Air Plan Approval; Arkansas; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2010 1-Hour SO2
| Published date | 08 August 2019 |
| Citation | 84 FR 38895 |
| Record Number | 2019-16936 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Environmental Protection Agency |
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38895-38898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16936]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2019-0438; FRL-9997-72-Region 6]
Air Plan Approval; Arkansas; Interstate Transport Requirements
for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the
portion of Arkansas' State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal
addressing the CAA requirements pertaining to the ``good neighbor''
provision of the CAA for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The ``good neighbor''
provision requires each state's implementation plan contain adequate
provisions prohibiting emissions which will contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in other states. EPA is proposing to determine that consistent
with the CAA, Arkansas' SIP contains adequate provisions to ensure that
air emissions in Arkansas will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other state.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 9,
2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2019-0438, 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
[[Page 38896]]
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, please contact Ms. Nevine
Salem, (214) 665-7222, [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, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, 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: Nevine Salem, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure and Ozone Section, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas,
TX 75270, (214) 665-7222, [email protected]. To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Ms. Salem or Mr.
Bill Deese at (214) 665-7253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.
I. Background
A. General
On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new primary 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a three-
year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations.\1\ The CAA requires states to submit, within three
years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, 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 ``good neighbor'' provisions
to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states
due to interstate transport of pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. EPA's Infrastructure SIP Requirements
Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section
110(a)(1) requires states to make SIP submissions to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This
particular type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure SIP.'' These submissions must meet the various
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), as applicable.
C. Interstate Pollution Transport Requirements
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires a state's SIP to
include adequate provisions prohibiting any emissions activity in the
state that will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or
interferes with maintenance, of the NAAQS in any downwind state. The
EPA sometimes refers to these requirements as prong 1 (contribute
significantly to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with
maintenance), or jointly as the ``good neighbor'' provision of the CAA.
Further information can be found in the Technical Support Document
(TSD) for this rulemaking action, which is available online at
www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R06-OAR-2019-0438.
II. Summary of Arkansas' SIP Submittal and EPA's Evaluation
A. Arkansas' SIP Submittal
On March 24, 2017, the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) submitted an infrastructure SIP (i-SIP) addressing how the
existing Arkansas SIP provides for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\2\ On February 14,
2018 (83 FR 6470), the EPA approved most elements of Arkansas i-SIP
submittal, but we took no action regarding the interstate transport
provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) pertaining to significant
contribution to nonattainment (prong 1) and interference with
maintenance (prong 2) of the NAAQS in other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This proposed approval action 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 any of the subject state'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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The portions of Arkansas' March 24, 2017 SIP submittal addressing
interstate transport (for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) discuss how
Arkansas will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or
interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS. ADEQ evaluated SO2 monitoring
data within Arkansas and its surrounding states (Oklahoma, Texas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee), and concluded that its
emissions will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
any other state. In its submittal Arkansas described several existing
SIP-approved measures and other federally enforceable source-specific
measures, including permitting requirements, that apply to
SO2 sources within the state.
B. EPA's Evaluation
For this CAA Section 110 (a)(2)(D)(i)(I) evaluation of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, EPA conducted a weight of evidence analysis for
each prong separately,\3\ including available information such as air
quality, emission sources, modeling and emission trends in Arkansas and
the adjacent nearby states that border Arkansas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d at 910-911 (D.C. Cir.
2008), the D.C. Circuit explained that the regulating authority must
give prong 2 ``independent significance'' from prong 1 by evaluating
the impact of upwind state emissions on downwind areas that, while
currently in attainment, are at risk of future nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation--Contribute Significantly to Nonattainment
Prong 1 of the ``good neighbor'' provisions requires states' plans
to prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state. ADEQ confirms in its
submission that Arkansas' SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent
sources and other types of emission activities within the State from
contributing significantly to nonattainment in other states with
respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard. The EPA's
evaluation \4\ of whether Arkansas has met its Prong 1 transport
[[Page 38897]]
obligations was accomplished by considering these factors:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A detailed review of EPA's evaluation of emissions, air
monitoring data, other technical information, and rationale for
proposed approval of this SIP revision as meeting CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS may be
found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) attached to this
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) SO2 ambient air quality and emissions trends for
Arkansas and neighboring states;
(2) Potential ambient impacts of SO2 emissions from
certain facilities \5\ in Arkansas on neighboring states based on
available air dispersion modeling results of SO2 sources in
Arkansas and surrounding states and proximity analysis;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The physical properties of SO2 result in
relatively localized pollutant impacts very near the emissions
source. Therefore, the EPA selected a spatial scale with dimensions
up to 50 km from point sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Analysis of the relationship of Arkansas sources with monitors
in adjacent states which have recorded elevated SO2
concentrations;
(4) Arkansas' SIP-approved regulations specific to SO2
emissions and permit requirements; and,
(5) Other SIP-approved or federally enforceable regulations which
may reduce SO2 emissions either directly or indirectly.
Based on EPA's analysis and evaluation of Arkansas' March 24, 2017
SIP submittal addressing the requirements of prong 1 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement, we agree with Arkansas' conclusion that
the existing Arkansas SIP is adequate to prevent sources in the state
from contributing significantly to nonattainment in another state with
respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA proposes to
determine that Arkansas' March 24, 2017 SIP submittal satisfies the
requirements of Prong 1 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This
proposed determination is based on the following considerations:
There are no monitors recording violations of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS located in Arkansas or within 50 km of its border.
Additionally, all monitors within 50 km of the Arkansas border have
design values (DV) \6\ that are well below the 75 ppb standard and are
unlikely to violate the standard in the future, indicating no potential
concern for Prong 1. Current DVs for Arkansas' AQS SO2
monitors within 50 km of another state's border have remained well
below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS from 2015-2017; similarly;
SO2 monitors for neighboring states (Oklahoma, Texas,
Louisiana, Missouri and Tennessee) within 50 km of Arkansas have 2017
DVs below 2010 1-hour NAAQS standards;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The design value is the 3-year average of the 99th
percentile 1-hour daily maximums at a monitor. A control strategy
should be designed to bring the value to attainment of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeling for the two Arkansas' Data Requirements Rule
(DRR) sources \7\ within 50 km of an adjacent state's border estimates
impacts below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and modeling for
the DRR sources in surrounding states within 50 km of Arkansas
indicates that areas around these sources do not violate the 2010
SO2 NAAQS;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ On August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052), EPA promulgated air
quality characterization requirements for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in the Data Requirements Rule (DRR). The DRR
required state air agencies to characterize air quality, through air
dispersion modeling or monitoring, in areas associated with sources
that emitted greater than 2,000 tons per year (tpy) of
SO2, or that have otherwise been listed under the DRR by
EPA or state air agencies. In lieu of modeling or monitoring, state
air agencies, by specified dates, could elect to impose federally-
enforceable emissions limitations on those sources restricting their
annual SO2 emissions to 2,000 tpy or less, or provide
documentation that the sources have been shut down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant downward SO2 emissions trends in
Arkansas and its surrounding states (Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana,
Missouri, and Tennessee), when considered together with the other
factors discussed as part of EPA's weight of evidence analysis, further
decreases the probability that the State's sources are significantly
contributing to other states' ability to attain the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS;
An analysis of Arkansas sources emitting over 100 tons of
SO2 in 2017 show that these sources will not combine with
emissions from the nearby sources in neighboring states to contribute
significantly to nonattainment in those states. These analyses show the
nearby sources have been modeled to show compliance of the 2010
standard or the modeling of the nearby sources included the Arkansas
sources as background concentration or the Arkansas sources were well
beyond 50 km from the adjacent states making it unlikely that Arkansas
sources will contribute significantly to nonattainment in those states;
and
EPA also evaluated the most recent monitoring data for DRR
monitors located in states adjacent to Arkansas and within 50 km of the
state's border.\8\ There are three monitors that fall into this
category, one in Oklahoma and two in Missouri. The Oklahoma monitor's
measurements meet the standard by a wide margin. So, Arkansas sources
are not contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance
at that monitor. The monitors in Missouri recorded exceedances of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS for 2018, the only complete year of data. The
nearest Arkansas sources, however, are of relatively small size (less
than 300 tpy) and beyond the chosen 50 km spatial scale. Furthermore,
the location of the Arkansas sources relative to Missouri DRR sources
and the Missouri monitors that are recording exceedances are such that
transport from the Arkansas sources could not significantly contribute
to the monitors (or areas around the monitors) at the same time as the
DRR sources are having their maximum impact. Therefore, the Arkansas
sources will not have a significant impact on the measured exceedances;
and,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ There are five DRR monitored sources within 50 km of
Arkansas the border. Two DRR sources are in Arkansas (Flint Creek
Power Plan, in Benton County, Arkansas and Plum Point Energy Station
in Mississippi County, Arkansas). Three DRR sources are outside of
Arkansas (GRDA Power Plant in Mayes, Oklahoma, Noranda Aluminum Inc
and New Madrid Power Plant Marston both in New Madrid, Missouri).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Arkansas' statutes, SIP-approved and federal
emissions control regulations will continue to adequately control
SO2 emissions from sources within Arkansas.
Based on the analysis provided by Arkansas in its SIP submittal,
the summary of EPA's evaluation, and EPA's supplemental Prong 1
analysis given in the TSD for this action, EPA proposes to find that
sources within Arkansas will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state.
2. EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation--Interference With Maintenance
Prong 2 of the ``good neighbor'' provision requires state plans to
prohibit emissions that will interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in
another state. For the Prong 2 analysis, EPA evaluated the
SO2 emissions trends for Arkansas, evaluated air quality
data, and assessed how future sources of SO2 are addressed
through existing SIP-approved and federally enforceable regulations. As
discussed in more detail in the TSD, current available modeling for
areas in other states within 50 km of the Arkansas border show
attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS supporting that
sources within Arkansas will not interfere with neighboring states'
ability to maintain the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Emissions
over time are not anticipated to increase relative to the baseline
emissions modeled. EPA believes that federal and state regulations and
statutes directly and indirectly reduced emissions of SO2 in
Arkansas and help to ensure that the State does not interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. SO2 emissions
from future major modifications and new major sources will be addressed
by Arkansas' SIP-approved major NSR regulations
[[Page 38898]]
described in more detail in the TSD. In addition, Arkansas has a SIP-
approved minor NSR permit program addressing small emission sources of
SO2. The permitting regulations contained within these
programs are designed to ensure that emissions from these activities
will not interfere with maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in
Arkansas or any other state.
EPA proposes to determine that Arkansas' March 24, 2017 SIP
submittal satisfies the requirements of Prong 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This determination is based on the following
considerations:
Statewide SO2 emissions from 2000 to 2017 in
Arkansas have declined significantly and are expected to continue to
decline, tending to reduce background concentrations in neighboring
states;
Current Arkansas statutes and SIP-approved measures and
federal emissions control programs adequately control SO2
emissions from sources within Arkansas;
Arkansas' SIP-approved PSD and minor source NSR permit
programs will address future new and modified SO2 sources
above major and minor permitting thresholds;
Current 2015-2017 DVs for Air Quality System (AQS) \9\
SO2 monitors both in Arkansas within 50 km of another
state's border and in neighboring states (Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana,
Missouri and Tennessee) within 50 km of Arkansas' border are below the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Air Quality System (AQS) contains ambient air pollution
data collected by EPA, state, local, and tribal air pollution
control agencies from over thousands of monitors. AQS also contains
meteorological data, descriptive information about each monitoring
station (including its geographic location and its operator), and
data quality assurance/quality control information. AQS data is used
to assess air quality, assist in attainment/non-attainment
designations, evaluate State Implementation Plans for non-attainment
areas, perform modeling for permit review analysis, and prepare
reports for congress as mandated by the Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available modeling for DRR sources within 50 km of
Arkansas' border both within the State and in neighboring states
demonstrates that Arkansas' larger point sources of SO2 do
not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
in another state.
Based on the analysis provided by Arkansas in its SIP submittal,
EPA's summary of its evaluation, and EPA's supplemental Prong 2
analysis given in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action,
EPA proposes to find that sources within Arkansas will not interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state.
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the remaining portions of the Arkansas'
March 24, 2017 SIP submittal addressing interstate transport for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS as these portions meet the
requirements in section 110(a)(2)(i)(I) of the CAA. Based on the EPA's
analysis of the state's submittal and the factors described in this
document and the TSD, EPA proposes to determine Arkansas' SIP contains
adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions within Arkansas will
not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 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, this proposed rule, addressing Arkansas' interstate
transport requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply
in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 1, 2019.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2019-16936 Filed 8-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
