[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 234 (Thursday, December 7, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57689-57694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26291]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0824; FRL-9971-63-Region 5]


Air Plan Approval; Ohio; 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 
Ohio 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 January 8, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2015-0824 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 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 Ohio Environmental 
Protection Agency (OEPA), describing its infrastructure SIP for the 
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, dated December 4, 2015. 
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 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 a 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 describes 
EPA's past approach to addressing 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. This rulemaking considers 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 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 explained 
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

[[Page 57690]]

calculated through the CAMx photochemical model, the memorandum 
suggests approaches states might use to interpolate PM2.5 
values at sites in 2021.
    For all but one monitor site in the eastern United States, the 
modeling data showed that monitors were expected to both attain and 
maintain the 2012 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 (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 
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 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. This rulemaking 
considers these analyses from Ohio, as well as additional analysis 
conducted by EPA during review of its submittal.

III. EPA's Review

    This rulemaking proposes action on the portion of Ohio's December 
4, 2015, 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 the December 4, 2015 submission, 
specific to prongs one and two of Ohio's interstate transport 
provisions in its PM2.5 infrastructure SIP. 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 
applied with respect to PM2.5 in the Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule (CSAPR), designed to address both the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 standards, as well as the 1997 ozone standard.
    Ohio's December 4, 2015, submission indicates that the Ohio SIP 
contains the following major programs related to the interstate 
transport of pollution: Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapters 3745-16 
(Stack Height Requirements); 3745-103 (Acid Rain Permits and 
Compliance); 3745-14 (Nitrogen Oxides--Budget Trading Program); and 
3745-109 (Clean Air Interstate Rule). Ohio also indicates that sources 
in the state are complying with CSAPR. In addition, Ohio has responded 
to requests by the States of Indiana and West Virginia, implementing 
revisions to OAC 3724-18 (Hamilton County and Jefferson County) to 
alleviate modeled violations due, in part, to sources in Ohio.
    Ohio's submittal also contains a technical analysis of its 
interstate transport of pollution relative to the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS prepared in October 2015. The technical analysis 
studied Ohio sources' contribution to monitored PM2.5 air 
quality values in other states, and evaluated downwind areas which were 
most influenced by Ohio sources, and whether Ohio would need to take 
further steps to decrease its emissions (and therefore contribution) to 
those areas. Ohio's technical analysis considers CSAPR rule 
implementation, a review of then-current air quality design values, and 
other factors such as meteorology and state-wide emissions inventories. 
Through its technical analysis, Ohio determined that at the time of 
EPA's analysis of its CSAPR rule,\1\ sources in Ohio were projected to 
contribute more than the 1% screening threshold toward PM2.5 
air quality at certain receptors PM2.5 air quality problems 
in Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, New York, 
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Ohio then used that information to 
evaluate the distance and geography of the downwind states potentially 
impacted by Ohio emissions. Ohio also examined the most recent air 
quality in those downwind states. (Based on distance and topographical 
considerations, Ohio's analysis did not focus on potential contribution 
to areas not attaining the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on 
2012-2014 monitor data in Alaska, California, Idaho, Nevada or Hawaii.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Contained in the TSD for EPA's CSAPR rule (76 FR 48208). 
EPA's technical analysis included modeled emissions and air quality 
for 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ohio completed its technical analysis before March 17, 2016, when, 
as discussed earlier, EPA released updated 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 later, however, EPA's review of 
Ohio's submittal nevertheless concludes that the March 17, 2016, 
updated modeling projections data corroborate the findings of Ohio's 
technical analysis. In addition, certified annual PM2.5 
design values recorded since Ohio's submittal further confirm Ohio's 
technical analysis.
    By looking at 2012-2014 annual PM2.5 design values, 
CSAPR-modeled design values, emissions inventory data, and other 
factors, Ohio's technical analysis shows that monitored air quality 
values in states Ohio potentially contributes to have trended downward 
and were in most cases were already lower than the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2012-2014 air quality data (the newest 
data available at the time of Ohio's technical analysis and submittal). 
Table 1 shows

[[Page 57691]]

ambient monitoring data for the downwind states that Ohio identified as 
areas that could be affected by its emissions. The table contains 
county level annual average PM2.5 design value data for 
2012-2014. In addition, data used for EPA's expanded review of 
PM2.5 design values that includes design values for 2009-
2011, 2010-2012, 2011-2013, 2013-2015, and 2014-2016 is included in the 
technical support document (TSD) in the docket, ``[Technical Support 
Document for Docket #EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0824].'' The TSD for this action 
also looks at air quality trends in Illinois and Pennsylvania, areas 
that required further review because of either missing data or 
monitored values recently near or above the NAAQS, by showing the 
areas' 2012-2014, 2013-2015, and 2014-2016 design values as well as 
yearly annual means from 2014 through 2016 for certain counties based 
on AQS data. EPA's expanded review, as discussed throughout this 
action, supports Ohio's conclusions drawn from the data shown in Table 
1.

  Table 1--Monitored PM2.5 Air Quality in Counties That Ohio Potentially Contributes One Percent or More Toward
                                              PM2.5 Concentrations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     2012-2014       2013-2015       2014-2016
                                                                   Annual PM2.5    Annual PM2.5    Annual PM2.5
               State                            County            DV ([micro]g/m  DV ([micro]g/m  DV ([micro]g/m
                                                                       \3\)            \3\)            \3\)
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................  Jefferson..................            11.3              11            11.2
Alabama............................  Russell....................            10.7              10             9.7
Alabama............................  Pulaski....................            11.7            10.7            10.3
Georgia............................  Bibb.......................            10.9            10.2            10.1
Georgia............................  Clayton....................            10.3              10             9.9
Georgia............................  Floyd......................            10.3             9.9             9.9
Georgia............................  Fulton.....................              11            10.5            10.4
Georgia............................  Muscogee...................            10.2             9.6             9.6
Georgia............................  Wilkinson..................            10.6              10             9.9
Illinois...........................  Champaign..................             N/A             N/A             N/A
Illinois...........................  Cook.......................             N/A             N/A             N/A
Illinois...........................  Macon......................             N/A             N/A             N/A
Illinois...........................  Madison....................             N/A             N/A             N/A
Illinois...........................  Saint Clair................             N/A             N/A             N/A
Indiana............................  Clark......................            11.8            11.4            10.6
Indiana............................  Dubois.....................            10.9            10.6             9.8
Indiana............................  Lake.......................            11.5              11            10.1
Indiana............................  Madison....................             9.8             9.6               9
Indiana............................  Marion.....................            11.8            11.7            11.4
Indiana............................  Spencer....................            10.5            10.1             9.5
Indiana............................  Vanderburgh................            10.9            10.7            10.1
Indiana............................  Vigo.......................            10.6            10.3             9.7
Iowa...............................  Muscatine..................            10.8            10.4             9.4
Kentucky...........................  Bullitt....................  ..............  ..............  ..............
New York...........................  Bronx......................            10.3             9.4               9
Pennsylvania.......................  Allegheny..................              13            12.6            12.8
Pennsylvania.......................  Beaver.....................            11.3            10.8            10.1
Pennsylvania.......................  Cambria....................            11.6            11.7            10.7
Pennsylvania.......................  Chester....................             9.9              10             9.6
Pennsylvania.......................  Delaware...................            12.3            11.6            11.5
Pennsylvania.......................  Lancaster..................            11.6            11.2            12.8
Pennsylvania.......................  Lebanon....................            12.7            11.7            11.2
Pennsylvania.......................  Northampton................            10.5              10             9.3
Pennsylvania.......................  Westmoreland...............            10.1             9.8             8.7
West Virginia......................  Brooke.....................            11.1            11.2            10.5
West Virginia......................  Marshall...................            11.1            10.7            10.2
Texas..............................  El Paso....................              11             9.9             9.4
Wisconsin..........................  Eau Claire.................             7.9             7.5             7.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Value does not contain a complete year's worth of data.

    In all areas where three years of certified data exist to determine 
annual PM2.5 design values for 2012-2014, only three 
counties in Pennsylvania recorded values above the NAAQS: Allegheny, 
Delaware, and Lebanon counties (which will be discussed in detail 
below). Because of errors in protocol made during the recording and/or 
analysis of PM2.5 air quality monitors in several states 
(for example, improper maintenance of an air quality monitor or not 
following proper laboratory analysis procedures), the data from those 
monitors could not be quality assured or certified for use in 
determining those areas' PM2.5 design values. These data 
quality and certification issues were identified by EPA to have 
occurred between 2012 and 2015. Therefore, those states had missing 
annual PM2.5 design values for certain three-year periods. 
The PM2.5 monitoring data for the State of Illinois (the 
only state with data quality issues Ohio identified as contributing to) 
for all of 2012, 2013, and until July 2014 suffered from data quality/
completion issues and therefore no current annual PM2.5 
design values exist for Illinois. By making corrections in protocol at 
laboratories that review PM2.5 air monitor samples (for 
example, maintaining the laboratory's air temperature to within 
specified limits so as not to cause errors in PM sample analysis) and 
by rectifying other

[[Page 57692]]

deficiencies identified by EPA, we have determined that these quality 
control issues have been fully resolved for Illinois (and all states 
referenced in this analysis). While Illinois has resolved its quality 
control issues, it has still not recorded three full years of certified 
data to be able to determine annual PM2.5 design values for 
its counties.
    EPA considered available data from monitors in Illinois for its 
analysis of Ohio's submittal. As noted, there is only partial year 
Illinois data for 2014. However, our review looks at the most recent 
valid data available, which are Illinois' recorded 2015-2016 annual 
average mean values for monitors in each county, to determine whether 
data and downward trends demonstrated in other states in Ohio's 
technical analysis are also demonstrated in Illinois. As discussed 
below, generally the data show a steady decline in annual 
PM2.5 concentrations across all sites in Illinois, with most 
counties' 2016 annual means well below the NAAQS. Table 2 shows the 
annual mean PM2.5 values for 2015 and 2016.

        Table 2--Annual Mean PM2.5 Values for Illinois, 2015-2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            2015 PM2.5      2016 PM2.5
                                            Annual mean     Annual mean
                 County                     ([micro]g/m     ([micro]g/m
                                               \3\)            \3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Champaign...............................             8.6             7.6
Cook....................................            12.5             9.4
DuPage..................................               9             7.8
Hamilton................................             8.2             7.8
Jersey..................................             7.7           * 7.9
Kane....................................             8.9               8
Macon...................................             8.7             7.8
Madison.................................            10.4             9.1
McHenry.................................             9.9             7.3
McLean..................................             7.6             7.6
Peoria..................................             8.6             7.6
Randolph................................             7.9               8
Rock Island.............................             9.1             7.2
Sangamon................................             8.2             7.7
Saint Clair.............................            10.7              10
Will....................................             9.1             7.8
Winnebago...............................             9.1             7.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Value does not contain a complete year's worth of data.

    Based upon our expanded review of these data to include valid 
PM2.5 design values for the years 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 
2011-2013 (located in the TSD) and despite not having three complete 
recent years of certified, quality-assured monitoring data or annual 
PM2.5 design values--Illinois' air quality trends reflect 
what is shown across the nation: a general downward trend in ambient 
air concentrations, including at sites in the states that Ohio analyzed 
in its submittal. Only three Illinois counties reported 2010-2012 
annual PM2.5 design values above the NAAQS: Cook, Madison, 
and Saint Clair counties. In Cook County, the 2010-2012 design value 
(which is the latest certified design value for the county), was 12.7 
[micro]g/m\3\, and despite a slight rise in 2015, the annual mean 
values have trended downward. Cook County's annual mean for that year 
was 9.4 [micro]g/m\3\, representing a significant decline in monitored 
ambient PM2.5. For Madison County, the 2010-2012 
PM2.5 design value was 13.5 [micro]g/m\3\, and the 2014-2016 
annual means show a trend downward from 12.9 [micro]g/m\3\ to 9.1 
[micro]g/m\3\, a clear and continuous downward trend. For Saint Clair 
County, the 2010-2012 PM2.5 design value was 12.2 [micro]g/
m\3\, and the 2014-2016 annual means show a clear and continuous 
downward trend from 10.9 [micro]g/m\3\ to 10 [micro]g/m\3\. All other 
counties in Illinois were below the NAAQS, based both on their 2010-
2012 PM2.5 design values and their recorded 2014-2016 annual 
mean concentrations. 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 Ohio.
    Ohio found, and our review confirmed, that despite the fact that 
Ohio emissions potentially contribute to areas' monitored 
PM2.5 air quality, all but two areas in Pennsylvania 
(Allegheny and Delaware counties) were attaining the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2012-2014 data. A review of 2013-2015 
design values shows that all areas except for Allegheny County have 
attained the NAAQS. Our review also considers 2014-2016 design values, 
which show only Allegheny and Lancaster counties not meeting the NAAQS.
    Ohio's technical analysis focused on its contribution to Allegheny 
County because, in addition to being the closest county with monitored 
PM2.5 air quality above the NAAQS, it has the highest design 
values for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in all of the 
counties in Ohio's technical review. Ohio's technical review also 
looked at its impact on PM2.5 air quality in Delaware, 
Lancaster, and Lebanon counties in Pennsylvania and while its 
contribution to these areas was less than for Allegheny, Ohio 
identified these counties as ones it may contribute to based on the 
2012 CSAPR modeling.
    EPA's review looked further into more recent and current 
PM2.5 monitor data in those counties. In Delaware and 
Lebanon counties, not only do the most recent PM2.5 monitor 
data show these counties are attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS, 
EPA's PM2.5 modeling data for 2017 and 2025 do not indicate 
any nonattainment or maintenance issues in these counties. There is a 
clear downward trend in PM2.5 values in these counties. For 
Lancaster County, despite having a 2014-2016 design value that exceeds 
the NAAQS, there is a clear downward trend in the monitored 
PM2.5 air quality data that supports EPA's PM2.5 
modeling that shows no nonattainment or maintenance problems for this 
county by 2021.
    The modeling information contained in EPA's March 17, 2016 
memorandum shows that one monitor in Alleghany 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

[[Page 57693]]

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 NAAQS (the 2005-2007 annual average design values 
ranged from 12.9-19.8 [micro]g/m\3\, as shown in Table 3). The 2014-
2016 annual average PM2.5 design values now show that only 
one monitor (Liberty, at 12.8 [micro]g/m\3\) exceeds the health-based 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07DE17.000

    The Liberty monitor is already close to attaining the NAAQS, and 
expected emissions reductions in the next four years will lead to 
additional reductions in measured 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. Ohio's submittal indicates 
that 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) [see the 
TSD for more details]. Projected power plant closures and additional 
emissions controls in Pennsylvania and upwind states will help further 
reduce both direct 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.\2\ Reductions are largely due to declining 
sulfur content in the Clairton Coke Work's coke oven gas (COG). Because 
this COG is burned at US Steel's Clairton Coke Works, Irvin Mill, and 
Edgar Thompson Steel Mill, these reductions in sulfur content should 
contribute to much lower 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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 2017 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.
    In addition to local reductions projected to occur in Pennsylvania 
discussed above, Ohio indicated that its own state-wide SO2 
emissions from the energy generation sector will have decreased by 
148,000 tons, or about 50 percent of its 2014 emissions, between 2015 
and 2017 as a result of CSAPR implementation across Ohio. Thus, the 
submittal shows that because of reductions from CSAPR implementation in 
Ohio and across the CSAPR states, emissions have trended downward 
nearly universally among PM2.5 air quality monitors. This 
trend is reinforced by looking at air quality data since Ohio's 
submittal, and by data in EPA's March 17, 2016, Memorandum.
    The conclusions of Ohio's analysis are consistent with EPA's March 
17, 2016, Memorandum. All areas that Ohio sources potentially 
contribute to are expected to attain and maintain the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS by 2021. Ohio's analysis shows that through 
permanent and enforceable measures currently contained in its SIP, 
implementation of CSAPR from 2015-2017 and beyond, and other emissions 
reductions occurring in Ohio and in other states, monitored 
PM2.5 air quality in all identified areas that Ohio sources 
may impact will continue to improve, and that no further measures are 
necessary to satisfy Ohio'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 Ohio's infrastructure 
SIP are approvable.

[[Page 57694]]

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve a portion of Ohio's December 4, 2015, 
submission certifying that the current Ohio 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: November 17, 2017.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2017-26291 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


