Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5, 39970-39975 [2018-17362]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
39970
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
in a final rulemaking action, the State
must meet its commitment to submit an
update to its State Board rules that fully
remedies the deficiency mentioned
above under element E. If the State fails
to do so, this action will become a
disapproval one year from the date of
final approval. EPA will notify the State
by letter that this action has occurred.
At that time, this commitment will no
longer be a part of the approved Maine
SIP. EPA subsequently will publish a
document in the Federal Register
notifying the public that the conditional
approval automatically converted to a
disapproval. If the State meets its
commitment, within the applicable time
frame, the conditionally approved
submission will remain a part of the SIP
until EPA takes final action approving
or disapproving the submission. If EPA
disapproves the new submittal, the
conditionally approved infrastructure
SIP elements will also be disapproved at
that time. If EPA approves the submittal,
the conditionally approved
infrastructure SIP elements will be fully
approved in their entirety and replace
the conditionally approved program in
the SIP.
If the conditional approval is
converted to a disapproval, the final
disapproval triggers the Federal
implementation plan (FIP) requirement
under section 110(c).
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, 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, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed 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);
• This action is not expected to be an
Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Aug 10, 2018
Jkt 244001
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 Clean Air Act;
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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: August 6, 2018.
Alexandra Dunn,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2018–17247 Filed 8–10–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0060; FRL–9982–
11—Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Minnesota;
Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Multistate
Transport
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
elements of the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submission from Minnesota
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 September 12, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2017–0060 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, 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, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8777,
maietta.anthony@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:
I. What is the background of this SIP
submission?
II. What guidance and memoranda is EPA
using to evaluate this SIP submission?
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?
This rulemaking addresses a
submission from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency dated January
23, 2017, which describes its
infrastructure SIP for the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, this
rulemaking addresses the portion of the
submission dealing with interstate
pollution transport under CAA Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), otherwise known as the
‘‘good neighbor’’ provision. The
requirement for states to make a SIP
submission of this type 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. 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’s 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.’’
II. What guidance and memoranda is
EPA using to evaluate this SIP
submission?
EPA highlighted the statutory
requirement to submit infrastructure
SIPs within three years of promulgation
of a new NAAQS in an October 2, 2007
guidance document titled ‘‘Guidance on
SIP Elements Required Under Sections
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Aug 10, 2018
Jkt 244001
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 is
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 describes EPA’s
consistent approach over the years to
address interstate transport, and
provides EPA’s general review of
relevant modeling data and air quality
projections as they relate to the 2012
annual 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 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Minnesota’s
submittal and this rulemaking consider
information provided in that
memorandum.
The 2016 memorandum provides
states and EPA Regional offices with
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 2016 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 will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS at those sites. The 2016
memorandum explains that, for
purposes of addressing interstate
transport for the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, it may be appropriate to
evaluate projected air quality in 2021,
which is the attainment deadline for
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
nonattainment areas classified as
Moderate. Accordingly, because the
available data includes 2017 and 2025
projected average and maximum PM2.5
design values calculated through the
CAMx photochemical model, the 2016
memorandum suggests approaches that
states might use to interpolate PM2.5
values at sites in 2021. The 2016
memorandum indicates that it may be
reasonable to assume receptors
projected to have average and/or
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39971
maximum design values above the
NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 are also
likely to be either nonattainment or
maintenance receptors in 2021.
Similarly, the 2016 memorandum
indicates that 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. However, where a
potential receptor is projected to be
nonattainment or maintenance in 2017,
but projected to be attainment in 2025,
the 2016 memorandum suggests that
further analysis of the emissions and
modeling may be needed to make a
further judgement regarding the receptor
status in 2021.
The 2016 memorandum indicates that
for all but one monitor site in the
eastern United States with at least one
complete and valid PM2.5 design value
for the annual average 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2009–2013 period,
the modeling data shows that monitors
are expected to both attain and maintain
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in both
2017 and 2025. The modeling results
provided in the 2016 memorandum
show that out of seven PM2.5 monitors
located in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, one monitor is expected
to be above the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS in 2017. Further, that monitor,
the Liberty monitor (ID number
420030064), 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 2016
memorandum therefore indicates that
under such a condition (where EPA’s
photochemical modeling indicates an
area will maintain the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in 2025 but not attain 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 indicates that
based on modeling projections, there are
17 potential nonattainment or
maintenance receptors in California,
located in the San Joaquin Valley and
South Coast nonattainment areas, and
one potential receptor in Shoshone
County, Idaho.
The 2016 memorandum indicates that
for certain states with incomplete
ambient monitoring data, additional
information including the latest
available data, should be analyzed to
determine whether there are potential
downwind air quality problems that
may be impacted by transported
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
39972
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules
emissions. These states include all or
portions of Florida, Illinois, Idaho
(outside of Shoshone County),
Tennessee and Kentucky. With the
exception of four counties in Florida,
the data quality problems have
subsequently been resolved for these
areas, and these areas now have current
design values below the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and are expected to
maintain the NAAQS due to downward
emission trends for NOX and SO2.
