Document ID: EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0061-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Washington; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS
Posted Date: 2018-07-23T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34813-34816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15625]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0061; FRL-9981-08--Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; Washington; Interstate Transport Requirements 
for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that 
will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On 
February 7, 2018, the State of Washington made a submittal to the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements for 
the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA 
is proposing to approve the submittal as meeting the requirement that 
each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 22, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2018-0061 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information 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 submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt at (206) 553-0256, or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. This 
supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. State Submittal
III. EPA Evaluation
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revision to the ozone 
NAAQS (2015 ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of both the primary and 
secondary standards to 0.070 parts per million (ppm).\1\ Section 
110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit, within 3 years after 
promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs meeting the applicable 
elements of section 110(a)(2).\2\ One of these applicable requirements 
is found in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), otherwise known as the good 
neighbor provision, which generally requires SIPs to contain adequate 
provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities from having 
certain adverse air quality effects on other states due to interstate 
transport of pollution. There are four prongs within CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i): Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) contains prongs 1 and 2, 
while section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) includes prongs 3 and 4. This action 
addresses the first two prongs under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Under 
prongs 1 and 2 of the good neighbor provision, a state's SIP for a new 
or revised NAAQS must contain adequate provisions prohibiting any 
source or other type of emissions activity within the state from 
emitting air pollutants in amounts that will contribute significantly 
to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) or from 
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). 
Under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, the EPA gives independent 
significance to evaluating prong 1 and prong 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone Final Rule, 
80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
    \2\ SIP revisions that are intended to meet the requirements of 
section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are often referred to as 
infrastructure SIPs and the elements under 110(a)(2) are referred to 
as infrastructure requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that the EPA has addressed the interstate transport 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to prior 
ozone NAAQS in several regulatory actions, including the Cross-State 
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which addressed interstate transport

[[Page 34814]]

with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and 2006 fine 
particulate matter standards, and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 
Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update).\3\ These actions only 
addressed interstate transport in to the eastern United States \4\ and 
did not address the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Final Rule, 76 FR 
48208 (August 8, 2011); CSAPR Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (CSAPR 
Update) Final Rule, 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
    \4\ For purposes of CSAPR and the CSAPR Update action, the 
western U.S. (or the West) was considered to consist of the 11 
western contiguous states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, 
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. 
The eastern U.S. (or the East) was considered to consist of the 37 
states east of the 11 western states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through the development and implementation of CSAPR, the CSAPR 
Update and previous rulemakings pursuant to the good neighbor 
provision,\5\ the EPA, working in partnership with states, developed 
the following four-step interstate transport framework to address the 
requirements of the good neighbor provision for the ozone NAAQS: \6\ 
(1) Identify downwind air quality problems; (2) identify upwind states 
that impact those downwind air quality problems sufficiently such that 
they are considered ``linked'' and therefore warrant further review and 
analysis; (3) identify the emissions reductions necessary (if any), 
considering cost and air quality factors, to prevent linked upwind 
states identified in step 2 from contributing significantly to 
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS at the 
locations of the downwind air quality problems; and (4) adopt permanent 
and enforceable measures needed to achieve those emissions reductions. 
This four-step framework has also been used to address interstate 
transport with respect to prior ozone NAAQS in the western United 
States.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Other rulemakings addressing ozone transport include the 
NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998), and the 
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
    \6\ The four-step interstate framework has also been used to 
address requirements of the good neighbor provision for some 
previous particulate matter (PM) NAAQS, including in the western 
United States. See, e.g., 83 FR 30380 (June 28, 2018).
    \7\ See, e.g., Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State 
Implementation Plans; California; Interstate Transport Requirements 
for Ozone, Fine Particular Matter, and Sulfur Dioxide, Proposed 
Rule, 83 FR 5375, 5376-77 (February 7, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has released several documents containing information 
relevant to evaluating interstate transport with respect to the 2015 
ozone NAAQS. First, on January 6, 2017, the EPA published a notice of 
data availability (NODA) with preliminary interstate ozone transport 
modeling with projected ozone design values for 2023, on which we 
requested comment.\8\ On October 27, 2017, we released a memorandum 
(2017 memorandum) containing updated modeling data for 2023, which 
incorporated changes made in response to comments on the NODA.\9\ 
Although the 2017 memorandum also released data for a 2023 modeling 
year, we specifically stated that the modeling may be useful for states 
developing SIPs to address remaining good neighbor obligations for the 
2008 ozone NAAQS but did not address the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Finally, on 
March 27, 2018, we issued a memorandum (2018 memorandum) indicating the 
same 2023 modeling data released in the 2017 memorandum would also be 
useful for evaluating potential downwind air quality problems with 
respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS (step 1 of the four-step framework). 
The 2018 memorandum also included newly available contribution modeling 
results to assist states in evaluating their impact on potential 
downwind air quality problems (step 2 of the four-step framework) in 
their efforts to develop good neighbor SIPs for the 2015 ozone NAAQS to 
address their interstate transport obligations.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection 
Agency's Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport Modeling Data for 
the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 82 FR 
1733 (January 6, 2017).
    \9\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State 
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017.
    \10\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State 
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), March 27, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2018 memorandum describes the process and results of the 
updated photochemical modeling to project ambient ozone levels for the 
year 2023. The memorandum explains that the selection of the 2023 
analytic year aligns with the 2015 ozone NAAQS attainment year for 
Moderate nonattainment areas. As described in more detail in the 2017 
and 2018 memoranda, the EPA used photochemical air quality modeling to 
project ozone concentrations at air quality monitoring sites to 2023 
and estimated state-by-state ozone contributions to those 2023 
concentrations. This modeling used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model 
with Extensions (CAMx version 6.40) to model average and maximum design 
values in 2023 in order to identify potential nonattainment and 
maintenance receptors with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The 
memorandum presents the design values in two ways: First, following the 
EPA's historic ``3 x 3'' approach to evaluating all sites, and second, 
following the modified approach for coastal monitoring sites in which 
``overwater'' modeling data were not included in the calculation of 
future year design values.
    For purposes of identifying potential nonattainment and maintenance 
receptors in 2023, the EPA applied the same approach used in the CSAPR 
Update, wherein the EPA considered a combination of monitoring data and 
modeling projections to identify monitoring sites that are projected to 
have problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA 
identified nonattainment receptors as those monitoring sites with 
current measured values exceeding the NAAQS that also have projected 
(i.e., in 2023) average design values exceeding the NAAQS. The EPA 
identified maintenance receptors as those monitoring sites with maximum 
design values exceeding the NAAQS. This included sites with current 
measured values below the NAAQS with projected average and maximum 
design values exceeding the NAAQS, and monitoring sites with projected 
average design values below the NAAQS but with projected maximum design 
values exceeding the NAAQS. The EPA included the design values and 
monitoring data for all monitoring sites projected to be potential 
nonattainment or maintenance receptors based on the updated 2023 
modeling in Attachment B to the 2018 memorandum.
    After identifying potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance 
sites, the EPA next performed nationwide, state-level ozone source-
apportionment modeling to estimate the expected contribution to these 
nonattainment and maintenance sites from each state (excluding Alaska 
and Hawaii). The EPA performed air quality model runs for a modeling 
domain that covers the 48 contiguous United States and adjacent 
portions of Canada and Mexico. The EPA included contribution 
information resulting from the source-apportionment modeling in 
Attachment C to the 2018 memorandum.
    In the CSAPR and the CSAPR Update, the EPA used a threshold of one 
percent of the NAAQS to determine whether a given upwind state was 
``linked'' at step 2 of the four-step framework and would therefore 
contribute to downwind nonattainment and maintenance sites (also known 
as receptors) identified in

