[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62042-62047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24353]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
NO<INF>2</INF>, and 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 (NO<INF>2</INF>), and 2010 
sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) 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 NO<INF>2</INF> infrastructure 
SIP elements), and Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0435 (2010 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 publicly-available only in hard copy. Publicly-
available 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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b7d6c5c5d699c4d6c5d6dff7d2c7d699d0d8c1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e283909083cc918390838aa2879283cc858d94">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 NO<INF>2</INF>, and 2010 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>2</INF>, and 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>2</INF>, and 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> 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

[[Page 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 
SO<INF>2</INF>, and portions of section 110(a)(2)(J)--visibility 
protection and section 110(a)(2)(E)--state boards, for 2008 ozone, 2010 
NO<INF>2</INF>, and 2010 SO<INF>2</INF>. 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 NO<INF>2</INF>, and 2010 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 (SO<INF>2</INF>) 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 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS and a 2013 
disapproval of a revision to the SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS.'' 
The commenter supplies air dispersion modeling for several Illinois 
power plants showing their asserted impact on the 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> 
NAAQS and tables summarizing the concentration of SO<INF>2</INF> 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' SO<INF>2</INF> Infrastructure 
SIP. The commenter also contends that ``air dispersion modeling is the 
best method for evaluating the short-term impacts of large 
SO<INF>2</INF> sources,'' supporting this reasoning with statements 
from EPA's 1994 SO<INF>2</INF> Guideline Document, EPA's 1983 Section 
107 Designation Policy Summary and EPA's final 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> 
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 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. The

[[Page 62044]]

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 SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits in a PSD permit, EPA's disapproval 
of a Missouri SIP which relied on annual averaging for SO<INF>2</INF> 
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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 
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 
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS.
    Comment 3--The commenter contends that Illinois' 2010 
NO<INF>2</INF> infrastructure SIP fails to ensure attainment and 
maintenance of the 2010 NO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>2</INF> 
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 NO<INF>2,</INF> and 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>2</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions to address cross-state pollution for ozone and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards that were less stringent than the 2008 ozone 
and 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>2</INF> standard and then as to the 
ozone and SO<INF>2</INF> standards.
    For the 2010 NO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>2</INF> standard is not being met because of existing 
modeling from CSAPR showing NO<INF>X</INF> transport. However, the 
commenter does not explain how the modeling demonstrates issues 
associated with the attainment and maintenance of the 2010 
NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. The arguments that the commenter does make rely 
on modeling of NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> as precursors to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and ozone, which is not solely based on NO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions and is not germane to the attainment or maintenance of the 
2010 NO<INF>2</INF> standard. Even if the CSAPR modeling demonstrates 
that NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS in a downwind state. As noted in the 
proposed rule, Illinois does have rules

[[Page 62045]]

controlling NO<INF>2</INF> emissions, including the Illinois Mercury 
Rule, and because there are no areas violating the 2010 NO<INF>2</INF> 
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 NO<INF>2</INF> standard.
    To the extent that the commenter alleges the state has failed to 
address interstate transport as to the 2008 ozone and 2010 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. 
EPA's approval of the Illinois infrastructure SIP submission for the 
2008 ozone and 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>2</INF>, and 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS with the exception 
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)--Interstate transport for 2008 ozone and 
2010 SO<INF>2.</INF> 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 NO<INF>2</INF>, and 2010 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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       NA             NA            NA
 other control measures.
(B): Ambient air quality       A              A             A
 monitoring and data system.
(C) 1: Enforcement of SIP      A              A             A
 measures.
(C) 2: NOX as a precursor to   D,*            D,*           D,*
 ozone for PSD.
(C) 3: PM2.5 Precursors/PM2.5  D,*            D,*           D,*
 and PM10 condensables for
 PSD.
(C) 4: PM2.5 Increments......  D,*            D,*           D,*
(C) 5: GHG permitting          D,*            D,*           D,*
 thresholds in PSD
 regulations.
(D) 1: Contribute to           NA             A             NA
 nonattainment/interfere with
 maintenance of NAAQS.
(D) 2: PSD...................  **             **            **

[[Page 62046]]

 
(D) 3: Visibility Protection.  A              A             A
(D) 4: Interstate Pollution    D,*            D,*           D,*
 Abatement.
(D) 5: International           A              A             A
 Pollution Abatement.
(E): Adequate resources......  A              A             A
(E): State boards............  NA             NA            NA
(F): Stationary source         A              A             A
 monitoring system.
(G): Emergency power.........  A              A             A
(H): Future SIP revisions....  A              A             A
(I): Nonattainment area plan   NA             NA            NA
 or plan revisions under part
 D.
(J) 1: Consultation with       A              A             A
 government officials.
(J) 2: Public notification...  A              A             A
(J) 3: PSD...................  **             **            **
(J) 4: Visibility protection.  +              +             +
(K): Air quality modeling and  A              A             A
 data.
(L): Permitting fees.........  A              A             A
(M): Consultation and          A              A             A
 participation by affected
 local entities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:


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


[[Page 62047]]



0
2. Section 52.745 is amended by adding paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  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 (NO<INF>2</INF>) 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 (SO<INF>2</INF>) 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>