Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5, 23402-23407 [2018-10803]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
23402
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
environmental impact from this
proposed rule.
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
G. Protest Activities
■
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places, or vessels.
V. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
We view public participation as
essential to effective rulemaking, and
will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period.
Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you
submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking,
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit
comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://
www.regulations.gov, contact the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
the docket, visit https://
www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
Documents mentioned in this NPRM
as being available in the docket, and all
public comments, will be in our online
docket at https://www.regulations.gov
and can be viewed by following that
website’s instructions. Additionally, if
you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified
when comments are posted or a final
rule is published.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 May 18, 2018
Jkt 244001
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T14–0183 to read as
follows:
■
§ 165.T14–0183
Sea, Rota.
Safety Zone; Philippine
(a) Location. The following area is a
safety zone: All waters off of the Port of
Rota, from surface to bottom,
encompassed by a line connecting the
following points beginning at 14°08′07″
N, 145°08′00″ E, thence to 14°08′53″ N,
145°06′51″ E, thence to 14°09′12″ N,
145°07′13″ E, thence to 14°08′16″ N,
145°08′08″ E, and along the shore line
back to the beginning point. These
coordinates are based on NAD 1983.
(b) Regulations. (1) The general
regulations governing safety zones
contained in § 165.23 apply. This rule
prohibits persons and vessels not
involved in the exercise from being in
the safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port (COTP) Guam or a
designated representative.
(2) To seek permission to enter,
contact the COTP Guam or the COTP’s
representative by VHF channel 16 or by
telephone at 671–355–4821. Those in
the safety zone must comply with all
lawful orders or directions given to
them by the COTP or the COTP’s
designated representative.
(c) Enforcement period. This section
will be enforced from 6 p.m. on
September 16, 2018 to 6 a.m. on
September 17, 2018.
Dated: April 30, 2018.
Christopher M. Chase,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Guam.
[FR Doc. 2018–10819 Filed 5–18–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R02–OAR–2018–0237; FRL–9978–
39—Region 2]
Approval of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; New Jersey; Infrastructure SIP
Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS; Interstate Transport
Provisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
elements of the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submission from New Jersey
regarding the infrastructure
requirements of section 110 of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) for the 2012 annual fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS
or standard). The infrastructure
requirements are designed to ensure that
the structural components of each
state’s air quality management program
are adequate to meet the state’s
responsibilities under the CAA. This
action pertains specifically to
infrastructure requirements concerning
interstate transport provisions.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 20, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R02–OAR–2018–0237 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://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kenneth Fradkin, Environmental
Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New
York, New York 10007–1866, at (212)
637–3702, or by email at
fradkin.kenneth@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
SUMMARY:
I. What is the background of this SIP
submission?
II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate
this SIP submission?
E:\FR\FM\21MYP1.SGM
21MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
III. EPA’s Review
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
I. What is the background of this SIP
submission?
The EPA is proposing to approve
elements of the State of New Jersey’s
October 17, 2014 SIP submission, which
addresses the section 110(a)
infrastructure requirements of the CAA
for the following NAAQS: 2012 PM2.5,
2008 ozone, 2008 lead, 2010 nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), 2010 sulfur dioxide
(SO2), 2011 carbon monoxide (CO), and
the 2006 particulate matter of 10
microns or less (PM10). Specifically, this
rulemaking proposes to approve the
portion of the submission addressing
the interstate transport provisions for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise
known as the ‘‘good neighbor’’
provision.
The requirement for states to make an
infrastructure SIP submission arises
from section 110(a)(1) of the CAA.
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states
must submit ‘‘within 3 years (or such
shorter period as the Administrator may
prescribe) after the promulgation of a
national primary ambient air quality
standard (or any revision thereof),’’ a
plan that provides for the
‘‘implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement’’ of such NAAQS.1 The
statute directly imposes on states the
duty to make these SIP submissions,
and the requirement to make the
submissions is not conditioned upon
EPA taking any action other than
promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such
plan’’ submission must address. EPA
commonly refers to such state plans as
‘‘infrastructure SIPs’’.
The EPA has addressed the interstate
transport requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to PM2.5 in
several prior 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
1 On December 14, 2012 (78 FR 3086), the EPA
promulgated a revised primary NAAQS for PM2.5
for the annual standard. The revised standard was
set at the level of 12 mg/m3.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 May 18, 2018
Jkt 244001
NAAQS.2 In that rule, we considered
states linked to downwind receptors if
they were projected to contribute more
than the threshold amount (1 percent 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.
EPA addressed interstate transport
provisions for the October 17, 2014 SIP
submittal concerning the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD)
regulations and visibility protection
(i.e., section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)) for 2012
PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2008 lead, 2010 NO2,
2010 SO2, 2011 CO, and the 2006 PM10
NAAQS) on September 19, 2016.3
EPA addressed the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS in the EPA’s update of the
CSAPR rule in October 26, 2016 (81 FR
74504) but did not address New Jersey
as it had withdrawn 4 that portion of the
October 17, 2014 SIP submittal.
The EPA will address the
requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 lead, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, 2011 CO, and the 2006
PM10 NAAQS in a separate action.
II. What guidance is EPA using to
evaluate this SIP submission?
EPA highlighted the statutory
requirement to submit infrastructure
SIPs within 3 years of promulgation of
a new NAAQS in an October 2, 2007
guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance
on SIP Elements Required Under
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997
8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (2007
guidance). EPA has issued additional
guidance documents and memoranda,
including a September 13, 2013
guidance document titled ‘‘Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)’’ (2013
guidance).
The most recent relevant document
was a memorandum published 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)’’ (2016 memorandum).
The 2016 memorandum, which is
included in the docket of this
rulemaking, describes the approach EPA
2 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).
3 81 FR 64070 (September 19, 2016).