Minnesota’s submittal indicates that
the state used data from the 2016
memorandum in its analysis. EPA
considered the analysis from Minnesota,
as well as additional analysis conducted
by EPA, in its review of the Minnesota
submittal. More information contained
in our review can be found in the
technical support document (TSD) in
the docket, ‘‘[Technical Support
Document for Docket #EPA–R05–OAR–
2017–0060].’’
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
III. EPA’s Review
This rulemaking proposes action on
the portion of Minnesota’s January 23,
2017 SIP submission addressing the
good neighbor provision requirements
of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). State
plans must address four requirements of
the good neighbor provisions
(commonly referred to as ‘‘prongs’’),
including:
—Prohibiting any source or other type
of emissions activity in one state from
contributing significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state (prong one);
—Prohibiting any source or other type
of emissions activity in one state from
interfering with maintenance of the
NAAQS in another state (prong two);
—Prohibiting any source or other type
of emissions activity in one state from
interfering with measures required to
prevent significant deterioration (PSD)
of air quality in another state (prong
three); and
—Protecting visibility in another state
(prong four).
This rulemaking is evaluating
Minnesota’s January 23, 2017
submission, to determine whether
Minnesota’s interstate transport
provisions in its PM2.5 infrastructure SIP
meet prongs one and two of the good
neighbor requirements of the CAA.
Prongs three and four will be evaluated
in a separate rulemaking.
EPA has developed a consistent
framework for addressing the interstate
transport requirements required by
prongs one and two with respect to the
PM2.5 NAAQS in several previous
Federal rulemakings. The four basic
steps of that framework include:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Aug 10, 2018
Jkt 244001
(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
August 8, 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48208), designed
to address both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
standards, as well as the 1997 and 2008
ozone standards.
Minnesota’s January 23, 2017
submission indicates that the Minnesota
SIP contains the following major
programs related to the interstate
transport of pollution:
• 7011.0500–0553 Indirect Heating
Fossil Fuel Burning Equipment
• 7011.0600–0625 Direct Heating
Fossil Fuel Burning Equipment
• 7011.1400–1430 Petroleum
Refineries
• 7011.1600–1605 Sulfuric Acid
Plants
• 7011.0150 Preventing Particulate
Matter from Becoming Airborne
• 7011.0710–0735 Industrial Process
Equipment
• 7011.0850–0859 Concrete
Manufacturing Plant Standards of
Performance
• 7011.0900–0922 Hot Mix Asphalt
Plants
• 7011.1000–1015 Bulk Agricultural
Commodity Facilities
• 7011.1100–1125 Coal Handling
Facilities
• 7011.1300–1325 Incinerators
• 7011.1700–1705 Nitric Acid Plants
• Title I/Title V operating permits and
administrative orders for facilities in
the state as defined in the January 23,
2017 submittal.
Minnesota’s submittal also contains a
technical analysis of its interstate
transport of pollution relative to the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The
technical analysis studies Minnesota
sources’ contribution to monitored
PM2.5 air quality values in other states
and whether Minnesota would need to
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
take further steps to decrease its
emissions to (and therefore impacts on)
those areas. Minnesota’s technical
analysis considers CSAPR rule
implementation, EPA guidance and
memoranda, and other factors such as
meteorology and state-wide emissions
inventories. Minnesota did not focus on
its potential contribution to areas EPA
identified as not attaining the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on monitor
data in Alaska, California, Idaho,
Nevada, or Hawaii. The distance
between Minnesota and these areas,
coupled with the prevailing wind
directions, leads EPA to propose to find
that Minnesota will not contribute
significantly to any of the potential
receptors in those states.1
Additionally, EPA’s 2016
memorandum found Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, the Liberty monitor, to be
a potential receptor, however, EPA
proposes to find that Minnesota will not
contribute significantly to the receptor.
Minnesota’s impacts on that potential
receptor is relatively small. CSAPR
contained a determination that for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, any state
whose impacts on a specific receptor in
a downwind state meet or exceed a
threshold of 1% of the NAAQS are
considered linked to that receptor (76
FR 48236). In other words, EPA
determined that any state whose
impacts are below that threshold will
not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the relevant NAAQS.
EPA has not determined a comparable
threshold for the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA believes that a proper and
well-supported weight of evidence
approach can provide sufficient
information for purposes of evaluating
the impact of Minnesota on the Liberty
monitor. In addition, in its review,
Minnesota determined that its impact
on air quality monitors in Pennsylvania
is less than 1% of the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. Minnesota’s determination is
based on EPA’s source apportionment
modeling predicting state contributions
to downwind monitors in 2012 under
the base case scenario in our original
CSAPR analysis. For these reasons, we
propose to find that Minnesota’s
emissions will not contribute
significantly to the Liberty monitor.
With respect to Illinois, EPA’s source
apportionment modeling in our original
CSAPR analysis predicts that
1 It should be noted that EPA has projected that
receptors in California and Idaho will be in
nonattainment in 2021 but, as just noted,
Minnesota’s distance from those receptors, as well
as the fact that the wind generally blows from west
to east over the continental U.S., means that
Minnesota will not contribute to them.
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Minnesota’s emissions impact Illinois’s
monitors. The PM2.5 monitoring data for
Illinois for the period from January 2011
to July 2014 suffered from data quality/
completion issues, and no current
annual PM2.5 design values existed for
Illinois at the time of the modeling for
the 2016 memorandum. Illinois has
since resolved these quality control
issues.
39973
EPA considered available data from
monitors in Illinois for its analysis of
Minnesota’s submittal. As shown in
Table 1, Illinois is now meeting the
standard throughout the state.
TABLE 1—ILLINOIS ANNUAL PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES FOR 2015–2017 DESIGN PERIOD
Local site name
Monitoring site
Alsip .........................................................................................................................................................................
Washington High School .........................................................................................................................................
Mayfair Pump Station ..............................................................................................................................................
Springfield Pump Station .........................................................................................................................................
Com Ed ....................................................................................................................................................................
Schiller Park .............................................................................................................................................................
Summit .....................................................................................................................................................................
Des Plaines ..............................................................................................................................................................
Northbrook ...............................................................................................................................................................
Cicero .......................................................................................................................................................................
Naperville .................................................................................................................................................................
Elgin .........................................................................................................................................................................
Aurora ......................................................................................................................................................................
Cary .........................................................................................................................................................................
Joliet .........................................................................................................................................................................
Braidwood ................................................................................................................................................................
Jerseyville ................................................................................................................................................................
Granite City ..............................................................................................................................................................
Alton .........................................................................................................................................................................
Wood River ..............................................................................................................................................................
Houston ....................................................................................................................................................................
East St. Louis ..........................................................................................................................................................
Champaign ...............................................................................................................................................................
Bondville ..................................................................................................................................................................
Knight Prairie ...........................................................................................................................................................
Normal .....................................................................................................................................................................
Decatur ....................................................................................................................................................................
Peoria .......................................................................................................................................................................
Rock Island ..............................................................................................................................................................
Springfield ................................................................................................................................................................
Rockford ...................................................................................................................................................................
17–031–0001
17–031–0022
17–031–0052
17–031–0057
17–031–0076
17–031–3103
17–031–3301
17–031–4007
17–031–4201
17–031–6005
17–043–4002
17–089–0003
17–089–0007
17–111–0001
17–197–1002
17–197–1011
17–083–0117
17–119–1007
17–119–2009
17–119–3007
17–157–0001
17–163–0010
17–019–0006
17–019–1001
17–065–0002
17–113–2003
17–115–0013
17–143–0037
17–161–3002
17–167–0012
17–201–0013
2015–2017
design value
(μg/m3)
9.5
9.3
9.1
10.2
9.5
10.5
9.7
9.4
8.4
10.0
8.3
8.3
8.3
+ 8.2
7.9
7.9
+ 8.8
9.7
8.8
8.7
8.5
9.8
7.9
7.8
8.2
8.0
8.4
8.2
8.1
8.2
8.3
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
+ Data incomplete.
Illinois’ air quality trends reflect what
is shown across the nation: A general
downward trend in ambient air
concentrations, including sites that
Minnesota analyzed in its submittal.
During the last valid design period, only
three Illinois counties reported 2008–
2010 annual PM2.5 design values above
the NAAQS: Cook, Madison, and Saint
Clair counties. In Cook County, the
2008–2010 annual design value was
13.0 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/
m3), and the annual mean values have
trended downward. As shown in the
table above, these areas are now meeting
the NAAQS for the 2015 to 2017 design
period. Therefore, EPA expects that all
counties in Illinois will attain and
maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS without the
need for additional PM2.5 reductions in
Minnesota, and for this reason, we
propose to find that Minnesota will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment or maintenance problems
in Illinois.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Aug 10, 2018
Jkt 244001
Minnesota found, and our review
confirmed, that despite the fact that
Minnesota emissions potentially
contribute to monitored PM2.5 air
quality in areas in other states, all of
those areas were attaining the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2014–
2016 data. Despite Minnesota not
significantly contributing to the
monitored PM2.5 air quality in
Pennsylvania, our review evaluated
PM2.5 air quality issues in Pennsylvania.
All but two areas in Pennsylvania
(Allegheny and Delaware counties) were
attaining the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
based on 2012–2014 data. A review of
2013–2015 design values shows that all
areas except for Allegheny County have
attained the NAAQS. Our review also
considers 2014–2016 design values,
which show only Allegheny and
Lancaster counties not meeting the
NAAQS. In Delaware and Lebanon
counties, not only do the most recent
PM2.5 monitor data show these counties
are attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA’s
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
PM2.5 modeling data for 2017 and 2025
do not indicate any nonattainment or
maintenance issues in these counties.
There is a clear downward trend in
PM2.5 values in these counties. For
Lancaster County, despite having a
2014–2016 design value that exceeds
the NAAQS, there is a clear downward
trend in the monitored PM2.5 air quality
data that supports EPA’s PM2.5 modeling
that shows no nonattainment or
maintenance problems for this county
by 2021.
The modeling information contained
in EPA’s 2016 memorandum shows that
one monitor in Allegheny County, PA
(the Liberty monitor, 420030064) may
have a maintenance issue in 2017, but
is projected to both attain and maintain
the NAAQS by 2025. A linear
interpolation of the modeled design
values to 2021 shows that the monitor
is likely to both attain and maintain the
standard by 2021. Emissions and air
quality data trends help to corroborate
this interpolation.
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
39974
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Over the last decade, local and
regional emissions reductions of
primary PM2.5, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and
nitrogen oxide (NOX), have led to large
reductions in annual PM2.5 design
values in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania. In 2007, all of Allegheny
County’s PM2.5 monitors exceeded the
level of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
(the 2005–2007 annual average design
values ranged from 12.9–19.8 mg/m3, as
shown in Table 2). The 2014–2016
annual average PM2.5 design values now
show that only one monitor (Liberty, at
12.8 mg/m3) exceeds the health-based
annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 mg/m3.
TABLE 2—PM2.5 ANNUAL DESIGN VALUES IN μG/M 3
Monitor
2005–
2007
2006–
2008
2007–
2009
2008–
2010
2009–
2011
2010–
2012
2011–
2013
2012–
2014
2013–
2015
2014–
2016
Avalon ......................
Lawrenceville ............
Liberty .......................
South Fayette ...........
North Park ................
Harrison ....................
North Braddock ........
Parkway East NearRoad .....................
Clairton .....................
................
15.0
19.8
12.9
* 13.0
15.0
16.2
................
14.0
18.3
* 11.8
* 12.3
14.2
15.2
................
13.1
17.0
11.7
* 11.3
13.7
14.3
* 16.3
12.2
16.0
11.1
* 10.1
13.0
13.3
* 14.7
11.6
15.0
11.0
9.7
12.4
12.7
13.4
11.1
14.8
10.5
9.4
* 11.7
12.5
11.4
10.3
13.4
9.6
8.8
10.6
* 11.7
10.6
10.0
13.0
9.0
8.5
10.0
11.4
10.6
9.7
12.6
8.8
8.5
9.8
11.2
* 10.4
9.5
12.8
* 8.5
* 8.2
9.8
11.0
................
15.3
................
14.3
................
13.2
................
12.4
................
* 11.5
................
* 10.9
................
* 9.8
................
9.5
................
9.8
* 10.6
* 9.8
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
* Value does not contain a complete year’s worth of data.
The Liberty monitor is already close
to attaining the NAAQS, and expected
emissions reductions in the next four
years will lead to additional reductions
in measured PM2.5 concentrations.
There are both local and regional
components to the measured PM2.5
levels in Allegheny County and the
greater Pittsburgh area. Previous CSAPR
modeling showed that regional
emissions from upwind states,
particularly SO2 and NOX emissions,
contribute to PM2.5 nonattainment at the
Liberty monitor. In recent years, large
SO2 and NOX reductions from power
plants have occurred in Pennsylvania
and states upwind from the Greater
Pittsburgh region. Based on existing
CSAPR budgets, Pennsylvania’s energy
sector emissions of SO2 will have
decreased 166,000 tons between 2015–
2017 as a result of CSAPR
implementation. This is due to both the
installation of emissions controls and
retirements of electric generating units
(EGUs) (see the TSD for more details).
Projected power plant closures and
additional emissions controls in
Pennsylvania and upwind states will
help further reduce both direct PM2.5
and PM2.5 precursors. Regional emission
reductions will continue to occur from
current on-the-books Federal and state
regulations such as the Federal on-road
and non-road vehicle programs, and
various rules for major stationary
emissions sources.
In addition to regional emissions
reductions and plant closures,
additional local reductions of both
direct PM2.5 and SO2 emissions are
expected to occur and should also
contribute to further declines in
Allegheny County’s PM2.5 monitor
concentrations. For example, significant
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Aug 10, 2018
Jkt 244001
SO2 reductions have recently occurred
at US Steel’s integrated steel mill
facilities in southern Allegheny County
as part of a 1-hr SO2 NAAQS SIP.2
Reductions are largely due to declining
sulfur content in the Clairton Coke
Work’s coke oven gas (COG). Because
this COG is burned at US Steel’s
Clairton Coke Works, Irvin Mill, and
Edgar Thompson Steel Mill, these
reductions in sulfur content should
contribute to much lower PM2.5
precursor emissions in the immediate
future. The Allegheny SO2 SIP also
projects lower SO2 emissions resulting
from vehicle fuel standards, reductions
in general emissions due to declining
population in the Greater Pittsburgh
region and several shutdowns of
significant sources of emissions in
Allegheny County.
EPA modeling projections, the recent
downward trend in local and upwind
emissions reductions, the expected
continued downward trend in emissions
between 2017 and 2021, and the
downward trend in monitored PM2.5
concentrations, all indicate that the
Liberty monitor will attain and be able
to maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS by 2021.
With respect to Florida, in the CSAPR
modeling analysis for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, 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,
however, as there are ambient
monitoring data gaps in the 2009–2013
data that could have been used to
identify potential PM2.5 nonattainment
2 https://www.achd.net/air/publichearing2017/
SO2_2010_NAAQS_SIP_5-1-2017.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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,
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 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
In addition, the highest preliminary
value for these observed monitors is 7.5
mg/m3 at the Miami-Dade County
monitor (12–086–1016), which is well
below the 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 all well
below the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
This is also consistent with historical
data: complete and valid design values
in the 2006–2008 and/or 2007–2009
periods for these counties were well
below the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
For these reasons, we find that none of
the counties in Florida with monitoring
gaps between 2009–2013 should be
considered either nonattainment or
maintenance receptors for the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. For these
reasons, we propose to find that
emissions from Minnesota will not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS in Florida. We find further
support in the fact that EPA’s source
apportionment modeling predicted state
impacts on downwind monitors in 2012
under the base case scenario in our
original CSAPR analysis, showing little
impact from Minnesota to any of
Florida’s counties.
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules
The conclusions of Minnesota’s
analysis are consistent with EPA’s
expanded review of its January 23, 2017
submittal. All areas that Minnesota
sources potentially contribute to attain
and maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, and as demonstrated in its
submittal, Minnesota will not contribute
to projected nonattainment or
maintenance issues at any sites in 2021.
Minnesota’s analysis shows that through
permanent and enforceable measures
currently contained in its SIP, and other
emissions reductions occurring in
Minnesota and in other states,
monitored PM2.5 air quality in all
identified areas that Minnesota sources
may impact will continue to improve,
and that no further measures are
necessary to satisfy Minnesota’s
responsibilities under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Therefore, EPA is
proposing that prongs one and two of
the interstate pollution transport
element of Minnesota’s infrastructure
SIP are approvable.
IV. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve a portion
of Minnesota’s January 23, 2017
submittal certifying that the current
Minnesota SIP is sufficient to meet the
required infrastructure requirements
under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
specifically prongs one and two, as set
forth above. EPA is requesting
comments on the proposed approval.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
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.);
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Aug 10, 2018
Jkt 244001
• 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
this rulemaking does not involve
technical standards; 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.
Dated: July 30, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018–17362 Filed 8–10–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39975
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA–R04–RCRA–2018–0255; FRL– 9981–
48—Region 4]
Georgia: Proposed Authorization of
State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Georgia has applied to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for final authorization of changes to its
hazardous waste program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), as amended. EPA has
reviewed Georgia’s application and has
determined that these changes satisfy all
requirements needed to qualify for final
authorization. Therefore, we are
proposing to authorize the state’s
changes. EPA seeks public comment
prior to taking final action.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 12, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
RCRA–2018–0255, at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from
www.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/commentingepa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thornell Cheeks, Materials and Waste
Management Branch, RCR Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960;
telephone number: (404) 562–8479: fax
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 156 (Monday, August 13, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39970-39975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17362]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0060; FRL-9982-11--Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Multistate Transport
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
Minnesota 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 September 12, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2017-0060 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
[[Page 39971]]
making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8777,
[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 and memoranda is EPA using to evaluate this SIP
submission?
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?
This rulemaking addresses a submission from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency dated January 23, 2017, which describes its
infrastructure SIP for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
Specifically, this rulemaking addresses the portion of the submission
dealing with interstate pollution transport under CAA Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), otherwise known as the ``good neighbor'' provision.
The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type 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. 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's 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.''
II. What guidance and memoranda is EPA using to evaluate this SIP
submission?
EPA highlighted the statutory requirement to submit infrastructure
SIPs within three years of promulgation of a new NAAQS in an October 2,
2007 guidance document titled ``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 is 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 describes
EPA's consistent approach over the years to address interstate
transport, and provides EPA's general review of relevant modeling data
and air quality projections as they relate to the 2012 annual
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 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Minnesota's
submittal and this rulemaking consider information provided in that
memorandum.
The 2016 memorandum provides states and EPA Regional offices with
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 2016 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 will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS at those sites. The 2016 memorandum
explains that, for purposes of addressing interstate transport for the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, it may be appropriate to evaluate
projected air quality in 2021, which is the attainment deadline for
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas classified as
Moderate. Accordingly, because the available data includes 2017 and
2025 projected average and maximum PM2.5 design values
calculated through the CAMx photochemical model, the 2016 memorandum
suggests approaches that states might use to interpolate
PM2.5 values at sites in 2021. The 2016 memorandum indicates
that it may be reasonable to assume 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, the 2016 memorandum indicates that 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. However, where a potential receptor is projected to be
nonattainment or maintenance in 2017, but projected to be attainment in
2025, the 2016 memorandum suggests that further analysis of the
emissions and modeling may be needed to make a further judgement
regarding the receptor status in 2021.
The 2016 memorandum indicates that for all but one monitor site in
the eastern United States with at least one complete and valid
PM2.5 design value for the annual average 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2009-2013 period, the modeling data shows
that monitors are expected to both attain and maintain the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025. The modeling results
provided in the 2016 memorandum show that out of seven PM2.5
monitors located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, one monitor is
expected to be above the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2017.
Further, that monitor, the Liberty monitor (ID number 420030064), 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 2016 memorandum therefore indicates that under such a condition
(where EPA's photochemical modeling indicates an area will maintain the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2025 but not attain 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 indicates that based on modeling projections,
there are 17 potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors in
California, located in the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast
nonattainment areas, and one potential receptor in Shoshone County,
Idaho.
