62042 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

[FR Doc. 2014–24493 Filed 10–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0969; EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0991; EPA–R05–OAR–2013– 

0435; FRL–9917–60–Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; 

Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 

the 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve some elements and disapprove 

other elements of a state 

implementation plan (SIP) submission 

from Illinois regarding the infrastructure 

requirements of section 110 of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 2010 sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). 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. Illinois 

already administers Federally 

promulgated regulations that address 

the disapprovals described in this 

rulemaking. Therefore, the state will not 

be obligated to submit any new or 

additional regulations as a result of this 

final disapproval. The proposed 

rulemaking associated with this final 

action was published on July 14, 2014, 

and EPA received one comment letter 

during the comment period, which 

ended on August 13, 2014. The 

concerns raised in this letter, as well as 

EPA’s responses, will be addressed in 

this final action. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 17, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established dockets 

for this action under Docket ID No. 

EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0969 (2008 ozone 

infrastructure SIP elements), Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0991 (2010 

NO2 infrastructure SIP elements), and 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2013– 

0435 (2010 SO2 infrastructure SIP 

elements). All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publiclyavailable only in hard copy. Publiclyavailable docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the U.S. 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. We recommend that 

you telephone Sarah Arra at (312) 886– 

9401 before visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–9401, 

arra.sarah@epa.gov. 

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 these SIP 

submissions? 

A. What state SIP submissions does this 

rulemaking address? 

B. Why did the state make these SIP 

submissions? 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

II. What is our response to comments 

received on the proposed rulemaking? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background of these SIP 

submissions? 

A. What state SIP submissions does this 

rulemaking address? 

This rulemaking addresses a 

December 31, 2012, submission and a 

June 11, 2014, clarification from the 

Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency (Illinois EPA) intended to 

address all applicable infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

B. Why did the state make these SIP 

submissions? 

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit 

infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their 

SIPs provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS, including the 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. These 

submissions must contain any revisions 

needed for meeting the applicable SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2), or 

certifications that their existing SIPs for 

the NAAQS already meet those 

requirements. 

EPA has highlighted this statutory 

requirement in multiple guidance 

documents, including the most recent 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)’’ issued on 

September 13, 2013. 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submission from Illinois that address 

the infrastructure requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. The requirement for states to 

make a SIP submission of this type 

arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). 

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states 

must make SIP submissions ‘‘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),’’ and these SIP 

submissions are to provide 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 has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A, and nonattainment 

new source review (NNSR) permit 

program submissions to address the 

permit requirements of CAA, title I, part 

D. 

This rulemaking will not cover three 

substantive areas that are not integral to 

acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission: (i) existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction (‘‘SSM’’)at sources, that 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 62043 

may be contrary to the CAA and EPA’s 

policies addressing such excess 

emissions; (ii) existing provisions 

related to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or 

‘‘director’s discretion’’ that purport to 

permit revisions to SIP approved 

emissions limits with limited public 

process or without requiring further 

approval by EPA, that may be contrary 

to the CAA (collectively referred to as 

‘‘director’s discretion’’); and, (iii) 

existing provisions for PSD programs 

that may be inconsistent with current 

requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final NSR 

Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). Instead, EPA has the 

authority to address each one of these 

substantive areas in separate 

rulemaking. A detailed rationale, 

history, and interpretation related to 

infrastructure SIP requirements can be 

found in our May 13, 2014, proposed 

rule entitled, ‘‘Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS’’ in the section, ‘‘What is the 

scope of this rulemaking?’’ (see 79 FR 

27241 at 27242–27245). 

In addition, EPA is not acting on 

portions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)— 

Interstate transport for 2008 ozone and 

2010 SO2, and portions of section 

110(a)(2)(J)—visibility protection and 

section 110(a)(2)(E)—state boards, for 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2. 

EPA is also not acting on section 

110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment Area Plan 

or Plan Revisions Under Part D, in its 

entirety. The rationale for not acting on 

elements of these requirements was 

included in EPA’s July 14, 2014, 

proposed rulemaking. EPA will also not 

be taking action on 110(a)(2)(A) and the 

rational is included in the response to 

comments. 

II. What is our response to comments 

received on the proposed rulemaking? 

