Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5, 4617-4620 [2018-01955]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules Dated: January 24, 2018. Debra H. Thomas, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. 2018–01853 Filed 1–31–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0851; FRL–9973–16– Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of the Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal and a technical supplement 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 Louisiana 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 March 5, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA–R06– OAR–2015–0851, at https:// www.regulations.gov or via email to fuerst.sherry@epa.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 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:25 Jan 31, 2018 Jkt 244001 other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact Sherry Fuerst, 214–665–6454, fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https:// www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-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, fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. 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 (mg/m3), (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 Louisiana 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. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 4617 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 receptors if they were projected 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.2 B. Louisiana SIP Submittal Pertaining to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport of Air Pollution On December 11, 2015, Louisiana submitted a SIP revision to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) including a section to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The submittal stated that the State had adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the State that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS stating, ‘‘Air quality modeling evaluating interstate transport for the 2006 PM2.5 supported the conclusion that Louisiana did not impact on either downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptors. The air quality modeling performed for the Transport Rule found that the impact was less than the 1 percent threshold (79 FR 4436, January 28, 2014). Currently Louisiana is in compliance with the new standard.’’ On July 7, 2017, the State submitted a letter to EPA serving 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 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. E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM 01FEP1 4618 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS as a technical supplement for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The letter stated that ‘‘(b)ecause more recent and improved air quality modeling data evaluated transport for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS conducted by EPA for the Cross State Air Pollution Rule is now available and supports the conclusion that emissions in Louisiana do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state, we submit it as basis for our conclusions in lieu of the previous technical information provided’’. We propose to approve the December 11, 2015 submittal and the July 7, 2017 technical supplement submittal that intended to demonstrate that the SIP met the requirements of 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 NAAAQS in another state, and (II) interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, or to protect visibility in another state. This action addresses only CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued an information memo on March 17, 2016, titled, ‘‘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)’’ (the memo). We will be following the framework outlined in the memo. The 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:25 Jan 31, 2018 Jkt 244001 to non-attainment or interfere with maintenance downwind, reducing the identified upwind emissions through adoption of permanent and enforceable measures. 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 done 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 portions of Florida, identifying no additional potential receptors, with those areas 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/airquality-design-values and www.epa.gov/ air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutantemissions-trends-data). As of December, 2017, the areas that still have data quality issues preventing projections of nonattainment and maintenance receptors are all of Illinois and four counties in Florida. For this evaluation these areas will be considered potential receptors for the 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; • Miami-Dade, Gilchrist, Broward, and Alachua Counties in Florida; 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 Louisiana 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 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 Louisiana’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 Louisiana. 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 Louisiana’s PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the California potential receptors. Furthermore, Louisiana is more than 1,300 miles to the east and generally downwind of the California receptors.3 For these reasons, we propose to find that Louisiana 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 Louisiana’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 3 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-OAR2012-0918-0330. E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM 01FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 Louisiana PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors do not significantly contribute to nonattainment nor interfere with maintenance of the Idaho potential receptor.4 Furthermore, Louisiana is more than 1,100 miles to the southeast and downwind of this receptor. For these reasons, we propose to find that Louisiana 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 Louisiana’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, nonattainment in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania was linked to significant contributions from other states.5 Louisiana was analyzed in this modeling, and Louisiana emissions was not linked to Allegheny County. For these reasons, we propose to find that Louisiana does not significantly contribute to nonattainment, nor will it interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for Allegany County, Pennsylvania. Miami/Dade, Gilchrist, Broward, Alachua Counties, Florida As discussed in more detail in the TSD, Florida did not have any potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors identified for the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. At this time, it is anticipated that this trend will continue under the 2012 standard, however, as there are ambient monitoring data gaps in the 2009–2013 data that could have been used to identify potential PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance receptors for Miami/Dade, Gilchrist, Broward and Alachua counties in Florida, the modeling analysis of potential receptors was not complete for these counties. In addition, the most recent ambient data (2014–2016) is still incomplete and therefore these areas are currently considered unclassifiable, so we are evaluating potential of linkages between Florida and Louisiana. Both Louisiana and Florida were analyzed in the CSAPR modeling and there were no linkages shown at any monitor between these two state. 4619 Additionally, Louisiana is located 650 miles from Gilchrist County (the most western of the unclassifiable Florida counties) and is unlikely to impact air quality in Florida. For these reasons, we propose to find that Louisiana does not significantly contribute to nonattainment, nor will it interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for any of the four Florida counties. Illinois As with the counties in Florida, 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 entire state is considered unclassifiable. Unlike Florida, 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, Louisiana 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 Louisiana and Illinois. Recent DV for the monitors in Madison, Illinois have shown downward trends. There are three active monitors in Madison. The DVs for the monitors are shown in Table 1 below. TABLE 1—ANNUAL STANDARD DESIGN VALUES (μg/m3) FOR MADISON, ILLINOIS MONITORS Monitor No. 2012–2014 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS 171191007 ................................................................................................................................... 171192009 ................................................................................................................................... 171193007 ................................................................................................................................... For these reasons, we propose that Louisiana will not significantly contribute to nonattainment, nor will it interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in Illinois. Since we determined that Louisiana’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 Louisiana 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. 4 Idaho: West Silver Valley Nonattainment Area— 2012 Primary Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard Technical Support Document. Prepared by EPA Region 10. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:25 Jan 31, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 2013–2015 12.9 10.4 12.5 11.6 9.7 10.8 2014–2016 10.8 9.4 10.1 III. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve the December 11, 2015 SIP revision as supplemented on July 7, 2015 as part of the SIP for Louisiana pursuant to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)I as applicable to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. For the reasons discussed above and in the TSD, we are proposing to approve the portion of the Louisiana SIP submittal as supplemented, pertaining to interstate transport of air pollution demonstrating emissions from Louisiana will not 5 Air Quality Modeling for 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48207, August 8, 2011). E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM 01FEP1 4620 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS 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). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:25 Jan 31, 2018 Jkt 244001 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: January 24, 2018. Anne Idsal, Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. 2018–01955 Filed 1–31–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 60 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0355; FRL–9973–28– OAR] RIN 2060–AT55 Repeal of Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of three public listening sessions and that the public comment period will be reopened. AGENCY: On October 16, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposal to announce its intention to repeal the Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, commonly referred to as the Clean Power Plan, as promulgated on October 23, 2015. The proposal also requested public comment on the proposed rule. The EPA held public hearings on November 28 and 29, 2017, in Charleston, West Virginia, and extended the public comment period until January 16, 2018. In response to numerous requests for additional opportunities for the public to provide oral testimony on the proposed rule in more than one location, the EPA is announcing that three listening sessions will be held. In addition, the EPA will reopen the public comment period until April 26, 2018. DATES: The first listening session for the proposed rule published October 16, SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 2017, at 82 FR 48035, will be held Wednesday, February 21, 2018, in Kansas City, Missouri; the second session will be held Wednesday, February 28, 2018, in San Francisco, California; and the third session will be held Tuesday, March 27, 2018, in Gillette, Wyoming. The EPA is reopening the public comment period until April 26, 2018. ADDRESSES: The first listening session will be held Wednesday, February 21, 2018, at the U.S. Department of Agriculture Beacon Complex, 6501 Beacon Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64133, from 10 a.m. until 8 p.m., Central Standard Time (CST). Because this listening session is being held at a U.S. government facility, individuals planning to attend should be prepared to show a current, valid state- or federalapproved picture identification to the security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. An expired form of identification will not be permitted. Please note that the Real ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for entering federal facilities. If your driver’s license is issued by a noncompliant state, you must present an additional form of identification to enter the federal building in Kansas City where the listening session will be held. Acceptable alternative forms of identification include: Federal employee badges, passports, enhanced driver’s licenses, and military identification cards. Additional information on the Real ID Act is available at https://www.dhs.gov/ real-id-frequently-asked-questions. In addition, you will need to obtain a visitor pass for any personal belongings you bring with you. No backpacks will be allowed into the building, but purses will be allowed. Also, vehicles should only enter the West ‘‘C’’ Gate, identified with orange traffic cones and all vehicles must park in a designated area. Demonstrations will not be allowed on federal property for security reasons. The second listening session will be held Wednesday, February 28, 2018, at the San Francisco Main Library, Koret Auditorium, 30 Grove Street entrance, San Francisco, California 94102, from 8:30 a.m. until 7:30 p.m., Pacific Standard Time (PST). And the third listening session will be held Tuesday, March 27, 2018, at the Gillette College Technical Education Center, 3251 South 4–J Road, Gillette, Wyoming 82718, from 9 a.m. until 8 p.m., Mountain Daylight Time (MDT). The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers. E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM 01FEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 22 (Thursday, February 1, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4617-4620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01955]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0851; FRL-9973-16-Region 6]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; 
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 Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal and a 
technical supplement 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 Louisiana 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 March 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA-R06-
OAR-2015-0851, at https://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 
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 https://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 Louisiana 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 
receptors if they were projected 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.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    On December 11, 2015, Louisiana submitted a SIP revision to address 
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) including a section 
to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The submittal stated that the State had 
adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the 
State that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS stating, ``Air quality 
modeling evaluating interstate transport for the 2006 PM2.5 
supported the conclusion that Louisiana did not impact on either 
downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptors. The air quality 
modeling performed for the Transport Rule found that the impact was 
less than the 1 percent threshold (79 FR 4436, January 28, 2014). 
Currently Louisiana is in compliance with the new standard.'' On July 
7, 2017, the State submitted a letter to EPA serving

[[Page 4618]]

as a technical supplement for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 
letter stated that ``(b)ecause more recent and improved air quality 
modeling data evaluated transport for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 
conducted by EPA for the Cross State Air Pollution Rule is now 
available and supports the conclusion that emissions in Louisiana do 
not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state, we 
submit it as basis for our conclusions in lieu of the previous 
technical information provided''.
    We propose to approve the December 11, 2015 submittal and the July 
7, 2017 technical supplement submittal that intended to demonstrate 
that the SIP met the requirements of 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 NAAAQS in another 
state, and (II) interfering with measures required to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality, or to protect visibility in 
another state. This action addresses only CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    EPA issued an information memo on March 17, 2016, titled, 
``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)'' (the memo). 
We will be following the framework outlined in the memo.
    The 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.
    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 done 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 portions of Florida, identifying no additional 
potential receptors, with those areas 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). As of 
December, 2017, the areas that still have data quality issues 
preventing projections of nonattainment and maintenance receptors are 
all of Illinois and four counties in Florida. For this evaluation these 
areas will be considered potential receptors for the 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;
     Miami-Dade, Gilchrist, Broward, and Alachua Counties in 
Florida; 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 
Louisiana 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 Louisiana'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 Louisiana. 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 Louisiana's 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors do not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 
California potential receptors. Furthermore, Louisiana is more than 
1,300 miles to the east and generally downwind of the California 
receptors.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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 Louisiana 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 Louisiana'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

[[Page 4619]]

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 Louisiana 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors do not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment nor interfere with maintenance of the Idaho 
potential receptor.\4\ Furthermore, Louisiana is more than 1,100 miles 
to the southeast and downwind of this receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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 Louisiana 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 Louisiana'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, nonattainment 
in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania was linked to significant 
contributions from other states.\5\ Louisiana was analyzed in this 
modeling, and Louisiana emissions was not linked to Allegheny County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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 Louisiana does not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment, nor will it interfere with 
maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for Allegany County, 
Pennsylvania.

Miami/Dade, Gilchrist, Broward, Alachua Counties, Florida

    As discussed in more detail in the TSD, Florida did not have any 
potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors identified for the 
1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. At this time, it is anticipated 
that this trend will continue under the 2012 standard, however, as 
there are ambient monitoring data gaps in the 2009-2013 data that could 
have been used to identify potential PM2.5 nonattainment and 
maintenance receptors for Miami/Dade, Gilchrist, Broward and Alachua 
counties in Florida, the modeling analysis of potential receptors was 
not complete for these counties. In addition, the most recent ambient 
data (2014-2016) is still incomplete and therefore these areas are 
currently considered unclassifiable, so we are evaluating potential of 
linkages between Florida and Louisiana.
    Both Louisiana and Florida were analyzed in the CSAPR modeling and 
there were no linkages shown at any monitor between these two state. 
Additionally, Louisiana is located 650 miles from Gilchrist County (the 
most western of the unclassifiable Florida counties) and is unlikely to 
impact air quality in Florida.
    For these reasons, we propose to find that Louisiana does not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment, nor will it interfere with 
maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for any of the four 
Florida counties.

Illinois

    As with the counties in Florida, 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 entire state is considered 
unclassifiable. Unlike Florida, 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, Louisiana 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 Louisiana and 
Illinois. Recent DV for the monitors in Madison, Illinois have shown 
downward trends. There are three active monitors in Madison. The DVs 
for the monitors are shown in Table 1 below.

               Table 1--Annual Standard Design Values ([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 Louisiana will not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment, nor will it interfere with maintenance of 
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in Illinois.
    Since we determined that Louisiana'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 Louisiana 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

    EPA is proposing to approve the December 11, 2015 SIP revision as 
supplemented on July 7, 2015 as part of the SIP for Louisiana pursuant 
to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)I as applicable to 
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. For the reasons discussed above and in 
the TSD, we are proposing to approve the portion of the Louisiana SIP 
submittal as supplemented, pertaining to interstate transport of air 
pollution demonstrating emissions from Louisiana will not

[[Page 4620]]

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: January 24, 2018.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2018-01955 Filed 1-31-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.