[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23504-23508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10069]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0700; FRL-9993-63-Region 5]


Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 
(Visibility) for the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2008 
Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to take 
action under the Clean Air Act (CAA) on an Indiana's November 27, 2017 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal addressing regional haze. 
This proposed action is based on EPA's determination that a state's 
implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) program 
continues to meet the criteria of the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) to 
qualify as an alternative to the application of Best Available Retrofit 
Technology (BART). EPA is proposing several related actions. First, EPA 
is proposing to approve the portion of Indiana's

[[Page 23505]]

November 27, 2017 SIP submittal seeking to change reliance from the 
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to CSAPR for certain regional haze 
requirements. EPA is also proposing to convert EPA's limited approval/
limited disapproval of Indiana's regional haze SIP to a full approval 
and to withdraw the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) provisions that 
address the limited disapproval. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve 
the visibility prong of Indiana's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 
2012 annual and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5), 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 2010 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) and to convert EPA's disapproval of the visibility portion of 
Indiana's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to an 
approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 21, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2017-0700 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: Kathleen D'Agostino, 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) 886-1767, 
dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background

A. Regional Haze SIPs and Their Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR

    Section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA establishes as a national visibility 
goal ``the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which 
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' Section 169A(b)(2)(A) 
of the CAA requires states to submit regional haze SIPs that contain 
such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards 
the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain 
categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 
1977 procure, install, and operate BART as determined by the state. 
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for 
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than 
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the 
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative 
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress 
towards improving visibility than BART. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA 
provided states with this flexibility in the RHR, adopted in 1999, and 
further refined the criteria for assessing whether an alternative 
program provides for greater reasonable progress in two subsequent 
rulemakings. See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 
2005); 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
    In revisions to the regional haze program made in 2005, EPA 
demonstrated that CAIR would achieve greater reasonable progress than 
BART.\1\ See 70 FR 39104. In those revisions, EPA amended its 
regulations to provide that states participating in the CAIR cap-and-
trade programs pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP, or states that 
remain subject to a CAIR FIP need not require affected BART-eligible 
electric generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and maintain BART 
for emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce 
SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states 
(and the District of Columbia), including Indiana, that contributed 
to downwind nonattainment or interfered with maintenance of the 1997 
8-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of EPA's determination that CAIR was ``better-than-
BART,'' a number of states in which CAIR applies, including Indiana, 
relied on the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as an alternative to BART for 
EGU emissions of SO2 and NOX in designing their 
regional haze SIPs. These states also relied on CAIR as an element of a 
long-term strategy (LTS) for achieving reasonable progress goals (RPGs) 
for their regional haze programs. However, in 2008, the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) 
remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur (preserving the environmental 
benefits provided by CAIR). North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 
(D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. 
Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR and issued FIPs 
to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject states.\2\ Implementation of 
CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have 
superseded the CAIR program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their statewide 
emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to 
mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other 
states' ability to attain or maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone 
NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR 
emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide 
``budgets'' for emissions of annual SO2, annual 
NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX by each covered 
state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state budgets are implemented in two 
phases of generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets 
applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2 budgets 
applying to emissions in 2017 and later years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the D.C. Circuit's 2008 ruling that CAIR was ``fatally 
flawed,'' and its resulting status as a temporary measure following 
that ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze SIPs to the 
extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the 
requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. On 
these grounds, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of Indiana's 
regional haze SIP on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), triggering the 
requirement for EPA to promulgate a FIP unless Indiana submitted, and 
EPA approved a SIP revision that corrected the deficiency. EPA 
finalized a limited approval of Indiana's regional haze SIP on June 11, 
2012 (77 FR 34218), as meeting the remaining applicable regional haze 
requirements set forth in the CAA and the RHR.
    In the June 7, 2012 limited disapproval action, EPA also amended 
the RHR to provide that participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR 
trading

[[Page 23506]]

program for a given pollutant--either a CSAPR Federal trading program 
implemented through a CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state trading 
program implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision--qualifies 
as a BART alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant.\3\ See 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(4). Since EPA promulgated this amendment, numerous states 
covered by CSAPR, including Indiana, have utilized the provision 
through either SIPs or FIPs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Legal challenges to the CSAPR-Better-than-BART rule from 
state, industry, and other petitioners are pending. Utility Air 
Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12-1342 (D.C. Cir. filed August 6, 
2012).
    \4\ EPA has promulgated FIPs relying on CSAPR participation for 
BART purposes for Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, 
Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, 
and West Virginia, 77 FR at 33654, and Nebraska, 77 FR 40150, 40151 
(July 6, 2012), and Texas 82 FR 48324 (October 17, 2017). EPA has 
approved Minnesota's, Wisconsin's, and Alabama's SIPs relying on 
CSAPR participation for BART purposes. See 77 FR 34801 (June 12, 
2012) for Minnesota, 77 FR 46952 (August 7, 2012) for Wisconsin, and 
82 FR 47393 (October 12, 2017) for Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C. 
Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating 
and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of 
CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 
2012). The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United 
States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded to 
the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the 
high court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 
1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most 
respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the CSAPR budgets as 
to a number of states. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 
118 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
    The remanded budgets include the Phase 2 SO2 emissions 
budgets for four states and the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX 
budgets for eleven states. This litigation ultimately delayed 
implementation of CSAPR for three years, from January 1, 2012, when 
CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs were originally scheduled to replace the 
CAIR cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 2015. Thus, the rule's Phase 
2 budgets that were originally scheduled to begin on January 1, 2014, 
began on January 1, 2017.
    On September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45481), EPA published a final rule 
affirming the continued validity of the Agency's 2012 determination 
that participation in CSAPR meets the RHR's criteria for an alternative 
to the application of source specific BART. In the rulemaking, EPA 
explained that the limited changes to the scope of CSAPR coverage did 
not alter EPA's conclusion that CSAPR remains ``better-than-BART;'' 
that is, that participation in CSAPR remains available as an 
alternative to BART for EGUs covered by the trading program.
    Indiana's November 27, 2017 SIP submittal seeks to correct the 
deficiencies identified in the June 7, 2012 limited disapproval of its 
regional haze SIP by replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. 
Specifically, Indiana requests that EPA approve the State's regional 
haze SIP revision that replaces reliance on CAIR with CSAPR to satisfy 
SO2 and NOX BART requirements.

B. Infrastructure SIPs

    The ``infrastructure SIP'' 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. The requirement for states to make an infrastructure SIP 
submission is under CAA section 110(a)(1). SIPs meeting the 
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are required to 
be submitted by states within three years (or less, if the 
Administrator so prescribes) after promulgation of a new or revised 
NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement 
of the new or revised NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP 
submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of 
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. 
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP elements 
such as for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority 
that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly 
established or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) 
provides the procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure 
SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet 
for the infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established 
or revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may 
vary depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the 
state, as well as the provisions already contained in the state's 
implementation plan at the time in which the state develops and submits 
the submission for a new or revised NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct 
components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed 
in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are 
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prohibit any source or other 
type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly 
to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and from 
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). 
The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), prohibit emissions activity in one state from 
interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration 
of air quality in another state (prong 3) or from interfering with 
measures to protect visibility in another state (prong 4).
``Prong 4'' Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a state's implementation plan 
to contain provisions prohibiting sources in that state from emitting 
pollutants in amounts that interfere with any other state's efforts to 
protect visibility under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 
169A and 169B). EPA issued guidance on infrastructure SIPs in a 
September 13, 2013 memorandum from Stephen D. Page titled ``Guidance on 
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air 
Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' (2013 Guidance). The 2013 
Guidance states that these prong 4 requirements can be satisfied by 
approved SIP provisions that EPA has found to adequately address any 
contribution of that state's sources that impact the visibility program 
requirements in other states. The 2013 Guidance also states that EPA 
interprets this prong to be pollutant-specific, such that the 
infrastructure SIP submission need only address the potential for 
interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant 
(including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies.
    The 2013 Guidance lays out how a state's infrastructure SIP may 
satisfy prong 4. One way is via confirmation that the state has an 
approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308 or 51.309. The regulations at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 
specifically require that a state participating in a regional planning 
process include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of 
emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process. A 
fully approved regional haze SIP will ensure that emissions from 
sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not interfering

[[Page 23507]]

with measures required to be included in other air agencies' plans to 
protect visibility.
    Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze 
SIP, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a 
demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions 
within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans 
to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need 
to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure 
that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed upon regional haze 
RPGs for mandatory Class I areas in other states.
    Through this action, EPA is proposing to approve the prong 4 
portion of Indiana's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 
PM2.5, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 
standards, and to convert EPA's disapproval of the prong 4 portion of 
Indiana's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to an 
approval, as discussed in section IV of this action. All other 
applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP submissions 
have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. A brief 
background regarding the NAAQS relevant to this proposal is provided 
below.
1. 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
    On December 18, 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour average primary and 
secondary PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 micrograms per cubic meter 
([mu]g/m\3\). See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). States were required 
to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS to EPA no later than September 21, 2009. Indiana submitted 
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on 
October 20, 2009, June 25, 2012, July 12, 2012, and May 22, 2013. This 
proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of those 
submissions. The other portions of Indiana's PM2.5 
infrastructure submissions have been previously addressed (78 FR 41311, 
July 10, 2013; 79 FR 18999, April 7, 2014; and 83 FR 64472, December 
17, 2018).
    On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the annual primary 
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 [mu]g/m\3\. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 
2013). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions 
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14, 
2015. Indiana submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS on December 10, 2016. This proposed action only 
addresses the prong 4 element of that submission. The other portions of 
Indiana's December 10, 2016 PM2.5 infrastructure submission 
have been previously addressed (83 FR 4595, February 1, 2018) or will 
be addressed in a separate action.
2. 2010 SO2 NAAQS
    On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS to an 
hourly standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-year average 
of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. 
See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). States were required to submit 
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS to EPA 
no later than June 2, 2013. Indiana submitted an infrastructure SIP 
submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on May 22, 2013. 
This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that 
submission. The other portions of Indiana's May 22, 2013 SO2 
infrastructure submission have been previously addressed (80 FR 48733, 
August 14, 2015) or will be addressed in a separate action.
3. 2010 NO2 NAAQS
    On January 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for 
NO2 at a level of 100 ppb, based on a 3-year average of the 
98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum 
concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). States were required 
to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 NO2 
NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013. Indiana submitted 
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS on 
January 15, 2013. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 
element of that submission. The other portions of Indiana's January 15, 
2013, NO2 infrastructure submission have been addressed in a 
previous EPA action (80 FR 48733, August 14, 2015).
4. 2008 Ozone NAAQS
    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per 
million. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). States were required to 
submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to EPA 
no later than March 12, 2011. Indiana submitted an infrastructure SIP 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on December 12, 2011. On June 15, 2016, EPA 
disapproved the intrastate transport provisions of Indiana's 2008 ozone 
infrastructure submission, including the prong 4 element. See 81 FR 
53309. This proposed action addresses the disapproval for prong 4 and 
proposes to convert it to a full approval. The other portions of 
Indiana's December 12, 2011 ozone infrastructure SIP submission have 
been addressed in a previous EPA action (80 FR 23713, April 29, 2015).

II. What is EPA's analysis of how Indiana addressed regional haze and 
prong 4 of the infrastructure SIP requirements?

    Indiana submitted infrastructure SIPs for the following NAAQS: 2012 
annual PM2.5 (December 10, 2016); 2006 24-hour average 
PM2.5 (October 20, 2009; June 25, 2012; July 12, 2012; and 
May 22, 2013); 2010 NO2 (January 15, 2013); 2010 
SO2 (May 22, 2013); and 2008 ozone (December 12, 2011) which 
relied on the State having a fully approved regional haze SIP to 
satisfy its prong 4 requirements. However, EPA had not previously fully 
approved Indiana's regional haze SIP. As discussed earlier in this 
action, the Agency issued a limited disapproval of the State's original 
regional haze plan on June 7, 2012, due to its reliance on CAIR, which 
also triggered the requirement for EPA to promulgate a FIP in Indiana 
utilizing CSAPR. To correct the deficiencies in its regional haze SIP 
and obtain approval of the aforementioned infrastructure SIPs that rely 
on the regional haze SIP, the State submitted a SIP revision on 
November 27, 2017, to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR.
    As noted above, EPA determined that CSAPR remains ``better than 
BART,'' given the changes to CSAPR's scope in response to the D.C. 
Circuit's remand. Because the Agency has finalized the ``CSAPR remains 
better-than-BART'' rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the regional 
haze portion of the State's November 27, 2017 SIP revision and convert 
EPA's previous action on Indiana's regional haze SIP from a limited 
approval/limited disapproval to a full approval. Specifically, EPA's 
finds that this portion of Indiana's November 27, 2017 SIP revision 
satisfies the SO2 and NOX BART requirements for 
EGUs formerly subject to CAIR. Because a state may satisfy prong 4 
requirements through a fully approved regional haze SIP, EPA is also 
proposing to approve the prong 4 portion of Indiana's 2006 and 2012 
PM2.5 submissions; 2010 NO2 submissions; and the 
2010 SO2 submission. EPA is also proposing to convert EPA's 
disapproval of the prong 4 portions of Indiana's 2008 ozone 
infrastructure submission to an approval.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to take the following actions: (1) Approve the 
portion of Indiana's November 27, 2017 SIP submittal seeking to change 
from reliance on CAIR to reliance on CSAPR for certain regional haze 
requirements;

[[Page 23508]]

(2) convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of Indiana's 
January 14, 2011 and March 10, 2011 regional haze SIP to a full 
approval; (3) withdraw the FIP provisions that address the limited 
disapproval; (4) approve the visibility prong of Indiana's 
infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2012 and 2006 PM2.5, 
2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS; and (5) convert 
EPA's disapproval of the visibility portion of Indiana's infrastructure 
SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to an approval.
    All other applicable infrastructure requirements for the 
infrastructure SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in 
separate rulemakings.

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 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 2, 2019.
Cheryl L. Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019-10069 Filed 5-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


