Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Wisconsin; Disapproval of PM2.5, 44881-44884 [2013-17837]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 216, 243, 264, 271.
§ 1240.62
[Amended]
2. In § 1240.62, remove paragraph (c)
and redesignate paragraphs (d) and (e)
as paragraphs (c) and (d), respectively.
■
Dated: July 16, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013–17751 Filed 7–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2013–0651]
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
York River, Between Yorktown and
Gloucester Point, VA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from
drawbridge regulations.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard has issued a
temporary deviation from the operating
schedule that governs the operation of
the Coleman Memorial Bridge (US 17/
George P. Coleman Memorial Swing
Bridge) across the York River, mile 7.0,
between Gloucester Point and
Yorktown, VA. This deviation is
necessary to facilitate maintenance work
on the moveable spans on the Coleman
Memorial Bridge. This temporary
deviation allows the drawbridge to
remain in the closed to navigation
position.
DATES: This deviation is effective from
7 a.m. on August 18, 2013 to 5 p.m.
August 25, 2013.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this
deviation, [USCG–2013–0651] is
available at https://www.regulations.gov.
Type the docket number in the
‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’
Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may
also visit the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12–140 on the
ground floor of the Department of
Transportation West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this temporary
deviation, call or email Mr. Jim
Rousseau, Bridge Administration
Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard;
telephone (757) 398–6557, email
James.L.Rousseau2@uscg.mil. If you
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:48 Jul 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
have questions on reviewing the docket,
call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, (202) 366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Virginia Department of Transportation,
who owns and operates this swing
bridge, has requested a temporary
deviation from the current operating
regulation set out in 33 CFR 117.1025,
to facilitate maintenance of the
moveable spans on the structure.
Under the regular operating schedule,
the Coleman Memorial Bridge, mile 7.0,
between Gloucester Point and
Yorktown, VA, opens on signal except
from 5 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 7
p.m. Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays the bridge shall remain
closed to navigation. The Coleman
Memorial Bridge has vertical clearances
in the closed position of 60 feet above
mean high water.
Under this temporary deviation, the
drawbridge will be closed to navigation
from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Sunday August
18, 2013; with an inclement weather
date from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Sunday
August 25, 2013. The bridge will
operate under normal operating
schedule at all other times. Emergency
openings cannot be provided. There are
no alternate routes for vessels transiting
this section of the York River. The York
River is used by a variety of vessels
including military, tugs, and
recreational vessels. The Coast Guard
has carefully coordinated the
restrictions with these waterway users.
Vessels able to pass under the bridge
in the closed position may do so at
anytime and are advised to proceed
with caution. The bridge will not be
able to open for emergencies and there
is no immediate alternate route for
vessels to pass transiting this section of
the York River but vessels may pass
before 7 a.m. and after 5 p.m. The Coast
Guard will also inform additional
waterway users through our Local and
Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the
closure periods for the bridge so that
vessels can arrange their transits to
minimize any impacts caused by the
temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e),
the drawbridge must return to its regular
operating schedule immediately at the
end of the effective period of this
temporary deviation. This deviation
from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Dated: July 12, 2013.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2013–17915 Filed 7–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
44881
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0502; FRL–9838–1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; Disapproval of PM2.5
Permitting Requirements
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is taking final action to
disapprove a revision to Wisconsin’s
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources (WDNR) on May
12, 2011. The revision concerns
permitting requirements relating to
particulate matter of less than 2.5
micrometers (PM2.5). EPA is taking final
action to disapprove the revisions
because they do not meet the 2008 PM2.5
SIP requirements. The proposed
rulemaking was published December 18,
2012. During the comment period which
ended on January 17, 2013, no
comments were received.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
August 26, 2013.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0502. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://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 at (312)
353–6058 before visiting the Region 5
office.
SUMMARY:
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.
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
44882
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. Background
II. Recent D.C. Circuit Decision
III. Revision to the Definition of Regulated
Pollutant
IV. What action is EPA taking on this
submittal?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
This final rulemaking addresses the
May 12, 2011, WDNR submittal,
supplemented on March 5, 2012,
revising the rules in the Wisconsin SIP
to comply with the 2008 NSR
Implementation Rule for PM2.5. The
original submission, and the
supplement thereto, may be found in
the docket for this action.
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
(SILs) and the Significant Monitoring
Concentration (SMC) for PM2.5.
Wisconsin’s submittals included
provisions that 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 included 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
and nitrogen oxides; 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:48 Jul 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
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.
EPA published a proposed
disapproval of Wisconsin’s submittal on
December 18, 2012, because the
submittal did not meet the 2008 PM2.5
SIP requirements. Specifically, the
revisions submitted did not explicitly
define the precursors of PM2.5, nor did
they contain the prescribed language to
ensure that gases that condense to form
particulate matter (PM), known as
condensables, are regulated within
PM2.5 and PM of less than 10
micrometer (PM10) emission limits.
During the comment period EPA
received no comments on the proposed
action.
II. Recent D.C. Circuit Decision
On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
(D.C. Circuit or Court), in Natural
Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706
F.3d 428 (consolidated with 09–1102,
11–1430), remanded EPA’s 2007 and
2008 rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The Court ordered EPA to
‘‘repromulgate these rules pursuant to
Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion,’’
as opposed to Subpart 1 of Part D, Title
I, of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Id. at 437.
Subpart 4 of Part D, Title I, of the CAA
establishes additional provisions for PM
nonattainment areas.
The 2008 implementation rule
addressed by the Court decision,
‘‘Implementation of New Source Review
(NSR) Program for Particulate Matter
Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),’’ 73
FR 28321 (May 16, 2008), promulgated
NSR requirements for implementation
of PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas
(nonattainment NSR) and attainment/
unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the
requirements of subpart 4 pertain only
to nonattainment areas, EPA does not
consider the portions of the 2008 rule
that address requirements for PM2.5
attainment and unclassifiable areas to be
affected by the Court’s opinion.
Moreover, because EPA does not
anticipate the need to revise any PSD
requirements promulgated in the 2008
rule in order to comply with the Court’s
decision, EPA’s disapproval of
Wisconsin’s submittal with respect to
the PSD requirements promulgated by
the 2008 implementation rule does not
conflict with the decision.
Wisconsin’s submission did include
several provisions based on the
nonattainment NSR requirements
promulgated in the 2008
implementation rule. Since the
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
proposed disapproval of Wisconsin’s
submittal predated the D.C. Circuit’s
decision, EPA did not include the
nonattainment NSR provisions in the
bases for disapproval. However, for any
future nonattainment NSR submissions,
WDNR should follow the Court’s
direction to implement the PM2.5
NAAQS consistent with subpart 4,
which includes several provisions that
affect the nonattainment NSR
requirements in the 2008 rule. EPA
expects to provide further guidance on
this issue to assist the states with future
submissions.
On January 22, 2013, the D.C. Circuit,
in Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458,
issued an order, inter alia, vacating the
parts of two PSD regulations
establishing a PM2.5 SMC (40 CFR
51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 40 CFR
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c)), finding that EPA was
precluded from using the PM2.5 SMCs to
exempt permit applicants from the
statutory requirement to compile
preconstruction monitoring data.
Wisconsin included provisions for a
PM2.5 SMC in its submittal. Because the
proposed disapproval of December 18,
2012, predated D.C. Circuit’s January 22,
2013, remand, EPA did not include the
PM2.5 SMC as part of the basis for
disapproval. However, as a result of the
Court’s decision, it is clear that EPA
cannot approve any reference to the
PM2.5 SMC in the State’s PSD SIP.
III. Revision to the Definition of
Regulated Pollutant
In an October 25, 2012, final rule EPA
revised the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR
pollutant’’ to correct an inadvertent
error contained in the regulations for
PSD at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi) and
52.21 (77 FR 65107). The October 2012
final action removed an unintended
new requirement on state and local
agencies and the regulated community
that PM emissions must generally
include the condensable PM fraction.
PM10 and PM2.5 remain regulated as
criteria pollutants and emissions of both
of these PM indicators are still required
to include the condensable fraction of
PM emitted by a source in applicability
determinations and in establishing
enforceable emissions limitations. The
October 2012 final rule became effective
December 24, 2012.
In the proposed disapproval of
Wisconsin’s PM2.5 permitting
requirements, which preceded the
effective date of the revised
condensables definition, EPA cited to
the prior definition of ‘‘regulated NSR
pollutant,’’ which included the
requirement to consider the
condensable fraction for ‘‘PM
emissions,’’ as well as the condensable
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
fraction for PM2.5 and PM10 emissions.
The revised definition reads, ‘‘PM2.5
emissions and PM10 emissions shall
include gaseous emissions from a source
or activity which condense to form
particulate matter at ambient
temperatures.’’ While this definition is
less stringent than what was cited in the
proposed disapproval of Wisconsin’s
revisions, because it no longer requires
the inclusion of condensables for PM, it
does not affect the bases for disapproval
of the revisions, because the
requirements to account for the
condensable fraction of PM2.5 and PM10
emissions in permitting decisions
remain.
The October 2012 final rule also
reorganized the placement of the
definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant.’’
The provision of the 2008 PM2.5 NSR
Implementation Rule that requires
condensables be accounted for in PM2.5
and PM10 permitting decisions is now
codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(a)
and 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a).
IV. What action Is EPA taking on this
submittal?
EPA is taking final action 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 are not
consistent with Federal regulations
governing state permitting programs.
See the December 18, 2012, proposed
rule.
Under section 179(a) of the 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 that EPA is taking final
action to disapprove was not submitted
to meet either of these requirements.
Therefore, with the final action to
disapprove these submissions, no
sanctions under section 179 will be
triggered.
The full or partial disapproval of a SIP
revision triggers the requirement under
section 110(c) of the CAA 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:48 Jul 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
FR 65478). EPA will actively work with
Wisconsin to incorporate changes to its
PSD program that explicitly identify
PM2.5 precursors and account for the
condensable fraction of PM2.5 and PM10
emissions in establishing enforceable
permit 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 the condensable fraction
of PM2.5 and PM10 emissions in
applicability determinations and
enforceable permit 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 preexisting requirements under state law
and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required
by state law, it does not contain an
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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
44883
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.
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.
Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629
(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
44884
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority
to address environmental justice in this
action. In reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve or disapprove
state choices, based on the criteria of the
CAA. Accordingly, this action merely
disapproves certain state requirements
for inclusion into the SIP under section
110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA
and will not in-and-of itself create any
new requirements. Accordingly, it 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.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by September 23, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:48 Jul 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
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: July 10, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart P—Indiana
2. Section 52.2592 is added to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.2592 Review of new sources and
modifications.
Disapproval—On May 12, 2011, the
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources submitted a proposed
revision to its State Implementation
Plan to update its rules to match the
2008 New Source Review
Implementation Rule for PM2.5. The
State supplemented the submittal on
March 5, 2012. EPA determined that
this submittal was not approvable
because the revisions did not explicitly
identify the precursors to PM2.5 and did
not contain the prescribed language to
ensure that gases that condense to form
PM, known as condensables, are
regulated within PM2.5 and PM10
emission limits.
[FR Doc. 2013–17837 Filed 7–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[WV104–6042; FRL–9828–8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; West
Virginia; Update to Materials
Incorporated by Reference
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; administrative
change.
AGENCY:
EPA is updating the materials
that are incorporated by reference (IBR)
into the West Virginia State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The
regulations affected by this update have
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
been previously submitted by the West
Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection (WV DEP) and approved by
EPA. This update affects the SIP
materials that are available for public
inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA), the
Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center located at EPA
Headquarters in Washington, DC, and
the EPA Regional Office.
DATES: This action is effective July 25,
2013.
ADDRESSES: SIP materials which are
incorporated by reference into 40 CFR
part 52 are available for inspection at
the following locations: Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; the
Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW., Room Number 3334, EPA
West Building, Washington, DC 20460;
or the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,
or go to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sharon McCauley, (215) 814–3376 or by
email at mccauley.sharon@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The SIP is a living document which
a state revises as necessary to address its
unique air pollution problems.
Therefore, EPA, from time to time, must
take action on SIP revisions containing
new and/or revised regulations as being
part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR
27968), EPA revised the procedures for
incorporating by reference Federallyapproved SIPs, as a result of
consultations between EPA and the
Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The
description of the revised SIP
document, IBR procedures and
‘‘Identification of plan’’ format are
discussed in further detail in the May
22, 1997 Federal Register document. On
February 10, 2005 (70 FR 7024), EPA
published a Federal Register beginning
the new IBR procedure for West
Virginia. On February 28, 2007 (72 FR
8903) February 10, 2009 (74 FR 6542),
and December 28, 2010 (75 FR 81474),
EPA published updates to the IBR
material for West Virginia.
Since the publication of the last IBR
update, EPA has approved into the SIP
the following regulatory changes to the
following West Virginia regulations:
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 143 (Thursday, July 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44881-44884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17837]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0502; FRL-9838-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; Disapproval of PM2.5 Permitting Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to disapprove a revision to
Wisconsin's State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) on May 12, 2011. The revision
concerns permitting requirements relating to particulate matter of less
than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). EPA is taking final action to
disapprove the revisions because they do not meet the 2008
PM2.5 SIP requirements. The proposed rulemaking was
published December 18, 2012. During the comment period which ended on
January 17, 2013, no comments were received.
DATES: This final rule is effective on August 26, 2013.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0502. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through https://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 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.
[[Page 44882]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:
I. Background
II. Recent D.C. Circuit Decision
III. Revision to the Definition of Regulated Pollutant
IV. What action is EPA taking on this submittal?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
This final rulemaking addresses the May 12, 2011, WDNR submittal,
supplemented on March 5, 2012, revising the rules in the Wisconsin SIP
to comply with the 2008 NSR Implementation Rule for PM2.5.
The original submission, and the supplement thereto, may be found in
the docket for this action.
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 (SILs) and the Significant
Monitoring Concentration (SMC) for PM2.5.
Wisconsin's submittals included provisions that 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 included 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 and nitrogen oxides; 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.
EPA published a proposed disapproval of Wisconsin's submittal on
December 18, 2012, because the submittal did not meet the 2008
PM2.5 SIP requirements. Specifically, the revisions
submitted did not explicitly define the precursors of PM2.5,
nor did they contain the prescribed language to ensure that gases that
condense to form particulate matter (PM), known as condensables, are
regulated within PM2.5 and PM of less than 10 micrometer
(PM10) emission limits. During the comment period EPA
received no comments on the proposed action.
II. Recent D.C. Circuit Decision
On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia (D.C. Circuit or Court), in Natural Resources Defense Council
v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (consolidated with 09-1102, 11-1430), remanded
EPA's 2007 and 2008 rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Court ordered EPA
to ``repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with
this opinion,'' as opposed to Subpart 1 of Part D, Title I, of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). Id. at 437. Subpart 4 of Part D, Title I, of the
CAA establishes additional provisions for PM nonattainment areas.
The 2008 implementation rule addressed by the Court decision,
``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),'' 73 FR 28321 (May
16, 2008), promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of
PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas (nonattainment NSR) and
attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the requirements of subpart 4
pertain only to nonattainment areas, EPA does not consider the portions
of the 2008 rule that address requirements for PM2.5
attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected by the Court's
opinion. Moreover, because EPA does not anticipate the need to revise
any PSD requirements promulgated in the 2008 rule in order to comply
with the Court's decision, EPA's disapproval of Wisconsin's submittal
with respect to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008
implementation rule does not conflict with the decision.
Wisconsin's submission did include several provisions based on the
nonattainment NSR requirements promulgated in the 2008 implementation
rule. Since the proposed disapproval of Wisconsin's submittal predated
the D.C. Circuit's decision, EPA did not include the nonattainment NSR
provisions in the bases for disapproval. However, for any future
nonattainment NSR submissions, WDNR should follow the Court's direction
to implement the PM2.5 NAAQS consistent with subpart 4,
which includes several provisions that affect the nonattainment NSR
requirements in the 2008 rule. EPA expects to provide further guidance
on this issue to assist the states with future submissions.
On January 22, 2013, the D.C. Circuit, in Sierra Club v. EPA, 705
F.3d 458, issued an order, inter alia, vacating the parts of two PSD
regulations establishing a PM2.5 SMC (40 CFR
51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c)), finding that EPA was
precluded from using the PM2.5 SMCs to exempt permit
applicants from the statutory requirement to compile preconstruction
monitoring data.
Wisconsin included provisions for a PM2.5 SMC in its
submittal. Because the proposed disapproval of December 18, 2012,
predated D.C. Circuit's January 22, 2013, remand, EPA did not include
the PM2.5 SMC as part of the basis for disapproval. However,
as a result of the Court's decision, it is clear that EPA cannot
approve any reference to the PM2.5 SMC in the State's PSD
SIP.
III. Revision to the Definition of Regulated Pollutant
In an October 25, 2012, final rule EPA revised the definition of
``regulated NSR pollutant'' to correct an inadvertent error contained
in the regulations for PSD at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi) and 52.21 (77 FR
65107). The October 2012 final action removed an unintended new
requirement on state and local agencies and the regulated community
that PM emissions must generally include the condensable PM fraction.
PM10 and PM2.5 remain regulated as criteria
pollutants and emissions of both of these PM indicators are still
required to include the condensable fraction of PM emitted by a source
in applicability determinations and in establishing enforceable
emissions limitations. The October 2012 final rule became effective
December 24, 2012.
In the proposed disapproval of Wisconsin's PM2.5
permitting requirements, which preceded the effective date of the
revised condensables definition, EPA cited to the prior definition of
``regulated NSR pollutant,'' which included the requirement to consider
the condensable fraction for ``PM emissions,'' as well as the
condensable
[[Page 44883]]
fraction for PM2.5 and PM10 emissions. The
revised definition reads, ``PM2.5 emissions and
PM10 emissions shall include gaseous emissions from a source
or activity which condense to form particulate matter at ambient
temperatures.'' While this definition is less stringent than what was
cited in the proposed disapproval of Wisconsin's revisions, because it
no longer requires the inclusion of condensables for PM, it does not
affect the bases for disapproval of the revisions, because the
requirements to account for the condensable fraction of
PM2.5 and PM10 emissions in permitting decisions
remain.
The October 2012 final rule also reorganized the placement of the
definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant.'' The provision of the 2008
PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule that requires condensables be
accounted for in PM2.5 and PM10 permitting
decisions is now codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) and
52.21(b)(50)(i)(a).
IV. What action Is EPA taking on this submittal?
EPA is taking final action 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 are not consistent with Federal regulations governing state
permitting programs. See the December 18, 2012, proposed rule.
Under section 179(a) of the 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 that EPA is taking final action to disapprove was not
submitted to meet either of these requirements. Therefore, with the
final action to disapprove these submissions, no sanctions under
section 179 will be triggered.
The full or partial disapproval of a SIP revision triggers the
requirement under section 110(c) of the CAA 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 the condensable fraction of PM2.5 and
PM10 emissions in establishing enforceable permit 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 the
condensable fraction of PM2.5 and PM10 emissions
in applicability determinations and enforceable permit 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 an 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.
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.
Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal
[[Page 44884]]
executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely disapproves certain state requirements
for inclusion into the SIP under section 110 and subchapter I, part D
of the CAA and will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements.
Accordingly, it 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.
Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 23, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
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: July 10, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart P--Indiana
0
2. Section 52.2592 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2592 Review of new sources and modifications.
Disapproval--On May 12, 2011, the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources submitted a proposed revision to its State Implementation
Plan to update its rules to match the 2008 New Source Review
Implementation Rule for PM2.5. The State supplemented the
submittal on March 5, 2012. EPA determined that this submittal was not
approvable because the revisions did not explicitly identify the
precursors to PM2.5 and did not contain the prescribed
language to ensure that gases that condense to form PM, known as
condensables, are regulated within PM2.5 and PM10
emission limits.
[FR Doc. 2013-17837 Filed 7-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P