[[Page 34815]]

step 1. If a state's impact did not exceed the one percent threshold, 
the upwind state was not ``linked'' to a downwind air quality problem, 
and the EPA therefore concluded the state will not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS 
in the downwind states. However, if a state's impact exceeded the one 
percent threshold, the state's emissions were further evaluated in step 
3, taking into account both air quality and cost considerations, to 
determine what, if any, emissions reductions might be necessary to 
address the good neighbor provision. The EPA has not determined what an 
appropriate threshold would be for identifying at step 2 of the 
framework whether an upwind state is linked, and therefore contributes 
to a downwind air quality problem with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 
However, as discussed in more detail below, the EPA is using a similar 
preliminary approach for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in reviewing Washington's 
SIP.
    For more specific information on the modeling and analysis, please 
see 2017 and 2018 memoranda, the Notice of Data Availability for the 
preliminary interstate transport assessment, and the supporting 
technical documents included in the docket for this action.
    While the 2018 memorandum presented information regarding the EPA's 
latest analysis of ozone transport following the approaches the EPA has 
taken in prior regional rulemaking actions, the EPA has not made any 
final determinations regarding how states should identify downwind 
receptors with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS at step 1 of the four-
step framework, or what threshold should be used to identify ``linked'' 
upwind states at step 2. Rather, the EPA noted that states have 
flexibility in developing their own SIPs to follow somewhat different 
analytical approaches than the EPA, so long as their chosen approach 
has an adequate technical justification and is consistent with the 
requirements of the CAA. The 2018 memorandum therefore included as 
Attachment A a preliminary list of potential flexibilities that the EPA 
concluded may warrant further discussion as states develop good 
neighbor SIPs addressing the 2015 ozone NAAQS. In presenting the list, 
the EPA did not make any determination whether the potential 
flexibilities are consistent with the CAA nor did the EPA specifically 
recommend any particular approach.

