[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 30, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36848-36852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16076]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0343; FRL-9997-31-Region 5]


Air Plan Approval; Indiana; 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 a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from 
Indiana 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 
concerning interstate transport provisions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 29, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2016-0343 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to 
aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 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 http://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, 
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 the background of this SIP submission?
II. What guidance/memoranda is EPA using to evaluate this SIP 
submission?
III. Indiana'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 Indiana Department 
of Environmental Management (IDEM) dated June 10, 2016, supplemented on 
December 28, 2016, which relates to its requirements for an 
infrastructure SIP for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR 
3086). Specifically, this rulemaking concerns 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 section 
110(a)(1), 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. 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 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 one: Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions 
activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment 
of the NAAQS in another state;
    --Prong two: Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions 
activity in one state from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in 
another state;
    --Prong three: Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions 
activity in

[[Page 36849]]

one state from interfering with measures required to prevent 
significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality in another state; and
    --Prong four: Protecting visibility in another state.
    In this rulemaking, EPA is evaluating whether Indiana'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 prong two interstate transport requirements with respect to the 
PM2.5 NAAQS in several previous Federal rulemakings. The 
four basic steps of that framework are: (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. With respect to PM2.5, 
this framework was applied in the August 8, 2011 Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48208), designed to address both the 1997 
and 2006 PM2.5 standards, as well as the 1997 and 2008 ozone 
standards.

II. What guidance/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'' (2007 
Guidance). EPA has issued additional guidance, including a September 
13, 2013, document titled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' (2013 Guidance).
    The most recent relevant document is an EPA memorandum issued 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 and provides EPA's general review of relevant modeling data 
and air quality projections as they relate to the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    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. Where a potential receptor is 
projected to show nonattainment or maintenance in 2017, but projected 
to show attainment in 2025, the 2016 memorandum suggests that 
additional analysis of the emissions and modeling may be needed to make 
a further judgement regarding the receptor status in 2021 (the 
attainment deadline for moderate PM2.5 areas).
    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. 
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, further 
analysis of the site should be performed to determine if the site 
contains nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2021 (the attainment 
deadline for moderate PM2.5 areas). Since the Allegheny 
County, Pennsylvania, receptor is the only location considered downwind 
of Indiana, this Indiana submission focuses on that single receptor.
    However, the 2016 memorandum also indicates that for five states 
(portions of Florida, Illinois, Idaho (outside of Shoshone County), 
Tennessee, and Kentucky) 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. With the 
exception of Florida, the data quality problems have subsequently been 
resolved for these areas, and they now have design values below the 
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, these areas are 
expected to maintain the NAAQS due to downward emission trends for 
nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). 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. Due to the ambient monitoring data gaps in the 
2009-2013 data, modeling was not performed to eliminate the potential 
for any PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance receptors. It is 
anticipated, however, that due to the downward trend in emissions, 
Florida's receptor status has not changed. Therefore, Indiana does not 
need to perform further analysis for these areas listed above.
    Indiana did not focus on potential contribution to other areas EPA 
identified as not attaining the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 
based on current monitor data in Alaska, California, Idaho, Nevada, or 
Hawaii or the 18 potential PM2.5 nonattainment or 
maintenance receptors, based on modeling projections from the 2016 
memorandum, in the western United States. The distance between Indiana 
and these areas, coupled with the prevailing wind directions, leads EPA 
to propose that Indiana will not contribute significantly to any of the 
potential receptors in those states.
    Indiana's submittal indicates that it used data from the 2016 
memorandum and supplied its own additional information in its analysis. 
EPA considered the analysis from Indiana, as well as additional 
analysis conducted by EPA, in its review of the Indiana submittal.

III. Indiana's Analysis and Conclusion

    Indiana's submittal contains a technical analysis of its interstate 
transport of pollution relative to the

[[Page 36850]]

2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. As reflected in the 2016 
memorandum, the only receptor identified as nonattainment or 
maintenance on which Indiana might have an impact is the Liberty 
monitor (42-003-0064) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania located in 
southwest Pennsylvania. In this technical analysis, Indiana examined 
meteorological conditions, backward trajectories, PM2.5 
measurements, and source emissions within the southwest Pennsylvania 
airshed. As stated previously, Indiana's technical analysis considers 
CSAPR rule implementation and EPA guidance and memoranda. Since the 
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania receptor is the only location considered 
downwind of Indiana, this submission focuses on that single receptor. 
Indiana concluded that it has no significant impacts on the attainment 
and maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS in Allegheny County, 
Pennsylvania. Indiana satisfies the responsibilities under CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) based on these analyses presented in the Indiana 
submission:
    --IDEM selected daily PM2.5 concentrations at the 
Liberty monitor that exceed the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS of 
35 [mu]g/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter) for the years 2012 to 2015 for 
analysis. There were 26 days in this period that exceeded the standard. 
IDEM analyzed hourly PM2.5 concentrations from these 26 days 
to determine if there was a temporal pattern in elevated concentrations 
during these days. Based on the data collected and presented in the 
Indiana submittal, a clear pattern of high PM2.5 
concentrations during the morning and occasional evening hours is 
evident at this monitor. In examining the hourly data for these 26 
days, IDEM found the following: Of 283 hours of PM2.5 
concentrations measured greater than 35 [mu]g/m3, 68% occurred before 9 
a.m.; of 91 hours of PM2.5 concentrations measured greater 
than 70 [mu]g/m3, 78% of those hours occurred before 9 a.m.; of 29 
hours of PM2.5 concentrations measured greater than 100 
[mu]g/m3, 90% occurred before 9 a.m. Moreover, the high 
PM2.5 concentrations seen in the morning and evening hours 
during colder months at the Liberty monitor led IDEM to investigate and 
ultimately determine that temperature inversions did occur during the 
days that high PM2.5 concentrations were measured. 
Temperature inversions occur when warmer air is present above a cooler 
layer of air at the ground level.
    --Wind and pollution roses were analyzed for the 26 exceedance days 
and showed that high hourly PM2.5 values occurred with 
southernly and westerly winds. Several facilities that emit large 
quantities of PM2.5 and precursor emissions of 
NOX and SO2 were identified by IDEM and found to 
be located within four kilometers to the south and west of the Liberty 
monitor. Indiana presented maps of these locations in the submittal. 
More specifically, using available information on the Allegheny County 
Health Department website, IDEM determined that two large U.S. Steel 
facilities are located to the south and west of the monitor as well as 
two large NOX and SO2 emitting facilities also to 
the south.
    --Back trajectory analyses conducted by Indiana determined that 
ambient air arriving at the Liberty monitor on high pollution days 
rarely traveled over Indiana. A back trajectory analysis using National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's HYSPLIT model was performed to 
evaluate Indiana's contribution to PM2.5 in Allegheny 
County, Pennsylvania. In total, 35,040 trajectories were run for 100, 
500, and 1000 meters above ground level (AGL). Back trajectories were 
run starting at each hour of the day, every day, over a 4-year period 
from 2012 through 2015. The trajectories started in the center of 
Allegheny County and were run backwards over a 24-hour period. 
Meteorological data used in this analysis consisted of the North 
American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) dataset. In total, 31 values on 26 
days from 2012-2015 at the Liberty monitor were identified as exceeding 
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Moreover, individual exceedance 
days and their associated trajectories were also examined by Indiana. 
This analysis shows that at 100 meters AGL, which is closest to the 
level of the monitor recording the sample value, air arriving in 
Allegheny County passes through Indiana very infrequently. For air 
arriving at higher levels above the monitor, at 500 and 1000 meters, 
air flow has southerly and southwesterly flow. Of the 16,200 trajectory 
points associated with exceedances at the 100-meter level, only 49 
points, or 0.03% passed through Indiana. At the 500-meter level, 617 
out of the 16,200 points (3.8%) passed through Indiana. This analysis 
shows that Indiana does not contribute significantly to Allegheny 
County PM2.5 concentrations, and Indiana concludes that a 
corridor of probable transport exists elsewhere.
    Indiana has concluded that that no further measures are necessary 
to satisfy its responsibilities under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 
because it does not contribute to projected nonattainment or 
maintenance issues at the Liberty monitor site. Instead, IDEM found 
that local meteorological conditions in the Allegheny county, 
temperature inversion, ambient air traveling from westerly and 
southernly winds, and air pollution transport from the Appalachian 
Mountain Range are more likely contributing to projected nonattainment 
or maintenance issues at the site.

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 that the 
area is projected to both attain and maintain the NAAQS by 2025. A 
linear interpolation of the modeled design values to 2021 shows that 
the monitor is likely to demonstrate both attainment and maintenance of 
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 
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 [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 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

[[Page 36851]]

 
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 showing attainment of 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 as a result of CSAPR 
implementation. This is due to both the installation of emissions 
controls and retirements of electric generating units (EGUs).
    Between 2011 and 2016, 27.4 gigawatts of coal-fired 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), Will County in Illinois (510 MW), Baldwin Energy Complex in 
Illinois (576 MW), Paradise in Kentucky (1,230 MW), and Baily in 
Indiana (480 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, local reductions in both PM2.5 and 
SO2 emissions are also expected to occur and should also 
contribute to further declines at 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-hour 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 in the immediate 
future 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, PA. The Allegheny County and Beaver 
County SO2 SIP submissions, which EPA is currently 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 
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 be able to show attainment and maintenance of m the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS by 2021.
    The conclusions of Indiana's analysis are consistent with EPA's 
expanded review of its submittal. The area (Allegheny County, 
Pennsylvania) that Indiana sources potentially contribute to is 
expected to attain and maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 
and as demonstrated in its submittal, Indiana will not contribute to 
projected nonattainment or maintenance issues at any sites in 2021. 
Indiana's analysis shows that, through permanent and enforceable 
measures currently contained in its SIP and other emissions reductions 
occurring in other states, monitored PM2.5 air quality in 
the identified area will continue to improve, and that no further 
measures are necessary to satisfy Indiana'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 Indiana's 
infrastructure SIP are approvable.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve a portion of Indiana's June 10, 2016 
submittal, supplemented on December 28, 2016, certifying that the 
current Indiana SIP is sufficient to meet the required transport 
elements of the infrastructure SIP 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. 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:

[[Page 36852]]

     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 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: July 17, 2019.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019-16076 Filed 7-29-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