The 2016 memorandum indicates that for certain states with
incomplete ambient monitoring data, additional information including
the latest available data, should be analyzed to determine whether
there are potential downwind air quality problems that may be impacted
by transported
[[Page 39972]]
emissions. These states include all or portions of Florida, Illinois,
Idaho (outside of Shoshone County), Tennessee and Kentucky. With the
exception of four counties in Florida, the data quality problems have
subsequently been resolved for these areas, and these areas now have
current design values below the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and
are expected to maintain the NAAQS due to downward emission trends for
NOX and SO2.
Minnesota's submittal indicates that the state used data from the
2016 memorandum in its analysis. EPA considered the analysis from
Minnesota, as well as additional analysis conducted by EPA, in its
review of the Minnesota submittal. More information contained in our
review can be found in the technical support document (TSD) in the
docket, ``[Technical Support Document for Docket #EPA-R05-OAR-2017-
0060].''
III. EPA's Review
This rulemaking proposes action on the portion of Minnesota's
January 23, 2017 SIP submission addressing the good neighbor provision
requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). State plans must address
four requirements of the good neighbor provisions (commonly referred to
as ``prongs''), including:
--Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one
state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in
another state (prong one);
--Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one
state from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state
(prong two);
--Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one
state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration (PSD) of air quality in another state (prong three); and
--Protecting visibility in another state (prong four).
This rulemaking is evaluating Minnesota's January 23, 2017
submission, to determine whether Minnesota's interstate transport
provisions in its PM2.5 infrastructure SIP meet prongs one
and two of the good neighbor requirements of the CAA. Prongs three and
four will be evaluated in a separate rulemaking.
EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing the
interstate transport requirements required by prongs one and two with
respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS in several previous Federal
rulemakings. The four basic steps of that framework include:
(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 August 8, 2011 Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48208), designed to address both the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 standards, as well as the 1997 and 2008 ozone
standards.
Minnesota's January 23, 2017 submission indicates that the
Minnesota SIP contains the following major programs related to the
interstate transport of pollution:
7011.0500-0553 Indirect Heating Fossil Fuel Burning Equipment
7011.0600-0625 Direct Heating Fossil Fuel Burning Equipment
7011.1400-1430 Petroleum Refineries
7011.1600-1605 Sulfuric Acid Plants
7011.0150 Preventing Particulate Matter from Becoming Airborne
7011.0710-0735 Industrial Process Equipment
7011.0850-0859 Concrete Manufacturing Plant Standards of
Performance
7011.0900-0922 Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
7011.1000-1015 Bulk Agricultural Commodity Facilities
7011.1100-1125 Coal Handling Facilities
7011.1300-1325 Incinerators
7011.1700-1705 Nitric Acid Plants
Title I/Title V operating permits and administrative orders
for facilities in the state as defined in the January 23, 2017
submittal.
Minnesota's submittal also contains a technical analysis of its
interstate transport of pollution relative to the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. The technical analysis studies Minnesota
sources' contribution to monitored PM2.5 air quality values
in other states and whether Minnesota would need to take further steps
to decrease its emissions to (and therefore impacts on) those areas.
Minnesota's technical analysis considers CSAPR rule implementation, EPA
guidance and memoranda, and other factors such as meteorology and
state-wide emissions inventories. Minnesota did not focus on its
potential contribution to areas EPA identified as not attaining the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on monitor data in Alaska,
California, Idaho, Nevada, or Hawaii. The distance between Minnesota
and these areas, coupled with the prevailing wind directions, leads EPA
to propose to find that Minnesota will not contribute significantly to
any of the potential receptors in those states.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ It should be noted that EPA has projected that receptors in
California and Idaho will be in nonattainment in 2021 but, as just
noted, Minnesota's distance from those receptors, as well as the
fact that the wind generally blows from west to east over the
continental U.S., means that Minnesota will not contribute to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, EPA's 2016 memorandum found Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, the Liberty monitor, to be a potential receptor, however,
EPA proposes to find that Minnesota will not contribute significantly
to the receptor. Minnesota's impacts on that potential receptor is
relatively small. CSAPR contained a determination that for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, any state whose impacts on a specific
receptor in a downwind state meet or exceed a threshold of 1% of the
NAAQS are considered linked to that receptor (76 FR 48236). In other
words, EPA determined that any state whose impacts are below that
threshold will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the relevant NAAQS. EPA has not
determined a comparable threshold for the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA believes that a proper and well-supported weight of evidence
approach can provide sufficient information for purposes of evaluating
the impact of Minnesota on the Liberty monitor. In addition, in its
review, Minnesota determined that its impact on air quality monitors in
Pennsylvania is less than 1% of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
Minnesota's determination is based on EPA's source apportionment
modeling predicting state contributions to downwind monitors in 2012
under the base case scenario in our original CSAPR analysis. For these
reasons, we propose to find that Minnesota's emissions will not
contribute significantly to the Liberty monitor.
With respect to Illinois, EPA's source apportionment modeling in
our original CSAPR analysis predicts that
[[Page 39973]]
Minnesota's emissions impact Illinois's monitors. The PM2.5
monitoring data for Illinois for the period from January 2011 to July
2014 suffered from data quality/completion issues, and no current
annual PM2.5 design values existed for Illinois at the time
of the modeling for the 2016 memorandum. Illinois has since resolved
these quality control issues.
EPA considered available data from monitors in Illinois for its
analysis of Minnesota's submittal. As shown in Table 1, Illinois is now
meeting the standard throughout the state.
Table 1--Illinois Annual PM2.5 Design Values for 2015-2017 Design Period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015-2017
Local site name Monitoring design value
site ([mu]g/m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alsip................................... 17-031-0001 9.5
Washington High School.................. 17-031-0022 9.3
Mayfair Pump Station.................... 17-031-0052 9.1
Springfield Pump Station................ 17-031-0057 10.2
Com Ed.................................. 17-031-0076 9.5
Schiller Park........................... 17-031-3103 10.5
Summit.................................. 17-031-3301 9.7
Des Plaines............................. 17-031-4007 9.4
Northbrook.............................. 17-031-4201 8.4
Cicero.................................. 17-031-6005 10.0
Naperville.............................. 17-043-4002 8.3
Elgin................................... 17-089-0003 8.3
Aurora.................................. 17-089-0007 8.3
Cary.................................... 17-111-0001 \+\ 8.2
Joliet.................................. 17-197-1002 7.9
Braidwood............................... 17-197-1011 7.9
Jerseyville............................. 17-083-0117 \+\ 8.8
Granite City............................ 17-119-1007 9.7
Alton................................... 17-119-2009 8.8
Wood River.............................. 17-119-3007 8.7
Houston................................. 17-157-0001 8.5
East St. Louis.......................... 17-163-0010 9.8
Champaign............................... 17-019-0006 7.9
Bondville............................... 17-019-1001 7.8
Knight Prairie.......................... 17-065-0002 8.2
Normal.................................. 17-113-2003 8.0
Decatur................................. 17-115-0013 8.4
Peoria.................................. 17-143-0037 8.2
Rock Island............................. 17-161-3002 8.1
Springfield............................. 17-167-0012 8.2
Rockford................................ 17-201-0013 8.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Data incomplete.
Illinois' air quality trends reflect what is shown across the
nation: A general downward trend in ambient air concentrations,
including sites that Minnesota analyzed in its submittal. During the
last valid design period, only three Illinois counties reported 2008-
2010 annual PM2.5 design values above the NAAQS: Cook,
Madison, and Saint Clair counties. In Cook County, the 2008-2010 annual
design value was 13.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\), and
the annual mean values have trended downward. As shown in the table
above, these areas are now meeting the NAAQS for the 2015 to 2017
design period. Therefore, EPA expects that all counties in Illinois
will attain and maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS without the need
for additional PM2.5 reductions in Minnesota, and for this
reason, we propose to find that Minnesota will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or maintenance problems in Illinois.
Minnesota found, and our review confirmed, that despite the fact
that Minnesota emissions potentially contribute to monitored
PM2.5 air quality in areas in other states, all of those
areas were attaining the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on
2014-2016 data. Despite Minnesota not significantly contributing to the
monitored PM2.5 air quality in Pennsylvania, our review
evaluated PM2.5 air quality issues in Pennsylvania. All but
two areas in Pennsylvania (Allegheny and Delaware counties) were
attaining the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2012-2014
data. A review of 2013-2015 design values shows that all areas except
for Allegheny County have attained the NAAQS. Our review also considers
2014-2016 design values, which show only Allegheny and Lancaster
counties not meeting the NAAQS. In Delaware and Lebanon counties, not
only do the most recent PM2.5 monitor data show these
counties are attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA's
PM2.5 modeling data for 2017 and 2025 do not indicate any
nonattainment or maintenance issues in these counties. There is a clear
downward trend in PM2.5 values in these counties. For
Lancaster County, despite having a 2014-2016 design value that exceeds
the NAAQS, there is a clear downward trend in the monitored
PM2.5 air quality data that supports EPA's PM2.5
modeling that shows no nonattainment or maintenance problems for this
county by 2021.
The modeling information contained in EPA's 2016 memorandum shows
that one monitor in Allegheny County, PA (the Liberty monitor,
420030064) may have a maintenance issue in 2017, but is projected to
both attain and maintain the NAAQS by 2025. A linear interpolation of
the modeled design values to 2021 shows that the monitor is likely to
both attain and maintain the standard by 2021. Emissions and air
quality data trends help to corroborate this interpolation.
[[Page 39974]]
Over the last decade, local and regional emissions reductions of
primary PM2.5, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen
oxide (NOX), have led to large reductions in annual
PM2.5 design values in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In
2007, all of Allegheny County's PM2.5 monitors exceeded the
level of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (the 2005-2007 annual
average design values ranged from 12.9-19.8 [mu]g/m\3\, as shown in
Table 2). The 2014-2016 annual average PM2.5 design values
now show that only one monitor (Liberty, at 12.8 [mu]g/m\3\) exceeds
the health-based annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\.
Table 2--PM2.5 Annual Design Values in [mu]g/m \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor 2005-2007 2006-2008 2007-2009 2008-2010 2009-2011 2010-2012 2011-2013 2012-2014 2013-2015 2014-2016
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avalon.................................... ......... ......... ......... * 16.3 * 14.7 13.4 11.4 10.6 10.6 * 10.4
Lawrenceville............................. 15.0 14.0 13.1 12.2 11.6 11.1 10.3 10.0 9.7 9.5
Liberty................................... 19.8 18.3 17.0 16.0 15.0 14.8 13.4 13.0 12.6 12.8
South Fayette............................. 12.9 * 11.8 11.7 11.1 11.0 10.5 9.6 9.0 8.8 * 8.5
North Park................................ * 13.0 * 12.3 * 11.3 * 10.1 9.7 9.4 8.8 8.5 8.5 * 8.2
Harrison.................................. 15.0 14.2 13.7 13.0 12.4 * 11.7 10.6 10.0 9.8 9.8
North Braddock............................ 16.2 15.2 14.3 13.3 12.7 12.5 * 11.7 11.4 11.2 11.0
Parkway East Near-Road.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... * 10.6
Clairton.................................. 15.3 14.3 13.2 12.4 * 11.5 * 10.9 * 9.8 9.5 9.8 * 9.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Value does not contain a complete year's worth of data.
The Liberty monitor is already close to attaining the NAAQS, and
expected emissions reductions in the next four years will lead to
additional reductions in measured PM2.5 concentrations.
There are both local and regional components to the measured
PM2.5 levels in Allegheny County and the greater Pittsburgh
area. Previous CSAPR modeling showed that regional emissions from
upwind states, particularly SO2 and NOX
emissions, contribute to PM2.5 nonattainment at the Liberty
monitor. In recent years, large SO2 and NOX
reductions from power plants have occurred in Pennsylvania and states
upwind from the Greater Pittsburgh region. Based on existing CSAPR
budgets, Pennsylvania's energy sector emissions of SO2 will
have decreased 166,000 tons between 2015-2017 as a result of CSAPR
implementation. This is due to both the installation of emissions
controls and retirements of electric generating units (EGUs) (see the
TSD for more details). Projected power plant closures and additional
emissions controls in Pennsylvania and upwind states will help further
reduce both direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors.
Regional emission reductions will continue to occur from current on-
the-books Federal and state regulations such as the Federal on-road and
non-road vehicle programs, and various rules for major stationary
emissions sources.
In addition to regional emissions reductions and plant closures,
additional local reductions of both direct PM2.5 and
SO2 emissions are expected to occur and should also
contribute to further declines in Allegheny County's PM2.5
monitor concentrations. For example, significant SO2
reductions have recently occurred at US Steel's integrated steel mill
facilities in southern Allegheny County as part of a 1-hr
SO2 NAAQS SIP.\2\ Reductions are largely due to declining
sulfur content in the Clairton Coke Work's coke oven gas (COG). Because
this COG is burned at US Steel's Clairton Coke Works, Irvin Mill, and
Edgar Thompson Steel Mill, these reductions in sulfur content should
contribute to much lower PM2.5 precursor emissions in the
immediate future. The Allegheny SO2 SIP also projects lower
SO2 emissions resulting from vehicle fuel standards,
reductions in general emissions due to declining population in the
Greater Pittsburgh region and several shutdowns of significant sources
of emissions in Allegheny County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.achd.net/air/publichearing2017/SO2_2010_NAAQS_SIP_5-1-2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA modeling projections, the recent downward trend in local and
upwind emissions reductions, the expected continued downward trend in
emissions between 2017 and 2021, and the downward trend in monitored
PM2.5 concentrations, all indicate that the Liberty monitor
will attain and be able to maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS by 2021.
With respect to Florida, in the CSAPR modeling analysis for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 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, 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.
However, 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 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition,
the highest preliminary value for these observed monitors is 7.5 [mu]g/
m\3\ at the Miami-Dade County monitor (12-086-1016), which is well
below the 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 all well below the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. This is also consistent with historical data:
complete and valid design values in the 2006-2008 and/or 2007-2009
periods for these counties were well below the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. For these reasons, we find that none of the
counties in Florida with monitoring gaps between 2009-2013 should be
considered either nonattainment or maintenance receptors for the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. For these reasons, we propose to find
that emissions from Minnesota will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in Florida. We find further support in the fact
that EPA's source apportionment modeling predicted state impacts on
downwind monitors in 2012 under the base case scenario in our original
CSAPR analysis, showing little impact from Minnesota to any of
Florida's counties.
[[Page 39975]]
The conclusions of Minnesota's analysis are consistent with EPA's
expanded review of its January 23, 2017 submittal. All areas that
Minnesota sources potentially contribute to attain and maintain the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and as demonstrated in its
submittal, Minnesota will not contribute to projected nonattainment or
maintenance issues at any sites in 2021. Minnesota's analysis shows
that through permanent and enforceable measures currently contained in
its SIP, and other emissions reductions occurring in Minnesota and in
other states, monitored PM2.5 air quality in all identified
areas that Minnesota sources may impact will continue to improve, and
that no further measures are necessary to satisfy Minnesota's
responsibilities under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Therefore, EPA
is proposing that prongs one and two of the interstate pollution
transport element of Minnesota's infrastructure SIP are approvable.
IV. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve a portion of Minnesota's January 23,
2017 submittal certifying that the current Minnesota SIP is sufficient
to meet the required infrastructure requirements under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), specifically prongs one and two, as set forth
above. EPA is requesting comments on the proposed approval.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; 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.
Dated: July 30, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018-17362 Filed 8-10-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
