Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Wisconsin; Disapproval of PM2.5, 74817-74820 [2012-30449]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Dated: November 27, 2012.
K.A. Taylor,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2012–30409 Filed 12–17–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0502; FRL–9763–1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; Disapproval of PM2.5
Permitting Requirements
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to
disapprove a revision to Wisconsin’s
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources (WDNR) in a letter
dated May 12, 2011. The revision
concerns permitting requirements
relating to particulate matter of less than
2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). EPA is
proposing to disapprove the revisions
because they do not meet the 2008 PM2.5
SIP requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before January 17, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2011–0502, by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: damico.genevieve@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 385–5501.
4. Mail: Genevieve Damico, Chief, Air
Permits Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Genevieve Damico,
Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office normal hours
of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2011–
0502. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Dec 17, 2012
Jkt 229001
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional instructions
on submitting comments, go to Section
I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Docket: 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., CBI 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 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 Andrea
Morgan, Environmental Engineer, at
(312) 353–6058 before visiting the
Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrea Morgan, Environmental
Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
74817
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–6058,
morgan.andrea@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 should I consider as I prepare my
comments for EPA?
II. The State’s Submittal
III. Does this submittal comply with Federal
regulations?
IV. What action is EPA taking on this
submittal?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
When submitting comments,
remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
2. Follow directions—EPA may ask
you to respond to specific questions or
organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. The State’s Submittal
In May 2008, EPA finalized
regulations to implement the New
Source Review (NSR) Implementation
Rule for PM2.5 to include the major
source threshold, significant emissions
rate and offset ratios for PM2.5,
interpollutant trading for offsets and
applicability of NSR to PM2.5 precursors.
On October 20, 2010, EPA amended the
requirements for PM2.5 under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) program by adding maximum
allowable increase in ambient pollutant
concentrations and screening tools
known as the Significant Impact Levels
and Significant Monitoring
Concentration (SMC) for PM2.5.
On May 12, 2011, Wisconsin
requested a revision to its SIP to include
E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM
18DEP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with
74818
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules
new permit requirements relating to
PM2.5. The provisions were designed to
match the requirements set forth in the
May 2008 and October 2010 rules.
Wisconsin submitted revisions to its
rules NR 400, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408,
and 484 of the Wisconsin
Administrative Code. The submittal
requests that EPA approve the following
revisions to Wisconsin’s SIP: (1) Amend
NR 400.02(40), (70), and (79); (2) create
NR 400.02(123m); (3) amend NR
400.02(135); (4) create NR 400.03(4)(ki);
(5) renumber and amend NR 404.02(4e)
and (4m); (6) amend NR
405.02(25k)(intro.); (7) create NR
405.02(27)(a)5m in Table A; (8) amend
NR 405.07(8)(a)3m; (9) amend NR
406.04(1)(n)(intro) and 1. and 2. (intro);
(10) create NR 406.04(2)(cs); (11) create
NR 407.03(2)(be); (12) create NR
408.02(32)(a)5m; (13) create NR
408.06(1)(cm); (14) amend NR 484.03(5)
in Table 1; (15) and amend NR 484.04(5)
and (6g) in Table 2.
The submittal included permanent
rules to define major source thresholds
and significant emission increase levels;
establish the SMC for PM2.5; establish
interpollutant trading ratios for PM2.5,
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX); and clarify existing
nonattainment area permitting rules.
EPA announced through a
memorandum, on July 21, 2011, a
change in its policy concerning the
development and adoption of
interpollutant trading provisions for
PM2.5. The new policy requires that any
ratio involving PM2.5 precursors
submitted to EPA for approval for use in
a state’s interpollutant offset program
for PM2.5 nonattainment areas must be
accompanied by a technical
demonstration that shows the net air
quality benefits of such a ratio for the
PM2.5 nonattainment area in which it
will be applied. In a letter dated March
5, 2012, WDNR requested to withdraw
its request to have NR 408.06(1)(cm), the
provision pertaining to interpollutant
trading ratios, included in its 2011
submittal.
NR 400 contains Wisconsin’s air
pollution control definitions and the
following revisions to NR 400 were
submitted. NR 400.01(40), (70), and (79)
and NR 400.02(135) were revised to
clarify existing rules by updating
references within the rule. These
amendments do not change the effect or
intent of these rules. NR 400.02(123m)
created a definition of ‘‘PM2.5
emissions’’. NR 400.03(4)(ki) created a
definition for ‘‘PM2.5’’.
NR 404 contains Wisconsin’s Ambient
Air Quality requirements, and the
following revision to NR 404 was
submitted. NR 404.02 (4e) and (4m)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Dec 17, 2012
Jkt 229001
were renumbered to NR 400.02(123e)
and (123s) and were revised to clarify
the definitions of ‘‘PM2.5’’ and
‘‘particulate matter of less than 10
micrometers’’ (PM10).
NR 405 contains Wisconsin’s PSD
program requirements, and the
following revisions to NR 405 were
submitted. NR 405.02(25k) (intro) was
amended to clarify language. NR
405.02(27)(a)5m in Table A was created
to include the 10 tons per year (tpy)
significance thresholds for PM2.5, and 40
tpy threshold for NOX and SO2, the
precursors to PM2.5. The inclusion of
these significance values would cause
sources for which annual emissions
exceed the significance value to trigger
the PSD program requirements. NR
405.07(8)(a)3m was created to exempt
major sources from the monitoring
requirements for PM2.5 of NR 405.11 if
one of the following criteria are met: (a)
The emissions increase of PM2.5 from a
new stationary source or the net
emissions increase of the PM2.5 from a
major modification would cause, in any
area, air quality impacts less than 2.3
mg/m3, 24 hour average; (b) The
concentration of PM2.5 in the area that
the source or modification would affect
is less than 2.3 mg/m3.
NR 406 contains Wisconsin’s
construction permitting requirements,
and the following revisions to NR 406
were submitted. NR 406(1)(n), NR
406(1)(n)1 and NR 406(1)(n)2 were
amended to clarify otherwise unaffected
existing rules. These changes do not
change the effect or intent of the rule.
NR 406.04(2)(cs) was created to exempt
sources with a maximum theoretical
emission for PM2.5 of less than 2.2
pounds per hour from obtaining a
construction permit.
NR 407 contains Wisconsin’s
operation permit requirements, and
WDNR submitted NR 407.03(2)(be) to
require any source with a maximum
theoretical emissions of PM2.5 greater
than 2.2 pounds per hour to obtain an
operation permit.
NR section 408 contains Wisconsin’s
requirements for construction permits in
nonattainment areas and WDNR
included NR 408.02(32)(a)5m in its
submission. NR 408.02(32)(a)5m
defined ‘‘Significant’’, in reference to a
net emissions increase or the potential
of a source to emit any of PM2.5, as a rate
of emissions that would equal or exceed
10 tpy of PM2.5 emissions or 40 tpy of
NOX or SO2. While the original
submittal requested to create NR
408.06(1)(cm), Wisconsin withdrew the
request to include this provision from
the SIP approval in a letter dated March
5, 2012.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NR 484 contains those parts of
Wisconsin’s regulations that are
incorporated by reference from the
regulations. Wisconsin submitted a
request to amend NR 484.03(5) in Table
1 and NR 484.04(5) and (6g) in Table 2.
The updates would correct citations in
the Wisconsin SIP so that they are up to
date with Wisconsin’s current
regulations.
III. Does This Submittal Comply With
Federal Regulations?
EPA has evaluated WDNR’s proposed
revisions to the Wisconsin SIP in
accordance with the Federal
requirements governing state permitting
programs. The revisions described in
Section II above are intended to update
the Wisconsin SIP to comply with
current rules. As discussed below, EPA
is proposing to disapprove these
revisions because they do not meet all
the requirements of the 2008 rules.
The 2008 NSR Rule did not require
states to immediately account for gases
that could condense to form particulate
matter, known as condensables, in PM2.5
and PM10 emission limits in NSR
permits. Instead, EPA determined that
states had to account for PM2.5 and PM10
condensables beginning on or after
January 1, 2011. This requirement is
codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi) and
40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(vi). Revisions to
states’ PSD programs incorporating the
inclusion of condensables were required
to be submitted to EPA by May 16, 2011
(see 73 FR 28321 at 28341).
WDNR’s revision to NR 400.03(4)(ki)
provides the definition of ‘‘PM2.5’’ as
particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter ≤ 2.5mm’’ and NR 400.02(123e)
defines ‘‘PM2.5’’ as ‘‘particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter less than
or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers
as measured in the ambient air by a
reference method based on appendix L
of 40 CFR part 50, incorporated by
reference in NR 484.04(6g), and
designated in accordance with 40 CFR
part 53, incorporated by reference in NR
484.03(5), or by an equivalent method.’’
Similarly, the requested revisions do not
include the explicit language identifying
PM10 and PM2.5 condensables. 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 ‘‘condensable 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
E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM
18DEP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules
standard conditions.’’ While this
definition is SIP approved, it was only
approved as it applies to Wisconsin
Administrative Code NR 419 to NR 425.
Wisconsin’s permitting requirements are
codified in NR 405 to 408. Further, EPA
regulations require that permitting
requirements contain the explicit
language that, ‘‘Particulate matter (PM)
emissions, PM2.5 emissions, and PM10
emissions shall include gaseous
emissions from a source or activity
which condense to form particulate
matter at ambient temperatures.’’
Wisconsin’s current SIP does not
contain the explicit language to account
for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in
permitting decisions, as codified in
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.
WDNR’s revisions to NR
405.02(27)(a)(5) include the significant
emissions rates for direct PM2.5, and SO2
and NOX as PM2.5 precursors, consistent
with the 2008 NSR Rule. However,
Wisconsin’s PSD regulations include
only generic language to define what
constitutes a regulated NSR pollutant
that does not directly account for PM2.5
and its precursors. NR 405(02)(25i)
defines ‘‘Regulated NSR air
contaminant’’ as ‘‘Any air contaminant
for which a national ambient air quality
standard has been promulgated and any
constituents or precursors for the air
contaminants identified by the
administrator * * * ’’. The 2008 NSR
Rule obligates the State to explicitly
identify the precursors to PM2.5 as part
of the definition for ‘‘Regulated NSR air
contaminant.’’ EPA concludes that
although Wisconsin has incorporated
the significant emissions rates in
accordance with the 2008 NSR Rule,
WDNR has not explicitly identified SO2
and NOX as precursors to PM2.5 in
defining pollutants regulated by the PSD
program.
Since the proposed revision to
Wisconsin’s SIP does not include the
prescribed language required for the
identification of precursors and does not
account for PM2.5 or PM10 condensables,
EPA proposes to disapprove the
submitted revisions. EPA’s proposed
action is consistent with the narrow
disapproval of the infrastructure
requirements published on October 29,
2012 (77 FR 65478). The infrastructure
SIP was disapproved in part because of
the deficiencies with regards to the
identification of precursors to PM2.5 and
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Dec 17, 2012
Jkt 229001
IV. What action Is EPA taking on this
Submittal?
EPA is proposing to disapprove the
revisions to Wisconsin rules NR 400,
404, 405, 406, 407, 408 and 484,
submitted by the State on May 12, 2011,
for approval into the SIP. The rule
revisions submitted, described in
Section II, above, are not consistent with
Federal regulations governing state
permitting programs. See Section III,
above. EPA is also soliciting comment
on this proposed disapproval.
Under section 179(a) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA), final disapproval of a
submission that addresses a requirement
of a part D plan (section 171–193 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 submission EPA is
proposing to disapprove was not
submitted to meet either of these
requirements. Therefore if EPA takes
final action to disapprove these
submissions, no sanctions under 179
will be triggered.
The full or partial disapproval of a SIP
revision triggers the requirement under
section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a
Federal Implementation Plan (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 promulgates
such FIP. However, since elements of
this SIP revision were narrowly
disapproved under the infrastructure
SIP, the two year timeframe began with
the final narrow disapproval of
Wisconsin’s Infrastructure SIP (October
29, 2012; 77 FR 65478). 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 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 accounting for
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in
permitting emissions limits.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
and, therefore, is not subject to review
by the Office of Management and
Budget.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
74819
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This action merely disapproves state
law as not meeting Federal requirements
and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies
that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule disapproves preexisting requirements under state law
and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required
by state law, it 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).
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the
national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
disapproves a state rule, and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution
of power and responsibilities
established in the CAA.
Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This rule also is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it disapproves
a state rule.
E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM
18DEP1
74820
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy
action,’’ this action is also not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001).
National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
In reviewing state submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. In this context, in the absence
of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a state submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a
state submission that otherwise satisfies
the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: December 10, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2012–30449 Filed 12–17–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0762; FRL-9762–7]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Tennessee:
Knox County Supplemental Motor
Vehicle Emissions Budget Update
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve,
through parallel processing, a draft
revision to the Tennessee State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted to
EPA on October 12, 2012, by the State
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:44 Dec 17, 2012
Jkt 229001
of Tennessee, through the Tennessee
Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC). Tennessee’s
October 12, 2012, draft SIP revision
includes changes to the maintenance
plan for the Knox County 1-hour ozone
area submitted on August 26, 1992, and
approved by EPA on September 27,
1993, and a subsequent SIP revision
approved by EPA on August 5, 1997.
The Knox County 1-hour ozone area was
comprised of Knox County in its
entirety. The October 12, 2012, draft
revision proposes to increase the safety
margin allocated to motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEB) for nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOC) for Knox County to
account for changes in the emissions
model and vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
projection model. EPA is proposing
approval of this draft SIP revision
pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before January 17, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2012–0762 by one of the following
methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012–
0762,’’ Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae
Benjamin, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal
holidays.
Please see the direct final rule which
is located in the Rules section of this
Federal Register for detailed
instructions on how to submit
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kelly Sheckler, Air Quality Modeling
and Transportation Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Kelly
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Sheckler may be reached by phone at
(404) 562–9222 or by electronic mail
address sheckler.kelly@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Parallel Processing
II. Background
III. EPA’s Analysis of Tennessee’s SIP
Revision
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Parallel Processing
Consistent with EPA regulations
found at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V,
section 2.3.1, for purposes of expediting
review of a SIP submittal, parallel
processing allows a state to submit a
plan to EPA prior to actual adoption by
the state. Generally, the state submits a
copy of the proposed regulation or other
revisions to EPA before going out for
public comment. EPA reviews this
proposed state action, and prepares a
notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA’s
notice of proposed rulemaking is
published in the Federal Register
during the same time frame that the
state is holding its public process. The
state and EPA then provide for
concurrent public comment periods on
both the state action and federal action.
If the revision that is finally adopted
and submitted by the state is changed in
aspects other than those identified in
the proposed rulemaking on the parallel
process submission, EPA will evaluate
those changes and if necessary and
appropriate, issue another notice of
proposed rulemaking. The final
rulemaking action by EPA will occur
only after the SIP revision has been
adopted by the state and submitted
formally to EPA for incorporation into
the SIP.
On October 12, 2012, the State of
Tennessee, through TDEC submitted a
request for parallel processing of a draft
SIP revision that the State had already
taken through public comment. TDEC
requested parallel processing so that
EPA could begin to take action on its
draft SIP revision in advance of the
State’s submission of the final SIP
revision. As stated above, the final
rulemaking action by EPA will occur
only after the SIP revision has been: (1)
Adopted by Tennessee, (2) submitted
formally to EPA for incorporation into
the SIP; and (3) evaluated by EPA,
including any changes made by the
State after the October 12, 2012, draft
was submitted to EPA.
II. Background
The Knox County, Tennessee, 1-hour
ozone attainment and maintenance area
is comprised of only Knox County in its
E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM
18DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 18, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74817-74820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30449]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0502; FRL-9763-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; Disapproval of PM2.5 Permitting Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove a revision to Wisconsin's State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) in a letter dated May 12, 2011. The revision
concerns permitting requirements relating to particulate matter of less
than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). EPA is proposing to disapprove
the revisions because they do not meet the 2008 PM2.5 SIP
requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 17, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2011-0502, by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: damico.genevieve@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 385-5501.
4. Mail: Genevieve Damico, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Genevieve Damico, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2011-0502. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: 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., CBI 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 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 Andrea Morgan, Environmental Engineer,
at (312) 353-6058 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Morgan, Environmental Engineer,
Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604, (312) 353-6058, morgan.andrea@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 should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. The State's Submittal
III. Does this submittal comply with Federal regulations?
IV. What action is EPA taking on this submittal?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. The State's Submittal
In May 2008, EPA finalized regulations to implement the New Source
Review (NSR) Implementation Rule for PM2.5 to include the
major source threshold, significant emissions rate and offset ratios
for PM2.5, interpollutant trading for offsets and
applicability of NSR to PM2.5 precursors. On October 20,
2010, EPA amended the requirements for PM2.5 under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program by adding maximum
allowable increase in ambient pollutant concentrations and screening
tools known as the Significant Impact Levels and Significant Monitoring
Concentration (SMC) for PM2.5.
On May 12, 2011, Wisconsin requested a revision to its SIP to
include
[[Page 74818]]
new permit requirements relating to PM2.5. The provisions
were designed to match the requirements set forth in the May 2008 and
October 2010 rules. Wisconsin submitted revisions to its rules NR 400,
404, 405, 406, 407, 408, and 484 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.
The submittal requests that EPA approve the following revisions to
Wisconsin's SIP: (1) Amend NR 400.02(40), (70), and (79); (2) create NR
400.02(123m); (3) amend NR 400.02(135); (4) create NR 400.03(4)(ki);
(5) renumber and amend NR 404.02(4e) and (4m); (6) amend NR
405.02(25k)(intro.); (7) create NR 405.02(27)(a)5m in Table A; (8)
amend NR 405.07(8)(a)3m; (9) amend NR 406.04(1)(n)(intro) and 1. and 2.
(intro); (10) create NR 406.04(2)(cs); (11) create NR 407.03(2)(be);
(12) create NR 408.02(32)(a)5m; (13) create NR 408.06(1)(cm); (14)
amend NR 484.03(5) in Table 1; (15) and amend NR 484.04(5) and (6g) in
Table 2.
The submittal included permanent rules to define major source
thresholds and significant emission increase levels; establish the SMC
for PM2.5; establish interpollutant trading ratios for
PM2.5, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX); and clarify existing nonattainment area permitting
rules. EPA announced through a memorandum, on July 21, 2011, a change
in its policy concerning the development and adoption of interpollutant
trading provisions for PM2.5. The new policy requires that
any ratio involving PM2.5 precursors submitted to EPA for
approval for use in a state's interpollutant offset program for
PM2.5 nonattainment areas must be accompanied by a technical
demonstration that shows the net air quality benefits of such a ratio
for the PM2.5 nonattainment area in which it will be
applied. In a letter dated March 5, 2012, WDNR requested to withdraw
its request to have NR 408.06(1)(cm), the provision pertaining to
interpollutant trading ratios, included in its 2011 submittal.
NR 400 contains Wisconsin's air pollution control definitions and
the following revisions to NR 400 were submitted. NR 400.01(40), (70),
and (79) and NR 400.02(135) were revised to clarify existing rules by
updating references within the rule. These amendments do not change the
effect or intent of these rules. NR 400.02(123m) created a definition
of ``PM2.5 emissions''. NR 400.03(4)(ki) created a
definition for ``PM2.5''.
NR 404 contains Wisconsin's Ambient Air Quality requirements, and
the following revision to NR 404 was submitted. NR 404.02 (4e) and (4m)
were renumbered to NR 400.02(123e) and (123s) and were revised to
clarify the definitions of ``PM2.5'' and ``particulate
matter of less than 10 micrometers'' (PM10).
NR 405 contains Wisconsin's PSD program requirements, and the
following revisions to NR 405 were submitted. NR 405.02(25k) (intro)
was amended to clarify language. NR 405.02(27)(a)5m in Table A was
created to include the 10 tons per year (tpy) significance thresholds
for PM2.5, and 40 tpy threshold for NOX and
SO2, the precursors to PM2.5. The inclusion of
these significance values would cause sources for which annual
emissions exceed the significance value to trigger the PSD program
requirements. NR 405.07(8)(a)3m was created to exempt major sources
from the monitoring requirements for PM2.5 of NR 405.11 if
one of the following criteria are met: (a) The emissions increase of
PM2.5 from a new stationary source or the net emissions
increase of the PM2.5 from a major modification would cause,
in any area, air quality impacts less than 2.3 mg/m\3\, 24 hour
average; (b) The concentration of PM2.5 in the area that the
source or modification would affect is less than 2.3 mg/m\3\.
NR 406 contains Wisconsin's construction permitting requirements,
and the following revisions to NR 406 were submitted. NR 406(1)(n), NR
406(1)(n)1 and NR 406(1)(n)2 were amended to clarify otherwise
unaffected existing rules. These changes do not change the effect or
intent of the rule. NR 406.04(2)(cs) was created to exempt sources with
a maximum theoretical emission for PM2.5 of less than 2.2
pounds per hour from obtaining a construction permit.
NR 407 contains Wisconsin's operation permit requirements, and WDNR
submitted NR 407.03(2)(be) to require any source with a maximum
theoretical emissions of PM2.5 greater than 2.2 pounds per
hour to obtain an operation permit.
NR section 408 contains Wisconsin's requirements for construction
permits in nonattainment areas and WDNR included NR 408.02(32)(a)5m in
its submission. NR 408.02(32)(a)5m defined ``Significant'', in
reference to a net emissions increase or the potential of a source to
emit any of PM2.5, as a rate of emissions that would equal
or exceed 10 tpy of PM2.5 emissions or 40 tpy of
NOX or SO2. While the original submittal
requested to create NR 408.06(1)(cm), Wisconsin withdrew the request to
include this provision from the SIP approval in a letter dated March 5,
2012.
NR 484 contains those parts of Wisconsin's regulations that are
incorporated by reference from the regulations. Wisconsin submitted a
request to amend NR 484.03(5) in Table 1 and NR 484.04(5) and (6g) in
Table 2. The updates would correct citations in the Wisconsin SIP so
that they are up to date with Wisconsin's current regulations.
III. Does This Submittal Comply With Federal Regulations?
EPA has evaluated WDNR's proposed revisions to the Wisconsin SIP in
accordance with the Federal requirements governing state permitting
programs. The revisions described in Section II above are intended to
update the Wisconsin SIP to comply with current rules. As discussed
below, EPA is proposing to disapprove these revisions because they do
not meet all the requirements of the 2008 rules.
The 2008 NSR Rule did not require states to immediately account for
gases that could condense to form particulate matter, known as
condensables, in PM2.5 and PM10 emission limits
in NSR permits. Instead, EPA determined that states had to account for
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables beginning on or after
January 1, 2011. This requirement is codified in 40 CFR
51.166(b)(49)(vi) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(vi). Revisions to states' PSD
programs incorporating the inclusion of condensables were required to
be submitted to EPA by May 16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 28341).
WDNR's revision to NR 400.03(4)(ki) provides the definition of
``PM2.5'' as particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter
<= 2.5[micro]m'' and NR 400.02(123e) defines ``PM2.5'' as
``particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to
a nominal 2.5 micrometers as measured in the ambient air by a reference
method based on appendix L of 40 CFR part 50, incorporated by reference
in NR 484.04(6g), and designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53,
incorporated by reference in NR 484.03(5), or by an equivalent
method.'' Similarly, the requested revisions do not include the
explicit language identifying PM10 and PM2.5
condensables. 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
``condensable 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
[[Page 74819]]
standard conditions.'' While this definition is SIP approved, it was
only approved as it applies to Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 419 to
NR 425. Wisconsin's permitting requirements are codified in NR 405 to
408. Further, EPA regulations require that permitting requirements
contain the explicit language that, ``Particulate matter (PM)
emissions, PM2.5 emissions, and PM10 emissions
shall include gaseous emissions from a source or activity which
condense to form particulate matter at ambient temperatures.''
Wisconsin's current SIP does not contain the explicit language to
account for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in
permitting decisions, as codified in 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.
WDNR's revisions to NR 405.02(27)(a)(5) include the significant
emissions rates for direct PM2.5, and SO2 and
NOX as PM2.5 precursors, consistent with the 2008
NSR Rule. However, Wisconsin's PSD regulations include only generic
language to define what constitutes a regulated NSR pollutant that does
not directly account for PM2.5 and its precursors. NR
405(02)(25i) defines ``Regulated NSR air contaminant'' as ``Any air
contaminant for which a national ambient air quality standard has been
promulgated and any constituents or precursors for the air contaminants
identified by the administrator * * * ''. The 2008 NSR Rule obligates
the State to explicitly identify the precursors to PM2.5 as
part of the definition for ``Regulated NSR air contaminant.'' EPA
concludes that although Wisconsin has incorporated the significant
emissions rates in accordance with the 2008 NSR Rule, WDNR has not
explicitly identified SO2 and NOX as precursors
to PM2.5 in defining pollutants regulated by the PSD
program.
Since the proposed revision to Wisconsin's SIP does not include the
prescribed language required for the identification of precursors and
does not account for PM2.5 or PM10 condensables,
EPA proposes to disapprove the submitted revisions. EPA's proposed
action is consistent with the narrow disapproval of the infrastructure
requirements published on October 29, 2012 (77 FR 65478). The
infrastructure SIP was disapproved in part because of the deficiencies
with regards to the identification of precursors to PM2.5
and PM2.5 and PM10 condensables.
IV. What action Is EPA taking on this Submittal?
EPA is proposing to disapprove the revisions to Wisconsin rules NR
400, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408 and 484, submitted by the State on May 12,
2011, for approval into the SIP. The rule revisions submitted,
described in Section II, above, are not consistent with Federal
regulations governing state permitting programs. See Section III,
above. EPA is also soliciting comment on this proposed disapproval.
Under section 179(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), final disapproval
of a submission that addresses a requirement of a part D plan (section
171-193 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 submission EPA is proposing to disapprove was not
submitted to meet either of these requirements. Therefore if EPA takes
final action to disapprove these submissions, no sanctions under 179
will be triggered.
The full or partial disapproval of a SIP revision triggers the
requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (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 promulgates such FIP. However, since elements of this SIP
revision were narrowly disapproved under the infrastructure SIP, the
two year timeframe began with the final narrow disapproval of
Wisconsin's Infrastructure SIP (October 29, 2012; 77 FR 65478). 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
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 accounting
for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in permitting
emissions limits.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This action merely disapproves state law as not meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule disapproves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it 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).
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely disapproves a state rule, and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59
FR 22951, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it disapproves a state rule.
[[Page 74820]]
Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: December 10, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2012-30449 Filed 12-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P