4 EPA issued a finding to New Jersey for failure
to submit on June 15, 2016 (81 FR 38963).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
23403
has previously used to address interstate
transport, and provides EPA’s general
review of relevant modeling data and air
quality projections as they relate to the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2016
memorandum provides information
relevant to EPA Regional office review
of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
‘‘good neighbor’’ provision in
infrastructure SIPs with respect to the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This rulemaking
considers information provided in that
memorandum.
In particular, the 2016 memorandum
provides states and EPA Regional offices
with projected future year annual PM2.5
design values for monitors in the United
States based on quality assured and
certified ambient monitoring data and
air quality modeling. The memorandum
further describes how these projected
potential design values can be used to
help determine which monitors should
be further evaluated to potentially
address whether emissions from other
states significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
at those sites. The 2016 memorandum
explains that the pertinent year for
evaluating air quality for purposes of
addressing interstate transport for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS is 2021, the
attainment deadline for 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS nonattainment areas classified
as Moderate. Accordingly, because the
available data included 2017 and 2025
projected average and maximum PM2.5
design values calculated through the
CAMx 5 photochemical model, the
memorandum suggests approaches
states might use to interpolate PM2.5
values at sites in 2021.6
As explained in the 2016
memorandum, EPA used the
methodology used in the CSAPR rule to
determine potential nonattainment and
maintenance sites. ‘‘Nonattainment
sites’’ refer to those sites that are
projected to exceed the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS of 12 micrograms per cubic
meter (mg/m3) based on the average
future year design values. Those sites
that are projected to exceed the NAAQS
5 Comprehensive Air Quality Model with
extensions(CAMx).
6 Specifically, the 2016 Memorandum explains
that one way to assess potential receptors for 2021
is to assume that receptors projected to have
average and/or maximum design values above the
NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 are also likely to
be either nonattainment or maintenance receptors
in 2021. Similarly, it may be reasonable to assume
that receptors that are projected to attain the
NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 are also likely to
be attainment receptors in 2021. Where a potential
receptor is projected to be nonattainment or
maintenance in 2017, but projected to be attainment
in 2025, further analysis of the emissions and
modeling may be needed to make a further
judgement regarding the receptor status in 2021.
E:\FR\FM\21MYP1.SGM
21MYP1
23404
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
based on the maximum future year
design values are referred to as
‘‘maintenance’’ sites.
TABLE 1—PROJECTED NONATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE SITES FOR THE 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS IN 2017 AND 2025
2017 avg
design
value
(μg/m 3)
State
County
60190011 ........
60195001 ........
60195025 ........
60250005 ........
60290014 ........
60290106 ........
60311004 ........
60371002 ........
60392010 ........
60470003 ........
60658001 ........
60658005 ........
60990006 ........
60990005 ........
60710025 ........
60771002 ........
61072002 ........
160790017 ......
420030064 ......
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Monitor ID
California ..................
California ..................
California ..................
California ..................
California ..................
California ..................
California ..................
California ..................
California ..................
California ..................
California ..................
California ..................
California ..................
California ..................
California ..................
California ..................
California ..................
Idaho ........................
Pennsylvania ............
Fresno ......................
Fresno ......................
Fresno ......................
Imperial ....................
Kern .........................
Kern .........................
Kings ........................
Los Angeles .............
Madera .....................
Merced .....................
Riverside ..................
Riverside ..................
Stanislaus ................
Stanislaus ................
San Bernardino ........
San Joaquin .............
Tulare .......................
Shoshone .................
Allegheny .................
Where EPA had sufficient data to
complete its air quality modeling, EPA’s
analysis showed that, except for one
monitoring site in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, monitors in the eastern
United States were expected to both
attain and maintain the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025. EPA
notes that, as further discussed below,
EPA’s modeling analysis was
inconclusive for monitoring sites with
incomplete data.
The modeling results provided in the
2016 memorandum also show that out
of seven PM2.5 monitors located in
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, only
one monitor (ID number 420030064) is
expected to be above the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS in 2017.
Further, that monitor (ID number
420030064 or Liberty monitor) is
projected to be above the NAAQS only
under the model’s maximum projected
conditions (used in EPA’s interstate
transport framework to identify
maintenance receptors), and is projected
to both attain and maintain the NAAQS
(along with all Allegheny County
monitors) in 2025. The memorandum
therefore indicates that under such a
condition (where EPA’s photochemical
modeling indicates an area will attain
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in 2025 but not
attain or maintain in 2017) further
analysis of the site should be performed
to determine if the site may be a
nonattainment or maintenance receptor
in 2021 (the attainment deadline for
moderate PM2.5 areas).
The 2016 Memorandum did note that
because of data quality problems,
nonattainment and maintenance
projections were not done for all or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 May 18, 2018
Jkt 244001
2017 max
design
value
(μg/m 3)
13.69
15.43
13.43
14.19
14.24
15.4
15.38
11.6
17.37
13.84
12.25
13.89
14.44
12.5
11.79
11.49
14.63
12.01
11.67
14.36
15.9
13.75
14.32
14.85
16.43
16.01
12.25
17.62
15.27
12.74
14.41
14.79
12.84
12.35
13.09
15.6
12.43
12.16
2025 avg
design
value
(μg/m 3)
13.09
14.9
12.94
14.83
13.78
14.94
14.82
11.42
16.9
13.52
11.99
13.63
13.97
12.03
11.61
11.16
14.06
11.8
11.18
portions of Florida, Illinois, Idaho,
Tennessee and Kentucky. Data quality
problems were since resolved for Idaho,
Tennessee, Kentucky and portions of
Florida, identifying no additional
potential receptors, with those areas
having design values 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 May 2018, the areas that still have
data quality issues preventing
projections of nonattainment and
maintenance receptors are all of Illinois
and four counties in Florida. EPA notes
that preliminary design values for the
four counties in Florida for the most
recent period (2015–2017) have been
preliminary deemed complete, and are
well below the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This
is further discussed in section III below.
III. EPA’s Review
This rulemaking proposes action on
the portion of New Jersey’s October 17,
2014 SIP submission addressing the
‘‘good neighbor’’ provision requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which
include:
—Prohibiting any source or other type
of emissions activity in one state from
contributing significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state (otherwise known as prong 1);
—Prohibiting any source or other type
of emissions activity in one state from
interfering with maintenance of the
NAAQS in another state (prong 2).
This rulemaking is evaluating the
October 17, 2014 submission, specific to
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2025 max
design
value
(μg/m 3)
Projected 2017
attainment status
13.72
15.36
13.22
14.97
14.37
15.93
15.4
12.07
17.14
14.92
12.47
14.15
14.31
12.34
12.15
12.71
14.96
12.22
11.65
Nonattainment ......
Nonattainment ......
Nonattainment ......
Nonattainment ......
Nonattainment ......
Nonattainment ......
Nonattainment ......
Maintenance .........
Nonattainment ......
Nonattainment ......
Nonattainment ......
Nonattainment ......
Nonattainment ......
Nonattainment ......
Maintenance .........
Maintenance .........
Nonattainment ......
Maintenance .........
Maintenance .........
Projected 2025
attainment status
Nonattainment.
Nonattainment.
Nonattainment.
Nonattainment.
Nonattainment.
Nonattainment.
Nonattainment.
Maintenance.
Nonattainment.
Nonattainment.
Maintenance.
Nonattainment.
Nonattainment.
Maintenance.
Maintenance.
Maintenance.
Nonattainment.
Maintenance.
Attainment.
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (i.e., prongs 1 and 2) for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
In several previous rulemakings, EPA
has developed and consistently applied
a framework for addressing the prong 1
and 2 interstate transport requirements
with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS. That
framework has four basic steps,
including: (1) Identifying downwind
receptors that are expected to have
problems attaining or maintaining the
NAAQS; (2) identifying which upwind
states contribute to these identified
problems in amounts sufficient to
warrant further review and analysis; (3)
for states identified as contributing to
downwind air quality problems,
identifying upwind emissions
reductions necessary to prevent an
upwind state from significantly
contributing to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance of the
NAAQS downwind; and (4) for states
that are found to have emissions that
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS downwind,
reducing the identified upwind
emissions through adoption of
permanent and enforceable measures.
This framework was most recently
applied with respect to PM2.5 in the
CSAPR rule, designed to address both
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards, as
well as the 1997 ozone standard.
A. New Jersey’s Submittal
New Jersey’s October 2014 SIP
submittal includes its SIP-approved
New Jersey regulations and control
measures that the State has
implemented to address the interstate
transport of air pollutants for criteria
E:\FR\FM\21MYP1.SGM
21MYP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
pollutants, including the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. New Jersey regulations and
control measures that have reduced
PM2.5, as well as SO2, NOX, and Volatile
Organic Carbon (VOC) precursor
emissions include:
—New Jersey’s low sulfur fuel oil rule,
New Jersey Administrative Code
(N.J.A.C.) 7:27–9 7, Sulfur in Fuels,
reduces SO2 emissions by reducing
the sulfur content of fuel oils used
throughout the State, including fuel
oil-fired electric generating units
(EGUs), home heating, and industrial
and commercial boilers. The sulfur
content of all distillate fuel oils (#2
fuel oil and lighter) was lowered to
500 parts per million (ppm) beginning
on July 1, 2014; and further limited to
15 ppm beginning on July 1, 2016.
Beginning July 1, 2014, the sulfur
content for #4 fuel oil was lowered to
2,500 ppm; and #6 fuel oil was
lowered to a range of 3,000 to 5,000
ppm sulfur content;
—Coal-fired power plants in New Jersey
control SO2 emissions by use of
scrubbers to comply with adopted
SO2 rules including stringent, new
short-term SO2 emission limits (i.e.,
N.J.A.C. 7:27–10.2 8, effective start
date for new emission rates was
December 2012;
—N.J.A.C. 7:27–19.29 9, EGU- High
Electric Demand Day (HEDD), require
advanced NOX emission controls for
EGU’s that operate on HEDD days;
New Jersey estimated its NOX
reasonably available control
technology (RACT) rules would
reduce NOX emissions by 64 tons per
day on HEDD days beginning with the
2015 summer ozone season; and
—New Jersey has a statewide enhanced
motor vehicle program that ensures
New Jersey has adopted the motor
vehicle standards adopted by
California to ensure that only the
lowest emitting vehicles available are
sold in New Jersey
New Jersey has indicated that it has
addressed the interstate transport
requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
by implementing effective rules to
control sources that may significantly
contribute to nonattainment of a
NAAQS in another state, and therefore
addressed New Jersey’s downwind
contributions from New Jersey sources.
New Jersey has also indicated that they
have no rules that interfere with the
ability of another state to maintain
attainment of any ambient air quality
standard in that state. New Jersey noted
that its rules to control air emissions are
7 EPA
approval on January 3,2012(77 FR 19).
approval on August 3,2010(75 FR 45483).
9 EPA approval on August 3,2010 (75 FR 45483).
8 EPA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 May 18, 2018
Jkt 244001
more stringent than similar rules in
nearby states. The complete list of New
Jersey regulations and control measures
can be found in the October 2014 SIP
submittal, which is included in the
docket of this rulemaking.
New Jersey noted that the neighboring
states of New York and Delaware do not
have any PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
Additionally, New Jersey indicated that
the State of Pennsylvania, in its area
designation recommendations 10 to EPA
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, determined
that nonattainment in the State was
caused by local, not regional sources.