The public comment period for EPA’s 

proposed actions (79 FR 40693) with 

respect to Illinois’ satisfaction of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements for the 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS closed on August 13, 2014. EPA 

received one comment letter. A synopsis 

of the adverse comments contained in 

this letter and EPA’s responses are 

provided below. 

Comment 1—The commenter states 

that the plain language of the CAA 

requires infrastructure SIPs to be 

adequate to prevent violations of the 

NAAQS. In support, the commenter 

quotes the language in section 110(a)(1) 

that requires states to adopt a plan for 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the NAAQS and the 

language in section 110(a)(2)(A) that 

requires SIPs to include enforceable 

emissions limitations as may be 

necessary to meet the requirements of 

the CAA and which commenters 

claimed include the maintenance plan 

requirement. Sierra Club also contends 

that the legislative history of the CAA 

supports the interpretation that 

infrastructure SIPs under section 

110(a)(2) must include enforceable 

emission limitations, citing the Senate 

Committee Report and the subsequent 

Senate Conference Report 

accompanying the 1970 CAA. The 

commenter cites 40 CFR 51.112(a), 

providing that each plan must 

‘‘demonstrate that the measures, rules, 

and regulations contained in it are 

adequate to provide for the timely 

attainment and maintenance of the 

[NAAQS].’’ The commenter asserts that 

this regulation requires all SIPs to 

include emissions limits necessary to 

ensure attainment of the NAAQS. The 

commenter states that ‘‘[a]lthough these 

regulations were developed before the 

Clean Air Act separated Infrastructure 

SIPs from nonattainment SIPs—a 

process that began with the 1977 

amendments and was completed by the 

1990 amendments—the regulations 

apply to I–SIPs.’’ The commenter also 

references two prior EPA rulemaking 

actions where EPA disapproved or 

proposed to disapprove SIPs and 

claimed they were actions in which EPA 

relied on section 110(a)(2)(A) and 40 

CFR 51.112 to reject infrastructure SIPs 

including a 2006 partial approval and 

partial disapproval of revisions to 

Missouri’s existing plan addressing the 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS, where 

EPA cited section 110(a)(2)(A) as a basis 

for disapproving a revision to the state 

plan on the basis that the state failed to 

demonstrate the SIP was sufficient to 

ensure maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS 

and a 2013 disapproval of a revision to 

the SO2 SIP for Indiana, where the 

revision removed an emission limit that 

applied to a specific emissions source at 

a facility in the state. Sierra Club also 

discusses several cases applying to the 

CAA which Sierra Club claims support 

their contention that courts have been 

clear that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires 

enforceable emissions limits in 

infrastructure SIPs to prevent violations 

of the NAAQS including Train v. NRDC, 

421 U.S. 60, 78 (1975), Pennsylvania 

Dept. of Envtl. Resources v. EPA, 932 

F.2d 269, 272 (3d Cir. 1991), Mision 

Industrial, Inc. v. EPA, 547 F.2d 123, 

129 (1st Cir. 1976), Alaska Dept. of 

Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 

461, 470 (2004), Mont. Sulphur & Chem. 

Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th 

Cir. 2012), and Mich. Dept. of Envtl. 

Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th 

Cir. 2000). The commenter also 

contends that Illinois’ infrastructure SIP 

does not adequately protect the 2008 

ozone NAAQS because it does not 

provide emissions limits for ozone 

precursors. The commenter notes that 

the state has exceedances of the 

standard and should add emissions 

limits, especially for coal-fired power 

plants. 

Response 1—While EPA does not 

agree with all of the statements made by 

the commenter regarding what is 

required under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A), we do agree that Illinois’ 

submittal lacks identification of 

‘‘emissions limitations’’ in the existing 

EPA-approved SIP provisions or new 

SIP provisions that the Illinois EPA has 

adopted and submitted for EPA 

approval that limit emissions of 

pollutants relevant to the 2008 ozone 

standard, including limits on ozone 

precursors. We are aware that the state 

does have numerous provisions in 

existing SIP that may be adequate to 

meet this requirement and we are 

working with the state to provide a 

submission that addresses this 

requirement. At this time, EPA is not 

taking final action on 110(a)(2)(A) for 

the 2008 ozone standard. We will take 

action in a separate rulemaking after 

providing the state with an opportunity 

to provide the necessary information. 

Comment 2—The commenter 

contends that the current emissions 

limits in the permits of several Illinois 

coal-fired power plants are ‘‘insufficient 

to attain and maintain the 2010 SO2

NAAQS.’’ The commenter supplies air 

dispersion modeling for several Illinois 

power plants showing their asserted 

impact on the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and 

tables summarizing the concentration of 

SO2 from the different facilities. The 

commenter alleges that the air 

dispersion modeling shows exceedances 

of the standard that should be addressed 

through emissions limits in Illinois’ SO2

Infrastructure SIP. The commenter also 

contends that ‘‘air dispersion modeling 

is the best method for evaluating the 

short-term impacts of large SO2

sources,’’ supporting this reasoning with 

statements from EPA’s 1994 SO2

Guideline Document, EPA’s 1983 

Section 107 Designation Policy 

Summary and EPA’s final 2010 SO2

NAAQS rule, as well as the court cases 

Montana Sulphur, Sierra Club v. Costle, 

Republic Steel Corp. v. Costle, and 

Catawba County v. EPA. The 

commenter also contends that 

compliance with 110(a)(2)(A) requires 

proper averaging time for emissions 

limits, specifically a one-hour averaging 

time for the one-hour SO2 NAAQS. The 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
62044 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

commenter cites a February 3, 2011 

letter from EPA Region 7 to the Kansas 

Department of Health and Environment 

regarding the need for one-hour SO2

emission limits in a PSD permit, EPA’s 

disapproval of a Missouri SIP which 

relied on annual averaging for SO2

emission rates, and In re: Mississippi 

Lime Co., PSDAPPEAL 11–01, 2011 WL 

3557194, at *26–27 (EPA Aug. 9, 2011) 

and 71 FR 12623, 12624 (March 13, 

2006), where EPA disapproved a control 

strategy SO2 SIP for which the 

commenter quotes, ‘‘Emission limits 

should be based on concentration 

estimates for the averaging time that 

results in the most stringent control 

requirements.’’ The commenter also 

contends that the number of 

nonattainment areas in Illinois will 

jump with future rounds of 

designations, therefore establishing 

emissions limits in the infrastructure 

SIP that comply with NAAQS provides 

regulatory certainty for facilities 

currently considering controls for other 

rules. 

The commenter contends that Illinois 

must require continuous emissions 

monitoring systems (CEMS) to comply 

with the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(F) for a system to monitor 

emissions from stationary sources. 

Response 2—While EPA does not 

agree with all of the statements made by 

the commenter regarding what is 

required under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A), we do agree that Illinois’ 

submittal lacks identification of 

‘‘emissions limitations’’ in the existing 

EPA-approved SIP provisions or new 

SIP provisions that the air agency has 

adopted and submitted for EPA 

approval that limit emissions of 

pollutants relevant to the 2010 SO2

standard. We are aware that the state 

does have numerous provisions in 

existing SIP that may be adequate to 

meet this requirement and we are 

working with the state to provide a 

submission that addresses this 

requirement. At this time, EPA is not 

taking final action on 110(a)(2)(A) for 

the 2010 SO2 standard. We will take 

action in a separate rulemaking after 

providing the state with an opportunity 

to provide the necessary information. 

Regarding the requirement in 

110(a)(2)(F), this provision merely 

requires the state to address monitoring 

and reporting requirements ‘‘prescribed 

by the Administrator.’’ EPA has not 

prescribed any new or different 

monitoring or reporting requirements 

for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

Comment 3—The commenter 

contends that Illinois’ 2010 NO2

infrastructure SIP fails to ensure 

attainment and maintenance of the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS because it does not 

include emissions limits or additional 

monitoring. 

Response 3—While EPA does not 

agree with all of the statements made by 

the commenter regarding what is 

required under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A), EPA agrees that Illinois’ 

submittal lacks identification of 

‘‘emissions limitations’’ in the existing 

EPA-approved SIP provisions or new 

SIP provisions that the air agency has 

adopted and submitted for EPA 

approval that limit emissions of 

pollutants relevant to the 2010 NO2

standard. We are aware that the state 

does have numerous provisions in 

existing SIP that may be adequate to 

meet this requirement and we are 

working with the state to provide a 

submission that addresses this 

requirement. At this time, EPA is not 

taking final action on 110(a)(2)(A) for 

the 2010 NO2 standard. We will take 

action in a separate rulemaking after 

providing the state with an opportunity 

to provide the necessary information. 

Comment 4—The commenter 

contends that the Illinois infrastructure 

SIPs for 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 are inadequate to protect those 

NAAQS because they allow for 

‘‘ambient air incremental increases, 

variances, exemptions, or exclusions 

with regard to limits placed on sources 

of pollutants.’’ The commenter claims 

that 415 ILCS 5/28.1 and 415 ILCS 5/35 

provide for wide discretion to amend or 

promulgate rules that exempt certain 

sources from complying with standards. 

The commenter also mentions the 

example of a variance in 2013 for the 

formerly Ameren-owned power plants. 

The commenter also asserts that it was 

not able to intervene in the proceeding 

of a variance, and that the Illinois Court 

of Appeals rejected the commenter’s 

petition for judicial review of that 

variance. Therefore, the commenter also 

contends that the infrastructure SIP 

prohibits judicial review of variances. 

The commenter contends that the 

allowance of these variances, 

inadequacies, and exemptions implies 

that the infrastructure SIP cannot ensure 

the protection of the NAAQS. 

Response 4—The statutes mentioned 

are not part of the SIP, and any variance 

granted pursuant to that state authority 

would not affect the approved SIP 

requirement. If the state exercised its 

authority to grant a variance pursuant to 

those state regulations, the requirement 

in the SIP would only be changed if the 

state submits the new requirement to 

EPA as a SIP revision and EPA approves 

that change into the SIP. 

Comment 5—The commenter 

contends that Illinois’ infrastructure SIP 

fails to address interstate transport with 

respect to NO2 and that as a result EPA 

should disapprove the submittal. The 

commenter notes that infrastructure 

SIPs must be submitted within three 

years of promulgation of a NAAQS 

under CAA section 110. The commenter 

contends that the state cannot rely on 

EPA’s failure to address the interstate 

transport provisions in its 2013 

infrastructure SIP guidance as a basis for 

not addressing this component in its 

SIP. The commenter also contends that 

under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR), Illinois was required to reduce 

NOX and SO2 emissions to address 

cross-state pollution for ozone and PM2.5

standards that were less stringent than 

the 2008 ozone and 2010 SO2 standards. 

In addition, the commenter claims that 

Illinois cannot rely on Illinois Mercury 

Rule, 35 IAC part 225, to demonstrate 

that it is addressing its contributions to 

other states without conducting 

modeling to determine the transport of 

NOX emissions. 

Response 5—EPA is not entirely clear 

which standards the commenter 

believed were deficient as to the 

interstate transport obligation in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Therefore, EPA 

will respond to the comment first as to 

the 2010 NO2 standard and then as to 

the ozone and SO2 standards. 

For the 2010 NO2 standard, as the 

commenter notes, the transport 

provisions of infrastructure SIPs should 

prohibit emissions that will contribute 

significantly to a nonattainment area in 

another state or interfere with another 

state’s maintenance of a NAAQS. 

However, the infrastructure submittal 

requirement applies only to the 

promulgated standard that triggered the 

requirement for the infrastructure 

submittal. The commenter’s argument 

appears to be that the 2010 NO2

standard is not being met because of 

existing modeling from CSAPR showing 

NOX transport. However, the commenter 

does not explain how the modeling 

demonstrates issues associated with the 

attainment and maintenance of the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS. The arguments that the 

commenter does make rely on modeling 

of NOX and SO2 as precursors to PM2.5

and ozone, which is not solely based on 

NO2 emissions and is not germane to the 

attainment or maintenance of the 2010 

NO2 standard. Even if the CSAPR 

modeling demonstrates that NOX

emissions from the Illinois are generally 

transported downwind, the commenter 

has not demonstrated that these 

emissions are associated with a 

nonattainment or maintenance problem 

as to the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in a 

downwind state. As noted in the 

proposed rule, Illinois does have rules 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 62045 

controlling NO2 emissions, including 

the Illinois Mercury Rule, and because 

there are no areas violating the 2010 

NO2 standard or any expected future 

violations, EPA finds the current 

controls sufficient to meet the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

2010 NO2 standard. 

To the extent that the commenter 

alleges the state has failed to address 

interstate transport as to the 2008 ozone 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, as explained in 

the notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPR), this action does not address the 

‘‘good neighbor provision’’ in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as to these NAAQS. 

Illinois did not make a SIP submission 

to address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as to ozone or SO2 and 

thus there is no such submission upon 

which EPA could take action under 

section 110(k). EPA did not propose to 

take any action with respect to Illinois’ 

obligations pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as to these NAAQS and 

is not in this rulemaking action taking 

any such action. Further, EPA could not 

act under section 110(k) to disapprove 

a SIP that has not been submitted to 

EPA. Thus, to the extent the comment 

relates to the substance or approvability 

of the ‘‘good neighbor provision’’ as to 

the 2008 ozone and 2010 SO2

infrastructure SIP submissions, the 

comment is not relevant to this present 

rulemaking. As stated in this final 

action and in the proposed rule, EPA 

will take later, separate action to 

address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements for the 2008 ozone and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

EPA disagrees with the commenters’ 

argument to the extent it asserts that 

EPA cannot approve a SIP without the 

‘‘good neighbor provision.’’ Section 

110(k)(3) of the CAA authorizes EPA to 

approve a plan in full, disapprove it in 

full, or approve it in part and 

disapprove it in part, depending on the 

extent to which such plan meets the 

requirements of the CAA. This authority 

to approve the states’ SIP revisions in 

separable parts was included in the 

1990 Amendments to the CAA to 

overrule a decision in the Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding 

that EPA could not approve individual 

measures in a plan submission without 

either approving or disapproving the 

plan as a whole. See S. Rep. No. 101– 

228, at 22, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 

3408 (discussing the express overruling 

of Abramowitz v. EPA, 832 F.2d 1071 

(9th Cir. 1987)). 

As such, the Agency interprets its 

authority under section 110(k)(3) as 

affording EPA the discretion to approve 

or conditionally approve individual 

elements of Illinois’ infrastructure 

submission for the 2008 ozone and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS, separate and apart from 

any action with respect to the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

with respect to those NAAQS. EPA 

views discrete infrastructure SIP 

requirements, such as the requirements 

of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as severable from 

the other infrastructure elements and 

interprets section 110(k)(3) as allowing 

it to act on individual severable 

measures in a plan submission. In short, 

EPA has discretion under section 110(k) 

to act upon the various individual 

elements of the state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission, separately or together, as 

appropriate. The commenters raise no 

compelling legal or environmental 

rationale for an alternate interpretation. 

EPA notes, however, that it is working 

with state partners to assess next steps 

to address air pollution that crosses 

state boundaries and will later take a 

separate action to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. EPA’s approval of 

the Illinois infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2008 ozone and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS for the portions described 

in the NPR is therefore appropriate. 

Comment 6—The commenter 

contends that Illinois does not have the 

adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority, required by section 

110(a)(2)(E) of the CAA, to properly 

administer its Title V program, shown 

by overdue permits and improper 

reissuing of expired permits. The 

commenter provided an example of a 

recently proposed significant 

modification action for the Kincaid 

Generation Station as an interim step for 

a 20-year process that ‘‘based on an 

application submitted almost nineteen 

years ago . . . left unacceptable gaps in 

the permit’s conditions.’’ The 

commenter states that this improper 

process is also the case for two other 

coal-fired power plants and, therefore, 

the state’s Title V program for coal-fired 

power plants is seriously deficient. 

Response 6—EPA disagrees that the 

issue raised by the commenter implies 

that Illinois EPA does not meet the 

criteria of section 110(a)(2)(E). Although 

Title V programs are not a component 

of the SIP, EPA fully approved Illinois’ 

Title V program on December 4, 2001 

(66 FR 62946). Illinois has funding for 

its program through Title V fees, and 

has the authority to implement the 

programs though a number of state rules 

to implement 40 CFR part 70, and 

dedicated staff for implementation of 

their Title V program. EPA 

acknowledges the commenter’s concern 

over the backlog issue at Illinois EPA, 

including the Kincaid permit, however, 

Illinois EPA is actively addressing this 

issue, and has taken many corrective 

actions, including significant increases 

in recent personnel hirings and permit 

issuance rates. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

For the reasons discussed in our July 

14, 2014, proposed rulemaking and in 

the above responses to public 

comments, EPA is taking final action to 

approve, Illinois’ infrastructure SIPs for 

the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS with the exception of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)—Interstate 

transport for 2008 ozone and 2010 SO2.

EPA is also not taking action on section 

110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment Area Plan 

or Plan Revisions Under Part D, section 

110(a)(2)(A)- Emission Limits, portions 

of section 110(a)(2)(E)—state boards, or 

portions of section 110(a)(2)(J)— 

visibility protection for the 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 standards. 

Our final actions by element of 

section 110(a)(2) and NAAQS, are 

contained in the table below. 

Element 2008 

Ozone 2010 NO2 2010 SO2

(A): Emission limits and other control measures ................................................................................................ NA NA NA 

(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system ......................................................................................... A A A 

(C) 1: Enforcement of SIP measures ................................................................................................................. A A A 

(C) 2: NOX as a precursor to ozone for PSD ..................................................................................................... D,* D,* D,* 

(C) 3: PM2.5 Precursors/PM2.5 and PM10 condensables for PSD ....................................................................... D,* D,* D,* 

(C) 4: PM2.5 Increments ...................................................................................................................................... D,* D,* D,* 

(C) 5: GHG permitting thresholds in PSD regulations ........................................................................................ D,* D,* D,* 

(D) 1: Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with maintenance of NAAQS ........................................................ NA A NA 

(D) 2: PSD ........................................................................................................................................................... ** ** ** 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
62046 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Element 2008 

Ozone 2010 NO2 2010 SO2

(D) 3: Visibility Protection .................................................................................................................................... A A A 

(D) 4: Interstate Pollution Abatement ................................................................................................................. D,* D,* D,* 

(D) 5: International Pollution Abatement ............................................................................................................. A A A 

(E): Adequate resources ..................................................................................................................................... A A A 

(E): State boards ................................................................................................................................................. NA NA NA 

(F): Stationary source monitoring system ........................................................................................................... A A A 

(G): Emergency power ........................................................................................................................................ A A A 

(H): Future SIP revisions .................................................................................................................................... A A A 

(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under part D .............................................................................. NA NA NA 

(J) 1: Consultation with government officials ...................................................................................................... A A A 

(J) 2: Public notification ....................................................................................................................................... A A A 

(J) 3: PSD ........................................................................................................................................................... ** ** ** 

(J) 4: Visibility protection ..................................................................................................................................... + + + 

(K): Air quality modeling and data ...................................................................................................................... A A A 

(L): Permitting fees .............................................................................................................................................. A A A 

(M): Consultation and participation by affected local entities ............................................................................. A A A 

In the above table, the key is as 

follows: 

A ......... Approve. 

NA ...... No Action/Separate Rulemaking. 

D ......... Disapprove. 

+ ......... Not germane to infrastructure SIPs. 

* .......... Federally promulgated rules in 

place. 

** ........ Previously discussed in element 

(C). 

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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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). 

This rule 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 as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

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 section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by December 15, 

2014. 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 section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxide. 

Dated: September 30, 2014. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 62047 

■ 2. Section 52.745 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.745 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(e) Approval and Disapproval—In a 

December 31, 2012, submittal, Illinois 

certified that the State has satisfied the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) 

through (M) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

except for 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA is not 

taking action on the state board 

requirements of (E)(ii) or 110(a)(2)(A). 

Although EPA is disapproving portions 

of Illinois’ submission addressing the 

prevention of significant deterioration, 

Illinois continues to implement the 

Federally promulgated rules for this 

purpose as they pertain to (C), (D)(i)(II), 

(D)(ii), and the prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) portion of (J). 

(f) Approval and Disapproval—In a 

December 31, 2012, submittal, Illinois 

certified that the state has satisfied the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) 

through (M) for the 2010 nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) NAAQS. EPA is not 

taking action on the state board 

requirements of (E)(ii) or 110(a)(2)(A). 

Although EPA is disapproving portions 

of Illinois’ submission addressing the 

prevention of significant deterioration, 

Illinois continues to implement the 

Federally promulgated rules for this 

purpose as they pertain to (C), (D)(i)(II), 

(D)(ii), and the prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) portion of (J). 

(g) Approval and Disapproval—In a 

December 31, 2012, submittal, Illinois 

certified that the state has satisfied the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) 

through (M) for the 2010 sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) NAAQS except for 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA is not taking 

action on the state board requirements 

of (E)(ii) or 110(a)(2)(A). Although EPA 

is disapproving portions of Illinois’ 

submission addressing the prevention of 

significant deterioration, Illinois 

continues to implement the Federally 

promulgated rules for this purpose as 

they pertain to (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and 

the prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) portion of (J). 

[FR Doc. 2014–24353 Filed 10–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Natural Resources Revenue 

30 CFR Part 1290 

Office of Hearings and Appeals 

43 CFR Part 4 

[Docket No. ONRR–2011–0017; DS63610000 

DR2PS0000.CH7000 145D0102R2] 

RIN 1012–AA08 

Clarification of Appeal Procedures 

AGENCY: Office of Natural Resources 

Revenue and Office of Hearings and 

Appeals, Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Natural 

Resources Revenue (ONRR) and Office 

of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) are 

amending and clarifying regulations 

concerning certain aspects of appeals of 

ONRR correspondence and clarifying 

the final administrative nature of ONRR 

orders that are not paid or appealed. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 17, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions on technical issues, contact 

Bonnie Robson, Office of Enforcement 

and Appeals, ONRR, telephone (303) 

231–3729, or email bonnie.robson@

onrr.gov. For other questions, contact 

Armand Southall, Regulatory Specialist, 

ONRR, telephone (303) 231–3221, or 

email armand.southall@onrr.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

ONRR is amending its appeal 

regulations. On May 13, 1999, the 

Department of the Interior (Department) 

published in the Federal Register (64 

FR 26240) a final rule governing the 

appeal of the former Minerals 

Management Service’s (MMS) Minerals 

Revenue Management (MRM) orders. In 

this rule, ONRR clarifies the appeal 

regulations by removing ambiguity 

regarding the ONRR definition of an 

Order, the timing of appeals of orders to 

perform restructured accounting, and 

the orders that have become final for the 

Department that the recipient has not 

paid or appealed. 

II. Reorganization of Title 30 CFR 

On May 19, 2010, the Secretary of the 

Interior (Secretary) separated the 

responsibilities previously performed by 

the former MMS and reassigned those 

responsibilities to three separate 

organizations. As part of this 

reorganization, the Secretary renamed 

MMS’s MRM the Office of Natural 

Resources Revenue and directed that 

ONRR transition from the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Land and 

Minerals Management to the Office of 

the Assistant Secretary for Policy, 

Management and Budget (PMB). This 

change required the reorganization of 

title 30, Code of Federal Regulations (30 

CFR). In response, ONRR published a 

direct final rule on October 4, 2010 (75 

FR 61051), to establish a new chapter 

XII in 30 CFR; to remove certain 

regulations from chapter II; and to 

recodify these regulations in the new 

chapter XII. Therefore, all references to 

ONRR in this rule include its 

predecessor MRM, and all references to 

30 CFR part 1290 in this rule include 

former 30 CFR part 290, subpart B. 

III. Comments on the Proposed 

Amendments 

ONRR published the proposed rule on 

July 22, 2013 (78 FR 43843). We 

received comments on the proposed 

rule from 1 oil and gas producer, 1 

Indian Tribe, and 1 trade association. 

We have analyzed these comments, 

which are discussed below: 

A. 30 CFR Part 1290—Appeals 

1. § 1290.102 Definition of ‘‘order.’’ 

Public Comments: Both the company 

and trade association expressed concern 

over the definition of an ‘‘order.’’ 

Specifically, they believe that paragraph 

2(vi) which states that ‘‘[a]ny 

correspondence that does not include 

the right to appeal in writing’’ is not an 

‘‘order,’’ is too broad, confusing, and 

unnecessary. Their primary concern is 

that correspondence that contains a 

requirement to pay or other ‘‘substantive 

obligation to perform,’’ but does not set 

out the right to appeal, forces the 

recipient to either (1) comply with the 

correspondence ‘‘but have no right to 

appeal’’ or (2) call ONRR to find out if 

ONRR intentionally left out the appeals 

language. The trade association thus 

suggests that we delete paragraph 2(vi) 

in the final rule or add language to 

paragraph 2(vi) that correspondence 

‘‘without express appeal language has 

no immediate legal effect on the 

recipient.’’ The company suggests that 

ONRR correspondence state whether it 

is appealable or not instead of stating in 

the rule that correspondence is not 

appealable if it does not contain appeal 

rights. 

ONRR Response: In the proposed rule 

we explained that ‘‘the rule proposes to 

amend existing appeal regulations in 

titles 30 and 43 to clarify which ONRR 

correspondence are appealable orders 

. . . [because] ONRR has received 

appeals filed in response to ‘‘Dear 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES