[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 14, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56777-56781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24817]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0191; FRL-9986-30-Region 5]


Air Plan Approval; Michigan; 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 
Michigan 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 December 14, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2017-0191 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to 
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either 
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its 
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person 
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full 
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Environmental 
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch 
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8777, 
[email protected].

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

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?
II. What guidance and memoranda is EPA using to evaluate this SIP 
submission?
III. EPA's Review
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?

    This rulemaking addresses a submission from the Michigan Department 
of Environmental Quality dated March 23, 2017, which describes its 
infrastructure SIP for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR 
3086). 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 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 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).

[[Page 56778]]

The 2016 memorandum describes EPA's consistent approach over the years 
to address interstate transport, and provides EPA's general review of 
relevant modeling data and air quality projections as they relate to 
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2016 memorandum provides 
information relevant to EPA Regional office review of the CAA section 
110 (a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``good neighbor'' provision in infrastructure SIPs 
with respect to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Michigan's 
submittal and this rulemaking consider information provided in that 
memorandum.
    The 2016 memorandum provides states and EPA Regional offices with 
future year annual PM2.5 design values for monitors in the 
United States based on quality assured and certified ambient monitoring 
data and air quality modeling. The 2016 memorandum further describes 
how these projected potential design values can be used to help 
determine which monitors should be further evaluated to potentially 
address whether emissions from other states significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS at those sites. The 2016 memorandum explains 
that, for purposes of addressing interstate transport for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS, it may be appropriate to evaluate projected air 
quality in 2021, which is the attainment deadline for 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas classified as Moderate. 
Accordingly, because the available data includes 2017 and 2025 
projected average and maximum PM2.5 design values calculated 
through the CAMx photochemical model, the 2016 memorandum suggests 
approaches states might use to interpolate PM2.5 values at 
sites in 2021. The 2016 memorandum indicates that it may be reasonable 
to assume receptors projected to have average and/or maximum design 
values above the NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 are also likely to be 
either nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2021. Similarly, the 
2016 memorandum indicates that it may be reasonable to assume that 
receptors that are projected to attain the NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 
are also likely to be attainment receptors in 2021. However, where a 
potential receptor is projected to be nonattainment or maintenance in 
2017, but projected to be attainment in 2025, the 2016 memorandum 
suggests that further analysis of the emissions and modeling may be 
needed to make a further judgement regarding the receptor status in 
2021.
    The 2016 memorandum indicates that for all but one monitor site in 
the eastern United States with at least one complete and valid 
PM2.5 design value for the annual average 2012 NAAQS in the 
2009-2013 period, the modeling data shows that monitors were expected 
to both attain and maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 
both 2017 and 2025. The modeling results provided in the 2016 
memorandum show that out of seven PM2.5 monitors located in 
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, one monitor is expected to be above the 
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2017. Further, that monitor the 
Liberty monitor (ID number 420030064), is projected to be above the 
NAAQS only under the model's maximum projected conditions (used in 
EPA's interstate transport framework to identify maintenance 
receptors), and is projected to both attain and maintain the NAAQS 
(along with all Allegheny County monitors) in 2025. The 2016 memorandum 
therefore indicates that under such a condition (where EPA's 
photochemical modeling indicates an area will maintain the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS in 2025 but not attain in 2017) further analysis 
of the site should be performed to determine if the site may be a 
nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2021 (the attainment deadline 
for moderate PM2.5 areas).
    The 2016 memorandum also 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 also 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 emissions. These states include all or portions of 
Florida, Illinois, Idaho (outside of Shoshone County), Tennessee, and 
Kentucky. With the exception of four counties in Florida, the data 
quality problems have subsequently been resolved for these areas, and 
these areas now have current design values below the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS and are expected to maintain the NAAQS due to 
downward emission trends for NOX and SO2.
    Michigan's submittal indicates that the state used data from the 
2016 memorandum in its analysis. EPA considered the analysis from 
Michigan, as well as additional analysis conducted by EPA, in its 
review of the Michigan submittal.

III. EPA's Review

    This rulemaking proposes action on the portion of Michigan's March 
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 Michigan's March 23, 2017 submission, 
to determine whether Michigan's interstate transport provisions in its 
PM2.5 infrastructure SIP meet prongs one and two of the good 
neighbor requirements of the CAA. Prongs three and four will be 
evaluated in a separate rulemaking.
    EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing the prong 
one and two interstate transport requirements with respect to the 
PM2.5 NAAQS in several previous Federal rulemakings. The 
four basic steps of that framework include: (1) Identifying downwind 
receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining 
the NAAQS; (2) identifying which upwind states contribute to these 
identified problems in amounts sufficient to warrant further review and 
analysis; (3) for states identified as contributing to downwind air 
quality problems, identifying upwind emissions reductions necessary to 
prevent an upwind state from significantly contributing to 
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind; 
and (4) for states that are found to have emissions that significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS 
downwind, reducing the identified upwind emissions through adoption of 
permanent and enforceable measures. This framework was most recently

[[Page 56779]]

applied with respect to PM2.5 in the August 8, 2011 Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48208), designed to address 
both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards, as well as the 1997 
and 2008 ozone standards.
    Michigan's March 23, 2017 submission indicates that the 
implementation of the Michigan SIP for SO2 will result in 
SO2 reductions of over 11,000 tons per year through permit 
changes and Rule 336.1430 in the Michigan Administrative Code (Michigan 
R 336.1430). The submission indicates that rules R 336.1301 through R 
336.1374 in the Michigan SIP limit emissions of particulate matter 
throughout the state. The submission indicates that rules R 336.1401 
through R 336.1420 and R 336.1407 reduce SO2 emissions 
throughout the state, and that rule R 336.1430 reduces SO2 
emissions in the Detroit area. The submission indicates that rules R 
336.1801 through 336.1834 limit emissions of NO2 throughout 
the state. In addition, Michigan's submission indicates that power 
plant retirements across the state have resulted in reductions of 
approximately 9,800 tons of NOX and 30,990 tons of 
SO2 per year.
    Michigan's submittal also contains a technical analysis of its 
interstate transport of pollution relative to the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS. The technical analysis studies Michigan 
sources' contribution to monitored PM2.5 air quality values 
in other states and whether Michigan would need to take further steps 
to decrease its emissions to (and therefore impacts on) those areas. 
Michigan's technical analysis considers CSAPR rule implementation, EPA 
guidance and memoranda, and other factors such as meteorology and 
state-wide emissions inventories. Michigan did not focus on potential 
contribution to areas EPA identified as not attaining the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS based on monitor data in Alaska, California, 
Idaho, Nevada, or Hawaii.
    The distance between Michigan these areas, coupled with the 
prevailing wind directions, leads EPA to propose to find that Michigan 
will not contribute significantly to any of the potential receptors in 
those states.
    With respect to Illinois, EPA's source apportionment modeling in 
our original CSAPR analysis predicts that Michigan's emissions impact 
Illinois monitors. Michigan found, and our review confirmed, that 
despite the fact that Michigan emissions potentially contribute to 
increases in PM2.5 levels monitored in Illinois, all areas 
in Illinois are attaining the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based 
on 2015-2017 data.
    EPA considered available data from monitors in Illinois for its 
analysis of Michigan'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
                                                                Design
                Local site name                  Monitoring      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 Michigan analyzed in its submittal. During the 
last valid design period, only three Illinois counties reported 2008-
2010 annual PM2.5 design values above the NAAQS: Cook, 
Madison, and Saint Clair counties. In Cook County, the 2008-2010 annual 
design value was 13.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\), and 
the annual mean values have trended downward. As shown in the table 
above, these areas are now meeting the NAAQS for the 2015 to 2017 
design period. Therefore, EPA expects that all counties in Illinois 
will attain and maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS without the need 
for additional PM2.5 reductions in Michigan, and for this 
reason, we propose to find that Michigan will not contribute 
significantly to nonattainment or maintenance problems in Illinois.
    Michigan found, and our review confirmed, that despite the fact 
that Michigan emissions potentially increase PM2.5 levels 
monitored in areas in other states, all of those areas are attaining 
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2014-2016 data. 
Michigan found, and our review confirmed, that despite the fact that 
Michigan emissions potentially increase PM2.5 levels 
monitored in Pennsylvania, all areas in Pennsylvania except for 
Allegheny County are attaining the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 
based on 2015-2017 data.
    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.
    Over the last decade, local and regional emissions reductions of 
primary PM2.5, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen 
oxide (NOX), have led to large reductions in annual 
PM2.5 design values in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In 
2007, all of Allegheny County's PM2.5 monitors exceeded the 
level of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (the 2005-2007 annual 
average design values ranged from 12.9-19.8 [micro]g/m\3\, as shown in 
Table 3). The 2015-2017 annual average PM2.5 design values 
now show that only one monitor (Liberty, at 13.0 [micro]g/m\3\) exceeds 
the health-based annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\.

                                                                       Table 3--PM2.5 Annual Design Values in [micro]g/m3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Monitor                             2005-2007   2006-2008   2007-2009   2008-2010   2009-2011   2010-2012   2011-2013   2012-2014   2013-2015   2014-2016   2015-2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avalon......................................................  ..........  ..........  ..........      * 16.3      * 14.7        13.4        11.4        10.6        10.6      * 10.4      * 10.2
Lawrenceville...............................................        15.0        14.0        13.1        12.2        11.6        11.1        10.3        10.0         9.7         9.5         9.2
Liberty.....................................................        19.8        18.3        17.0        16.0        15.0        14.8        13.4        13.0        12.6        12.8        13.0

[[Page 56780]]

 
South Fayette...............................................        12.9      * 11.8        11.7        11.1        11.0        10.5         9.6         9.0         8.8       * 8.5       * 8.4
North Park..................................................      * 13.0      * 12.3      * 11.3      * 10.1         9.7         9.4         8.8         8.5         8.5       * 8.2       * 8.2
Harrison....................................................        15.0        14.2        13.7        13.0        12.4      * 11.7        10.6        10.0         9.8         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        10.8
Parkway East Near-Road......................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      * 10.6      * 10.6
Clairton....................................................        15.3        14.3        13.2        12.4      * 11.5      * 10.9       * 9.8         9.5         9.8       * 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 three years will lead to 
additional reductions in measured PM2.5 concentrations. 
There are both local and regional components to the measured 
PM2.5 levels in Allegheny County and the greater Pittsburgh 
area. Previous CSAPR modeling showed that regional emissions from 
upwind states, particularly SO2 and NOX 
emissions, contribute to PM2.5 nonattainment at the Liberty 
monitor. In recent years, large SO2 and NOX 
reductions from power plants have occurred in Pennsylvania and states 
upwind from the Greater Pittsburgh region. Based on existing CSAPR 
budgets, Pennsylvania's energy sector emissions of SO2 will 
have decreased 166,000 tons between 2015-2017 as a result of CSAPR 
implementation. This is due to both the installation of emissions 
controls and retirements of electric generating units (EGUs).
    Between 2011 and 2016, 27.4 gigawatts of coal-fired EGUs have 
retired in Pennsylvania and the closest upwind states (West Virginia, 
Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan) according to the 
Energy Information Administration's Preliminary Monthly Electric 
Generator Inventory, April 2017 (form EIA-860M, at https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860m/xls/april_generator2017.xlsx). In addition, 
between 2017 and 2021, an additional 8.8 gigawatts of coal-fired EGUs 
are expected to retire in the same upwind states. This includes large 
EGUs such as JM Stuart in Ohio (2,308 megawatts [MW]), Killen Station 
in Ohio (600 MW), WH Sammis in Ohio (720 MW), Michigan City in Indiana 
(469 MW), Will County in Illinois (510 MW), Baldwin Energy Complex in 
Illinois (576 MW), Paradise in Kentucky (1,230 MW), and Baily in 
Indiana (480 MW). These regional coal unit retirements will lead to 
further emissions reductions which will help ensure that Alleghany 
County monitors will not have nonattainment or maintenance issues by 
2021.
    In addition to regional emissions reductions and plant closures 
noted above, additional local reductions in both direct 
PM2.5 and SO2 emissions are also expected to 
occur and should also contribute to further declines in Allegheny 
County's PM2.5 monitor concentrations. For example, 
significant SO2 reductions will occur at U.S. Steel's 
integrated steel mill facilities in southern Allegheny County due to 
reductions required via federally-enforceable permits issued by 
Allegheny County to support its attainment plan submitted to meet 
requirements in CAA section 172(c) for the 1-hr SO2 NAAQS. 
Reductions are expected by October 2018 largely due to declining sulfur 
content in the Clairton Coke Work's coke oven gas (COG) due to upgraded 
controls. Because this COG is burned at U.S. Steel's Clairton Coke 
Works, Irvin Mill, and Edgar Thompson Steel Mill, these reductions in 
sulfur content should contribute to much lower PM2.5 
emissions from precursors in the immediate future after October 4, 2018 
as SO2 is a precursor to PM2.5. Additionally, 
improvement in SO2 removal efficiency due to an upgrade in 
the Bruce Mansfield Power Plant's flue gas desulfurization (FGD) units 
expected by October 2018 should also help reduce precursor emissions 
from neighboring Beaver County, Pennsylvania. The Allegheny County and 
Beaver County SO2 SIP submissions, which EPA is reviewing 
pursuant to CAA requirements, also discuss expected lower 
SO2 emissions in the Allegheny County area resulting from 
reduced sulfur content requirements in vehicle fuels, reductions in 
general emissions due to declining population in the Greater Pittsburgh 
region, and several shutdowns of significant emitters of SO2 
in Allegheny County.
    Projected power plant closures and additional emissions controls in 
Pennsylvania and upwind states will help further reduce both direct 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. Regional emission 
reductions will continue to occur from current on-the-books Federal and 
state regulations such as the Federal on-road and non-road vehicle 
programs, and various rules for major stationary emissions sources.
    In addition to regional emissions reductions and plant closures, 
additional local reductions to both direct PM2.5 and 
SO2 emissions are expected to occur and should also 
contribute to further declines in Allegheny County's PM2.5 
monitor concentrations. For example, significant SO2 
reductions have recently occurred at US Steel's integrated steel mill 
facilities in southern Allegheny County as part of a 1-hr 
SO2 NAAQS SIP.\1\ Reductions are largely due to declining 
sulfur content in the Clairton Coke Work's COG. Because this COG is 
burned at US Steel's Clairton Coke Works, Irvin Mill, and Edgar 
Thompson Steel Mill, these reductions in sulfur content should 
contribute to much lower PM2.5 precursor emissions in the 
immediate future. The Allegheny SO2 SIP also projects lower 
SO2 emissions resulting from vehicle fuel standards, 
reductions in general emissions due to declining population in the 
Greater Pittsburgh region and several shutdowns of significant sources 
of emissions in Allegheny County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://www.achd.net/air/publichearing2017/SO2_2010_NAAQS_SIP_5-1-2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA modeling projections, the recent downward trend in local and 
upwind emissions reductions, the expected continued downward trend in 
emissions between 2018 and 2021, and the downward trend in monitored 
PM2.5 concentrations all indicate that the Liberty monitor 
will attain and be able to maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS by 2021.
    With respect to Florida, in the CSAPR modeling analysis for the 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, Florida did not have any potential 
nonattainment or maintenance receptors identified for the 1997 or 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS. At this time, it is anticipated that this trend 
will continue, however, as there are ambient monitoring data gaps in 
the 2009-2013 data that could have been used to identify potential 
PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance receptors for Miami/
Dade, Gilchrist, Broward and Alachua

[[Page 56781]]

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 indicates design values well below the 
level of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, the 
highest value for these observed monitors is 8.0 [mu]g/m\3\ at the 
Hillsborough County monitor (12-057-3002), which is well below the 
NAAQS. This is also consistent with historical data: Complete and valid 
design values in the 2006-2008, 2007-2009 and/or 2008-2010 periods for 
these counties were all well below the 2012 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS. This is also consistent with historical data: Complete and valid 
design values in the 2006-2008 and/or 2007-2009 periods for these 
counties were well below the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. For 
these reasons, we find that none of the counties in Florida with 
monitoring gaps between 2009-2013 should be considered either 
nonattainment or maintenance receptors for the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS. For these reasons, we propose to find that 
emissions from Michigan will not significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS in Florida. We find further support in the fact 
that EPA's source apportionment modeling predicting state impacts on 
downwind monitors in 2012 under the base case scenario in our original 
CSAPR analysis, showing little impact from Michigan to any of Florida's 
counties.
    The conclusions of Michigan's analysis are consistent with EPA's 
expanded review of its March 23, 2017 submittal. All areas that 
Michigan sources potentially contribute to are expected to attain and 
maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and as demonstrated in 
its submittal, Michigan will not contribute to projected nonattainment 
or maintenance issues at any sites in 2021. Michigan's analysis shows 
that through permanent and enforceable measures currently contained in 
its SIP, and other emissions reductions occurring in Michigan and in 
other states, monitored PM2.5 air quality in all identified 
areas that Michigan sources may impact will continue to improve, and 
that no further measures are necessary to satisfy Michigan'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 Michigan's infrastructure SIP are approvable.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve a portion of Michigan's March 23, 2017, 
submittal certifying that the current Michigan SIP is sufficient to 
meet the required infrastructure requirements under CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), specifically prongs one and two, as set forth 
above. EPA is requesting comments on the proposed approval.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because 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.

    Dated: October 29, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018-24817 Filed 11-13-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P