II. State Submittal

    On February 7, 2018, Washington submitted a SIP revision addressing 
the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements 
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Washington relied upon the EPA's preliminary 
photochemical air quality modeling for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, contained 
in the January 6, 2017 NODA discussed above, which was the most current 
data available at the time of Washington's submittal. Washington 
reviewed the EPA's preliminary 2023 modeling, determined that the 
future year projections are appropriate, and concurred with the EPA's 
preliminary photochemical modeling results, which indicate that 
Washington's largest contribution to potential downwind nonattainment 
and maintenance sites would be 0.15 ppb and 0.11 ppb, respectively. 
Washington compared these values to a screening threshold of 0.70 ppb, 
representing one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and concluded that 
emissions from Washington sources will not significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in 
any other state.

III. EPA Evaluation

    As previously discussed, the 2018 memorandum is the most up-to-date 
information the EPA has developed to inform our analysis of upwind 
state linkages to downwind air quality problems. The 2018 memorandum 
identifies potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors, 
using the definitions applied in the CSAPR Update. Relevant here, the 
2018 memorandum identifies 56 potential nonattainment and maintenance 
receptors in the West in Arizona (2), California (49), and Colorado 
(5).\11\ The 2018 memorandum also provides contribution data regarding 
the impact of other states on the potential receptors. Although the EPA 
has not identified a specific threshold for identifying contribution at 
step 2 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, for purposes of evaluating 
Washington's 2015 ozone NAAQS interstate transport SIP submittal, we 
are proposing that at least where a state's contributions are less than 
one percent to downwind nonattainment and maintenance sites, it is 
reasonable to conclude the state's impact is not a contribution. While 
the EPA has indicated in Attachment A to the 2018 memorandum that 
states may consider alternative thresholds for identifying states that 
will contribute to downwind air quality problems--so long as the 
alternative threshold is technically justified--the EPA believes it is 
reasonable to continue to conclude that states with an impact below a 
threshold of one percent of the NAAQS will not significantly contribute 
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any 
other state. This is consistent with our prior action on Washington's 
SIP with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS and with the EPA's approach to 
both the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS in CSAPR and the CSAPR Update.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As discussed above, the EPA has indicated that states may 
have flexibilities to follow a different analytic approach to 
evaluating interstate transport, including the identification of 
downwind air quality problems. Because the EPA is concluding that 
Washington will have an insignificant impact on any potential 
receptors identified in its analysis, it need not definitively 
determine whether these areas should be treated as receptors for the 
2015 ozone standard.
    \12\ 80 FR 77578 (December 15, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's updated 2023 modeling discussed in the 2018 memorandum 
indicates that Washington's largest contributions to any potential 
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptor in the West are 0.20 
ppb and 0.16 ppb, respectively.\13\ These values are below a one 
percent screening threshold of 0.70 ppb, and as a result, identify no 
linkages between Washington and 2023 downwind potential nonattainment 
and maintenance sites. Washington's projected contribution to potential 
receptors in the East is even lower. Accordingly, we propose to 
conclude that emissions from Washington will not contribute to these 
potential receptors, and thus, the state will not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS 
in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The EPA's analysis indicates specifically that Washington 
will have a 0.20 ppb impact at the potential nonattainment receptor 
in Sacramento, California (60670012), which has a projected average 
design value of 74.5 ppb, a maximum design value of 75.9 ppb, and a 
2014-2016 design value of 83 ppb. The EPA's analysis further 
indicates that Washington will have a 0.16 ppb impact at the 
potential maintenance receptor in Tulare, California (61072002), 
which has which has a projected average design value of 68.9 ppb, a 
maximum design value of 71.4 ppb, and a 2014-2016 design value of 80 
ppb. We note that the updated methodology slightly increased 
Washington's modeled contribution to the projected nonattainment and 
maintenance receptors compared to the preliminary photochemical 
modeling, but, as described in this action, remain at a contribution 
level of less than one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also note that the EPA has assessed potential transport to the 
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation in southeast 
Idaho, which the EPA approved to be treated as an affected downwind 
state for CAA

[[Page 34816]]

sections 110(a)(2)(D) and 126. While the tribes do not operate an ozone 
monitor, the nearest ozone monitors to Fort Hall Reservation are in Ada 
County, Idaho; Boise area (AQS site IDs 160010010 and 160010017) and 
Butte County, Idaho; Idaho Falls (AQS site ID 160230101). Past and 
present design values for ozone are complete, valid and below the 
current standard. The EPA's modeled 2023 average and maximum design 
values suggest these ozone concentrations will continue to decline. We 
therefore propose to find that it is reasonable to conclude that 
emissions from Washington will not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS at 
the Fort Hall Reservation. A memorandum summarizing our evaluation can 
be found in the docket for this action.

IV. Proposed Action

    As discussed in Section II, Washington concluded that emissions 
from the state will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state. 
The EPA's updated modeling, discussed in Section III confirms this 
finding. We are proposing to approve the Washington SIP as meeting CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The 
EPA is requesting comments on the proposed approval.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
federal regulations. 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 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 CAA; 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: July 11, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018-15625 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P