; email address: chi.john@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. Information is organized as follows: Table of Contents I. Background II. State Submittal III. EPA Evaluation A. NO2 Interstate Transport B. SO2 Interstate Transport IV. Proposed Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background On January 22, 2010, the EPA established a primary NO2 NAAQS at 100 parts per billion (ppb), averaged over one hour and based on a 3-year average, supplementing the existing annual standard (75 FR 6474). On June 22, 2010, the EPA established a new primary 1-hour SO2 NAAQS at 75 ppb based on a 3-year average (75 FR 35520). Within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, states must submit SIPs meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2), often referred to as infrastructure requirements. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to make a SIP submission to the EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of individual state submissions may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. The content of the revisions proposed in such SIP submissions may also vary [[Page 17628]] depending upon what provisions the state's approved SIP already contains. The EPA approved the Alaska SIP as meeting all infrastructure requirements for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS, except for the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport provisions which we explained we would address in a separate action (82 FR 22081, May 12, 2017). The EPA's most recent infrastructure SIP guidance, the September 13, 2013, ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' did not explicitly include criteria for how the Agency would evaluate infrastructure SIP submissions intended to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\1\ With respect to certain pollutants, such as ozone and particulate matter, the EPA has addressed interstate transport in eastern states in the context of regional rulemaking actions that quantify state emission reduction obligations.\2\ In other actions, such as EPA action on western state SIPs addressing ozone and particulate matter, the EPA has considered a variety of factors on a case-by-case basis to determine whether emissions from one state interfere with the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. In such actions, the EPA has considered available information such as current air quality, emissions data and trends, meteorology, and topography.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ At the time the September 13, 2013, guidance was issued, EPA was litigating challenges raised with respect to its Cross State Air Pollution Rule (``CSAPR''), 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011), designed to address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements with respect to the 1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. CSAPR was vacated and remanded by the D.C. Circuit in 2012 pursuant to EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7. EPA subsequently sought review of the D.C. Circuit's decision by the Supreme Court, which was granted in June 2013. As EPA was in the process of litigating the interpretation of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at the time the infrastructure SIP guidance was issued, EPA did not issue guidance specific to that provision. The Supreme Court subsequently vacated the D.C. Circuit's decision and remanded the case to that court for further review. 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision upholding CSAPR, but remanding certain elements for reconsideration. 795 F.3d 118. \2\ Nitrogen Oxides (NOX ) SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); CSAPR, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). \3\ See, e.g., Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of California; Interstate Transport of Pollution; Significant Contribution to Nonattainment and Interference With Maintenance Requirements, Proposed Rule, 76 FR 146516, 14616-14626 (March 17, 2011); Final Rule, 76 FR 34872 (June 15, 2011); Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS, Proposed Rule, 80 FR 27121, 27124-27125 (May 12, 2015); Final Rule, 80 FR 47862 (August 10, 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For other pollutants such as lead (Pb), the EPA has suggested that the applicable interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) can be met through a state's assessment as to whether or not emissions from Pb sources located in close proximity to its borders have emissions that impact a neighboring state such that they contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in that state. For example, the EPA noted in an October 14, 2011, memorandum titled, ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' \4\ that the physical properties of Pb prevent its emissions from experiencing the same travel or formation phenomena as PM2.5 or ozone, and there is a sharp decrease in Pb concentrations, at least in the coarse fraction, as the distance from a Pb source increases. Accordingly, while it may be possible for a source in a state to emit Pb in a location and in quantities that may contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state, the EPA anticipates that this would be a rare situation, e.g., where large sources are in close proximity to state boundaries.\5\ Our rationale and explanation for approving the applicable interstate transport requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, consistent with the EPA's interpretation of the October 14, 2011, guidance document, can be found, among other instances, in the proposed approval and a subsequent final approval of interstate transport SIPs submitted by Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.\6\ In summary, the EPA's approaches to addressing interstate transport for NAAQS pollutants has been based on the characteristics of the pollutant, the interstate problem presented by emissions of that pollutant, the sources that emit the pollutant, and the information available to assess transport of that pollutant. The EPA's review and action on Alaska's CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport SIP revisions for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS is informed by these considerations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20111014_page_lead_caa_110_infrastructure_guidance.pdf. \5\ Id. at pp 7-8. \6\ See 79 FR 27241 at 27249 (May 13, 2014) and 79 FR 41439 (July 16, 2014). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On March 10, 2016, the Alaska DEC submitted a SIP revision to address these remaining CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport provisions, also called ``good neighbor'' provisions. The first element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that for a new or revised NAAQS the SIP contains adequate measures to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will ``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' of the NAAQS in another state. The second element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that the SIP prohibits any source or other type of emissions activity in the state from emitting pollutants that will ``interfere with maintenance'' of the applicable NAAQS in any other state. II. State Submittal The state addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by providing information supporting the conclusion that emissions from Alaska do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour NO2 and 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The Alaska DEC provided the same justification to address both SO2 and NO2 interstate transport.\7\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ EPA notes Alaska's submission with respect to the SO2 NAAQS indicates that the state is not subject to EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). While EPA appreciates this information, neither CAIR nor CSAPR addressed the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 17629]] The state's submittal noted that Alaska's southern-most border is separated by over 600 miles (966 km) of mountainous terrain in Canada's Province of British Columbia separating the southeastern border of Alaska from the nearest state, Washington. The state's submittal also noted that in Alaska, the regional, predominant low pressure wind patterns emanate from the Gulf of Alaska in the west and travel inland towards the east, circulating in a counterclockwise direction. The Alaska DEC concluded that based on distance from other states and weather patterns, Alaska does not significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2010 NO2 , and SO2 NAAQS in any other state. III. EPA Evaluation A. NO2 Interstate Transport In addition to reviewing Alaska's submittal, the EPA reviewed recent monitoring data for NO2 throughout the United States. Using previous EPA methodology, the EPA evaluated specific monitors identified as having nonattainment and/or maintenance problems, which we refer to as ``receptors.'' \8\ The EPA identifies nonattainment receptors as any monitor that has violated the NO2 NAAQS in the most recent three-year period (2014-2016). Meanwhile, the EPA identifies NO2 maintenance receptors as any monitor that violated the NO2 NAAQS in--either of the prior monitoring cycles (2012-2014 and 2013-2015), but attained in the most recent monitoring cycle. During the three most recent design value \9\ periods of 2012 through 2014, 2013 through 2015, and 2014 through 2016, we found no monitors violating the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in the United States.\10\ Accordingly, the EPA found no monitors meeting the criteria as a nonattainment receptor and/or as a maintenance receptor. Furthermore, we note that available information indicates that monitored values are well below the 100 ppb 1-hour NO2 NAAQS in Washington, the state closest to Alaska, with a 3-year average of 28 ppb during 2014-2016 at the Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA, monitor (AQS Site ID 530570018).\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998); CAIR, 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). \9\ A ``Design Value'' is a statistic that describes the air quality status of a given location relative to the level of the NAAQS. The interpretation of the primary 2010 SO2 NAAQS (set at 75 parts per billion (ppb)) including the data handling conventions and calculations necessary for determining compliance with the NAAQS can be found in Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50. \10\ http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The EPA also reviewed regulatory provisions to control future new sources of NOX emissions in Alaska. Alaska's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)/New Source Review (NSR) program was originally approved by the EPA on February 16, 1995 (60 FR 8943). Updates to Alaska's PSD/NSR program were most recently approved by the EPA on January 7, 2015 (80 FR 832). The minor NSR program was most recently updated on May 27, 2016 (80 FR 30161). These rules help ensure that no new or modified source of NOX will cause or contribute to violation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The EPA proposes to conclude that emissions from Alaska will not significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in any other state. As previously noted, the EPA already approved the Alaska SIP as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) interstate transport provisions (commonly called prongs 3 & 4) on May 12, 2017 (82 FR 22081). B. SO2 Interstate Transport In addition to reviewing Alaska's submittal, the EPA reviewed: (1) SO2 ambient air quality and emissions trends; (2) SIP- approved regulations specific to SO2 and permitting requirements; and, (3) other SIP-approved or federally enforceable regulations that while not directly intended to address or reduce SO2 , may yield reductions of the pollutant. Despite being emitted from a similar universe of point and nonpoint sources, interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the transport of fine particulate matter (PM2.5 ) or ozone. As the EPA has addressed in other actions, SO2 is not a regional mixing pollutant that commonly contributes to widespread nonattainment of the SO2 NAAQS over a large (and often multi-state) area. From an air quality management perspective, the 2010 SO2 NAAQS can be considered to be a largely ``source-oriented'' NAAQS rather than a ``regional'' one (79 FR 27445). Geographically, Alaska is approximately 850 km (528 miles) from the nearest state, Washington, and approximately 2,800 km (1,740 miles) from the nearest SO2 nonattainment area in Gilia County, Arizona, for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Given the distance from the nearest state, Washington, the EPA believes that emissions from Alaska will not interfere with the maintenance in another states. Therefore, the EPA proposes to agree with Alaska DEC that based on distance, emissions activity from Alaska will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in any other state. While the State of Alaska has no areas which would require SO2 monitoring under 40 CFR 58, Appendix D, paragraph 4.4.2 (requirement for monitoring by the population weighted emissions index), monitored ambient air quality values for SO2 are available at Alaska's National Core Multi-pollutant Monitoring Station, (NCore), in Fairbanks, Alaska. These data indicate the monitored values of SO2 at this site have remained below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Relevant data from EPA's Air Quality System \11\ (AQS) Design Value (DV) \12\ reports for recent and complete 3-year periods are summarized in Table 1. The design value for the Fairbanks monitor has decreased from 42 ppb in 2014 to 36 ppb in 2016, below 50% of the NAAQS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) contains ambient air pollution data collected by EPA, state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies. See https://www.epa.gov/aqs. \12\ A ``Design Value'' is a statistic that describes the air quality status of a given location relative to the level of the NAAQS. The interpretation of the primary 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS (set at 75 parts per billion [ppb]) including the data handling conventions and calculations necessary for determining compliance with the NAAQS can be found in Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50. Table 1--Trend in 3-Year SO2 Design Values for AQS Monitor in Alaska ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2012-2014 2013-2015 2014-2016 AQS monitor site City (ppb) (ppb) (ppb) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 02-090-0034........................... Fairbanks............... 42 37 36 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The NEI data summaries for Alaska have shown a decrease in the total statewide SO2 emissions by 6,447 tons per year, from 2011 to 2014 (Table 2). The highest source sector for both 2011 and 2014 inventory years was natural [[Page 17630]] wildfires. The decreasing trend in the NEI data support our proposed conclusion that Alaska does not contribute to the nonattainment of SO2 in other states and does not interfere with the maintenance of SO2 in others states. Table 2--Summary of NEI SO2 Data for Alaska ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source sector 2011 (tpy) 2014 (tpy) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Area, Excluding Wildfires............... 1,728 1,336 Non-Road................................ 65 20 On-Road................................. 51 50 Commercial Marine Vessels............... 7,148 2,471 Aviation (Aircraft & GSE)............... 429 399 Point................................... 5,795 5,211 Wildfires, Prescribed................... 203 79 Wildfires, Natural...................... 13,095 12,501 ------------------------------- Total--All Sources.................. 28,513 22,066 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lastly, Alaska has various provisions and regulations to ensure that SO2 emissions are not expected to substantially increase in the future, further supporting the EPA's proposed conclusion that emissions from the state will not have downwind interstate transport impacts. The EPA reviewed regulatory provisions to control future new sources of SO2 emissions in Alaska. As previously discussed with respect to NO2 , Alaska's PSD/NSR program was originally approved by the EPA on February 16, 1995 (60 FR 8943) and updates to Alaska's PSD/NSR program were most recently approved by the EPA on August 28, 2017 (82 FR 40712). The minor NSR program was also updated on August 28, 2017 (82 FR 40712). These rules help ensure that no new or modified source of SO2 will cause or contribute to violation of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Based on the analysis provided by Alaska DEC in its SIP submission and the factors discussed above, the EPA proposes to find that sources or emissions activity within the state will not contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state. IV. Proposed Action The EPA has reviewed the March 10, 2016, submittal from the Alaska DEC demonstrating that sources in Alaska do not significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Based on our review, we are proposing to find that the Alaska SIP meets the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations.\13\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 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: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because actions such as SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866; Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this proposed action does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications 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, Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: April 13, 2018. Chris Hladick, Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. 2018-08426 Filed 4-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules 17627
The format of this tribal consultation everyone who wishes to testify has the The EPA may publish any comment
meeting will consist of a panel of SBA opportunity to do so. SBA will confirm received to its public docket. Do not
representatives who will preside over in writing the registration of presenters submit electronically any information
the session. The oral and written and attendees. you consider to be Confidential
testimony as well as any comments SBA Business Information (CBI) or other
IV. Information on Service for
receives will become part of the information the disclosure of which is
Individuals With Disabilities
administrative record for SBA’s restricted by statute. Multimedia
consideration. Written testimony may For information on facilities or submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
be submitted in lieu of oral testimony. services for individuals with disabilities accompanied by a written comment.
SBA will analyze the testimony, both or to request special assistance at the The written comment is considered the
oral and written, along with any written tribal consultation meeting, contact official comment and should include
comments received. SBA officials may Chequita Carter at the telephone number discussion of all points you wish to
ask questions of a presenter to clarify or or email address indicated under the make. The EPA will generally not
further explain the testimony. The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT consider comments or comment
purpose of the tribal consultation is to section of this notice. contents located outside of the primary
assist SBA with gathering information to Authority: 15 U.S.C. 634 and E.O. 13175, submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
guide SBA’s review process and to 65 FR 67249. other file sharing system). For
potentially develop new proposals. SBA additional submission methods, the full
requests that the comments focus on Allen Gutierrez,
EPA public comment policy,
SBA’s two planned rulemakings relating Associate Administrator for the Office of
information about CBI or multimedia
to the 8(a) BD and HUBZone programs, Entrepreneurial Development.
submissions, and general guidance on
general issues as they pertain to the 8(a) [FR Doc. 2018–08410 Filed 4–20–18; 8:45 am]
making effective comments, please visit
BD and HUBZone regulations, input BILLING CODE 8025–01–P
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
related to what changes could be made commenting-epa-dockets.
to make these programs more attractive FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
to procuring agencies and small ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Chi, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and
businesses, or the unique concerns of AGENCY Waste (OAW–150), Environmental
the Tribal communities. SBA requests Protection Agency, 1200 6th Avenue,
that commenters do not raise issues 40 CFR Part 52
Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number:
pertaining to other SBA small business [EPA–R10–OAR–2016–0590; FRL–9977–06– 206–553–1185; email address: chi.john@
programs. Presenters are encouraged to Region 10] epa.gov.
provide a written copy of their
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
testimony. SBA will accept written Air Plan Approval; AK; Interstate
material that the presenter wishes to Transport Requirements for the 2010 Throughout this document whenever
provide that further supplements his or Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is
her testimony. Electronic or digitized National Ambient Air Quality intended to refer to the EPA.
copies are encouraged. Standards Information is organized as follows:
The tribal consultation meeting will Table of Contents
be held for one day. The meeting will AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). I. Background
begin at 10:00 a.m. and end at 3:30 p.m. II. State Submittal
(AKDT), with a break from 12:30 p.m. to ACTION: Proposed rule.
III. EPA Evaluation
1:30 p.m. SBA will adjourn early if all SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection A. NO2 Interstate Transport
those scheduled have delivered their B. SO2 Interstate Transport
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
testimony. IV. Proposed Action
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
III. Registration submittal from the Alaska Department
SBA respectfully requests that any of Environmental Conservation (Alaska I. Background
elected or appointed representative of DEC) demonstrating that the SIP meets On January 22, 2010, the EPA
the tribal communities or principal of a certain interstate transport requirements established a primary NO2 NAAQS at
tribally-owned or ANC-owned 8(a) firm of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 100 parts per billion (ppb), averaged
that is interested in attending please National Ambient Air Quality Standards over one hour and based on a 3-year
pre-register in advance and indicate (NAAQS) promulgated in 2010 for average, supplementing the existing
whether you would like to testify at the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur annual standard (75 FR 6474). On June
hearing. Registration requests should be dioxide (SO2). The EPA proposes to 22, 2010, the EPA established a new
received by SBA by May 2, 2018. Please determine that Alaska’s SIP contains primary 1-hour SO2 NAAQS at 75 ppb
contact Chequita Carter of SBA’s Office adequate provisions to ensure that air based on a 3-year average (75 FR 35520).
of Native American Affairs in writing at emissions in Alaska do not significantly Within three years after promulgation of
Chequita.Carter@sba.gov or by facsimile contribute to nonattainment or interfere a new or revised NAAQS, states must
to (202) 481–2177. If you are interested with the maintenance of the 2010 NO2 submit SIPs meeting the requirements of
in testifying please include the and SO2 NAAQS in any other state. CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2), often
following information relating to the DATES: Comments must be received on referred to as infrastructure
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
person testifying: Name, Organization or before May 23, 2018. requirements. Section 110(a) of the CAA
affiliation, Address, Telephone number, ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, requires states to make a SIP submission
Email address and Fax number. SBA identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– to the EPA for a new or revised NAAQS,
will attempt to accommodate all OAR–2016–0590, at https:// but the contents of individual state
interested parties that wish to present www.regulations.gov. Follow the online submissions may vary depending upon
testimony. Based on the number of instructions for submitting comments. the facts and circumstances. The
registrants it may be necessary to Once submitted, comments cannot be content of the revisions proposed in
impose time limits to ensure that edited or removed from regulations.gov. such SIP submissions may also vary
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:33 Apr 20, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM 23APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_17705/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules 17629
The state’s submittal noted that note that available information indicates transport of fine particulate matter
Alaska’s southern-most border is that monitored values are well below (PM2.5) or ozone. As the EPA has
separated by over 600 miles (966 km) of the 100 ppb 1-hour NO2 NAAQS in addressed in other actions, SO2 is not a
mountainous terrain in Canada’s Washington, the state closest to Alaska, regional mixing pollutant that
Province of British Columbia separating with a 3-year average of 28 ppb during commonly contributes to widespread
the southeastern border of Alaska from 2014–2016 at the Mount Vernon- nonattainment of the SO2 NAAQS over
the nearest state, Washington. The Anacortes, WA, monitor (AQS Site ID a large (and often multi-state) area. From
state’s submittal also noted that in 530570018).4 an air quality management perspective,
Alaska, the regional, predominant low The EPA also reviewed regulatory the 2010 SO2 NAAQS can be considered
pressure wind patterns emanate from provisions to control future new sources to be a largely ‘‘source-oriented’’
the Gulf of Alaska in the west and travel of NOX emissions in Alaska. Alaska’s NAAQS rather than a ‘‘regional’’ one (79
inland towards the east, circulating in a Prevention of Significant Deterioration FR 27445). Geographically, Alaska is
counterclockwise direction. The Alaska (PSD)/New Source Review (NSR) approximately 850 km (528 miles) from
DEC concluded that based on distance program was originally approved by the the nearest state, Washington, and
from other states and weather patterns, EPA on February 16, 1995 (60 FR 8943). approximately 2,800 km (1,740 miles)
Alaska does not significantly contribute Updates to Alaska’s PSD/NSR program from the nearest SO2 nonattainment area
to nonattainment, or interfere with were most recently approved by the in Gilia County, Arizona, for the 2010
maintenance, of the 2010 NO2, and SO2 EPA on January 7, 2015 (80 FR 832). SO2 NAAQS. Given the distance from
NAAQS in any other state. The minor NSR program was most the nearest state, Washington, the EPA
III. EPA Evaluation recently updated on May 27, 2016 (80 believes that emissions from Alaska will
FR 30161). These rules help ensure that not interfere with the maintenance in
A. NO2 Interstate Transport no new or modified source of NOX will another states. Therefore, the EPA
In addition to reviewing Alaska’s cause or contribute to violation of the proposes to agree with Alaska DEC that
submittal, the EPA reviewed recent 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The EPA proposes to based on distance, emissions activity
monitoring data for NO2 throughout the conclude that emissions from Alaska from Alaska will not significantly
United States. Using previous EPA will not significantly contribute to contribute to nonattainment or interfere
methodology, the EPA evaluated nonattainment, or interfere with with maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in
specific monitors identified as having maintenance, of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS any other state.
nonattainment and/or maintenance in any other state. As previously noted,
problems, which we refer to as the EPA already approved the Alaska While the State of Alaska has no areas
‘‘receptors.’’ 8 The EPA identifies SIP as meeting the CAA section which would require SO2 monitoring
nonattainment receptors as any monitor 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) interstate transport under 40 CFR 58, Appendix D,
that has violated the NO2 NAAQS in the provisions (commonly called prongs 3 & paragraph 4.4.2 (requirement for
most recent three-year period (2014– 4) on May 12, 2017 (82 FR 22081). monitoring by the population weighted
2016). Meanwhile, the EPA identifies emissions index), monitored ambient air
B. SO2 Interstate Transport quality values for SO2 are available at
NO2 maintenance receptors as any
monitor that violated the NO2 NAAQS In addition to reviewing Alaska’s Alaska’s National Core Multi-pollutant
in—either of the prior monitoring cycles submittal, the EPA reviewed: (1) SO2 Monitoring Station, (NCore), in
(2012–2014 and 2013–2015), but ambient air quality and emissions Fairbanks, Alaska. These data indicate
attained in the most recent monitoring trends; (2) SIP-approved regulations the monitored values of SO2 at this site
cycle. During the three most recent specific to SO2 and permitting have remained below the 2010 1-hour
design value 9 periods of 2012 through requirements; and, (3) other SIP- SO2 NAAQS. Relevant data from EPA’s
2014, 2013 through 2015, and 2014 approved or federally enforceable Air Quality System 11 (AQS) Design
through 2016, we found no monitors regulations that while not directly Value (DV) 12 reports for recent and
violating the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in the intended to address or reduce SO2, may complete 3-year periods are summarized
United States.10 Accordingly, the EPA yield reductions of the pollutant. in Table 1. The design value for the
found no monitors meeting the criteria Despite being emitted from a similar Fairbanks monitor has decreased from
as a nonattainment receptor and/or as a universe of point and nonpoint sources, 42 ppb in 2014 to 36 ppb in 2016, below
maintenance receptor. Furthermore, we interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the 50% of the NAAQS.
TABLE 1—TREND IN 3-YEAR SO2 DESIGN VALUES FOR AQS MONITOR IN ALASKA
2012–2014 2013–2015 2014–2016
AQS monitor site City (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
02–090–0034 .................................................. Fairbanks ........................................................ 42 37 36
The NEI data summaries for Alaska statewide SO2 emissions by 6,447 tons The highest source sector for both 2011
have shown a decrease in the total per year, from 2011 to 2014 (Table 2). and 2014 inventory years was natural
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
8 See NO SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, conventions and calculations necessary for 12 A ‘‘Design Value’’ is a statistic that describes
X
1998); CAIR, 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and determining compliance with the NAAQS can be the air quality status of a given location relative to
Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 found in Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50. the level of the NAAQS. The interpretation of the
FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). 10 http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. primary 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS (set at 75 parts
9 A ‘‘Design Value’’ is a statistic that describes the
11 EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) contains per billion [ppb]) including the data handling
air quality status of a given location relative to the
ambient air pollution data collected by EPA, state, conventions and calculations necessary for
level of the NAAQS. The interpretation of the
primary 2010 SO2 NAAQS (set at 75 parts per local, and tribal air pollution control agencies. See determining compliance with the NAAQS can be
billion (ppb)) including the data handling https://www.epa.gov/aqs. found in Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:33 Apr 20, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM 23APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_17705/page/3.svg)
![17630 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules
wildfires. The decreasing trend in the contribute to the nonattainment of SO2 with the maintenance of SO2 in others
NEI data support our proposed in other states and does not interfere states.
conclusion that Alaska does not
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF NEI SO2 DATA FOR ALASKA
2011 2014
Source sector (tpy) (tpy)
Area, Excluding Wildfires ......................................................................................................................................... 1,728 1,336
Non-Road ................................................................................................................................................................. 65 20
On-Road .................................................................................................................................................................. 51 50
Commercial Marine Vessels .................................................................................................................................... 7,148 2,471
Aviation (Aircraft & GSE) ......................................................................................................................................... 429 399
Point ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5,795 5,211
Wildfires, Prescribed ................................................................................................................................................ 203 79
Wildfires, Natural ..................................................................................................................................................... 13,095 12,501
Total—All Sources ............................................................................................................................................ 28,513 22,066
Lastly, Alaska has various provisions V. Statutory and Executive Order safety risks subject to Executive Order
and regulations to ensure that SO2 Reviews 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
emissions are not expected to Under the CAA, the Administrator is • Is not a significant regulatory action
substantially increase in the future, required to approve a SIP submission subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
further supporting the EPA’s proposed that complies with the provisions of the 28355, May 22, 2001);
conclusion that emissions from the state CAA and applicable Federal
• Is not subject to requirements of
will not have downwind interstate regulations.13 Thus, in reviewing SIP
section 12(d) of the National
transport impacts. The EPA reviewed submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that Technology Transfer and Advancement
regulatory provisions to control future
they meet the criteria of the CAA. Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
new sources of SO2 emissions in Alaska.
Accordingly, this proposed action this rulemaking does not involve
As previously discussed with respect to
merely approves state law as meeting technical standards; and
NO2, Alaska’s PSD/NSR program was
originally approved by the EPA on Federal requirements, and does not • Does not provide the EPA with the
February 16, 1995 (60 FR 8943) and impose additional requirements beyond discretionary authority to address, as
updates to Alaska’s PSD/NSR program those imposed by state law. For that appropriate, disproportionate human
were most recently approved by the reason, this proposed action: health or environmental effects, using
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory practicable and legally permissible
EPA on August 28, 2017 (82 FR 40712).
action’’ subject to review by the Office methods, under Executive Order 12898
The minor NSR program was also
of Management and Budget under (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
updated on August 28, 2017 (82 FR Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
40712). These rules help ensure that no October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, In addition, this proposed action does
new or modified source of SO2 will January 21, 2011); not apply on any Indian reservation
cause or contribute to violation of the • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 land or in any other area where the EPA
2010 SO2 NAAQS. FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that
Based on the analysis provided by action because actions such as SIP a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Alaska DEC in its SIP submission and approvals are exempted under Indian country, the rule does not have
the factors discussed above, the EPA Executive Order 12866; tribal implications as specified by
proposes to find that sources or • Does not impose an information Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
emissions activity within the state will collection burden under the provisions November 9, 2000).
not contribute significantly to of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
nonattainment, or interfere with
• Is certified as not having a
maintenance, of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS Environmental protection, Air
significant economic impact on a
in any other state. substantial number of small entities pollution control, Incorporation by
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 reference, Intergovernmental relations,
IV. Proposed Action
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Nitrogen dioxide, Sulfur dioxide,
The EPA has reviewed the March 10, • Does not contain any unfunded Reporting and recordkeeping
2016, submittal from the Alaska DEC mandate or significantly or uniquely requirements.
demonstrating that sources in Alaska do affect small governments, as described Dated: April 13, 2018.
not significantly contribute to in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Chris Hladick,
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
nonattainment, or interfere with of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism Regional Administrator, Region 10.
maintenance, of the 2010 NO2 and SO2
implications as specified in Executive [FR Doc. 2018–08426 Filed 4–20–18; 8:45 am]
NAAQS in any other state. Based on our
review, we are proposing to find that the Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Alaska SIP meets the CAA section 1999);
• Is not an economically significant
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
regulatory action based on health or
requirements for the 2010 NO2 and SO2
NAAQS. 13 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:33 Apr 20, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM 23APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_17705/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-04-21 00:33:34
Document Modified: 2018-04-21 00:33:34
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2018. | |
| Contact | John Chi, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: 206-553-1185; email | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 17627 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Sulfur Dioxide and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR