Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; Indiana; Michigan; Minnesota; Ohio; Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5, 65478-65488 [2012-26289]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
65478
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 209 / Monday, October 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Consultations With Tribal Governments
The Department has determined that
this rulemaking will not have Tribal
implications, will not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
Indian Tribal governments, and will not
pre-empt Tribal law. Accordingly, the
requirements of Executive Order 13175
do not apply to this rulemaking.
This rule does not impose information
collection requirements under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 52
Authentication of marriage, Marriage
and divorce, Marriage laws.
■ Accordingly, under the authority of 22
U.S.C. 2651a, and because the statutory
authority for Part 52 has been repealed,
22 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter F is
amended by removing Part 52.
Dated: October 2, 2012.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012–26554 Filed 10–26–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG–2011–0228]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone, Brandon Road Lock and
Dam to Lake Michigan including Des
Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal, Chicago River, and
Calumet-Saganashkee Channel,
Chicago, IL
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of
regulation.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard will enforce
a segment of the Safety Zone; Brandon
Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan
including Des Plaines River, Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River,
Calumet-Saganashkee Channel on all
waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal from Mile Marker 296.1 to Mile
Marker 296.7 at various times on
November 14, 2012. This action is
necessary to protect the waterways,
waterway users, and vessels from
hazards associated with the Illinois
Department of Natural Resources netting
and electro-fishing clearing operation.
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with
SUMMARY:
12:17 Oct 26, 2012
The regulations in 33 CFR
165.930 will be enforced from 7:00 a.m.
to 11:00 a.m. and from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00
p.m. on November 14, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this notice, call
or email MST1 Joseph McCollum,
Prevention Department, Coast Guard
Sector Lake Michigan, telephone 414–
747–7148, email address
Joseph.p.Mccollum@uscg.mil.
DATES:
Paperwork Reduction Act
VerDate Mar<15>2010
During any of the below listed
enforcement periods, entry into,
transiting, mooring, laying-up or
anchoring within the enforced area of
this safety zone by any person or vessel
is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Sector Lake
Michigan, or his or her designated
representative.
Jkt 229001
The Coast
Guard will enforce a segment of the
Safety Zone; Brandon Road Lock and
Dam to Lake Michigan including Des
Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal, Chicago River, CalumetSaganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL,
listed in 33 CFR 165.930. Specifically,
the Coast Guard will enforce this safety
zone between Mile Marker 296.1 to Mile
Marker 296.7 on all waters of the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
Enforcement will occur from 7:00 a.m.
until 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. until 5:00
p.m. on November 14, 2012.
This enforcement action is necessary
because the Captain of the Port, Sector
Lake Michigan has determined that the
Illinois Department of Natural
Resources netting and electro-fishing
clearing operation poses risks to life and
property. The passage of vessel traffic
during the same time as the Operation
makes the controlling of vessels through
the impacted portion of the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal necessary to
prevent injury and property loss.
In accordance with the general
regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry
into, transiting, mooring, laying up or
anchoring within the enforced area of
this safety zone by any person or vessel
is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Sector Lake
Michigan, or his or her designated
representative.
This notice is issued under authority
of 33 CFR 165.930 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
In addition to this notice in the Federal
Register, the Captain of the Port, Sector
Lake Michigan, will also provide notice
through other means, which may
include, but are not limited to,
Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local
Notice to Mariners, local news media,
distribution in leaflet form, and onscene oral notice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Additionally, the Captain of the Port,
Sector Lake Michigan, may notify
representatives from the maritime
industry through telephonic and email
notifications.
Dated: October 11, 2012.
M.W. Sibley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Sector Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2012–26489 Filed 10–26–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0805; EPA–R05–
OAR–2012–0567; FRL–9742–4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois;
Indiana; Michigan; Minnesota; Ohio;
Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP
Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards; Indiana NSR/PSD
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is taking final action to
approve most elements, and disapprove
narrow portions of other elements, of
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submissions by Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and
Wisconsin regarding the infrastructure
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
for the 2006 24-hour fine particle
national ambient air quality standards
(2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). The infrastructure
requirements are designed to ensure that
the structural components of each
State’s air quality management program
are adequate to meet the State’s
responsibilities under the CAA. EPA is
also taking final action to approve
portions of a submission from Indiana
addressing EPA’s requirements for its
new source review (NSR) and
prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) program. The proposed
rulemaking was published on August 2,
2012. During the comment period,
which ended on September 4, 2012,
EPA received five comment letters. The
concerns raised in these letters, as well
as EPA’s responses, will be addressed in
this final action.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
November 28, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established two
dockets for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0805
(infrastructure SIP elements for all
Region 5 States) and EPA–R05–OAR–
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM
29OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 209 / Monday, October 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
2012–0567 (Indiana NSR/PSD
elements). All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publiclyavailable only in hard copy. Publiclyavailable docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation
Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that
you telephone Andy Chang at (312)
886–0258 before visiting the Region 5
office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0258,
chang.andy@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 these SIP
submissions?
A. What State SIP submissions does this
rulemaking address?
B. Why did the States make these SIP
submissions?
C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
II. What is our response to comments
received on the proposed rulemaking?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background of these SIP
submissions?
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with
A. What State SIP submissions does this
rulemaking address?
This rulemaking addresses
submissions from each State (and
appropriate State agency) in EPA Region
5: Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (Illinois EPA); Indiana
Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM); Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ); Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA); Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (Ohio EPA); and
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources Bureau of Air Management
(WDNR). Each Region 5 State made SIP
submissions on the following dates:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:17 Oct 26, 2012
Jkt 229001
Illinois—August 9, 2011, and
supplemented on August 25, 2011, and
June 27, 2012; Indiana—October 20,
2009, and supplemented on June 25,
2012, and July 12, 2012; Michigan—
August 15, 2011, and supplemented on
July 9, 2012; Minnesota—May 23, 2011,
and supplemented on June 27, 2012;
Ohio—September 4, 2009, and
supplemented on June 3, 2011, and July
5, 2012; and, Wisconsin—January 24,
2011, and supplemented on March 28,
2011, and June 29, 2012.1
Indiana also made a SIP submission
intended to address various EPA
requirements for its NSR and PSD
programs. IDEM submitted revisions on
July 12, 2012, for incorporation into its
NSR and PSD program, and also
requested that EPA approve these
revisions as satisfying any applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
B. Why did the States make these SIP
submissions?
Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the
CAA, and implementing EPA policy, the
States are required to submit
infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their
SIPs provide for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the
NAAQS, including the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. These submissions must
contain any revisions needed for
meeting the applicable SIP requirements
of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that
their existing SIPs for particulate matter
already met those requirements.
EPA highlighted this statutory
requirement 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
Memo). On September 25, 2009, EPA
issued an additional guidance document
pertaining to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2009 Memo). The
SIP submissions referenced in this
rulemaking pertain to the applicable
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA. The SIP submissions
from the six Region 5 States being
evaluated here address primarily the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, with a narrow
evaluation of the 1997 8-hour ozone
1 WDNR noted in a comment letter that its initial
infrastructure SIP submission was dated December
12, 2007. EPA observes, however, that the
December 12, 2007, submission by WDNR only
addresses the 1997 8-hour ground level ozone and
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and not the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
65479
NAAQS; this final rulemaking addresses
only these pollutants as well.2
C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
As originally detailed in the proposed
rulemaking, the applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements are
contained in section 110(a)(1) and (2) of
the CAA. EPA is finalizing action of
each Region 5 State’s satisfaction of the
applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2)(A) through section
110(a)(2)(M), except for the elements
detailed in the following paragraphs.
This rulemaking will not cover four
substantive areas that are not integral to
acting on a State’s infrastructure SIP
submission: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions during
periods of start-up, shutdown, or
malfunction at sources, that may be
contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies
addressing such excess emissions
(‘‘SSM’’); (ii) existing provisions related
to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or ‘‘director’s
discretion’’ that purport to permit
revisions to SIP approved emissions
limits with limited public process or
without requiring further approval by
EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA
(‘‘director’s discretion’’); (iii) existing
provisions for minor source NSR
programs that may be inconsistent with
the requirements of the CAA and EPA’s
regulations that pertain to such
programs (‘‘minor source NSR’’); and,
(iv) existing provisions for PSD
programs that may be inconsistent with
current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final
NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72
FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR
Reform’’). Instead, EPA has indicated
that it has other authority to address any
such existing SIP defects in other
rulemakings, as appropriate. A detailed
rationale for why these four substantive
areas are not part of the scope of
infrastructure SIP rulemakings can be
found in EPA’s July 13, 2011, final rule
entitled, ‘‘Infrastructure SIP
Requirements for the 1997 8-hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards’’ in the section entitled,
‘‘What is the scope of this final
rulemaking?’’ (see 76 FR 41075 at
41076–41079).
In addition to the four substantive
areas above, EPA is not acting in this
action on portions of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Interstate transport;
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)—Adequate
resources; and section 110(a)(2)(J)—
Consultation with government officials,
2 On June 14, 2012, the EPA Administrator signed
a proposed rule that would strengthen various
aspects of the existing PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR
38890). The State submittals and EPA’s rulemaking
do not extend to these proposed NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM
29OCR1
65480
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 209 / Monday, October 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with
public notifications, PSD, and visibility
protection. EPA stated in our proposed
rulemaking that we were not proposing
to act on the portion of any Region 5
State’s submission intended to address
the interstate transport requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (see 77 FR
45992 at 46000), nor were we proposing
to approve or disapprove each Region 5
State’s satisfaction of the state board
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
(see 77 FR 45992 at 46002). We have
previously finalized our rulemaking for
the interstate transport requirements for
Indiana and Ohio (see FR 43175), and
we have yet to take action on the section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of the SIP
submissions from Illinois, Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin. We will also
take action on compliance with section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and
Wisconsin at a later time. EPA is
working with each of the Region 5
States to address these requirements in
the most appropriate way.
With respect to the visibility
protection requirements of section
110(a)(2)(J), EPA notes that these
requirements are different from those in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) in that the
visibility protection requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(J) are not ‘‘triggered’’
by the promulgation of a new or
updated NAAQS. In other words, the
visibility protection requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to
infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA realizes that our proposed
rulemaking may have engendered
confusion with respect to section
110(a)(2)(J) (see 77 FR 45992 at 46005),
and we want to clarify in this final
action that the visibility protection
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are
not germane to the infrastructure SIP for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also not
acting on section 110(a)(2)(I)—
Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan
Revisions Under Part D, in its entirety.
Instead, EPA takes action on part D
attainment plans through separate
processes.
Furthermore, as a result of the current
status of the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR),3 EPA is not finalizing
action on portions of the interstate
transport requirements for addressing
visibility protection of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for certain Region 5
States where we had previously
proposed approval; the reasoning can be
found in the following section.
3 See https://epa.gov/airtransport/. Notably, the
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an
opinion vacating CSAPR on August 21, 2012, and
ordering EPA to continue administering the Clean
Air Interstate Rule.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:17 Oct 26, 2012
Jkt 229001
We are also not finalizing our action
on narrow portions of Michigan’s
infrastructure SIP for section
110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II),
and section 110(a)(2)(J), specifically
with respect to the applicable
requirements obligated by EPA’s final
rule for the ‘‘Implementation of the New
Source Review (NSR) Program for
Particulate Matter Less than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ (2008 NSR Rule)
(see 73 FR 28321) and the ‘‘Final Rule
to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality
Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule to
Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990
Amendments Relating to New Source
Review and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon
Monoxide, Particulate Matter, and
Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for
Reformulated Gasoline’’ (Phase 2 Rule)
(see 70 FR 71612). On September 4,
2012, MDEQ submitted a comment
letter to EPA that requires more
evaluation; the specific issues are
described in the following section.
Lastly, as a result of a comment
received during the comment period,
EPA is not finalizing action on a narrow
portion of Indiana’s infrastructure SIP
for section 110(a)(2)(C), section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and section
110(a)(2)(J), specifically for the source
impact analysis requirements of the
State’s PSD program as it relates to the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; the specific issues
are described in the following section.
II. What is our response to comments
received on the proposed rulemaking?
The public comment period for EPA’s
proposed action to approve most
elements and disapprove narrow
portions of other elements of
submissions from the Region 5 States
closed on September 4, 2012. EPA
received five comment letters, and a
synopsis of the significant individual
comments contained in these letters, as
well as EPA’s response to each
comment, is discussed below.
Comment 1: A comment letter was
submitted on behalf of the Ohio Utility
Group (OUG) and its member
companies. While OUG generally
supported EPA’s proposed actions with
respect to Ohio’s infrastructure SIP for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the group
recommended that EPA withdraw its
prior disapproval of the portions of
Ohio’s infrastructure SIP addressing the
interstate transport requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (see 76 FR
43175). Instead, OUG stated that it was
EPA’s intent to implement a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) in Ohio to
meet these requirements, and that the
finalized CSAPR was published in the
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Federal Register on August 8, 2011 (see
76 FR 48208), as a FIP that would
simultaneously remedy and replace the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). OUG
noted that CSAPR was stayed by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit pending judicial
review on December 31, 2011, and that
the court also ordered EPA to continue
administering CAIR. OUG further noted
that on August 21, 2012, the court
vacated and remanded CSAPR back to
EPA, and again ordered EPA to continue
administering CAIR. Therefore, OUG
believes that EPA should withdraw its
prior disapproval of Ohio’s interstate
transport SIP, and propose approval of
Ohio’s submissions intended to address
the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), making the emission
reductions that have already occurred
Federally enforceable. Lastly, OUG
stated that when EPA issues a new
interstate transport rule, EPA can then
make a determination that the emission
reductions as a result of Ohio’s
interstate transport SIP are insufficient
and require Ohio to develop an updated
SIP.
Response 1: In EPA’s August 2, 2012,
proposed rulemaking, we stated that we
were not proposing to approve or
disapprove any provisions intended to
address interstate transport
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
(see 76 FR 45992 at 46000); with respect
to Ohio, EPA noted that the disapproval
of portions of Ohio’s infrastructure SIP
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS intended to
address these requirements was
finalized on July 20, 2011, and that the
State did not have any SIP submission
relevant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS pending before
the Agency. In other words, OUG’s
comments are not germane to today’s
rulemaking.
Comment 2: One commenter noted
that although EPA had proposed
approval for all Region 5 States (except
for Michigan) as meeting the visibility
protection requirement of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the Region 5 States’
visibility SIPs relied on CSAPR to
satisfy the requirement of Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) for electric
generating units. Since CSAPR has been
vacated with CAIR temporarily in place,
the commenter asserts that there exists
no current and permanent cross state air
pollution rule for EPA and the Region
5 States to rely on to satisfy the
visibility protection requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), which
includes BART limits for electric
generating units. Therefore, EPA must
disapprove the portions of infrastructure
SIPs intended to address the visibility
E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM
29OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 209 / Monday, October 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with
protection requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Response 2: The 2009 Memo
recommends to states that the visibility
protection requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) can be satisfied by an
approved SIP addressing reasonably
attributable visibility impairment, if
required, and an approved SIP
addressing regional haze.4 The
commenter is correct in stating that if
Region 5 States’ regional haze plans
relied on CSAPR in the context of BART
and electric generating units, the
visibility protection requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) would not be met
because CSAPR has been vacated.
However, the commenter is incorrect in
his characterization of Illinois’ regional
haze plan. Specifically, Illinois has two
sets of provisions in its SIP rules that
meet the BART requirement of electric
generating units 5 without relying on
CSAPR (or CAIR). EPA’s final approval
of Illinois’ regional haze plan was
published on July 6, 2012, (see 76 FR
39943) and affirms that existing
provisions in Illinois satisfy the BART
requirement.
In today’s rulemaking, EPA is not
finalizing our proposed approval of the
visibility protection requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for Indiana,
Ohio, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. EPA is
also not taking any action on the
visibility protection requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for Michigan.
EPA will take action on these States’
SIPs in a separate rulemaking. However,
EPA is finalizing approval of Illinois’
satisfaction of the visibility protection
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
in this rulemaking.
Comment 3: The same commenter
stated that the Indiana SIP is
insufficient for purposes of the State’s
PSD program for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. The commenter observes that
326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC)
2–2–5(a)(1) requires an analysis of a
new or modified source’s emissions
demonstrating that the emissions will
not cause or contribute to air pollution
in violation of any ambient air quality
standard, as designated in 326 IAC 1–3.
The language contained in 326 IAC 1–
3 explicitly references only the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, and not the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS of 35 micrograms per cubic
meter. Therefore, a literal read of
4 EPA notes that the 2009 Memo distinguishes
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) from the visibility element
of section 110(a)(2)(J), which EPA believes is not
germane in infrastructure SIPs for this NAAQS.
5 The Combined Pollutant Standards are
contained in 35 Illinois Administrative Code
225.233, and the Multi-Pollutant Standards are
contained in 35 Illinois Administrative Code
225.293–225.299.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:17 Oct 26, 2012
Jkt 229001
Indiana’s PSD regulations indicates that
a source impact analysis would only
need to comply with the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. The commenter did note that
326 IAC 2–1.1–5 contains language that
would prohibit issuance of a
registration, permit, modification
approval, or operating permit revision if
issuance would allow a source to cause
or contribute to a violation of the
NAAQS. 326 IAC 2–1.1–5 is currently
not in the SIP, and the language
contained therein has not been
submitted by Indiana for incorporation
into the SIP.
Response 3: After evaluating the
commenter’s points, EPA agrees that the
State’s EPA-approved PSD SIP
contained in 326 IAC 2–2–5(a) only
requires a source impact analysis for
PM2.5 to comply with the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, and not the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. 326 IAC 2–2–5(a) states that
‘‘The owner or operator of the proposed
major stationary source or major
modification shall demonstrate that
allowable emissions increases in
conjunction with all other applicable
emissions increases or reductions
(including secondary emissions) will
not cause or contribute to air pollution
in violation of any: (1) Ambient air
quality standard, as designated in 326
IAC 1–3, in any air quality control
region * * *’’ 326 IAC 1–3–4 contains
the ambient air quality standards as they
apply in Indiana; the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS as codified in 40 CFR 50.13,
has not been incorporated into this
section. IDEM has informed EPA that
the State is in the process of adopting
revisions to its SIP, specifically
contained in IAC 326 1–3–4, to
incorporate the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as
codified in 40 CFR 50.13. EPA is
therefore not finalizing any action on
this narrow portion of section
110(a)(2)(C) for Indiana’s infrastructure
SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; we will
address the PSD source impact analysis
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in a separate
rulemaking. EPA notes that there are
also PSD requirements associated with
section 110(A)(2)(D)(i)(II) and section
110(a)(2)(J). As a result, we are also not
finalizing any action on this narrow
portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and
section 110(a)(2)(J) for Indiana’s
infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS; we will address the same PSD
source impact analysis requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the same
action for section 110(a)(2)(C).
Comment 4: The same commenter as
above also stated that Wisconsin’s PSD
SIP does not contain the maximum
allowable increases in ambient pollutant
concentrations (increments) for PM2.5.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
65481
The final rule for the ‘‘Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) for
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments,
Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentration
(SMC)’’ requiring states to incorporate
increments into their PSD SIPs was
published in the Federal Register on
October 20, 2010 (2010 NSR Rule) (see
75 FR 64864). This requirement was
also codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40
CFR 52.21(c). The 2010 NSR Rule
required states to submit revisions to
their SIPs addressing this required
program element by July 20, 2012 (see
75 FR 64864 at 64898). Therefore,
because Wisconsin had not made
revisions to its PSD SIP incorporating
the increments by the deadline
prescribed by the 2010 NSR Rule, EPA
must disapprove the appropriate
portions of the infrastructure SIP for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The commenter did
state that WDNR has applied the
appropriate increments when issuing
PSD permits.
Response 4: The commenter asserts
that EPA should now disapprove
portions of Wisconsin’s infrastructure
SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS because,
since the date of EPA’s proposal, the
deadline for the submission of a SIP
revision addressing the PM2.5
increments has passed. However,
pursuant to the 2010 NSR Rule and
CAA section 166(b), states were not
required to submit a revised SIP
addressing the PM2.5 increments until
July 20, 2012. The Agency proposed
action on the Wisconsin infrastructure
SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in a
notice signed on July 20, 2012.6
Therefore, on the date that the proposed
rule was signed by the Agency, the
PM2.5 increments were not required to
be included in the Wisconsin SIP in
order for Wisconsin to meet the PSD
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) of the CAA.
The commenter’s concerns relate to
the timing of Agency action on
collateral, yet related, SIP submissions.
These concerns highlight an important
overarching question that the EPA has
to confront when assessing the various
infrastructure SIP submittals addressed
in the proposed rule: How to proceed
when the timing and sequencing of
multiple related SIP submissions impact
the ability of the State and the Agency
to address certain substantive issues in
6 Although the proposed action was published by
the Federal Register on August 2, 2012, it was
signed by the Regional Administrator on July 20,
2012, before the statutory deadline for submission
of the SIP revision addressing the PM2.5 increments
had passed.
E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM
29OCR1
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with
65482
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 209 / Monday, October 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
the infrastructure SIP submission in a
reasonable fashion.
It is appropriate for EPA to take into
consideration the timing and sequence
of related SIP submissions as part of
determining what it is reasonable to
expect a State to have addressed in an
infrastructure SIP submission for a
NAAQS at the time when the EPA acts
on such submission. EPA has
historically interpreted section
110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II),
and section 110(a)(2)(J) to require us to
assess a State’s infrastructure SIP
submission with respect to the thenapplicable and Federally enforceable
PSD regulations required to be included
in a State’s SIP at the time EPA takes
action on the SIP.
However, EPA does not consider it
reasonable to interpret section
110(a)(2)(C), section 110(D)(i)(II), and
section 110(a)(2)(J) to require us to
propose to disapprove a State’s
infrastructure SIP submissions because
the State had not yet, at the time of
proposal, made a submission that was
not yet due for the 2010 PM2.5 NSR
Rule. To adopt a different approach by
which EPA could not act on an
infrastructure SIP, or at least could not
approve an infrastructure SIP, whenever
there was any impending revision to the
SIP required by another collateral
rulemaking action would result in
regulatory gridlock and make it
impracticable or impossible for EPA to
act on infrastructure SIPs if EPA is in
the process of revising collateral PSD
regulations. EPA believes that such an
outcome would be an unreasonable
reading of the statutory process for the
infrastructure SIPs contemplated in
section 110(a)(1) and (2).
EPA acknowledges that it is important
that these additional PSD program
revisions be evaluated and approved
into the State’s SIP in accordance with
the CAA, and EPA intends to address
the PM2.5 increments in a subsequent
rulemaking. EPA appreciates the
commenter’s point that Wisconsin has
been applying the appropriate
increments consistent with the
requirements codified in 40 CFR
52.21(c), and we will actively work with
the State to ensure that these increments
are correctly evaluated in permitting
decisions. Furthermore, we will work
with Wisconsin to ensure that revisions
to its SIP incorporating these increments
will be wholly consistent with the
requirements obligated by the 2010 NSR
Rule, as codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c)
and 40 CFR 52.21(c).
Comment 5: The same commenter as
above agreed with EPA’s proposed
disapproval of portions of Wisconsin’s
infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:17 Oct 26, 2012
Jkt 229001
NAAQS with respect to the explicit
identification and regulation of
condensable PM2.5 and PM10 in its PSD
program.7 Wisconsin’s existing SIP
contained in Wisconsin Administrative
Code NR 400.02(123e)—NR 400.02(124)
does not contain the explicit references
to condensables in PM2.5 and PM10
emissions, as obligated by the 2008 NSR
Rule. Furthermore, revisions to its PSD
program submitted by WDNR on May
11, 2011, do not contain the explicit
identification or regulation of PM2.5 and
PM10 condensables. However, the
commenter notes that WDNR has been
including condensable fraction of
particulate matter in permits for
facilities for many years, as alluded to
in NR 415.09. The commenter suggests
that EPA clarify that a final disapproval
of Wisconsin’s infrastructure SIP for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the
explicit identification and regulation of
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables does ‘‘not
negate or otherwise undermine the fact
that all limits in all existing permits in
Wisconsin already include condensable
PM.’’
Response 5: EPA appreciates the
commenter’s point that WDNR has
historically considered some
condensable PM in its permits. The SIPapproved portions of NR 415.09 include
references to condensable particulate
matter, as defined in NR 439.02(4). NR
439 contains the requirements for
reporting, recordkeeping, testing,
inspection, and determination of
compliance for air contaminant sources
and their owners and operators.
Specifically, NR 439.02(4) defines
‘‘condensible[sic] particulate matter’’ as
‘‘any material, except uncombined
water, that may not be collected in the
front half of the particulate emission
sampling train but which exists as a
solid or liquid at standard conditions.’’
EPA agrees that WDNR has the authority
to regulate some condensables, and also
agrees with the commenter that a final
disapproval of portions of Wisconsin’s
infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS with respect to the explicit
identification and regulation of PM2.5
and PM10 condensables does not negate
that WDNR has considered some
condensable particulate matter in its
permits. However, at this point in time,
the State has not revised its SIP to
contain the required explicit references
to condensables that are necessary for
purposes of the PSD program, and to
make that requirement a Federally
enforceable part of the State’s SIP. EPA
will continue to work with the State to
7 ‘‘Condensables’’ are defined as gases that at
ambient temperatures, could condense to form
particulate matter.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
develop SIP revisions that account for
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in
applicability determinations and
permitting emissions limits, consistent
with the 2008 NSR Rule. In the interim,
we expect the State to correctly account
for these condensables in applicability
determinations and permitting
emissions limits.
Comment 6: MDEQ submitted a
comment letter to EPA affirming that the
State is adopting revisions to its rules
that would be wholly consistent with
the required infrastructure SIP
requirements obligated by the 2008 NSR
Rule and the Phase 2 Rule. MDEQ stated
that the necessary revisions would be
submitted to EPA imminently for
incorporation into the SIP, specifically
before the end of 2012, and also
included the draft rules reflecting the
appropriate revisions. The State urged
EPA to issue a conditional approval for
the relevant portions of its infrastructure
SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in lieu
of finalizing a narrow disapproval.
Response 6: EPA appreciates MDEQ’s
efforts in adopting revisions to its SIP to
be wholly consistent with the required
infrastructure SIP requirements
obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule and the
Phase 2 Rule. In our proposed
rulemaking addressing the relevant
requirements, EPA noted that the State
is in the process of adopting required
revisions to its regulations to: Address
pollutants responsible for the secondary
formation of PM2.5, i.e., precursors; 8
account for condensables in PM2.5 and
PM10 applicability determinations and
emission limits in NSR permits; and,
explicitly identify oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) as a precursor to ozone (see FR
77 45995 at 45996–45998). EPA believes
that MDEQ’s specific commitments,
including the revisions in progress
specific to the applicable requirements
of the 2008 NSR Rule and the Phase 2
Rule, as well as the time frame noted,
i.e., prior to the end of 2012, require
more evaluation. Therefore, in today’s
rulemaking, EPA is not finalizing our
proposed disapproval of portions of
Michigan’s infrastructure SIP for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the
PSD requirements contained in section
8 In the 2008 NSR Rule, EPA identified precursors
to PM2.5 for the PSD program to be sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and NOX (unless the state demonstrates to the
Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA demonstrates
that NOX emissions in an area are not a significant
contributor to that area’s ambient PM2.5
concentrations). The 2008 NSR Rule also specifies
that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are not
considered to be precursors to PM2.5 in the PSD
program unless the state demonstrates to the
Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA demonstrates
that emissions of VOCs in an area are significant
contributors to that area’s ambient PM2.5
concentrations.
E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM
29OCR1
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 209 / Monday, October 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II),
and section 110(a)(2)(J) to: Identify the
precursors to PM2.5 consistent with the
requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule;
account for PM2.5 and PM10
condensables in applicability
determinations and emissions limits for
permits consistent with the 2008 NSR
Rule; and, identify NOX as a precursor
to ozone consistent with the Phase 2
Rule. EPA will address Michigan’s
satisfaction of these requirements in a
separate rulemaking. In the interim,
however, EPA expects Michigan to
adhere to the requirements of the 2008
NSR Rule with respect to the treatment
and identification of PM2.5 precursors
and the accounting for PM2.5 and PM10
condensables in applicability
determinations and permitting
emissions limits in its PSD program. We
also expect Michigan to treat and
explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to
ozone for PSD permitting, consistent
with the requirements of the Phase 2
Rule.
Comment 7: Ohio EPA submitted a
comment letter to EPA disagreeing with
our proposed disapproval of portions of
its infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS intended to address the
relevant requirements obligated by the
2008 NSR Rule and the Phase 2 Rule.
Ohio EPA observes that EPA proposed
a narrow disapproval of portions of its
infrastructure SIP intended to meet the
PSD requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C): Identifying PM2.5
precursors; identifying PM2.5 and PM10
condensables in the PSD program; and,
identifying NOX as a precursor to ozone.
Ohio notes that our proposed
rulemaking states that ‘‘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.’’ Ohio also notes that under
section 110(a)(2)(C), states are required
to ‘‘include a program’’ for the
regulation of the modification and
construction of any stationary source to
assure that NAAQS are achieved,
including a permit program as required
under parts C and D. Citing Ohio
Revised Code (ORC) 3704.03, the State
argues that the director of Ohio EPA has
the authority to implement Ohio’s NSR
program contained in Ohio
Administrative Code (OAC) 3745–31.
Specifically, OAC 3745–31–01 defines
‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ as including
any pollutant for which a national
ambient air quality standard has been
promulgated and any constituents or
precursors for such pollutants identified
by the administrator. Therefore, under
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:17 Oct 26, 2012
Jkt 229001
this authority, Ohio EPA has been
applying its PSD program in accordance
with the 2008 NSR Rule and the Phase
2 Rule, and as a result—Ohio EPA meets
the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(C)
to ‘‘include a program’’ that meets parts
C and D. Ohio EPA asserts that EPA
must approve these elements of Ohio’s
SIP because the State has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements for
including a program that assures the
PM2.5 NAAQS is addressed in Ohio’s
permit program, even absent Ohio
submitting revisions to its PSD
regulations as mandated by the 2008
NSR Rule and Phase 2 Rule.
Response 8: While it is true that Ohio
EPA has included a program under parts
C and D of the CAA in its SIP, and that
EPA has approved various aspects of the
State’s PSD program in the past,9 EPA
explained in our proposed rulemaking
that the 2008 NSR Rule and Phase 2
Rule now obligate states to make
explicit regulatory changes in order to
clarify and remove any ambiguity
concerning the requirements to
specifically identify PM2.5 precursors, to
properly account for PM2.5 and PM10
condensables, and to treat NOX as a
precursor to ozone in permitting
contexts. EPA recognizes that Ohio
currently has some authority to treat
SO2 and NOX as presumed precursors to
PM2.5, and in a similar manner, to treat
NOX as a precursor to ozone in
permitting decisions. Our proposed
rulemaking also recognized that Ohio
EPA is in the process of adopting
revisions to its PSD program to be
wholly consistent with the applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements
obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule and
Phase 2 Rule (see FR 77 45995 at 45996–
45998). EPA’s regulations as codified in
40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i) and 40 CFR
52.21(b)(50)(i) for PM2.5 precursors, and
40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi) and 40 CFR
52.21(b)(50)(vi) for PM2.5 and PM10
condensables, required states to make
specific revisions by May 16, 2011 (see
73 FR 28321 at 28341). Because Ohio
has not yet made these required
revisions, however, EPA is finalizing a
disapproval of these narrow portions of
Ohio’s infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Likewise, the changes
obligated by the Phase 2 Rule to
explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to
ozone and codified in 40 CFR
51.166(b)(1)(ii), 40 CFR 51.166(b)(2)(ii),
40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i), 40 CFR
51.166(49)(i), and footnote 1 to 40 CFR
51.166(i)(5)(i)(e) required states to
submit specific revisions to EPA by June
15, 2007 (see 70 FR 71612 at 71683).
9 See, e.g., https://www.epa.gov/reg5oair/permits/
const/frn-nsr.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
65483
Because Ohio has not yet made these
required revisions, EPA is finalizing a
disapproval of this narrow portion of
Ohio’s infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.10 EPA will work actively
with the State to ensure that the
necessary SIP revisions are completed
as expeditiously as possible. In the
interim, we expect the State to adhere
to the requirements of the 2008 NSR
Rule with respect to the treatment and
identification of PM2.5 precursors and
the accounting for PM2.5 and PM10
condensables applicability
determinations and permitting
emissions limits in its PSD program. We
also expect Ohio to treat and explicitly
identify NOX as a precursor to ozone for
PSD permitting consistent with the
requirements of the Phase 2 Rule.
Comment 9: WDNR submitted a
comment letter to EPA disagreeing with
our proposed disapproval of portions of
its infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS intended to address the
relevant requirements obligated by the
2008 NSR Rule. WDNR states that EPA
proposed a narrow disapproval of
portions of its infrastructure SIP
intended to meet the PSD requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(C): Identifying PM2.5
precursors; and, identifying PM2.5 and
PM10 condensables in the PSD program.
Wisconsin notes that our proposed
rulemaking states that ‘‘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.’’ Wisconsin also notes that
under section 110(a)(2)(C), states are
required to ‘‘include a program’’ for the
regulation of the modification and
construction of any stationary source to
assure that NAAQS are achieved,
including a permit program as required
under parts C and D of CAA section
110(A)(2). Wisconsin argues that its
infrastructure SIP submissions have
clearly stated that WDNR has the
resources and authorities necessary to
implement and satisfy the requirements
of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA
for PM2.5 and PM10.
Citing the definition of ‘‘regulated
NSR air contaminant’’ in Wisconsin
Administrative Code NR 405.02(25i) as
including ‘‘any contaminant for which a
national ambient air quality standard
has been promulgated and any
10 EPA has also taken other actions germane to the
explicit identification of NOX as a precursor to
ozone in Federally approved PSD programs, e.g.,
‘‘Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State
Implementation Plans for the 8-hour Ozone
NAAQS’’ (see 73 FR 16205), and ‘‘Partial
Disapproval of ‘‘Infrastructure’’ State
Implementation Plan’’ for Wisconsin (77 FR 35870).
E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM
29OCR1
65484
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 209 / Monday, October 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with
constituents or precursors for the air
contaminant identified by the
administrator,’’ the State asserts that it
has been applying the PSD program in
accordance with the explicit
identification of precursor(s) to PM2.5
and ozone, consistent with the 2008
NSR Rule and Phase 2 Rule.
Furthermore, the State observes that all
permits issued by WDNR address these
requirements as codified by EPA, or
through EPA guidance under the
authority provided in Wisconsin State
Statute and Wisconsin Administrative
Code. WDNR therefore contends that it
has met the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C) to include a program that
meets part C and D.
WDNR also notes that it has been
accounting for condensable particulate
matter in its PSD permitting program
since the beginning of the program;
particulate matter and particulate matter
emissions have been defined to include
condensables since 1989 and have been
a part of the approved SIP since 1993.
Wisconsin asserts that EPA must
approve these elements of Wisconsin’s
infrastructure SIP, because WDNR has
met the applicable requirements.
Response 9: While it is true that
WDNR has included a program required
under parts C and D of the CAA in its
SIP, and EPA has approved various
aspects of the State’s PSD program in
the past,11 EPA explained in our
proposed rulemaking that the 2008 NSR
Rule and Phase 2 Rule now obligate
states to make explicit regulatory
changes in order to clarify and remove
any ambiguity concerning the
requirements to explicitly identify PM2.5
precursors, to properly account for
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables, and to
treat NOX as a precursor to ozone in
permitting contexts.12 Our proposed
rulemaking referenced Wisconsin’s
definition of ‘‘regulated NSR air
contaminant’’ as providing generic
language to define what constitutes a
regulated NSR pollutant; however, the
State’s current rules do not contain
provisions that would directly account
for PM2.5 and its precursors in NSR
permitting. EPA’s regulations as
codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i) and
40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i) for PM2.5
precursors, required states to make
specific revisions by May 16, 2011.
Because Wisconsin has not yet made
these required revisions, EPA is
finalizing a disapproval of this narrow
portion of Wisconsin’s infrastructure
SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with
respect to the explicit identification of
PM2.5 precursors. With respect to
accounting for particulate matter
condensables in its PSD permitting
program, EPA recognizes that Wisconsin
Administrative Code NR 439 contains
the requirements for reporting,
recordkeeping, testing, inspection, and
determination of compliance for air
contaminant sources and their owners
and operators. Of note, NR 439.02(4)
defines ‘‘condensible [sic] particulate
matter’’ as ‘‘any material, except
uncombined water, that may not be
collected in the front half of the
particulate emission sampling train but
which exists as a solid or liquid at
standard conditions.’’ However,
Wisconsin’s current SIP does not
contain the explicit language to account
for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in
applicability determinations and
permitting decisions, as required by 40
CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi) and 40 CFR
52.21(b)(50)(vi), and to date, the State
has not made a submission with such
revisions. As a result of EPA’s own
regulations and the May 16, 2011
deadline for submitting revisions
consistent with the 2008 NSR Rule, we
are finalizing the disapproval of this
narrow portion of Wisconsin’s
infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS with respect to the explicit
regulation of PM2.5 and PM10
condensables in permits. EPA will work
actively with the State to ensure that the
necessary SIP revisions are completed
as expeditiously as possible. We will
work with Wisconsin to rectify these
issues promptly, and in the interim, we
expect the State to adhere to the
requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule with
respect to the treatment and
identification of PM2.5 precursors and
the accounting for PM2.5 and PM10
condensables in applicability
determinations and permitting
emissions limits in its PSD program.
Although not germane to this action, we
also expect Wisconsin to treat and
explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to
ozone for PSD permitting consistent
with the requirements of the Phase 2
Rule.
For the reasons discussed in the
proposed rulemaking, EPA is taking
final action to approve most elements
and disapprove narrow portions of other
elements of submissions from the EPA
Region 5 States certifying that the
current SIPs are sufficient to meet the
required infrastructure elements under
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also taking final
action to approve portions of a
submission from Indiana intended to
meet EPA’s requirements for the NSR
and PSD programs in that State.
Specifically, they are: (i) 326 IAC 2–1.1–
1(2); (ii) 326 IAC 2–1.1–1(10); (iii) 326
IAC 2–2–1(dd)(1); (iv) 326 IAC 2–2–
1(ff)(7); (v) 326 IAC 2–2–1(ss)(1); (vi)
326 IAC 2–2–1(ww)(1)(F); (vii) 326 IAC
2–2–1(ww)(1)(G); and, (viii) 326 IAC 2–
2–4(b)(2)(vi). As detailed in our
proposed rulemaking, these revisions
are wholly consistent with the
infrastructure SIP requirements
associated with the 2008 NSR Rule and
the Phase 2 Rule.
Due to the current status of CSAPR,
EPA is not finalizing our previously
proposed approval for the interstate
transport requirements addressing
visibility protection of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for Indiana, Ohio,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also not taking
any action on Michigan’s satisfaction of
these requirements. As explained in the
comments and responses section, EPA is
finalizing our previously proposed
approval of Illinois’ infrastructure SIP
for the interstate transport requirements
addressing visibility protection of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
As a result of a comment letter
submitted by the State of Michigan, EPA
is not finalizing our previously
proposed disapproval of narrow
portions of section 110(a)(2)(C), section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and section
110(a)(2)(J) for the State. Instead, EPA
will address Michigan’s satisfaction of
the applicable PSD requirements
obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule and the
Phase 2 Rule in a separate rulemaking.
Lastly, as a result of a comment received
during the public comment period, EPA
is not finalizing its proposed approval of
the submission from Indiana with
respect to one narrow issue that relates
to section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).
Specifically, EPA will address the PSD
source impact analysis requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the State of
Indiana in a later action.
EPA’s final actions for each Region 5
State’s satisfaction of infrastructure SIP
requirements, by element of section
110(a)(2) are contained in the table
below.
11 See, e.g., https://www.epa.gov/reg5oair/permits/
const/frn-nsr.html.
12 Note that EPA has already finalized the
disapproval of narrow portions of Wisconsin’s
infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS with respect to the NOX as a precursor to
ozone provisions per the Phase 2 Rule (see 77 FR
35870).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:17 Oct 26, 2012
Jkt 229001
III. What action is EPA taking?
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM
29OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 209 / Monday, October 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
65485
Element
IL
IN 13
OH
MI
MN
WI
A: Emission limits and other control measures .......................................
B: Ambient air quality monitoring and data system .................................
C1: Enforcement of SIP measures ..........................................................
C2: PM2.5 precursors for PSD .................................................................
C3: PM2.5 and PM10 condensables for PSD ...........................................
C4: NOX as a precursor to ozone for PSD .............................................
C5: GHG permitting thresholds in PSD regulations ................................
D1: Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with maintenance of NAAQS
D2: PSD ...................................................................................................
D3: Visibility Protection ............................................................................
D4: Interstate Pollution Abatement ..........................................................
D5: International Pollution Abatement .....................................................
E: Adequate resources ............................................................................
E: State boards ........................................................................................
F: Stationary source monitoring system ..................................................
G: Emergency powers .............................................................................
H: Future SIP revisions ............................................................................
I: Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under part D .....................
J1: Consultation with government officials ..............................................
J2: Public notification ...............................................................................
J3: PSD ....................................................................................................
J4: Visibility protection .............................................................................
K: Air quality modeling and data .............................................................
L: Permitting fees .....................................................................................
M: Consultation and participation by affected local entities ....................
A
A
A
*D
*D
*D
*D
NA
**
A
*D
A
A
NA
A
A
A
NA
A
A
**
+
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
NA
**
NA
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
NA
A
A
**
+
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
D
D
A
NA
**
NA
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
NA
A
A
**
+
A
A
A
A
A
A
NA
NA
NA
A
NA
**
NA
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
NA
A
A
**
+
A
A
A
A
A
A
*D
*D
*D
*D
NA
**
NA
*D
A
A
NA
A
A
A
NA
A
A
**
+
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
D
NA
A
NA
**
NA
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
NA
A
A
**
+
A
A
A
In the above table, the key is as follows:
A Approve.
NA No Action/Separate Rulemaking.
D Disapprove.
+ Not relevant in these actions.
* Federally promulgated rules in place.
** Previously discussed in element (C).
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with
As originally described in the
proposed rulemaking, EPA is finalizing
disapproval of the infrastructure SIP
submissions from Illinois and
Minnesota with respect to certain PSD
requirements including: (i) The explicit
identification of SO2 and NOX as PM2.5
precursors consistent with the
requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule; (ii)
the regulation of PM2.5 and PM10
condensables consistent with the
requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule; (iii)
the explicit identification of NOX as a
precursor to ozone consistent with the
Phase 2 Rule; and, (iv) permitting of
GHG emitting sources at the Federal
Tailoring Rule thresholds.
EPA is also finalizing the disapproval
of the infrastructure SIP submissions
from Illinois and Minnesota with
respect to the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to interstate
pollution abatement. Specifically, this
section requires states with PSD
programs have provisions requiring a
new or modified source to notify
neighboring states of the potential
impacts from the source, consistent with
the requirements of section 126(a).
13 In addition to the information provided in this
table for the State of Indiana, EPA reiterates once
again that we are not finalizing any action with
respect to the PSD source impact analysis
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and
(J) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:17 Oct 26, 2012
Jkt 229001
However, Illinois and Minnesota have
no further obligations as a result of this
disapproval because Federally
promulgated rules, promulgated at 40
CFR 52.21 are in effect in each of these
States. EPA has delegated the authority
to Illinois and Minnesota to administer
these rules, which include provisions
related to PSD and interstate pollution
abatement. This final disapproval for
Illinois and Minnesota for these
infrastructure SIP requirements will not
result in sanctions under section 179(a),
nor will it obligate EPA to promulgate
a FIP within two years of final action if
the States do not submit revisions to
their PSD SIPs addressing these
deficiencies. Instead, Illinois and
Minnesota are already subject to the
Federally promulgated PSD regulations,
and both States administer these
regulations via EPA’s delegated
authority.
The grounds for EPA’s final
disapproval of portions of the
infrastructure SIP submittals from Ohio
and Wisconsin are very narrow, and
pertain only to these specific
deficiencies in the States’ SIPs
described in the relevant sections of the
proposed rulemaking, as well as in the
responses to comments section of
today’s rulemaking.
As previously discussed, EPA
believes that Ohio has been actively
preparing necessary revisions to its PSD
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
program, consistent with the
requirements of the Phase 2 Rule and
the 2008 NSR Rule. We will work with
the State to rectify these issues
promptly. In addition, EPA will work
with WDNR to account for the explicit
identification of precursors to PM2.5, as
well as PM2.5 and PM10 condensables, in
its PSD program.14
Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final
disapproval of a submission that
addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan
(section 171–section 193 of the CAA), or
is required in response to a finding of
substantial inadequacy as described in
section 110(k)(5) starts a sanction clock.
The provisions in the submissions we
are disapproving were not submitted by
Ohio or Wisconsin to meet either of
those requirements. Therefore, no
sanctions under section 179 will be
triggered.
The full or partial disapproval of a SIP
revision triggers the requirement under
section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a
FIP no later than two years from the
date of the disapproval unless the State
corrects the deficiency, and the
Administrator approves the plan or plan
revision before the Administrator
14 Although not specific to this action, EPA will
also continue to work with WDNR to ensure that
revisions to the State’s PSD program contain
provisions that explicitly identify NOX as a
precursor to ozone, consistent with the Phase 2
Rule.
E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM
29OCR1
65486
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 209 / Monday, October 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
promulgates such FIP. As detailed in the
proposed rulemaking, EPA anticipates
that Ohio EPA will make submissions
rectifying each of the deficiencies that
are the basis for the disapprovals in this
action. Further, EPA anticipates acting
on the anticipated submissions from the
State within the two year time frame
prior to our FIP obligation on these very
narrow issues. In the interim, EPA
expects Ohio to treat and explicitly
identify NOX as a precursor to ozone for
PSD permitting consistent with the
requirements of the Phase 2 Rule. EPA
also expects the State to adhere to the
requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule with
respect to the treatment and
identification of PM2.5 precursors and
the accounting for PM2.5 and PM10
condensables in applicability
determinations and permitting
emissions limits in its PSD program.
EPA will actively work with
Wisconsin to incorporate changes to its
PSD program that explicitly identify
PM2.5 precursors and account for PM2.5
and PM10 condensables in applicability
determinations and permitting
emissions limits, consistent with the
2008 NSR Rule. In the interim, EPA
expects WDNR to adhere to the
associated requirements of the 2008
NSR Rule in its PSD program,
specifically with respect to the explicit
identification of PM2.5 precursors, and
the accounting for PM2.5 and PM10
condensables in applicability
determinations and permitting
emissions limits.
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:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• 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, this rule does not have
Tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt
Tribal law.
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: September 26, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Section 52.731 is amended by
adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.731 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure
requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Approval and Disapproval—In an
August 9, 2011, submittal, and
supplemented on August 25, 2011, and
June 27, 2012, Illinois certified that the
State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
through (H), and (J) through (M) for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is not
taking action on (D)(i)(I) and the state
board requirements of (E)(ii). Although
EPA is disapproving portions of Illinois’
submission addressing the prevention of
significant deterioration, Illinois
continues to implement the Federally
promulgated rules for this purpose as
they pertain to (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and
(J).
■ 3. In § 52.770:
■ a. The table in paragraph (c) is
amended by adding an entry in
numerical order for ‘‘2–1.1–1’’, and
revising the entries for ‘‘2–2–1’’, and
‘‘2–2–4’’.
■ b. The table in paragraph (e) is
amended by adding entries in
alphabetical order for ‘‘Section 110(a)(2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006
24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS’’.
The revised and added text reads as
follows:
§ 52.770
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED INDIANA REGULATIONS
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with
Indiana
citation
*
2–1.1–1 ........
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Indiana effective
date
Subject
EPA approval date
Notes
*
*
*
*
Definitions ...................................... July 11, 2012 .... October 29 2012, [Insert page
number where the document begins].
12:17 Oct 26, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM
*
(2) and (10) only.
29OCR1
*
65487
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 209 / Monday, October 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED INDIANA REGULATIONS—Continued
Indiana
citation
Indiana effective
date
Subject
EPA approval date
Notes
*
2–2–1 ...........
*
*
*
*
Definitions ...................................... July 11, 2012 .... October 29 2012, [Insert page
number where the document begins].
*
*
(dd)(1), (ff)(7), (ss)(1), (ww)(1)(F),
and (ww)(1)(G) only.
*
2–2–4 ...........
*
*
*
*
Air quality analysis; requirements .. July 11, 2012 .... October 29 2012, [Insert page
number where the document begins].
*
(b)(2)(vi) only.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
EPA-APPROVED INDIANA NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Title
Indiana date
*
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements
for the 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
*
EPA approval
*
*
10/20/2009, 6/25/2012, 7/
12/2012.
*
Explanation
*
10/29/2012, [Insert page
number where the document begins].
*
*
*
This action addresses the following CAA elements:
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G),
(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are not finalizing action on the PSD source impact analysis requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J), the
visibility protection requirements of (D)(i)(II), and the
state board requirements of (E)(ii). We will address
these requirements in a separate action.
*
4. In § 52.1170, the table in paragraph
(e) is amended by adding an entry at the
end of the table for ‘‘Section 110(a)(2)
■
*
*
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006
24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS’’ to read as
follows:
*
§ 52.1170
*
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED MICHIGAN NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Applicable
geographic or
nonattainment
area
State
submittal
date
*
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006
24-Hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with
Name of
nonregulatory
SIP provision
*
Statewide ..........
*
8/15/2011, 7/9/2012 ....
5. In § 52.1220, the table in paragraph
(e) is amended by adding an entry in
alphabetical order for ‘‘Section 110(a)(2)
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:17 Oct 26, 2012
Jkt 229001
EPA approval date
Comments
*
*
10/29/2012, [Insert
page number where
the document begins].
*
*
This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii),
(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We
are not taking action on the visibility protection requirements of (D)(i)(II) and the state
board requirements of (E)(ii). We will address these requirements in a separate action. We are taking no action on portions of
Michigan’s infrastructure SIP submission addressing the relevant prevention of significant deterioration requirements of the 2008
NSR Rule (identifying PM2.5 precursors, and
the regulation of PM2.5 and PM10
condensables in permits) and the Phase 2
Rule (identification of NOX as a precursor to
ozone) with respect to section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J).
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006
24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS’’ to read as
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 52.1220
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM
29OCR1
*
*
65488
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 209 / Monday, October 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED MINNESOTA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS
Name of nonregulatory
SIP provision
*
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006
24-Hour Ozone
NAAQS.
*
Applicable
geographic or
nonattainment
area
State submittal date/
effective date
*
Statewide ..........
*
5/23/2011, 6/27/2012
(submittal dates).
*
*
6. Section 52.1891 is amended by
adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1891 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure
requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Approval and Disapproval—In a
September 4, 2009 submittal,
supplemented on June 3, 2011, and July
5, 2012, Ohio certified that the State has
satisfied the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
through (H), and (J) through (M) for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. We are not
finalizing action on the visibility
protection requirements of (D)(i)(II) or
the state board requirements of (E)(ii).
We will address these requirements in
a separate action. We are disapproving
narrow portions of Ohio’s infrastructure
SIP submission addressing the relevant
prevention of significant deterioration
requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule
(identifying PM2.5 precursors, and the
regulation of PM2.5 and PM10
condensables in permits) and the Phase
2 Rule (identification of NOX as a
precursor to ozone) with respect to
section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).
■ 7. Section 52.2591 is amended by
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 52.2591 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure
requirements.
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Approval and Disapproval—In a
January 24, 2011, submittal,
supplemented on March 28, 2011, and
June 29, 2012, Wisconsin certified that
the State has satisfied the infrastructure
SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
through (H), and (J) through (M) for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. We are not
finalizing action on (D)(i)(I), the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:17 Oct 26, 2012
Jkt 229001
EPA approved date
Comments
*
*
10/29/2012, [Insert
page number where
the document begins].
*
*
This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii),
(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We
are not finalizing action on the visibility protection requirements of (D)(i)(II) or the state
board requirements of (E)(ii). We will address these requirements in a separate action. Although EPA is disapproving portions
of Minnesota’s submission addressing the
prevention of significant deterioration, Minnesota continues to implement the Federally
promulgated rules for this purpose as they
pertain to section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), and (J).
*
*
visibility protection requirements of
(D)(i)(II), and the state board
requirements of (E)(ii). We will address
these requirements in a separate action.
We are disapproving narrow portions of
Wisconsin’s infrastructure SIP
submission addressing the relevant
prevention of significant deterioration
requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule
(identifying PM2.5 precursors and the
regulation of PM2.5 and PM10
condensables in permits) with respect to
section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).
[FR Doc. 2012–26289 Filed 10–26–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2008–0929; FRL–9746–2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Attainment Demonstration
for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City
Moderate Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is approving the
attainment demonstration portion of the
attainment plan submitted by the State
of Maryland as a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision. The Maryland SIP
revision demonstrates attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) for the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
PA–NJ–MD–DE moderate
nonattainment area (Philadelphia Area)
by the applicable attainment date of
June 2011. EPA is approving the SIP
revision in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
This final rule is effective on
November 28, 2012.
DATES:
EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2008–0929. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the electronic docket,
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 electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for
public inspection during normal
business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Maryland Department of
the Environment, 1800 Washington
Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore,
Maryland 21230.
ADDRESSES:
Rose
Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by email at
quinto.rose@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM
29OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 209 (Monday, October 29, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65478-65488]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26289]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0805; EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0567; FRL-9742-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Illinois; Indiana; Michigan; Minnesota; Ohio; Wisconsin; Infrastructure
SIP Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards; Indiana NSR/PSD
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve most elements, and
disapprove narrow portions of other elements, of State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submissions by Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,
and Wisconsin regarding the infrastructure requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) for the 2006 24-hour fine particle national ambient air
quality standards (2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). The infrastructure
requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of
each State's air quality management program are adequate to meet the
State's responsibilities under the CAA. EPA is also taking final action
to approve portions of a submission from Indiana addressing EPA's
requirements for its new source review (NSR) and prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) program. The proposed rulemaking was
published on August 2, 2012. During the comment period, which ended on
September 4, 2012, EPA received five comment letters. The concerns
raised in these letters, as well as EPA's responses, will be addressed
in this final action.
DATES: This final rule is effective on November 28, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established two dockets for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0805 (infrastructure SIP elements for all
Region 5 States) and EPA-R05-OAR-
[[Page 65479]]
2012-0567 (Indiana NSR/PSD elements). All documents in the docket are
listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be
publicly-available only in hard copy. Publicly-available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air
and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you
telephone Andy Chang at (312) 886-0258 before visiting the Region 5
office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-0258, chang.andy@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 these SIP submissions?
A. What State SIP submissions does this rulemaking address?
B. Why did the States make these SIP submissions?
C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background of these SIP submissions?
A. What State SIP submissions does this rulemaking address?
This rulemaking addresses submissions from each State (and
appropriate State agency) in EPA Region 5: Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (Illinois EPA); Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM); Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ);
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA); Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (Ohio EPA); and Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources Bureau of Air Management (WDNR). Each Region 5 State made SIP
submissions on the following dates: Illinois--August 9, 2011, and
supplemented on August 25, 2011, and June 27, 2012; Indiana--October
20, 2009, and supplemented on June 25, 2012, and July 12, 2012;
Michigan--August 15, 2011, and supplemented on July 9, 2012;
Minnesota--May 23, 2011, and supplemented on June 27, 2012; Ohio--
September 4, 2009, and supplemented on June 3, 2011, and July 5, 2012;
and, Wisconsin--January 24, 2011, and supplemented on March 28, 2011,
and June 29, 2012.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ WDNR noted in a comment letter that its initial
infrastructure SIP submission was dated December 12, 2007. EPA
observes, however, that the December 12, 2007, submission by WDNR
only addresses the 1997 8-hour ground level ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, and not the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana also made a SIP submission intended to address various EPA
requirements for its NSR and PSD programs. IDEM submitted revisions on
July 12, 2012, for incorporation into its NSR and PSD program, and also
requested that EPA approve these revisions as satisfying any applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
B. Why did the States make these SIP submissions?
Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, and implementing EPA
policy, the States are required to submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure
that their SIPs provide for implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS, including the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
These submissions must contain any revisions needed for meeting the
applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2), or certifications
that their existing SIPs for particulate matter already met those
requirements.
EPA highlighted this statutory requirement 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 Memo).
On September 25, 2009, EPA issued an additional guidance document
pertaining to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS entitled ``Guidance on
SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-
Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)'' (2009 Memo). The SIP submissions referenced in this
rulemaking pertain to the applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) of the CAA. The SIP submissions from the six Region 5 States
being evaluated here address primarily the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,
with a narrow evaluation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; this final
rulemaking addresses only these pollutants as well.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On June 14, 2012, the EPA Administrator signed a proposed
rule that would strengthen various aspects of the existing
PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 38890). The State submittals and
EPA's rulemaking do not extend to these proposed NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
As originally detailed in the proposed rulemaking, the applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements are contained in section 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA. EPA is finalizing action of each Region 5 State's
satisfaction of the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
through section 110(a)(2)(M), except for the elements detailed in the
following paragraphs.
This rulemaking will not cover four substantive areas that are not
integral to acting on a State's infrastructure SIP submission: (i)
Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources, that may be contrary to
the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM'');
(ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance'' or
``director's discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP
approved emissions limits with limited public process or without
requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA
(``director's discretion''); (iii) existing provisions for minor source
NSR programs that may be inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA
and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs (``minor source
NSR''); and, (iv) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be
inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement
Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526
(June 13, 2007) (``NSR Reform''). Instead, EPA has indicated that it
has other authority to address any such existing SIP defects in other
rulemakings, as appropriate. A detailed rationale for why these four
substantive areas are not part of the scope of infrastructure SIP
rulemakings can be found in EPA's July 13, 2011, final rule entitled,
``Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' in the
section entitled, ``What is the scope of this final rulemaking?'' (see
76 FR 41075 at 41076-41079).
In addition to the four substantive areas above, EPA is not acting
in this action on portions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate
transport; section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)--Adequate resources; and section
110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation with government officials,
[[Page 65480]]
public notifications, PSD, and visibility protection. EPA stated in our
proposed rulemaking that we were not proposing to act on the portion of
any Region 5 State's submission intended to address the interstate
transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (see 77 FR 45992
at 46000), nor were we proposing to approve or disapprove each Region 5
State's satisfaction of the state board requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (see 77 FR 45992 at 46002). We have previously
finalized our rulemaking for the interstate transport requirements for
Indiana and Ohio (see FR 43175), and we have yet to take action on the
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of the SIP submissions from
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. We will also take action
on compliance with section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin at a later time. EPA is
working with each of the Region 5 States to address these requirements
in the most appropriate way.
With respect to the visibility protection requirements of section
110(a)(2)(J), EPA notes that these requirements are different from
those in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) in that the visibility protection
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are not ``triggered'' by the
promulgation of a new or updated NAAQS. In other words, the visibility
protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to
infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA realizes
that our proposed rulemaking may have engendered confusion with respect
to section 110(a)(2)(J) (see 77 FR 45992 at 46005), and we want to
clarify in this final action that the visibility protection
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to the
infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also not
acting on section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan
Revisions Under Part D, in its entirety. Instead, EPA takes action on
part D attainment plans through separate processes.
Furthermore, as a result of the current status of the Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR),\3\ EPA is not finalizing action on portions
of the interstate transport requirements for addressing visibility
protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for certain Region 5 States
where we had previously proposed approval; the reasoning can be found
in the following section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See https://epa.gov/airtransport/. Notably, the Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an opinion vacating CSAPR on
August 21, 2012, and ordering EPA to continue administering the
Clean Air Interstate Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also not finalizing our action on narrow portions of
Michigan's infrastructure SIP for section 110(a)(2)(C), section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and section 110(a)(2)(J), specifically with
respect to the applicable requirements obligated by EPA's final rule
for the ``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for
Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' (2008
NSR Rule) (see 73 FR 28321) and the ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-
Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule
to Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New
Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They Apply
in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for
Reformulated Gasoline'' (Phase 2 Rule) (see 70 FR 71612). On September
4, 2012, MDEQ submitted a comment letter to EPA that requires more
evaluation; the specific issues are described in the following section.
Lastly, as a result of a comment received during the comment
period, EPA is not finalizing action on a narrow portion of Indiana's
infrastructure SIP for section 110(a)(2)(C), section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and section 110(a)(2)(J), specifically for the
source impact analysis requirements of the State's PSD program as it
relates to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; the specific issues are
described in the following section.
II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?
The public comment period for EPA's proposed action to approve most
elements and disapprove narrow portions of other elements of
submissions from the Region 5 States closed on September 4, 2012. EPA
received five comment letters, and a synopsis of the significant
individual comments contained in these letters, as well as EPA's
response to each comment, is discussed below.
Comment 1: A comment letter was submitted on behalf of the Ohio
Utility Group (OUG) and its member companies. While OUG generally
supported EPA's proposed actions with respect to Ohio's infrastructure
SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the group recommended that EPA
withdraw its prior disapproval of the portions of Ohio's infrastructure
SIP addressing the interstate transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (see 76 FR 43175). Instead, OUG stated that it was
EPA's intent to implement a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in Ohio
to meet these requirements, and that the finalized CSAPR was published
in the Federal Register on August 8, 2011 (see 76 FR 48208), as a FIP
that would simultaneously remedy and replace the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR). OUG noted that CSAPR was stayed by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit pending judicial review on
December 31, 2011, and that the court also ordered EPA to continue
administering CAIR. OUG further noted that on August 21, 2012, the
court vacated and remanded CSAPR back to EPA, and again ordered EPA to
continue administering CAIR. Therefore, OUG believes that EPA should
withdraw its prior disapproval of Ohio's interstate transport SIP, and
propose approval of Ohio's submissions intended to address the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), making the emission
reductions that have already occurred Federally enforceable. Lastly,
OUG stated that when EPA issues a new interstate transport rule, EPA
can then make a determination that the emission reductions as a result
of Ohio's interstate transport SIP are insufficient and require Ohio to
develop an updated SIP.
Response 1: In EPA's August 2, 2012, proposed rulemaking, we stated
that we were not proposing to approve or disapprove any provisions
intended to address interstate transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (see 76 FR 45992 at 46000); with respect to Ohio,
EPA noted that the disapproval of portions of Ohio's infrastructure SIP
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS intended to address these
requirements was finalized on July 20, 2011, and that the State did not
have any SIP submission relevant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS pending before the Agency. In other words,
OUG's comments are not germane to today's rulemaking.
Comment 2: One commenter noted that although EPA had proposed
approval for all Region 5 States (except for Michigan) as meeting the
visibility protection requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the
Region 5 States' visibility SIPs relied on CSAPR to satisfy the
requirement of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for electric
generating units. Since CSAPR has been vacated with CAIR temporarily in
place, the commenter asserts that there exists no current and permanent
cross state air pollution rule for EPA and the Region 5 States to rely
on to satisfy the visibility protection requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), which includes BART limits for electric generating
units. Therefore, EPA must disapprove the portions of infrastructure
SIPs intended to address the visibility
[[Page 65481]]
protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Response 2: The 2009 Memo recommends to states that the visibility
protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) can be satisfied
by an approved SIP addressing reasonably attributable visibility
impairment, if required, and an approved SIP addressing regional
haze.\4\ The commenter is correct in stating that if Region 5 States'
regional haze plans relied on CSAPR in the context of BART and electric
generating units, the visibility protection requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) would not be met because CSAPR has been vacated.
However, the commenter is incorrect in his characterization of
Illinois' regional haze plan. Specifically, Illinois has two sets of
provisions in its SIP rules that meet the BART requirement of electric
generating units \5\ without relying on CSAPR (or CAIR). EPA's final
approval of Illinois' regional haze plan was published on July 6, 2012,
(see 76 FR 39943) and affirms that existing provisions in Illinois
satisfy the BART requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA notes that the 2009 Memo distinguishes section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) from the visibility element of section
110(a)(2)(J), which EPA believes is not germane in infrastructure
SIPs for this NAAQS.
\5\ The Combined Pollutant Standards are contained in 35
Illinois Administrative Code 225.233, and the Multi-Pollutant
Standards are contained in 35 Illinois Administrative Code 225.293-
225.299.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In today's rulemaking, EPA is not finalizing our proposed approval
of the visibility protection requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. EPA is
also not taking any action on the visibility protection requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for Michigan. EPA will take action on these
States' SIPs in a separate rulemaking. However, EPA is finalizing
approval of Illinois' satisfaction of the visibility protection
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) in this rulemaking.
Comment 3: The same commenter stated that the Indiana SIP is
insufficient for purposes of the State's PSD program for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. The commenter observes that 326 Indiana
Administrative Code (IAC) 2-2-5(a)(1) requires an analysis of a new or
modified source's emissions demonstrating that the emissions will not
cause or contribute to air pollution in violation of any ambient air
quality standard, as designated in 326 IAC 1-3. The language contained
in 326 IAC 1-3 explicitly references only the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, and not the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 micrograms per
cubic meter. Therefore, a literal read of Indiana's PSD regulations
indicates that a source impact analysis would only need to comply with
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The commenter did note that 326 IAC 2-
1.1-5 contains language that would prohibit issuance of a registration,
permit, modification approval, or operating permit revision if issuance
would allow a source to cause or contribute to a violation of the
NAAQS. 326 IAC 2-1.1-5 is currently not in the SIP, and the language
contained therein has not been submitted by Indiana for incorporation
into the SIP.
Response 3: After evaluating the commenter's points, EPA agrees
that the State's EPA-approved PSD SIP contained in 326 IAC 2-2-5(a)
only requires a source impact analysis for PM2.5 to comply
with the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and not the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. 326 IAC 2-2-5(a) states that ``The owner or operator of the
proposed major stationary source or major modification shall
demonstrate that allowable emissions increases in conjunction with all
other applicable emissions increases or reductions (including secondary
emissions) will not cause or contribute to air pollution in violation
of any: (1) Ambient air quality standard, as designated in 326 IAC 1-3,
in any air quality control region * * *'' 326 IAC 1-3-4 contains the
ambient air quality standards as they apply in Indiana; the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS as codified in 40 CFR 50.13, has not been
incorporated into this section. IDEM has informed EPA that the State is
in the process of adopting revisions to its SIP, specifically contained
in IAC 326 1-3-4, to incorporate the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as
codified in 40 CFR 50.13. EPA is therefore not finalizing any action on
this narrow portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) for Indiana's
infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; we will address
the PSD source impact analysis requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in a separate rulemaking. EPA notes
that there are also PSD requirements associated with section
110(A)(2)(D)(i)(II) and section 110(a)(2)(J). As a result, we are also
not finalizing any action on this narrow portion of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and section 110(a)(2)(J) for Indiana's
infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; we will address
the same PSD source impact analysis requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the same action for section 110(a)(2)(C).
Comment 4: The same commenter as above also stated that Wisconsin's
PSD SIP does not contain the maximum allowable increases in ambient
pollutant concentrations (increments) for PM2.5. The final
rule for the ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--
Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring
Concentration (SMC)'' requiring states to incorporate increments into
their PSD SIPs was published in the Federal Register on October 20,
2010 (2010 NSR Rule) (see 75 FR 64864). This requirement was also
codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(c). The 2010 NSR Rule
required states to submit revisions to their SIPs addressing this
required program element by July 20, 2012 (see 75 FR 64864 at 64898).
Therefore, because Wisconsin had not made revisions to its PSD SIP
incorporating the increments by the deadline prescribed by the 2010 NSR
Rule, EPA must disapprove the appropriate portions of the
infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The commenter
did state that WDNR has applied the appropriate increments when issuing
PSD permits.
Response 4: The commenter asserts that EPA should now disapprove
portions of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS because, since the date of EPA's proposal, the
deadline for the submission of a SIP revision addressing the
PM2.5 increments has passed. However, pursuant to the 2010
NSR Rule and CAA section 166(b), states were not required to submit a
revised SIP addressing the PM2.5 increments until July 20,
2012. The Agency proposed action on the Wisconsin infrastructure SIP
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in a notice signed on July 20,
2012.\6\ Therefore, on the date that the proposed rule was signed by
the Agency, the PM2.5 increments were not required to be
included in the Wisconsin SIP in order for Wisconsin to meet the PSD
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Although the proposed action was published by the Federal
Register on August 2, 2012, it was signed by the Regional
Administrator on July 20, 2012, before the statutory deadline for
submission of the SIP revision addressing the PM2.5
increments had passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter's concerns relate to the timing of Agency action on
collateral, yet related, SIP submissions. These concerns highlight an
important overarching question that the EPA has to confront when
assessing the various infrastructure SIP submittals addressed in the
proposed rule: How to proceed when the timing and sequencing of
multiple related SIP submissions impact the ability of the State and
the Agency to address certain substantive issues in
[[Page 65482]]
the infrastructure SIP submission in a reasonable fashion.
It is appropriate for EPA to take into consideration the timing and
sequence of related SIP submissions as part of determining what it is
reasonable to expect a State to have addressed in an infrastructure SIP
submission for a NAAQS at the time when the EPA acts on such
submission. EPA has historically interpreted section 110(a)(2)(C),
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and section 110(a)(2)(J) to require us to
assess a State's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to the
then-applicable and Federally enforceable PSD regulations required to
be included in a State's SIP at the time EPA takes action on the SIP.
However, EPA does not consider it reasonable to interpret section
110(a)(2)(C), section 110(D)(i)(II), and section 110(a)(2)(J) to
require us to propose to disapprove a State's infrastructure SIP
submissions because the State had not yet, at the time of proposal,
made a submission that was not yet due for the 2010 PM2.5
NSR Rule. To adopt a different approach by which EPA could not act on
an infrastructure SIP, or at least could not approve an infrastructure
SIP, whenever there was any impending revision to the SIP required by
another collateral rulemaking action would result in regulatory
gridlock and make it impracticable or impossible for EPA to act on
infrastructure SIPs if EPA is in the process of revising collateral PSD
regulations. EPA believes that such an outcome would be an unreasonable
reading of the statutory process for the infrastructure SIPs
contemplated in section 110(a)(1) and (2).
EPA acknowledges that it is important that these additional PSD
program revisions be evaluated and approved into the State's SIP in
accordance with the CAA, and EPA intends to address the
PM2.5 increments in a subsequent rulemaking. EPA appreciates
the commenter's point that Wisconsin has been applying the appropriate
increments consistent with the requirements codified in 40 CFR
52.21(c), and we will actively work with the State to ensure that these
increments are correctly evaluated in permitting decisions.
Furthermore, we will work with Wisconsin to ensure that revisions to
its SIP incorporating these increments will be wholly consistent with
the requirements obligated by the 2010 NSR Rule, as codified in 40 CFR
51.166(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(c).
Comment 5: The same commenter as above agreed with EPA's proposed
disapproval of portions of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the explicit identification and
regulation of condensable PM2.5 and PM10 in its
PSD program.\7\ Wisconsin's existing SIP contained in Wisconsin
Administrative Code NR 400.02(123e)--NR 400.02(124) does not contain
the explicit references to condensables in PM2.5 and
PM10 emissions, as obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule.
Furthermore, revisions to its PSD program submitted by WDNR on May 11,
2011, do not contain the explicit identification or regulation of
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables. However, the
commenter notes that WDNR has been including condensable fraction of
particulate matter in permits for facilities for many years, as alluded
to in NR 415.09. The commenter suggests that EPA clarify that a final
disapproval of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the explicit identification and
regulation of PM2.5 and PM10 condensables does
``not negate or otherwise undermine the fact that all limits in all
existing permits in Wisconsin already include condensable PM.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Condensables'' are defined as gases that at ambient
temperatures, could condense to form particulate matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 5: EPA appreciates the commenter's point that WDNR has
historically considered some condensable PM in its permits. The SIP-
approved portions of NR 415.09 include references to condensable
particulate matter, as defined in NR 439.02(4). NR 439 contains the
requirements for reporting, recordkeeping, testing, inspection, and
determination of compliance for air contaminant sources and their
owners and operators. Specifically, NR 439.02(4) defines
``condensible[sic] particulate matter'' as ``any material, except
uncombined water, that may not be collected in the front half of the
particulate emission sampling train but which exists as a solid or
liquid at standard conditions.'' EPA agrees that WDNR has the authority
to regulate some condensables, and also agrees with the commenter that
a final disapproval of portions of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the explicit
identification and regulation of PM2.5 and PM10
condensables does not negate that WDNR has considered some condensable
particulate matter in its permits. However, at this point in time, the
State has not revised its SIP to contain the required explicit
references to condensables that are necessary for purposes of the PSD
program, and to make that requirement a Federally enforceable part of
the State's SIP. EPA will continue to work with the State to develop
SIP revisions that account for PM2.5 and PM10
condensables in applicability determinations and permitting emissions
limits, consistent with the 2008 NSR Rule. In the interim, we expect
the State to correctly account for these condensables in applicability
determinations and permitting emissions limits.
Comment 6: MDEQ submitted a comment letter to EPA affirming that
the State is adopting revisions to its rules that would be wholly
consistent with the required infrastructure SIP requirements obligated
by the 2008 NSR Rule and the Phase 2 Rule. MDEQ stated that the
necessary revisions would be submitted to EPA imminently for
incorporation into the SIP, specifically before the end of 2012, and
also included the draft rules reflecting the appropriate revisions. The
State urged EPA to issue a conditional approval for the relevant
portions of its infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
in lieu of finalizing a narrow disapproval.
Response 6: EPA appreciates MDEQ's efforts in adopting revisions to
its SIP to be wholly consistent with the required infrastructure SIP
requirements obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule and the Phase 2 Rule. In
our proposed rulemaking addressing the relevant requirements, EPA noted
that the State is in the process of adopting required revisions to its
regulations to: Address pollutants responsible for the secondary
formation of PM2.5, i.e., precursors; \8\ account for
condensables in PM2.5 and PM10 applicability
determinations and emission limits in NSR permits; and, explicitly
identify oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as a precursor to ozone
(see FR 77 45995 at 45996-45998). EPA believes that MDEQ's specific
commitments, including the revisions in progress specific to the
applicable requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule and the Phase 2 Rule, as
well as the time frame noted, i.e., prior to the end of 2012, require
more evaluation. Therefore, in today's rulemaking, EPA is not
finalizing our proposed disapproval of portions of Michigan's
infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to
the PSD requirements contained in section
[[Page 65483]]
110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and section 110(a)(2)(J) to:
Identify the precursors to PM2.5 consistent with the
requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule; account for PM2.5 and
PM10 condensables in applicability determinations and
emissions limits for permits consistent with the 2008 NSR Rule; and,
identify NOX as a precursor to ozone consistent with the
Phase 2 Rule. EPA will address Michigan's satisfaction of these
requirements in a separate rulemaking. In the interim, however, EPA
expects Michigan to adhere to the requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule
with respect to the treatment and identification of PM2.5
precursors and the accounting for PM2.5 and PM10
condensables in applicability determinations and permitting emissions
limits in its PSD program. We also expect Michigan to treat and
explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to ozone for PSD
permitting, consistent with the requirements of the Phase 2 Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In the 2008 NSR Rule, EPA identified precursors to
PM2.5 for the PSD program to be sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and NOX (unless the state demonstrates
to the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that
NOX emissions in an area are not a significant
contributor to that area's ambient PM2.5 concentrations).
The 2008 NSR Rule also specifies that volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) are not considered to be precursors to PM2.5 in
the PSD program unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's
satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that emissions of VOCs in an area
are significant contributors to that area's ambient PM2.5
concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 7: Ohio EPA submitted a comment letter to EPA disagreeing
with our proposed disapproval of portions of its infrastructure SIP for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS intended to address the relevant
requirements obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule and the Phase 2 Rule. Ohio
EPA observes that EPA proposed a narrow disapproval of portions of its
infrastructure SIP intended to meet the PSD requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C): Identifying PM2.5 precursors; identifying
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in the PSD program;
and, identifying NOX as a precursor to ozone. Ohio notes
that our proposed rulemaking states that ``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.'' Ohio also notes that under
section 110(a)(2)(C), states are required to ``include a program'' for
the regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary
source to assure that NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as
required under parts C and D. Citing Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 3704.03,
the State argues that the director of Ohio EPA has the authority to
implement Ohio's NSR program contained in Ohio Administrative Code
(OAC) 3745-31. Specifically, OAC 3745-31-01 defines ``regulated NSR
pollutant'' as including any pollutant for which a national ambient air
quality standard has been promulgated and any constituents or
precursors for such pollutants identified by the administrator.
Therefore, under this authority, Ohio EPA has been applying its PSD
program in accordance with the 2008 NSR Rule and the Phase 2 Rule, and
as a result--Ohio EPA meets the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(C) to
``include a program'' that meets parts C and D. Ohio EPA asserts that
EPA must approve these elements of Ohio's SIP because the State has met
the infrastructure SIP requirements for including a program that
assures the PM2.5 NAAQS is addressed in Ohio's permit
program, even absent Ohio submitting revisions to its PSD regulations
as mandated by the 2008 NSR Rule and Phase 2 Rule.
Response 8: While it is true that Ohio EPA has included a program
under parts C and D of the CAA in its SIP, and that EPA has approved
various aspects of the State's PSD program in the past,\9\ EPA
explained in our proposed rulemaking that the 2008 NSR Rule and Phase 2
Rule now obligate states to make explicit regulatory changes in order
to clarify and remove any ambiguity concerning the requirements to
specifically identify PM2.5 precursors, to properly account
for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables, and to treat
NOX as a precursor to ozone in permitting contexts. EPA
recognizes that Ohio currently has some authority to treat
SO2 and NOX as presumed precursors to
PM2.5, and in a similar manner, to treat NOX as a
precursor to ozone in permitting decisions. Our proposed rulemaking
also recognized that Ohio EPA is in the process of adopting revisions
to its PSD program to be wholly consistent with the applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule and
Phase 2 Rule (see FR 77 45995 at 45996-45998). EPA's regulations as
codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i) for
PM2.5 precursors, and 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi) and 40 CFR
52.21(b)(50)(vi) for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables,
required states to make specific revisions by May 16, 2011 (see 73 FR
28321 at 28341). Because Ohio has not yet made these required
revisions, however, EPA is finalizing a disapproval of these narrow
portions of Ohio's infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. Likewise, the changes obligated by the Phase 2 Rule to
explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to ozone and codified
in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(ii), 40 CFR 51.166(b)(2)(ii), 40 CFR
51.166(b)(23)(i), 40 CFR 51.166(49)(i), and footnote 1 to 40 CFR
51.166(i)(5)(i)(e) required states to submit specific revisions to EPA
by June 15, 2007 (see 70 FR 71612 at 71683). Because Ohio has not yet
made these required revisions, EPA is finalizing a disapproval of this
narrow portion of Ohio's infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\10\ EPA will work actively with the State to
ensure that the necessary SIP revisions are completed as expeditiously
as possible. In the interim, we expect the State to adhere to the
requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule with respect to the treatment and
identification of PM2.5 precursors and the accounting for
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables applicability
determinations and permitting emissions limits in its PSD program. We
also expect Ohio to treat and explicitly identify NOX as a
precursor to ozone for PSD permitting consistent with the requirements
of the Phase 2 Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, e.g., https://www.epa.gov/reg5oair/permits/const/frn-nsr.html.
\10\ EPA has also taken other actions germane to the explicit
identification of NOX as a precursor to ozone in
Federally approved PSD programs, e.g., ``Completeness Findings for
Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans for the 8-hour Ozone
NAAQS'' (see 73 FR 16205), and ``Partial Disapproval of
``Infrastructure'' State Implementation Plan'' for Wisconsin (77 FR
35870).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 9: WDNR submitted a comment letter to EPA disagreeing with
our proposed disapproval of portions of its infrastructure SIP for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS intended to address the relevant
requirements obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule. WDNR states that EPA
proposed a narrow disapproval of portions of its infrastructure SIP
intended to meet the PSD requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C):
Identifying PM2.5 precursors; and, identifying
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in the PSD program.
Wisconsin notes that our proposed rulemaking states that ``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.''
Wisconsin also notes that under section 110(a)(2)(C), states are
required to ``include a program'' for the regulation of the
modification and construction of any stationary source to assure that
NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as required under parts
C and D of CAA section 110(A)(2). Wisconsin argues that its
infrastructure SIP submissions have clearly stated that WDNR has the
resources and authorities necessary to implement and satisfy the
requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for
PM2.5 and PM10.
Citing the definition of ``regulated NSR air contaminant'' in
Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 405.02(25i) as including ``any
contaminant for which a national ambient air quality standard has been
promulgated and any
[[Page 65484]]
constituents or precursors for the air contaminant identified by the
administrator,'' the State asserts that it has been applying the PSD
program in accordance with the explicit identification of precursor(s)
to PM2.5 and ozone, consistent with the 2008 NSR Rule and
Phase 2 Rule. Furthermore, the State observes that all permits issued
by WDNR address these requirements as codified by EPA, or through EPA
guidance under the authority provided in Wisconsin State Statute and
Wisconsin Administrative Code. WDNR therefore contends that it has met
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program that
meets part C and D.
WDNR also notes that it has been accounting for condensable
particulate matter in its PSD permitting program since the beginning of
the program; particulate matter and particulate matter emissions have
been defined to include condensables since 1989 and have been a part of
the approved SIP since 1993. Wisconsin asserts that EPA must approve
these elements of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP, because WDNR has met
the applicable requirements.
Response 9: While it is true that WDNR has included a program
required under parts C and D of the CAA in its SIP, and EPA has
approved various aspects of the State's PSD program in the past,\11\
EPA explained in our proposed rulemaking that the 2008 NSR Rule and
Phase 2 Rule now obligate states to make explicit regulatory changes in
order to clarify and remove any ambiguity concerning the requirements
to explicitly identify PM2.5 precursors, to properly account
for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables, and to treat
NOX as a precursor to ozone in permitting contexts.\12\ Our
proposed rulemaking referenced Wisconsin's definition of ``regulated
NSR air contaminant'' as providing generic language to define what
constitutes a regulated NSR pollutant; however, the State's current
rules do not contain provisions that would directly account for
PM2.5 and its precursors in NSR permitting. EPA's
regulations as codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i) and 40 CFR
52.21(b)(50)(i) for PM2.5 precursors, required states to
make specific revisions by May 16, 2011. Because Wisconsin has not yet
made these required revisions, EPA is finalizing a disapproval of this
narrow portion of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the explicit identification of
PM2.5 precursors. With respect to accounting for particulate
matter condensables in its PSD permitting program, EPA recognizes that
Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 439 contains the requirements for
reporting, recordkeeping, testing, inspection, and determination of
compliance for air contaminant sources and their owners and operators.
Of note, NR 439.02(4) defines ``condensible [sic] particulate matter''
as ``any material, except uncombined water, that may not be collected
in the front half of the particulate emission sampling train but which
exists as a solid or liquid at standard conditions.'' However,
Wisconsin's current SIP does not contain the explicit language to
account for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in
applicability determinations and permitting decisions, as required by
40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(vi), and to date, the
State has not made a submission with such revisions. As a result of
EPA's own regulations and the May 16, 2011 deadline for submitting
revisions consistent with the 2008 NSR Rule, we are finalizing the
disapproval of this narrow portion of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the explicit
regulation of PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in
permits. EPA will work actively with the State to ensure that the
necessary SIP revisions are completed as expeditiously as possible. We
will work with Wisconsin to rectify these issues promptly, and in the
interim, we expect the State to adhere to the requirements of the 2008
NSR Rule with respect to the treatment and identification of
PM2.5 precursors and the accounting for PM2.5 and
PM10 condensables in applicability determinations and
permitting emissions limits in its PSD program. Although not germane to
this action, we also expect Wisconsin to treat and explicitly identify
NOX as a precursor to ozone for PSD permitting consistent
with the requirements of the Phase 2 Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See, e.g., https://www.epa.gov/reg5oair/permits/const/frn-nsr.html.
\12\ Note that EPA has already finalized the disapproval of
narrow portions of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the NOX as a
precursor to ozone provisions per the Phase 2 Rule (see 77 FR
35870).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. What action is EPA taking?
For the reasons discussed in the proposed rulemaking, EPA is taking
final action to approve most elements and disapprove narrow portions of
other elements of submissions from the EPA Region 5 States certifying
that the current SIPs are sufficient to meet the required
infrastructure elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also taking final action to approve
portions of a submission from Indiana intended to meet EPA's
requirements for the NSR and PSD programs in that State. Specifically,
they are: (i) 326 IAC 2-1.1-1(2); (ii) 326 IAC 2-1.1-1(10); (iii) 326
IAC 2-2-1(dd)(1); (iv) 326 IAC 2-2-1(ff)(7); (v) 326 IAC 2-2-1(ss)(1);
(vi) 326 IAC 2-2-1(ww)(1)(F); (vii) 326 IAC 2-2-1(ww)(1)(G); and,
(viii) 326 IAC 2-2-4(b)(2)(vi). As detailed in our proposed rulemaking,
these revisions are wholly consistent with the infrastructure SIP
requirements associated with the 2008 NSR Rule and the Phase 2 Rule.
Due to the current status of CSAPR, EPA is not finalizing our
previously proposed approval for the interstate transport requirements
addressing visibility protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for
Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, and Wisconsin for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA is also not taking any action on Michigan's satisfaction of
these requirements. As explained in the comments and responses section,
EPA is finalizing our previously proposed approval of Illinois'
infrastructure SIP for the interstate transport requirements addressing
visibility protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
As a result of a comment letter submitted by the State of Michigan,
EPA is not finalizing our previously proposed disapproval of narrow
portions of section 110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and
section 110(a)(2)(J) for the State. Instead, EPA will address
Michigan's satisfaction of the applicable PSD requirements obligated by
the 2008 NSR Rule and the Phase 2 Rule in a separate rulemaking.
Lastly, as a result of a comment received during the public comment
period, EPA is not finalizing its proposed approval of the submission
from Indiana with respect to one narrow issue that relates to section
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). Specifically, EPA will address the
PSD source impact analysis requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in the State of Indiana in a later action.
EPA's final actions for each Region 5 State's satisfaction of
infrastructure SIP requirements, by element of section 110(a)(2) are
contained in the table below.
[[Page 65485]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Element IL IN \13\ OH MI MN WI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A: Emission limits and other control A A A A A A
measures...............................
B: Ambient air quality monitoring and A A A A A A
data system............................
C1: Enforcement of SIP measures......... A A A A A A
C2: PM2.5 precursors for PSD............ * D A D NA * D D
C3: PM2.5 and PM10 condensables for PSD. * D A D NA * D D
C4: NOX as a precursor to ozone for PSD. * D A D NA * D NA
C5: GHG permitting thresholds in PSD * D A A A * D A
regulations............................
D1: Contribute to nonattainment/ NA NA NA NA NA NA
interfere with maintenance of NAAQS....
D2: PSD................................. ** ** ** ** ** **
D3: Visibility Protection............... A NA NA NA NA NA
D4: Interstate Pollution Abatement...... * D A A A * D A
D5: International Pollution Abatement... A A A A A A
E: Adequate resources................... A A A A A A
E: State boards......................... NA NA NA NA NA NA
F: Stationary source monitoring system.. A A A A A A
G: Emergency powers..................... A A A A A A
H: Future SIP revisions................. A A A A A A
I: Nonattainment area plan or plan NA NA NA NA NA NA
revisions under part D.................
J1: Consultation with government A A A A A A
officials..............................
J2: Public notification................. A A A A A A
J3: PSD................................. ** ** ** ** ** **
J4: Visibility protection............... + + + + + +
K: Air quality modeling and data........ A A A A A A
L: Permitting fees...................... A A A A A A
M: Consultation and participation by A A A A A A
affected local entities................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the above table, the key is as follows:
A Approve.
NA No Action/Separate Rulemaking.
D Disapprove.
+ Not relevant in these actions.
* Federally promulgated rules in place.
** Previously discussed in element (C).
As originally described in the proposed rulemaking, EPA is
finalizing disapproval of the infrastructure SIP submissions from
Illinois and Minnesota with respect to certain PSD requirements
including: (i) The explicit identification of SO2 and
NOX as PM2.5 precursors consistent with the
requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule; (ii) the regulation of
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables consistent with the
requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule; (iii) the explicit identification of
NOX as a precursor to ozone consistent with the Phase 2
Rule; and, (iv) permitting of GHG emitting sources at the Federal
Tailoring Rule thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ In addition to the information provided in this table for
the State of Indiana, EPA reiterates once again that we are not
finalizing any action with respect to the PSD source impact analysis
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is also finalizing the disapproval of the infrastructure SIP
submissions from Illinois and Minnesota with respect to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to interstate
pollution abatement. Specifically, this section requires states with
PSD programs have provisions requiring a new or modified source to
notify neighboring states of the potential impacts from the source,
consistent with the requirements of section 126(a).
However, Illinois and Minnesota have no further obligations as a
result of this disapproval because Federally promulgated rules,
promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21 are in effect in each of these States. EPA
has delegated the authority to Illinois and Minnesota to administer
these rules, which include provisions related to PSD and interstate
pollution abatement. This final disapproval for Illinois and Minnesota
for these infrastructure SIP requirements will not result in sanctions
under section 179(a), nor will it obligate EPA to promulgate a FIP
within two years of final action if the States do not submit revisions
to their PSD SIPs addressing these deficiencies. Instead, Illinois and
Minnesota are already subject to the Federally promulgated PSD
regulations, and both States administer these regulations via EPA's
delegated authority.
The grounds for EPA's final disapproval of portions of the
infrastructure SIP submittals from Ohio and Wisconsin are very narrow,
and pertain only to these specific deficiencies in the States' SIPs
described in the relevant sections of the proposed rulemaking, as well
as in the responses to comments section of today's rulemaking.
As previously discussed, EPA believes that Ohio has been actively
preparing necessary revisions to its PSD program, consistent with the
requirements of the Phase 2 Rule and the 2008 NSR Rule. We will work
with the State to rectify these issues promptly. In addition, EPA will
work with WDNR to account for the explicit identification of precursors
to PM2.5, as well as PM2.5 and PM10
condensables, in its PSD program.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Although not specific to this action, EPA will also
continue to work with WDNR to ensure that revisions to the State's
PSD program contain provisions that explicitly identify
NOX as a precursor to ozone, consistent with the Phase 2
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submission
that addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan (section 171-section 193
of the CAA), or is required in response to a finding of substantial
inadequacy as described in section 110(k)(5) starts a sanction clock.
The provisions in the submissions we are disapproving were not
submitted by Ohio or Wisconsin to meet either of those requirements.
Therefore, no sanctions under section 179 will be triggered.
The full or partial disapproval of a SIP revision triggers the
requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a FIP no later
than two years from the date of the disapproval unless the State
corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or
plan revision before the Administrator
[[Page 65486]]
promulgates such FIP. As detailed in the proposed rulemaking, EPA
anticipates that Ohio EPA will make submissions rectifying each of the
deficiencies that are the basis for the disapprovals in this action.
Further, EPA anticipates acting on the anticipated submissions from the
State within the two year time frame prior to our FIP obligation on
these very narrow issues. In the interim, EPA expects Ohio to treat and
explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to ozone for PSD
permitting consistent with the requirements of the Phase 2 Rule. EPA
also expects the State to adhere to the requirements of the 2008 NSR
Rule with respect to the treatment and identification of
PM2.5 precursors and the accounting for PM2.5 and
PM10 condensables in applicability determinations and
permitting emissions limits in its PSD program.
EPA will actively work with Wisconsin to incorporate changes to its
PSD program that explicitly identify PM2.5 precursors and
account for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in
applicability determinations and permitting emissions limits,
consistent with the 2008 NSR Rule. In the interim, EPA expects WDNR to
adhere to the associated requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule in its PSD
program, specifically with respect to the explicit identification of
PM2.5 precursors, and the accounting for PM2.5
and PM10 condensables in applicability determinations and
permitting emissions limits.
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:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
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, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
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: September 26, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. Section 52.731 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.731 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.
* * * * *
(c) Approval and Disapproval--In an August 9, 2011, submittal, and
supplemented on August 25, 2011, and June 27, 2012, Illinois certified
that the State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is not taking action on (D)(i)(I) and
the state board requirements of (E)(ii). Although EPA is disapproving
portions of Illinois' submission addressing the prevention of
significant deterioration, Illinois continues to implement the
Federally promulgated rules for this purpose as they pertain to (C),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J).
0
3. In Sec. 52.770:
0
a. The table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding an entry in
numerical order for ``2-1.1-1'', and revising the entries for ``2-2-
1'', and ``2-2-4''.
0
b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding entries in
alphabetical order for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements
for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS''.
The revised and added text reads as follows:
Sec. 52.770 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved Indiana Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana citation Subject Indiana effective date EPA approval date Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
2-1.1-1.............. Definitions......... July 11, 2012............ October 29 2012, (2) and (10) only.
[Insert page
number where the
document begins].
[[Page 65487]]
* * * * * * *
2-2-1................ Definitions......... July 11, 2012............ October 29 2012, (dd)(1), (ff)(7),
[Insert page (ss)(1),
number where the (ww)(1)(F), and
document begins]. (ww)(1)(G) only.
* * * * * * *
2-2-4................ Air quality July 11, 2012............ October 29 2012, (b)(2)(vi) only.
analysis; [Insert page
requirements. number where the
document begins].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Indiana Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title Indiana date EPA approval Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 10/20/2009, 6/25/2012, 10/29/2012, [Insert This action addresses the
Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour 7/12/2012. page number where the following CAA elements:
PM2.5 NAAQS. document begins]. 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E),
(F), (G), (H), (J), (K),
(L), and (M). We are not
finalizing action on the
PSD source impact analysis
requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II),
and (J), the visibility
protection requirements of
(D)(i)(II), and the state
board requirements of
(E)(ii). We will address
these requirements in a
separate action.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
4. In Sec. 52.1170, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry at the end of the table for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1170 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of nonregulatory SIP Applicable geographic State submittal EPA approval
provision or nonattainment area date date Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Statewide............ 8/15/2011, 7/9/ 10/29/2012, This action addresses
Infrastructure Requirements 2012. [Insert page the following CAA
for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 number where elements:
NAAQS. the document 110(a)(2)(A), (B),
begins]. (C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), (E), (F),
(G), (H), (J), (K),
(L), and (M). We are
not taking action on
the visibility
protection
requirements of
(D)(i)(II) and the
state board
requirements of
(E)(ii). We will
address these
requirements in a
separate action. We
are taking no action
on portions of
Michigan's
infrastructure SIP
submission
addressing the
relevant prevention
of significant
deterioration
requirements of the
2008 NSR Rule
(identifying PM2.5
precursors, and the
regulation of PM2.5
and PM10
condensables in
permits) and the
Phase 2 Rule
(identification of
NOX as a precursor
to ozone) with
respect to section
110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
5. In Sec. 52.1220, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry in alphabetical order for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 65488]]
EPA-Approved Minnesota Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable State submittal
Name of nonregulatory SIP geographic or date/ effective EPA approved Comments
provision nonattainment area date date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Statewide............ 5/23/2011, 6/27/ 10/29/2012, This action addresses
Infrastructure Requirements 2012 (submittal [Insert page the following CAA
for the 2006 24-Hour Ozone dates). number where elements:
NAAQS. the document 110(a)(2)(A), (B),
begins]. (C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), (E), (F),
(G), (H), (J), (K),
(L), and (M). We are
not finalizing
action on the
visibility
protection
requirements of
(D)(i)(II) or the
state board
requirements of
(E)(ii). We will
address these
requirements in a
separate action.
Although EPA is
disapproving
portions of
Minnesota's
submission
addressing the
prevention of
significant
deterioration,
Minnesota continues
to implement the
Federally
promulgated rules
for this purpose as
they pertain to
section
110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii),
and (J).
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
6. Section 52.1891 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1891 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.
* * * * *
(c) Approval and Disapproval--In a September 4, 2009 submittal,
supplemented on June 3, 2011, and July 5, 2012, Ohio certified that the
State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. We are not finalizing action on the visibility
protection requirements of (D)(i)(II) or the state board requirements
of (E)(ii). We will address these requirements in a separate action. We
are disapproving narrow portions of Ohio's infrastructure SIP
submission addressing the relevant prevention of significant
deterioration requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule (identifying
PM2.5 precursors, and the regulation of PM2.5 and
PM10 condensables in permits) and the Phase 2 Rule
(identification of NOX as a precursor to ozone) with respect
to section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).
0
7. Section 52.2591 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2591 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.
* * * * *
(e) Approval and Disapproval--In a January 24, 2011, submittal,
supplemented on March 28, 2011, and June 29, 2012, Wisconsin certified
that the State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. We are not finalizing action on (D)(i)(I),
the visibility protection requirements of (D)(i)(II), and the state
board requirements of (E)(ii). We will address these requirements in a
separate action. We are disapproving narrow portions of Wisconsin's
infrastructure SIP submission addressing the relevant prevention of
significant deterioration requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule
(identifying PM2.5 precursors and the regulation of
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in permits) with
respect to section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).
[FR Doc. 2012-26289 Filed 10-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
