Air Plan Approval; Michigan and Wisconsin; 2006 PM2.5, 51136-51141 [2015-20771]
Download as PDF
51136
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
EPA–APPROVED MISSOURI NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS
Applicable geographic
area or nonattainment
area
Name of nonregulatory SIP provision
State submittal
date
*
*
*
*
(66) Cross State Air Pollution Rule—State-Deter- Statewide ......................
mined Allowance Allocations for the 2016 control periods.
*
*
3/30/15 8/24/15 and [Insert Federal Register citation].
3. Section 52.1326 is amended by
adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(3) to
read as follows:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
§ 52.1326 Interstate pollutant transport
provisions; What are the FIP requirements
for decreases in emissions of nitrogen
oxides?
[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0805; FRL–9932–65–
Region 5]
■
40 CFR Part 52
(a) * * *
(3) Pursuant to § 52.38(a)(3),
Missouri’s state-determined TR NOX
Annual allowance allocations
established in the March 30, 2015, SIP
revision replace the unit-level TR NOX
Annual allowance allocation provisions
of the TR NOX Annual Trading Program
at 40 CFR 97.411(a) for the State for the
2016 control period with a list of TR
NOX Annual units that commenced
operation prior to January 1, 2010, in
the State and the state-determined
amount of TR NOX Annual allowances
allocated to each unit on such list for
the 2016 control period, as approved by
EPA on August 24, 2015, [Insert Federal
Register citation].
(b) * * *
(3) Pursuant to § 52.38(b)(3),
Missouri’s state-determined TR NOX
Ozone Season allowance allocations
established in the March 30, 2015, SIP
revision replace the unit-level TR NOX
Ozone Season allowance allocation
provisions of the TR NOX Ozone Season
Trading Program at 40 CFR 97.511(a) for
the State for the 2016 control period
with a list of TR NOX Ozone Season
units that commenced operation prior to
January 1, 2010, in the State and the
state-determined amount of TR NOX
Ozone Season allowances allocated to
each unit on such list for the 2016
control period, as approved by EPA on
August 24, 2015, [Insert Federal
Register citation].
[FR Doc. 2015–20774 Filed 8–21–15; 8:45 am]
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
Air Plan Approval; Michigan and
Wisconsin; 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS PSD
and Visibility Infrastructure SIP
Requirements
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving elements of
state implementation plan (SIP)
submissions from Michigan regarding
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Wisconsin regarding
visibility infrastructure requirements of
section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
for the 2006 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). The infrastructure
requirements are designed to ensure that
the structural components of each
state’s air quality management program
are adequate to meet the state’s
responsibilities under the CAA.
DATES: This direct final rule will be
effective October 23, 2015, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by
September 23, 2015. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2009–0805 by one of the following
methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 408–2279.
4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano,
Chief, Attainment Planning and
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
EPA approval date
Explanation
*
Maintenance 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. EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0805.
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.
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
E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM
24AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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 Sarah
Arra, Environmental Scientist, at (312)
886–9401 before visiting the Region 5
office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–9401,
arra.sarah@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:
I. What is the background of these SIP
submissions?
II. What is EPA’s review of these SIP
submissions?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. What is the background of these SIP
submissions?
This rulemaking addresses
submissions from the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ) and the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources (WDNR). The
states submitted their infrastructure
SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on the
following dates: Michigan—August 15,
2011, supplemented on July 9, 2012;
Wisconsin—January 24, 2011,
supplemented on March 28, 2011 and
June 29, 2012.
The requirement for states to make a
SIP submission of this type arises out of
CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to
section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP
submissions ‘‘within 3 years (or such
shorter period as the Administrator may
prescribe) after the promulgation of a
national primary ambient air quality
standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and
these SIP submissions are to provide for
the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the
duty to make these SIP submissions,
and the requirement to make the
submissions is not conditioned upon
EPA’s taking any action other than
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:27 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such
plan’’ submission must address. This
specific rulemaking is only taking action
on the PSD elements of the Michigan
submittal and the visibility element of
the Wisconsin submittal. The majority
of the other infrastructure elements
were addressed in a proposed
rulemaking published August 2, 2012,
(77 FR 45992). Final action was taken
on those elements on October 29, 2012,
(77 FR 65478).1 The infrastructure
elements for PSD are found in CAA
110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D), and
110(a)(2)(J) and will be discussed in
detail below. The infrastructure
elements for visibility are also in CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D). For further
discussion on the background of
infrastructure submittals, see 77 FR
45992.
II. What is EPA’s review of these SIP
submissions?
A. Michigan—PSD
PSD infrasture elements are addressed
in different sections of the CAA:
Sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II),
and 110(a)(2)(J).
1. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for
Enforcement of Control Measures; PSD
States are required to include a
program providing for enforcement of
all SIP measures and the regulation of
construction of new or modified
stationary sources to meet new source
review (NSR) requirements under PSD
and nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA
(sections 160–169B) addresses PSD,
while part D of the CAA (sections 171–
193) addresses NNSR requirements.
The evaluation of each state’s
submission addressing the
infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C) covers: (i)
Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD
provisions that explicitly identify
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as a precursor
to ozone in the PSD program; (iii)
identification of precursors to PM2.5 and
the identification of PM2.5 and PM10 2
1 For Michigan, action was taken on sections
110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M), except
for the prevention of significant deterioration
requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and
(J), the visibility portion of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and
the state board requirements in (E)(ii). For
Wisconsin, action was taken on sections
110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M), except
the prevention of significant deterioration
requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and
(J), the visibility portion of (D)(i)(II), and the state
board requirements in (E)(ii).
2 PM
10 refers to particles with diameters between
2.5 and 10 microns, oftentimes referred to as
‘‘coarse’’ particles.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
51137
condensables in the PSD program; (iv)
PM2.5 increments in the PSD program;
and, (v) Greenhouse Gas(GHG)
permitting and the ‘‘Tailoring Rule.’’ 3
(i) Enforcement of SIP Measures
The enforcement of SIP measures
provision was approved in the October
29, 2012 rulemaking (77 FR 65478) for
the 2006 PM2.5.
(ii): PSD Provisions That Explicitly
Identify NOX as a Precursor to Ozone in
the PSD Program
EPA’s ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8Hour 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 29, 2005
(see 70 FR 71612). Among other
requirements, the Phase 2 Rule
obligated states to revise their PSD
programs to explicitly identify NOX as
a precursor to ozone (70 FR 71612 at
71679, 71699–71700). This requirement
was codified in 40 CFR 51.166.
The Phase 2 Rule required that states
submit SIP revisions incorporating the
requirements of the rule, including
those identifying NOX as a precursor to
ozone, by June 15, 2007 (see 70 FR
71612 at 71683, November 29, 2005).
EPA approved revisions to Michigan’s
PSD SIP reflecting these requirements
on April 4, 2014 (see 79 FR 18802), and
therefore finds that Michigan has met
the set of infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C)
with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
(iii): Identification of Precursors to PM2.5
and the Identification of PM2.5 and PM10
Condensables in the PSD Program
On May 16, 2008 (see 73 FR 28321),
EPA issued the Final Rule on the
‘‘Implementation of the New Source
Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)’’ (2008 NSR Rule). The 2008
NSR Rule finalized several new
requirements for SIPs to address sources
that emit direct PM2.5 and other
pollutants that contribute to secondary
PM2.5 formation. One of these
3 EPA highlights this statutory requirement in an
October 2, 2007, guidance document entitled
‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour
Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards’’ and has issued additional guidance
documents, the most recent on September 13, 2013,
‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections
110(a)(1) and (2)’’ (2013 memo).
E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM
24AUR1
51138
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
requirements is for NSR permits to
address pollutants responsible for the
secondary formation of PM2.5, otherwise
known as precursors. In the 2008 rule,
EPA identified precursors to PM2.5 for
the PSD program to be sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and NOX (unless the state
demonstrates to the Administrator’s
satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that
NOX emissions in an area are not a
significant contributor to that area’s
ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The
2008 NSR Rule also specifies that
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are
not considered to be precursors to PM2.5
in the PSD program unless the state
demonstrates to the Administrator’s
satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that
emissions of VOCs in an area are
significant contributors to that area’s
ambient PM2.5 concentrations.
The explicit references to SO2, NOX,
and VOCs as they pertain to secondary
PM2.5 formation are codified at 40 CFR
51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 40 CFR
52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). As part of identifying
pollutants that are precursors to PM2.5,
the 2008 NSR Rule also required states
to revise the definition of ‘‘significant’’
as it relates to a net emissions increase
or the potential of a source to emit
pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR
51.166(b)(23)(i) and 40 CFR
52.21(b)(23)(i) define ‘‘significant’’ for
PM2.5 to mean the following emissions
rates: 10 tons per year (tpy) of direct
PM2.5; 40 tpy of SO2; and 40 tpy of NOX
(unless the state demonstrates to the
Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA
demonstrates that NOX emissions in an
area are not a significant contributor to
that area’s ambient PM2.5
concentrations). The deadline for states
to submit SIP revisions to their PSD
programs incorporating these changes
was May 16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at
28341).4
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
4 EPA
notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Natural
Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428
(D.C. Cir.), held that EPA should have issued the
2008 NSR Rule in accordance with the CAA’s
requirements for PM10 nonattainment areas (Title I,
Part D, subpart 4), and not the general requirements
for nonattainment areas under subpart 1. As the
subpart 4 provisions apply 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, EPA does not
anticipate the need to revise any PSD requirements
promulgated by the 2008 NSR Rule in order to
comply with the court’s decision. Accordingly,
EPA’s approval of Michigan’s infrastructure SIP as
to elements (C),(D)(i)(II), or (J) with respect to the
PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008
implementation rule does not conflict with the
court’s opinion.
The court’s decision with respect to the
nonattainment NSR requirements promulgated by
the 2008 implementation rule also does not affect
EPA’s action on the present infrastructure action.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:27 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
The 2008 NSR Rule did not require
states to immediately account for gases
that could condense to form particulate
matter, known as condensables, in PM2.5
and PM10 emission limits in NSR
permits. Instead, EPA determined that
states had to account for PM2.5 and PM10
condensables for applicability
determinations and in establishing
emissions limitations for PM2.5 and
PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or
after January 1, 2011. This requirement
is codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(a)
and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). Revisions
to states’ PSD programs incorporating
the inclusion of condensables were
required be submitted to EPA by May
16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 28341).
EPA approved revisions to Michigan’s
PSD SIP reflecting these requirements
on April 4, 2014 (see 79 FR 18802), and
therefore proposes that Michigan has
met this set of infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C)
with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
(iv): PM2.5 increments in the PSD
program
On October 20, 2010, EPA issued the
final rule on the ‘‘Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) for
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments,
Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentration
(SMC)’’ (2010 NSR Rule). This rule
established several components for
making PSD permitting determinations
for PM2.5, including a system of
‘‘increments’’ which is the mechanism
used to estimate significant
deterioration of ambient air quality for
a pollutant. These increments are
codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40
CFR 52.21(c), and are included in the
table below.
TABLE 1—PM2.5 INCREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE 2010 NSR RULE IN
MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER
Annual
arithmetic
mean
Class I .......
Class II ......
Class III .....
24-hour max
1
4
8
2
9
18
EPA interprets the CAA to exclude nonattainment
area requirements, including requirements
associated with a nonattainment NSR program,
from infrastructure SIP submissions due three years
after adoption or revision of a NAAQS. Instead,
these elements are typically referred to as
nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements,
which would be due by the dates statutorily
prescribed under subparts 2 through 5 under part
D, extending as far as 10 years following
designations for some elements.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
The 2010 NSR Rule also established a
new ‘‘major source baseline date’’ for
PM2.5 as October 20, 2010, and a new
trigger date for PM2.5 as October 20,
2011. These revisions are codified in 40
CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c),
and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14)(i)(c) and
(b)(14)(ii)(c). Lastly, the 2010 NSR Rule
revised the definition of ‘‘baseline area’’
to include a level of significance of 0.3
micrograms per cubic meter, annual
average, for PM2.5. This change is
codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i) and
40 CFR 52.21(b)(15)(i).
On April 4, 2014 (79 FR 18802), EPA
finalized approval of the applicable
infrastructure SIP PSD revisions;
therefore, we are proposing that
Michigan has met this set of
infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
(v): GHG permitting and the ‘‘Tailoring
Rule’’
With respect to CAA Sections
110(a)(2)(C) and (J), EPA interprets the
CAA to require each state to make an
infrastructure SIP submission for a new
or revised NAAQS that demonstrates
that the air agency has a complete PSD
permitting program meeting the current
requirements for all regulated NSR
pollutants. The requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) may also be satisfied
by demonstrating the air agency has a
complete PSD permitting program
correctly addressing all regulated NSR
pollutants. Michigan has shown that it
currently has a PSD program in place
that covers all regulated NSR pollutants,
including GHGs.
On June 23, 2014, the United States
Supreme Court issued a decision
addressing the application of PSD
permitting requirements to GHG
emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group
v. Environmental Protection Agency,
134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said
that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an
air pollutant for purposes of
determining whether a source is a major
source required to obtain a PSD permit.
The Court also said that the EPA could
continue to require that PSD permits,
otherwise required based on emissions
of pollutants other than GHGs, contain
limitations on GHG emissions based on
the application of Best Available
Control Technology (BACT).
In order to act consistently with its
understanding of the Court’s decision
pending further judicial action to
effectuate the decision, the EPA is not
continuing to apply EPA regulations
that would require that SIPs include
permitting requirements that the
Supreme Court found impermissible.
Specifically, EPA is not applying the
E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM
24AUR1
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
requirement that a state’s SIP-approved
PSD program require that sources obtain
PSD permits when GHGs are the only
pollutant (i) that the source emits or has
the potential to emit above the major
source thresholds, or (ii) for which there
is a significant emissions increase and a
significant net emissions increase from
a modification (e.g. 40 CFR
51.166(b)(48)(v)).
EPA anticipates a need to revise
Federal PSD rules and for many states
to revise their existing SIP-approved
PSD programs in light of the Supreme
Court opinion. The timing and content
of subsequent EPA actions with respect
to the EPA regulations and state PSD
program approvals are expected to be
informed by additional legal process
before the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not
expecting states to have revised their
PSD programs for purposes of
infrastructure SIP submissions and is
only evaluating such submissions to
ensure that the state’s program correctly
addresses GHGs consistent with the
Supreme Court’s decision.
At present, EPA is proposing that
Michigan’s SIP is sufficient to satisfy
sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J)
with respect to GHGs because the PSD
permitting program previously
approved by EPA into the SIP continues
to require that PSD permits (otherwise
required based on emissions of
pollutants other than GHGs) contain
limitations on GHG emissions based on
the application of BACT. Although the
approved Michigan PSD permitting
program may currently contain
provisions that are no longer necessary
in light of the Supreme Court decision,
this does not render the infrastructure
SIP submission inadequate to satisfy
Section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).
The SIP contains the necessary PSD
requirements at this time, and the
application of those requirements is not
impeded by the presence of other
previously-approved provisions
regarding the permitting of sources of
GHGs that EPA does not consider
necessary at this time in light of the
Supreme Court decision.
For the purposes of the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS infrastructure SIPs, EPA
reiterates that NSR Reform regulations
are not within the scope of these
actions. Therefore, we are not taking
action on existing NSR Reform
regulations for Michigan. EPA approved
Michigan’s minor NSR program on May
6, 1980 (see 45 FR 29790); and since
that date, MDEQ and EPA have relied
on the existing minor NSR program to
ensure that new and modified sources
not captured by the major NSR
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:27 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
permitting programs do not interfere
with attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS.
Certain sub-elements in this section
overlap with elements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), section 110(a)(2)(E) and
section 110(a)(2)(J). These links will be
discussed in the appropriate areas
below.
2. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Interstate
transport
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that
SIPs include provisions prohibiting any
source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from interfering
with measures required to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality or
to protect visibility in another state.
EPA notes that Michigan’s satisfaction
of the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
have been detailed in the section
addressing section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA
further notes that the proposed actions
in that section related to PSD are
consistent with the proposed actions
related to PSD for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and they are reiterated
below.
EPA has previously approved
revisions to Michigan’s SIP that meet
certain requirements obligated by the
Phase 2 Rule and the 2008 NSR Rule.
These revisions included provisions
that: Explicitly identify NOX as a
precursor to ozone, explicitly identify
SO2 and NOX as precursors to PM2.5,
and regulate condensable PM2.5 and
PM10 in applicability determinations
and establishing emissions limits. EPA
has also previously approved revisions
to Michigan’s SIP that incorporate the
PM2.5 increments and the associated
implementation regulations including
the major source baseline date, trigger
date, and level of significance for PM2.5
per the 2010 NSR Rule. EPA is
proposing that Michigan’s SIP contains
provisions that adequately address the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
States also have an obligation to
ensure that sources located in
nonattainment areas do not interfere
with a neighboring state’s PSD program.
One way that this requirement can be
satisfied is through an NNSR program
consistent with the CAA that addresses
any pollutants for which there is a
designated nonattainment area within
the state.
Michigan’s EPA–approved NNSR
regulations found in Part 2 of the SIP,
specifically in Michigan Administrative
Code sections R 336.1220 and R
336.1221, are consistent with 40 CFR
51.165, or 40 CFR part 51, appendix S.
Therefore, EPA proposes that Michigan
has met all of the applicable PSD
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
51139
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
for transport prong 3 related to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
3. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation
With Government Officials; Public
Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection
States must meet applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C)
related to PSD. MDEQ’s PSD program in
the context of infrastructure SIPs has
already been discussed in the
paragraphs addressing section
110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and
EPA notes that the proposed actions for
those sections are consistent with the
proposed actions for this portion of
section 110(a)(2)(J). Therefore, EPA
proposes that Michigan has met all of
the infrastructure SIP requirements for
PSD associated with section 110(a)(2)(J)
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
B. Wisconsin—Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Interstate Transport
With regard to the applicable
requirements for visibility protection of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are
subject to visibility and regional haze
program requirements under part C of
the CAA (which includes sections 169A
and 169B, addressing visibility
protection). The 2013 Memo states that
these requirements can be satisfied by
an approved SIP addressing reasonably
attributable visibility impairment, if
required, or an approved SIP addressing
regional haze.
On August 7, 2012, EPA published its
final approval of Wisconsin’s regional
haze plan (see 77 FR 46952). Therefore,
EPA is proposing that Wisconsin has
met the visibility protection
requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving the PSD related
infrastructure requirements for
Michigan’s 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
submittals found in CAA sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). EPA is
also approving the visibility related
infrastructure requirements for
Wisconsin’s 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
submittals found in CAA section 110
(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
We are publishing this action without
prior proposal because we view this as
a noncontroversial amendment and
anticipate no adverse comments.
However, in the proposed rules section
of this Federal Register publication, we
are publishing a separate document that
will serve as the proposal to approve the
state plan if relevant adverse written
comments are filed. This rule will be
effective October 23, 2015 without
E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM
24AUR1
51140
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
further notice unless we receive relevant
adverse written comments by September
23, 2015. If we receive such comments,
we will withdraw this action before the
effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will
not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph,
or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that
are not the subject of an adverse
comment. If we do not receive any
comments, this action will be effective
October 23, 2015.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:27 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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 action 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 October 23, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action 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. Parties with
objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in
response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action
published in the proposed rules section
of today’s Federal Register, rather than
file an immediate petition for judicial
review of this direct final rule, so that
EPA can withdraw this direct final rule
and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking. 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,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 10, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. In § 52.1170, the table in paragraph
(e) is amended by revising the entry for
‘‘Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1170
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM
24AUR1
*
*
51141
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED MICHIGAN NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Name of nonregulatory
SIP provision
*
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements
for the 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
*
Applicable
geographic
or nonattainment area
State submittal
date
*
Statewide ....
*
8/15/2011,
7/9/2012
*
EPA approval date
Comments
*
8/24/2015, [Insert page
number where the document begins].
*
*
*
This action addresses the following CAA elements:
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G),
(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are not taking action
on the visibility protection requirements of (D)(i)(II)
and the state board requirements of (E)(ii). We will
address these requirements in a separate action.
*
*
*
■
3. Section 52.2591 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
§ 52.2591 Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements.
40 CFR Part 271
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Approval and Disapproval — In a
January 24, 2011, submittal,
supplemented on March 28, 2011, and
June 29, 2012, Wisconsin certified that
the State has satisfied the infrastructure
SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
through (H), and (J) through (M) for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is
approving Wisconsin’s submission
addressing the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A),
(B), (C) with respect to enforcement and
the GHG permitting threshold PSD
requirement, (D)(i)(II) with respect to
the GHG permitting threshold PSD
requirement and visibility protection,
(D)(ii), (E) except for state board
requirements, (F) through (H), (J) except
for narrow prevention of significant
deterioration requirements, and (K)
through (M). We are not finalizing
action on (D)(i)(I), the state board
requirements of (E)(ii), and the PSD
requirement of NOX as a precursor to
ozone in (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). We will
address these requirements in a separate
action. We are disapproving narrow
portions of Wisconsin’s infrastructure
SIP submission addressing the relevant
prevention of significant deterioration
requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule
(identifying PM2.5 precursors and the
regulation of PM2.5 and PM10
condensables in permits) with respect to
section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–20771 Filed 8–21–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:27 Aug 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
[EPA–R04–RCRA–2015–0294; FRL–9932–
93–Region 4]
North Carolina: Final Authorization of
State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
North Carolina has applied to
the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for final
authorization of changes to its
hazardous waste program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that
these changes satisfy all requirements
needed to qualify for final authorization,
and is authorizing the State’s changes
through this direct final rule. In the
‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of today’s
Federal Register, EPA is also publishing
a separate document that serves as the
proposal to authorize these changes.
EPA believes this action is not
controversial and does not expect
comments that oppose it. Unless EPA
receives written comments that oppose
this authorization during the comment
period, the decision to authorize North
Carolina’s changes to its hazardous
waste program will take effect. If EPA
receives comments that oppose this
action, EPA will publish a document in
the Federal Register withdrawing
today’s direct final rule before it takes
effect, and the separate document
published in today’s ‘‘Proposed Rules’’
section of this Federal Register will
serve as the proposal to authorize the
changes.
DATES: This final authorization will
become effective on October 23, 2015
unless EPA receives adverse written
comment by September 23, 2015. If EPA
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
receives such comment, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal of this
direct final rule in the Federal Register
and inform the public that this
authorization will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
RCRA–2015–0294, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Email: gleaton.gwen@epa.gov.
• Fax: (404) 562–9964 (prior to
faxing, please notify the EPA contact
listed below).
• Mail: Send written comments to
Gwendolyn Gleaton, RCRA Programs
and Materials Management Section,
Materials and Waste Management
Branch, Resource Conservation and
Restoration Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–
8960.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver
your comments to Gwendolyn Gleaton,
RCRA Programs and Materials
Management Section, Materials and
Waste Management Branch, Resource
Conservation and Restoration Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–
8960. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office’s normal
hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: EPA must receive your
comments by September 23, 2015.
Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA–R04–RCRA–2015–0294. 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
E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM
24AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51136-51141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20771]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0805; FRL-9932-65-Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Michigan and Wisconsin; 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS PSD and Visibility Infrastructure SIP Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
elements of state implementation plan (SIP) submissions from Michigan
regarding Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Wisconsin
regarding visibility infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2006 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The
infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural
components of each state's air quality management program are adequate
to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA.
DATES: This direct final rule will be effective October 23, 2015,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 23, 2015. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2009-0805 by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 408-2279.
4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance 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. EPA-R05-OAR-2009-
0805. 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.
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
[[Page 51137]]
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 Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, at
(312) 886-9401 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-9401, arra.sarah@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:
I. What is the background of these SIP submissions?
II. What is EPA's review of these SIP submissions?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background of these SIP submissions?
This rulemaking addresses submissions from the Michigan Department
of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR). The states submitted their infrastructure SIPs for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on the following dates: Michigan--
August 15, 2011, supplemented on July 9, 2012; Wisconsin--January 24,
2011, supplemented on March 28, 2011 and June 29, 2012.
The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type
arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1),
states must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter
period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a
national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision
thereof),'' and these SIP submissions are to provide for the
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP
submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address. This
specific rulemaking is only taking action on the PSD elements of the
Michigan submittal and the visibility element of the Wisconsin
submittal. The majority of the other infrastructure elements were
addressed in a proposed rulemaking published August 2, 2012, (77 FR
45992). Final action was taken on those elements on October 29, 2012,
(77 FR 65478).\1\ The infrastructure elements for PSD are found in CAA
110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D), and 110(a)(2)(J) and will be discussed in
detail below. The infrastructure elements for visibility are also in
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D). For further discussion on the background of
infrastructure submittals, see 77 FR 45992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For Michigan, action was taken on sections 110(a)(2)(A)
through (H), and (J) through (M), except for the prevention of
significant deterioration requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J), the visibility portion of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II),
and the state board requirements in (E)(ii). For Wisconsin, action
was taken on sections 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M),
except the prevention of significant deterioration requirements in
sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J), the visibility portion
of (D)(i)(II), and the state board requirements in (E)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. What is EPA's review of these SIP submissions?
A. Michigan--PSD
PSD infrasture elements are addressed in different sections of the
CAA: Sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J).
1. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control Measures;
PSD
States are required to include a program providing for enforcement
of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or
modified stationary sources to meet new source review (NSR)
requirements under PSD and nonattainment new source review (NNSR)
programs. Part C of the CAA (sections 160-169B) addresses PSD, while
part D of the CAA (sections 171-193) addresses NNSR requirements.
The evaluation of each state's submission addressing the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) covers: (i)
Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD provisions that explicitly
identify oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as a precursor to ozone in
the PSD program; (iii) identification of precursors to PM2.5
and the identification of PM2.5 and PM10 \2\
condensables in the PSD program; (iv) PM2.5 increments in
the PSD program; and, (v) Greenhouse Gas(GHG) permitting and the
``Tailoring Rule.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ PM10 refers to particles with diameters between
2.5 and 10 microns, oftentimes referred to as ``coarse'' particles.
\3\ EPA highlights this statutory requirement in an October 2,
2007, guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' and has
issued additional guidance documents, the most recent on September
13, 2013, ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)''
(2013 memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Enforcement of SIP Measures
The enforcement of SIP measures provision was approved in the
October 29, 2012 rulemaking (77 FR 65478) for the 2006
PM2.5.
(ii): PSD Provisions That Explicitly Identify NOX as a
Precursor to Ozone in the PSD Program
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 29, 2005 (see 70 FR 71612). Among
other requirements, the Phase 2 Rule obligated states to revise their
PSD programs to explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to
ozone (70 FR 71612 at 71679, 71699-71700). This requirement was
codified in 40 CFR 51.166.
The Phase 2 Rule required that states submit SIP revisions
incorporating the requirements of the rule, including those identifying
NOX as a precursor to ozone, by June 15, 2007 (see 70 FR
71612 at 71683, November 29, 2005).
EPA approved revisions to Michigan's PSD SIP reflecting these
requirements on April 4, 2014 (see 79 FR 18802), and therefore finds
that Michigan has met the set of infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
(iii): Identification of Precursors to PM2.5 and the
Identification of PM2.5 and PM10 Condensables in
the PSD Program
On May 16, 2008 (see 73 FR 28321), EPA issued the Final Rule on the
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' (2008 NSR Rule).
The 2008 NSR Rule finalized several new requirements for SIPs to
address sources that emit direct PM2.5 and other pollutants
that contribute to secondary PM2.5 formation. One of these
[[Page 51138]]
requirements is for NSR permits to address pollutants responsible for
the secondary formation of PM2.5, otherwise known as
precursors. In the 2008 rule, EPA identified precursors to
PM2.5 for the PSD program to be sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and NOX (unless the state demonstrates to
the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that
NOX emissions in an area are not a significant contributor
to that area's ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The 2008 NSR
Rule also specifies that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are not
considered to be precursors to PM2.5 in the PSD program
unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction or
EPA demonstrates that emissions of VOCs in an area are significant
contributors to that area's ambient PM2.5 concentrations.
The explicit references to SO2, NOX, and VOCs
as they pertain to secondary PM2.5 formation are codified at
40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). As part of
identifying pollutants that are precursors to PM2.5, the
2008 NSR Rule also required states to revise the definition of
``significant'' as it relates to a net emissions increase or the
potential of a source to emit pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR
51.166(b)(23)(i) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i) define ``significant'' for
PM2.5 to mean the following emissions rates: 10 tons per
year (tpy) of direct PM2.5; 40 tpy of SO2; and 40
tpy of NOX (unless the state demonstrates to the
Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that NOX
emissions in an area are not a significant contributor to that area's
ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The deadline for states to
submit SIP revisions to their PSD programs incorporating these changes
was May 16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 28341).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA,
706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), held that EPA should have issued the 2008
NSR Rule in accordance with the CAA's requirements for
PM10 nonattainment areas (Title I, Part D, subpart 4),
and not the general requirements for nonattainment areas under
subpart 1. As the subpart 4 provisions apply 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, EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any PSD
requirements promulgated by the 2008 NSR Rule in order to comply
with the court's decision. Accordingly, EPA's approval of Michigan's
infrastructure SIP as to elements (C),(D)(i)(II), or (J) with
respect to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008
implementation rule does not conflict with the court's opinion.
The court's decision with respect to the nonattainment NSR
requirements promulgated by the 2008 implementation rule also does
not affect EPA's action on the present infrastructure action. EPA
interprets the CAA to exclude nonattainment area requirements,
including requirements associated with a nonattainment NSR program,
from infrastructure SIP submissions due three years after adoption
or revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are typically
referred to as nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, which
would be due by the dates statutorily prescribed under subparts 2
through 5 under part D, extending as far as 10 years following
designations for some elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2008 NSR Rule did not require states to immediately account for
gases that could condense to form particulate matter, known as
condensables, in PM2.5 and PM10 emission limits
in NSR permits. Instead, EPA determined that states had to account for
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables for applicability
determinations and in establishing emissions limitations for
PM2.5 and PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or
after January 1, 2011. This requirement is codified in 40 CFR
51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). Revisions to states'
PSD programs incorporating the inclusion of condensables were required
be submitted to EPA by May 16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 28341).
EPA approved revisions to Michigan's PSD SIP reflecting these
requirements on April 4, 2014 (see 79 FR 18802), and therefore proposes
that Michigan has met this set of infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
(iv): PM2.5 increments in the PSD program
On October 20, 2010, EPA issued the final rule on the ``Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels
(SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' (2010 NSR
Rule). This rule established several components for making PSD
permitting determinations for PM2.5, including a system of
``increments'' which is the mechanism used to estimate significant
deterioration of ambient air quality for a pollutant. These increments
are codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(c), and are included
in the table below.
Table 1--PM2.5 Increments Established by the 2010 NSR Rule in Micrograms
Per Cubic Meter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
arithmetic 24-hour max
mean
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I............................... 1 2
Class II.............................. 4 9
Class III............................. 8 18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2010 NSR Rule also established a new ``major source baseline
date'' for PM2.5 as October 20, 2010, and a new trigger date
for PM2.5 as October 20, 2011. These revisions are codified
in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c), and 40 CFR
52.21(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c). Lastly, the 2010 NSR Rule
revised the definition of ``baseline area'' to include a level of
significance of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter, annual average, for
PM2.5. This change is codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i)
and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(15)(i).
On April 4, 2014 (79 FR 18802), EPA finalized approval of the
applicable infrastructure SIP PSD revisions; therefore, we are
proposing that Michigan has met this set of infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
(v): GHG permitting and the ``Tailoring Rule''
With respect to CAA Sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), EPA interprets
the CAA to require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission
for a new or revised NAAQS that demonstrates that the air agency has a
complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for
all regulated NSR pollutants. The requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) may also be satisfied by demonstrating the air
agency has a complete PSD permitting program correctly addressing all
regulated NSR pollutants. Michigan has shown that it currently has a
PSD program in place that covers all regulated NSR pollutants,
including GHGs.
On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision
addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG
emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection
Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said that the EPA may not
treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a
source is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court
also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits,
otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs,
contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best
Available Control Technology (BACT).
In order to act consistently with its understanding of the Court's
decision pending further judicial action to effectuate the decision,
the EPA is not continuing to apply EPA regulations that would require
that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found
impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the
[[Page 51139]]
requirement that a state's SIP-approved PSD program require that
sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that
the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source
thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase
and a significant net emissions increase from a modification (e.g. 40
CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)).
EPA anticipates a need to revise Federal PSD rules and for many
states to revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of
the Supreme Court opinion. The timing and content of subsequent EPA
actions with respect to the EPA regulations and state PSD program
approvals are expected to be informed by additional legal process
before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not expecting states to have revised
their PSD programs for purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions and
is only evaluating such submissions to ensure that the state's program
correctly addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.
At present, EPA is proposing that Michigan's SIP is sufficient to
satisfy sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) with respect to GHGs
because the PSD permitting program previously approved by EPA into the
SIP continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on
emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG
emissions based on the application of BACT. Although the approved
Michigan PSD permitting program may currently contain provisions that
are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, this
does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy
Section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). The SIP contains the
necessary PSD requirements at this time, and the application of those
requirements is not impeded by the presence of other previously-
approved provisions regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that
EPA does not consider necessary at this time in light of the Supreme
Court decision.
For the purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure
SIPs, EPA reiterates that NSR Reform regulations are not within the
scope of these actions. Therefore, we are not taking action on existing
NSR Reform regulations for Michigan. EPA approved Michigan's minor NSR
program on May 6, 1980 (see 45 FR 29790); and since that date, MDEQ and
EPA have relied on the existing minor NSR program to ensure that new
and modified sources not captured by the major NSR permitting programs
do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Certain sub-elements in this section overlap with elements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), section 110(a)(2)(E) and section 110(a)(2)(J).
These links will be discussed in the appropriate areas below.
2. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Interstate transport
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that SIPs include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from interfering with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in another state.
EPA notes that Michigan's satisfaction of the applicable
infrastructure SIP PSD requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
have been detailed in the section addressing section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA
further notes that the proposed actions in that section related to PSD
are consistent with the proposed actions related to PSD for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and they are reiterated below.
EPA has previously approved revisions to Michigan's SIP that meet
certain requirements obligated by the Phase 2 Rule and the 2008 NSR
Rule. These revisions included provisions that: Explicitly identify
NOX as a precursor to ozone, explicitly identify
SO2 and NOX as precursors to PM2.5,
and regulate condensable PM2.5 and PM10 in
applicability determinations and establishing emissions limits. EPA has
also previously approved revisions to Michigan's SIP that incorporate
the PM2.5 increments and the associated implementation
regulations including the major source baseline date, trigger date, and
level of significance for PM2.5 per the 2010 NSR Rule. EPA
is proposing that Michigan's SIP contains provisions that adequately
address the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
States also have an obligation to ensure that sources located in
nonattainment areas do not interfere with a neighboring state's PSD
program. One way that this requirement can be satisfied is through an
NNSR program consistent with the CAA that addresses any pollutants for
which there is a designated nonattainment area within the state.
Michigan's EPA-approved NNSR regulations found in Part 2 of the
SIP, specifically in Michigan Administrative Code sections R 336.1220
and R 336.1221, are consistent with 40 CFR 51.165, or 40 CFR part 51,
appendix S. Therefore, EPA proposes that Michigan has met all of the
applicable PSD requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for
transport prong 3 related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
3. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation With Government Officials; Public
Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection
States must meet applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C)
related to PSD. MDEQ's PSD program in the context of infrastructure
SIPs has already been discussed in the paragraphs addressing section
110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and EPA notes that the proposed
actions for those sections are consistent with the proposed actions for
this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J). Therefore, EPA proposes that
Michigan has met all of the infrastructure SIP requirements for PSD
associated with section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
B. Wisconsin--Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Interstate Transport
With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are subject to
visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the
CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B, addressing visibility
protection). The 2013 Memo states that these requirements can be
satisfied by an approved SIP addressing reasonably attributable
visibility impairment, if required, or an approved SIP addressing
regional haze.
On August 7, 2012, EPA published its final approval of Wisconsin's
regional haze plan (see 77 FR 46952). Therefore, EPA is proposing that
Wisconsin has met the visibility protection requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving the PSD related infrastructure requirements for
Michigan's 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS submittals found in CAA sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). EPA is also approving the visibility
related infrastructure requirements for Wisconsin's 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS submittals found in CAA section 110
(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective October 23,
2015 without
[[Page 51140]]
further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by
September 23, 2015. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this
action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document
that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will
then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed
action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do
not receive any comments, this action will be effective October 23,
2015.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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 action 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 October 23, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. 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, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 10, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 52.1170, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by revising
the entry for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the
2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1170 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 51141]]
EPA-Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of nonregulatory SIP geographic or State EPA approval date Comments
provision nonattainment area submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Statewide........... 8/15/2011, 8/24/2015, [Insert This action
Requirements for the 2006 24- 7/9/2012 page number where addresses the
Hour PM2.5 NAAQS. the document following CAA
begins]. elements:
110(a)(2)(A), (B),
(C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), (E), (F),
(G), (H), (J),
(K), (L), and (M).
We are not taking
action on the
visibility
protection
requirements of
(D)(i)(II) and the
state board
requirements of
(E)(ii). We will
address these
requirements in a
separate action.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Section 52.2591 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2591 Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements.
* * * * *
(c) Approval and Disapproval -- In a January 24, 2011, submittal,
supplemented on March 28, 2011, and June 29, 2012, Wisconsin certified
that the State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is approving Wisconsin's submission
addressing the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A),
(B), (C) with respect to enforcement and the GHG permitting threshold
PSD requirement, (D)(i)(II) with respect to the GHG permitting
threshold PSD requirement and visibility protection, (D)(ii), (E)
except for state board requirements, (F) through (H), (J) except for
narrow prevention of significant deterioration requirements, and (K)
through (M). We are not finalizing action on (D)(i)(I), the state board
requirements of (E)(ii), and the PSD requirement of NOX as a
precursor to ozone in (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). We will address these
requirements in a separate action. We are disapproving narrow portions
of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP submission addressing the relevant
prevention of significant deterioration requirements of the 2008 NSR
Rule (identifying PM2.5 precursors and the regulation of
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in permits) with
respect to section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-20771 Filed 8-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P