Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 21685 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

This rule 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 as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides. 

Dated: April 2, 2015. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08896 Filed 4–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0704; FRL–9926–33– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

some elements of state implementation 

plan (SIP) submissions from Wisconsin 

regarding the infrastructure 

requirements of section 110 of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 2010 sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) 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: Comments must be received on 

or before May 20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2014–0704, 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 No. EPA–R05–OAR–2014– 

0704. 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 Eric 

Svingen, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 353–4489 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Svingen, Environmental Engineer, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–4489, 

svingen.eric@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 of these SIP 

submissions? 

III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate 

these SIP submissions? 

IV. What is the result of EPA’s review of 

these SIP submissions? 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21686 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1PM2.5 refers to particles with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers, 

oftentimes referred to as ‘‘fine’’ particles. 

2See, e.g., EPA’s final rule on ‘‘National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Lead.’’ 73 FR 66964 at 

67034. 

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 of these SIP 

submissions? 

A. What state submissions does this 

rulemaking address? 

This rulemaking addresses June 20, 

2013, submissions and a January 28, 

2015, clarification from the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR) intended to address all 

applicable infrastructure requirements 

for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. 

B. Why did the state make these SIP 

submissions? 

Under section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit 

infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their 

SIPs provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS, including the 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. These 

submissions must contain any revisions 

needed for meeting the applicable SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2), or 

certifications that their existing SIPs for 

the NAAQS already meet those 

requirements. 

EPA highlighted this statutory 

requirement in an October 2, 2007, 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on SIP Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 

8-hour Ozone and PM2.51 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (2007 

Guidance) and has issued additional 

guidance documents, the most recent on 

September 13, 2013, entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements under CAA 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)’’ (2013 

Guidance). The SIP submissions 

referenced in this rulemaking pertain to 

the applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (2), and address the 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submissions from Wisconsin that 

address the infrastructure requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. The requirement for states to 

make SIP submissions of this type arises 

out of CAA section 110(a)(1), which 

states that 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. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(1) and (2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as SIP submissions that address 

the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D and the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) requirements of part C of title I of 

the CAA, and ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ 

submissions required to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A. 

This rulemaking will not cover three 

substantive areas that are not integral to 

acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions: (i) Existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction (‘‘SSM’’) at sources, that 

may be contrary to the CAA and EPA’s 

policies addressing such excess 

emissions; (ii) existing provisions 

related to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or 

‘‘director’s discretion’’ that purport to 

permit revisions to SIP approved 

emissions limits with limited public 

notice or without requiring further 

approval by EPA, that may be contrary 

to the CAA; and, (iii) existing provisions 

for PSD programs that may be 

inconsistent with current requirements 

of EPA’s ‘‘Final NSR Improvement 

Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 

2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 

13, 2007) (‘‘NSR Reform’’). Instead, EPA 

has the authority to address each one of 

these substantive areas in separate 

rulemakings. A detailed history, 

interpretation, and rationale as they 

relate to infrastructure SIP requirements 

can be found in EPA’s May 13, 2014, 

proposed rule entitled, ‘‘Infrastructure 

SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS’’ in the section, ‘‘What is the 

scope of this rulemaking?’’ (see 79 FR 

27241 at 27242–27245). 

III. What guidance is EPA using to 

evaluate these SIP submissions? 

EPA’s guidance for these 

infrastructure SIP submissions is 

embodied in the 2007 Guidance 

referenced above. Specifically, 

attachment A of the 2007 Guidance 

(Required Section 110 SIP Elements) 

identifies the statutory elements that 

states need to submit in order to satisfy 

the requirements for an infrastructure 

SIP submission. As discussed above, 

EPA issued additional guidance, the 

most recent being the 2013 Guidance 

that further clarifies aspects of 

infrastructure SIPs that are not NAAQS 

specific. 

IV. What is the result of EPA’s review 

of these SIP submissions? 

Pursuant to section 110(a), states must 

provide reasonable notice and 

opportunity for public hearing for all 

infrastructure SIP submissions. WDNR 

provided notice of a public comment 

period on May 1, 2013, held a public 

hearing at WDNR State Headquarters on 

June 10, 2013, and closed the public 

comment period on June 14, 2013. Two 

comments were received, expressing 

support for improved environmental 

protection and air quality. 

Wisconsin provided a detailed 

synopsis of how various components of 

its SIP meet each of the applicable 

requirements in section 110(a)(2) for the 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS, as applicable. The following 

review evaluates the state’s 

submissions. 

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission 

Limits and Other Control Measures 

This section requires SIPs to include 

enforceable emission limits and other 

control measures, means or techniques, 

schedules for compliance, and other 

related matters. However, EPA has long 

interpreted emission limits and control 

measures for attaining the standards as 

being due when nonattainment 

planning requirements are due.2 In the 

context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is 

not evaluating the existing SIP 

provisions for this purpose. Instead, 

EPA is only evaluating whether the 

state’s SIP has basic structural 

provisions for the implementation of the 

NAAQS. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 21687 

3PM10 refers to particles with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers. 

4 In EPA’s April 28, 2011, proposed rulemaking 

for infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS, we stated that each state’s PSD program 

must meet applicable requirements for evaluation of 

all regulated NSR pollutants in PSD permits (see 76 

FR 23757 at 23760). This view was reiterated in 

EPA’s August 2, 2012, proposed rulemaking for 

infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 

77 FR 45992 at 45998). In other words, if a state 

lacks provisions needed to adequately address NOX

as a precursor to ozone, PM2.5 precursors, PM2.5 and 

PM10 condensables, PM2.5 increments, or the 

Federal GHG permitting thresholds, the provisions 

of section 110(a)(2)(C) requiring a suitable PSD 

permitting program must be considered not to have 

been met irrespective of the NAAQS that triggered 

the requirement to submit an infrastructure SIP. 

Under Wisconsin Statutes (Wis. 

Stats.) 227 and 285, WDNR holds the 

authority to create new rules and 

implement existing emission limits and 

controls. Authority to monitor, update, 

and implement revisions to Wisconsin’s 

SIP, including revisions to emission 

limits and control measures as 

necessary to meet NAAQS, is contained 

in Wis. Stats. 285.11–285.19. Authority 

related to specific pollutants, including 

the establishment of ambient air quality 

standards and increments, identification 

of nonattainment areas, air resource 

allocations, and performance and 

emissions standards, is contained in 

Wis. Stats. 285.21–285.29. 

Specifically, authority for WNDR to 

create new rules and regulations is 

found in Wis. Stats. 227.11, 285.11, and 

285.21. Wis. Stats. 227.11(2)(a) 

expressly confers rule making authority 

to an agency. Wis. Stats. 285.11(1) and 

(6) require that WDNR promulgate rules 

and establish control strategies in order 

to prepare and implement the SIP for 

the prevention, abatement, and control 

of air pollution in Wisconsin. 

The 2013 Guidance states that to 

satisfy section 110(a)(2)(A) 

requirements, ‘‘an air agency’s 

submission should identify existing 

EPA-approved SIP provisions or new 

SIP provisions that the air agency has 

adopted and submitted for EPA 

approval that limit emissions of 

pollutants relevant to the subject 

NAAQS, including precursors of the 

relevant NAAQS pollutant where 

applicable.’’ In its January 28, 2015, 

clarification letter, WDNR identified 

existing controls and emission limits in 

the Wisconsin Administrative Code that 

can be applied to the 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. These 

regulations include controls and 

emission limits for volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), which are precursors to ozone. 

VOC as an ozone precursor is controlled 

by Wisconsin Administrative Code 

Chapters Natural Resources (NR) 419– 

425, and NOX as an ozone precursor is 

controlled by NR 428; these regulations 

can be applied to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. NR 428 contains existing 

controls and emission limits for NOX; 

these regulations can be applied to the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. NR 418 contains 

existing controls and emission limits for 

SO2; these regulations can be applied to 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

In this rulemaking, EPA is not 

proposing to approve any new 

provisions in NR 419–425, NR 428, or 

NR 418 that have not been previously 

approved by EPA. EPA is also not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing state provisions or rules related 

to start-up, shutdown or malfunction or 

director’s discretion in the context of 

section 110(a)(2)(A). EPA proposes that 

Wisconsin has met the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 

with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air 

Quality Monitoring/Data System 

This section requires SIPs to include 

provisions to provide for establishing 

and operating ambient air quality 

monitors, collecting and analyzing 

ambient air quality data, and making 

these data available to EPA upon 

request. This review of the annual 

monitoring plan includes EPA’s 

determination that the state: (i) Monitors 

air quality at appropriate locations 

throughout the state using EPAapproved Federal Reference Methods or 

Federal Equivalent Method monitors; 

(ii) submits data to EPA’s Air Quality 

System (AQS) in a timely manner; and, 

(iii) provides EPA Regional Offices with 

prior notification of any planned 

changes to monitoring sites or the 

network plan. 

WDNR continues to operate an 

extensive air monitoring network, 

which is used to determine compliance 

with the NAAQS. Furthermore, WDNR 

submits yearly monitoring network 

plans to EPA, and EPA approved 

WDNR’s Annual Air Monitoring 

Network Plan for ozone, NO2, and SO2

on October 31, 2014. Monitoring data 

from WDNR are entered into EPA’s AQS 

in a timely manner, and the state 

provides EPA with prior notification 

when changes to its monitoring network 

or plan are being considered. EPA 

proposes that Wisconsin has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for 

Enforcement of Control Measures; PSD 

This section requires each state to 

provide a program for enforcement of 

control measures. Section 110(a)(2)(C) 

also includes various requirements 

relating to PSD. 

1. Program for Enforcement of Control 

Measures 

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. 

WDNR maintains an enforcement 

program to ensure compliance with SIP 

requirements. The Bureau of Air 

Management houses an active statewide 

compliance and enforcement team that 

works in all geographic regions of the 

state. WDNR refers actions as necessary 

to the Wisconsin Department of Justice 

with the involvement of WDNR. Under 

Wis. Stats. 285.13, WDNR has the 

authority to impose fees and penalties to 

ensure that required measures are 

ultimately implemented. Wis. Stats. 

285.83 and Wis. Stats. 285.87 provide 

WDNR with the authority to enforce 

violations and assess penalties. EPA 

proposes that Wisconsin has met the 

enforcement of SIP measures 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

2. PSD 

110(a)(2)(C) includes various PSD 

requirements: Identification of NOX as a 

precursor to ozone provisions in the 

PSD program, identification of 

precursors to PM2.5 and the 

identification of PM2.5 and PM10 3

condensables in the PSD program, PM2.5

increments in the PSD program, and 

greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting and 

the ‘‘Tailoring Rule.’’ 4 In this 

rulemaking, we are not taking action on 

the state’s satisfaction of the various 

PSD permitting requirements. Instead, 

EPA will evaluate Wisconsin’s 

compliance with each of these 

requirements in a separate rulemaking. 

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate 

Transport; Pollution Abatement 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs 

to include provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from contributing 

significantly to nonattainment, or 

interfering with maintenance, of the 

NAAQS in another state. Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21688 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

5The level of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS is 100 parts 

per billion (ppb) and the form is the 3-year average 

of the annual 98th percentile of the daily 1-hour 

maximum. For the most recent design values, see 

http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. 

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. 

1. Interstate Transport—Significant 

Contribution 

On February 17, 2012, EPA 

promulgated designations for the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS, stating for the entire 

country that, ‘‘The EPA is designating 

areas as ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ to 

mean that available information does 

not indicate that the air quality in these 

areas exceeds the 2010 NO2 NAAQS’’ 

(see 77 FR 9532). For comparison 

purposes, EPA examined the design 

values 5 based on data collected between 

2011 and 2013 from NO2 monitors in 

Wisconsin and surrounding states. 

Within Wisconsin, the highest design 

value was 49 ppb at a monitor in 

Milwaukee. In surrounding states, the 

highest design value was 64 ppb at a 

monitor in Chicago, IL. These design 

values are both lower than the standard, 

which is 100 ppb for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS. Additionally, as discussed in 

EPA’s evaluation of 110(a)(2)(A) 

requirements, NR 428 contains controls 

and emission limits for NOX.

Furthermore, NR 432 allows Wisconsin 

to implement the state portions of the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which 

addresses emissions of NOX as well as 

SO2. On January 1, 2015, CAIR was 

replaced by the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which requires 

reductions of NOX and SO2 emissions in 

order to reduce interstate transport. 

WDNR works with EPA in 

implementing this program. EPA 

believes that, in conjunction with the 

continued implementation of the state’s 

ability to limit NOX emissions, low 

monitored values of NO2 will continue 

in and around Wisconsin. In other 

words, NO2 emissions from Wisconsin 

are not expected to cause or contribute 

to a violation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS 

in another state. 

In this rulemaking, EPA is not 

evaluating section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements relating to significant 

contribution to transport for the 2008 

ozone and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Instead, 

EPA will evaluate these requirements in 

a separate rulemaking. EPA proposes 

that Wisconsin has met the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements relating 

to significant contribution to transport 

for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

2. Interstate Transport—Interfere With 

Maintenance 

As described above, EPA has 

classified all areas of the country as 

‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ for the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS, NO2 design values in and 

around Wisconsin are lower than the 

standard, WDNR is able to control NO2

emissions, and CSAPR requires 

reductions in NOX emissions. In other 

words, NO2 emissions from Wisconsin 

are not expected to interfere with the 

maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS 

in another state. 

In this rulemaking, EPA is not 

evaluating section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements relating to interference 

with maintenance for the 2008 ozone 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Instead, EPA 

will evaluate these requirements in a 

separate rulemaking. EPA proposes that 

Wisconsin has met the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements relating 

to interference with maintenance for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

3. Interstate Transport—Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires 

SIPs to include provisions prohibiting 

interference with PSD. In this 

rulemaking, we are not taking action on 

the state’s satisfaction of PSD 

requirements. Instead, EPA will 

evaluate Wisconsin’s compliance with 

PSD requirements in a separate 

rulemaking. 

4. Interstate Transport—Protect 

Visibility 

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). The 2013 Guidance 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 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

5. Interstate and International Pollution 

Abatement 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each 

SIP to contain adequate provisions 

requiring compliance with the 

applicable requirements of section 126 

and section 115 of the CAA (relating to 

interstate and international pollution 

abatement, respectively). 

Section 126(a) requires new or 

modified sources to notify neighboring 

states of potential impacts from the 

source. The statute does not specify the 

method by which the source should 

provide the notification. States with 

SIP-approved PSD programs must have 

a provision requiring such notification 

by new or modified sources. A lack of 

such a requirement in state rules would 

be grounds for disapproval of this 

element. 

Wisconsin has provisions in its EPAapproved PSD program requiring new or 

modified sources to notify neighboring 

states of potential negative air quality 

impacts. Wisconsin’s submissions 

reference these provisions as being 

adequate to meet the requirements of 

section 126(a). EPA proposes that 

Wisconsin has met the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to section 126(a) 

with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

The submissions from Wisconsin 

affirm that the state has no pending 

obligations under section 115. EPA 

proposes that Wisconsin has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to section 

115 with respect to the 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate 

Authority and Resources 

This section requires each state to 

provide for adequate personnel, 

funding, and legal authority under state 

law to carry out its SIP, and related 

issues. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also 

requires each state to comply with the 

requirements respecting state boards 

under section 128. 

1. Adequate Resources 

Wisconsin’s biennial budget ensures 

that EPA grant funds as well as state 

funding appropriations are sufficient to 

administer its air quality management 

program, and WDNR has routinely 

demonstrated that it retains adequate 

personnel to administer its air quality 

management program. Wisconsin’s 

Environmental Performance Partnership 

Agreement with EPA documents certain 

funding and personnel levels at WDNR. 

As discussed in previous sections, basic 

duties and authorities in the state are 

outlined in Wis. Stats. 285.11. EPA 

proposes that Wisconsin has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of this 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) with 

respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2,

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 21689 

6http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/AirQuality/ 

Pollutants.html. 

2. State Board Requirements 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each 

SIP to contain provisions that comply 

with the state board requirements of 

section 128 of the CAA. That provision 

contains two explicit requirements: (i) 

That any board or body which approves 

permits or enforcement orders under 

this chapter shall have at least a 

majority of members who represent the 

public interest and do not derive any 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permits and 

enforcement orders under this chapter, 

and (ii) that any potential conflicts of 

interest by members of such board or 

body or the head of an executive agency 

with similar powers be adequately 

disclosed. 

In today’s action, EPA is neither 

proposing to approve nor disapprove 

the portions of the submissions from 

Wisconsin intended to address the state 

board requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). Instead, EPA will take 

separate action on compliance with 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the state at a 

later time. EPA is working with WDNR 

to address these requirements in the 

most appropriate way. 

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary 

Source Monitoring System 

States must establish a system to 

monitor emissions from stationary 

sources and submit periodic emissions 

reports. Each plan shall also require the 

installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources. The state plan shall 

also require periodic reports on the 

nature and amounts of emissions and 

emissions-related data from such 

sources, and correlation of such reports 

by each state agency with any emission 

limitations or standards established 

pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the 

reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection. 

WDNR requires regulated sources to 

submit various reports, dependent on 

applicable requirements and the type of 

permit issued, to the Bureau of Air 

Management Compliance Team. The 

frequency and requirements for report 

review are incorporated as part of NR 

438 and NR 439. Additionally, WDNR 

routinely submits quality assured 

analyses and data obtained from its 

stationary source monitoring system for 

review and publication by EPA. Basic 

authority for Wisconsin’s Federally 

mandated Compliance Assurance 

Monitoring reporting structure is 

provided in Wis. Stats. 285.65. EPA 

proposes that Wisconsin has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency 

Power 

This section requires that a plan 

provide for authority that is analogous 

to what is provided in section 303 of the 

CAA, and adequate contingency plans 

to implement such authority. The 2013 

Guidance states that infrastructure SIP 

submissions should specify authority, 

rested in an appropriate official, to 

restrain any source from causing or 

contributing to emissions which present 

an imminent and substantial 

endangerment to public health or 

welfare, or the environment. 

Wis. Stats. 285.85 provides the 

requirement for WDNR to act upon a 

finding that an emergency episode or 

condition exists. The language 

contained in this chapter authorizes 

WDNR to seek immediate injunctive 

relief in circumstances of substantial 

danger to the environment or to public 

health. EPA proposes that Wisconsin 

has met the applicable infrastructure 

SIP requirements for this portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP 

Revisions 

This section requires states to have 

the authority to revise their SIPs in 

response to changes in the NAAQS, 

availability of improved methods for 

attaining the NAAQS, or to an EPA 

finding that the SIP is substantially 

inadequate. 

Wis. Stats. 285.11(6) provides WDNR 

with the authority to develop all rules, 

limits, and regulations necessary to 

meet the NAAQS as they evolve, and to 

respond to any EPA findings of 

inadequacy with the overall Wisconsin 

SIP and air management programs. EPA 

proposes that Wisconsin has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment 

Planning Requirements of Part D 

The CAA requires that each plan or 

plan revision for an area designated as 

a nonattainment area meet the 

applicable requirements of part D of the 

CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment 

areas. 

EPA has determined that section 

110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the 

infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA 

takes action on part D attainment plans 

through separate processes. 

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation 

With Government Officials; Public 

Notification; PSD; Visibility Protection 

The evaluation of the submissions 

from Wisconsin with respect to the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are 

described below. 

1. Consultation With Government 

Officials 

States must provide a process for 

consultation with local governments 

and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) 

carrying out NAAQS implementation 

requirements. 

Wis. Stats. 285.13(5) contains the 

provisions for WDNR to advise, consult, 

contract, and cooperate with other 

agencies of the state and local 

governments, industries, other states, 

interstate or inter-local agencies, the 

Federal government, and interested 

persons or groups during the entire 

process of SIP revision development 

and implementation and for other 

elements regarding air management for 

which WDNR is the officially charged 

agency. WDNR’s Bureau of Air 

Management has effectively used formal 

stakeholder structures in the 

development and refinement of all SIP 

revisions. Additionally, Wisconsin is an 

active member of the Lake Michigan Air 

Directors Consortium (LADCO), which 

provides technical assessments and a 

forum for discussion regarding air 

quality issues to member states. EPA 

proposes that Wisconsin has satisfied 

the infrastructure SIP requirements of 

this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with 

respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

2. Public Notification 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires 

states to notify the public if NAAQS are 

exceeded in an area and to enhance 

public awareness of measures that can 

be taken to prevent exceedances. WDNR 

maintains portions of its Web site 

specifically for issues related to the 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS.6 Information related to 

monitoring sites is found on 

Wisconsin’s Web site, as is the calendar 

for all public events and public hearings 

held in the state. EPA proposes that 

Wisconsin has met the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of this portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21690 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

3. PSD 

States must meet applicable 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

related to PSD. Wisconsin’s PSD 

program in the context of infrastructure 

SIPs has already been discussed in the 

paragraphs addressing section 

110(a)(2)(C) and (a)(2)(D)(i)(II). EPA will 

evaluate Wisconsin’s compliance with 

the various PSD and GHG infrastructure 

SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) 

in a separate rulemaking. 

4. Visibility Protection 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

states are subject to visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C of the CAA (which 

includes sections 169A and 169B). In 

the event of the establishment of a new 

NAAQS, the visibility and regional haze 

program requirements under part C do 

not change. Thus, we find that there is 

no new visibility obligation ‘‘triggered’’ 

under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new 

NAAQS becomes effective. However, as 

EPA discussed above in section D, 

Wisconsin has a fully approved regional 

haze plan. This plan also meets the 

visibility requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(J). EPA proposes that 

Wisconsin has satisfied the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of this 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with 

respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality 

Modeling/Data 

SIPs must provide for performing air 

quality modeling for predicting effects 

on air quality of emissions from any 

NAAQS pollutant and submission of 

such data to EPA upon request. 

WDNR maintains the capability to 

perform computer modeling of the air 

quality impacts of emissions of all 

criteria pollutants, including both 

source-oriented and more regionally 

directed complex photochemical grid 

models. WDNR collaborates with 

LADCO, EPA, and other Lake Michigan 

states in order to perform modeling. 

Wis. Stats. 285.11, Wis. Stats. 285.13, 

and Wis. Stats. 285.60–285.69 authorize 

WDNR to perform modeling. EPA 

proposes that Wisconsin has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting Fees 

This section requires SIPs to mandate 

each major stationary source to pay 

permitting fees to cover the cost of 

reviewing, approving, implementing, 

and enforcing a permit. 

WDNR implements and operates the 

title V permit program, which EPA 

approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 

62951). EPA approved revisions to the 

program on February 28, 2006 (71 FR 

9934). NR 410 contains the provisions, 

requirements, and structures associated 

with the costs for reviewing, approving, 

implementing, and enforcing various 

types of permits. EPA proposes that 

Wisconsin has met the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) 

for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. 

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/

Participation by Affected Local Entities 

States must consult with and allow 

participation from local political 

subdivisions affected by the SIP. 

In addition to the measures outlined 

in the paragraph addressing WDNR’s 

submittals regarding consultation 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), as 

contained in Wis. Stats. 285.13(5), the 

state follows a formal public hearing 

process in the development and 

adoption of all SIP revisions that entail 

new or revised control programs or 

strategies and targets. For SIP revisions 

covering more than one source, WDNR 

is required to provide the standing 

committees of the state legislature with 

jurisdiction over environmental matters 

with a 60 day review period to ensure 

that local entities have been properly 

engaged in the development process. 

EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met 

the infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve most 

elements of submissions from 

Wisconsin certifying that its current SIP 

is sufficient to meet the required 

infrastructure elements under section 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

EPA’s proposed actions for the state’s 

satisfaction of infrastructure SIP 

requirements, by element of section 

110(a)(2) and NAAQS, are contained in 

the table below. 

Element 2008 Ozone 2010 NO2 2010 SO2

(A)—Emission limits and other control measures .............................................................................. A A A 

(B)—Ambient air quality monitoring/data system ............................................................................... A A A 

(C)1—Program for enforcement of control measures ........................................................................ A A A 

(C)2—PSD .......................................................................................................................................... NA NA NA 

(D)1—I Prong 1: Interstate transport—significant contribution ........................................................... NA A NA

(D)2—I Prong 2: Interstate transport—interfere with maintenance .................................................... NA A NA 

(D)3—II Prong 3: Interstate transport—prevention of significant deterioration .................................. NA NA NA 

(D)4—II Prong 4: Interstate transport—protect visibility ..................................................................... A A A 

(D)5—Interstate and international pollution abatement ...................................................................... A A A 

(E)1—Adequate resources ................................................................................................................. A A A 

(E)2—State board requirements ......................................................................................................... NA NA NA 

(F)—Stationary source monitoring system ......................................................................................... A A A 

(G)—Emergency power ...................................................................................................................... A A A 

(H)—Future SIP revisions ................................................................................................................... A A A 

(I)—Nonattainment planning requirements of part D ......................................................................... NA NA NA 

(J)1—Consultation with government officials ..................................................................................... A A A 

(J)2—Public notification ...................................................................................................................... A A A 

(J)3—PSD ........................................................................................................................................... NA NA NA 

(J)4—Visibility protection .................................................................................................................... A A A 

(K)—Air quality modeling/data ............................................................................................................ A A A 

(L)—Permitting fees ............................................................................................................................ A A A 

(M)—Consultation and participation by affected local entities ........................................................... A A A 

In the above table, the key is as follows: 

A—Approve. 

NA—No Action/Separate Rulemaking. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 21691 

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 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 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, 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). 

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, Sulfur 

dioxide. 

Dated: April 2, 2015. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09051 Filed 4–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 136 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2014–0797; FRL–9926–38– 

OW] 

RIN 2040–AF48 

Clean Water Act Methods Update Rule 

for the Analysis of Effluent; Comment 

Extension 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of the 

public comment period. 

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) received requests for an 

extension of the period for providing 

comments on the proposed rule entitled, 

‘‘Clean Water Act Methods Update Rule 

for the Analysis of Effluent,’’ published 

in the Federal Register on February 19, 

2015. EPA extends the comment period 

in order to provide the public additional 

time to submit comments and 

supporting information. 

DATES: EPA extends the public comment 

period for the proposed rule published 

February 19, 2015, (80 FR 8956) to May 

20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the 

proposed rule may be submitted to the 

EPA electronically, by mail, by facsimile 

or through hand delivery/courier. Please 

refer to the proposal (80 FR 8956) for the 

addresses and detailed instructions. 

Docket. Publically available 

documents relevant to this action are 

available for public inspection either 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Water Docket in the EPA Docket 

Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Water Docket is (202) 566–2426. The 

EPA has established the official public 

docket No. EPA–HQ–OW–2014–0797. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adrian Hanley, Engineering and 

Analysis Division (4303T), Office of 

Water, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone: 

(202) 564–1564; email: hanley.adrian@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comment Period 

The EPA is extending the previously 

announced public-comment period. The 

public comment period will end on May 

20, 2015, rather than April 20, 2015. 

This will ensure that the public has 

sufficient time to review and comment 

on all of the information available, 

including the proposed rule and other 

materials in the docket. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 136 

Environmental protection, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Test 

procedures, Water pollution control. 

Dated: April 9, 2015. 

Kenneth J. Kopocis, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Water. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08890 Filed 4–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R01–RCRA–2015–0195; FRL–9926– 

53–Region 1] 

Vermont: Proposed Authorization of 

State Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant 

final authorization to the State of 

Vermont for changes to its hazardous 

waste program. In the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register we are authorizing the changes 

to the Vermont hazardous waste 

program under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

as a direct final rule without prior 

proposed rule. EPA has determined that 

these changes satisfy all requirements 

needed to qualify for final authorization. 

If we receive no adverse comment, we 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS