Please note that although the Petition for Reconsideration cites CAA 307(d)(7)(B) as the 

basis for the Petition, the provisions of CAA 307(d) apply only to those actions enumerated in 

CAA 307(d)(l). The action at issue in the Petition is neither listed under CAA 307(d)(l) nor 

determined to be subject to CAA 307(d) by EPA under CAA 307(d)(l)(V). Accordingly, EPA 

does not believe the Petition is properly brought under CAA 307(d)(7)(B). Instead, we believe 

the appropriate basis for the Petition is the general Administrative Procedure Act provision that 

permits interested parties to "petition for the issuance, amendment or repeal of a rule." 5 USC 

553(e). As a result, EPA is responding to the Petition as though it is based on this APA 

provision. 

Unlike CAA 307(d)(7)(B), the APA does not provide a standard for when reconsideration 

is appropriate.2 Previously, the Supreme Court explained that a question concerning 

' Hereinafter referred to in this letter as "Petition for Reconsideration" or "Petition". 

Under CAA 307(d)(7)(B), EPA shall convene a proceeding for reconsideration if (1) the 

person seeking reconsideration can demonstrate that it was impracticable to raise the objection 

supporting the request for reconsideration during the comment period, or if the grounds for the 

objection arose after the comment period, and (2) the objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule. 

Interne1 Address (URL) hltp://www.epa.gov 

RecycledlReeyclable Prlnled with \/egetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
the 2003 Presentation. We believe it was reasonable to rely on the 2006 Report to Legislature in 

the response to comments to address the 2003 Presentation because the 2006 Report was publicly 

available. 

Regarding the New York decision, EPA's response relied on the supplemental 

environmental analysis supporting the 2002 reform rules, which contained information sufficient 

to address the removal of the vacated components of those rules. EPA reviewed this aspect in 

response to the Petitioners' comments and found that the SEA'S overall findings and conclusions 

remained unchanged. Also, to further explore the assertions in the comments, we applied the 

SEA methodology to readily available information on the numbers and kinds of sources 

permitted in Wisconsin to quantify the effects of Wisconsin's SIP changes. An assessment of the 

Wisconsin's permitting data using the SEA methodology did not alter the findings and 

conclusions of the SEA. Finally, since the results of EPA's SEA analysis were specifically 

intended to respond to comments and were made available at the time of the final rulemaking, 

EPA believes its analysis was both responsive and timely. 

It is my understanding that EPA is not required to reopen the public comment process for 

the purpose of allowing opportunity for rebuttal of its responses to public comments. This is 

especially so in this instance where no substantive changes were made to the rule in response to 

public comments. Finally, regarding section 193, we note that the final rule reflects what EPA 
as noted previously, EPA applied the SEA methodology to the specifics of Wisconsin's permits 

program and concluded that reasonable further progress would not be hindered and the ban on 

"backsliding," if applicable3, would not be violated. EPA's analysis applying the SEA to the 

conditions in Wisconsin indicated a modest, but positive, impact resulting primarily from the 

addition of plant-wide applicability limits. EPA's experience has pointed to improvements in 

overall control when such limits are implemented. The information in the record indicates that 

categories of sources commonly permitted in Wisconsin can benefit from implementing plantwide limits, which will provide improved air quality, albeit in a modest amount. The Petition 

notes that use of these limits is voluntary. However, EPA believes that sources have the 

incentive to use plant-wide limits and that the SEA approach derives from real-world experience 

with their application. EPA also noted that the 2006 Report to Legislature included information 

that adoption of changes to the Michigan SIP mirroring those approved for Wisconsin did not 

result in any of the negative outcomes raised in the Petition. 

Our notice approving the SIP change also concluded that, because of the date referenced in the 

quoted section of the Act, section 193 is not applicable.