Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0583-0005
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Final approval of the Illinois 2012 PM2-5 iSIP Good Neighbor Provisions
Posted Date: 2019-06-20T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 119 (Thursday, June 20, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28745-28747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13033]

[[Page 28745]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0583; FRL-9995-30-Region 5]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving 
elements of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from 
Illinois regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of 
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or 
standard). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that 
the structural components of each state's air quality management 
program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the 
CAA. This action pertains specifically to infrastructure requirements 
in the Illinois SIP concerning interstate transport provisions.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 22, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0583. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samantha Panock, Environmental 
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs 
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8973, 
panock.samantha@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 being addressed by this document?
II. What comments did we receive on the proposed action?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed by this document?

    On September 29, 2017, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 
(IEPA) submitted a request to EPA for approval of its infrastructure 
SIP for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On February 14, 2019, 
EPA proposed to approve the portion of the submission dealing with 
requirements one and two (otherwise known as ``prongs'' one and two) of 
the provision for interstate pollution transport under CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i), also known as the ``good neighbor'' provision.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ There are four prongs to the Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) ``good 
neighbor'' provision: (1) Prohibit any source or other type of 
emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to 
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state; (2) prohibit any source 
or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering 
with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state; (3) prohibit any 
source or other type of emissions activity in one state from 
interfering with measures required to prevent significant 
deterioration (PSD) of air quality in another state; and (4) protect 
visibility in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The September 29, 2017 IEPA submittal included a demonstration that 
Illinois' SIP contains sufficient major programs related to the 
interstate transport of pollution. Illinois' submittal also included a 
technical analysis of its interstate transport of pollution relative to 
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This analysis demonstrated that 
current controls are adequate for Illinois to show that it meets prongs 
one and two of the ``good neighbor'' provision. After review, EPA 
proposed to approve Illinois' request relating to prongs one and two of 
the ``good neighbor'' provision.

II. What comments did we receive on the proposed action?

    EPA's February 14, 2019 proposed rule provided a 30-day review and 
comment period (84 FR 4025). The comment period closed on March 18, 
2019. EPA received one anonymous submission with supportive comments 
and one anonymous submission with adverse comments. The adverse 
comments and EPA's responses are addressed below.
    Comment: The commenter asserts that EPA's approach to using only 
monitoring data to identify receptors for the purposes of evaluating 
interstate transport of PM2.5 is ``long standing'' but is 
arbitrary and, thus, impermissible because EPA's approach ignores the 
fact that direct emissions of PM2.5 can cause high local 
ambient concentrations in areas where there are no operating monitors.
    Response: As described in the proposal, EPA has developed a 
consistent framework for addressing the prong one and two interstate 
transport requirements with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS in 
several previous Federal rulemakings. The four basic steps of that 
framework include: (1) Identifying downwind receptors that are expected 
to have problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS; (2) identifying 
which upwind states contribute to these identified problems in amounts 
sufficient to warrant further review and analysis; (3) for states 
identified as contributing to downwind air quality problems, 
identifying upwind emissions reductions necessary to prevent an upwind 
state from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering 
with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind; and (4) for states that are 
found to have emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment 
or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind, reducing the 
identified upwind emissions through adoption of permanent and 
enforceable measures. Regarding identifying potential nonattainment 
and/or maintenance receptors (i.e. step one of the framework), EPA 
relies primarily on existing monitoring sites and modeling to project 
PM2.5 concentrations in future years. This approach to 
identifying potential receptors is consistent with how EPA determines 
whether an area is attaining or not attaining the PM2.5 
NAAQS. For the PM2.5 NAAQS, determinations of attainment are 
based primarily on ambient data measured at ambient PM2.5 
Federal reference method (FRM) and Federal equivalent method (FEM) 
monitors. Although EPA sometimes considers other information for 
purposes of evaluating areas with sources that may contribute to 
monitored violations, the fundamental basis for evaluating attainment/
nonattainment for a PM2.5 NAAQS is the presence of one or 
more FRM or FEM monitors with data showing violations of the NAAQS. 
Similarly, for evaluating interstate PM2.5 transport, the 
determination of whether there are downwind receptors that are expected 
to have problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS is based on future 
year projections of ambient data

[[Page 28746]]

measured at the FRM and FEM monitors in the area in question. To 
develop data that may be useful for analyzing interstate transport with 
respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA examined recent 
modeling analyses developed in support of other EPA rules to identify 
potential PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance receptors. The 
modeling was used to project design values for the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS to several future years for each ambient 
monitoring site. EPA believes this is a reasonable and consistent 
approach for addressing interstate transport for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the commenter has not provided any 
information that would cause EPA to change the approach in this action.
    Comment: The commenter asserts that EPA guidance regarding 
interstate transport of PM2.5 does not cite any AERMOD 
modeling of the impacts of direct emissions of PM2.5, and 
thus does not justify EPA's longstanding approach of ignoring this 
possibility. The commenter asserts that EPA should apply EPA's approach 
for evaluating interstate transport for the 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS, which the commenter states has in some cases examined the 
evidence regarding specific large, near-border sources of 
SO2 emissions, to PM2.5.
    Response: The commenter asserts that EPA should apply EPA's 
approach for evaluating interstate transport for the 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS, which may include dispersion modeling using a 
model such as AERMOD. As described in the proposal, EPA has established 
a consistent framework for addressing the prong one and two interstate 
transport requirements with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS in 
several previous Federal rulemakings. As discussed in EPA's 2016 
memorandum entitled ``Information on the Interstate Transport `Good 
Neighbor' Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' (2016 memorandum), EPA and states have used a 
weight-of-evidence approach to assess PM2.5 transport from a 
given state to a given downwind receptor location. A state's submission 
for this requirement should provide the technical information that the 
state deems appropriate to support its conclusions. Prior guidance and 
EPA SIP actions suggest that suitable information might include, but is 
not limited to, information concerning emissions in the state, 
meteorological conditions in the state and in potentially impacted 
states, monitored ambient pollutant concentrations in the state and in 
potentially impacted states, distances to the nearest areas not 
attaining the NAAQS in other states, and air quality modeling. In 
contrast, SO2 is not a regional pollutant and does not 
commonly contribute to widespread nonattainment over a large (and often 
multi-state) area. Therefore, unlike for PM2.5, 
determinations of attainment or nonattainment for the SO2 
NAAQS may be based on monitoring data or dispersion modeling data (from 
air quality models such as AERMOD) or a combination of both. Therefore, 
EPA has adopted a different weight-of-evidence approach for 
SO2 transport, which, when available, may include air 
dispersion modeling such as AERMOD in addition to other factors such as 
ambient monitoring data and source specific analyses. The fact that EPA 
has adopted an approach that has a different focus for purposes of 
evaluating SO2 transport does not mean that approach is 
appropriate for evaluating interstate transport of a regional pollutant 
like PM2.5. For these reasons, EPA believes its approach for 
addressing the good neighbor provision for the 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS is reasonable and consistent with the nature of the interstate 
transport of PM2.5 and its precursors. The commenter has not 
provided any information that would cause EPA to change its approach in 
this action.
    Comment: The commenter asserts that EPA should disapprove Illinois' 
submission because the state has failed to provide any analysis to 
support the implicit assertion that no large sources of direct 
PM2.5 emissions in Illinois and close to the border with 
another state are not causing or contributing to PM2.5 NAAQS 
violations in the neighboring state. The commenter asserts that in the 
absence of any evidence there is transport problem due to direct 
emissions of PM2.5, EPA should not be applying a presumption 
of innocence. This is particularly true for Illinois, which has many 
sources that emit direct PM2.5 (unlike some other states 
that mostly have sources that emit only PM2.5 precursors).
    Response: The EPA did not apply a presumption of innocence in 
evaluating Illinois' obligations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 
Rather, EPA has used a weight-of-evidence approach to assess 
PM2.5 transport from a given upwind state to a given 
downwind receptor location. The modeling discussed in the 2016 
memorandum and referenced in the Illinois SIP considers both primary 
(directly emitted) PM2.5 and precursor emissions, the 
different processes (e.g., transport and deposition) that affect 
primary and secondary (i.e. formed by atmospheric processes) pollutants 
at scales and potential receptor locations that are consistent with 
determinations of attainment and nonattainment. Therefore, considering 
the weight of evidence, EPA has determined that the Illinois analysis 
is adequate for their transport SIP for the 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS. The commenter does not provide any information that indicates 
inconsistency or inadequacy of EPA's approach in this action, nor of 
Illinois' submission, which EPA is approving through this action.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    In this action, EPA is approving the portion of Illinois' September 
29, 2017 submission certifying that the current Illinois SIP is 
sufficient to meet the required infrastructure requirements under CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), specifically prongs one and two, as set 
forth above.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or

[[Page 28747]]

safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under CAA section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this 
action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the 
appropriate circuit by August 19, 2019. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 4, 2019.
Cheryl L Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.720, the table in paragraph (e) is amended under the 
heading ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements'' by adding an 
entry at the end of the table for ``2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 
Infrastructure Requirements'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.720  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                           EPA-Approved Illinois Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applicable geographic
       Name of SIP provision          or  nonattainment         State                 EPA approval date                           Comments
                                             area          submittal date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure     Statewide............       9/29/2017  6/20/2019, [Insert Federal Register     Fully approving CAA transport
 Requirements.                                                              citation].                              requirements of (D)(i)(I).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-13033 Filed 6-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P