83 FR 56777 - Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 220 (November 14, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 220 (November 14, 2018)
| Page Range | 56777-56781 | |
| FR Document | 2018-24817 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 14, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 56777-56781] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 56777
• Is not an economically significant requirements of section 110 of the Clean III. EPA’s Review
regulatory action based on health or Air Act (CAA) for the 2012 annual fine IV. What action is EPA taking?
safety risks subject to Executive Order particulate matter (PM2.5) National V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS I. What is the background of this SIP
• Is not a significant regulatory action or standard). The infrastructure submission?
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR requirements are designed to ensure that
28355, May 22, 2001); This rulemaking addresses a
the structural components of each
• Is not subject to requirements of submission from the Michigan
state’s air quality management program
Section 12(d) of the National Department of Environmental Quality
are adequate to meet the state’s
Technology Transfer and Advancement responsibilities under the CAA. This dated March 23, 2017, which describes
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because action pertains specifically to its infrastructure SIP for the 2012
application of those requirements would infrastructure requirements concerning annual PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR 3086).
be inconsistent with the CAA; and interstate transport provisions. Specifically, this rulemaking addresses
• Does not provide EPA with the the portion of the submission dealing
DATES: Comments must be received on
discretionary authority to address, as with interstate pollution transport under
or before December 14, 2018.
appropriate, disproportionate human CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), otherwise
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, known as the ‘‘good neighbor’’
health or environmental effects, using identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
practicable and legally permissible provision. The requirement for states to
OAR–2017–0191 at http:// make a SIP submission of this type
methods, under Executive Order 12898 www.regulations.gov, or via email to
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). arises from Section 110(a)(1) of the
blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For comments CAA. Pursuant to Section 110(a)(1),
In addition, the SIP is not approved submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
to apply on any Indian reservation land states must submit ‘‘within 3 years (or
online instructions for submitting such shorter period as the Administrator
or in any other area where EPA or an comments. Once submitted, comments
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a may prescribe) after the promulgation of
cannot be edited or removed from a national primary ambient air quality
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Regulations.gov. For either manner of
Indian country, the rule does not have standard (or any revision thereof),’’ a
submission, EPA may publish any plan that provides for the
tribal implications and will not impose comment received to its public docket.
substantial direct costs on tribal ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and
Do not submit electronically any enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The
governments or preempt tribal law as information you consider to be
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 statute directly imposes on states the
Confidential Business Information (CBI) duty to make these SIP submissions,
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). or other information whose disclosure is and the requirement to make the
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions is not conditioned upon
Environmental protection, Air submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be EPA’s taking any action other than
pollution control, Carbon monoxide, accompanied by a written comment. promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Incorporation by reference, The written comment is considered the Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, official comment and should include specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate discussion of all points you wish to plan’’ submission must address. EPA
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping make. EPA will generally not consider commonly refers to such state plans as
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile comments or comment contents located ‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’
organic compounds. outside of the primary submission (i.e.
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing II. What guidance and memoranda is
Dated: October 30, 2018. system). For additional submission EPA using to evaluate this SIP
Cathy Stepp, methods, please contact the person submission?
Regional Administrator, Region 5. identified in the FOR FURTHER EPA highlighted the statutory
[FR Doc. 2018–24815 Filed 11–13–18; 8:45 am] INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the requirement to submit infrastructure
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P full EPA public comment policy, SIPs within three years of promulgation
information about CBI or multimedia of a new NAAQS in an October 2, 2007,
submissions, and general guidance on guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION making effective comments, please visit on SIP Elements Required Under
AGENCY http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997
commenting-epa-dockets. 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National
40 CFR Part 52 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (2007
[EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0191; FRL–9986–30– Anthony Maietta, Environmental guidance). EPA has issued additional
Region 5] Protection Specialist, Control Strategies guidance documents and memoranda,
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), including a September 13, 2013,
Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Environmental Protection Agency, guidance document titled ‘‘Guidance on
Infrastructure SIP Requirements for Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Infrastructure State Implementation
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Multistate Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8777, Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act
Transport maietta.anthony@epa.gov. Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)’’ (2013
AGENCY: Environmental Protection SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: guidance).
Agency (EPA). Throughout this document whenever The most recent relevant document is
ACTION: Proposed rule. ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean a memorandum published on March 17,
EPA. This supplementary information 2016, titled ‘‘Information on the
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection section is arranged as follows: Interstate Transport ‘‘Good Neighbor’’
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve I. What is the background of this SIP Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate
elements of the State Implementation submission? Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Plan (SIP) submission from Michigan II. What guidance and memoranda is EPA Standards under Clean Air Act Section
regarding the infrastructure using to evaluate this SIP submission? 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)’’ (2016 memorandum).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:15 Nov 13, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14NOP1.SGM 14NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_56997/page/1.svg)
![56780 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—PM2.5 ANNUAL DESIGN VALUES IN μg/m3—Continued
Monitor 2005–2007 2006–2008 2007–2009 2008–2010 2009–2011 2010–2012 2011–2013 2012–2014 2013–2015 2014–2016 2015–2017
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 In addition to regional emissions and non-road vehicle programs, and
to attaining the NAAQS, and expected reductions and plant closures noted various rules for major stationary
emissions reductions in the next three above, additional local reductions in emissions sources.
years will lead to additional reductions both direct PM2.5 and SO2 emissions are In addition to regional emissions
in measured PM2.5 concentrations. also expected to occur and should also reductions and plant closures,
There are both local and regional contribute to further declines in additional local reductions to both
components to the measured PM2.5 Allegheny County’s PM2.5 monitor direct PM2.5 and SO2 emissions are
levels in Allegheny County and the concentrations. For example, significant expected to occur and should also
greater Pittsburgh area. Previous CSAPR SO2 reductions will occur at U.S. Steel’s contribute to further declines in
modeling showed that regional integrated steel mill facilities in Allegheny County’s PM2.5 monitor
emissions from upwind states, southern Allegheny County due to concentrations. For example, significant
particularly SO2 and NOX emissions, reductions required via federally- SO2 reductions have recently occurred
contribute to PM2.5 nonattainment at the enforceable permits issued by Allegheny at US Steel’s integrated steel mill
County to support its attainment plan facilities in southern Allegheny County
Liberty monitor. In recent years, large
submitted to meet requirements in CAA as part of a 1-hr SO2 NAAQS SIP.1
SO2 and NOX reductions from power
section 172(c) for the 1-hr SO2 NAAQS. Reductions are largely due to declining
plants have occurred in Pennsylvania
Reductions are expected by October sulfur content in the Clairton Coke
and states upwind from the Greater Work’s COG. Because this COG is
Pittsburgh region. Based on existing 2018 largely due to declining sulfur
content in the Clairton Coke Work’s burned at US Steel’s Clairton Coke
CSAPR budgets, Pennsylvania’s energy Works, Irvin Mill, and Edgar Thompson
sector emissions of SO2 will have coke oven gas (COG) due to upgraded
controls. Because this COG is burned at Steel Mill, these reductions in sulfur
decreased 166,000 tons between 2015– content should contribute to much
2017 as a result of CSAPR U.S. Steel’s Clairton Coke Works, Irvin
Mill, and Edgar Thompson Steel Mill, lower PM2.5 precursor emissions in the
implementation. This is due to both the immediate future. The Allegheny SO2
installation of emissions controls and these reductions in sulfur content
should contribute to much lower PM2.5 SIP also projects lower SO2 emissions
retirements of electric generating units resulting from vehicle fuel standards,
emissions from precursors in the
(EGUs). reductions in general emissions due to
immediate future after October 4, 2018
Between 2011 and 2016, 27.4 as SO2 is a precursor to PM2.5. declining population in the Greater
gigawatts of coal-fired EGUs have Additionally, improvement in SO2 Pittsburgh region and several
retired in Pennsylvania and the closest removal efficiency due to an upgrade in shutdowns of significant sources of
upwind states (West Virginia, Ohio, the Bruce Mansfield Power Plant’s flue emissions in Allegheny County.
Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and gas desulfurization (FGD) units EPA modeling projections, the recent
Michigan) according to the Energy downward trend in local and upwind
expected by October 2018 should also
Information Administration’s emissions reductions, the expected
help reduce precursor emissions from
Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator continued downward trend in emissions
neighboring Beaver County,
Inventory, April 2017 (form EIA–860M, between 2018 and 2021, and the
Pennsylvania. The Allegheny County
at https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/ downward trend in monitored PM2.5
and Beaver County SO2 SIP
eia860m/xls/april_generator2017.xlsx). concentrations all indicate that the
submissions, which EPA is reviewing
In addition, between 2017 and 2021, an Liberty monitor will attain and be able
pursuant to CAA requirements, also
additional 8.8 gigawatts of coal-fired to maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5
discuss expected lower SO2 emissions
NAAQS by 2021.
EGUs are expected to retire in the same in the Allegheny County area resulting With respect to Florida, in the CSAPR
upwind states. This includes large EGUs from reduced sulfur content modeling analysis for the 1997 PM2.5
such as JM Stuart in Ohio (2,308 requirements in vehicle fuels, NAAQS, Florida did not have any
megawatts [MW]), Killen Station in reductions in general emissions due to potential nonattainment or maintenance
Ohio (600 MW), WH Sammis in Ohio declining population in the Greater receptors identified for the 1997 or 2006
(720 MW), Michigan City in Indiana Pittsburgh region, and several PM2.5 NAAQS. At this time, it is
(469 MW), Will County in Illinois (510 shutdowns of significant emitters of SO2 anticipated that this trend will continue,
MW), Baldwin Energy Complex in in Allegheny County. however, as there are ambient
Illinois (576 MW), Paradise in Kentucky Projected power plant closures and monitoring data gaps in the 2009–2013
(1,230 MW), and Baily in Indiana (480 additional emissions controls in data that could have been used to
MW). These regional coal unit Pennsylvania and upwind states will identify potential PM2.5 nonattainment
retirements will lead to further help further reduce both direct PM2.5 and maintenance receptors for Miami/
emissions reductions which will help and PM2.5 precursors. Regional emission Dade, Gilchrist, Broward and Alachua
ensure that Alleghany County monitors reductions will continue to occur from
will not have nonattainment or current on-the-books Federal and state 1 http://www.achd.net/air/publichearing2017/
maintenance issues by 2021. regulations such as the Federal on-road SO2_2010_NAAQS_SIP_5-1-2017.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Nov 13, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14NOP1.SGM 14NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_56997/page/4.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 56781
counties in Florida, the modeling IV. What action is EPA taking? • Does not provide EPA with the
analysis of potential receptors was not EPA is proposing to approve a portion discretionary authority to address, as
complete for these counties. However, of Michigan’s March 23, 2017, submittal appropriate, disproportionate human
the most recent ambient data (2015– certifying that the current Michigan SIP health or environmental effects, using
2017) for these counties indicates design is sufficient to meet the required practicable and legally permissible
values well below the level of the 2012 infrastructure requirements under CAA methods, under Executive Order 12898
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), specifically (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
highest value for these observed prongs one and two, as set forth above. In addition, the SIP is not approved
monitors is 8.0 mg/m3 at the EPA is requesting comments on the to apply on any Indian reservation land
Hillsborough County monitor (12–057– proposed approval. or in any other area where EPA or an
3002), which is well below the NAAQS. Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
This is also consistent with historical V. Statutory and Executive Order tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Reviews Indian country, the rule does not have
data: Complete and valid design values
in the 2006–2008, 2007–2009 and/or Under the CAA, the Administrator is tribal implications and will not impose
required to approve a SIP submission substantial direct costs on tribal
2008–2010 periods for these counties
that complies with the provisions of the governments or preempt tribal law as
were all well below the 2012 annual
CAA and applicable Federal regulations. specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
PM2.5 NAAQS. This is also consistent
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
with historical data: Complete and valid
design values in the 2006–2008 and/or Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
2007–2009 periods for these counties EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of Environmental protection, Air
were well below the 2012 annual PM2.5 pollution control, Incorporation by
NAAQS. For these reasons, we find that the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting reference, Intergovernmental relations,
none of the counties in Florida with Particulate matter, Reporting and
monitoring gaps between 2009–2013 Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond recordkeeping requirements.
