Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5, 18191-18195 [2019-08627]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 83 / Tuesday, April 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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, Ozone.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 24, 2019.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2019–08711 Filed 4–29–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2018–0840 FRL–9992–92–
Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin;
Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Interstate
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 the
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) 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 CAA. This action
pertains specifically to infrastructure
requirements in the Wisconsin SIP
concerning interstate transport
provisions.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 30, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2018–0840 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
aburano.douglas@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.
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Apr 29, 2019
Jkt 247001
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:
Samantha Panock, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604, (312) 353–8973,
panock.samantha@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. WDNR’s Analysis and Conclusion
IV. EPA’s Additional Analysis, Review, and
Conclusion
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background of this SIP
submission?
This rulemaking addresses a
submission from the WDNR dated
November 26, 2018, which describes its
infrastructure SIP for the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR 3086, January 15,
2013). 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 which 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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18191
revision thereof),’’ a plan that provides
for the ‘‘implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement’’ of such NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA includes a
list of specific elements that ‘‘each such
plan’’ submission must address. EPA
commonly refers to such state plans as
‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ State plans must
address four requirements of the good
neighbor provisions (commonly referred
to as ‘‘prongs’’), including:
— Prong 1: Prohibiting any source or
other type of emissions activity in one
state from contributing significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state;
—Prong 2: Prohibiting any source or
other type of emissions activity in one
state from interfering with maintenance
of the NAAQS in another state;
—Prong 3: 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; and
—Prong 4: Protecting visibility in
another state.
This rulemaking is evaluating
whether Wisconsin’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
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
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
18192
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 83 / Tuesday, April 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
standards, as well as the 1997 and 2008
ozone standards.
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.’’ 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).’’
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. In the 2016
memorandum, EPA reviewed relevant
modeling data and provided EPA’s 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 CAA section 110 (a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ‘‘good
neighbor’’ provision in infrastructure
SIPs with respect to the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. WDNR’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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Apr 29, 2019
Jkt 247001
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 monitoring site in the
eastern United States, with complete
and valid PM2.5 design values from 2009
to 2013, 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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. Except for
four counties in Florida, the data quality
problems have 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 nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2).
WDNR’s submittal indicates that the
State used data from the 2016
memorandum and supplied its own
additional information in its analysis.
EPA considered the analysis from
WDNR, as well as additional analysis
conducted by EPA, in its review of the
WDNR submittal.
III. WDNR’s Analysis and Conclusion
WDNR’s submittal contains a
technical analysis of its interstate
transport of pollution relative to the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. As reflected
in the EPA’s 2016 memorandum, the
only receptor identified as
nonattainment or maintenance on
which Wisconsin was deemed to have
potential significant impact is the
Liberty monitor (42–003–0064) in
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania located
in southwest Pennsylvania. In its
technical analysis, WDNR examined
geographical, monitoring, and emission
factors to evaluate impacts on the
Allegheny monitor. As stated
previously, WDNR’s technical analysis
considers CSAPR rule implementation
and EPA guidance and memoranda.
WDNR did not focus on potential
contribution to other 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 Wisconsin and these areas,
coupled with the prevailing wind
directions, leads WDNR to conclude
that Wisconsin will not contribute
significantly to any of the potential
receptors in those states. Since the
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania,
receptor is the only location considered
downwind of Wisconsin, this
submission focuses on that single
receptor. WDNR concluded that
Wisconsin contributes no significant
impacts to the maintenance and
attainment of NAAQS for PM2.5 in
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
18193
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 83 / Tuesday, April 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, and
therefore existing measures satisfy
Wisconsin’s responsibilities under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
WDNR’s submission discussed
geographical factors that show
Wisconsin does not contribute to the
nonattainment issues at the Allegheny
monitor. As stated in WDNR’s
submittal, Wisconsin’s nearest point to
the Allegheny monitor is about 500
miles away. At this large distance, PM2.5
precursor emissions from Wisconsin are
thoroughly dispersed in the atmosphere
long before reaching Pennsylvania.
WDNR’s submission evaluated
monitored PM2.5 concentrations in
Wisconsin. WDNR found that PM2.5
monitors in all regions of Wisconsin
have measured a steady decrease in
annual PM2.5 concentrations over the
past decade. PM2.5 design values
decreased by around 37% on average in
most of the state between 2001–2003
and 2015 to 2017.
WDNR’s submission also evaluated
the Wisconsin emissions data from
EPA’s National Emissions Inventory
(NEI) of NOX, SO2, and Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs). Emissions of NOX
and SO2 have been steadily decreasing
since the early 2000s due to state and
Federal control requirements. The
emissions of NOX and SO2 in Wisconsin
from all identified sources have
decreased by 50% and 68%,
respectively, since 2002. VOC emissions
also decreased 50% over this period.
WDNR concludes that that no further
measures are necessary to satisfy
Wisconsin’s responsibilities under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), because
Wisconsin does not contribute to
projected nonattainment or maintenance
issues at the Liberty monitor site.
WDNR found that is has not historically
contributed significantly to any of the
areas projected to have nonattainment
or maintenance concerns related to this
NAAQS. In addition, emissions of PM2.5
precursors and monitored PM2.5
concentrations are both decreasing
within the State. Therefore, the
permanent and enforceable control
measures already being implemented in
Wisconsin are sufficient to ensure that
emissions in the State will not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, in any downwind state for
this NAAQS.
IV. EPA’s Additional Analysis, Review,
and Conclusion
The modeling information contained
in EPA’s 2016 memorandum shows that
one monitor in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania (the Liberty monitor,
420030064) may have a maintenance
issue in 2017, but is projected to both
attain and maintain the NAAQS by
2025. Monitoring data from 2015–2017
show attainment county-wide, except
for the Liberty-Clairton area. The Liberty
monitor was exceeding standards in
2017 but is still projected to 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, SO2, and 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
micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), as
shown in Table 1). 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 1—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
Avalon ....... .................... .................... ....................
* 16.3
* 14.7
13.4
11.4
10.6
10.6
Lawrenceville ............
15.0
14.0
13.1
12.2
11.6
11.1
10.3
10.0
9.7
Liberty ........
19.8
18.3
17.0
16.0
15.0
14.8
13.4
13.0
12.6
South Fayette .........
12.9
* 11.8
11.7
11.1
11.0
10.5
9.6
9.0
8.8
North Park
* 13.0
* 12.3
* 11.3
* 10.1
9.7
9.4
8.8
8.5
8.5
Harrison .....
15.0
14.2
13.7
13.0
12.4
* 11.7
10.6
10.0
9.8
North Braddock .......
16.2
15.2
14.3
13.3
12.7
12.5
* 11.7
11.4
11.2
Parkway
East
NearRoad ...... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................
Clairton ......
15.3
14.3
13.2
12.4
* 11.5
* 10.9
* 9.8
9.5
9.8
2014–2016
2015–2017
* 10.4
* 10.2
9.5
12.8
9.2
13.0
* 8.5
* 8.2
9.8
* 8.4
* 8.2
9.8
11.0
10.8
* 10.6
* 9.8
* 10.6
* 9.8
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
* Value does not contain a complete year 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Apr 29, 2019
Jkt 247001
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 because of CSAPR
implementation. This is due to both the
installation of emissions controls and
retirements of electric generating units.
Between 2011 and 2016, 27.4
gigawatts of coal-fired electric
generation units (EGUs) have retired in
Pennsylvania and the closest upwind
states (West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky,
Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan)
according to the Energy Information
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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), Baldwin Energy Complex in
Illinois (576 MW), Paradise in Kentucky
(1,230 MW), and Baily in Indiana (480
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
18194
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 83 / Tuesday, April 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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 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 occurred in 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 contribute
to much lower PM2.5 formation from
precursors after October 4, 2018 as SO2
is a precursor to PM2.5. Additionally, the
expected retirement of the Bruce
Mansfield Power Plant by June 2021
should 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.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Apr 29, 2019
Jkt 247001
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, EPA
anticipates 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 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. 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.
Accordingly, we propose to find that
emissions from Wisconsin will not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS in Florida.
The conclusions of WDNR’s analysis
is consistent with EPA’s expanded
review of its submittal. The area
(Allegheny County, Pennsylvania) to
which Wisconsin’s sources potentially
contribute is expected to attain and
maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, and as demonstrated in
WDNR’s submittal, Wisconsin will not
contribute to projected nonattainment or
maintenance issues at any sites in 2021.
WDNR’s analysis shows that through
permanent and enforceable measures
currently contained in its SIP and other
emissions reductions occurring in
Wisconsin, monitored PM2.5 air quality
in the identified area that Wisconsin
sources may impact will continue to
improve, and that no further measures
are necessary to satisfy Wisconsin’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 Wisconsin’s infrastructure
SIP are approvable.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
V. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve a portion
of WDNR’s November 26, 2018
submittal certifying that the current
Wisconsin 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.
VI. 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.
See 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
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 83 / Tuesday, April 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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: April 17, 2019.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019–08627 Filed 4–29–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0462; FRL–9992–93–
Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Indiana;
Redesignation of the Indianapolis
Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to
redesignate the Indianapolis area from
nonattainment to attainment for the
2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) standard. The
area consists of Perry and Wayne
Townships in Marion County, Indiana.
EPA is also proposing to approve
Indiana’s maintenance plan for this
area.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received on
or before May 30, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2017–0462 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
aburano.douglas@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
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Apr 29, 2019
Jkt 247001
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:
Samantha Panock, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604, (312)353–8973,
panock.samantha@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. Background
II. Redesignation Requirements
A. Determination of Attainment
B. Permanent and Enforceable Emission
Reductions
C. Requirements for the Area Under
Section 110 and Part D
D. Fully Approved SIP Under Section
110(k)
E. Maintenance Plan
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA
published a revised primary SO2
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion (ppb),
which is met at a monitoring site when
the 3-year average of the annual 99th
percentile of daily maximum 1-hour
concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb.
This NAAQS was codified at 40 CFR
50.4. On July 25, 2013 (78 FR 47191),
EPA published its initial air quality
designations for the SO2 NAAQS based
upon air quality monitoring data for
calendar years 2009–2011. In that
action, the Marion county area
comprised of Perry and Wayne
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18195
Townships was designated
nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS
(Indianapolis nonattainment area).
Indiana was required to submit a
nonattainment State Implementation
Plan (SIP) that meets the requirements
of sections 172(c) and 191–192 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) and provide for
attainment of the SO2 NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than April 4, 2015, which represents
five years after the area was originally
designated as nonattainment under the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. SO2 emissions from
all sources within the nonattainment
area totaled 24,021 tons in 2011, and
15,312 tons in 2015. Due to a variety of
factors, there has been a significant,
permanent and enforceable reduction in
SO2 emissions within the Indianapolis
area. In addition, the area’s SO2
monitors’ 3-year SO2 design values 1 for
2014–2016 had fallen below the SO2
NAAQS. Consequently, the Indiana
Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) submitted a
redesignation request on July 10, 2017.
For the reasons set forth in this
document, EPA is proposing to
redesignate the area to attainment.
II. Redesignation Requirements
Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), there
are five criteria which must be met
before a nonattainment area may be
redesignated to attainment.
1. EPA has determined that the
relevant NAAQS has been attained in
the area.
2. The applicable implementation
plan has been fully approved by EPA
under section 110(k).
3. EPA has determined that
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from the SIP,
Federal regulations, and other
permanent and enforceable reductions.
4. EPA has fully approved a
maintenance plan, including a
contingency plan, for the area under
section 175A of the CAA.
5. The State has met all applicable
requirements for the area under section
110 and part D.
A. Determination of Attainment
For redesignation of a nonattainment
area to attainment, the CAA requires
EPA to determine that the area has
attained the applicable NAAQS (CAA
1 The design value is a statistic computed
according to the data handling procedures of the
NAAQS (in 40 CFR part 50 appendix T) that, by
comparison to the level of the NAAQS, indicates
whether the area is violating the NAAQS. For SO2,
the design value is the 3-year average of the annual
99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations.
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 30, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18191-18195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08627]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0840 FRL-9992-92-Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Interstate 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
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) 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 CAA. This action pertains specifically
to infrastructure requirements in the Wisconsin SIP concerning
interstate transport provisions.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 30, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2018-0840 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: Samantha Panock, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8973,
[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. WDNR's Analysis and Conclusion
IV. EPA's Additional Analysis, Review, and Conclusion
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background of this SIP submission?
This rulemaking addresses a submission from the WDNR dated November
26, 2018, which describes its infrastructure SIP for the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013). 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 which 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. Section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA includes a list of specific elements that ``each such plan''
submission must address. EPA commonly refers to such state plans as
``infrastructure SIPs.'' State plans must address four requirements of
the good neighbor provisions (commonly referred to as ``prongs''),
including:
-- Prong 1: Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment
of the NAAQS in another state;
--Prong 2: Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in
another state;
--Prong 3: 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; and
--Prong 4: Protecting visibility in another state.
This rulemaking is evaluating whether Wisconsin'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
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
[[Page 18192]]
standards, as well as the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards.
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.'' 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).''
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. In the 2016 memorandum, EPA reviewed relevant modeling data
and provided EPA's 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 CAA section 110
(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``good neighbor'' provision in infrastructure SIPs with
respect to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. WDNR'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 monitoring site
in the eastern United States, with complete and valid PM2.5
design values from 2009 to 2013, 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.
Except for four counties in Florida, the data quality problems have
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 nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2).
WDNR's submittal indicates that the State used data from the 2016
memorandum and supplied its own additional information in its analysis.
EPA considered the analysis from WDNR, as well as additional analysis
conducted by EPA, in its review of the WDNR submittal.
III. WDNR's Analysis and Conclusion
WDNR's submittal contains a technical analysis of its interstate
transport of pollution relative to the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. As reflected in the EPA's 2016 memorandum, the only receptor
identified as nonattainment or maintenance on which Wisconsin was
deemed to have potential significant impact is the Liberty monitor (42-
003-0064) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania located in southwest
Pennsylvania. In its technical analysis, WDNR examined geographical,
monitoring, and emission factors to evaluate impacts on the Allegheny
monitor. As stated previously, WDNR's technical analysis considers
CSAPR rule implementation and EPA guidance and memoranda. WDNR did not
focus on potential contribution to other 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
Wisconsin and these areas, coupled with the prevailing wind directions,
leads WDNR to conclude that Wisconsin will not contribute significantly
to any of the potential receptors in those states. Since the Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania, receptor is the only location considered downwind
of Wisconsin, this submission focuses on that single receptor. WDNR
concluded that Wisconsin contributes no significant impacts to the
maintenance and attainment of NAAQS for PM2.5 in
[[Page 18193]]
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, and therefore existing measures satisfy
Wisconsin's responsibilities under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
WDNR's submission discussed geographical factors that show
Wisconsin does not contribute to the nonattainment issues at the
Allegheny monitor. As stated in WDNR's submittal, Wisconsin's nearest
point to the Allegheny monitor is about 500 miles away. At this large
distance, PM2.5 precursor emissions from Wisconsin are
thoroughly dispersed in the atmosphere long before reaching
Pennsylvania.
WDNR's submission evaluated monitored PM2.5
concentrations in Wisconsin. WDNR found that PM2.5 monitors
in all regions of Wisconsin have measured a steady decrease in annual
PM2.5 concentrations over the past decade. PM2.5
design values decreased by around 37% on average in most of the state
between 2001-2003 and 2015 to 2017.
WDNR's submission also evaluated the Wisconsin emissions data from
EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI) of NOX,
SO2, and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Emissions of
NOX and SO2 have been steadily decreasing since
the early 2000s due to state and Federal control requirements. The
emissions of NOX and SO2 in Wisconsin from all
identified sources have decreased by 50% and 68%, respectively, since
2002. VOC emissions also decreased 50% over this period.
WDNR concludes that that no further measures are necessary to
satisfy Wisconsin's responsibilities under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), because Wisconsin does not contribute to projected
nonattainment or maintenance issues at the Liberty monitor site. WDNR
found that is has not historically contributed significantly to any of
the areas projected to have nonattainment or maintenance concerns
related to this NAAQS. In addition, emissions of PM2.5
precursors and monitored PM2.5 concentrations are both
decreasing within the State. Therefore, the permanent and enforceable
control measures already being implemented in Wisconsin are sufficient
to ensure that emissions in the State will not significantly contribute
to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, in any downwind state
for this NAAQS.
IV. EPA's Additional Analysis, Review, and Conclusion
The modeling information contained in EPA's 2016 memorandum shows
that one monitor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the Liberty
monitor, 420030064) may have a maintenance issue in 2017, but is
projected to both attain and maintain the NAAQS by 2025. Monitoring
data from 2015-2017 show attainment county-wide, except for the
Liberty-Clairton area. The Liberty monitor was exceeding standards in
2017 but is still projected to 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, SO2, and 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 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\), as
shown in Table 1). 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 1--PM2.5 Annual Design Values in [micro]g/m\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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 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 because of CSAPR
implementation. This is due to both the installation of emissions
controls and retirements of electric generating units.
Between 2011 and 2016, 27.4 gigawatts of coal-fired electric
generation units (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), Baldwin Energy
Complex in Illinois (576 MW), Paradise in Kentucky (1,230 MW), and
Baily in Indiana (480
[[Page 18194]]
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 occurred in 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 contribute to much lower PM2.5 formation from
precursors after October 4, 2018 as SO2 is a precursor to
PM2.5. Additionally, the expected retirement of the Bruce
Mansfield Power Plant by June 2021 should 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.
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, EPA anticipates 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
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 [micro]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. 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.
Accordingly, we propose to find that emissions from Wisconsin will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in Florida.
The conclusions of WDNR's analysis is consistent with EPA's
expanded review of its submittal. The area (Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania) to which Wisconsin's sources potentially contribute is
expected to attain and maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
and as demonstrated in WDNR's submittal, Wisconsin will not contribute
to projected nonattainment or maintenance issues at any sites in 2021.
WDNR's analysis shows that through permanent and enforceable measures
currently contained in its SIP and other emissions reductions occurring
in Wisconsin, monitored PM2.5 air quality in the identified
area that Wisconsin sources may impact will continue to improve, and
that no further measures are necessary to satisfy Wisconsin'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 Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP are approvable.
V. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve a portion of WDNR's November 26, 2018
submittal certifying that the current Wisconsin 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.
VI. 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. See 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
[[Page 18195]]
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: April 17, 2019.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019-08627 Filed 4-29-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
