Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0840-0004
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Final approval of the Wisconsin 2012 PM2.5 Interstate Transport iSIP
Posted Date: 2019-10-04T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 193 (Friday, October 4, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53061-53064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21354]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0840; FRL-10000-67-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Interstate Transport

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving 
elements of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from 
Wisconsin 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 
in the Wisconsin SIP concerning interstate transport provisions.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 4, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0840. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samantha Panock, Environmental 
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs 
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8973, 
panock.samantha@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is being addressed by this document?
II. What comments did we receive on the proposed action?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed by this document?

    On November 26, 2018, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 
(WDNR) submitted a request to EPA for approval of its infrastructure 
SIP for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On April 30, 2019, EPA 
proposed to approve the submission dealing with the first two 
requirements (otherwise known as ``prongs'' one and two) of the 
provision for interstate pollution transport under CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i), also known as the ``good neighbor'' provision.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ There are four prongs to the Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) ``good 
neighbor'' provision, which require that state plans: (1) Prohibit 
any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from 
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 
state; (2) prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity 
in one state from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in 
another state; (3) prohibit any source or other type of emissions 
activity in one state from interfering with measures required to 
prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state; 
and (4) protect visibility in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The November 26, 2018 submittal included a demonstration that 
Wisconsin's SIP contains sufficient major programs related to the 
interstate transport of pollution. Wisconsin's submittal also included 
a technical analysis of its interstate transport of pollution relative 
to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS which demonstrated that current 
controls are adequate for Wisconsin to show that it meets prongs one 
and two of the ``good neighbor'' provision. After review, EPA proposed 
to approve Wisconsin's request relating

[[Page 53062]]

to prongs one and two of the ``good neighbor'' provision.

II. What comments did we receive on the proposed action?

    Our April 30, 2019 proposed rule provided a 30-day review and 
comment period (84 FR 18191, April 30, 2019). The comment period closed 
on May 30, 2019. EPA received one anonymous submission with adverse 
comments. The adverse comments and EPA's responses are addressed below.
    Comment: The commenter asserts that a fire that occurred at the 
U.S. Steel's Clairton Coke Works in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 
(Clairton Coke Works) destroyed sulfur dioxide (SO2) 
controls at the facility resulting in high SO2 emissions. As 
a result, the commenter states that Allegheny County will likely not 
attain PM2.5 standards as SO2 is a 
PM2.5 precursor. Therefore, the commenter asserts that 
Wisconsin should quantify contributions of PM2.5 and 
PM2.5 precursors to the Liberty monitor and further consider 
any potential controls to lower its contributions.
    Response: EPA considered the comments and is finalizing its 
proposed determination that the current Wisconsin submittal meets the 
required infrastructure elements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 
specifically prongs one and two. EPA has two main reasons, each of 
which is sufficient, by itself, to support its action. First, there are 
no areas in Wisconsin or downwind of Wisconsin that are projected to 
have nonattainment or maintenance problems by 2021, which is the 
attainment deadline for 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas 
classified as Moderate. EPA discussed this point in detail in the 
proposal, 84 FR 18193-94. As EPA noted, the downwind area of primary 
concern is Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, due to monitor readings at 
the Liberty Monitor. EPA explained why that monitor is expected to 
attain and maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by 2021. EPA 
disagrees with the commenter assertion that a recent fire at Clairton 
Coke Works resulted in increased emissions of SO2, a 
PM2.5 precursor, which in the commenter's view, means that 
the Liberty monitor should not be projected to attain and maintain the 
NAAQS. Although recent fires at the Clairton Coke Works did result in 
temporary outage of SO2 controls, the owner/operator of the 
facility has resumed operation of the controls (News Release, ``Health 
Department Verifies Clairton Coke Works Pollution Controls Are Back 
Online,'' Allegheny County (June 18, 2019), https://www.alleghenycounty.us/Health-Department/Resources/Public-Health-Information/News-Releases.aspx). In addition, the owner/operator is 
working with the Allegheny County Health Department to upgrade the 
plant's particulate matter controls, (https://www.alleghenycounty.us/Health-Department/Programs/Air-Quality/Public-Comment-Notices.aspx). 
Accordingly, EPA continues to take the position that the Liberty 
monitor is expected to show attainment and maintenance in 2021.
    Second, EPA's proposal indicated that Wisconsin did not have the 
potential to contribute to the Liberty monitor in Allegheny County, 
Pennsylvania. While we did not receive adverse comments on that 
discussion in the proposal, for this final rulemaking we have reviewed 
and included the additional, supportive information. Accordingly, we 
conclude that Wisconsin's emissions will not be large enough to 
significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with 
maintenance, at the Liberty monitor, even if that monitor was projected 
to have nonattainment or maintenance problems.
    For the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, we used air quality 
modeling and an air quality threshold of one percent of the 
PM2.5 NAAQS to link contributing states to projected 
nonattainment or maintenance receptors (76 FR 48237, August 8, 2011). 
That is, if an upwind state contributes less than the one percent 
screening threshold to a downwind nonattainment or maintenance 
receptor, we determine that the state is not ``linked'' and therefore 
does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or maintenance 
problems at that receptor. We have not set an air quality threshold for 
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and we do not have air quality modeling 
showing contributions to projected nonattainment or maintenance 
receptors for this NAAQS.
    EPA believes that a proper and well-supported weight of evidence 
approach can provide sufficient information for purposes of addressing 
transport with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 annual NAAQS. We 
rely on the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) air quality modeling 
conducted for purposes of evaluating upwind state impacts on downwind 
air quality with respect to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 
15 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) (as well as the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and 1997 Ozone NAAQS). Although not 
conducted for purposes of evaluating the 2012 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS, this modeling can inform our analysis regarding both the general 
magnitude of downwind PM2.5 impacts and the downwind 
distance in which states may contribute to receptors with respect to 
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12 [micro]g/m\3\. If the same 
one percent contribution threshold used in CSAPR for the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS is applied to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, 
we could consider the fact that a state's impact was below 0.12 
[micro]g/m\3\. And in fact, as described in more detail below, the 
Wisconsin PM2.5 contribution to the Liberty monitor in the 
CSAPR modeling was less than one percent of the 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS. We also note that Wisconsin's submittal, as discussed below, 
relies on several factors to support a finding that emissions from 
Wisconsin sources do not significantly contribute to nonattainment, or 
interfere with maintenance of, the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in 
downwind states.
    We note that no single piece of information is by itself 
dispositive of the issue. Instead, the total weight of all the evidence 
taken together is used to evaluate significant contributions to 
nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS in another state.
    Wisconsin's submittal used this weight-of-evidence approach to 
demonstrate that controls and emission limits already in place in 
Wisconsin are sufficient to ensure that emissions in the State will not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with 
maintenance, in any downwind state, including Allegheny County, 
Pennsylvania, for the PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA proposal stated 
that Wisconsin's nearest point to the Liberty monitor is about 500 
miles away, and therefore precursor emissions are likely to be 
thoroughly dispersed over that distance. Moreover, EPA and Wisconsin 
did quantify Wisconsin's PM2.5 and PM2.5 
precursor emissions and demonstrated an overall declining trend. As a 
regional pollutant, the majority of PM2.5 is formed via 
reactions in the atmosphere between PM2.5 precursors, 
including SO2 and Nitrogen Oxides (NOX). As noted 
in both the Wisconsin submittal and the EPA proposal, a review of the 
National Emissions Inventory data for Wisconsin shows that 
SO2 emissions decreased by 68% and NOX decreased 
by 50% from 2002 to 2014 in the State. Moreover, the Wisconsin 
submission reports PM2.5 design values decreased by around 
37% on average in most of the State between 2001-2003 and 2015-2017. 
The reductions in PM2.5 precursor emissions and monitored 
PM2.5 concentrations resulted from the implementation of an 
array of permanent and enforceable control measures that apply to 
Wisconsin sources. Emission control

[[Page 53063]]

programs are implemented for each emission source sector for the 
PM2.5 precursors, NOX, Volatile Organic Carbons 
(VOCs), and SO2, as well as direct PM2.5. Some 
programs include Wisconsin NOX Reasonably Available Control 
Technology (RACT), Federal NOX transport rules, VOC RACT/
Control Techniques Guidelines, National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants, and Federal on-road mobile source control 
programs. Continued implementation of these measures will ensure that 
Wisconsin will not significantly contribute to any PM2.5 
nonattainment problems, or interfere with any maintenance problems, in 
other states.
    Moreover, in its submittal, Wisconsin used modeling results to 
quantify the potential impact of Wisconsin's emissions on the Liberty 
monitor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Wisconsin referenced the EPA 
modeling from previous PM2.5 standards (1997 and 2006) to 
show past contributions have been under the one percent threshold. 
Specifically, Wisconsin examined the photochemical modeling results 
from EPA's original CSAPR analysis. In this modeling, EPA found that 
Wisconsin only contributed 0.10 [micro]g/m\3\ of the PM2.5 
at the Liberty monitor in 2012. This amounts to 0.83% of the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS, below the one percent contribution threshold 
used in CSAPR for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. This 
contribution-based analysis almost certainly overestimates Wisconsin's 
contribution since PM2.5 precursor emissions from Wisconsin 
sources decreased significantly from 2012 to 2017 as mentioned 
previously. This analysis is evidence that Wisconsin does not 
contribute to PM2.5 concentrations at the Liberty monitor, 
and therefore that the State will not significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance at the monitor, even if it 
were considered a downwind receptor.
    In conclusion, the current Wisconsin submittal meets the required 
infrastructure elements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 
specifically prongs one and two, as proposed by EPA.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    In this action, EPA is approving the portion of Wisconsin's 
November 26, 2018 submission certifying that the current Wisconsin SIP 
is sufficient to meet the required infrastructure requirements under 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), specifically prongs one and two, as set 
forth above.

IV. 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 application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under CAA section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this 
action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the 
appropriate circuit by December 3, 2019. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

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: September 19, 2019.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. Section 52.2591 is amended by revising paragraph (h) and removing 
and reserving paragraph (k) to read as follows:

[[Page 53064]]

Sec.  52.2591   Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

* * * * *
    (h) Approval. In a July 13, 2015, submission, supplemented August 
8, 2016, WDNR certified that the State has satisfied the infrastructure 
SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through 
(M) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. We are not taking action on 
the stationary source monitoring and reporting requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(F). We will address these requirements in a separate action.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-21354 Filed 10-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P