New Jersey completed its technical
analysis before EPA issued the 2016
Memorandum, which, as discussed
earlier, included modeling projections
for 2017 and 2025 annual PM2.5 design
values meant to assist states in
implementation of their 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS interstate transport SIPs. As
discussed below, however, EPA’s
review of New Jersey’s submittal
nevertheless concludes that EPA’s
modeling projections regarding
projected future nonattainment and
maintenance areas as indicated in the
2016 memorandum, past EPA
contribution modeling performed for
CSAPR, and certified annual PM2.5
design values recorded since New
Jersey’s submittal confirm New Jersey’s
analysis that the State has adequately
addressed the interstate transport
requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
B. EPA Analysis
As stated above, EPA has developed
a four-step approach for addressing the
prong one and two interstate transport
requirements with respect to the PM2.5
NAAQS. The first step is the
identification of potential downwind
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors. EPA identified potential
nonattainment and/or maintenance
areas in the 2016 memorandum (see
section II, Table 1, above). Most of the
potential receptors are in California,
located in the San Joaquin Valley or
South Coast nonattainment areas. There
is also one potential receptor in
Shoshone County, Idaho, and one
potential receptor in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania. In addition, as noted in
section II to account for data quality
limitations, EPA also considers
potential receptors to include all of
Illinois and Miami-Dade, Gilchrist,
Broward, and Alachua Counties in
Florida.
10 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Final
Designation Recommendations for the 2012 PM2.5
Standard, available at https://www.dep.state.pa.us/
dep/deputate/airwaste/aq/attain/pm25des/Final_
Designation_Recommendations.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
23405
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 New Jersey emissions contribute to
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors.
For the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,
we have used air quality modeling and
an air quality threshold of one percent
of the PM2.5 NAAQS to link contributing
states to projected nonattainment or
maintenance receptors (76 FR 48237,
August 8, 2011). That is, if an upwind
state contributes less than the one
percent screening threshold to a
downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor, we determine
that the state is not ‘‘linked’’ and
therefore does not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or
maintenance problems at that receptor.
We have not set an air quality threshold
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and we do
not have air quality modeling showing
contributions to projected
nonattainment or maintenance receptors
for this NAAQS.
The EPA believes that a proper and
well-supported weight of evidence
approach can provide sufficient
information for purposes of addressing
transport with respect to the 2012 PM2.5
annual NAAQS. We rely on the CSAPR
air quality modeling conducted for
purposes of evaluating upwind state
impacts on downwind air quality with
respect to the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS of 15 mg/m3 (as well as the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and 1997 Ozone
NAAQS). Although not conducted for
purposes of evaluating the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, this modeling can inform
our analysis regarding both the general
magnitude of downwind PM2.5 impacts
and the downwind distance in which
states may contribute to receptors with
respect to the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS of 12 mg/m3. If the same 1%
contribution threshold used in CSAPR
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
applied to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, we
could consider the fact that a state’s
impact was below that value (that is,
0.12 mg/m3). We also note that New
Jersey’s submittal, described above,
relies on several factors to support a
finding that emissions from New Jersey
sources do not significantly contribute
to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance of, the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
in downwind states.
We note that no single piece of
information is by itself dispositive of the
issue. Instead, the total weight of all the
evidence taken together is used to
E:\FR\FM\21MYP1.SGM
21MYP1
23406
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
evaluate significant contributions to
nonattainment or interference with
maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
in another state.
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 and Idaho
Based on distance considerations
alone, New Jersey can be ruled out as a
potential contributor to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in California and Idaho. The
nearest of these receptors (Shoshone
County, Idaho) is over 1,800 miles from
New Jersey. Accordingly, EPA proposes
to find that New Jersey will not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
in California and Idaho.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
As discussed in the TSD for this
rulemaking, EPA has analyzed New
Jersey’s PM2.5 emissions and/or PM2.5
precursors, and found that they do not
significantly impact the Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania (Liberty monitor)
potential maintenance receptor. 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 have taken steps in recent
years, 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.11 New Jersey was analyzed
in this modeling, and New Jersey
emissions were not linked to Allegheny
County. EPA notes that, in fact, New
Jersey’s contribution in the CSAPR 2012
base case modeling was 0.024 mg/m3,
well below 1% of the standard for
linkage to downwind receptors.
For these reasons, we propose to find
that New Jersey will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
11 Air Quality Modeling for 2011 Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48207, August 8,
2011).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 May 18, 2018
Jkt 244001
with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS for Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania.
Miami/Dade, Gilchrist, Broward,
Alachua Counties, Florida
In the CSAPR modeling analysis,
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.
As mentioned earlier in this section,
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. However, EPA notes that
the most recent ambient data (2015–
2017) for these counties has been
preliminarily deemed complete and
indicates design values well below the
level of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This is
also consistent with historical data:
Complete and valid design values in the
2006–2008, 2007–2009, and/or 2008–
2010 periods for these counties were
well below the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. In
addition, the highest preliminary value
for these observed monitors is 7.5 mg/m3
at a Miami-Dade County monitor (ID
120861016). For these reasons, we find
that none of the counties in Florida with
monitoring gaps between 2009–2013
should be considered either
nonattainment or maintenance receptors
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore,
we propose that New Jersey will not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
in Florida.
Illinois
As indicated previously, data quality
issues prevent projections of
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in Illinois. Previous CSAPR
modeling, however, indicates that New
Jersey emissions would not impact
potential nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in Illinois. New
Jersey’s contribution in the CSAPR 2012
base case modeling was 0.003 mg/m3 or
less to Illinois counties, a very small
fraction of the threshold amount (well
below 1% of the standard) for linkage to
downwind receptors.
For this reason alone, we propose that
New Jersey will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS in Illinois.
Since we determined that New
Jersey’s SIP includes provisions
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
2016 memorandum, an evaluation
identifying likely emission sources
affecting these potential receptors,
distance considerations, and the 2012
base case modeling in the CSAPR final
rule, we propose to determine that
emissions from New Jersey sources will
not contribute significantly to
nonattainment in or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state with
regard to the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS.
IV. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve the
portion of New Jersey’s October 17,
2014 SIP submission addressing the
interstate transport provisions for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
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,
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);
E:\FR\FM\21MYP1.SGM
21MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
• 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 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,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 8, 2018.
Peter D. Lopez,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2018–10803 Filed 5–18–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0395; FRL–9978–
32—Region 4]
Air Plan Approvals; Tennessee:
Revisions to Ambient Air Quality
Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
portion of a revision to the Tennessee
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 May 18, 2018
Jkt 244001
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted on June 25, 2008, by the State
of Tennessee, through the Tennessee
Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC), on behalf of the
Chattanooga/Hamilton County Air
Pollution Control Bureau (Chattanooga/
Hamilton County). The SIP submittal
includes changes to Chattanooga/
Hamilton County’s air quality rules that,
among other things, modify several
ambient air standards. The portion of
the SIP revision that EPA is approving
is consistent with the requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). EPA
will act on the other portions of the June
25, 2008, submittal in a separate action.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before June 20, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2017–0395 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
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. 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://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Bell can be
reached via telephone at (404) 562–9088
or via electronic mail at bell.tiereny@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Sections 108 and 109 of the CAA
govern the establishment, review, and
revision, as appropriate, of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) to protect public health and
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
23407
welfare. The CAA requires periodic
review of the air quality criteria—the
science upon which the standards are
based—and the standards themselves.
EPA’s regulatory provisions that govern
the NAAQS are found at 40 CFR part
50—National Primary and Secondary
Ambient Air Quality Standards.
On June 25, 2008, TDEC submitted to
EPA a SIP revision to the Chattanooga/
Hamilton County portion of the
Tennessee SIP that contains changes to
a number of Chattanooga-Hamilton
County’s air quality rules in Chapter 4
of Part II, Section 4–41. EPA is
proposing to approve changes to the SIP
through this action that deletes the
current version and substitutes a revised
version of Chapter 4 of Part II, Section
4–41, Rule 21 of the Chattanooga City
Code ‘‘Ambient Air Quality
Standards.’’ 1 Chattanooga-Hamilton
County revised its rule to be consistent
with changes to federal NAAQS.
II. Analysis of State’s Submittal
On June 25, 2008, TDEC submitted a
SIP revision to EPA for review and
approval. The revision deletes the
current version and substitutes a revised
version of Chapter 4 of Part II, Section
4–41, Rule 21 of the Chattanooga City
Code ‘‘Ambient Air Quality Standards.’’
Chattanooga/Hamilton County revised
rule 21 to reflect all criteria pollutants;
Carbon Monoxide (CO), Lead (Pb),
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Particulate
Matter (PM10), Ozone (O3), and Sulfur
Dioxide (SO2), relating to all the
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). See 76 FR 54294 (August 31,
2011), 73 FR 66964 (November 12,
2008), 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010), 61
FR 52852 (October 8, 1996), 73 FR
16436 (March 27, 2008), 75 FR 35520
(June 22, 2010), 38 FR 25678 (September
14, 1973). EPA is approving this
revision to the Chattanooga/Hamilton
County portion of the Tennessee SIP to
maintain consistency with the NAAQS.
The Chattanooga/Hamilton County rule
revision became state-effective on June
11, 2008. EPA has reviewed these
changes to the Chattanooga/Hamilton
County regulations for CO, Pb, NO2,
PM10, O3 and SO2, and has made the
preliminary determination that these
changes are consistent with federal
regulation.2
1 EPA will consider the other changes included in
Tennessee’s June 25, 2008, SIP revision in a future
rulemaking.
2 The submittal does not address the 2008 8-hour
O3, 2015 8-hour O3, 2010 SO2, 2010 NO2, 2012
PM2.5 and 2008 Pb standards because these
standards were not promulgated at the time the
submission was provided to EPA.
E:\FR\FM\21MYP1.SGM
21MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23402-23407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10803]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0237; FRL-9978-39--Region 2]
Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey;
Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Interstate
Transport Provisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve elements of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from
New Jersey regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or
standard). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that
the structural components of each state's air quality management
program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the
CAA. This action pertains specifically to infrastructure requirements
concerning interstate transport provisions.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 20, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2018-0237 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://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Fradkin, Environmental
Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, at
(212) 637-3702, or by email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What is the background of this SIP submission?
II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate this SIP submission?
[[Page 23403]]
III. EPA's Review
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background of this SIP submission?
The EPA is proposing to approve elements of the State of New
Jersey's October 17, 2014 SIP submission, which addresses the section
110(a) infrastructure requirements of the CAA for the following NAAQS:
2012 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2008 lead, 2010 nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2), 2011 carbon
monoxide (CO), and the 2006 particulate matter of 10 microns or less
(PM10). Specifically, this rulemaking proposes to approve
the portion of the submission addressing the interstate transport
provisions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as the ``good neighbor'' provision.
The requirement for states to make an infrastructure SIP submission
arises from section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. Pursuant to section
110(a)(1), states must submit ``within 3 years (or such shorter period
as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a
national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision
thereof),'' a plan that provides for the ``implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement'' of such NAAQS.\1\ The statute directly imposes on
states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to
make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA taking any action
other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2)
includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan''
submission must address. EPA commonly refers to such state plans as
``infrastructure SIPs''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On December 14, 2012 (78 FR 3086), the EPA promulgated a
revised primary NAAQS for PM2.5 for the annual standard.
The revised standard was set at the level of 12 [micro]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to PM2.5 in several
prior 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.\2\ In that rule, we considered states linked to downwind
receptors if they were projected to contribute more than the threshold
amount (1 percent 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA addressed interstate transport provisions for the October 17,
2014 SIP submittal concerning the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) regulations and visibility protection (i.e.,
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)) for 2012 PM2.5, 2008 ozone,
2008 lead, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 2011 CO, and the
2006 PM10 NAAQS) on September 19, 2016.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 81 FR 64070 (September 19, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA addressed the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS in the EPA's update of the CSAPR rule in October 26, 2016 (81 FR
74504) but did not address New Jersey as it had withdrawn \4\ that
portion of the October 17, 2014 SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA issued a finding to New Jersey for failure to submit on
June 15, 2016 (81 FR 38963).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA will address the requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 lead, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, 2011 CO, and the 2006 PM10 NAAQS in a
separate action.
II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate this SIP submission?
EPA highlighted the statutory requirement to submit infrastructure
SIPs within 3 years of promulgation of a new NAAQS in an October 2,
2007 guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required
Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007
guidance). EPA has issued additional guidance documents and memoranda,
including a September 13, 2013 guidance document titled ``Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air
Act sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' (2013 guidance).
The most recent relevant document was a memorandum published 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)'' (2016 memorandum). The 2016 memorandum, which is
included in the docket of this rulemaking, describes the approach EPA
has previously used to address interstate transport, and provides EPA's
general review of relevant modeling data and air quality projections as
they relate to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2016 memorandum
provides information relevant to EPA Regional office review of the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``good neighbor'' provision in
infrastructure SIPs with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
This rulemaking considers information provided in that memorandum.
In particular, the 2016 memorandum provides states and EPA Regional
offices with projected future year annual PM2.5 design
values for monitors in the United States based on quality assured and
certified ambient monitoring data and air quality modeling. The
memorandum further describes how these projected potential design
values can be used to help determine which monitors should be further
evaluated to potentially address whether emissions from other states
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at those sites. The 2016 memorandum
explains that the pertinent year for evaluating air quality for
purposes of addressing interstate transport for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS is 2021, the attainment deadline for 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas classified as Moderate.
Accordingly, because the available data included 2017 and 2025
projected average and maximum PM2.5 design values calculated
through the CAMx \5\ photochemical model, the memorandum suggests
approaches states might use to interpolate PM2.5 values at
sites in 2021.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions(CAMx).
\6\ Specifically, the 2016 Memorandum explains that one way to
assess potential receptors for 2021 is to assume that receptors
projected to have average and/or maximum design values above the
NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 are also likely to be either
nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2021. Similarly, it may be
reasonable to assume that receptors that are projected to attain the
NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 are also likely to be attainment
receptors in 2021. Where a potential receptor is projected to be
nonattainment or maintenance in 2017, but projected to be attainment
in 2025, further analysis of the emissions and modeling may be
needed to make a further judgement regarding the receptor status in
2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the 2016 memorandum, EPA used the methodology used
in the CSAPR rule to determine potential nonattainment and maintenance
sites. ``Nonattainment sites'' refer to those sites that are projected
to exceed the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS of 12 micrograms per cubic
meter ([micro]g/m\3\) based on the average future year design values.
Those sites that are projected to exceed the NAAQS
[[Page 23404]]
based on the maximum future year design values are referred to as
``maintenance'' sites.
Table 1--Projected Nonattainment and Maintenance Sites for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in 2017 and 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 avg 2017 max 2025 avg 2025 max
design design design design
Monitor ID State County value value value value Projected 2017 Projected 2025
([mu]g/m ([mu]g/m ([mu]g/m ([mu]g/m attainment status attainment status
\3\) \3\) \3\) \3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60190011.......... California...... Fresno.......... 13.69 14.36 13.09 13.72 Nonattainment........ Nonattainment.
60195001.......... California...... Fresno.......... 15.43 15.9 14.9 15.36 Nonattainment........ Nonattainment.
60195025.......... California...... Fresno.......... 13.43 13.75 12.94 13.22 Nonattainment........ Nonattainment.
60250005.......... California...... Imperial........ 14.19 14.32 14.83 14.97 Nonattainment........ Nonattainment.
60290014.......... California...... Kern............ 14.24 14.85 13.78 14.37 Nonattainment........ Nonattainment.
60290106.......... California...... Kern............ 15.4 16.43 14.94 15.93 Nonattainment........ Nonattainment.
60311004.......... California...... Kings........... 15.38 16.01 14.82 15.4 Nonattainment........ Nonattainment.
60371002.......... California...... Los Angeles..... 11.6 12.25 11.42 12.07 Maintenance.......... Maintenance.
60392010.......... California...... Madera.......... 17.37 17.62 16.9 17.14 Nonattainment........ Nonattainment.
60470003.......... California...... Merced.......... 13.84 15.27 13.52 14.92 Nonattainment........ Nonattainment.
60658001.......... California...... Riverside....... 12.25 12.74 11.99 12.47 Nonattainment........ Maintenance.
60658005.......... California...... Riverside....... 13.89 14.41 13.63 14.15 Nonattainment........ Nonattainment.
60990006.......... California...... Stanislaus...... 14.44 14.79 13.97 14.31 Nonattainment........ Nonattainment.
60990005.......... California...... Stanislaus...... 12.5 12.84 12.03 12.34 Nonattainment........ Maintenance.
60710025.......... California...... San Bernardino.. 11.79 12.35 11.61 12.15 Maintenance.......... Maintenance.
60771002.......... California...... San Joaquin..... 11.49 13.09 11.16 12.71 Maintenance.......... Maintenance.
61072002.......... California...... Tulare.......... 14.63 15.6 14.06 14.96 Nonattainment........ Nonattainment.
160790017......... Idaho........... Shoshone........ 12.01 12.43 11.8 12.22 Maintenance.......... Maintenance.
420030064......... Pennsylvania.... Allegheny....... 11.67 12.16 11.18 11.65 Maintenance.......... Attainment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where EPA had sufficient data to complete its air quality modeling,
EPA's analysis showed that, except for one monitoring site in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania, monitors in the eastern United States were
expected to both attain and maintain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
both 2017 and 2025. EPA notes that, as further discussed below, EPA's
modeling analysis was inconclusive for monitoring sites with incomplete
data.
The modeling results provided in the 2016 memorandum also show that
out of seven PM2.5 monitors located in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, only one monitor (ID number 420030064) is expected to be
above the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in 2017.
Further, that monitor (ID number 420030064 or Liberty monitor) is
projected to be above the NAAQS only under the model's maximum
projected conditions (used in EPA's interstate transport framework to
identify maintenance receptors), and is projected to both attain and
maintain the NAAQS (along with all Allegheny County monitors) in 2025.
The memorandum therefore indicates that under such a condition (where
EPA's photochemical modeling indicates an area will attain the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in 2025 but not attain or maintain in 2017)
further analysis of the site should be performed to determine if the
site may be a nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2021 (the
attainment deadline for moderate PM2.5 areas).
The 2016 Memorandum 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. Data
quality problems were since resolved for Idaho, Tennessee, Kentucky and
portions of Florida, identifying no additional potential receptors,
with those areas having design values 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 May 2018, the areas that
still have data quality issues preventing projections of nonattainment
and maintenance receptors are all of Illinois and four counties in
Florida. EPA notes that preliminary design values for the four counties
in Florida for the most recent period (2015-2017) have been preliminary
deemed complete, and are well below the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
This is further discussed in section III below.
III. EPA's Review
This rulemaking proposes action on the portion of New Jersey's
October 17, 2014 SIP submission addressing the ``good neighbor''
provision requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which
include:
--Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one
state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in
another state (otherwise known as prong 1);
--Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one
state from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state
(prong 2).
This rulemaking is evaluating the October 17, 2014 submission,
specific to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (i.e., prongs 1 and 2) for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
In several previous rulemakings, EPA has developed and consistently
applied a framework for addressing the prong 1 and 2 interstate
transport requirements with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS. That
framework has four basic steps, including: (1) Identifying downwind
receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining
the NAAQS; (2) identifying which upwind states contribute to these
identified problems in amounts sufficient to warrant further review and
analysis; (3) for states identified as contributing to downwind air
quality problems, identifying upwind emissions reductions necessary to
prevent an upwind state from significantly contributing to
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind;
and (4) for states that are found to have emissions that significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
downwind, reducing the identified upwind emissions through adoption of
permanent and enforceable measures. This framework was most recently
applied with respect to PM2.5 in the CSAPR rule, designed to
address both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards, as well as
the 1997 ozone standard.
A. New Jersey's Submittal
New Jersey's October 2014 SIP submittal includes its SIP-approved
New Jersey regulations and control measures that the State has
implemented to address the interstate transport of air pollutants for
criteria
[[Page 23405]]
pollutants, including the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. New Jersey
regulations and control measures that have reduced PM2.5, as
well as SO2, NOX, and Volatile Organic Carbon
(VOC) precursor emissions include:
--New Jersey's low sulfur fuel oil rule, New Jersey Administrative Code
(N.J.A.C.) 7:27-9 \7\, Sulfur in Fuels, reduces SO2
emissions by reducing the sulfur content of fuel oils used throughout
the State, including fuel oil-fired electric generating units (EGUs),
home heating, and industrial and commercial boilers. The sulfur content
of all distillate fuel oils (#2 fuel oil and lighter) was lowered to
500 parts per million (ppm) beginning on July 1, 2014; and further
limited to 15 ppm beginning on July 1, 2016. Beginning July 1, 2014,
the sulfur content for #4 fuel oil was lowered to 2,500 ppm; and #6
fuel oil was lowered to a range of 3,000 to 5,000 ppm sulfur content;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA approval on January 3,2012(77 FR 19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Coal-fired power plants in New Jersey control SO2
emissions by use of scrubbers to comply with adopted SO2
rules including stringent, new short-term SO2 emission
limits (i.e., N.J.A.C. 7:27-10.2 \8\, effective start date for new
emission rates was December 2012;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ EPA approval on August 3,2010(75 FR 45483).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.29 \9\, EGU- High Electric Demand Day (HEDD),
require advanced NOX emission controls for EGU's that
operate on HEDD days; New Jersey estimated its NOX
reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules would reduce
NOX emissions by 64 tons per day on HEDD days beginning with
the 2015 summer ozone season; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ EPA approval on August 3,2010 (75 FR 45483).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--New Jersey has a statewide enhanced motor vehicle program that
ensures New Jersey has adopted the motor vehicle standards adopted by
California to ensure that only the lowest emitting vehicles available
are sold in New Jersey
New Jersey has indicated that it has addressed the interstate
transport requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by implementing
effective rules to control sources that may significantly contribute to
nonattainment of a NAAQS in another state, and therefore addressed New
Jersey's downwind contributions from New Jersey sources. New Jersey has
also indicated that they have no rules that interfere with the ability
of another state to maintain attainment of any ambient air quality
standard in that state. New Jersey noted that its rules to control air
emissions are more stringent than similar rules in nearby states. The
complete list of New Jersey regulations and control measures can be
found in the October 2014 SIP submittal, which is included in the
docket of this rulemaking.
New Jersey noted that the neighboring states of New York and
Delaware do not have any PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
Additionally, New Jersey indicated that the State of Pennsylvania, in
its area designation recommendations \10\ to EPA for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, determined that nonattainment in the State was
caused by local, not regional sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Final Designation
Recommendations for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard, available at
https://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/aq/attain/pm25des/Final_Designation_Recommendations.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey completed its technical analysis before EPA issued the
2016 Memorandum, which, as discussed earlier, included modeling
projections for 2017 and 2025 annual PM2.5 design values
meant to assist states in implementation of their 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS interstate transport SIPs. As discussed below, however, EPA's
review of New Jersey's submittal nevertheless concludes that EPA's
modeling projections regarding projected future nonattainment and
maintenance areas as indicated in the 2016 memorandum, past EPA
contribution modeling performed for CSAPR, and certified annual
PM2.5 design values recorded since New Jersey's submittal
confirm New Jersey's analysis that the State has adequately addressed
the interstate transport requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
B. EPA Analysis
As stated above, EPA has developed a four-step approach for
addressing the prong one and two interstate transport requirements with
respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS. The first step is the
identification of potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors. EPA identified potential nonattainment and/or maintenance
areas in the 2016 memorandum (see section II, Table 1, above). Most of
the potential receptors are in California, located in the San Joaquin
Valley or South Coast nonattainment areas. There is also one potential
receptor in Shoshone County, Idaho, and one potential receptor in
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In addition, as noted in section II to
account for data quality limitations, EPA also considers potential
receptors to include all of Illinois and Miami-Dade, Gilchrist,
Broward, and Alachua Counties in Florida.
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 New
Jersey emissions contribute to downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors.
For the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, we have used air
quality modeling and an air quality threshold of one percent of the
PM2.5 NAAQS to link contributing states to projected
nonattainment or maintenance receptors (76 FR 48237, August 8, 2011).
That is, if an upwind state contributes less than the one percent
screening threshold to a downwind nonattainment or maintenance
receptor, we determine that the state is not ``linked'' and therefore
does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or maintenance
problems at that receptor. We have not set an air quality threshold for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and we do not have air quality modeling
showing contributions to projected nonattainment or maintenance
receptors for this NAAQS.
The EPA believes that a proper and well-supported weight of
evidence approach can provide sufficient information for purposes of
addressing transport with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 annual
NAAQS. We rely on the CSAPR air quality modeling conducted for purposes
of evaluating upwind state impacts on downwind air quality with respect
to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 [micro]g/m\3\ (as well
as the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and 1997 Ozone NAAQS).
Although not conducted for purposes of evaluating the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, this modeling can inform our analysis regarding
both the general magnitude of downwind PM2.5 impacts and the
downwind distance in which states may contribute to receptors with
respect to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12 [micro]g/m\3\.
If the same 1% contribution threshold used in CSAPR for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS applied to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,
we could consider the fact that a state's impact was below that value
(that is, 0.12 [micro]g/m\3\). We also note that New Jersey's
submittal, described above, relies on several factors to support a
finding that emissions from New Jersey sources do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance of, the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind states.
We note that no single piece of information is by itself
dispositive of the issue. Instead, the total weight of all the evidence
taken together is used to
[[Page 23406]]
evaluate significant contributions to nonattainment or interference
with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in another state.
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 and Idaho
Based on distance considerations alone, New Jersey can be ruled out
as a potential contributor to downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in California and Idaho. The nearest of these receptors
(Shoshone County, Idaho) is over 1,800 miles from New Jersey.
Accordingly, EPA proposes to find that New Jersey will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in California and Idaho.
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
As discussed in the TSD for this rulemaking, EPA has analyzed New
Jersey's PM2.5 emissions and/or PM2.5 precursors,
and found that they do not significantly impact the Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania (Liberty monitor) potential maintenance receptor. 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
have taken steps in recent years, 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.\11\ New Jersey was analyzed in this
modeling, and New Jersey emissions were not linked to Allegheny County.
EPA notes that, in fact, New Jersey's contribution in the CSAPR 2012
base case modeling was 0.024 [micro]g/m\3\, well below 1% of the
standard for linkage to downwind receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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 New Jersey will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
Miami/Dade, Gilchrist, Broward, Alachua Counties, Florida
In the CSAPR modeling analysis, 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.
As mentioned earlier in this section, 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. However, EPA notes that the most recent ambient
data (2015-2017) for these counties has been preliminarily deemed
complete and indicates design values well below the level of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. This is also consistent with historical data:
Complete and valid design values in the 2006-2008, 2007-2009, and/or
2008-2010 periods for these counties were well below the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, the highest preliminary value for
these observed monitors is 7.5 [micro]g/m\3\ at a Miami-Dade County
monitor (ID 120861016). For these reasons, we find that none of the
counties in Florida with monitoring gaps between 2009-2013 should be
considered either nonattainment or maintenance receptors for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, we propose that New Jersey will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in Florida.
Illinois
As indicated previously, data quality issues prevent projections of
nonattainment and maintenance receptors in Illinois. Previous CSAPR
modeling, however, indicates that New Jersey emissions would not impact
potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors in Illinois. New
Jersey's contribution in the CSAPR 2012 base case modeling was 0.003
[micro]g/m\3\ or less to Illinois counties, a very small fraction of
the threshold amount (well below 1% of the standard) for linkage to
downwind receptors.
For this reason alone, we propose that New Jersey will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in Illinois.
Since we determined that New Jersey'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 2016 memorandum, an evaluation identifying likely
emission sources affecting these potential receptors, distance
considerations, and the 2012 base case modeling in the CSAPR final
rule, we propose to determine that emissions from New Jersey sources
will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state with regard to the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
IV. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve the portion of New Jersey's October 17,
2014 SIP submission addressing the interstate transport provisions for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
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, 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);
[[Page 23407]]
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 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, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 8, 2018.
Peter D. Lopez,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2018-10803 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
