Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5, 36848-36852 [2019-16076]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
36848
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules
implementing a rule in this space, as
well as in consideration of OSMRE’s
limited resources and competing
priorities, OSMRE has concluded that a
new Federal regulation is not warranted.
OSMRE is therefore withdrawing its
decision granting the petition to initiate
rulemaking first announced on February
20, 2015, at 80 FR 9256, and is closing
the associated petition for rulemaking.
III. Procedural Matters and Required
Determinations
OSMRE’s action withdraws a decision
to initiate rulemaking that neither
specifically defined regulatory
requirements nor placed them into
effect. Furthermore, this withdrawal
does not contain any new or amended
requirements. As such, today’s action
leaves OSMRE’s regulations unchanged.
OSMRE has determined that this action
will not have any adverse impacts,
economic, environmental, or otherwise.
Therefore, it is not subject to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act, the Paperwork Reduction
Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act, the National Environmental Policy
Act, or Executive Orders 12866, 13563,
12630, 13132, 12988, 13175, and 13211.
Additionally, this withdrawal is
consistent with Executive Order 13777,
Enforcing the Regulatory Reform
Agenda, which states that ‘‘[i]t is the
policy of the United States to alleviate
unnecessary regulatory burdens placed
on the American people.’’ Because this
withdrawal of a decision to initiate
rulemaking does not propose a new
regulation, the mandates of Executive
Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs, are not
applicable.
Dated: July 10, 2019.
Glenda H. Owens,
Deputy Director, Exercising the authority of
the Director, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2019–16125 Filed 7–29–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0343; FRL–9997–31–
Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Indiana;
Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Interstate
Transport
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jul 29, 2019
Jkt 247001
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
elements of a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submission from Indiana 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.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received on
or before August 29, 2019.
DATES:
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2016–0343 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.
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.
ADDRESSES:
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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/memoranda is EPA using
to evaluate this SIP submission?
III. Indiana’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 Indiana
Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) dated June 10,
2016, supplemented on December 28,
2016, which relates to its requirements
for an infrastructure SIP for the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR 3086).
Specifically, this rulemaking concerns
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.’’
State plans must address four
requirements of the good neighbor
provisions (commonly referred to as
‘‘prongs’’), including:
—Prong one: Prohibiting any source
or other type of emissions activity in
one state from contributing significantly
to nonattainment of the NAAQS in
another state;
—Prong two: Prohibiting any source
or other type of emissions activity in
one state from interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state;
—Prong three: Prohibiting any source
or other type of emissions activity in
E:\FR\FM\30JYP1.SGM
30JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
one state from interfering with measures
required to prevent significant
deterioration (PSD) of air quality in
another state; and
—Prong four: Protecting visibility in
another state.
In this rulemaking, EPA is evaluating
whether Indiana’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 prong two interstate transport
requirements with respect to the PM2.5
NAAQS in several previous Federal
rulemakings. The four basic steps of that
framework are: (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.
With respect to PM2.5, this framework
was applied 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.
II. What guidance/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, including a September 13,
2013, 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
an EPA memorandum issued on March
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jul 29, 2019
Jkt 247001
17, 2016, titled ‘‘Information on the
Interstate Transport ‘‘Good Neighbor’’
Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)’’ (2016 memorandum).
The 2016 memorandum describes EPA’s
consistent approach over the years to
address interstate transport and
provides EPA’s general review of
relevant modeling data and air quality
projections as they relate to the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
The 2016 memorandum provides
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. Where a potential
receptor is projected to show
nonattainment or maintenance in 2017,
but projected to show attainment in
2025, the 2016 memorandum suggests
that additional analysis of the emissions
and modeling may be needed to make
a further judgement regarding the
receptor status in 2021 (the attainment
deadline for moderate PM2.5 areas).
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. 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, further analysis
of the site should be performed to
determine if the site contains
nonattainment or maintenance receptor
in 2021 (the attainment deadline for
moderate PM2.5 areas). Since the
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36849
receptor is the only location considered
downwind of Indiana, this Indiana
submission focuses on that single
receptor.
However, the 2016 memorandum also
indicates that for five states (portions of
Florida, Illinois, Idaho (outside of
Shoshone County), Tennessee, and
Kentucky) 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.
With the exception of Florida, the data
quality problems have subsequently
been resolved for these areas, and they
now have design values below the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, these
areas are expected to maintain the
NAAQS due to downward emission
trends for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and
sulfur dioxide (SO2). 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. Due to the ambient monitoring
data gaps in the 2009–2013 data,
modeling was not performed to
eliminate the potential for any PM2.5
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors. It is anticipated, however,
that due to the downward trend in
emissions, Florida’s receptor status has
not changed. Therefore, Indiana does
not need to perform further analysis for
these areas listed above.
Indiana did not focus on potential
contribution to other areas EPA
identified as not attaining the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on current
monitor data in Alaska, California,
Idaho, Nevada, or Hawaii or the 18
potential PM2.5 nonattainment or
maintenance receptors, based on
modeling projections from the 2016
memorandum, in the western United
States. The distance between Indiana
and these areas, coupled with the
prevailing wind directions, leads EPA to
propose that Indiana will not contribute
significantly to any of the potential
receptors in those states.
Indiana’s submittal indicates that it
used data from the 2016 memorandum
and supplied its own additional
information in its analysis. EPA
considered the analysis from Indiana, as
well as additional analysis conducted
by EPA, in its review of the Indiana
submittal.
III. Indiana’s Analysis and Conclusion
Indiana’s submittal contains a
technical analysis of its interstate
transport of pollution relative to the
E:\FR\FM\30JYP1.SGM
30JYP1
36850
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. As reflected
in the 2016 memorandum, the only
receptor identified as nonattainment or
maintenance on which Indiana might
have an impact is the Liberty monitor
(42–003–0064) in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania located in southwest
Pennsylvania. In this technical analysis,
Indiana examined meteorological
conditions, backward trajectories, PM2.5
measurements, and source emissions
within the southwest Pennsylvania
airshed. As stated previously, Indiana’s
technical analysis considers CSAPR rule
implementation and EPA guidance and
memoranda. Since the Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania receptor is the
only location considered downwind of
Indiana, this submission focuses on that
single receptor. Indiana concluded that
it has no significant impacts on the
attainment and maintenance of the
PM2.5 NAAQS in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania. Indiana satisfies the
responsibilities under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) based on these analyses
presented in the Indiana submission:
—IDEM selected daily PM2.5
concentrations at the Liberty monitor
that exceed the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour
NAAQS of 35 mg/m3 (micrograms per
cubic meter) for the years 2012 to 2015
for analysis. There were 26 days in this
period that exceeded the standard.
IDEM analyzed hourly PM2.5
concentrations from these 26 days to
determine if there was a temporal
pattern in elevated concentrations
during these days. Based on the data
collected and presented in the Indiana
submittal, a clear pattern of high PM2.5
concentrations during the morning and
occasional evening hours is evident at
this monitor. In examining the hourly
data for these 26 days, IDEM found the
following: Of 283 hours of PM2.5
concentrations measured greater than 35
mg/m3, 68% occurred before 9 a.m.; of
91 hours of PM2.5 concentrations
measured greater than 70 mg/m3, 78% of
those hours occurred before 9 a.m.; of 29
hours of PM2.5 concentrations measured
greater than 100 mg/m3, 90% occurred
before 9 a.m. Moreover, the high PM2.5
concentrations seen in the morning and
evening hours during colder months at
the Liberty monitor led IDEM to
investigate and ultimately determine
that temperature inversions did occur
during the days that high PM2.5
concentrations were measured.
Temperature inversions occur when
warmer air is present above a cooler
layer of air at the ground level.
—Wind and pollution roses were
analyzed for the 26 exceedance days
and showed that high hourly PM2.5
values occurred with southernly and
westerly winds. Several facilities that
emit large quantities of PM2.5 and
precursor emissions of NOX and SO2
were identified by IDEM and found to
be located within four kilometers to the
south and west of the Liberty monitor.
Indiana presented maps of these
locations in the submittal. More
specifically, using available information
on the Allegheny County Health
Department website, IDEM determined
that two large U.S. Steel facilities are
located to the south and west of the
monitor as well as two large NOX and
SO2 emitting facilities also to the south.
—Back trajectory analyses conducted
by Indiana determined that ambient air
arriving at the Liberty monitor on high
pollution days rarely traveled over
Indiana. A back trajectory analysis using
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s HYSPLIT model was
performed to evaluate Indiana’s
contribution to PM2.5 in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania. In total, 35,040
trajectories were run for 100, 500, and
1000 meters above ground level (AGL).
Back trajectories were run starting at
each hour of the day, every day, over a
4-year period from 2012 through 2015.
The trajectories started in the center of
Allegheny County and were run
backwards over a 24-hour period.
Meteorological data used in this
analysis consisted of the North
American Regional Reanalysis (NARR)
dataset. In total, 31 values on 26 days
from 2012–2015 at the Liberty monitor
were identified as exceeding the 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Moreover,
individual exceedance days and their
associated trajectories were also
examined by Indiana. This analysis
shows that at 100 meters AGL, which is
closest to the level of the monitor
recording the sample value, air arriving
in Allegheny County passes through
Indiana very infrequently. For air
arriving at higher levels above the
monitor, at 500 and 1000 meters, air
flow has southerly and southwesterly
flow. Of the 16,200 trajectory points
associated with exceedances at the 100meter level, only 49 points, or 0.03%
passed through Indiana. At the 500meter level, 617 out of the 16,200 points
(3.8%) passed through Indiana. This
analysis shows that Indiana does not
contribute significantly to Allegheny
County PM2.5 concentrations, and
Indiana concludes that a corridor of
probable transport exists elsewhere.
Indiana has concluded that that no
further measures are necessary to satisfy
its responsibilities under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), because it does not
contribute to projected nonattainment or
maintenance issues at the Liberty
monitor site. Instead, IDEM found that
local meteorological conditions in the
Allegheny county, temperature
inversion, ambient air traveling from
westerly and southernly winds, and air
pollution transport from the
Appalachian Mountain Range are more
likely contributing to projected
nonattainment or maintenance issues at
the site.
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 that the area 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 demonstrate both attainment
and maintenance of 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 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 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 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
2014–2016
2015–2017
Avalon .............
Lawrenceville ...
Liberty ..............
South Fayette ..
North Park .......
..................
15.0
19.8
12.9
* 13.0
..................
14.0
18.3
* 11.8
* 12.3
..................
13.1
17.0
11.7
* 11.3
* 16.3
12.2
16.0
11.1
* 10.1
* 14.7
11.6
15.0
11.0
9.7
13.4
11.1
14.8
10.5
9.4
11.4
10.3
13.4
9.6
8.8
10.6
10.0
13.0
9.0
8.5
10.6
9.7
12.6
8.8
8.5
* 10.4
9.5
12.8
* 8.5
* 8.2
* 10.2
9.2
13.0
* 8.4
* 8.2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jul 29, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30JYP1.SGM
30JYP1
36851
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PM2.5 ANNUAL DESIGN VALUES IN μg/m3—Continued
Monitor
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
15.0
16.2
14.2
15.2
13.7
14.3
13.0
13.3
12.4
12.7
* 11.7
12.5
10.6
* 11.7
10.0
11.4
9.8
11.2
9.8
11.0
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
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
* Value does not contain a complete year worth of data.
The Liberty monitor is already close
to showing attainment of 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, local reductions in both PM2.5
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jul 29, 2019
Jkt 247001
and SO2 emissions are also expected to
occur and should also contribute to
further declines at 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-hour 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 in the
immediate future 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, PA. The Allegheny County and
Beaver County SO2 SIP submissions,
which EPA is currently 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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
concentrations all indicate that the
Liberty monitor will be able to show
attainment and maintenance of m the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by 2021.
The conclusions of Indiana’s analysis
are consistent with EPA’s expanded
review of its submittal. The area
(Allegheny County, Pennsylvania) that
Indiana sources potentially contribute to
is expected to attain and maintain the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and as
demonstrated in its submittal, Indiana
will not contribute to projected
nonattainment or maintenance issues at
any sites in 2021. Indiana’s analysis
shows that, through permanent and
enforceable measures currently
contained in its SIP and other emissions
reductions occurring in other states,
monitored PM2.5 air quality in the
identified area will continue to improve,
and that no further measures are
necessary to satisfy Indiana’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 Indiana’s infrastructure SIP
are approvable.
V. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve a portion
of Indiana’s June 10, 2016 submittal,
supplemented on December 28, 2016,
certifying that the current Indiana SIP is
sufficient to meet the required transport
elements of the infrastructure SIP
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.
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:
E:\FR\FM\30JYP1.SGM
30JYP1
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
36852
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules
• 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jul 29, 2019
Jkt 247001
Dated: July 17, 2019.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019–16076 Filed 7–29–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2019–0155; FRL–9997–30–
Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Kentucky: CrossState Air Pollution Rule
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
revisions to the Kentucky State
Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR) submitted by Kentucky on
September 14, 2018, as later clarified on
December 18, 2018. Under CSAPR, large
electricity generating units (EGUs) in
Kentucky are subject to Federal
Implementation Plans (FIPs) requiring
the units to participate in CSAPR’s
federal trading program for annual
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX), one
of CSAPR’s two federal trading
programs for ozone season emissions of
NOX, and one of CSAPR’s two federal
trading programs for annual emissions
of sulfur dioxide (SO2). This action
proposes to approve into the SIP the
Commonwealth’s regulations requiring
large Kentucky EGUs to participate in
CSAPR state trading programs for ozone
season NOX emissions, annual NOX
emissions, and annual SO2 emissions
integrated with the CSAPR federal
trading programs, replacing the
corresponding FIP requirements. EPA is
proposing to approve the SIP revision
concerning these CSAPR state trading
programs because the SIP revision meets
the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) and EPA’s regulations for
approval of a CSAPR full SIP revision
replacing the requirements of a CSAPR
FIP. Under the CSAPR regulations,
approval of this SIP revision would
automatically eliminate Kentucky units’
obligations to participate in CSAPR’s
federal trading programs for ozone
season NOX emissions, annual NOX
emissions, and annual SO2 emissions
under the corresponding CSAPR FIPs
addressing interstate transport
requirements for the 1997 annual fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS),
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Approval of
the SIP revision would also satisfy
Kentucky’s good neighbor obligation
under the CAA to prohibit emissions
which will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 29, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2019–0155 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. EPA will generally
not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D.
Brad Akers, Air Regulatory Management
Section, Air and Radiation Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. Akers can be
reached by telephone at (404) 562–9089
or via electronic mail at akers.brad@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary
EPA is proposing to approve the
September 14, 2018,1 revisions to the
1 The Commonwealth originally requested EPA to
fully approve good neighbor CAA transport
obligations pursuant to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the
2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS and the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. However, CSAPR does not address
transport for the 2010 1-hour NO2 or SO2 NAAQS.
Therefore, the Commonwealth submitted a
clarifying letter on December 18, 2018, to instead
request that EPA approve its transport obligations
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5
E:\FR\FM\30JYP1.SGM
30JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 30, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36848-36852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16076]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0343; FRL-9997-31-Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Indiana; 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 a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from
Indiana 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 August 29, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2016-0343 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/memoranda is EPA using to evaluate this SIP
submission?
III. Indiana'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 Indiana Department
of Environmental Management (IDEM) dated June 10, 2016, supplemented on
December 28, 2016, which relates to its requirements for an
infrastructure SIP for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR
3086). Specifically, this rulemaking concerns 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.''
State plans must address four requirements of the good neighbor
provisions (commonly referred to as ``prongs''), including:
--Prong one: Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment
of the NAAQS in another state;
--Prong two: Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in
another state;
--Prong three: Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions
activity in
[[Page 36849]]
one state from interfering with measures required to prevent
significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality in another state; and
--Prong four: Protecting visibility in another state.
In this rulemaking, EPA is evaluating whether Indiana'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 prong two interstate transport requirements with respect to the
PM2.5 NAAQS in several previous Federal rulemakings. The
four basic steps of that framework are: (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. With respect to PM2.5,
this framework was applied 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.
II. What guidance/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, including a September
13, 2013, 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 an EPA memorandum issued on
March 17, 2016, titled ``Information on the Interstate Transport ``Good
Neighbor'' Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' (2016 memorandum). The 2016 memorandum describes
EPA's consistent approach over the years to address interstate
transport and provides EPA's general review of relevant modeling data
and air quality projections as they relate to the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
The 2016 memorandum provides 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. Where a potential receptor is
projected to show nonattainment or maintenance in 2017, but projected
to show attainment in 2025, the 2016 memorandum suggests that
additional analysis of the emissions and modeling may be needed to make
a further judgement regarding the receptor status in 2021 (the
attainment deadline for moderate PM2.5 areas).
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.
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, further
analysis of the site should be performed to determine if the site
contains nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2021 (the attainment
deadline for moderate PM2.5 areas). Since the Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania, receptor is the only location considered downwind
of Indiana, this Indiana submission focuses on that single receptor.
However, the 2016 memorandum also indicates that for five states
(portions of Florida, Illinois, Idaho (outside of Shoshone County),
Tennessee, and Kentucky) 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. With the
exception of Florida, the data quality problems have subsequently been
resolved for these areas, and they now have design values below the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, these areas are
expected to maintain the NAAQS due to downward emission trends for
nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). 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. Due to the ambient monitoring data gaps in the
2009-2013 data, modeling was not performed to eliminate the potential
for any PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance receptors. It is
anticipated, however, that due to the downward trend in emissions,
Florida's receptor status has not changed. Therefore, Indiana does not
need to perform further analysis for these areas listed above.
Indiana did not focus on potential contribution to other areas EPA
identified as not attaining the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
based on current monitor data in Alaska, California, Idaho, Nevada, or
Hawaii or the 18 potential PM2.5 nonattainment or
maintenance receptors, based on modeling projections from the 2016
memorandum, in the western United States. The distance between Indiana
and these areas, coupled with the prevailing wind directions, leads EPA
to propose that Indiana will not contribute significantly to any of the
potential receptors in those states.
Indiana's submittal indicates that it used data from the 2016
memorandum and supplied its own additional information in its analysis.
EPA considered the analysis from Indiana, as well as additional
analysis conducted by EPA, in its review of the Indiana submittal.
III. Indiana's Analysis and Conclusion
Indiana's submittal contains a technical analysis of its interstate
transport of pollution relative to the
[[Page 36850]]
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. As reflected in the 2016
memorandum, the only receptor identified as nonattainment or
maintenance on which Indiana might have an impact is the Liberty
monitor (42-003-0064) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania located in
southwest Pennsylvania. In this technical analysis, Indiana examined
meteorological conditions, backward trajectories, PM2.5
measurements, and source emissions within the southwest Pennsylvania
airshed. As stated previously, Indiana's technical analysis considers
CSAPR rule implementation and EPA guidance and memoranda. Since the
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania receptor is the only location considered
downwind of Indiana, this submission focuses on that single receptor.
Indiana concluded that it has no significant impacts on the attainment
and maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania. Indiana satisfies the responsibilities under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) based on these analyses presented in the Indiana
submission:
--IDEM selected daily PM2.5 concentrations at the
Liberty monitor that exceed the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS of
35 [mu]g/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter) for the years 2012 to 2015 for
analysis. There were 26 days in this period that exceeded the standard.
IDEM analyzed hourly PM2.5 concentrations from these 26 days
to determine if there was a temporal pattern in elevated concentrations
during these days. Based on the data collected and presented in the
Indiana submittal, a clear pattern of high PM2.5
concentrations during the morning and occasional evening hours is
evident at this monitor. In examining the hourly data for these 26
days, IDEM found the following: Of 283 hours of PM2.5
concentrations measured greater than 35 [mu]g/m3, 68% occurred before 9
a.m.; of 91 hours of PM2.5 concentrations measured greater
than 70 [mu]g/m3, 78% of those hours occurred before 9 a.m.; of 29
hours of PM2.5 concentrations measured greater than 100
[mu]g/m3, 90% occurred before 9 a.m. Moreover, the high
PM2.5 concentrations seen in the morning and evening hours
during colder months at the Liberty monitor led IDEM to investigate and
ultimately determine that temperature inversions did occur during the
days that high PM2.5 concentrations were measured.
Temperature inversions occur when warmer air is present above a cooler
layer of air at the ground level.
--Wind and pollution roses were analyzed for the 26 exceedance days
and showed that high hourly PM2.5 values occurred with
southernly and westerly winds. Several facilities that emit large
quantities of PM2.5 and precursor emissions of
NOX and SO2 were identified by IDEM and found to
be located within four kilometers to the south and west of the Liberty
monitor. Indiana presented maps of these locations in the submittal.
More specifically, using available information on the Allegheny County
Health Department website, IDEM determined that two large U.S. Steel
facilities are located to the south and west of the monitor as well as
two large NOX and SO2 emitting facilities also to
the south.
--Back trajectory analyses conducted by Indiana determined that
ambient air arriving at the Liberty monitor on high pollution days
rarely traveled over Indiana. A back trajectory analysis using National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's HYSPLIT model was performed to
evaluate Indiana's contribution to PM2.5 in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania. In total, 35,040 trajectories were run for 100,
500, and 1000 meters above ground level (AGL). Back trajectories were
run starting at each hour of the day, every day, over a 4-year period
from 2012 through 2015. The trajectories started in the center of
Allegheny County and were run backwards over a 24-hour period.
Meteorological data used in this analysis consisted of the North
American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) dataset. In total, 31 values on 26
days from 2012-2015 at the Liberty monitor were identified as exceeding
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Moreover, individual exceedance
days and their associated trajectories were also examined by Indiana.
This analysis shows that at 100 meters AGL, which is closest to the
level of the monitor recording the sample value, air arriving in
Allegheny County passes through Indiana very infrequently. For air
arriving at higher levels above the monitor, at 500 and 1000 meters,
air flow has southerly and southwesterly flow. Of the 16,200 trajectory
points associated with exceedances at the 100-meter level, only 49
points, or 0.03% passed through Indiana. At the 500-meter level, 617
out of the 16,200 points (3.8%) passed through Indiana. This analysis
shows that Indiana does not contribute significantly to Allegheny
County PM2.5 concentrations, and Indiana concludes that a
corridor of probable transport exists elsewhere.
Indiana has concluded that that no further measures are necessary
to satisfy its responsibilities under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
because it does not contribute to projected nonattainment or
maintenance issues at the Liberty monitor site. Instead, IDEM found
that local meteorological conditions in the Allegheny county,
temperature inversion, ambient air traveling from westerly and
southernly winds, and air pollution transport from the Appalachian
Mountain Range are more likely contributing to projected nonattainment
or maintenance issues at the site.
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 that the
area 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 demonstrate both attainment and maintenance of
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
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 [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 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
[[Page 36851]]
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 showing attainment of 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, local reductions in both PM2.5 and
SO2 emissions are also expected to occur and should also
contribute to further declines at 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-hour 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 in the immediate
future 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, PA. The Allegheny County and Beaver
County SO2 SIP submissions, which EPA is currently 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
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 be able to show attainment and maintenance of m the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS by 2021.
The conclusions of Indiana's analysis are consistent with EPA's
expanded review of its submittal. The area (Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania) that Indiana sources potentially contribute to is
expected to attain and maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
and as demonstrated in its submittal, Indiana will not contribute to
projected nonattainment or maintenance issues at any sites in 2021.
Indiana's analysis shows that, through permanent and enforceable
measures currently contained in its SIP and other emissions reductions
occurring in other states, monitored PM2.5 air quality in
the identified area will continue to improve, and that no further
measures are necessary to satisfy Indiana'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 Indiana's
infrastructure SIP are approvable.
V. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve a portion of Indiana's June 10, 2016
submittal, supplemented on December 28, 2016, certifying that the
current Indiana SIP is sufficient to meet the required transport
elements of the infrastructure SIP 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. 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:
[[Page 36852]]
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: July 17, 2019.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019-16076 Filed 7-29-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
