[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23402-23407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10803]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0237; FRL-9978-39--Region 2]


Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey; 
Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Interstate 
Transport Provisions

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 
New Jersey 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 June 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2018-0237 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The 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. The 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/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Fradkin, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, at 
(212) 637-3702, or by email at [email protected].

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

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?
II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate this SIP submission?

[[Page 23403]]

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?

    The EPA is proposing to approve elements of the State of New 
Jersey's October 17, 2014 SIP submission, which addresses the section 
110(a) infrastructure requirements of the CAA for the following NAAQS: 
2012 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2008 lead, 2010 nitrogen dioxide 
(NO2), 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2), 2011 carbon 
monoxide (CO), and the 2006 particulate matter of 10 microns or less 
(PM10). Specifically, this rulemaking proposes to approve 
the portion of the submission addressing the interstate transport 
provisions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS under CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as the ``good neighbor'' provision.
    The requirement for states to make an infrastructure SIP submission 
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.\1\ 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 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''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On December 14, 2012 (78 FR 3086), the EPA promulgated a 
revised primary NAAQS for PM2.5 for the annual standard. 
The revised standard was set at the level of 12 [micro]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to PM2.5 in several 
prior regulatory actions. In 2011, we promulgated the Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011), in order to 
address the obligations of states--and of the EPA when states have not 
met their obligations--under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit 
air pollution contributing significantly to nonattainment in, or 
interfering with maintenance by, any other state with regard to several 
NAAQS, including the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS.\2\ In that rule, we considered states linked to downwind 
receptors if they were projected to contribute more than the threshold 
amount (1 percent of the standard) of PM2.5 pollution for 
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (76 FR 48208, 48239-43). The 
EPA has not established a threshold amount for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Federal Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport of Fine 
Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR 
48207 (August 8, 2011) (codified as amended at 40 CFR 52.38 and 
52.39 and 40 CFR part 97).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA addressed interstate transport provisions for the October 17, 
2014 SIP submittal concerning the Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) regulations and visibility protection (i.e., 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)) for 2012 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 
2008 lead, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 2011 CO, and the 
2006 PM10 NAAQS) on September 19, 2016.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 81 FR 64070 (September 19, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA addressed the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Ozone 
NAAQS in the EPA's update of the CSAPR rule in October 26, 2016 (81 FR 
74504) but did not address New Jersey as it had withdrawn \4\ that 
portion of the October 17, 2014 SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA issued a finding to New Jersey for failure to submit on 
June 15, 2016 (81 FR 38963).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA will address the requirements of CAA sections 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 lead, 2010 NO2, 2010 
SO2, 2011 CO, and the 2006 PM10 NAAQS in a 
separate action.

II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate this SIP submission?

    EPA highlighted the statutory requirement to submit infrastructure 
SIPs within 3 years of promulgation of a new NAAQS in an October 2, 
2007 guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required 
Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and 
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007 
guidance). EPA has issued additional guidance 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 was 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, which is 
included in the docket of this rulemaking, describes the approach EPA 
has previously used to address interstate transport, and provides EPA's 
general review of relevant modeling data and air quality projections as 
they relate to the 2012 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 PM2.5 NAAQS. 
This rulemaking considers information provided in that memorandum.
    In particular, the 2016 memorandum provides states and EPA Regional 
offices with projected 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 
memorandum further describes how these projected potential design 
values can be used to help determine which monitors should be further 
evaluated to potentially address whether emissions from other states 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at those sites. The 2016 memorandum 
explains that the pertinent year for evaluating air quality for 
purposes of addressing interstate transport for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS is 2021, the attainment deadline for 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas classified as Moderate. 
Accordingly, because the available data included 2017 and 2025 
projected average and maximum PM2.5 design values calculated 
through the CAMx \5\ photochemical model, the memorandum suggests 
approaches states might use to interpolate PM2.5 values at 
sites in 2021.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions(CAMx).
    \6\ Specifically, the 2016 Memorandum explains that one way to 
assess potential receptors for 2021 is to assume that 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, 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. Where a potential receptor is projected to be 
nonattainment or maintenance in 2017, but projected to be attainment 
in 2025, further analysis of the emissions and modeling may be 
needed to make a further judgement regarding the receptor status in 
2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the 2016 memorandum, EPA used the methodology used 
in the CSAPR rule to determine potential nonattainment and maintenance 
sites. ``Nonattainment sites'' refer to those sites that are projected 
to exceed the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS of 12 micrograms per cubic 
meter ([micro]g/m\3\) based on the average future year design values. 
Those sites that are projected to exceed the NAAQS

[[Page 23404]]

based on the maximum future year design values are referred to as 
``maintenance'' sites.

                            Table 1--Projected Nonattainment and Maintenance Sites for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in 2017 and 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2017 avg     2017 max     2025 avg     2025 max
                                                           design       design       design       design
    Monitor ID            State            County          value        value        value        value         Projected 2017         Projected 2025
                                                          ([mu]g/m     ([mu]g/m     ([mu]g/m     ([mu]g/m     attainment status      attainment status
                                                            \3\)         \3\)         \3\)         \3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60190011..........  California......  Fresno..........        13.69        14.36        13.09        13.72  Nonattainment........  Nonattainment.
60195001..........  California......  Fresno..........        15.43         15.9         14.9        15.36  Nonattainment........  Nonattainment.
60195025..........  California......  Fresno..........        13.43        13.75        12.94        13.22  Nonattainment........  Nonattainment.
60250005..........  California......  Imperial........        14.19        14.32        14.83        14.97  Nonattainment........  Nonattainment.
60290014..........  California......  Kern............        14.24        14.85        13.78        14.37  Nonattainment........  Nonattainment.
60290106..........  California......  Kern............         15.4        16.43        14.94        15.93  Nonattainment........  Nonattainment.
60311004..........  California......  Kings...........        15.38        16.01        14.82         15.4  Nonattainment........  Nonattainment.
60371002..........  California......  Los Angeles.....         11.6        12.25        11.42        12.07  Maintenance..........  Maintenance.
60392010..........  California......  Madera..........        17.37        17.62         16.9        17.14  Nonattainment........  Nonattainment.
60470003..........  California......  Merced..........        13.84        15.27        13.52        14.92  Nonattainment........  Nonattainment.
60658001..........  California......  Riverside.......        12.25        12.74        11.99        12.47  Nonattainment........  Maintenance.
60658005..........  California......  Riverside.......        13.89        14.41        13.63        14.15  Nonattainment........  Nonattainment.
60990006..........  California......  Stanislaus......        14.44        14.79        13.97        14.31  Nonattainment........  Nonattainment.
60990005..........  California......  Stanislaus......         12.5        12.84        12.03        12.34  Nonattainment........  Maintenance.
60710025..........  California......  San Bernardino..        11.79        12.35        11.61        12.15  Maintenance..........  Maintenance.
60771002..........  California......  San Joaquin.....        11.49        13.09        11.16        12.71  Maintenance..........  Maintenance.
61072002..........  California......  Tulare..........        14.63         15.6        14.06        14.96  Nonattainment........  Nonattainment.
160790017.........  Idaho...........  Shoshone........        12.01        12.43         11.8        12.22  Maintenance..........  Maintenance.
420030064.........  Pennsylvania....  Allegheny.......        11.67        12.16        11.18        11.65  Maintenance..........  Attainment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where EPA had sufficient data to complete its air quality modeling, 
EPA's analysis showed that, except for one monitoring site in Allegheny 
County, Pennsylvania, monitors in the eastern United States were 
expected to both attain and maintain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in 
both 2017 and 2025. EPA notes that, as further discussed below, EPA's 
modeling analysis was inconclusive for monitoring sites with incomplete 
data.
    The modeling results provided in the 2016 memorandum also show that 
out of seven PM2.5 monitors located in Allegheny County, 
Pennsylvania, only one monitor (ID number 420030064) is expected to be 
above the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in 2017.
    Further, that monitor (ID number 420030064 or Liberty monitor) 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 memorandum therefore indicates that under such a condition (where 
EPA's photochemical modeling indicates an area will attain the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS in 2025 but not attain or maintain 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 did note that because of data quality problems, 
nonattainment and maintenance projections were not done for all or 
portions of Florida, Illinois, Idaho, Tennessee and Kentucky. Data 
quality problems were since resolved for Idaho, Tennessee, Kentucky and 
portions of Florida, identifying no additional potential receptors, 
with those areas having design values below the 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS and expected to maintain the NAAQS due to downward emission 
trends for NOX and SO2 (www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values and www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data). As of May 2018, the areas that 
still have data quality issues preventing projections of nonattainment 
and maintenance receptors are all of Illinois and four counties in 
Florida. EPA notes that preliminary design values for the four counties 
in Florida for the most recent period (2015-2017) have been preliminary 
deemed complete, and are well below the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 
This is further discussed in section III below.

III. EPA's Review

    This rulemaking proposes action on the portion of New Jersey's 
October 17, 2014 SIP submission addressing the ``good neighbor'' 
provision requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which 
include:
    --Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one 
state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in 
another state (otherwise known as prong 1);
    --Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one 
state from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state 
(prong 2).
    This rulemaking is evaluating the October 17, 2014 submission, 
specific to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (i.e., prongs 1 and 2) for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    In several previous rulemakings, EPA has developed and consistently 
applied a framework for addressing the prong 1 and 2 interstate 
transport requirements with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS. That 
framework has four basic steps, including: (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 CSAPR rule, designed to 
address both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards, as well as 
the 1997 ozone standard.

A. New Jersey's Submittal

    New Jersey's October 2014 SIP submittal includes its SIP-approved 
New Jersey regulations and control measures that the State has 
implemented to address the interstate transport of air pollutants for 
criteria

[[Page 23405]]

pollutants, including the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. New Jersey 
regulations and control measures that have reduced PM2.5, as 
well as SO2, NOX, and Volatile Organic Carbon 
(VOC) precursor emissions include:

--New Jersey's low sulfur fuel oil rule, New Jersey Administrative Code 
(N.J.A.C.) 7:27-9 \7\, Sulfur in Fuels, reduces SO2 
emissions by reducing the sulfur content of fuel oils used throughout 
the State, including fuel oil-fired electric generating units (EGUs), 
home heating, and industrial and commercial boilers. The sulfur content 
of all distillate fuel oils (#2 fuel oil and lighter) was lowered to 
500 parts per million (ppm) beginning on July 1, 2014; and further 
limited to 15 ppm beginning on July 1, 2016. Beginning July 1, 2014, 
the sulfur content for #4 fuel oil was lowered to 2,500 ppm; and #6 
fuel oil was lowered to a range of 3,000 to 5,000 ppm sulfur content;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA approval on January 3,2012(77 FR 19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Coal-fired power plants in New Jersey control SO2 
emissions by use of scrubbers to comply with adopted SO2 
rules including stringent, new short-term SO2 emission 
limits (i.e., N.J.A.C. 7:27-10.2 \8\, effective start date for new 
emission rates was December 2012;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA approval on August 3,2010(75 FR 45483).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.29 \9\, EGU- High Electric Demand Day (HEDD), 
require advanced NOX emission controls for EGU's that 
operate on HEDD days; New Jersey estimated its NOX 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules would reduce 
NOX emissions by 64 tons per day on HEDD days beginning with 
the 2015 summer ozone season; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA approval on August 3,2010 (75 FR 45483).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--New Jersey has a statewide enhanced motor vehicle program that 
ensures New Jersey has adopted the motor vehicle standards adopted by 
California to ensure that only the lowest emitting vehicles available 
are sold in New Jersey

    New Jersey has indicated that it has addressed the interstate 
transport requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by implementing 
effective rules to control sources that may significantly contribute to 
nonattainment of a NAAQS in another state, and therefore addressed New 
Jersey's downwind contributions from New Jersey sources. New Jersey has 
also indicated that they have no rules that interfere with the ability 
of another state to maintain attainment of any ambient air quality 
standard in that state. New Jersey noted that its rules to control air 
emissions are more stringent than similar rules in nearby states. The 
complete list of New Jersey regulations and control measures can be 
found in the October 2014 SIP submittal, which is included in the 
docket of this rulemaking.
    New Jersey noted that the neighboring states of New York and 
Delaware do not have any PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 
Additionally, New Jersey indicated that the State of Pennsylvania, in 
its area designation recommendations \10\ to EPA for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS, determined that nonattainment in the State was 
caused by local, not regional sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Final Designation 
Recommendations for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard, available at 
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/aq/attain/pm25des/Final_Designation_Recommendations.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Jersey completed its technical analysis before EPA issued the 
2016 Memorandum, which, as discussed earlier, included modeling 
projections for 2017 and 2025 annual PM2.5 design values 
meant to assist states in implementation of their 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS interstate transport SIPs. As discussed below, however, EPA's 
review of New Jersey's submittal nevertheless concludes that EPA's 
modeling projections regarding projected future nonattainment and 
maintenance areas as indicated in the 2016 memorandum, past EPA 
contribution modeling performed for CSAPR, and certified annual 
PM2.5 design values recorded since New Jersey's submittal 
confirm New Jersey's analysis that the State has adequately addressed 
the interstate transport requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

B. EPA Analysis

    As stated above, EPA has developed a four-step approach for 
addressing the prong one and two interstate transport requirements with 
respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS. The first step is the 
identification of potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance 
receptors. EPA identified potential nonattainment and/or maintenance 
areas in the 2016 memorandum (see section II, Table 1, above). Most of 
the potential receptors are in California, located in the San Joaquin 
Valley or South Coast nonattainment areas. There is also one potential 
receptor in Shoshone County, Idaho, and one potential receptor in 
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In addition, as noted in section II to 
account for data quality limitations, EPA also considers potential 
receptors to include all of Illinois and Miami-Dade, Gilchrist, 
Broward, and Alachua Counties in Florida.
    As stated above, ``Step 2'' is the identification of states 
contributing to downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors, such 
that further analysis is required to identify necessary upwind 
reductions. For this step, we will be specifically determining if New 
Jersey emissions contribute to downwind nonattainment and maintenance 
receptors.
    For the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, we have 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.
    The 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 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 [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 1% contribution threshold used in CSAPR for the 1997 and 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS applied to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, 
we could consider the fact that a state's impact was below that value 
(that is, 0.12 [micro]g/m\3\). We also note that New Jersey's 
submittal, described above, relies on several factors to support a 
finding that emissions from New Jersey 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

[[Page 23406]]

evaluate significant contributions to nonattainment or interference 
with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in another state.
    Each of the potential receptors is discussed below, with a more in-
depth discussion provided in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for 
this notice. For additional information, links to the documents relied 
upon for this analysis can be found throughout the document, more 
information is available in the TSD and the documents can be found in 
the docket for this action.
California and Idaho
    Based on distance considerations alone, New Jersey can be ruled out 
as a potential contributor to downwind nonattainment and maintenance 
receptors in California and Idaho. The nearest of these receptors 
(Shoshone County, Idaho) is over 1,800 miles from New Jersey. 
Accordingly, EPA proposes to find that New Jersey will not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in California and Idaho.
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
    As discussed in the TSD for this rulemaking, EPA has analyzed New 
Jersey's PM2.5 emissions and/or PM2.5 precursors, 
and found that they do not significantly impact the Allegheny County, 
Pennsylvania (Liberty monitor) potential maintenance receptor. In our 
analysis we found that there were strong local influences throughout 
Allegheny County and contributions from nearby states that contributed 
to its nonattainment for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 
Contributors to the Liberty monitor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 
have taken steps in recent years, to improve air quality which will 
likely bring the monitor into compliance with the 2012 PM2.5 
annual NAAQS by the 2021 attainment date.
    Another compelling fact is that in previous modeling, nonattainment 
in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania was linked to significant 
contributions from other states.\11\ New Jersey was analyzed in this 
modeling, and New Jersey emissions were not linked to Allegheny County. 
EPA notes that, in fact, New Jersey's contribution in the CSAPR 2012 
base case modeling was 0.024 [micro]g/m\3\, well below 1% of the 
standard for linkage to downwind receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Air Quality Modeling for 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution 
Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48207, August 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, we propose to find that New Jersey will not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
Miami/Dade, Gilchrist, Broward, Alachua Counties, Florida
    In the CSAPR modeling analysis, 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.
    As mentioned earlier in this section, 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, EPA notes that 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 
PM2.5 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 well below the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, the highest preliminary value for 
these observed monitors is 7.5 [micro]g/m\3\ at a Miami-Dade County 
monitor (ID 120861016). 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 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, we propose that New Jersey will not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in Florida.
Illinois
    As indicated previously, data quality issues prevent projections of 
nonattainment and maintenance receptors in Illinois. Previous CSAPR 
modeling, however, indicates that New Jersey emissions would not impact 
potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors in Illinois. New 
Jersey's contribution in the CSAPR 2012 base case modeling was 0.003 
[micro]g/m\3\ or less to Illinois counties, a very small fraction of 
the threshold amount (well below 1% of the standard) for linkage to 
downwind receptors.
    For this reason alone, we propose that New Jersey will not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in Illinois.
    Since we determined that New Jersey's SIP includes provisions 
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity from 
contributing significantly to nonattainment in or interfering with 
maintenance of the NAAQS in another state, steps 3 and 4 of this 
evaluation are not necessary.
    In conclusion, based on our review of the potential receptors 
presented in the 2016 memorandum, an evaluation identifying likely 
emission sources affecting these potential receptors, distance 
considerations, and the 2012 base case modeling in the CSAPR final 
rule, we propose to determine that emissions from New Jersey sources 
will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in or interfere with 
maintenance by, any other state with regard to the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve the portion of New Jersey's October 17, 
2014 SIP submission addressing the interstate transport provisions for 
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

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);

[[Page 23407]]

     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: May 8, 2018.
Peter D. Lopez,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2018-10803 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P