Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Wisconsin; Revisions to PSD and NNSR Programs, 25063-25066 [2014-10115]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or
revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide
need only state this fact in order to
address the visibility prong of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Finally, EPA believes that its
approach with respect to infrastructure
SIP requirements is based on a
reasonable reading of section 110(a)(1)
and (2) because the CAA provides other
avenues and mechanisms to address
specific substantive deficiencies in
existing SIPs. These other statutory tools
allow EPA to take appropriately tailored
action, depending upon the nature and
severity of the alleged SIP deficiency.
Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to
issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the Agency
determines that a state’s SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or
maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or to otherwise
comply with the CAA.11 Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct
errors in past actions, such as past
approvals of SIP submissions.12
Significantly, EPA’s determination that
an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP
submission is not the appropriate time
and place to address all potential
existing SIP deficiencies does not
preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of
the basis for action to correct those
deficiencies at a later time. For example,
although it may not be appropriate to
require a state to eliminate all existing
inappropriate director’s discretion
provisions in the course of acting on an
infrastructure SIP submission, EPA
believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be
among the statutory bases that EPA
relies upon in the course of addressing
such deficiency in a subsequent
action.13
11 For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to
address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to
the treatment of excess emissions during SSM
events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of
Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639,
April 18, 2011.
12 EPA has used this authority to correct errors in
past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD
programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in
State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR
82536, December 30, 2010. EPA has previously
used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to
remove numerous other SIP provisions that the
Agency determined it had approved in error. See,
e.g., 61 FR 38664, July 25, 1996 and 62 FR 34641,
June 27, 1997 (corrections to American Samoa,
Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69
FR 67062, November 16, 2004 (corrections to
California SIP); and 74 FR 57051, November 3, 2009
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
13 See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission
from Colorado on the grounds that it would have
included a director’s discretion provision
inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 May 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the
following infrastructure elements or
portions thereof of Maryland’s January
3, 2013 and August 14, 2013 SIP
revisions: Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and
(M). Maryland’s SIP revisions provide
the basic program elements specified in
section 110(a)(2) necessary to
implement, maintain, and enforce the
2008 Pb NAAQS. EPA is soliciting
public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These
comments will be considered before
taking final rulemaking action.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at
42344, July 21, 2010 (proposed disapproval of
director’s discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540,
January 26, 2011 (final disapproval of such
provisions).
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25063
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, which
satisfies certain infrastructure
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA for the 2008 Pb NAAQS for the
State of Maryland, does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), because the SIP is not approved
to apply in Indian country located in the
state, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Lead, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 16, 2014.
W. C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2014–10104 Filed 5–1–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0242; FRL–9910–25–
Region 5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; Revisions to PSD and
NNSR Programs
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to its authority
under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is proposing to approve a revision to the
Wisconsin State Implementation Plan
(SIP), submitted by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) to EPA on March 12, 2014, for
parallel processing. The SIP revision
modifies the definition of the term
‘‘major modification’’ in Wisconsin’s
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02MYP1.SGM
02MYP1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
25064
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Review (NNSR) programs. The changes
made to the definition of major
modification remove an NSR exemption
for fuel changes as major modifications
where the source was capable of
accommodating the change before
January 6, 1975. Additionally, the
submittal modifies Wisconsin’s PSD
program to identify precursors for
ozone. WDNR requested these revisions
to match Federal requirements. EPA is
proposing approval of Wisconsin’s
March 12, 2014, SIP revision because
the Agency has made the preliminary
determination that this SIP revision is in
accordance with the CAA and
applicable EPA regulations regarding
PSD and NNSR.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 2, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2014–0242, 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–2014–
0242. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 May 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
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. What is the background for this proposed
action?
III. Wisconsin’s Submittal for Parallel
Processing
IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Wisconsin’s
proposed SIP revision?
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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. What is the background for this
proposed action?
EPA’s ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule
to Implement Certain Aspects of the
1990 Amendments Relating to New
Source Review and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration as They Apply
in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter,
and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for
Reformulated Gasoline’’ (Phase 2 Rule)
was published on November 8, 2005
(see 70 FR 71612). Among other
requirements, the Phase 2 Rule
obligated states to revise their PSD
programs to explicitly identify nitrogen
oxides (NOX) as a precursor to ozone (70
FR 71612 at 71679, 71699–71700).
In a June 17, 2009, letter, EPA notified
WDNR that the definition of the term
‘‘major modification’’ in NR 405.02 was
inadequate because it failed to identify
permits issued under Federal authority.
Wisconsin’s PSD program was approved
into its SIP on June 28, 1999. Prior to
that, PSD construction permits were
issued under Federal authority. When
NR 405.02(21)(b)5., was written the
references to Federal authority were
inadvertently omitted. Because the
Federal citations were omitted from the
rule, EPA identified that in limited
situations, the state definition could
allow a source to make a change to use
E:\FR\FM\02MYP1.SGM
02MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules
a different fuel or raw material without
undergoing major new source permit
review for the change, even though the
change could be prohibited under a
Federal permit.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Wisconsin’s Submittal for Parallel
Processing
On March 12, 2014, WDNR submitted
a draft SIP revision request to EPA to
revise portions of its PSD and NNSR
programs. Once finalized, approval of
this SIP revision request will make the
Wisconsin SIP consistent with the
Federal PSD and NNSR rules.
Wisconsin submitted revisions to its
rules NR 400, 405, and 408 of the
Wisconsin Administrative Code. The
submittal requests that EPA approve the
following revised rules into Wisconsin’s
SIP: (1) NR 400.02(123m) and (124); (2)
NR 405.02(21)(b)5.a. and b. and 6; (3)
NR 405.02(25i)(a); (4) NR 405.02(25i)(ag)
and (ar)1–3; and, (5) NR 408.02(20)(e)5.a
and b. and 6. At this time EPA is only
proposing to take action on the portions
that pertain to the definition of ‘‘major
modification’’ and explicitly identify
NOX as a precursor to ozone.
Specifically, today’s proposed
rulemaking is limited to the following
provisions: (1) NR 405.02(21)(b)5.a. and
b. and 6; (2) NR 405.02(25i)(a); (3) NR
405.02(25i)(ar)(intro) and 1.; and, (4) NR
408.02(20)(e) 5.a and b. and 6. The
remainder of WDNR’s submission as it
relates to the identification of precursors
to particulate matter of less than 2.5
micrometers (PM2.5) and the definition
of PM2.5 and particulate matter of less
than 10 micrometers will be addressed
in a separate rulemaking.
Because this SIP revision is not yet
effective at the state level, Wisconsin
requested that EPA ‘‘parallel process’’
the SIP revision. Under this procedure,
the EPA Regional Office works closely
with the state while developing new or
revised regulations. Generally, the state
submits a copy of the proposed
regulation or other revisions to EPA
before concluding its rulemaking
process. EPA reviews this proposed
state action and prepares a proposed
rulemaking action. EPA publishes this
proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register and solicits public comment in
approximately the same timeframe
during which the state finalizes its
rulemaking process.
After Wisconsin submits the formal
fully adopted SIP revision request, EPA
will prepare a final rulemaking action
for the SIP revision. If changes are made
to the SIP revision after EPA’s proposed
rulemaking, such changes must be
acknowledged in EPA’s final
rulemaking action. If the changes are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 May 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
significant, then EPA will repropose the
action.
IV. What is EPA’s analysis of
Wisconsin’s proposed SIP revision?
EPA has evaluated WDNR’s proposed
revision to the Wisconsin SIP in
accordance with the Federal
requirements governing state permitting
programs. As discussed below, EPA is
proposing to approve these revisions
because they meet Federal
requirements.
EPA regulations contained at 40 CFR
51.166(b)(2)(iii)(e)(1) and (2) and (f)
specifically prescribe when use of an
alternative fuel or change in hours of
operation is not considered a physical
change for purposes of defining a
‘‘major modification’’ under the PSD
program. WDNR’s revisions to the
definition of ‘‘major modification’’ in its
PSD program in NR 405.02(21)(b)5.a and
b. and 6 are consistent with the Federal
requirements. EPA has similar
regulations for its NNSR program
contained at 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(5) and (6), and WDNR
has revised NR 408.02(20)(e)5.a. and b.
and 6 to be consistent with these
Federal regulations. Therefore, EPA
finds Wisconsin’s revisions to the
definition of ‘‘major modification’’ in its
PSD and NNSR program to be
approvable.
WDNR’s requested revision to the
definition of ‘‘regulated NSR air
contaminant’’ in 405.02(25i)(a) and
(25i)(ar) and (ar)1 are consistent with
the explicit identification of the
precursors to ozone in the definition of
‘‘regulated NSR air contaminant’’,
codified at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(b),
therefore, we find the revisions to be
approvable.
V. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve WDNR’s
March 12, 2014, revisions to: Wisconsin
rules NR 405.02(21)(b)5.a. and b. and 6;
NR 405.02(25i)(a); NR
405.02(25i)(ar)(intro) and 1.; and, NR
408.02(20)(e)5.a and b. and 6. into the
SIP. As described above, these revisions
are consistent with EPA’s own
regulations with respect to the
definitions of ‘‘major modification’’ and
‘‘regulated NSR air contaminant’’.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25065
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Public Law 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
E:\FR\FM\02MYP1.SGM
02MYP1
25066
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Dated: April 22, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2014–10115 Filed 5–1–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R02–OAR–2013–0527, FRL–9910–16–
Region 2]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; New York;
Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 Nitrogen
Dioxide Primary Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
certain elements of New York’s State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted to demonstrate that the State
meets the requirements of section
110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) for the 2010 National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Section 110(a)
of the CAA requires that each state
adopt and submit a SIP for the
implementation, maintenance and
enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by the EPA and is
commonly referred to as an
infrastructure SIP.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 2, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID number EPA–
R02–OAR–2013–0527, by one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: Ruvo.Richard@epa.gov.
• Fax: 212–637–3901.
• Mail: Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air
Programs Branch, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290
Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New
York 10007–1866.
• Hand Delivery: Richard Ruvo,
Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007–
1866. 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.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R02–OAR–2013–
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 May 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
0527. 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 information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch,
290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007–1866. EPA requests, if
at all possible, that you contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view
the hard copy of the docket. You may
view the hard copy of the docket
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anthony (Ted) Gardella, Air Programs
Branch, Environmental Protection
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New
York, New York 10007–1866, (212) 637–
4249, or by email at gardella.anthony@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background information?
III. What elements are required under section
110(a)(1) and (2)?
IV. What is EPA’s approach to the review of
infrastructure SIP submissions?
V. What did New York submit?
VI. How has the State addressed the elements
of the section 110(a)(1) and (2)
‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions?
VII. What action is EPA taking?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to approve certain
elements of the State of New York
Infrastructure SIP as meeting the section
110(a) infrastructure requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2010 NO2
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS or standard). As explained
below, the State has the necessary
infrastructure, resources, and general
authority to implement the 2010 NO2
standard.
II. What is the background
information?
On February 9, 2010, EPA
promulgated a new, 1-hour primary
NAAQS for NO2 (2010 NO2 NAAQS)
while retaining the annual primary
NAAQS for NO2 (75 FR 6474). The 2010
NO2 NAAQS is based on 1-hour three
year average concentrations.1 The 2010
NO2 NAAQS is 100 parts per billion
(ppb) and the new standard
supplements the existing primary
annual standard of 53 ppb. The
secondary NO2 NAAQS remains
unchanged and is the same as the
primary annual average NO2 NAAQS,
i.e., 53 ppb.2
Section 110(a)(1) provides the
procedural and timing requirements for
State Implementation Plans (SIPs).
Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for SIP
requirements related to a newly
established or revised NAAQS. Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA require, in
part, that states submit to EPA plans to
implement, maintain and enforce each
of the NAAQS promulgated by EPA. By
statute, SIPs meeting the requirements
of section 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be
submitted by states within three years
1 The 2010 NO NAAQS is expressed as the three
2
year average of the 98th percentile of the annual
distribution of daily maximum 1-hour average
concentrations.
2 The official level of the annual NO NAAQS is
2
0.053 parts per million (ppm), equal to 53 ppb
which is shown here for the purpose of clearer
comparison to the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\02MYP1.SGM
02MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 85 (Friday, May 2, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25063-25066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10115]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0242; FRL-9910-25-Region 5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; Revisions to PSD and NNSR Programs
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) to EPA on March
12, 2014, for parallel processing. The SIP revision modifies the
definition of the term ``major modification'' in Wisconsin's Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source
[[Page 25064]]
Review (NNSR) programs. The changes made to the definition of major
modification remove an NSR exemption for fuel changes as major
modifications where the source was capable of accommodating the change
before January 6, 1975. Additionally, the submittal modifies
Wisconsin's PSD program to identify precursors for ozone. WDNR
requested these revisions to match Federal requirements. EPA is
proposing approval of Wisconsin's March 12, 2014, SIP revision because
the Agency has made the preliminary determination that this SIP
revision is in accordance with the CAA and applicable EPA regulations
regarding PSD and NNSR.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 2, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2014-0242, 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-
2014-0242. 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. What is the background for this proposed action?
III. Wisconsin's Submittal for Parallel Processing
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Wisconsin's proposed SIP revision?
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. 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. What is the background for this proposed action?
EPA's ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule to Implement Certain Aspects
of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate
Matter, and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline'' (Phase
2 Rule) was published on November 8, 2005 (see 70 FR 71612). Among
other requirements, the Phase 2 Rule obligated states to revise their
PSD programs to explicitly identify nitrogen oxides (NOX) as
a precursor to ozone (70 FR 71612 at 71679, 71699-71700).
In a June 17, 2009, letter, EPA notified WDNR that the definition
of the term ``major modification'' in NR 405.02 was inadequate because
it failed to identify permits issued under Federal authority.
Wisconsin's PSD program was approved into its SIP on June 28, 1999.
Prior to that, PSD construction permits were issued under Federal
authority. When NR 405.02(21)(b)5., was written the references to
Federal authority were inadvertently omitted. Because the Federal
citations were omitted from the rule, EPA identified that in limited
situations, the state definition could allow a source to make a change
to use
[[Page 25065]]
a different fuel or raw material without undergoing major new source
permit review for the change, even though the change could be
prohibited under a Federal permit.
III. Wisconsin's Submittal for Parallel Processing
On March 12, 2014, WDNR submitted a draft SIP revision request to
EPA to revise portions of its PSD and NNSR programs. Once finalized,
approval of this SIP revision request will make the Wisconsin SIP
consistent with the Federal PSD and NNSR rules. Wisconsin submitted
revisions to its rules NR 400, 405, and 408 of the Wisconsin
Administrative Code. The submittal requests that EPA approve the
following revised rules into Wisconsin's SIP: (1) NR 400.02(123m) and
(124); (2) NR 405.02(21)(b)5.a. and b. and 6; (3) NR 405.02(25i)(a);
(4) NR 405.02(25i)(ag) and (ar)1-3; and, (5) NR 408.02(20)(e)5.a and b.
and 6. At this time EPA is only proposing to take action on the
portions that pertain to the definition of ``major modification'' and
explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to ozone.
Specifically, today's proposed rulemaking is limited to the following
provisions: (1) NR 405.02(21)(b)5.a. and b. and 6; (2) NR
405.02(25i)(a); (3) NR 405.02(25i)(ar)(intro) and 1.; and, (4) NR
408.02(20)(e) 5.a and b. and 6. The remainder of WDNR's submission as
it relates to the identification of precursors to particulate matter of
less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) and the definition of
PM2.5 and particulate matter of less than 10 micrometers
will be addressed in a separate rulemaking.
Because this SIP revision is not yet effective at the state level,
Wisconsin requested that EPA ``parallel process'' the SIP revision.
Under this procedure, the EPA Regional Office works closely with the
state while developing new or revised regulations. Generally, the state
submits a copy of the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA
before concluding its rulemaking process. EPA reviews this proposed
state action and prepares a proposed rulemaking action. EPA publishes
this proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and solicits public
comment in approximately the same timeframe during which the state
finalizes its rulemaking process.
After Wisconsin submits the formal fully adopted SIP revision
request, EPA will prepare a final rulemaking action for the SIP
revision. If changes are made to the SIP revision after EPA's proposed
rulemaking, such changes must be acknowledged in EPA's final rulemaking
action. If the changes are significant, then EPA will repropose the
action.
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Wisconsin's proposed SIP revision?
EPA has evaluated WDNR's proposed revision to the Wisconsin SIP in
accordance with the Federal requirements governing state permitting
programs. As discussed below, EPA is proposing to approve these
revisions because they meet Federal requirements.
EPA regulations contained at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(2)(iii)(e)(1) and (2)
and (f) specifically prescribe when use of an alternative fuel or
change in hours of operation is not considered a physical change for
purposes of defining a ``major modification'' under the PSD program.
WDNR's revisions to the definition of ``major modification'' in its PSD
program in NR 405.02(21)(b)5.a and b. and 6 are consistent with the
Federal requirements. EPA has similar regulations for its NNSR program
contained at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(5) and (6), and WDNR has revised
NR 408.02(20)(e)5.a. and b. and 6 to be consistent with these Federal
regulations. Therefore, EPA finds Wisconsin's revisions to the
definition of ``major modification'' in its PSD and NNSR program to be
approvable.
WDNR's requested revision to the definition of ``regulated NSR air
contaminant'' in 405.02(25i)(a) and (25i)(ar) and (ar)1 are consistent
with the explicit identification of the precursors to ozone in the
definition of ``regulated NSR air contaminant'', codified at 40 CFR
51.166(b)(49)(i)(b), therefore, we find the revisions to be approvable.
V. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve WDNR's March 12, 2014, revisions to:
Wisconsin rules NR 405.02(21)(b)5.a. and b. and 6; NR 405.02(25i)(a);
NR 405.02(25i)(ar)(intro) and 1.; and, NR 408.02(20)(e)5.a and b. and
6. into the SIP. As described above, these revisions are consistent
with EPA's own regulations with respect to the definitions of ``major
modification'' and ``regulated NSR air contaminant''.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 25066]]
Dated: April 22, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2014-10115 Filed 5-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P