Je veux savoir à propos de…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 39 / Tuesday, March 2, 2021 / Rules and Regulations Connecticut? East coast states typically point to states like Minnesota as significantly contributing to their ozone problems under CAA 110a2D. Is EPA at this point conclusively deciding that this increased FIP limit will not cause the state to violate CAA
110a2D for any of the relevant NAAQS like ozone PM or NO2? Did EPA adjust its photochemical modeling performed for good neighbor SIPs to account for this relaxation? EPA issued several memos detailing Minnesotas contributions before this change, what is the quantitative effect of increasing these emissions on Minnesotas contribution to downwind states? EPA
must figure this out before modifying this FIP otherwise EPA is predetermining Minnesotas SIP under 110a2D and concluding the state has met its obligations.
Response: The CAA requires states to submit, within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs meeting the applicable infrastructure elements of sections 110a1 and 2. One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA
section 110a2Di, requires SIPs to contain good neighbor provisions to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to interstate transport of pollution. The commenter does not specify which element of CAA section 110a2D it believes is implicated by this action.
Though, in questioning the effect of the FIP revision on downwind nonattainment areas, the commenter may be referring to the first two subelements of the good neighbor provisions, at CAA section 110a2DiI. These sub-elements require that each SIP for a new or revised standard contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the applicable air quality standard in any other state.
EPA has previously taken action to approve good neighbor SIPs for several pollutants and the modifications being made to the FIP are not expected to contradict those approvals. On October 20, 2015 80 FR 63436, EPA approved Minnesotas SIP as addressing the States CAA section 110a2DiI
obligations under the 2010 NO2
NAAQS. The approval of Minnesotas 2010 NO2 good neighbor SIP was based on low design values for Minnesota and surrounding states, with the highest neighboring state showing a design value of 49 parts per billion ppb, less than half of the 100 ppb standard. This
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 Mar 01, 2021

Jkt 253001

approval was based on monitoring data from 2011 to 2013. Therefore, the FIP, promulgated in 2013, but not immediately requiring reductions, would not have had an impact on that data set.
On October 10, 2018 83 FR 50849, EPA approved Minnesotas SIP as addressing the States CAA section 110a2DiI obligations under the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. In the proposed SIP
approval, EPA explained that Minnesota found, and EPAs review confirmed, that all areas in other states where Minnesota emissions had the potential to impact monitored PM2.5 air quality, with the exception of one monitor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, were attaining the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
based on 20142016 data. 83 FR 39970, August 13, 2018. The emissions limits promulgated in the 2013 FIP were not yet in effect during this period, and thus the associated reductions did not impact the EPAs assessment of attainment.
Minnesota further determined that its impact on air quality monitors in Pennsylvania was projected to be less than 1% of the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, an insignificant contribution based on the air quality threshold that EPA had previously used to identify linkages between upwind states and downwind air quality problems under CAA section 110a2DiI.
Minnesotas determination was based on EPAs source apportionment modeling projecting upwind state contributions to downwind monitors using 2011 base case emissions, which was also conducted prior to the effectiveness of the emission limits promulgated in the 2013 FIP. The revised FIP limit at Minntac represents greater control than was assumed in Minnesotas and EPAs analysis supporting approval of the 2012 PM2.5
good neighbor SIP.
To the extent EPA has not acted on a pending good neighbor SIP under CAA
section 110a2DiI, EPA is not in this action pre-determining its approvability. On October 1, 2018, the State of Minnesota submitted to EPA a SIP submittal addressing Minnesotas interstate transport requirements under CAA section 110a2DiI with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA
has not yet taken action on Minnesotas October 1, 2018 SIP submittal. We will consider emissions from the state and whether the state is significantly contributing to or interfering with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state when we take action on the SIP.

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

12105

III. Final Action For the reasons stated in the proposed FIP revision, EPA is finalizing the revised BART emission limit and related requirements for the U.S. Steel Minntac facility as proposed.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget OMB because it is a rule of particular applicability and only affects one facility, U.S. Steels Minntac taconite plant located in Mt. Iron, Minnesota.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act PRA
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a collection of information is defined as a requirement for answers to . . . identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons . . . . 44 U.S.C.
35023A. Because the FIP applies to just one facility, the PRA does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320c.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act RFA
After considering the economic impacts of this action on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
EPAs action revises control requirements at one source. The Regional Haze FIP that EPA is promulgating for purposes of the regional haze program consists of imposing Federal control requirements to meet the BART requirement for NOX
emissions on specific units at one source in Minnesota. The net result of the FIP action is that EPA is finalizing emission controls on the indurating furnaces at one taconite facilities and this source is not owned by small entities, and therefore is not a small entity.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act UMRA
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate as
E:FRFM02MRR1.SGM

02MRR1