[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 119 (Thursday, June 20, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28745-28747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13033]
[[Page 28745]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0583; FRL-9995-30-Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Interstate Transport
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
elements of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from
Illinois regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or
standard). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that
the structural components of each state's air quality management
program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the
CAA. This action pertains specifically to infrastructure requirements
in the Illinois SIP concerning interstate transport provisions.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July 22, 2019.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0583. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samantha Panock, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8973,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What is being addressed by this document?
II. What comments did we receive on the proposed action?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is being addressed by this document?
On September 29, 2017, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA) submitted a request to EPA for approval of its infrastructure
SIP for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On February 14, 2019,
EPA proposed to approve the portion of the submission dealing with
requirements one and two (otherwise known as ``prongs'' one and two) of
the provision for interstate pollution transport under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), also known as the ``good neighbor'' provision.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are four prongs to the Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) ``good
neighbor'' provision: (1) Prohibit any source or other type of
emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state; (2) prohibit any source
or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering
with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state; (3) prohibit any
source or other type of emissions activity in one state from
interfering with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration (PSD) of air quality in another state; and (4) protect
visibility in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The September 29, 2017 IEPA submittal included a demonstration that
Illinois' SIP contains sufficient major programs related to the
interstate transport of pollution. Illinois' submittal also included a
technical analysis of its interstate transport of pollution relative to
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This analysis demonstrated that
current controls are adequate for Illinois to show that it meets prongs
one and two of the ``good neighbor'' provision. After review, EPA
proposed to approve Illinois' request relating to prongs one and two of
the ``good neighbor'' provision.
II. What comments did we receive on the proposed action?
EPA's February 14, 2019 proposed rule provided a 30-day review and
comment period (84 FR 4025). The comment period closed on March 18,
2019. EPA received one anonymous submission with supportive comments
and one anonymous submission with adverse comments. The adverse
comments and EPA's responses are addressed below.
Comment: The commenter asserts that EPA's approach to using only
monitoring data to identify receptors for the purposes of evaluating
interstate transport of PM2.5 is ``long standing'' but is
arbitrary and, thus, impermissible because EPA's approach ignores the
fact that direct emissions of PM2.5 can cause high local
ambient concentrations in areas where there are no operating monitors.
Response: As described in the proposal, 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. Regarding identifying potential nonattainment
and/or maintenance receptors (i.e. step one of the framework), EPA
relies primarily on existing monitoring sites and modeling to project
PM2.5 concentrations in future years. This approach to
identifying potential receptors is consistent with how EPA determines
whether an area is attaining or not attaining the PM2.5
NAAQS. For the PM2.5 NAAQS, determinations of attainment are
based primarily on ambient data measured at ambient PM2.5
Federal reference method (FRM) and Federal equivalent method (FEM)
monitors. Although EPA sometimes considers other information for
purposes of evaluating areas with sources that may contribute to
monitored violations, the fundamental basis for evaluating attainment/
nonattainment for a PM2.5 NAAQS is the presence of one or
more FRM or FEM monitors with data showing violations of the NAAQS.
Similarly, for evaluating interstate PM2.5 transport, the
determination of whether there are downwind receptors that are expected
to have problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS is based on future
year projections of ambient data
[[Page 28746]]
measured at the FRM and FEM monitors in the area in question. To
develop data that may be useful for analyzing interstate transport with
respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA examined recent
modeling analyses developed in support of other EPA rules to identify
potential PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance receptors. The
modeling was used to project design values for the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS to several future years for each ambient
monitoring site. EPA believes this is a reasonable and consistent
approach for addressing interstate transport for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the commenter has not provided any
information that would cause EPA to change the approach in this action.
Comment: The commenter asserts that EPA guidance regarding
interstate transport of PM2.5 does not cite any AERMOD
modeling of the impacts of direct emissions of PM2.5, and
thus does not justify EPA's longstanding approach of ignoring this
possibility. The commenter asserts that EPA should apply EPA's approach
for evaluating interstate transport for the 1-hour SO2
NAAQS, which the commenter states has in some cases examined the
evidence regarding specific large, near-border sources of
SO2 emissions, to PM2.5.
Response: The commenter asserts that EPA should apply EPA's
approach for evaluating interstate transport for the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS, which may include dispersion modeling using a
model such as AERMOD. As described in the proposal, EPA has established
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. As discussed in EPA's 2016
memorandum entitled ``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), EPA and states have used a
weight-of-evidence approach to assess PM2.5 transport from a
given state to a given downwind receptor location. A state's submission
for this requirement should provide the technical information that the
state deems appropriate to support its conclusions. Prior guidance and
EPA SIP actions suggest that suitable information might include, but is
not limited to, information concerning emissions in the state,
meteorological conditions in the state and in potentially impacted
states, monitored ambient pollutant concentrations in the state and in
potentially impacted states, distances to the nearest areas not
attaining the NAAQS in other states, and air quality modeling. In
contrast, SO2 is not a regional pollutant and does not
commonly contribute to widespread nonattainment over a large (and often
multi-state) area. Therefore, unlike for PM2.5,
determinations of attainment or nonattainment for the SO2
NAAQS may be based on monitoring data or dispersion modeling data (from
air quality models such as AERMOD) or a combination of both. Therefore,
EPA has adopted a different weight-of-evidence approach for
SO2 transport, which, when available, may include air
dispersion modeling such as AERMOD in addition to other factors such as
ambient monitoring data and source specific analyses. The fact that EPA
has adopted an approach that has a different focus for purposes of
evaluating SO2 transport does not mean that approach is
appropriate for evaluating interstate transport of a regional pollutant
like PM2.5. For these reasons, EPA believes its approach for
addressing the good neighbor provision for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS is reasonable and consistent with the nature of the interstate
transport of PM2.5 and its precursors. The commenter has not
provided any information that would cause EPA to change its approach in
this action.
Comment: The commenter asserts that EPA should disapprove Illinois'
submission because the state has failed to provide any analysis to
support the implicit assertion that no large sources of direct
PM2.5 emissions in Illinois and close to the border with
another state are not causing or contributing to PM2.5 NAAQS
violations in the neighboring state. The commenter asserts that in the
absence of any evidence there is transport problem due to direct
emissions of PM2.5, EPA should not be applying a presumption
of innocence. This is particularly true for Illinois, which has many
sources that emit direct PM2.5 (unlike some other states
that mostly have sources that emit only PM2.5 precursors).
Response: The EPA did not apply a presumption of innocence in
evaluating Illinois' obligations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Rather, EPA has used a weight-of-evidence approach to assess
PM2.5 transport from a given upwind state to a given
downwind receptor location. The modeling discussed in the 2016
memorandum and referenced in the Illinois SIP considers both primary
(directly emitted) PM2.5 and precursor emissions, the
different processes (e.g., transport and deposition) that affect
primary and secondary (i.e. formed by atmospheric processes) pollutants
at scales and potential receptor locations that are consistent with
determinations of attainment and nonattainment. Therefore, considering
the weight of evidence, EPA has determined that the Illinois analysis
is adequate for their transport SIP for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. The commenter does not provide any information that indicates
inconsistency or inadequacy of EPA's approach in this action, nor of
Illinois' submission, which EPA is approving through this action.
III. What action is EPA taking?
In this action, EPA is approving the portion of Illinois' September
29, 2017 submission certifying that the current Illinois SIP is
sufficient to meet the required infrastructure requirements under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), specifically prongs one and two, as set
forth above.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or
[[Page 28747]]
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by August 19, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 4, 2019.
Cheryl L Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 52.720, the table in paragraph (e) is amended under the
heading ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements'' by adding an
entry at the end of the table for ``2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Requirements'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.720 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Illinois Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable geographic
Name of SIP provision or nonattainment State EPA approval date Comments
area submittal date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Statewide............ 9/29/2017 6/20/2019, [Insert Federal Register Fully approving CAA transport
Requirements. citation]. requirements of (D)(i)(I).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-13033 Filed 6-19-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P