39970 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

in a final rulemaking action, the State 

must meet its commitment to submit an 

update to its State Board rules that fully 

remedies the deficiency mentioned 

above under element E. If the State fails 

to do so, this action will become a 

disapproval one year from the date of 

final approval. EPA will notify the State 

by letter that this action has occurred. 

At that time, this commitment will no 

longer be a part of the approved Maine 

SIP. EPA subsequently will publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

notifying the public that the conditional 

approval automatically converted to a 

disapproval. If the State meets its 

commitment, within the applicable time 

frame, the conditionally approved 

submission will remain a part of the SIP 

until EPA takes final action approving 

or disapproving the submission. If EPA 

disapproves the new submittal, the 

conditionally approved infrastructure 

SIP elements will also be disapproved at 

that time. If EPA approves the submittal, 

the conditionally approved 

infrastructure SIP elements will be fully 

approved in their entirety and replace 

the conditionally approved program in 

the SIP. 

If the conditional approval is 

converted to a disapproval, the final 

disapproval triggers the Federal 

implementation plan (FIP) requirement 

under section 110(c). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• This action is not expected to be an 

Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 

because this action is not significant 

under Executive Order 12866. 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: August 6, 2018. 

Alexandra Dunn, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17247 Filed 8–10–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 

blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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, 

maietta.anthony@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background of this SIP 

submission? 

II. What guidance and memoranda is EPA 

using to evaluate this SIP submission? 

III. EPA’s Review 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
39972 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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

Local site name Monitoring site 

2015–2017 

design value 

(μg/m3) 

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 (mg/ 

m3), and the annual mean values have 

trended downward. As shown in the 

table above, these areas are now meeting 

the NAAQS for the 2015 to 2017 design 

period. Therefore, EPA expects that all 

counties in Illinois will attain and 

maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS without the 

need for additional PM2.5 reductions in 

Minnesota, and for this reason, we 

propose to find that Minnesota will not 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or maintenance problems 

in Illinois. 

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. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
39974 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

2http://www.achd.net/air/publichearing2017/ 

SO2_2010_NAAQS_SIP_5-1-2017.pdf. 

Over the last decade, local and 

regional emissions reductions of 

primary PM2.5, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and 

nitrogen oxide (NOX), have led to large 

reductions in annual PM2.5 design 

values in Allegheny County, 

Pennsylvania. In 2007, all of Allegheny 

County’s PM2.5 monitors exceeded the 

level of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

(the 2005–2007 annual average design 

values ranged from 12.9–19.8 mg/m3, as 

shown in Table 2). The 2014–2016 

annual average PM2.5 design values now 

show that only one monitor (Liberty, at 

12.8 mg/m3) exceeds the health-based 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 mg/m3. 

TABLE 2—PM2.5 ANNUAL DESIGN VALUES IN μG/M 3

Monitor 2005– 

2007 

2006– 

2008 

2007– 

2009 

2008– 

2010 

2009– 

2011 

2010– 

2012 

2011– 

2013 

2012– 

2014 

2013– 

2015 

2014– 

2016 

Avalon ...................... ................ ................ ................ * 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 NearRoad ..................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ * 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. 

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 

mg/m3 at the Miami-Dade County 

monitor (12–086–1016), which is well 

below the NAAQS. This is also 

consistent with historical data: complete 

and valid design values in the 2006– 

2008, 2007–2009 and/or 2008–2010 

periods for these counties were all well 

below the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

This is also consistent with historical 

data: complete and valid design values 

in the 2006–2008 and/or 2007–2009 

periods for these counties were well 

below the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

For these reasons, we find that none of 

the counties in Florida with monitoring 

gaps between 2009–2013 should be 

considered either nonattainment or 

maintenance receptors for the 2012 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. For these 

reasons, we propose to find that 

emissions from Minnesota will not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS in Florida. We find further 

support in the fact that EPA’s source 

apportionment modeling predicted state 

impacts on downwind monitors in 2012 

under the base case scenario in our 

original CSAPR analysis, showing little 

impact from Minnesota to any of 

Florida’s counties. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R04–RCRA–2018–0255; FRL– 9981– 

48—Region 4] 

Georgia: Proposed Authorization of 

State Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Georgia has applied to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

for final authorization of changes to its 

hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA), as amended. EPA has 

reviewed Georgia’s application and has 

determined that these changes satisfy all 

requirements needed to qualify for final 

authorization. Therefore, we are 

proposing to authorize the state’s 

changes. EPA seeks public comment 

prior to taking final action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 12, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

RCRA–2018–0255, at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from 

www.regulations.gov. EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, the full EPA public comment 

policy, information about CBI or 

multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit http://

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thornell Cheeks, Materials and Waste 

Management Branch, RCR Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960; 

telephone number: (404) 562–8479: fax 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS