Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 65093 

1Letter dated January 19, 2016, from Richard W. 

Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region 9, 

EPA. 

2The 2008 ozone NAAQS include primary and 

secondary 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 parts per 

million (ppm), 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). The 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS include primary and secondary 

24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 of 35 micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3), 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 

2006). The 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS include a primary 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 mg/m3, 78 FR 3086 

(January 15, 2013). The 2010 SO2 NAAQS include 

a primary 1-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per 

billion (ppb), 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). 

3 83 FR 5375. 

(1) EPA-APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA REGULATIONS—Continued 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Section .0600 Monitoring: Recordkeeping: Reporting 

*******

Section .0606 ......... Sources Covered By Appendix P 

of 40 CFR Part 51.

6/1/2008 12/19/2018, [Insert citation of publication].

* * * * * * * 

Section .0608 ......... Other Large Coal or Residual Oil 

Burners.

6/1/2008 12/19/2018, [Insert citation of publication].

* * * * * * * 

Section .1400 Nitrogen Oxides 

Section .1404 ......... Recordkeeping: Reporting: Monitoring.1/1/2009 12/19/2018, [Insert citation of publication].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2018–27358 Filed 12–18–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0177; FRL–9987–97– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality State Implementation Plans; 

California; Interstate Transport 

Requirements for Ozone, Fine 

Particulate Matter, and Sulfur Dioxide 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing approval of 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submission from the State of California 

regarding certain interstate transport 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or ‘‘Act’’). This submission addresses 

the 2008 ozone national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS), the 2006 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2010 sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) NAAQS. The interstate 

transport requirements under the CAA 

consist of several elements; this final 

rule pertains only to significant 

contribution to nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in other states. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 18, 2019. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0177. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory 

Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), EPA 

Region IX, (415) 972–3227, mays.rory@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

A. Evaluation for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS 

B. Evaluation for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS 

C. Evaluation for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

The California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) submitted the ‘‘California 

Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Revision, Clean Air Act 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)’’ on January 19, 

2016 (‘‘California Transport Plan’’ or 

‘‘Plan’’).1 This Plan addresses interstate 

transport for the 2008 ozone, 2006 

PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS.2 On February 7, 2018, the EPA 

proposed to approve the California 

Transport Plan into the California SIP 

because we determined that it complies 

with the relevant CAA requirements.3

Our proposed action contains more 

information on the California Transport 

Plan and our evaluation. We summarize 

the key points of our proposed 

rulemaking and evaluation in this final 

rule. 

Sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)–(II) of the 

CAA require 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, or 

interfere with measures required to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality or to protect visibility in any 

other state. This final rule addresses the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
65094 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

4The remaining interstate and international 

transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) 

for the 2008 ozone, 2006 PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS for California have been 

addressed in prior State submissions and EPA 

rulemakings. 81 FR 18766 (April 1, 2016). 

Specifically, this includes the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirements relating to 

interference 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), and the section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

requirements relating to interstate and international 

pollution abatement. 

5Memorandum of January 2018 from Rory Mays, 

Air Planning Office, Air Division, Region IX, EPA, 

‘‘Interstate Transport for the 2008 ozone, 2006 

PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS and the 

Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the Pechanga 

Band of Luisen ̃o Indians.’’ 

6See, e.g., email dated February 27, 2018 from 

Kelcey Stricker, Environmental Director, Pechanga 

Band of Luisen ̃ o Mission Indians to Rory Mays, Air 

Planning Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, indicating that 

Pechanga did not see the need to consult. The EPA 

did not receive a request for consultation or a 

comparable email from the Morongo Band of 

Mission Indians. 

7For discussion of our general evaluation 

approach and our specific evaluation with respect 

to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, please see sections II.A 

and II.B of our proposed rulemaking preamble. 83 

FR 5375 (February 7, 2018). 

8 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). 

two requirements under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which we refer to as 

prong 1 (significant contribution to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in any 

other state) and prong 2 (interference 

with maintenance of the NAAQS in any 

other state).4 The EPA refers to SIP 

revisions addressing the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as ‘‘good 

neighbor SIPs’’ or ‘‘interstate transport 

SIPs.’’ 

In addition to our evaluation of the 

California Transport Plan with respect 

to transport of air pollution to other 

states, we considered transport to the 

Morongo Band of Mission Indians 

(‘‘Morongo’’) and the Pechanga Band of 

Luisen ̃o Indians (‘‘Pechanga’’), given 

their regulatory monitoring for certain 

pollutants and comments during the 

EPA’s rulemaking on California’s 

interstate transport SIP for the 1997 

ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Based 

on our review of the ambient air quality 

data of Morongo and Pechanga and the 

emission control regimes of the South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 

(AQMD) for stationary sources and of 

CARB for mobile sources, as described 

in the EPA’s memo to the docket,5 the 

EPA proposed to find that California 

adequately prohibits the emission of air 

pollutants in amounts that will 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment, or interfere with 

maintenance, of the 2008 ozone, 2006 

PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS in the Morongo and Pechanga 

reservations. The EPA offered 

consultation with each tribe at the time 

of the proposal; neither tribe requested 

such consultation.6

A. Evaluation for the 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS 

In our proposed rulemaking the EPA 

agreed with the conclusion of the 

California Transport Plan that California 

meets the CAA requirements for 

interstate transport prongs 1 and 2 for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. However, our 

rationale differed from that presented by 

CARB. The analysis in the California 

Transport Plan relies primarily on 

CARB’s conclusion that the ozone 

transport linkages are uncertain and 

therefore no significant contribution or 

interference with maintenance has been 

demonstrated. The EPA’s evaluation 

finds that the transport linkages are 

adequately quantified (and uncertainties 

sufficiently addressed) and that 

California’s emission control programs 

adequately address the transport 

requirements. 

The EPA presented the various 

elements of our evaluation that led to 

this conclusion.7 The EPA first 

explained that it approached its 

evaluation considering the four-step 

framework for evaluating regional ozone 

transport that has been developed 

through several prior regional EPA 

rulemakings. This framework evaluates 

downwind air quality (step 1), upwind 

state linkages (step 2), and various cost 

and air quality factors (step 3) to 

identify whether a state will 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state and to implement any necessary 

emission reductions (step 4). We 

discussed the EPA’s modeling for the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

Update rule (‘‘CSAPR Update’’),8 which 

identified regulatory monitors 

throughout the continental U.S. that 

were expected to exceed the NAAQS in 

2017 based on both projected average 

design values and monitored data as 

‘‘nonattainment receptors’’ (i.e., not 

expected to attain) and those that may 

have difficulty maintaining the NAAQS, 

taking into account historic variability 

in air quality, as ‘‘maintenance 

receptors,’’ and estimated the 

contribution of other states to the ozone 

levels at each of these receptors. The 

analytic year of 2017 was selected since 

it corresponds to the attainment year 

prior to the mid-2018 attainment 

deadline for 2008 ozone NAAQS 

nonattainment areas classified as 

Moderate. 

We addressed CARB’s assertions 

regarding ozone transport modeling 

uncertainties (relating to a prior, similar 

iteration of the EPA’s ozone transport 

modeling) for identifying nonattainment 

and maintenance receptors in 2017 and 

linkages from California to downwind 

receptors, and discussed the contrast 

that CARB draws between ozone 

transport in the eastern versus western 

U.S. 

Based on our analysis, we proposed to 

find that California is linked to three 

maintenance receptors in the Denver, 

Colorado area. This conclusion was 

based on a combination of factors: (1) 

The EPA’s projection that California 

emissions would contribute above 1 

percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS at 

each of the three receptors (1.1 to 2.6 

percent), (2) other states also contribute 

above 1 percent of the NAAQS to these 

receptors, and (3) the average interstate 

contribution to ozone concentrations 

from all states upwind of these receptors 

was both considerable (9.2 to 9.4 

percent of the projected ozone design 

values) and comparable to collective 

contributions from upwind states to 

receptors in Texas as evaluated in the 

CSAPR Update. Accordingly, we 

proposed that a 1 percent threshold is 

appropriate as an air quality threshold 

to determine whether California is 

‘‘linked’’ to the three maintenance 

receptors in the Denver area for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

Our proposed finding that California 

is linked to the three Denver area 

receptors prompted further inquiry into 

whether the contributions would 

interfere with maintenance at the 

receptors and whether there are costeffective controls that can be employed 

to reduce emissions. To do so, we 

presented a general assessment of the 

emission sources in California, 

including mobile and stationary 

emission sources. We proposed to find 

that control measures in the California 

SIP for mobile sources, large electricity 

generating units (EGUs), and large nonEGU sources (e.g., cement plants and oil 

refineries), adequately prohibit the 

emission of air pollution in amounts 

that will interfere with maintenance of 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS at the identified 

receptors in the Denver area. 

We discussed California’s mobile 

source measures, which are primarily 

adopted and implemented by CARB, 

and stationary source measures, which 

are primarily adopted and implemented 

by California’s 35 local air districts. For 

the latter, beyond the measures 

described in the California Transport 

Plan, we also considered stationary 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 65095 

9 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) and 81 FR 74504 

(October 26, 2016), respectively. 

10Memorandum dated October 27, 2017 from 

Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division 

Directors, Regions 1–10. Available at: https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-10/ 

documents/final_2008_o3_naaqs_transport_memo_

10-27-17b.pdf. 

11For purposes of this rulemaking, ‘‘western 

states’’ refers to the states of Arizona, California, 

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, 

Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. 

12 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS Transport Memo, Table 1, 

5. Available at https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/ 

information-interstate-transport-good-neighborprovision-2012-fine-particulate-matter. 

source control measures for EGUs, 

consistent with the controls analysis for 

the CSAPR and CSAPR Update 

rulemakings,9 and examples of 

stationary source control measures for 

the largest non-EGU sources in the 

State. 

We noted that California mobile 

sources account for approximately 70 

percent of the projected 2017 nitrogen 

oxide (NOX) emissions and that CARB 

has established a comprehensive 

program to control and reduce mobile 

source emissions within the state. The 

EPA has approved many of CARB’s 

mobile source regulations as part of the 

California SIP, including regulations 

establishing standards and other 

requirements relating to emissions from 

cars, light- and medium-duty trucks, 

heavy-duty trucks, commercial harbor 

craft, mobile cargo handling equipment, 

marine engines and boats, and offhighway recreational vehicles. To 

support and enhance these emissions 

standards, we also noted that CARB has 

established specific gasoline and diesel 

fuel requirements, and the California 

Bureau of Automotive Repair has 

established a vehicle emissions and 

inspection (i.e., ‘‘smog check’’) program. 

With respect to stationary and area 

emission sources, we noted that the 

California SIP has hundreds of rules that 

limit the emissions of NOX and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) and that 

many of these rules were developed by 

local air districts to reduce ozone 

concentrations in response to the prior 

1979 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

For EGUs producing greater than 25 

megawatts of electricity, including nonfossil fuel EGUs, we described how 

California’s statewide NOX emissions 

rate is very low (0.0097 pounds of NOX

per million British thermal units in 

2018) and ranks as the 47th lowest out 

of the 48 contiguous states and 

Washington, DC for which the EPA 

performed power sector modeling in the 

context of the CSAPR Update. We found 

that California produces electricity very 

efficiently in terms of NOX emissions 

and is therefore unlikely to have 

significant, further NOX reductions 

available from the EGU sector at 

reasonable cost. 

In investigating the potential for 

further NOX emissions reductions from 

EGUs, we found that additional NOX

reductions from EGUs in California 

would cost more than three times the 

amount that the EPA determined to be 

cost-effective to partially address ozone 

transport obligations in the eastern U.S. 

under the CSAPR Update (i.e., 

reductions expected above $5,000 per 

ton of NOX in California versus a costeffective control level of $1,400 per ton 

in the CSAPR Update rulemaking for 22 

eastern states). Further, we noted that 

the largest collection of EGU facilities 

emitting over 100 tons per year (tpy) of 

NOX, per the 2011 National Emissions 

Inventory, are found in the San Joaquin 

Valley, Bay Area, and South Coast air 

districts and are subject to district rules 

that limit NOX emissions and have been 

approved into the California SIP. 

For non-EGU stationary sources, we 

found that they emitted 6.7 times more 

NOX than EGUs in California in 2011. 

Of these sources, 19 emitted over 500 

tpy of NOX, including Portland cement 

plants, petroleum refineries, and several 

other source types, and accounted for 

two thirds of the NOX emissions from 

California stationary sources that 

emitted over 100 tpy in 2011 and 5.2 

percent of the total 2011 NOX inventory 

for California. These 19 sources are in 

the Bay Area, Kern County, Mojave 

Desert, San Joaquin Valley, and South 

Coast air districts and, overall, are 

subject to rules that limit NOX

emissions and have been approved into 

the California SIP. For the small number 

of large non-EGU sources that are either 

subject to NOX control measures that 

have not been submitted for approval 

into the California SIP, or fall outside 

the geographic jurisdiction of the 

applicable district rules, we found that 

further emission controls would be 

unlikely to reduce any potential impact 

on downwind states’ air quality because 

such sources comprise no more than 0.8 

percent of the total NOX emitted in 

California in 2011. 

In sum, on the strength of CARB and 

the local air districts’ emission control 

programs, especially for mobile and 

stationary sources of NOX, we proposed 

that the California SIP adequately 

prohibits the emission of air pollutants 

in amounts that will significantly 

contribute to nonattainment, or interfere 

with maintenance, of the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS in any other state. The EPA also 

noted that recent modeling shows that 

by the 2023 ozone season the receptors 

identified in Denver are projected to be 

‘‘clean,’’ i.e., both the average and 

maximum design values are projected to 

be below the level of the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS.10

B. Evaluation for the 2006 PM2.5 and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

The EPA proposed to approve the 

California Transport Plan for the CAA 

requirements for interstate transport 

prongs 1 and 2 for the 2006 PM2.5 and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. First, we discussed 

our evaluation of CARB’s identification 

of nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors in western states based on 

data presented in the California 

Transport Plan as well as the EPA’s 

analysis of 2009–2013 24-hour and 

annual PM2.5 design values. Based on 

that evaluation, we presented modified 

lists of such receptors that largely follow 

the lists of receptors in the California 

Transport Plan. 

For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

we derived a list of 18 potential 

nonattainment receptors and three 

potential maintenance receptors within 

11 western states (excluding 

California) 11 that accounted for the 

information presented in the California 

Transport Plan and ambient air quality 

and emissions data that were common 

to our evaluation of both the 24-hour 

and annual NAAQS. We also presented 

the 24-hour PM2.5 design values for 

2014–2016 at each identified receptor. 

For the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 

we did not find that there would be any 

potential nonattainment receptors and 

we identified two potential maintenance 

receptors, one in Idaho and one in 

Pennsylvania. To do so, we relied on 

photochemical modeling results 

presented in the EPA’s informational 

memo on interstate transport for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (‘‘2012 PM2.5

NAAQS Transport Memo’’), which 

projected annual PM2.5 design values for 

2017 and 2025 at each regulatory PM2.5

monitor in the continental U.S.12 We 

used those results to evaluate projected 

air quality in 2021, which corresponds 

to the attainment deadline for 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas 

classified as Moderate. We also 

addressed some differences in the 

receptors identified by CARB and those 

identified by the EPA and considered 

the annual PM2.5 design values for 

2014–2016 at the potential maintenance 

receptors identified in the EPA’s 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS Transport Memo. 

We then discussed California 

emissions of PM2.5 and its precursors, 

California’s regulations to limit such 

emissions, and the emissions trends 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
65096 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

13CARB estimates that SO2 comprises 97% of the 

state-wide SOX inventory and therefore used 

California SOX emissions in its analysis to represent 

California SO2 emissions. California Transport Plan, 

App. C, C–1. 

14 ‘‘EPA Evaluation of the California Interstate 

Transport Plan (2006 PM2.5 NAAQS), Technical 

Support Document,’’ EPA, Region IX, January 2018. 

15For purposes of the PM2.5 evaluation in this 

notice, ‘‘the East’’ refers to the 37 states and 

Washington, DC that lie east of the states of 

Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico. 

The EPA modeled the contribution of states within 

the East to each receptor for CSAPR but did not 

model the contribution of any state further west, 

such as California. 

resulting from such regulations. We 

discussed California’s control measures 

before our more specific discussion of 

interstate transport prongs 1 and 2 for 

each NAAQS because such discussion 

provided a common basis for evaluating 

the California emissions component of 

CARB’s weight of evidence analysis. For 

three PM2.5 precursors pollutants, we 

incorporated our evaluation of 

California’s emissions and regulatory 

programs for NOX and VOC (for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS) and oxides of 

sulfur (SOX) (for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS).13 For directly-emitted PM2.5, 

we affirmed that many of California’s 

measures limit the emission of 

particulate matter and have been 

approved into the California SIP. These 

include the State’s mobile source 

emission standards and test procedures 

for heavy-duty engines and vehicles, 

passenger cars, light duty trucks, and 

medium duty vehicles; in-use diesel 

standards for heavy-duty trucks, buses, 

drayage trucks, and off-road vehicles; 

and inspection and maintenance 

programs, as well as air district 

stationary source measures for 

combustion sources of PM2.5, such as 

open burning, refineries, and cement 

plants, and dust sources of PM2.5, such 

as fugitive dust from roads and 

agricultural operations. 

We also described trends in California 

emissions, which have decreased by 

substantial amounts (e.g., statewide 

decreases from 2000 to 2016 of 75 

percent direct PM2.5, 66 percent NOX, 54 

percent VOC, and 75 percent SO2) in 

response to state and local control 

measures, as well as federal measures 

for sources outside California’s 

regulatory authority. 

Based on our review of the state and 

local measures cited in the California 

Transport Plan that limit the emission of 

PM2.5 and its precursor pollutants and of 

the applicable California emission 

trends, which are generally decreasing, 

we agreed with CARB’s general 

conclusions regarding interstate 

transport of PM2.5: That California 

emissions from stationary sources are 

subject to stringent limits for direct 

PM2.5 and its precursors (e.g., NOX and 

SOX); that California has a long history 

of reducing emissions through motor 

vehicle and fuel standards; and that 

state and local measures will continue 

to reduce the potential for California 

emissions to contribute significantly to 

nonattainment, or interfere with 

maintenance, of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

or 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in any 

other state. 

Building on the identification of 

potential nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors and our 

discussion of California emissions, we 

presented the EPA’s weight of evidence 

analysis to address the CAA 

requirements, which affirmed CARB’s 

weight of evidence analysis for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 and 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. We prepared a Technical 

Support Document (TSD) containing our 

more detailed analysis of interstate 

transport for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS (‘‘EPA’s PM2.5 Transport TSD’’), 

which was also relevant for our 

evaluation of the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS.14

For interstate transport prongs 1 and 

2 for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

we summarized our evaluation of the 

areas encompassing the 18 

nonattainment receptors, grouping them 

into three geographic bins (i.e., Arizona, 

the Northern Rocky Mountains, and 

Utah) based on the nature of the 

emission sources affecting the receptors, 

and the areas encompassing the three 

maintenance receptors, grouping them 

by the two relevant states (Montana and 

Utah). 

For each receptor area we described 

our review of the information compiled 

and presented in the California 

Transport Plan, including distance of 

relevant receptors from California; 

intervening terrain; potential wildfire 

effects; chemical speciation data; local 

topography; the effect of local emission 

sources, particularly residential wood 

burning and, in certain cases, other 

sources (e.g., mobile sources, 

agricultural activities), on wintertime 

exceedances; and regional background 

levels represented by ambient 24-hour 

PM2.5 data from Interagency Monitoring 

of Protected Visual Environments 

(IMPROVE) monitoring sites. We 

reviewed California’s emissions and 

emission control programs for PM2.5 and 

its precursors, especially for NOX and 

SOX, and concluded that California has 

an extensive and effective program for 

limiting emissions of such pollutants. 

Thus, we proposed that California will 

not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in any western state. 

As the California Transport Plan did 

not evaluate PM2.5 transport to states 

farther east than Montana, Wyoming, 

Colorado, and New Mexico, we 

evaluated the potential for transport of 

PM2.5 and its precursors to states farther 

east. We did so by reviewing modeling 

data from the CSAPR and recent air 

quality data to identify the westernmost 

area in the East 15 with potential 

nonattainment or maintenance 

receptors, and then comparing 

California’s likely contributions with 

the contributions of intervening states 

that may significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS at the 

potential nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors, respectively. 

We concluded that California 

emission sources will not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS at the westernmost 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors in the East, which were in 

Madison County, Illinois. This was 

based on the generally improved air 

quality in the East since the EPA’s 

analysis in 2011 for CSAPR, which 

reduced the number of potential 

nonattainment or maintenance 

receptors; the distance of the Madison 

County, Illinois receptors from 

California; intervening terrain; our 

analysis of the westernmost states 

linked to the Madison receptors and 

comparison of California emissions; the 

large reductions in emissions of PM2.5

and its precursors in California; and the 

trend of decreasing 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations at the Madison receptors. 

As the distance from California to the 

other potential eastern nonattainment or 

maintenance receptors is even greater, 

we noted that the expected contribution 

from California to 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations at such receptors would 

be even smaller and thus not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in any state farther east than 

Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New 

Mexico. 

For interstate transport prongs 1 and 

2 for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, we 

agreed with CARB that California will 

not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment, or interfere with 

maintenance, of the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state and 

presented our analysis for potential 

maintenance receptors in Lemhi and 

Shoshone counties, Idaho and 

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 65097 

16This final approval of the California Transport 

Plan for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is based on the information 

contained in the administrative record for this 

action and does not prejudge any other future EPA 

action that may make other determinations 

regarding California’s air quality status. Any such 

future actions, such as area designations under any 

NAAQS, will be based on their own administrative 

records and the EPA’s analyses of information that 

becomes available at those times. Future available 

information may include, and is not limited to, 

monitoring data and modeling analyses conducted 

pursuant to the EPA’s SO2 Data Requirements Rule 

(80 FR 51052, August 21, 2015) and information 

submitted to the EPA by states, air agencies, and 

third-party stakeholders such as citizen groups and 

industry representatives. 

17Letter dated March 9, 2018, from Kurt 

Karperos, Deputy Executive Officer, CARB to Alexis 

Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

IX. 

18Letter dated March 9, 2018, from Robert 

Ukeiley, Senior Attorney, Center for Biological 

Diversity to Rory Mays, Air Planning Office, EPA 

Region IX. 

For the potential maintenance 

receptors in Idaho, we reviewed the 

information compiled and presented in 

the California Transport Plan, including 

distance of these monitors from 

California; intervening terrain; wildfire 

effects; local topography; the effect of 

local emission sources on wintertime 

exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS and 

the effect of those exceedances on 

annual PM2.5 concentrations; and rural 

background levels represented by 

IMPROVE data. We reviewed 

California’s emissions and emission 

control programs for PM2.5 and its 

precursors, especially for NOX and SOX, 

and concluded that California has an 

extensive and effective program for 

limiting emissions of such pollutants. 

Thus, we proposed that California will 

not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS in Idaho or any western state. 

For the potential maintenance 

receptor in Allegheny County, 

Pennsylvania, we concluded that 

California emission sources will not 

interfere with maintenance of the 2012 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This was based 

on our interpolated projection that the 

Allegheny monitor will likely be 

attaining the annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 

2021; the distance of this receptor from 

California; intervening terrain; the 

contribution modeling performed for 

CSAPR; the large reductions in 

emissions of PM2.5 and its precursors in 

California; and the general trend of 

decreasing annual PM2.5 concentrations 

at the Allegheny receptor. 

Based on our analysis that there are 

no nonattainment receptors outside of 

California for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

and our analysis for the maintenance 

receptors in Idaho and Pennsylvania, we 

proposed that California will not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment, or interfere with 

maintenance, of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in any other state. 

C. Evaluation for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

The EPA proposed to approve the 

California Transport Plan for the CAA 

requirements for interstate transport 

prongs 1 and 2 for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS. We described how our 

evaluation of SO2 transport required a 

slightly different approach than our 

evaluation for regional pollutants, such 

as ozone and PM2.5, and more localized 

pollutants, like lead, given the universe 

of SO2 emission sources and physical 

properties of SO2 in the atmosphere 

relative to those other pollutants. In our 

evaluation we addressed the air quality, 

emission sources, and emission trends 

in the states bordering California, i.e., 

Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon. Then we 

discussed California’s air quality, 

emissions sources, control measures, 

and emission trends with respect to 

interstate transport prong 1, followed by 

discussion of additional California air 

quality trends and emission trends with 

respect to interstate transport prong 2. 

We found that monitored 1-hour SO2

levels in Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon 

are generally well below 75 ppb; that 

sources in these bordering states that 

emit over 2,000 tpy of SO2 are located 

at a distance well beyond a 50-km buffer 

from California’s borders where 

emissions from California sources might 

be expected to have downwind impacts 

on air quality; and that the downward 

SO2 emission trends in each bordering 

state reduce the likelihood of SO2

nonattainment or maintenance issues 

appearing in the future.16

For interstate transport prong 1, the 

EPA reviewed the analysis presented in 

the California Transport Plan and 

considered additional information on 

ambient SO2 monitoring data, SO2

emission sources and controls, 

including state measures for mobile 

sources and air district measures for 

large stationary sources, and emission 

trends in California. As for Arizona, 

Nevada, and Oregon, monitored 1-hour 

SO2 levels in California are low (most 

often below half the level of the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS); the 29 SO2 sources in 

California that emit over 100 tpy of SO2

are located at a distance well beyond 50 

km from California’s borders, the 

distance where emissions from 

California sources might be expected to 

have downwind impacts on air quality 

in bordering states; and California’s 

decreasing SO2 emission trend each 

reduce the likelihood of California 

emitting SO2 in amounts that would 

adversely affect other states in the 

future. 

Therefore, based on our analysis of 

SO2 air quality and emission sources in 

Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon and our 

analysis of SO2 air quality and 

emissions in California, we proposed 

that California will not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

For interstate transport prong 2, the 

EPA reviewed the analysis presented in 

the California Transport Plan and 

considered additional information on 

California air quality trends and 

emission trends to evaluate CARB’s 

conclusion that California does not 

interfere with maintenance of the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS in other states. The EPA’s 

analysis built on our evaluation of air 

quality and SO2 emission sources in 

Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon, and our 

evaluation for significant contribution to 

nonattainment (prong 1) based on the 

evidence that we reviewed (i.e., low 

ambient concentrations of SO2, large 

distance of SO2 sources from the 

California border, decreasing SO2

emissions, and the existence of SIPapproved California control measures). 

We found that from 2000 to 2015 both 

ambient SO2 concentrations and SO2

emissions from California’s largest 

stationary sources have decreased 

substantially; and that state and local 

measures to limit the sulfur content of 

fuels and limit SO2 emissions will 

continue to limit SO2 emissions that 

might adversely affect other states. 

Accordingly, we proposed that 

California SO2 emission sources will not 

interfere with maintenance of the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The 30-day comment period for the 

EPA’s proposed rulemaking closed on 

March 9, 2018. We received four 

comment letters in response to the 

proposed rulemaking. CARB submitted 

a letter affirming its support for the 

EPA’s proposed approval.17 The Center 

for Biological Diversity (CBD) submitted 

adverse comments regarding the State’s 

and the EPA’s evaluation of interstate 

transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.18

The two remaining letters were 

anonymous comment letters that raised 

issues outside the scope of this 

rulemaking and did not identify any 

material issues necessitating a 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
65098 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

19Comments received on February 21, 2018 and 

February 27, 2018. 

20Almaraz, et al., ‘‘Agriculture is a major source 

of NOX pollution in California,’’ Science Advances, 

January 31, 2018, 1. As this article is copyrighted, 

it is available in hard copy, but not available 

electronically at Regulations.gov, as part of the 

docket of this rulemaking; see the ADDRESSES

section of this action for hard copy viewing 

information. It is also publicly available at: http:// 

advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/1/eaao3477/ 

tab-pdf. 

21 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). 

22The 1 percent threshold can serve to limit the 

scope of an upwind state’s emission reduction 

obligation if upwind emission reductions would 

otherwise reduce a state’s impact to below the 

threshold. See EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. 

EPA, 134 S. Ct. 1584, 1608–09 (2014) (the EPA 

cannot require a state to reduce its contribution to 

every receptor to which it is linked to below 1 

percent of the NAAQS). In this action, however, the 

EPA has not concluded that California’s impact to 

any downwind receptors would be reduced below 

the 1 percent threshold as a result of the emission 

controls implemented by the State’s SIP. Therefore, 

the potential additional impact of NOX emissions 

resulting from agricultural soils would not 

implicate this limit on the Agency’s statutory 

authority. 

23 Information on BEIS can be found at https://

www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/biogenicemission-inventory-system-beis. This web page 

includes a brief version history of BEIS, including 

points at which the system’s soil NO algorithm was 

revised based on the work of peer-reviewed 

research papers, and a list of BEIS references at 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015- 

10/documents/beis_references.pdf. The EPA’s 

emissions modeling platform TSD for the CSAPR 

Update final rule describes how BEIS was used to 

estimate emissions from soils and vegetation. 

‘‘Technical Support Document (TSD) Preparation of 

Emission Inventories for the Version 6.3, 2011 

Emissions Modeling Platform,’’ EPA, August 2016, 

33–35. 

24Soil NOX Study, Table 1, 3. 

25The Soil NOX Study notes that CARB ascribes 

about 3.8 percent of California’s total NOX

emissions to cropland soils. Soil NOX Study, p. 1. 

The commenters did not attempt to further compare 

the model results of the Soil NOX Study with the 

emissions inventory used in the California 

Transport Plan (based on the initial CSAPR Update 

modeling) nor the CSAPR Update modeling, upon 

which the EPA’s proposed rulemaking was based. 

Notwithstanding, the proportion of CARB’s 

cropland NOX emissions estimates appear to fall in 

a similar scale to those modeled for the EPA’s 

CSAPR Update rule. 

26Trousdell, et al., ‘‘Observing entrainment 

mixing, photochemical ozone production, and 

regional methane emissions by aircraft using a 

simple mixed-layer framework,’’ Atmospheric 

Chemistry and Physics. 16, 15433–15450 (2016). 

response.19 The comment letters are 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

CBD requests that the EPA disapprove 

the California Transport Plan with 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We 

address CBD’s comments in three parts 

as follows. 

Comment #1: The commenter states 

that the ozone transport analysis in the 

California Transport Plan is flawed 

because it underestimates NOX

emissions from agricultural soils in 

California. The commenter relies on a 

recent study that concludes that 

agricultural soils are a dominant source 

of California’s NOX emissions (‘‘Soil 

NOX Study’’), especially in the San 

Joaquin Valley.20 Based on this study, 

the commenter states that California’s 

NOX emissions would have been 20 to 

51 percent higher and that, by 

underestimating such emissions, the 

California Transport Plan 

underestimated California’s 

contribution to downwind states. The 

commenter recommends re-running 

ozone transport modeling with a 

corrected NOX emission inventory for 

California and suggests that this could 

change the linkages between California 

and other states for ozone. The 

commenter asserts that, pursuant to the 

Supreme Court’s holding in Motor 

Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. 

State Farm Mutual Automobile 

Insurance, it is unlawful to fail to 

consider an important aspect of a 

problem before the agency.21

Response #1: The EPA disagrees that 

the California Transport Plan is flawed 

in this manner and that the EPA failed 

to consider an important aspect of 

interstate transport for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. As an initial matter, the 

CSAPR Update modeling estimates that 

California contributes more than 1 

percent of the NAAQS to downwind 

maintenance receptors in Denver (i.e., 

California is ‘‘linked’’ to receptors in 

Denver). An increase in NOX emissions 

from California could potentially 

increase the magnitude of the 

contribution to these receptors but 

would be unlikely to result in any 

additional downwind linkages for 

California because there are no other 

nonattainment or maintenance receptors 

in the West (excluding California), 

based on EPA’s CSAPR Update 

modeling. Moreover, in the CSAPR 

Update four-step process, the amount of 

contribution above the 1 percent 

threshold is not a factor in determining 

whether the upwind state’s contribution 

is significant or will interfere with 

maintenance.22

Although the study upon which the 

commenter relies was not published 

until after the EPA’s proposed 

rulemaking was signed on January 26, 

2018, we have considered the 

commenter’s statement and the study on 

possible underestimation of NOX

emissions from agricultural soils in 

California and potential effects in 

analyzing California’s contribution to 

ozone in downwind states. Accordingly, 

we present a brief synopsis of how the 

CSAPR Update modeling accounted for 

NOX emissions from land in California, 

as well as a summary of the Soil NOX

Study referenced by the commenter and 

our evaluation thereof with respect to 

this rulemaking. 

In 2016, the EPA’s CSAPR Update 

modeling used NOX emissions from 

soils for the continental U.S based on 

application of the Biogenic Emissions 

Inventory System (BEIS version 3.61).23

Emissions of soil NOX vary by land 

cover type and, accordingly, model 

emission factors vary for each type of 

land cover. For example, the emission 

factor for agricultural lands is relatively 

higher than grasslands due to 

application of nitrogen-based fertilizers. 

The annual soil NOX emissions from 

California were estimated to be 30,593 

tpy in both 2011 and 2017, which 

corresponds to 4.1 percent of the total 

2011 NOX inventory for California 

(740,179 tpy) and 5.6 percent of the total 

2017 base case NOX inventory (544,972 

tpy), respectively. Thus, the CSAPR 

Update modeling accounted for the 

effect of California’s soil NOX emissions 

on ozone formation and downwind 

transport to other states. 

In the Soil NOX Study, the authors 

generated annual estimates of soil NOX

emissions from California using a 

nitrogen isotope model and the 

Integrated Model for the Assessment of 

the Global Environment at a 4 kilometer 

(km) by 4 km resolution. These complex 

biogeochemical models include the full 

suite of variables thought to contribute 

to soil NOX emissions. The model 

results were compared to a limited 

number of observations from surface 

measurements around California. The 

average modeled NOX emissions were 

comparable to the surface measurements 

in some areas and larger than the 

surface measurements in other areas.24

The authors then compared model 

predicted emissions to CARB’s non-soil 

NOX emissions inventory and estimated 

that soil NOX emissions account for 25 

percent of California’s total NOX

emissions.25 They note that this is in the 

range of previous modeling studies that 

considered agricultural soils worldwide. 

With respect to the San Joaquin Valley, 

the study also used airborne and surface 

measurements of NOX from a separate 

study 26 to estimate total NOX emissions 

from a portion of the San Joaquin Valley 

of 190 metric tons of nitrogen per day 

(tnpd), with a range of plus or minus 

130 tnpd. 

The Soil NOX Study concludes that it 

is the first study to include a spatially 

explicit estimate of soil NOX emissions 

compared to other emission sources in 

California. While acknowledging the 

uncertainty in the estimate, the Soil 

NOX Study further concludes that its 

model results add to a growing body of 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 65099 

27 Id. at 1. 

28 Id. at 5. 

29Technical comments have been published in 

response to the Soil NOX Study that present 

additional uncertainties (with respect to the 

calculations used) in the Soil NOX Study and 

recommend supplemental data that could be 

released to allow for an improved assessment of the 

study. Maaz, et al., ‘‘Inconsistencies undermine the 

conclusion that agriculture is a dominant source of 

NOX in California,’’ Science Advances, September 

12, 2018. As these technical comments are 

copyrighted, they are available in hard copy as part 

of the docket of this rulemaking; see the ADDRESSES

section of this action for viewing information. They 

are also publicly available at: http://

advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/9/eaat4706?

intcmp=trendmd-adv. 

30 83 FR 5375, 5380 (February 7, 2018). 

31A map of California’s ecological regions is 

available at: https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/ 

ecoregion-download-files-state-region-9. 

literature suggesting that soil NOX

emissions could be significantly 

underestimated in current inventories 

and possibly increase California’s total 

NOX emissions by 20 to 51 percent.27

The EPA acknowledges the value that 

studies of this kind contribute towards 

a better understanding of soil NOX

emissions from California. However, the 

quantification of such emissions is 

currently uncertain, as described below, 

and would require further field research 

to substantiate. The commenters did not 

address the uncertainties expressed in 

the study and did not consider other 

important analytical aspects of interstate 

transport of ozone. 

First, the study acknowledges that a 

limited number of surface 

measurements were available for 

purposes of comparing the model 

results and, where observations exist, 

there is a large range in observed values 

due to varying soil conditions (e.g., 

relating to temperature, moisture, 

fertilizer application, etc.). The authors 

acknowledge the difficulty in comparing 

the model results to the observations 

and note the need for more field 

measurements.28 Second, there was a 

significant degree of uncertainty in the 

aircraft estimates of NOX emissions over 

the San Joaquin Valley (190 tnpd plus 

or minus 130 tnpd, which equates to 

plus or minus 68 percent). Further 

research would be needed to determine 

whether these higher levels of soil NOX

emissions over California and elsewhere 

are accurate and reliable before updates 

are included in air quality modeling to 

support regulatory decisions.29

Furthermore, in the EPA’s proposed 

rulemaking, we described the rationale 

for our disagreement with CARB’s 

assertions in the California Transport 

Plan that California’s contributions to 

ozone levels in the Denver area were 

overestimated, while acknowledging 

that the future research that CARB 

suggests to better characterize ozone 

transport from California to other states 

could prove valuable.30 In this response, 

we disagree with the commenter that 

California’s contributions to such ozone 

levels were underestimated, while 

similarly acknowledging the value of 

further research to better characterize 

California’s NOX emissions. In both 

cases, however, we assert that the 

prospect of future research that might 

better quantify California’s emissions or 

their effect on other states’ ozone levels 

does not itself undermine the technical 

adequacy of the EPA’s current modeling 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We reaffirm 

that the CSAPR Update modeling, 

including its emissions inventory bases, 

and our analysis with respect to 

California based on that modeling 

adequately estimate the interstate 

transport of ozone from California to 

downwind states. 

In sum, the soil NOX emissions used 

in the CSAPR Update modeling, upon 

which our evaluation of the California 

Transport Plan relies for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, were based on the BEIS, which 

incorporates prior research on soil NOX

as noted above. While the Soil NOX

Study suggests that California’s soil 

NOX emissions may be underestimated, 

they have not been adequately 

quantified and verified to a sufficient 

degree to replace the emissions 

inventories that were part of the 

analytical basis of the EPA’s proposal to 

approve California Transport Plan for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS, nor to warrant 

re-running the ozone transport 

modeling. Furthermore, the CSAPR 

modeling and our proposed finding did 

indicate that California is linked to 

downwind receptors, and therefore we 

presented a general assessment of costeffective controls that can be employed 

to reduce emissions from sources in 

California. 

The EPA therefore disagrees that it 

has failed to consider an important 

aspect of the interstate transport 

problem in violation of the Supreme 

Court’s holding in State Farm. We 

affirm that the EPA has considered the 

multiple important aspects of interstate 

transport of ozone from California to 

other states, as described in our 

proposed rulemaking and in this final 

rule’s response to comments. These 

aspects include, but are not limited to, 

consideration of measured and modeled 

ambient ozone concentrations, 

measured and estimated NOX and VOC 

emissions inventories for California and 

the continental U.S., application of state 

of the science modeling tools for 

regional air pollution analysis and 

appropriate model validation, existing 

and planned emission control regimes, 

and meteorology. Furthermore, we have 

considered the commenter’s arguments 

with respect to California’s soil NOX

emissions and disagree that the science 

of such emissions is quantified and 

verified to a sufficient degree to warrant 

a new analysis of interstate transport 

from California to other states for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Comment #2: The commenter states 

that the ozone transport analysis in the 

California Transport Plan is flawed by 

failing to consider whether soil NOX

emissions from California are 

adequately controlled. Specifically, the 

commenter states that the EPA failed to 

consider whether California has rules to 

limit NOX via agricultural management 

practices, whether such rules are in the 

California SIP, and whether such rules 

are adequate. The commenter does not 

believe that such rules are in place. 

Response #2: We disagree with the 

commenter’s assertion that the 

California Transport Plan should have 

examined whether soil NOX emissions 

are subject to control and whether such 

controls are adequate for purposes of the 

interstate transport requirements for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. This flows from 

our considerations expressed in 

Response #1 of this final rule. We do not 

consider the Soil NOX Study alone to be 

sufficient to compel replacement of the 

emissions inventories that were the 

analytical bases of the EPA’s proposal, 

particularly given the study’s wide 

range of suggested soil NOX emission 

increases (20 to 51 percent for 

California) and the large uncertainty in 

the model results. 

Soil NOX emissions occur across 

California’s wide range of ecological 

regions 31 and NOX emissions from 

agricultural regions in the State 

represent a subset of the statewide 

annual soil NOX estimate. Within the 

agricultural regions, the amount of soil 

NOX emitted varies based on 

agricultural practices employed (e.g., 

irrigation; method, timing, and amount 

of fertilizer application; etc.), crop type, 

temperature, and other factors. 

Additionally, soil NOX is not directly 

emitted (e.g., nitrifying bacteria in the 

soil convert ammonium from various 

sources into NOX, some of which is 

emitted into the atmosphere) and 

involves numerous natural emissions 

sources and processes. Therefore, the 

production of NOX in the soil is quite 

complex and inherently difficult to 

estimate and model. 

In addition, the commenter did not 

provide examples or recommendations 

of alternative agricultural practices that 

might reduce soil NOX emissions in 

California. Even if there were known 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
65100 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

32 79 FR 63536 (October 24, 2014) for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS; and 80 FR 39961 (July 13, 2015) for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

alternative practices, it may prove 

difficult to estimate the effect of those 

potential controls given the complexity 

of soil NOX production. Given the 

complexity in estimating and modeling 

soil NOX emissions, the indirect and 

partially natural source of the 

emissions, the absence of specific 

alternative measures that could be 

implemented to reduce soil NOX

emissions, and the uncertainty in the 

effectiveness of potential emission 

controls, the EPA concludes that there 

is not sufficient information available at 

this time to warrant an evaluation of 

potential control of soil NOX emissions 

in California for purposes of interstate 

transport prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

Therefore, we reaffirm that our 

approach of evaluating California’s 

largest sources of NOX emissions and 

the control measures for such sources, 

including mobile sources (70 percent of 

the projected 2017 emissions inventory) 

and stationary point sources (15 percent 

of the inventory, including EGUs and 

non-EGU sources), is a reasonable 

means for assessing whether California 

has satisfied the interstate transport 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Comment #3: Lastly, the commenter 

asserts that measures to control NOX

emissions from cropland soils will bring 

economic, ecosystem, and human health 

co-benefits to rural California, per the 

recent study. On this basis, the 

commenter disagrees that the EPA lacks 

discretionary authority under Executive 

Order 12898 to address disproportionate 

human health or environmental effects 

and highlights the San Joaquin Valley as 

an area with many communities that 

suffer environmental injustice. The 

commenter states that the California 

Transport Plan should include measures 

to control NOX emissions from 

agricultural soils to reduce pollution in 

such communities, consistent with 

Executive Order 12898. 

Response #3: We disagree that the 

EPA has discretionary authority in this 

rulemaking under Executive Order 

12898 to address any disproportionate 

human health or environmental effects 

in rural California. First, Executive 

Order 12898 applies only to federal 

agency actions that invoke certain 

federal requirements, such as the 

National Environmental Policy Act or 

CAA section 309, and it does not apply 

where the EPA is merely approving a 

state submission as meeting basic 

requirements of the CAA. Second, this 

rulemaking concerns the interstate 

transport of ozone from California to 

other states under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), rather than the effect 

of California’s NOX emissions on 

communities within California. Thus, 

the commenters suggestion that 

California should control NOX

emissions from cropland soils to reduce 

pollution that may affect communities 

in California is outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. For these reasons, 

Executive Order 12898 is not applicable 

to this action. 

III. EPA Action 

We have reviewed the California 

Transport Plan for the 2008 ozone, 2006 

PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS using step-wise processes. 

Based on this review and additional 

analyses conducted by the EPA to verify 

and supplement the California 

Transport Plan, and consistent with 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and EPA 

guidance with respect to interstate 

transport for these NAAQS, we find that 

California will not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment, or interfere 

with maintenance, of the 2008 ozone, 

2006 PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS in any other state. No 

comments were submitted that change 

our assessment of the California 

Transport Plan as described in our 

proposed rulemaking. Therefore, as 

authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the 

Act, the EPA is fully approving the 

California Transport Plan into the 

California SIP for the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for these 

NAAQS. 

In addition, for the 2006 PM2.5 and 

2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA had 

previously found that California failed 

to submit the required SIP revisions 

addressing interstate transport prongs 1 

and 2 by certain dates.32 Those actions 

triggered the obligation for the EPA to 

promulgate a federal implementation 

plan (FIP) for these requirements unless 

the State submitted and the EPA 

approved a SIP submission that 

addresses the two prongs. As the EPA is 

fully approving the California Transport 

Plan for these two NAAQS, this final 

rule also removes the obligation for the 

EPA to promulgate such FIPs. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, 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 the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 65101 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by February 19, 

2019. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Ammonia, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: November 30, 2018. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(512) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan—in part. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(512) The following plan was 

submitted on January 19, 2016, by the 

Governor’s Designee. 

(i) [Reserved]. 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) California Air Resources Board 

(CARB). 

(1) ‘‘California Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision, 

Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D),’’ 

adopted December 17, 2015, 

(‘‘California Transport Plan’’). 

■ 3. Section 52.283 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(3), (d)(3), and 

(g)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 52.283 Interstate Transport. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) The requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding significant 

contribution to nonattainment of the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state and 

interference with maintenance of the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS by any other state. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(3) The requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding significant 

contribution to nonattainment of the 

2008 ozone NAAQS in any other State 

and interference with maintenance of 

the 2010 ozone NAAQS by any other 

State. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(3) The requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding significant 

contribution to nonattainment of the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other State and 

interference with maintenance of the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS by any other State. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27477 Filed 12–18–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R08–RCRA–2018–0554; FRL–9986– 

24–Region 8] 

North Dakota: Final Authorization of 

State Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: North Dakota has applied for 

final authorization of a revision to its 

hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). The revision has two parts, 

both of which relate directly to the 

creation of the North Dakota Department 

of Environmental Quality (NDDEQ) by 

the North Dakota Legislature, and the 

impending transfer of authority, power, 

and duties relating to environmental 

quality from the North Dakota 

Department of Health (NDDH) to the 

NDDEQ. The first part of the program 

revision is the complete transfer of all 

hazardous waste program rules from 

Title 33 Article 24 of the North Dakota 

Administrative Code (NDAC) to NDAC 

Title 33.1 Article 24. The second part is 

replacing all references to NDDH with 

NDDEQ. No other changes are being 

made to the hazardous waste program 

rules in this revision. The EPA has 

reviewed the application and 

determined that North Dakota’s 

hazardous waste program revision 

satisfies all of the requirements 

necessary to qualify for final 

authorization. The EPA is authorizing 

the state program revision through this 

direct final rule. The EPA is publishing 

this rule without prior proposal because 

the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial action and does not 

anticipate adverse comments. However, 

in the proposed rules section of this 

Federal Register, the EPA is publishing 

a separate document that will serve as 

a proposal to authorize the revision 

should the Agency receive adverse 

comment. Unless the EPA receives 

adverse written comments during the 

review and comment period, the 

decision to authorize North Dakota’s 

hazardous waste program revision will 

take effect as provided below. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

March 15, 2019, unless the EPA receives 

adverse written comment by January 18, 

2019. Should the EPA receive such 

comments, it will publish a timely 

document either: Withdrawing the 

direct final publication or affirming the 

publication and responding to 

comments. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–RCRA–2018–0554. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov website. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information, the 

disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES