[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 156 (Monday, August 13, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39970-39975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17362]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0060; FRL-9982-11--Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Multistate Transport
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve elements of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from
Minnesota regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or
standard). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that
the structural components of each state's air quality management
program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the
CAA. This action pertains specifically to infrastructure requirements
concerning interstate transport provisions.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 12, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2017-0060 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
[[Page 39971]]
making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8777,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What is the background of this SIP submission?
II. What guidance and memoranda is EPA using to evaluate this SIP
submission?
III. EPA's Review
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background of this SIP submission?
This rulemaking addresses a submission from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency dated January 23, 2017, which describes its
infrastructure SIP for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
Specifically, this rulemaking addresses the portion of the submission
dealing with interstate pollution transport under CAA Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), otherwise known as the ``good neighbor'' provision.
The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises
from Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. Pursuant to Section 110(a)(1),
states must submit ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' a
plan that provides for the ``implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the
duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the
submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than
promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list
of specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address.
EPA commonly refers to such state plans as ``infrastructure SIPs.''
II. What guidance and memoranda is EPA using to evaluate this SIP
submission?
EPA highlighted the statutory requirement to submit infrastructure
SIPs within three years of promulgation of a new NAAQS in an October 2,
2007 guidance document titled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007
guidance). EPA has issued additional guidance documents and memoranda,
including a September 13, 2013 guidance document titled ``Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air
Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' (2013 guidance).
The most recent relevant document is a memorandum published on
March 17, 2016, titled ``Information on the Interstate Transport ``Good
Neighbor'' Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' (2016 memorandum). The 2016 memorandum describes
EPA's consistent approach over the years to address interstate
transport, and provides EPA's general review of relevant modeling data
and air quality projections as they relate to the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2016 memorandum provides information
relevant to EPA Regional office review of the CAA section 110
(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``good neighbor'' provision in infrastructure SIPs with
respect to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Minnesota's
submittal and this rulemaking consider information provided in that
memorandum.
The 2016 memorandum provides states and EPA Regional offices with
future year annual PM2.5 design values for monitors in the
United States based on quality-assured and certified ambient monitoring
data and air quality modeling. The 2016 memorandum further describes
how these projected potential design values can be used to help
determine which monitors should be further evaluated to potentially
address whether emissions from other states will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS at those sites. The 2016 memorandum
explains that, for purposes of addressing interstate transport for the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, it may be appropriate to evaluate
projected air quality in 2021, which is the attainment deadline for
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas classified as
Moderate. Accordingly, because the available data includes 2017 and
2025 projected average and maximum PM2.5 design values
calculated through the CAMx photochemical model, the 2016 memorandum
suggests approaches that states might use to interpolate
PM2.5 values at sites in 2021. The 2016 memorandum indicates
that it may be reasonable to assume receptors projected to have average
and/or maximum design values above the NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 are
also likely to be either nonattainment or maintenance receptors in
2021. Similarly, the 2016 memorandum indicates that it may be
reasonable to assume that receptors that are projected to attain the
NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 are also likely to be attainment receptors
in 2021. However, where a potential receptor is projected to be
nonattainment or maintenance in 2017, but projected to be attainment in
2025, the 2016 memorandum suggests that further analysis of the
emissions and modeling may be needed to make a further judgement
regarding the receptor status in 2021.
The 2016 memorandum indicates that for all but one monitor site in
the eastern United States with at least one complete and valid
PM2.5 design value for the annual average 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2009-2013 period, the modeling data shows
that monitors are expected to both attain and maintain the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025. The modeling results
provided in the 2016 memorandum show that out of seven PM2.5
monitors located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, one monitor is
expected to be above the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2017.
Further, that monitor, the Liberty monitor (ID number 420030064), is
projected to be above the NAAQS only under the model's maximum
projected conditions (used in EPA's interstate transport framework to
identify maintenance receptors), and is projected to both attain and
maintain the NAAQS (along with all Allegheny County monitors) in 2025.
The 2016 memorandum therefore indicates that under such a condition
(where EPA's photochemical modeling indicates an area will maintain the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2025 but not attain in 2017)
further analysis of the site should be performed to determine if the
site may be a nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2021 (the
attainment deadline for moderate PM2.5 areas).
The 2016 memorandum indicates that based on modeling projections,
there are 17 potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors in
California, located in the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast
nonattainment areas, and one potential receptor in Shoshone County,
Idaho.
The 2016 memorandum indicates that for certain states with
incomplete ambient monitoring data, additional information including
the latest available data, should be analyzed to determine whether
there are potential downwind air quality problems that may be impacted
by transported
[[Page 39972]]
emissions. These states include all or portions of Florida, Illinois,
Idaho (outside of Shoshone County), Tennessee and Kentucky. With the
exception of four counties in Florida, the data quality problems have
subsequently been resolved for these areas, and these areas now have
current design values below the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and
are expected to maintain the NAAQS due to downward emission trends for
NOX and SO2.
Minnesota's submittal indicates that the state used data from the
2016 memorandum in its analysis. EPA considered the analysis from
Minnesota, as well as additional analysis conducted by EPA, in its
review of the Minnesota submittal. More information contained in our
review can be found in the technical support document (TSD) in the
docket, ``[Technical Support Document for Docket #EPA-R05-OAR-2017-
0060].''
III. EPA's Review
This rulemaking proposes action on the portion of Minnesota's
January 23, 2017 SIP submission addressing the good neighbor provision
requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). State plans must address
four requirements of the good neighbor provisions (commonly referred to
as ``prongs''), including:
--Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one
state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in
another state (prong one);
--Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one
state from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state
(prong two);
--Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one
state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration (PSD) of air quality in another state (prong three); and
--Protecting visibility in another state (prong four).
This rulemaking is evaluating Minnesota's January 23, 2017
submission, to determine whether Minnesota's interstate transport
provisions in its PM2.5 infrastructure SIP meet prongs one
and two of the good neighbor requirements of the CAA. Prongs three and
four will be evaluated in a separate rulemaking.
EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing the
interstate transport requirements required by prongs one and two with
respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS in several previous Federal
rulemakings. The four basic steps of that framework include:
(1) Identifying downwind receptors that are expected to have
problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS; (2) identifying which
upwind states contribute to these identified problems in amounts
sufficient to warrant further review and analysis; (3) for states
identified as contributing to downwind air quality problems,
identifying upwind emissions reductions necessary to prevent an upwind
state from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering
with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind; and (4) for states that are
found to have emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind, reducing the
identified upwind emissions through adoption of permanent and
enforceable measures. This framework was most recently applied with
respect to PM2.5 in the August 8, 2011 Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48208), designed to address both the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 standards, as well as the 1997 and 2008 ozone
standards.
Minnesota's January 23, 2017 submission indicates that the
Minnesota SIP contains the following major programs related to the
interstate transport of pollution:
7011.0500-0553 Indirect Heating Fossil Fuel Burning Equipment
7011.0600-0625 Direct Heating Fossil Fuel Burning Equipment
7011.1400-1430 Petroleum Refineries
7011.1600-1605 Sulfuric Acid Plants
7011.0150 Preventing Particulate Matter from Becoming Airborne
7011.0710-0735 Industrial Process Equipment
7011.0850-0859 Concrete Manufacturing Plant Standards of
Performance
7011.0900-0922 Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
7011.1000-1015 Bulk Agricultural Commodity Facilities
7011.1100-1125 Coal Handling Facilities
7011.1300-1325 Incinerators
7011.1700-1705 Nitric Acid Plants
Title I/Title V operating permits and administrative orders
for facilities in the state as defined in the January 23, 2017
submittal.
Minnesota's submittal also contains a technical analysis of its
interstate transport of pollution relative to the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. The technical analysis studies Minnesota
sources' contribution to monitored PM2.5 air quality values
in other states and whether Minnesota would need to take further steps
to decrease its emissions to (and therefore impacts on) those areas.
Minnesota's technical analysis considers CSAPR rule implementation, EPA
guidance and memoranda, and other factors such as meteorology and
state-wide emissions inventories. Minnesota did not focus on its
potential contribution to areas EPA identified as not attaining the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on monitor data in Alaska,
California, Idaho, Nevada, or Hawaii. The distance between Minnesota
and these areas, coupled with the prevailing wind directions, leads EPA
to propose to find that Minnesota will not contribute significantly to
any of the potential receptors in those states.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ It should be noted that EPA has projected that receptors in
California and Idaho will be in nonattainment in 2021 but, as just
noted, Minnesota's distance from those receptors, as well as the
fact that the wind generally blows from west to east over the
continental U.S., means that Minnesota will not contribute to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, EPA's 2016 memorandum found Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, the Liberty monitor, to be a potential receptor, however,
EPA proposes to find that Minnesota will not contribute significantly
to the receptor. Minnesota's impacts on that potential receptor is
relatively small. CSAPR contained a determination that for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, any state whose impacts on a specific
receptor in a downwind state meet or exceed a threshold of 1% of the
NAAQS are considered linked to that receptor (76 FR 48236). In other
words, EPA determined that any state whose impacts are below that
threshold will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the relevant NAAQS. EPA has not
determined a comparable threshold for the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA believes that a proper and well-supported weight of evidence
approach can provide sufficient information for purposes of evaluating
the impact of Minnesota on the Liberty monitor. In addition, in its
review, Minnesota determined that its impact on air quality monitors in
Pennsylvania is less than 1% of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
Minnesota's determination is based on EPA's source apportionment
modeling predicting state contributions to downwind monitors in 2012
under the base case scenario in our original CSAPR analysis. For these
reasons, we propose to find that Minnesota's emissions will not
contribute significantly to the Liberty monitor.
With respect to Illinois, EPA's source apportionment modeling in
our original CSAPR analysis predicts that
[[Page 39973]]
Minnesota's emissions impact Illinois's monitors. The PM2.5
monitoring data for Illinois for the period from January 2011 to July
2014 suffered from data quality/completion issues, and no current
annual PM2.5 design values existed for Illinois at the time
of the modeling for the 2016 memorandum. Illinois has since resolved
these quality control issues.
EPA considered available data from monitors in Illinois for its
analysis of Minnesota's submittal. As shown in Table 1, Illinois is now
meeting the standard throughout the state.
Table 1--Illinois Annual PM2.5 Design Values for 2015-2017 Design Period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015-2017
Local site name Monitoring design value
site ([mu]g/m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alsip................................... 17-031-0001 9.5
Washington High School.................. 17-031-0022 9.3
Mayfair Pump Station.................... 17-031-0052 9.1
Springfield Pump Station................ 17-031-0057 10.2
Com Ed.................................. 17-031-0076 9.5
Schiller Park........................... 17-031-3103 10.5
Summit.................................. 17-031-3301 9.7
Des Plaines............................. 17-031-4007 9.4
Northbrook.............................. 17-031-4201 8.4
Cicero.................................. 17-031-6005 10.0
Naperville.............................. 17-043-4002 8.3
Elgin................................... 17-089-0003 8.3
Aurora.................................. 17-089-0007 8.3
Cary.................................... 17-111-0001 \+\ 8.2
Joliet.................................. 17-197-1002 7.9
Braidwood............................... 17-197-1011 7.9
Jerseyville............................. 17-083-0117 \+\ 8.8
Granite City............................ 17-119-1007 9.7
Alton................................... 17-119-2009 8.8
Wood River.............................. 17-119-3007 8.7
Houston................................. 17-157-0001 8.5
East St. Louis.......................... 17-163-0010 9.8
Champaign............................... 17-019-0006 7.9
Bondville............................... 17-019-1001 7.8
Knight Prairie.......................... 17-065-0002 8.2
Normal.................................. 17-113-2003 8.0
Decatur................................. 17-115-0013 8.4
Peoria.................................. 17-143-0037 8.2
Rock Island............................. 17-161-3002 8.1
Springfield............................. 17-167-0012 8.2
Rockford................................ 17-201-0013 8.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Data incomplete.
Illinois' air quality trends reflect what is shown across the
nation: A general downward trend in ambient air concentrations,
including sites that Minnesota analyzed in its submittal. During the
last valid design period, only three Illinois counties reported 2008-
2010 annual PM2.5 design values above the NAAQS: Cook,
Madison, and Saint Clair counties. In Cook County, the 2008-2010 annual
design value was 13.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\), and
the annual mean values have trended downward. As shown in the table
above, these areas are now meeting the NAAQS for the 2015 to 2017
design period. Therefore, EPA expects that all counties in Illinois
will attain and maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS without the need
for additional PM2.5 reductions in Minnesota, and for this
reason, we propose to find that Minnesota will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or maintenance problems in Illinois.
Minnesota found, and our review confirmed, that despite the fact
that Minnesota emissions potentially contribute to monitored
PM2.5 air quality in areas in other states, all of those
areas were attaining the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on
2014-2016 data. Despite Minnesota not significantly contributing to the
monitored PM2.5 air quality in Pennsylvania, our review
evaluated PM2.5 air quality issues in Pennsylvania. All but
two areas in Pennsylvania (Allegheny and Delaware counties) were
attaining the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2012-2014
data. A review of 2013-2015 design values shows that all areas except
for Allegheny County have attained the NAAQS. Our review also considers
2014-2016 design values, which show only Allegheny and Lancaster
counties not meeting the NAAQS. In Delaware and Lebanon counties, not
only do the most recent PM2.5 monitor data show these
counties are attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA's
PM2.5 modeling data for 2017 and 2025 do not indicate any
nonattainment or maintenance issues in these counties. There is a clear
downward trend in PM2.5 values in these counties. For
Lancaster County, despite having a 2014-2016 design value that exceeds
the NAAQS, there is a clear downward trend in the monitored
PM2.5 air quality data that supports EPA's PM2.5
modeling that shows no nonattainment or maintenance problems for this
county by 2021.
The modeling information contained in EPA's 2016 memorandum shows
that one monitor in Allegheny County, PA (the Liberty monitor,
420030064) may have a maintenance issue in 2017, but is projected to
both attain and maintain the NAAQS by 2025. A linear interpolation of
the modeled design values to 2021 shows that the monitor is likely to
both attain and maintain the standard by 2021. Emissions and air
quality data trends help to corroborate this interpolation.
[[Page 39974]]
Over the last decade, local and regional emissions reductions of
primary PM2.5, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen
oxide (NOX), have led to large reductions in annual
PM2.5 design values in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In
2007, all of Allegheny County's PM2.5 monitors exceeded the
level of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (the 2005-2007 annual
average design values ranged from 12.9-19.8 [mu]g/m\3\, as shown in
Table 2). The 2014-2016 annual average PM2.5 design values
now show that only one monitor (Liberty, at 12.8 [mu]g/m\3\) exceeds
the health-based annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\.
Table 2--PM2.5 Annual Design Values in [mu]g/m \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor 2005-2007 2006-2008 2007-2009 2008-2010 2009-2011 2010-2012 2011-2013 2012-2014 2013-2015 2014-2016
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avalon.................................... ......... ......... ......... * 16.3 * 14.7 13.4 11.4 10.6 10.6 * 10.4
Lawrenceville............................. 15.0 14.0 13.1 12.2 11.6 11.1 10.3 10.0 9.7 9.5
Liberty................................... 19.8 18.3 17.0 16.0 15.0 14.8 13.4 13.0 12.6 12.8
South Fayette............................. 12.9 * 11.8 11.7 11.1 11.0 10.5 9.6 9.0 8.8 * 8.5
North Park................................ * 13.0 * 12.3 * 11.3 * 10.1 9.7 9.4 8.8 8.5 8.5 * 8.2
Harrison.................................. 15.0 14.2 13.7 13.0 12.4 * 11.7 10.6 10.0 9.8 9.8
North Braddock............................ 16.2 15.2 14.3 13.3 12.7 12.5 * 11.7 11.4 11.2 11.0
Parkway East Near-Road.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... * 10.6
Clairton.................................. 15.3 14.3 13.2 12.4 * 11.5 * 10.9 * 9.8 9.5 9.8 * 9.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Value does not contain a complete year's worth of data.
The Liberty monitor is already close to attaining the NAAQS, and
expected emissions reductions in the next four years will lead to
additional reductions in measured PM2.5 concentrations.
There are both local and regional components to the measured
PM2.5 levels in Allegheny County and the greater Pittsburgh
area. Previous CSAPR modeling showed that regional emissions from
upwind states, particularly SO2 and NOX
emissions, contribute to PM2.5 nonattainment at the Liberty
monitor. In recent years, large SO2 and NOX
reductions from power plants have occurred in Pennsylvania and states
upwind from the Greater Pittsburgh region. Based on existing CSAPR
budgets, Pennsylvania's energy sector emissions of SO2 will
have decreased 166,000 tons between 2015-2017 as a result of CSAPR
implementation. This is due to both the installation of emissions
controls and retirements of electric generating units (EGUs) (see the
TSD for more details). Projected power plant closures and additional
emissions controls in Pennsylvania and upwind states will help further
reduce both direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors.
Regional emission reductions will continue to occur from current on-
the-books Federal and state regulations such as the Federal on-road and
non-road vehicle programs, and various rules for major stationary
emissions sources.
In addition to regional emissions reductions and plant closures,
additional local reductions of both direct PM2.5 and
SO2 emissions are expected to occur and should also
contribute to further declines in Allegheny County's PM2.5
monitor concentrations. For example, significant SO2
reductions have recently occurred at US Steel's integrated steel mill
facilities in southern Allegheny County as part of a 1-hr
SO2 NAAQS SIP.\2\ Reductions are largely due to declining
sulfur content in the Clairton Coke Work's coke oven gas (COG). Because
this COG is burned at US Steel's Clairton Coke Works, Irvin Mill, and
Edgar Thompson Steel Mill, these reductions in sulfur content should
contribute to much lower PM2.5 precursor emissions in the
immediate future. The Allegheny SO2 SIP also projects lower
SO2 emissions resulting from vehicle fuel standards,
reductions in general emissions due to declining population in the
Greater Pittsburgh region and several shutdowns of significant sources
of emissions in Allegheny County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.achd.net/air/publichearing2017/SO2_2010_NAAQS_SIP_5-1-2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA modeling projections, the recent downward trend in local and
upwind emissions reductions, the expected continued downward trend in
emissions between 2017 and 2021, and the downward trend in monitored
PM2.5 concentrations, all indicate that the Liberty monitor
will attain and be able to maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS by 2021.
With respect to Florida, in the CSAPR modeling analysis for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, Florida did not have any potential
nonattainment or maintenance receptors identified for the 1997 or 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. At this time, it is anticipated that this trend
will continue, however, as there are ambient monitoring data gaps in
the 2009-2013 data that could have been used to identify potential
PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance receptors for Miami/
Dade, Gilchrist, Broward and Alachua counties in Florida, the modeling
analysis of potential receptors was not complete for these counties.
However, the most recent ambient data (2015-2017) for these counties
has been preliminarily deemed complete and indicates design values well
below the level of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition,
the highest preliminary value for these observed monitors is 7.5 [mu]g/
m\3\ at the Miami-Dade County monitor (12-086-1016), which is well
below the NAAQS. This is also consistent with historical data: complete
and valid design values in the 2006-2008, 2007-2009 and/or 2008-2010
periods for these counties were all well below the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. This is also consistent with historical data:
complete and valid design values in the 2006-2008 and/or 2007-2009
periods for these counties were well below the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. For these reasons, we find that none of the
counties in Florida with monitoring gaps between 2009-2013 should be
considered either nonattainment or maintenance receptors for the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. For these reasons, we propose to find
that emissions from Minnesota will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in Florida. We find further support in the fact
that EPA's source apportionment modeling predicted state impacts on
downwind monitors in 2012 under the base case scenario in our original
CSAPR analysis, showing little impact from Minnesota to any of
Florida's counties.
[[Page 39975]]
The conclusions of Minnesota's analysis are consistent with EPA's
expanded review of its January 23, 2017 submittal. All areas that
Minnesota sources potentially contribute to attain and maintain the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and as demonstrated in its
submittal, Minnesota will not contribute to projected nonattainment or
maintenance issues at any sites in 2021. Minnesota's analysis shows
that through permanent and enforceable measures currently contained in
its SIP, and other emissions reductions occurring in Minnesota and in
other states, monitored PM2.5 air quality in all identified
areas that Minnesota sources may impact will continue to improve, and
that no further measures are necessary to satisfy Minnesota's
responsibilities under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Therefore, EPA
is proposing that prongs one and two of the interstate pollution
transport element of Minnesota's infrastructure SIP are approvable.
IV. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve a portion of Minnesota's January 23,
2017 submittal certifying that the current Minnesota SIP is sufficient
to meet the required infrastructure requirements under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), specifically prongs one and two, as set forth
above. EPA is requesting comments on the proposed approval.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 30, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018-17362 Filed 8-10-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P