[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 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d6b4bab7bdbab3aff8a6b7bbb3bab796b3a6b7f8b1b9a0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d0b2bcb1bbbcb5a9fea0b1bdb5bcb190b5a0b1feb7bfa6">[email protected]</span></a>. 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, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b0ddd1d9d5c4c4d19ed1dec4d8dfdec9f0d5c0d19ed7dfc6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a9c4c8c0ccddddc887c8c7ddc1c6c7d0e9ccd9c887cec6df">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS at those sites. The 2016 memorandum 
explains that, for purposes of addressing interstate transport for the 
2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, it may be appropriate to evaluate 
projected air quality in 2021, which is the attainment deadline for 
2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS nonattainment areas classified as 
Moderate. Accordingly, because the available data includes 2017 and 
2025 projected average and maximum PM<INF>2.5</INF> design values 
calculated through the CAMx photochemical model, the 2016 memorandum 
suggests approaches that states might use to interpolate 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> design value for the annual average 2012 annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the 2009-2013 period, the modeling data shows 
that monitors are expected to both attain and maintain the 2012 annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025. The modeling results 
provided in the 2016 memorandum show that out of seven PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
monitors located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, one monitor is 
expected to be above the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and 
are expected to maintain the NAAQS due to downward emission trends for 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>.
    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the August 8, 2011 Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48208), designed to address both the 1997 
and 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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:

<bullet> 7011.0500-0553 Indirect Heating Fossil Fuel Burning Equipment
<bullet> 7011.0600-0625 Direct Heating Fossil Fuel Burning Equipment
<bullet> 7011.1400-1430 Petroleum Refineries
<bullet> 7011.1600-1605 Sulfuric Acid Plants
<bullet> 7011.0150 Preventing Particulate Matter from Becoming Airborne
<bullet> 7011.0710-0735 Industrial Process Equipment
<bullet> 7011.0850-0859 Concrete Manufacturing Plant Standards of 
Performance
<bullet> 7011.0900-0922 Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
<bullet> 7011.1000-1015 Bulk Agricultural Commodity Facilities
<bullet> 7011.1100-1125 Coal Handling Facilities
<bullet> 7011.1300-1325 Incinerators
<bullet> 7011.1700-1705 Nitric Acid Plants
<bullet> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. The technical analysis studies Minnesota 
sources' contribution to monitored PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
monitoring data for Illinois for the period from January 2011 to July 
2014 suffered from data quality/completion issues, and no current 
annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS without the need 
for additional PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> air quality in areas in other states, all of those 
areas were attaining the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS based on 
2014-2016 data. Despite Minnesota not significantly contributing to the 
monitored PM<INF>2.5</INF> air quality in Pennsylvania, our review 
evaluated PM<INF>2.5</INF> air quality issues in Pennsylvania. All but 
two areas in Pennsylvania (Allegheny and Delaware counties) were 
attaining the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitor data show these 
counties are attaining the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, EPA's 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> modeling data for 2017 and 2025 do not indicate any 
nonattainment or maintenance issues in these counties. There is a clear 
downward trend in PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> air quality data that supports EPA's PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), and nitrogen 
oxide (NO<INF>X</INF>), have led to large reductions in annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> design values in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In 
2007, all of Allegheny County's PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitors exceeded the 
level of the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> design values 
now show that only one monitor (Liberty, at 12.8 [mu]g/m\3\) exceeds 
the health-based annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations. 
There are both local and regional components to the measured 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels in Allegheny County and the greater Pittsburgh 
area. Previous CSAPR modeling showed that regional emissions from 
upwind states, particularly SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions, contribute to PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment at the Liberty 
monitor. In recent years, large SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions are expected to occur and should also 
contribute to further declines in Allegheny County's PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
monitor concentrations. For example, significant SO<INF>2</INF> 
reductions have recently occurred at US Steel's integrated steel mill 
facilities in southern Allegheny County as part of a 1-hr 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor emissions in the 
immediate future. The Allegheny SO<INF>2</INF> SIP also projects lower 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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/SO<INF>2</INF>_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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations, all indicate that the Liberty monitor 
will attain and be able to maintain the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS by 2021.
    With respect to Florida, in the CSAPR modeling analysis for the 
1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, Florida did not have any potential 
nonattainment or maintenance receptors identified for the 1997 or 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866.
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>