[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,
[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 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