should be considered either Dated: October 29, 2018.
those imposed by state law. For that
nonattainment or maintenance receptors
reason, this action: Cathy Stepp,
for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. For
• Is not a significant regulatory action Regional Administrator, Region 5.
these reasons, we propose to find that
subject to review by the Office of [FR Doc. 2018–24817 Filed 11–13–18; 8:45 am]
emissions from Michigan will not Management and Budget under BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
significantly contribute to Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
nonattainment or interfere with October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
maintenance of the 2012 annual PM2.5 January 21, 2011); ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
NAAQS in Florida. We find further • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 AGENCY
support in the fact that EPA’s source FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
apportionment modeling predicting action because SIP approvals are 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
state impacts on downwind monitors in exempted under Executive Order 12866. [EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0226; FRL–9986–44–
2012 under the base case scenario in our • Does not impose an information OAR]
original CSAPR analysis, showing little collection burden under the provisions
impact from Michigan to any of of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 RIN 2060–AT97
Florida’s counties. U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Determinations of Attainment by the
The conclusions of Michigan’s • Is certified as not having a
Attainment Date, Extensions of the
analysis are consistent with EPA’s significant economic impact on a
Attainment Date, and Reclassification
expanded review of its March 23, 2017 substantial number of small entities
of Several Areas Classified as
submittal. All areas that Michigan under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
Moderate for the 2008 Ozone National
sources potentially contribute to are U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Ambient Air Quality Standards
expected to attain and maintain the • Does not contain any unfunded
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and as mandate or significantly or uniquely AGENCY: Environmental Protection
affect small governments, as described Agency (EPA).
demonstrated in its submittal, Michigan
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ACTION: Proposed rule.
will not contribute to projected
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
nonattainment or maintenance issues at
• Does not have Federalism SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
any sites in 2021. Michigan’s analysis implications as specified in Executive Agency (EPA) is proposing three actions
shows that through permanent and Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, related to the attainment date for 11
enforceable measures currently 1999); areas classified as ‘‘Moderate’’ for the
contained in its SIP, and other • Is not an economically significant 2008 ozone National Ambient Air
emissions reductions occurring in regulatory action based on health or Quality Standards (NAAQS). First, the
Michigan and in other states, monitored safety risks subject to Executive Order agency is proposing to determine that
PM2.5 air quality in all identified areas 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); two areas—the Baltimore, Maryland,
that Michigan sources may impact will • Is not a significant regulatory action and Mariposa County, California,
continue to improve, and that no further subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR nonattainment areas—attained the
measures are necessary to satisfy 28355, May 22, 2001); standard by the July 20, 2018,
Michigan’s responsibilities under CAA • Is not subject to requirements of attainment date. Second, the agency is
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Therefore, EPA Section 12(d) of the National proposing to grant requests for a 1-year
is proposing that prongs one and two of Technology Transfer and Advancement attainment date extension to two other
the interstate pollution transport Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because areas: Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft.
element of Michigan’s infrastructure SIP application of those requirements would Collins-Loveland, Colorado, and
are approvable. be inconsistent with the CAA; and Sheboygan County, Wisconsin. Third,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:15 Nov 13, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14NOP1.SGM 14NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_56997/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2018-11-14 03:31:13
Document Modified: 2018-11-14 03:31:13
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Comments must be received on or before December 14, 2018. | |
| 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] | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 56777 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Particulate Matter and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR