Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5, 56777-56781 [2018-24817]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules
• 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: October 30, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018–24815 Filed 11–13–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0191; FRL–9986–30–
Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Michigan;
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 Michigan
regarding the infrastructure
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:15 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
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 December 14, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2017–0191 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
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?
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56777
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 Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality
dated March 23, 2017, which describes
its infrastructure SIP for the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR 3086).
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 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 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).
E:\FR\FM\14NOP1.SGM
14NOP1
56778
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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. Michigan’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 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 PM2.5 NAAQS, it
may be appropriate to evaluate
projected air quality in 2021, which is
the attainment deadline for 2012 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
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:15 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
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 NAAQS in
the 2009–2013 period, the modeling
data shows that monitors were 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 also 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 also 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
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.
Michigan’s submittal indicates that
the state used data from the 2016
memorandum in its analysis. EPA
considered the analysis from Michigan,
as well as additional analysis conducted
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
by EPA, in its review of the Michigan
submittal.
III. EPA’s Review
This rulemaking proposes action on
the portion of Michigan’s March 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
Michigan’s March 23, 2017 submission,
to determine whether Michigan’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 prong one
and two interstate transport
requirements 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
E:\FR\FM\14NOP1.SGM
14NOP1
56779
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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.
Michigan’s March 23, 2017
submission indicates that the
implementation of the Michigan SIP for
SO2 will result in SO2 reductions of over
11,000 tons per year through permit
changes and Rule 336.1430 in the
Michigan Administrative Code
(Michigan R 336.1430). The submission
indicates that rules R 336.1301 through
R 336.1374 in the Michigan SIP limit
emissions of particulate matter
throughout the state. The submission
indicates that rules R 336.1401 through
R 336.1420 and R 336.1407 reduce SO2
emissions throughout the state, and that
rule R 336.1430 reduces SO2 emissions
in the Detroit area. The submission
indicates that rules R 336.1801 through
336.1834 limit emissions of NO2
throughout the state. In addition,
Michigan’s submission indicates that
power plant retirements across the state
have resulted in reductions of
approximately 9,800 tons of NOX and
30,990 tons of SO2 per year.
Michigan’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 Michigan
sources’ contribution to monitored
PM2.5 air quality values in other states
and whether Michigan would need to
take further steps to decrease its
emissions to (and therefore impacts on)
those areas. Michigan’s technical
analysis considers CSAPR rule
implementation, EPA guidance and
memoranda, and other factors such as
meteorology and state-wide emissions
inventories. Michigan did not focus on
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 Michigan these
areas, coupled with the prevailing wind
directions, leads EPA to propose to find
that Michigan will not contribute
significantly to any of the potential
receptors in those states.
With respect to Illinois, EPA’s source
apportionment modeling in our original
CSAPR analysis predicts that
Michigan’s emissions impact Illinois
monitors. Michigan found, and our
review confirmed, that despite the fact
that Michigan emissions potentially
contribute to increases in PM2.5 levels
monitored in Illinois, all areas in Illinois
are attaining the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS based on 2015–2017 data.
EPA considered available data from
monitors in Illinois for its analysis of
Michigan’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
Design
value
(μg/m3)
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
9.5
17–031–0022
9.3
17–031–0052
9.1
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
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
+ Data
incomplete.
Illinois’ air quality trends reflect what
is shown across the nation: A general
downward trend in ambient air
concentrations, including sites that
Michigan 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
Michigan, and for this reason, we
propose to find that Michigan will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment or maintenance problems
in Illinois.
Michigan found, and our review
confirmed, that despite the fact that
Michigan emissions potentially increase
PM2.5 levels monitored in areas in other
states, all of those areas are attaining the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on
2014–2016 data. Michigan found, and
our review confirmed, that despite the
fact that Michigan emissions potentially
increase PM2.5 levels monitored in
Pennsylvania, all areas in Pennsylvania
except for Allegheny County are
attaining the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
based on 2015–2017 data.
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.
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 3). The 2015–2017
annual average PM2.5 design values now
show that only one monitor (Liberty, at
13.0 mg/m3) exceeds the health-based
annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 mg/m3.
TABLE 3—PM2.5 ANNUAL DESIGN VALUES IN μg/m3
Monitor
2005–2007
2006–2008
2007–2009
2008–2010
2009–2011
2010–2012
2011–2013
2012–2014
2013–2015
2014–2016
2015–2017
Avalon .............
Lawrenceville ...
Liberty ..............
..................
15.0
19.8
..................
14.0
18.3
..................
13.1
17.0
* 16.3
12.2
16.0
* 14.7
11.6
15.0
13.4
11.1
14.8
11.4
10.3
13.4
10.6
10.0
13.0
10.6
9.7
12.6
* 10.4
9.5
12.8
* 10.2
9.2
13.0
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14NOP1.SGM
14NOP1
56780
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—PM2.5 ANNUAL DESIGN VALUES IN μg/m3—Continued
Monitor
South Fayette ..
North Park .......
Harrison ...........
North Braddock
Parkway East
Near-Road ...
Clairton ............
2005–2007
2006–2008
2007–2009
2008–2010
2009–2011
2010–2012
2011–2013
2012–2014
2013–2015
2014–2016
2015–2017
12.9
* 13.0
15.0
16.2
* 11.8
* 12.3
14.2
15.2
11.7
* 11.3
13.7
14.3
11.1
* 10.1
13.0
13.3
11.0
9.7
12.4
12.7
10.5
9.4
* 11.7
12.5
9.6
8.8
10.6
* 11.7
9.0
8.5
10.0
11.4
8.8
8.5
9.8
11.2
* 8.5
* 8.2
9.8
11.0
* 8.4
* 8.2
9.8
10.8
..................
15.3
..................
14.3
..................
13.2
..................
12.4
..................
* 11.5
..................
* 10.9
..................
* 9.8
..................
9.5
..................
9.8
* 10.6
* 9.8
* 10.6
* 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 three
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).
Between 2011 and 2016, 27.4
gigawatts of coal-fired EGUs have
retired in Pennsylvania and the closest
upwind states (West Virginia, Ohio,
Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and
Michigan) according to the Energy
Information Administration’s
Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator
Inventory, April 2017 (form EIA–860M,
at https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/
eia860m/xls/april_generator2017.xlsx).
In addition, between 2017 and 2021, an
additional 8.8 gigawatts of coal-fired
EGUs are expected to retire in the same
upwind states. This includes large EGUs
such as JM Stuart in Ohio (2,308
megawatts [MW]), Killen Station in
Ohio (600 MW), WH Sammis in Ohio
(720 MW), Michigan City in Indiana
(469 MW), Will County in Illinois (510
MW), Baldwin Energy Complex in
Illinois (576 MW), Paradise in Kentucky
(1,230 MW), and Baily in Indiana (480
MW). These regional coal unit
retirements will lead to further
emissions reductions which will help
ensure that Alleghany County monitors
will not have nonattainment or
maintenance issues by 2021.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
In addition to regional emissions
reductions and plant closures noted
above, additional local reductions in
both direct PM2.5 and SO2 emissions are
also expected to occur and should also
contribute to further declines in
Allegheny County’s PM2.5 monitor
concentrations. For example, significant
SO2 reductions will occur at U.S. Steel’s
integrated steel mill facilities in
southern Allegheny County due to
reductions required via federallyenforceable permits issued by Allegheny
County to support its attainment plan
submitted to meet requirements in CAA
section 172(c) for the 1-hr SO2 NAAQS.
Reductions are expected by October
2018 largely due to declining sulfur
content in the Clairton Coke Work’s
coke oven gas (COG) due to upgraded
controls. Because this COG is burned at
U.S. Steel’s Clairton Coke Works, Irvin
Mill, and Edgar Thompson Steel Mill,
these reductions in sulfur content
should contribute to much lower PM2.5
emissions from precursors in the
immediate future after October 4, 2018
as SO2 is a precursor to PM2.5.
Additionally, improvement in SO2
removal efficiency due to an upgrade in
the Bruce Mansfield Power Plant’s flue
gas desulfurization (FGD) units
expected by October 2018 should also
help reduce precursor emissions from
neighboring Beaver County,
Pennsylvania. The Allegheny County
and Beaver County SO2 SIP
submissions, which EPA is reviewing
pursuant to CAA requirements, also
discuss expected lower SO2 emissions
in the Allegheny County area resulting
from reduced sulfur content
requirements in vehicle fuels,
reductions in general emissions due to
declining population in the Greater
Pittsburgh region, and several
shutdowns of significant emitters of SO2
in Allegheny County.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 to 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.1
Reductions are largely due to declining
sulfur content in the Clairton Coke
Work’s 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 2018 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
1 https://www.achd.net/air/publichearing2017/
SO2_2010_NAAQS_SIP_5-1-2017.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\14NOP1.SGM
14NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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 indicates design
values well below the level of the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, the
highest value for these observed
monitors is 8.0 mg/m3 at the
Hillsborough County monitor (12–057–
3002), 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 Michigan 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 predicting
state impacts on downwind monitors in
2012 under the base case scenario in our
original CSAPR analysis, showing little
impact from Michigan to any of
Florida’s counties.
The conclusions of Michigan’s
analysis are consistent with EPA’s
expanded review of its March 23, 2017
submittal. All areas that Michigan
sources potentially contribute to are
expected to attain and maintain the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and as
demonstrated in its submittal, Michigan
will not contribute to projected
nonattainment or maintenance issues at
any sites in 2021. Michigan’s analysis
shows that through permanent and
enforceable measures currently
contained in its SIP, and other
emissions reductions occurring in
Michigan and in other states, monitored
PM2.5 air quality in all identified areas
that Michigan sources may impact will
continue to improve, and that no further
measures are necessary to satisfy
Michigan’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 Michigan’s infrastructure SIP
are approvable.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:15 Nov 13, 2018
Jkt 247001
IV. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve a portion
of Michigan’s March 23, 2017, submittal
certifying that the current Michigan 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
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56781
• 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: October 29, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018–24817 Filed 11–13–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0226; FRL–9986–44–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AT97
Determinations of Attainment by the
Attainment Date, Extensions of the
Attainment Date, and Reclassification
of Several Areas Classified as
Moderate for the 2008 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing three actions
related to the attainment date for 11
areas classified as ‘‘Moderate’’ for the
2008 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). First, the
agency is proposing to determine that
two areas—the Baltimore, Maryland,
and Mariposa County, California,
nonattainment areas—attained the
standard by the July 20, 2018,
attainment date. Second, the agency is
proposing to grant requests for a 1-year
attainment date extension to two other
areas: Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft.
Collins-Loveland, Colorado, and
Sheboygan County, Wisconsin. Third,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14NOP1.SGM
14NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 14, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56777-56781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24817]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0191; FRL-9986-30-Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Michigan; 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
Michigan 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 December 14, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2017-0191 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 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 Michigan Department
of Environmental Quality dated March 23, 2017, which describes its
infrastructure SIP for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR
3086). 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 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 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).
[[Page 56778]]
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. Michigan'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 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
PM2.5 NAAQS, it may be appropriate to evaluate projected air
quality in 2021, which is the attainment deadline for 2012
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 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 NAAQS in the
2009-2013 period, the modeling data shows that monitors were 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 also 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 also 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 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.
Michigan's submittal indicates that the state used data from the
2016 memorandum in its analysis. EPA considered the analysis from
Michigan, as well as additional analysis conducted by EPA, in its
review of the Michigan submittal.
III. EPA's Review
This rulemaking proposes action on the portion of Michigan's March
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 Michigan's March 23, 2017 submission,
to determine whether Michigan'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 prong
one and two interstate transport requirements 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
[[Page 56779]]
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.
Michigan's March 23, 2017 submission indicates that the
implementation of the Michigan SIP for SO2 will result in
SO2 reductions of over 11,000 tons per year through permit
changes and Rule 336.1430 in the Michigan Administrative Code (Michigan
R 336.1430). The submission indicates that rules R 336.1301 through R
336.1374 in the Michigan SIP limit emissions of particulate matter
throughout the state. The submission indicates that rules R 336.1401
through R 336.1420 and R 336.1407 reduce SO2 emissions
throughout the state, and that rule R 336.1430 reduces SO2
emissions in the Detroit area. The submission indicates that rules R
336.1801 through 336.1834 limit emissions of NO2 throughout
the state. In addition, Michigan's submission indicates that power
plant retirements across the state have resulted in reductions of
approximately 9,800 tons of NOX and 30,990 tons of
SO2 per year.
Michigan'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 Michigan
sources' contribution to monitored PM2.5 air quality values
in other states and whether Michigan would need to take further steps
to decrease its emissions to (and therefore impacts on) those areas.
Michigan's technical analysis considers CSAPR rule implementation, EPA
guidance and memoranda, and other factors such as meteorology and
state-wide emissions inventories. Michigan did not focus on 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 Michigan these areas, coupled with the
prevailing wind directions, leads EPA to propose to find that Michigan
will not contribute significantly to any of the potential receptors in
those states.
With respect to Illinois, EPA's source apportionment modeling in
our original CSAPR analysis predicts that Michigan's emissions impact
Illinois monitors. Michigan found, and our review confirmed, that
despite the fact that Michigan emissions potentially contribute to
increases in PM2.5 levels monitored in Illinois, all areas
in Illinois are attaining the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based
on 2015-2017 data.
EPA considered available data from monitors in Illinois for its
analysis of Michigan'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
Design
Local site name Monitoring 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 Michigan 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 Michigan, and for this
reason, we propose to find that Michigan will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or maintenance problems in Illinois.
Michigan found, and our review confirmed, that despite the fact
that Michigan emissions potentially increase PM2.5 levels
monitored in areas in other states, all of those areas are attaining
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2014-2016 data.
Michigan found, and our review confirmed, that despite the fact that
Michigan emissions potentially increase PM2.5 levels
monitored in Pennsylvania, all areas in Pennsylvania except for
Allegheny County are attaining the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
based on 2015-2017 data.
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.
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 [micro]g/m\3\, as shown in
Table 3). The 2015-2017 annual average PM2.5 design values
now show that only one monitor (Liberty, at 13.0 [micro]g/m\3\) exceeds
the health-based annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\.
Table 3--PM2.5 Annual Design Values in [micro]g/m3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor 2005-2007 2006-2008 2007-2009 2008-2010 2009-2011 2010-2012 2011-2013 2012-2014 2013-2015 2014-2016 2015-2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avalon...................................................... .......... .......... .......... * 16.3 * 14.7 13.4 11.4 10.6 10.6 * 10.4 * 10.2
Lawrenceville............................................... 15.0 14.0 13.1 12.2 11.6 11.1 10.3 10.0 9.7 9.5 9.2
Liberty..................................................... 19.8 18.3 17.0 16.0 15.0 14.8 13.4 13.0 12.6 12.8 13.0
[[Page 56780]]
South Fayette............................................... 12.9 * 11.8 11.7 11.1 11.0 10.5 9.6 9.0 8.8 * 8.5 * 8.4
North Park.................................................. * 13.0 * 12.3 * 11.3 * 10.1 9.7 9.4 8.8 8.5 8.5 * 8.2 * 8.2
Harrison.................................................... 15.0 14.2 13.7 13.0 12.4 * 11.7 10.6 10.0 9.8 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 10.8
Parkway East Near-Road...................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... * 10.6 * 10.6
Clairton.................................................... 15.3 14.3 13.2 12.4 * 11.5 * 10.9 * 9.8 9.5 9.8 * 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 three 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).
Between 2011 and 2016, 27.4 gigawatts of coal-fired EGUs have
retired in Pennsylvania and the closest upwind states (West Virginia,
Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan) according to the
Energy Information Administration's Preliminary Monthly Electric
Generator Inventory, April 2017 (form EIA-860M, at https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860m/xls/april_generator2017.xlsx). In addition,
between 2017 and 2021, an additional 8.8 gigawatts of coal-fired EGUs
are expected to retire in the same upwind states. This includes large
EGUs such as JM Stuart in Ohio (2,308 megawatts [MW]), Killen Station
in Ohio (600 MW), WH Sammis in Ohio (720 MW), Michigan City in Indiana
(469 MW), Will County in Illinois (510 MW), Baldwin Energy Complex in
Illinois (576 MW), Paradise in Kentucky (1,230 MW), and Baily in
Indiana (480 MW). These regional coal unit retirements will lead to
further emissions reductions which will help ensure that Alleghany
County monitors will not have nonattainment or maintenance issues by
2021.
In addition to regional emissions reductions and plant closures
noted above, additional local reductions in both direct
PM2.5 and SO2 emissions are also expected to
occur and should also contribute to further declines in Allegheny
County's PM2.5 monitor concentrations. For example,
significant SO2 reductions will occur at U.S. Steel's
integrated steel mill facilities in southern Allegheny County due to
reductions required via federally-enforceable permits issued by
Allegheny County to support its attainment plan submitted to meet
requirements in CAA section 172(c) for the 1-hr SO2 NAAQS.
Reductions are expected by October 2018 largely due to declining sulfur
content in the Clairton Coke Work's coke oven gas (COG) due to upgraded
controls. Because this COG is burned at U.S. Steel's Clairton Coke
Works, Irvin Mill, and Edgar Thompson Steel Mill, these reductions in
sulfur content should contribute to much lower PM2.5
emissions from precursors in the immediate future after October 4, 2018
as SO2 is a precursor to PM2.5. Additionally,
improvement in SO2 removal efficiency due to an upgrade in
the Bruce Mansfield Power Plant's flue gas desulfurization (FGD) units
expected by October 2018 should also help reduce precursor emissions
from neighboring Beaver County, Pennsylvania. The Allegheny County and
Beaver County SO2 SIP submissions, which EPA is reviewing
pursuant to CAA requirements, also discuss expected lower
SO2 emissions in the Allegheny County area resulting from
reduced sulfur content requirements in vehicle fuels, reductions in
general emissions due to declining population in the Greater Pittsburgh
region, and several shutdowns of significant emitters of SO2
in Allegheny County.
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 to 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.\1\ Reductions are largely due to declining
sulfur content in the Clairton Coke Work's 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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 2018 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
[[Page 56781]]
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 indicates design values well below the
level of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, the
highest value for these observed monitors is 8.0 [mu]g/m\3\ at the
Hillsborough County monitor (12-057-3002), 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 Michigan 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 predicting state impacts on
downwind monitors in 2012 under the base case scenario in our original
CSAPR analysis, showing little impact from Michigan to any of Florida's
counties.
The conclusions of Michigan's analysis are consistent with EPA's
expanded review of its March 23, 2017 submittal. All areas that
Michigan sources potentially contribute to are expected to attain and
maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and as demonstrated in
its submittal, Michigan will not contribute to projected nonattainment
or maintenance issues at any sites in 2021. Michigan's analysis shows
that through permanent and enforceable measures currently contained in
its SIP, and other emissions reductions occurring in Michigan and in
other states, monitored PM2.5 air quality in all identified
areas that Michigan sources may impact will continue to improve, and
that no further measures are necessary to satisfy Michigan'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 Michigan's infrastructure SIP are approvable.
IV. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve a portion of Michigan's March 23, 2017,
submittal certifying that the current Michigan 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 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.
Dated: October 29, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018-24817 Filed 11-13-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
