Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0840-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Proposed approval of the Wisconsin 2012 PM2.5 Interstate Transport iSIP
Posted Date: 2019-04-30T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 30, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18191-18195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08627]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0840 FRL-9992-92-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Interstate Transport

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve elements of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from 
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) 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 CAA. This action pertains specifically 
to infrastructure requirements in the Wisconsin SIP concerning 
interstate transport provisions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 30, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2018-0840 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to 
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either 
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its 
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person 
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full 
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

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 the background of this SIP submission?
II. What guidance and memoranda is EPA using to evaluate this SIP 
submission?
III. WDNR's Analysis and Conclusion
IV. EPA's Additional Analysis, Review, and Conclusion
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?

    This rulemaking addresses a submission from the WDNR dated November 
26, 2018, which describes its infrastructure SIP for the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013). Specifically, 
this rulemaking addresses the portion of the submission dealing with 
interstate pollution transport under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 
otherwise known as the ``good neighbor'' provision. The requirement for 
states to make a SIP submission of this type arises from section 
110(a)(1) of the CAA, pursuant to which states must submit ``within 3 
years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after 
the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or 
any revision thereof),'' a plan that provides for the ``implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) of the 
CAA includes a list of specific elements that ``each such plan'' 
submission must address. EPA commonly refers to such state plans as 
``infrastructure SIPs.'' State plans must address four requirements of 
the good neighbor provisions (commonly referred to as ``prongs''), 
including:
    -- Prong 1: Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions 
activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment 
of the NAAQS in another state;
    --Prong 2: Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions 
activity in one state from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in 
another state;
    --Prong 3: Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions 
activity in one state from interfering with measures required to 
prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality in another 
state; and
    --Prong 4: Protecting visibility in another state.
    This rulemaking is evaluating whether Wisconsin's interstate 
transport provisions in its PM2.5 infrastructure SIP meet 
prongs one and two of the good neighbor requirements of the CAA. Prongs 
three and four will be evaluated in a separate rulemaking.
    EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing the prong 
one and two interstate transport requirements with respect to the 
PM2.5 NAAQS in several previous Federal rulemakings. The 
four basic steps of that framework include: (1) Identifying downwind 
receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining 
the NAAQS; (2) identifying which upwind states contribute to these 
identified problems in amounts sufficient to warrant further review and 
analysis; (3) for states identified as contributing to downwind air 
quality problems, identifying upwind emissions reductions necessary to 
prevent an upwind state from significantly contributing to 
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind; 
and (4) for states that are found to have emissions that significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS 
downwind, reducing the identified upwind emissions through adoption of 
permanent and enforceable measures. This framework was most recently 
applied with respect to PM2.5 in the August 8, 2011 Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48208), designed to address 
both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

[[Page 18192]]

standards, as well as the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards.

II. What guidance and memoranda is EPA using to evaluate this SIP 
submission?

    EPA highlighted the statutory requirement to submit infrastructure 
SIPs within three years of promulgation of a new NAAQS in an October 2, 
2007 guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required 
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and 
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards.'' EPA has 
issued additional guidance documents and memoranda, including a 
September 13, 2013 guidance document titled ``Guidance on 
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air 
Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).''
    The most recent relevant document is a memorandum published on 
March 17, 2016, titled ``Information on the Interstate Transport `Good 
Neighbor' Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' (2016 memorandum). The 2016 memorandum describes 
EPA's consistent approach over the years to address interstate 
transport. In the 2016 memorandum, EPA reviewed relevant modeling data 
and provided EPA's air quality projections as they relate to the 2012 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2016 memorandum provides information 
relevant to EPA Regional office review of CAA section 110 
(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``good neighbor'' provision in infrastructure SIPs with 
respect to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. WDNR's submittal and 
this rulemaking consider information provided in that memorandum.
    The 2016 memorandum provides states and EPA Regional offices with 
future year annual PM2.5 design values for monitors in the 
United States based on quality-assured and certified ambient monitoring 
data and air quality modeling. The 2016 memorandum further describes 
how these projected potential design values can be used to help 
determine which monitors should be further evaluated to potentially 
address whether emissions from other states significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS at those sites. The 2016 memorandum explains 
that, for purposes of addressing interstate transport for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS, it may be appropriate to evaluate projected air 
quality in 2021, which is the attainment deadline for 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas classified as Moderate. 
Accordingly, because the available data includes 2017 and 2025 
projected average and maximum PM2.5 design values calculated 
through the CAMx photochemical model, the 2016 memorandum suggests 
approaches states might use to interpolate PM2.5 values at 
sites in 2021. The 2016 memorandum indicates that it may be reasonable 
to assume receptors projected to have average and/or maximum design 
values above the NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 are also likely to be 
either nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2021. Similarly, the 
2016 memorandum indicates that it may be reasonable to assume that 
receptors that are projected to attain the NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 
are also likely to be attainment receptors in 2021. However, where a 
potential receptor is projected to be nonattainment or maintenance in 
2017, but projected to be attainment in 2025, the 2016 memorandum 
suggests that further analysis of the emissions and modeling may be 
needed to make a further judgement regarding the receptor status in 
2021.
    The 2016 memorandum indicates that for all but one monitoring site 
in the eastern United States, with complete and valid PM2.5 
design values from 2009 to 2013, the modeling data shows that monitors 
were expected to both attain and maintain the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025. The modeling results 
provided in the 2016 memorandum show that out of seven PM2.5 
monitors located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, one monitor is 
expected to be above the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2017. 
Further, that monitor, the Liberty monitor (ID number 420030064), is 
projected to be above the NAAQS only under the model's maximum 
projected conditions (used in EPA's interstate transport framework to 
identify maintenance receptors) and is projected to both attain and 
maintain the NAAQS (along with all Allegheny County monitors) in 2025. 
The 2016 memorandum therefore indicates that under such a condition 
(where EPA's photochemical modeling indicates an area will maintain the 
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2025 but not attain in 2017) 
further analysis of the site should be performed to determine if the 
site may be a nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2021 (the 
attainment deadline for moderate PM2.5 areas).
    The 2016 memorandum also indicates that based on modeling 
projections, there are 17 potential nonattainment or maintenance 
receptors in California, located in the San Joaquin Valley and South 
Coast nonattainment areas, and one potential receptor in Shoshone 
County, Idaho.
    The 2016 memorandum also indicates that for certain states with 
incomplete ambient monitoring data, additional information including 
the latest available data should be analyzed to determine whether there 
are potential downwind air quality problems that may be impacted by 
transported emissions. These states include all or portions of Florida, 
Illinois, Idaho (outside of Shoshone County), Tennessee, and Kentucky. 
Except for four counties in Florida, the data quality problems have 
been resolved for these areas, and these areas now have current design 
values below the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and are expected to 
maintain the NAAQS due to downward emission trends for nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2).
    WDNR's submittal indicates that the State used data from the 2016 
memorandum and supplied its own additional information in its analysis. 
EPA considered the analysis from WDNR, as well as additional analysis 
conducted by EPA, in its review of the WDNR submittal.

III. WDNR's Analysis and Conclusion

    WDNR's submittal contains a technical analysis of its interstate 
transport of pollution relative to the 2012 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS. As reflected in the EPA's 2016 memorandum, the only receptor 
identified as nonattainment or maintenance on which Wisconsin was 
deemed to have potential significant impact is the Liberty monitor (42-
003-0064) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania located in southwest 
Pennsylvania. In its technical analysis, WDNR examined geographical, 
monitoring, and emission factors to evaluate impacts on the Allegheny 
monitor. As stated previously, WDNR's technical analysis considers 
CSAPR rule implementation and EPA guidance and memoranda. WDNR did not 
focus on potential contribution to other areas EPA identified as not 
attaining the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on monitor data 
in Alaska, California, Idaho, Nevada, or Hawaii. The distance between 
Wisconsin and these areas, coupled with the prevailing wind directions, 
leads WDNR to conclude that Wisconsin will not contribute significantly 
to any of the potential receptors in those states. Since the Allegheny 
County, Pennsylvania, receptor is the only location considered downwind 
of Wisconsin, this submission focuses on that single receptor. WDNR 
concluded that Wisconsin contributes no significant impacts to the 
maintenance and attainment of NAAQS for PM2.5 in

[[Page 18193]]

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, and therefore existing measures satisfy 
Wisconsin's responsibilities under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    WDNR's submission discussed geographical factors that show 
Wisconsin does not contribute to the nonattainment issues at the 
Allegheny monitor. As stated in WDNR's submittal, Wisconsin's nearest 
point to the Allegheny monitor is about 500 miles away. At this large 
distance, PM2.5 precursor emissions from Wisconsin are 
thoroughly dispersed in the atmosphere long before reaching 
Pennsylvania.
    WDNR's submission evaluated monitored PM2.5 
concentrations in Wisconsin. WDNR found that PM2.5 monitors 
in all regions of Wisconsin have measured a steady decrease in annual 
PM2.5 concentrations over the past decade. PM2.5 
design values decreased by around 37% on average in most of the state 
between 2001-2003 and 2015 to 2017.
    WDNR's submission also evaluated the Wisconsin emissions data from 
EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI) of NOX, 
SO2, and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Emissions of 
NOX and SO2 have been steadily decreasing since 
the early 2000s due to state and Federal control requirements. The 
emissions of NOX and SO2 in Wisconsin from all 
identified sources have decreased by 50% and 68%, respectively, since 
2002. VOC emissions also decreased 50% over this period.
    WDNR concludes that that no further measures are necessary to 
satisfy Wisconsin's responsibilities under CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), because Wisconsin does not contribute to projected 
nonattainment or maintenance issues at the Liberty monitor site. WDNR 
found that is has not historically contributed significantly to any of 
the areas projected to have nonattainment or maintenance concerns 
related to this NAAQS. In addition, emissions of PM2.5 
precursors and monitored PM2.5 concentrations are both 
decreasing within the State. Therefore, the permanent and enforceable 
control measures already being implemented in Wisconsin are sufficient 
to ensure that emissions in the State will not significantly contribute 
to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, in any downwind state 
for this NAAQS.

IV. EPA's Additional Analysis, Review, and Conclusion

    The modeling information contained in EPA's 2016 memorandum shows 
that one monitor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the Liberty 
monitor, 420030064) may have a maintenance issue in 2017, but is 
projected to both attain and maintain the NAAQS by 2025. Monitoring 
data from 2015-2017 show attainment county-wide, except for the 
Liberty-Clairton area. The Liberty monitor was exceeding standards in 
2017 but is still projected to attain and maintain the NAAQS by 2025. A 
linear interpolation of the modeled design values to 2021 shows that 
the monitor is likely to both attain and maintain the standard by 2021. 
Emissions and air quality data trends help to corroborate this 
interpolation.
    Over the last decade, local and regional emissions reductions of 
primary PM2.5, SO2, and NOX, have led 
to large reductions in annual PM2.5 design values in 
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In 2007, all of Allegheny County's 
PM2.5 monitors exceeded the level of the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS (the 2005-2007 annual average design values 
ranged from 12.9-19.8 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\), as 
shown in Table 1). The 2015-2017 annual average PM2.5 design 
values now show that only one monitor (Liberty, at 13.0 [micro]g/m\3\) 
exceeds the health-based annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 
[micro]g/m\3\.

                                                                      Table 1--PM2.5 Annual Design Values in [micro]g/m\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Monitor                        2005-2007    2006-2008    2007-2009    2008-2010    2009-2011    2010-2012    2011-2013    2012-2014    2013-2015    2014-2016    2015-2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avalon...........................................  ...........  ...........  ...........       * 16.3       * 14.7         13.4         11.4         10.6         10.6       * 10.4       * 10.2
Lawrenceville....................................         15.0         14.0         13.1         12.2         11.6         11.1         10.3         10.0          9.7          9.5          9.2
Liberty..........................................         19.8         18.3         17.0         16.0         15.0         14.8         13.4         13.0         12.6         12.8         13.0
South Fayette....................................         12.9       * 11.8         11.7         11.1         11.0         10.5          9.6          9.0          8.8        * 8.5        * 8.4
North Park.......................................       * 13.0       * 12.3       * 11.3       * 10.1          9.7          9.4          8.8          8.5          8.5        * 8.2        * 8.2
Harrison.........................................         15.0         14.2         13.7         13.0         12.4       * 11.7         10.6         10.0          9.8          9.8          9.8
North Braddock...................................         16.2         15.2         14.3         13.3         12.7         12.5       * 11.7         11.4         11.2         11.0         10.8
Parkway East Near-Road...........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........       * 10.6       * 10.6
Clairton.........................................         15.3         14.3         13.2         12.4       * 11.5       * 10.9        * 9.8          9.5          9.8        * 9.8        * 9.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Value does not contain a complete year worth of data.

    The Liberty monitor is already close to attaining the NAAQS and 
expected emissions reductions in the next three years will lead to 
additional reductions in measured PM2.5 concentrations. 
There are both local and regional components to the measured 
PM2.5 levels in Allegheny County and the greater Pittsburgh 
area. Previous CSAPR modeling showed that regional emissions from 
upwind states, particularly SO2 and NOX 
emissions, contribute to PM2.5 nonattainment at the Liberty 
monitor. In recent years, large SO2 and NOX 
reductions from power plants have occurred in Pennsylvania and states 
upwind from the Greater Pittsburgh region. Based on existing CSAPR 
budgets, Pennsylvania's energy sector emissions of SO2 will 
have decreased 166,000 tons between 2015-2017 because of CSAPR 
implementation. This is due to both the installation of emissions 
controls and retirements of electric generating units.
    Between 2011 and 2016, 27.4 gigawatts of coal-fired electric 
generation units (EGUs) have retired in Pennsylvania and the closest 
upwind states (West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and 
Michigan) according to the Energy Information Administration's 
Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory, April 2017 (form EIA-
860M, at: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860m/xls/april_generator2017.xlsx). In addition, between 2017 and 2021, an 
additional 8.8 gigawatts of coal-fired EGUs are expected to retire in 
the same upwind states. This includes large EGUs such as JM Stuart in 
Ohio (2,308 megawatts [MW]), Killen Station in Ohio (600 MW), WH Sammis 
in Ohio (720 MW), Michigan City in Indiana (469 MW), Baldwin Energy 
Complex in Illinois (576 MW), Paradise in Kentucky (1,230 MW), and 
Baily in Indiana (480

[[Page 18194]]

MW). These regional coal unit retirements will lead to further 
emissions reductions which will help ensure that Alleghany County 
monitors will not have nonattainment or maintenance issues by 2021.
    In addition to regional emissions reductions and plant closures 
noted above, additional local reductions in both direct 
PM2.5 and SO2 emissions are also expected to 
occur and should also contribute to further declines in Allegheny 
County's PM2.5 monitor concentrations. For example, 
significant SO2 reductions will occur at U.S. Steel's 
integrated steel mill facilities in southern Allegheny County due to 
reductions required via federally-enforceable permits issued by 
Allegheny County to support its attainment plan submitted to meet 
requirements in CAA section 172(c) for the 1-hr SO2 NAAQS. 
Reductions occurred in October 2018 largely due to declining sulfur 
content in the Clairton Coke Work's coke oven gas (COG) due to upgraded 
controls. Because this COG is burned at U.S. Steel's Clairton Coke 
Works, Irvin Mill, and Edgar Thompson Steel Mill, these reductions in 
sulfur content contribute to much lower PM2.5 formation from 
precursors after October 4, 2018 as SO2 is a precursor to 
PM2.5. Additionally, the expected retirement of the Bruce 
Mansfield Power Plant by June 2021 should reduce precursor emissions 
from neighboring Beaver County, Pennsylvania. The Allegheny County and 
Beaver County SO2 SIP submissions, which EPA is reviewing 
pursuant to CAA requirements, also discuss expected lower 
SO2 emissions in the Allegheny County area resulting from 
reduced sulfur content requirements in vehicle fuels, reductions in 
general emissions due to declining population in the Greater Pittsburgh 
region, and several shutdowns of significant emitters of SO2 
in Allegheny County.
    Projected power plant closures and additional emissions controls in 
Pennsylvania and upwind states will help further reduce both direct 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. Regional emission 
reductions will continue to occur from current on-the-books Federal and 
state regulations such as the Federal on-road and non-road vehicle 
programs, and various rules for major stationary emissions sources.
    EPA modeling projections, the recent downward trend in local and 
upwind emissions reductions, the expected continued downward trend in 
emissions between 2018 and 2021, and the downward trend in monitored 
PM2.5 concentrations all indicate that the Liberty monitor 
will attain and be able to maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS by 2021.
    With respect to Florida, in the CSAPR modeling analysis for the 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, Florida did not have any potential 
nonattainment or maintenance receptors identified for the 1997 or 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS. At this time, EPA anticipates that this trend 
will continue; however, as there are ambient monitoring data gaps in 
the 2009-2013 data that could have been used to identify potential 
PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance receptors for Miami/
Dade, Gilchrist, Broward and Alachua counties in Florida, the modeling 
analysis of potential receptors was not complete for these counties. 
However, the most recent ambient data (2015-2017) for these counties 
indicates design values well below the level of the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, the highest value for these 
observed monitors is 8.0 [micro]g/m\3\ at the Hillsborough County 
monitor (12-057-3002), which is well below the NAAQS. This is also 
consistent with historical data: Complete and valid design values in 
the 2006-2008, 2007-2009 and/or 2008-2010 periods for these counties 
were all well below the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. For these 
reasons, we find that none of the counties in Florida with monitoring 
gaps between 2009-2013 should be considered either nonattainment or 
maintenance receptors for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 
Accordingly, we propose to find that emissions from Wisconsin will not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in Florida.
    The conclusions of WDNR's analysis is consistent with EPA's 
expanded review of its submittal. The area (Allegheny County, 
Pennsylvania) to which Wisconsin's sources potentially contribute is 
expected to attain and maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 
and as demonstrated in WDNR's submittal, Wisconsin will not contribute 
to projected nonattainment or maintenance issues at any sites in 2021. 
WDNR's analysis shows that through permanent and enforceable measures 
currently contained in its SIP and other emissions reductions occurring 
in Wisconsin, monitored PM2.5 air quality in the identified 
area that Wisconsin sources may impact will continue to improve, and 
that no further measures are necessary to satisfy Wisconsin's 
responsibilities under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Therefore, EPA 
is proposing that prongs one and two of the interstate pollution 
transport element of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP are approvable.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve a portion of WDNR's November 26, 2018 
submittal certifying that the current Wisconsin 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.

VI. 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. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as

[[Page 18195]]

appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, 
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 17, 2019.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019-08627 Filed 4-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P