Document ID: EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0052-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: OK027.01 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oklahoma; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 PM-2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), Proposed rule, 4 pages.
Posted Date: 2018-05-18T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 97 (Friday, May 18, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23244-23247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10599]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0052; FRL-9977-89-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oklahoma; 
Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions 
of the Oklahoma State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal addressing 
the CAA requirement that SIPs address the potential for interstate 
transport of air pollution to significantly contribute to nonattainment 
or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 
other states. EPA is proposing to determine that emissions from 
Oklahoma sources do not contribute significantly to nonattainment in, 
or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with regard to the 
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 18, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA-R06-
OAR-2017-0052, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to 
[email protected]. 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 whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written 
comment is considered the official comment and should include 
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not 
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary

[[Page 23245]]

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For 
additional submission methods, please contact Sherry Fuerst, 214-665-
6454, [email protected]. For the full EPA public comment policy, 
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance 
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA 
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may 
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location 
(e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Fuerst, 214-665-6454, 
[email protected]. To inspect the hard copy materials, please 
schedule an appointment with Ms. Fuerst or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-
7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

A. The PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport of Air Pollution

    Under section 109 of the CAA, we establish NAAQS to protect human 
health and public welfare. In 2012, we established a new annual NAAQS 
for PM2.5 of 12 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), (78 
FR 3085, January 15, 2013). The CAA requires states to submit, within 
three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs 
meeting the applicable ``infrastructure'' elements of sections 
110(a)(1) and (2). One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain provisions to 
prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due 
to interstate transport of pollution. There are four sub-elements 
within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action reviews how the first 
two sub-elements, contained in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), were 
addressed in an infrastructure SIP submission from Oklahoma for the 
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. These sub-elements require that each SIP 
for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate provisions to prohibit any 
source or other type of emissions activity in one state that will 
``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' or ``interfere with 
maintenance'' of the applicable air quality standard in any other 
state.
    The EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to PM2.5 in several 
past regulatory actions. In 2011, we promulgated the Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule (CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011) in order to address 
the obligations of states--and of the EPA when states have not met 
their obligations--under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit air 
pollution contributing significantly to nonattainment in, or 
interfering with maintenance by, any other state with regard to several 
NAAQS, including the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS.\1\ In that rule, we considered states linked to downwind 
nonattainment or maintenance receptors \2\ if they were projected by 
air quality modeling to contribute more than the threshold amount (1% 
of the standard) of PM2.5 pollution for the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS (76 FR 48208, 48239-43). The EPA has not 
established a threshold amount for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. In 
2016 we provided an informational memorandum (the memo) about the steps 
states should follow as they develop and review SIPs that address this 
provision of the CAA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Federal Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport of Fine 
Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR 
48207 (August 8, 2011) (codified as amended at 40 CFR 52.38 and 
52.39 and 40 CFR part 97).
    \2\ Nonattainment or maintenance receptors are monitors 
projected to have air quality problems.
    \3\ Information on the Interstate Transport ``Good Neighbor'' 
Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
March 17, 2016 from Stephen D. Page.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Oklahoma SIP Submittal Pertaining to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and 
Interstate Transport of Air Pollution

    On December 19, 2016, Oklahoma submitted a SIP revision to address 
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS. In the submittal Oklahoma used a weight of 
evidence analysis to assess interstate transport of Oklahoma emissions 
to locations projected in the 2016 EPA memo as receptors of concern. In 
their analysis Oklahoma concluded that emissions from Oklahoma did not 
significantly contribute to interference with attainment or maintenance 
of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS or the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS in another state. A copy of the Oklahoma SIP 
submittal is available in the electronic docket for this action.
    We propose to approve the December 19, 2016 SIP revision submittal 
intended to ensure that the SIP met the requirements of the CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. The EPA's Evaluation

    As stated above, Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires SIPS to include 
adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions 
activity in one state that will (I) contribute significantly to 
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQs in another 
state, and (II) interfering with measures required to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality, or to protective visibility 
in another state. This action address only CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    The 2016 EPA memo outlined the four-step framework EPA has 
historically used to evaluate interstate transport under section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), including the EPA's CSAPR.
    (1) Identification of potential downwind nonattainment and 
maintenance receptors;
    (2) Identification of upwind states contributing to downwind 
nonattainment and maintenance receptors;
    (3) For states identified as contributing to downwind air quality 
problem, identification of upwind emissions reductions necessary to 
prevent upwind states from significantly contributing to nonattainment 
or interfering with maintenance of receptors, and;
    (4) For states that are found to have emissions that significantly 
contribute to non-attainment or interfere with maintenance downwind, 
reducing the identified upwind emissions through adoption of permanent 
and enforceable measures.
    We will be following the framework outlined in the memo for our 
evaluation. Based on this approach, the potential receptors are 
outlined in Table 1 in the memo. Most of the potential receptors are in 
California, located in the San Joaquin Valley or South Coast 
nonattainment areas. However, there is also one potential receptor in 
Shoshone County, Idaho, and one potential receptor in Allegheny County, 
Pennsylvania.
    The memo did note that because of data quality problems 
nonattainment and maintenance projections were not completed for all or 
portions of Florida, Illinois, Idaho, Tennessee and Kentucky. After 
issuance of the memo, data quality problems were resolved for Idaho, 
Tennessee, Kentucky and most of Florida, identifying no additional 
potential receptors, with those areas

[[Page 23246]]

having design values (DV) below the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and 
expected to maintain the NAAQS due to downward emission trends for 
NOX and SO2 (www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values and www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data). Florida certified its 2017 PM2.5 
ambient air data for the counties in Florida with 2009-2013 data gaps 
in March, 2018 allowing us to develop 2015-2017 preliminary design 
values. The highest preliminary design value in Florida is 8 [mu]g/m\3\ 
and the highest monitored value in Florida is 7.5 [mu]g/m\3\, well 
below the NAAQS. For these reasons, we find that none of the counties 
in Florida with monitoring gaps between 2009-2013 should be considered 
either nonattainment or maintenance receptors for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, as of April, 2018, only Illinois 
still has data quality issues preventing projections of nonattainment 
and maintenance receptors. Illinois will be evaluated to determine if 
they have potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors for 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Therefore, for ``Step 1'' of this evaluation, the areas identified 
as ``potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors'' are:
     Seventeen potential receptors in California, located in 
the San Joaquin Valley or South Coast nonattainment areas;
     Shoshone County, Idaho;
     Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; and,
     All of Illinois
    As stated above, ``Step 2'' is the identification of states 
contributing to downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors, such 
that further analysis is required to identify necessary upwind 
reductions. For this step, we will be specifically determining if 
Oklahoma emissions contribute to downwind nonattainment and maintenance 
receptors.
    Each of the potential receptors is discussed below, with a more in 
depth discussion provided in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for 
this notice. For additional information, links to the documents relied 
upon for this analysis can be found throughout the document, more 
information is available in the TSD and the documents can be found in 
the docket for this action.

California

    As described in our TSD, our analysis shows that Oklahoma's 
PM2.5 emissions and/or PM2.5 precursors do not 
significantly impact the California potential receptors identified in 
the memo. In our analysis we found specifically that the majority of 
the emissions impacting PM2.5 levels in California are 
directly emitted PM2.5 and/or PM2.5 precursors 
from within the state, and that meteorological and topographic 
conditions serve as barriers to transport from Oklahoma. We note that 
air quality designations are not relevant to our evaluation of 
interstate transport, however, the analysis developed for the 2012 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS designations process provides an in depth 
evaluation of factors critical in evaluating transport of 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, including evaluation 
of local emissions, wind speed and direction, topographical and 
meteorological conditions and seasonal variations recorded at the 
monitors, which all support the conclusion that Oklahoma's 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors do not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 
California potential receptors. Furthermore, Oklahoma is more than 800 
miles to the east and generally downwind of the California 
receptors.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ California: Imperial County, Los Angeles-South Coast Air 
Basin, Plumas County, San Joaquin Valley Area Designations for the 
2012 Primary Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard Technical Support Document https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0918-0330.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, we propose to find that Oklahoma does not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment, nor will it interfere with 
maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for California.

Shoshone County, Idaho

    As discussed in the TSD, our analysis shows that Oklahoma's 
PM2.5 emissions and/or PM2.5 precursors do not 
significantly impact the Idaho potential receptor identified in the 
memo. In our analysis, we found specifically that the majority of the 
emissions impacting PM2.5 levels, came during the winter 
time and could be attributed to residential wood combustion. We note 
that air quality designations are not relevant to our evaluation of 
interstate transport; however, the analysis developed for the 2012 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS designations process provide an in depth 
evaluation of factors critical in evaluating transport of 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, including evaluation 
of local emissions, wind speed and direction, topographical and 
meteorological conditions and seasonal variations recorded at the 
monitor, which all support the conclusion that Oklahoma 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors do not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment nor interfere with maintenance of the Idaho 
potential receptor.\5\ Furthermore, Oklahoma is more than 1,000 miles 
to the southeast and downwind of this receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Idaho: West Silver Valley Nonattainment Area- 2012 Primary 
Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
Technical Support Document. Prepared by EPA Region 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, we propose to find that Oklahoma does not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment, nor will it interfere with 
maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for Shoshone, Idaho.

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

    As discussed in the TSD, our analysis shows that Oklahoma's 
PM2.5 emissions and/or PM2.5 precursors do not 
significantly impact the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (Liberty 
monitor) potential receptor identified in the memo. In our analysis, we 
found that there were strong local influences throughout Allegheny 
County and contributions from nearby states that contributed to its 
nonattainment for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 
Contributors to the Liberty monitor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 
in recent years, have taken steps to improve air quality which will 
likely bring the monitor into compliance with the 2012 PM2.5 
annual NAAQS by the 2021 attainment date.
    Another compelling fact is that in previous modeling, Oklahoma 
emissions were not linked to Allegheny County.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Air Quality Modeling for 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 
(CSAPR) (76 FR 48207, August 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, we propose to find that Oklahoma does not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment, nor will it interfere with 
maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for Allegany County, 
Pennsylvania.

Illinois

    Due to ambient monitoring data gaps in the 2009-2013 data that 
should have been used to identify potential PM2.5 
nonattainment and maintenance receptors in Illinois and the modeling 
analysis of potential receptors could not be completed for the state, 
therefore the entire state is considered unclassifiable. Illinois did 
have a nonattainment receptor identified through the CSAPR modeling 
analysis for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The receptor was in 
Madison, Illinois, located near St. Louis, Missouri.
    As stated above, Oklahoma was included in the CSAPR modeling 
analysis for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The modeling did not show 
a linkage for nonattainment or maintenance between Oklahoma and 
Illinois. Recent DV for the monitors in Madison, Illinois have shown 
downward trends. There are

[[Page 23247]]

three active monitors in Madison. The DVs for the monitors are shown in 
Table 1 below.

              Table 1--Annual Standard 3-Year Averages ([mu]g/m\3\) for Madison, Illinois Monitors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Monitor No.                               2012-2014       2013-2015       2014-2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
171191007.......................................................            12.9            11.6            10.8
171192009.......................................................            10.4             9.7             9.4
171193007.......................................................            12.5            10.8            10.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, we propose that Oklahoma will not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment, nor will it interfere with maintenance of 
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in Illinois.
    Since we determined that Oklahoma's SIP includes provisions 
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity from 
contributing significantly to nonattainment in, or interfering with 
maintenance of the NAAQS, in another state, steps 3 and 4 of this 
evaluation are not necessary.
    In conclusion, based on our review of the potential receptors 
presented in the March 17, 2016 informational memo, an evaluation 
identifying likely emission sources affecting these potential 
receptors, and the 2014 base case modeling in CSAPR final rule, we 
propose to determine that emissions from Oklahoma sources will not 
contribute significantly to nonattainment in, nor interfere with 
maintenance by, any other state with regard to the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS.

III. Proposed Action

    For the reasons discussed above and in the TSD, we are proposing to 
approve the December 19, 2016 Oklahoma SIP submittal concluding that 
emissions from Oklahoma will not significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     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 CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will 
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt 
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 
9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Particulate matter.

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

    Dated: May 14, 2018.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2018-10599 Filed 5-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P