Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23757 

should be submitted to the docket, as 

described above, by June 27, 2011. The 

CASAC consultation on these planning 

documents is scheduled for May 19–20, 

2011. A separate Federal Register notice 

will provide details about this meeting 

and the process for participation. 

Dated: April 25, 2011. 

Mary Henigin, 

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2011–10340 Filed 4–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2007–1179; FRL–9299–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 

1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

some elements and conditionally 

approve other elements of certifications 

submitted by Illinois, Indiana, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin regarding the infrastructure 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 

1997 eight-hour ground level ozone 

national ambient air quality standards 

(1997 ozone NAAQS) and 1997 fine 

particle national ambient air quality 

standards (1997 PM2.5 NAAQS). The 

requirements are designed to ensure that 

the 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 31, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2007–1179, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2551. 

4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, 

Chief, 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–2007–1179. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

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 http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the U.S. 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 Andy Chang, 

Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886– 

0258 before visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0258, 

chang.andy@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 

submittals? 

A. What State submittals does this 

rulemaking address? 

B. Why did the States make these 

submittals? 

III. What criteria is EPA using to judge these 

submittals? 

IV. What did EPA find from its review of 

these submittals? 

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission Limits 

and Other Control Measures 

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air 

Quality Monitoring/Data System 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for 

Enforcement of Control Measures 

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate 

Transport 

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate 

Resources 

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary Source 

Monitoring System 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency Power 

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP 

Revisions 

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

Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part D 

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation With 

Government Officials; Public 

Notifications; Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration; Visibility Protection 

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality 

Modeling/Data 

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

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/ 

Participation by Affected Local Entities 

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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

23758 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1See, e.g., Whitman v. American Trucking 

Associations, Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001). 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is the background of these 

submittals? 

A. What State submittals does this 

rulemaking address? 

This rulemaking addresses State 

submittals from each State (and 

appropriate State agency) in EPA Region 

5: Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency (Illinois EPA); Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM); Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ); Minnesota Pollution Control 

Agency (MPCA); Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency (Ohio EPA); and 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources Bureau of Air Management 

(WDNR). Each State made submittals on 

the following dates: Illinois—December 

12, 2007; Indiana—December 7, 2007, 

and supplemented on September 19, 

2008, March 23, 2011, and April 7, 

2011; Michigan—December 6, 2007, and 

supplemented on September 19, 2008 

and April 6, 2011; Minnesota— 

November 29, 2007; Ohio—December 5, 

2007, and supplemented on April 7, 

2011; and, Wisconsin—December 12, 

2007, and supplemented on January 24, 

2011 and March 28, 2011. 

B. Why did the States make these 

submittals? 

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

CAA, and implementing EPA policy, the 

States were required to submit either 

revisions to their State Implementation 

Plans (SIPs) that provide for 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the 1997 standards, or 

certifications that their existing SIPs for 

ozone and particulate matter already 

met those requirements. In accordance 

with an October 2, 2007 ‘‘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’’ (1997 Infrastructure 

Memo), the submittals meeting the 

requirements were to be submitted to 

EPA within three years after 

promulgation of the revised standards. 

As the guidance acknowledged, July 16, 

2000 was the initial due date; however, 

intervening litigation over the 1997 

ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS created 

uncertainty about how States were to 

proceed.1 In subsequent consent decrees 

with Earth Justice, EPA agreed to make 

official findings on whether the States 

had made SIP submissions to satisfy the 

CAA requirements by specified dates. 

SIPs intended to satisfy the 

infrastructure elements for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS were due on December 

15, 2007; SIPs intended to satisfy the 

infrastructure elements for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS were due on October 15, 

2008. The certifications referenced in 

this rulemaking pertain to the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the CAA. The six State submittals 

being evaluated here address both ozone 

and PM2.5, and the proposed rulemaking 

addresses both pollutants as well. 

III. What criteria is EPA using to judge 

these submittals? 

EPA discussed the applicable review 

criteria in the 1997 Infrastructure 

Memo. Specifically, Attachment A of 

this memorandum (Required Section 

110 SIP Elements) identified criteria for 

the States to meet in order to satisfy 

these sections of the CAA. On 

September 25, 2009, EPA issued an 

updated guidance document pertaining 

to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

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

2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)’’ (2006 Infrastructure Memo), 

which clarifies expectations for certain 

elements to meet the requirements of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA 

under the new NAAQS. Where possible 

and appropriate, EPA will reference the 

guidance contained in the 2006 

Infrastructure Memo as it pertains to the 

States’ submittals. 

In this proposed rulemaking, EPA is 

not acting on portions of section 

110(a)(2)(C)—Program for enforcement 

of control measures; section 

110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate transport; and 

section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation with 

government officials, public 

notifications, prevention of significant 

deterioration, and visibility protection. 

In addition, EPA is not acting on section 

110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment Area Plan 

or Plan Revisions Under Part D, in its 

entirety. The rationale for not acting on 

elements of these requirements is 

discussed below. 

IV. What did EPA find from its review 

of these submittals? 

The six States in Region 5 have 

certified that they meet the applicable 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2) without further revisions to 

their respective SIPs. Therefore, 

consistent with the 2006 Infrastructure 

Memo, no public hearing process was 

necessary at the State level. 

Nevertheless, EPA believes that the 

public will have the opportunity to 

review each certification through our 

notice-and-comment rulemaking 

process. Illinois EPA, IDEM, MDEQ, 

MPCA, Ohio EPA, and WDNR provided 

detailed synopses of how various 

components of their respective air 

quality management programs meet 

each of the requirements in section 

110(a)(2). The following review 

evaluates the six States’ submittals. 

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. The specific 

nonattainment area plan requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(I) are subject to the 

timing requirements of section 172, not 

the timing requirement of section 

110(a)(1). Section 110(a)(2)(A) does not 

require that States submit regulations or 

emissions limits specifically for 

attaining either the 1997 ozone or PM2.5

NAAQS. Those regulations are due as 

part of each State’s attainment 

demonstration, and will be addressed 

separately from the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(A). 

The Illinois Environmental Protection 

Act is contained in chapter 415, section 

5, of the Illinois Compiled Statutes (415 

ILCS 5). 415 ILCS 5/4 provides the 

Director of Illinois EPA with the 

authority to develop rules and 

regulations necessary to meet ambient 

air quality standards. Additionally, the 

Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) 

was created under 415 ILCS 5, and has 

the authority to develop rules and 

regulations necessary to promote the 

purposes of the Illinois Environmental 

Protection Act. Furthermore, the IPCB 

ensures compliance with required laws 

and other elements of the State’s 

attainment plan that are necessary to 

attain the NAAQS, and to comply with 

the requirements of the CAA. (415 ILCS 

5/10) EPA concludes that Illinois has 

met the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23759 

IDEM’s authority to adopt emissions 

standards and compliance schedules is 

found at Indiana Code (IC) 13–14–8, IC 

13–17–3–4, IC 13–17–3–11, and IC 13– 

17–3–14. EPA concludes that Indiana 

has met the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The Michigan Natural Resources and 

Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 

451, as amended (Act 451), sections 

324.5503 and 324.5512, provide the 

Director of MDEQ the authority to 

regulate the discharge of air pollutants, 

and to promulgate rules to establish 

standards for emissions for ambient air 

quality and for emissions. EPA 

concludes that Michigan has met the 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Minnesota Statute chapter 116.07 

gives MPCA the authority to ‘‘[a]dopt, 

amend, and rescind rules and standards 

having the force of law relating to any 

purpose * * * for the prevention, 

abatement, or control of air pollution.’’ 

EPA concludes that Minnesota has met 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 3704.03 

provides the Director of Ohio EPA with 

the authority to develop rules and 

regulations necessary to meet State and 

Federal ambient air quality standards. 

EPA concludes that Ohio has met the 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Wisconsin Statutes (WS) chapter 

285.11 through WS chapter 285.19 

establishes general authority for 

monitoring, updating, and 

implementing necessary revisions to the 

Wisconsin SIP. EPA concludes that 

Wisconsin has met the requirements of 

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

1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

A number of States have provisions 

regarding excess emissions during 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction 

(SSM) which are contrary to the CAA 

and existing EPA guidance, including a 

September 20, 1999 memorandum 

entitled, ‘‘State Implementation Plans: 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions 

During Malfunction, Startup, and 

Shutdown.’’ As a result, in this 

rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing 

State provisions with regard to excess 

emissions during SSM of operations at 

facilities. EPA plans to address such 

State regulations in the future. In the 

meantime, EPA encourages any State 

having a deficient SSM provision to take 

steps to correct it as soon as possible. 

In the same manner, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing State rules with regard to socalled ‘‘Director’s discretion’’ or variance 

provisions. EPA believes that a number 

of States have such provisions which 

are contrary to the CAA existing EPA 

guidance (52 FR 45109) issued on 

November 24, 1987. EPA plans to take 

action in the future to address such 

State regulations. In the meantime, EPA 

encourages any State having a Director’s 

discretion or variance provision which 

is contrary to the CAA and EPA 

guidance to take steps to correct the 

deficiency as soon as possible. 

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. EPA has determined that in 

order to meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(B), each State should: 

Submit an annual monitoring plan for 

the relevant NAAQS, and have this plan 

approved by EPA; monitor air quality 

for the relevant pollutant at appropriate 

locations throughout the State using 

EPA-approved Federal Reference 

Methods or Federal Equivalent Method 

monitors; submit data to EPA’s Air 

Quality System (AQS) in a timely 

manner; and, provide EPA Regional 

Offices with prior notification of any 

planned changes to monitoring sites or 

the network plan. 

Illinois EPA continues to operate an 

extensive monitoring network 

incorporating more than 300 monitors 

throughout the State. Illinois EPA also 

publishes an annual report that 

summarizes air quality trends. 

Furthermore, Illinois EPA submits 

yearly monitoring network plans to 

EPA, and the 2011 Annual Air 

Monitoring Network Plan was approved 

by EPA on October 29, 2010. Monitoring 

data from Illinois EPA is entered into 

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 

concludes that Illinois has met the 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

IDEM continues to operate an air 

monitoring network; the State’s 2011 

Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan 

was approved by EPA on October 29, 

2010. Monitoring data from IDEM are 

entered into 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 concludes that Indiana 

has met the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

MDEQ maintains a comprehensive 

network of air quality monitors 

throughout Michigan. MDEQ’s 2011 

Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan 

was approved by EPA on October 29, 

2010. MDEQ enters air monitoring data 

into AQS, and the State provides EPA 

with prior notification when changes to 

its monitoring network or plan are being 

considered. EPA concludes that 

Michigan has met the requirements of 

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

1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

MPCA continues to operate an 

ambient pollutant monitoring network, 

and compiles and reports air quality 

data to EPA. MPCA’s 2011 Annual Air 

Monitoring Network Plan was approved 

by EPA on October 29, 2010. MPCA also 

provides prior notification to EPA when 

changes to its monitoring network or 

plan are being considered. EPA 

concludes that Minnesota has met the 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Ohio EPA continues to operate a 

monitoring network; the State’s 2011 

Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan 

was approved by EPA on December 2, 

2010. Furthermore, Ohio EPA populates 

AQS with air quality monitoring data in 

a timely manner, and provides EPA 

with prior notification when 

considering a change to its monitoring 

network or plan. EPA concludes that 

Ohio has met the requirements of 

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

1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

WDNR continues to operate an 

extensive monitoring network; the 

State’s 2011 Annual Air Monitoring 

Network Plan was approved by EPA on 

December 21, 2010. WDNR enters air 

quality data into AQS in a timely 

manner, and gives EPA prior 

notification when considering a change 

to its monitoring network or plan. EPA 

concludes that Wisconsin has met the 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—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 the 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) and nonattainment new source 

review (NNSR) programs. Part C of the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

23760 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

2PM10 refers to particles with diameters between 

2.5 and 10 microns, oftentimes referred to as 

‘‘coarse’’ particles. Coarse particles are frequently 

the result from crushing or grinding operations, and 

can come from dust on paved or unpaved roads as 

well. 

CAA (sections 160–169B) addresses 

PSD, while part D of the CAA (sections 

171–193) addresses NNSR requirements. 

The evaluation of the Region 5 States’ 

certifications addressing the 

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

covers: Enforcement of SIP measures; 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as a precursor 

to ozone in the PSD program; PM10 2 as 

a surrogate for PM2.5 in the PSD 

program; NSR Reform; Greenhouse gas 

(GHG) permitting and the ‘‘tailoring 

rule’’; and, minor NSR regulations. 

Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP 

Measures 

Illinois continues to staff and 

implement an enforcement program 

comprised, and operated by, the 

Compliance Section and Division of 

Legal Counsel. 415 ILCS 5/4 provides 

the Director of Illinois EPA with the 

authority to implement and administer 

this enforcement program. Furthermore, 

Illinois EPA has confirmed that all 

enforcement actions are brought by the 

Office of the Illinois Attorney General or 

local State’s Attorney offices, with 

whom Illinois EPA consults. EPA 

concludes that Illinois has met the 

enforcement of SIP measures 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

IDEM maintains an enforcement 

program to ensure compliance with SIP 

requirements. IC 13–14–1–12 provides 

the Commissioner with the authority to 

enforce rules ‘‘consistent with the 

purpose of the air pollution control 

laws.’’ Additionally, IC 13–14–2–7 and 

IC 13–17–3–3 provide the 

Commissioner with the authority to 

assess civil penalties and obtain 

compliance with any applicable rule a 

board has adopted in order to enforce 

air pollution control laws. Lastly, IC 13– 

14–10–2 allows for an emergency 

restraining order that prevents any 

person from causing, or introducing 

contaminants, that cause or contribute 

to air pollution. EPA concludes that 

Indiana has met the enforcement of SIP 

measures requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

MDEQ continues to staff and 

implement an enforcement program to 

assure compliance with all requirements 

under State law, consistent with the 

provisions of Act 451. Additionally, this 

air quality enforcement unit provides 

support and technical assistance to 

Michigan’s Attorney General on all air 

pollution enforcement issues referred by 

MDEQ’s Air Quality Division for 

escalated enforcement action. Lastly, the 

air quality enforcement unit at MDEQ 

coordinates formal administrative 

actions such as contested case hearings, 

administrative complaints, and 

revocation of permits to install. 

Therefore, EPA concludes that Michigan 

has met the enforcement of SIP 

measures requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Minnesota Statute chapter 116.07 

gives the MPCA the authority to enforce 

any provisions of the chapter relating to 

air contamination. These provisions 

include: entering into orders; schedules 

of compliance; stipulation agreements; 

requiring owners or operators of 

emissions facilities to install and 

operate monitoring equipment; and 

conducting investigations. EPA 

concludes that Minnesota has met the 

enforcement of SIP measures 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Ohio EPA continues to staff and 

implement an enforcement program. 

ORC 3704.03 provides the Director of 

Ohio EPA with the authority to continue 

to implement the enforcement program 

as well as the updated NSR provisions 

within Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 

3745–31. Ohio EPA compiles all air 

pollution control enforcement 

settlements in the State, and makes 

them available for public review on its 

Web site. EPA concludes that Ohio has 

met the enforcement of SIP measures 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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 most actions to the 

Wisconsin Department of Justice with 

the strong involvement of WDNR. Under 

WS chapter 285.13, the agency has the 

authority to impose fees and penalties to 

ensure that required measures are 

ultimately implemented. EPA concludes 

that Wisconsin has met the enforcement 

of SIP measures requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 2: NOX as a Precursor to 

Ozone in the PSD Program 

Each State’s PSD program must 

include NOX as a precursor to ozone in 

order for this sub-element to be 

approvable. This requirement was 

contained in the November 29, 2005 

final rule to implement the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS (see 70 FR 71699), and 

codified at 40 CFR 52.21. Furthermore, 

EPA has determined that the analyses of 

each State’s PSD program must be 

holistic; if a State lacks provisions 

needed to address NOX as a precursor to 

ozone, the provisions of section 110(a) 

requiring a suitable permitting program 

must be considered not to be met 

irrespective of the pollutant being 

addressed. 

Illinois and Minnesota have not 

adopted or submitted regulations for 

PSD, although Federally promulgated 

rules for this purpose are in effect in 

these two States, promulgated at 40 CFR 

52.21. EPA has currently delegated the 

authority to implement these 

regulations to Illinois and Minnesota. 

These Federally promulgated rules 

include provisions establishing NOX as 

a precursor to ozone. While EPA 

acknowledges that the States have not 

satisfied the requirement for a SIP 

submittal, they have no further 

obligations because EPA believes that 

the plans for Illinois and Minnesota, 

specifically including the Federally 

promulgated PSD regulations, meet this 

set of requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Indiana’s PSD regulations were 

conditionally approved by EPA on 

March 3, 2003 (68 FR 9892), and fully 

approved on May 20, 2004 (69 FR 

29071). These regulations contain 

provisions establishing NOX as a 

precursor to ozone. Therefore, EPA 

concludes that Indiana has met this set 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Michigan’s PSD regulations were 

conditionally approved by EPA on 

September 16, 2008 (73 FR 53366), and 

fully approved by EPA on March 25, 

2010 (75 FR 14352). These regulations 

contain provisions establishing NOX as 

a precursor to ozone. Therefore, EPA 

concludes that Michigan has met this 

set of requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA conditionally approved Ohio 

EPA’s PSD regulations on October 10, 

2001 (66 FR 51570), and fully approved 

by EPA on January 22, 2003 (68 FR 

2909). These regulations contain 

provisions establishing NOX as a 

precursor to ozone. Therefore, EPA 

concludes that Ohio has met this set of 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA approved Wisconsin’s PSD rules 

on May 27, 1999 (64 FR 28745). These 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23761 

3http://www.epa.gov/reg5oair/permits/const/frnnsr.html. 4http://www.epa.gov/NSR/actions.html#2010. 

regulations contain provisions 

establishing NOX as a precursor to 

ozone. Therefore, EPA finds that 

Wisconsin has met this set of 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 3: PM10 as a Surrogate for 

PM2.5 in the PSD Program 

On October 23, 1997, EPA issued a 

policy allowing PM10 emissions to be 

used as a surrogate for PM2.5 emissions 

in the PSD program. This policy was 

issued by the Director of the Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

and entitled, ‘‘Interim Implementation of 

New Source Review for PM2.5.’’ At that 

time, EPA’s justification for using PM10

as a surrogate for PM2.5 was that 

permitting authorities were not able to 

accurately calculate emissions of PM2.5

and related precursors or to predict 

PM2.5 ambient air quality impacts from 

projects. On May 16, 2008 (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),’’ which ended the PM10

surrogate policy, and confirmed that 

States wanting to submit PSD program 

regulations for EPA approval would 

need to evaluate PM2.5 emissions rather 

than PM10. The deadline for States to 

submit revised PSD regulations 

addressing PM2.5 emissions is May 16, 

2011; in the interim, States may still use 

the PM10 surrogate policy. Furthermore, 

EPA has determined that the evaluation 

of the PSD program must be holistic; if 

States do not submit amendments that 

evaluate direct PM2.5 emissions by May 

16, 2011, EPA would consider the PSD 

requirements under section 110(a) 

unmet, irrespective of the pollutant for 

which EPA is evaluating the satisfaction 

of section 110(a). 

Illinois and Minnesota have not 

adopted or submitted regulations for 

PSD, although Federally promulgated 

rules for this purpose are in effect in 

these two States, promulgated at 40 CFR 

52.21. EPA has currently delegated the 

authority to implement these 

regulations to Illinois and Minnesota. 

These Federally promulgated rules 

require that States evaluate PM2.5

emissions in the PSD program. While 

EPA acknowledges that the States have 

not satisfied the requirement for a SIP 

submittal, they have no further 

obligations because EPA believes that 

the plans for Illinois and Minnesota, 

specifically including the Federally 

promulgated PSD regulations, meet this 

set of requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan do not 

currently have the evaluation of PM2.5

emissions adopted into their respective 

State regulations. The May 16, 2011 

deadline for submitting revisions to 

their respective SIPs addressing the 

direct evaluation of PM2.5 and its 

precursors may pass prior to final action 

of these infrastructure SIPs. As a result, 

EPA has determined that so long as 

States provide a formal commitment to 

submit the requisite PM2.5 revisions for 

SIP approval not later than one year 

after final action of these infrastructure 

SIPs, we can propose a conditional 

approval for Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, 

and Wisconsin with respect to this set 

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

EPA received formal commitments 

from IDEM (March 23, 2011), Ohio EPA 

(April 7, 2011), and MDEQ (April 6, 

2011) affirming that each State will 

submit revisions to the SIP 

incorporating the direct evaluation of 

PM2.5 and its precursors within one year 

of our final action of these infrastructure 

SIPs. Therefore, EPA proposes to 

conditionally approve the plans for 

Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan addressing 

this set of requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

If, however, Indiana, Ohio and 

Michigan do not submit revisions to 

their respective SIPs incorporating the 

direct evaluation of PM2.5 and its 

precursors within one year of final 

action on these infrastructure SIPs, the 

conditional approval will automatically 

revert to disapproval with respect to this 

set of requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In a March 28, 2011 letter from 

Wisconsin’s Director of the Bureau of 

Air Management, WDNR informed EPA 

that current State rules provide for NSR 

permitting for PM2.5 without the use of 

the PM10 surrogate policy. EPA therefore 

concludes that Wisconsin has met this 

set of requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 4: NSR Reform 

In this action, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any State rules 

with regard to NSR reform requirements 

(see 67 FR 80186). EPA has acted on 

NSR reform submittals from Region 5 

States through earlier separate 

rulemakings.3 For the purpose of this 

action, ‘‘NSR reform’’ applies to major 

NSR only. 

Sub-Element 5: GHG Permitting and the 

‘‘Tailoring Rule’’ 

On June 3, 2010, EPA issued a final 

rule establishing a ‘‘common sense’’ 

approach to addressing GHG emissions 

from stationary sources under the CAA 

permitting programs. The ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule,’’ or 

‘‘tailoring rule,’’ set thresholds for GHG 

emissions that define when permits 

under the NSR PSD and title V 

operating permit programs are required 

for new and existing industrial facilities 

(75 FR 31514). The tailoring rule set the 

GHG PSD applicability threshold at 

75,000 tons per year (tpy) as expressed 

in carbon dioxide equivalent; if States 

have not adopted this threshold, sources 

with GHG emissions above 100 tpy or 

250 tpy (depending on source category) 

would be subject to PSD, effective 

January 2, 2011. The lower thresholds 

could potentially result in apartment 

complexes, strip malls, small farms, 

restaurants, etc. triggering GHG PSD 

requirements. 

On December 23, 2010, EPA issued a 

subsequent series of rules that put the 

necessary framework in place to ensure 

that industrial facilities can get CAA 

permits covering their GHG emissions 

when needed, and that facilities 

emitting GHGs at levels below those 

established in the tailoring rule do not 

need to obtain CAA permits.4 Included 

in this series of rules was EPA’s 

issuance of the ‘‘Limitation of Approval 

of Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Provisions Concerning 

Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans,’’ referred to 

as the PSD SIP ‘‘narrowing rule’’ on 

December 30, 2010 (75 FR 82536). The 

narrowing rule limits, or ‘‘narrows,’’ 

EPA’s previous approval of PSD 

programs that were previously approved 

into SIPs; the programs in question are 

those that apply PSD to sources that 

emit GHG. Specifically, the effect of the 

narrowing rule is that provisions that 

are no longer approved—e.g., portions 

of already approved SIPs that apply PSD 

to GHG emissions increases from 

sources emitting GHG below the 

tailoring rule thresholds—now have the 

status of having been submitted by the 

State but not yet acted upon by EPA. In 

other words, the narrowing rule focuses 

on eliminating the PSD obligations 

under Federal law for sources below the 

tailoring rule thresholds. 

EPA has found that the six Region 5 

States and their respective PSD 

programs fall into three distinct 

categories: States that have not adopted 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

23762 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

5Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that States have the 

resources to administer an air quality management 

program. Some States that are not covered by the 

narrowing rule may not be able to adequately 

demonstrate that they have adequate personnel to 

issue GHG permits to all sources that emit GHG 

under the tailoring rule thresholds. 

6Letter from the Director of MDEQ to EPA Region 

5 Regional Administrator dated July 27, 2010. 

7See ‘‘Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 

Ozone; Proposed Rule,’’ 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 

2010). 

or submitted any regulations for PSD; 

States that have a previously approved 

PSD program that predates both the 

tailoring rule and the narrowing rule; 

and, a State that has submitted 

certifications of PSD program with GHG 

permitting applicability consistent with 

the tailoring rule thresholds. Each 

Region 5 State’s status with respect to 

its GHG PSD program, as well as EPA’s 

proposed actions, is discussed below. 

Illinois and Minnesota have not 

adopted or submitted regulations for 

PSD, although Federally promulgated 

rules for this purpose are in effect in 

these two States, promulgated at 40 CFR 

52.21. EPA has currently delegated the 

authority to implement these 

regulations to Illinois and Minnesota. 

These Federally promulgated rules 

contain the threshold as outlined in the 

tailoring rule. While EPA acknowledges 

that the States have not satisfied the 

requirement for a SIP submittal, they 

have no further obligations because EPA 

believes that the plans for Illinois and 

Minnesota, specifically including the 

Federally promulgated PSD regulations, 

meet this set of requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) and (E) 5 with respect to the 

1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The States of Indiana, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin have the legal authority 

under their approved PSD SIPs to 

regulate GHGs as part of their PSD 

permitting programs. In the PSD SIP 

narrowing rule, EPA narrowed its 

previous approval of these States’ PSD 

programs to ensure that the Federally 

approved PSD programs in these three 

States only require PSD permitting of 

sources emitting GHG at or above the 

thresholds established in the tailoring 

rule. 

As noted above, EPA received the 

infrastructure SIP submittals from these 

three States in December 2007, before 

EPA identified GHG as a regulated 

pollutant and before EPA promulgated 

the Tailoring Rule. On April 7, 2011, 

Indiana and Ohio transmitted letters 

clarifying to EPA that their respective 

submissions, currently before EPA for 

our review, include only those parts of 

their PSD SIPs that remain approved 

after the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule. 

Wisconsin transmitted a similar letter 

on March 28, 2011. Thus, the GHG PSD 

permitting requirements included in 

these three States’ infrastructure SIP 

submittals consist of only those portions 

of their PSD SIP programs that apply 

PSD permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions at or above tailoring rule 

thresholds. Therefore, EPA concludes 

that the GHG PSD permitting program in 

Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin have met 

this set of requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(C) and (E) for both the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On July 27, 2010, Michigan informed 

EPA that the State has both the legal and 

regulatory authority, as well as the 

resources, to permit GHG under its SIPapproved PSD permitting program, 

consistent with the thresholds laid out 

in the tailoring rule.6 Therefore, EPA 

concludes that Michigan’s GHG PSD 

permitting program has met this set of 

requirements requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(C) and (E) for both the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 6: Minor NSR Regulations 

EPA has provided States with a broad 

degree of discretion in implementing 

their programs for review of minor new 

sources (minor NSR), as reflected in the 

less detailed regulations for minor NSR 

outlined in 40 CFR 51.160 to 40 CFR 

51.164. 

EPA previously approved each Region 

5 State’s minor NSR program into the 

SIP, including provisions that 

adequately address the emissions of 

PM2.5. EPA approvals for each State’s 

minor NSR program occurred on: 

Illinois—May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10862); 

Indiana—October 7, 1994 (59 FR 51108); 

Michigan—May 6, 1980 (45 FR 29790); 

Minnesota—May 24, 1995 (60 FR 

27411); Ohio—January 22, 2003 (68 FR 

2909); and, Wisconsin—February 17, 

1995 (60 FR 3543). Since the date of 

each approval, each Region 5 State 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 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. In this action, EPA 

concludes that Illinois, Indiana, 

Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota, and 

Wisconsin have met this set of 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Various sub-elements in this section 

overlap with elements of section 

110(a)(2)(E) and section 110(a)(2)(J). 

These links will be discussed in the 

appropriate areas below. 

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate 

Transport 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(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. Furthermore, 

this section requires SIPs to 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 address 

regional haze. 

EPA is not acting on any of the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

The requirements that States have 

provisions prohibiting any source or 

other type of emissions activity in that 

State from contributing significantly to 

nonattainment, or interfering with 

maintenance, of the NAAQS in another 

State are being addressed by a new rule 

pertaining to interstate transport which 

EPA proposed on August 2, 2010, 

entitled the ‘‘Federal Implementation 

Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of 

Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone’’ 

(Transport Rule).7 PSD requirements 

have been addressed in the analysis of 

section 110(a)(2)(C), and visibility 

requirements will be addressed in the 

analysis of section 110(a)(2)(J). Again, in 

the context of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 

EPA is not taking action on the 

requirements for PSD and visibility 

protection. 

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

SIP to contain adequate provisions 

requiring compliance with the 

applicable requirements of section 126 

and 115 (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. 

While Illinois and Minnesota have not 

adopted or submitted regulations for 

PSD, Federally promulgated rules for 

this purpose are in effect in each of the 

States, promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21. 

EPA has currently delegated the 

authority to implement these 

regulations to Illinois and Minnesota. 

These Federally promulgated rules 

contain provisions requiring new or 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23763 

modified sources to notify neighboring 

States of potential negative air quality 

impacts. While EPA acknowledges that 

the States have not satisfied the 

requirements of a SIP submittal, they 

have no further obligations because EPA 

believes that the plans from Illinois and 

Minnesota, specifically including the 

Federally promulgated PSD regulations, 

meet this set of requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D) with respect to the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin have provisions in their 

respective EPA-approved PSD programs 

requiring new or modified sources to 

notify neighboring States of potential 

negative air quality impacts. EPA 

concludes that Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, 

and Wisconsin have met the 

requirements of section 126(a) with 

respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. 

None of the Region 5 States have 

pending obligations under any other 

section of section 126, nor do any of the 

Region 5 States have any obligations 

under section 115. Therefore, EPA finds 

that all States in Region 5 have met the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate 

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. 

Illinois Public Act 95–0348, Article 

215 provides appropriations for the 

Illinois EPA Bureau of Air Programs and 

associated personnel. As discussed in 

previous sections, Illinois EPA has 

affirmed that 415 ILCS 5/4 and 415 ILCS 

5/10 provide the Director, in 

conjunction with IPCB, with the 

authority to develop rules and 

regulations necessary to meet ambient 

air quality standards and respond to any 

EPA findings of inadequacy with the 

Illinois SIP program. Lastly, IPCB 

ensures compliance with required laws 

or elements of the State’s attainment 

plan that are necessary to attain the 

NAAQS, or that are necessary to comply 

with the requirements of the CAA. EPA 

concludes that Illinois has met the 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Indiana’s biennial budget sets funding 

and personnel levels for IDEM every 

two years. As discussed in earlier 

sections, IC 13–14–1–12 provides the 

Commissioner of IDEM with the 

authority to enforce air pollution control 

laws. Furthermore, IC 13–14–8, IC 13– 

17–3–11, and IC 13–17–3–14 contain 

the authority for IDEM to adopt air 

emissions standards and compliance 

schedules. EPA concludes that Indiana 

has met the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Michigan’s budget ensures that EPA 

grant funds as well as State funding 

appropriations are sufficient to 

administer its air quality management 

program, and MDEQ has routinely 

demonstrated that it retains adequate 

personnel to carry out the duties of this 

program. Furthermore, Act 451 provides 

the legal authority under State law to 

carry out the Michigan SIP. EPA 

concludes that Michigan has met the 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Although MPCA did not expressly 

address this section, EPA recognizes 

that the State’s budget has been, and is, 

adequate for administering its air 

quality management program. MPCA 

has routinely demonstrated that it 

retains adequate personnel to carry out 

the duties of this program. EPA also 

notes that Minnesota Statue chapter 

116.07 provides the legal authority 

under State law to carry out the SIP. 

EPA concludes that Minnesota has met 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E) 

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Ohio EPA has included its biennial 

budget with its submittal, which details 

the funding sources and program 

priorities addressing the required SIP 

programs. Ohio EPA has routinely 

demonstrated that it retains adequate 

personnel to administer its air quality 

management program. As discussed in 

previous sections, ORC 3704.03 

provides the legal authority under State 

law to carry out the SIP. EPA concludes 

that Ohio has met the requirements of 

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

1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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. As discussed in 

previous sections, basic duties and 

authorities in the State are outlined in 

WS chapter 285.11. EPA concludes that 

Wisconsin has met the requirements of 

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

1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

As noted above in the discussion 

addressing section 110(a)(2)(C), the 

resources needed to permit all sources 

emitting more than 100 tpy or 250 tpy 

(as applicable) of GHG would require 

more resources than any Region 5 State 

appears to have. This is not a concern 

in Illinois and Minnesota, because PSD 

permitting for GHGs is based on 

Federally promulgated PSD rules that 

‘‘tailor’’ the applicability to 75,000 tons 

per year (expressed as carbon dioxide 

equivalent). 

Given the effect of EPA’s narrowing 

rule to provide that approved SIPs for 

Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin do not 

involve permitting GHG sources smaller 

than the tailoring rule thresholds, EPA 

concludes that these States also have the 

resources necessary to implement the 

requirements of their respective SIPs. 

As previously discussed, Michigan’s 

PSD regulations provide the State with 

adequate resources to permit GHG 

consistent with the tailoring rule 

thresholds; therefore, EPA concludes 

that Michigan retains all the resources 

necessary to implement the 

requirements of its SIP. 

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 period 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. 

Illinois EPA requires regulated 

sources to submit various reports, 

dependent on applicable requirements 

and the type of permit issued to the 

source. These reports are submitted to 

the Bureau of Air’s Compliance Unit for 

review, and all reasonable efforts are 

made by Illinois EPA to maximize the 

effectiveness of available resources to 

review the required reports. EPA 

concludes that Illinois has satisfied the 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The Indiana State rules for monitoring 

requirements are contained in 326 

Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 3. 

Additional emissions reporting 

requirements are found in 326 IAC 2–6. 

EPA concludes that Indiana has 

satisfied the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

23764 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Michigan Administrative Code (MAC) 

R336.2001 to R336.2004 provide 

requirements for performance testing 

and sampling. MAC R336.2101 to 

R336.2199 provide requirements for 

continuous emission monitoring, and 

MAC R336.201 and R336.202 require 

annual reporting of emissions. EPA 

concludes that Michigan has met the 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Under Minnesota State air quality 

rules, any NAAQS is an applicable 

requirement for stationary sources. 

Minnesota’s monitoring rules have been 

previously approved by EPA and are 

contained in Chapter 7011 of 

Minnesota’s SIP. EPA concludes that 

Minnesota has met the requirements of 

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

1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Ohio EPA district offices and local air 

agencies are currently required to 

witness 50% of all source testing and 

review 100% of all tests. EPA recognizes 

that Ohio has routinely submitted 

quality assured analyses and data for 

publication. Furthermore, requirements 

for continuous emissions monitoring 

under 40 CFR part 51, Appendix P are 

contained in OAC 3745–17–03(c). EPA 

concludes that Ohio has met the 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Wisconsin DNR 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 Wisconsin Administrative Code 

NR 438 and Wisconsin Administrative 

Code NR 439. Additionally, WDNR 

routinely submits quality assured 

analyses and data obtained from its 

stationary source monitoring system for 

review and publication. EPA concludes 

Wisconsin has met the requirements of 

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

1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency 

Power 

EPA is currently in the process of 

promulgating new guidance providing 

values that we would recommend for 

defining emergency episodes for PM2.5. 

Subsequent to the December 2007 

submittals, EPA has provided guidance 

regarding PM2.5 emergency episode 

planning. This guidance was provided 

in Attachment B of a memorandum 

dated September 25, 2009, from the 

Director of the Air Quality Policy 

Division to the Regional Air Division 

Directors. In accordance with this 

guidance, EPA believes that where a 

State can demonstrate that PM2.5 levels 

have consistently remained below 140.4 

micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), 

provided the State has appropriate 

general emergency powers to address 

PM2.5 related episodes, the State may 

satisfy section 110(a)(2)(G) without 

necessarily providing for specific 

emergency episode plans or contingency 

measures for PM2.5. 

On January 11, 2011, Illinois EPA 

confirmed that all monitored values of 

PM2.5 have been well below 140.4 μg/m3

at all sites in Illinois, and therefore 

Illinois is not specifically required to 

submit an emergency episode plan and 

contingency measures for PM2.5 at this 

time. Illinois also has the necessary 

general authority to address emergency 

episodes. EPA concludes that Illinois 

has met the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On January 11, 2011, IDEM confirmed 

that all monitored values of PM2.5 have 

been well below 140.4 μg/m3 at all sites 

in Indiana since 1999, and therefore 

Indiana is not specifically required to 

submit an emergency episode plan and 

contingency measures for PM2.5 at this 

time. Several statutory provisions in the 

Indiana Code and the Indiana 

Administrative Code provide the proper 

mechanisms to address air pollution 

emergency episodes. EPA concludes 

that Indiana has met the requirements of 

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

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On January 11, 2011, MPCA observed 

that all monitored values of PM2.5 have 

been well below 140.4 μg/m3 at all sites 

in Minnesota since 2006, with the 

highest recorded value since then being 

57.5 μg/m3. Therefore, Minnesota is not 

specifically required to submit an 

emergency episode plan and 

contingency measures for PM2.5 at this 

time. Chapter 7009 of the Minnesota SIP 

contains the provisions necessary for 

determining air quality emergency 

episodes. EPA concludes that Minnesota 

has met the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On January 24, 2011, MDEQ 

confirmed that all reliable monitored 

PM2.5 values in Michigan have been 

well below 140.4 μg/m3. MDEQ did cite 

elevated readings in 2007 at a site 

operated by the Intertribal Council 

(ITC). Although the data has not been 

removed by ITC, EPA staff completed an 

analysis on March 30, 2011, attesting 

that the data from the ITC site was 

reported to AQS without supporting 

quality assurance measures. Therefore, 

EPA believes that the data collected at 

this site is of unknown quality, and 

should be considered invalid and 

unusable, especially for regulatory 

purposes. Since no reliable observations 

in Michigan exceed 140.4 μg/m3, EPA 

has determined that Michigan is not 

specifically required to submit an 

emergency episode plan and 

contingency measures for PM2.5 at this 

time. Additionally, EPA is working with 

ITC to either invalidate or delete the 

invalid data from AQS. Michigan R 

324.5518 of Act 451 provides MDEQ 

with the authority to require the 

immediate discontinuation of air 

contaminant discharges that constitute 

an imminent and substantial 

endangerment to the public health, 

safety, or welfare, or to the environment. 

Furthermore, R 324.5530 of Act 451 

provides for civil action by the 

Michigan Attorney General for 

violations described in R 324.5518. EPA 

concludes that Michigan has met the 

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

with respect to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On January 11, 2011, Ohio EPA 

confirmed that all monitored values of 

PM2.5 have been well below 140.4 μg/m3

at all sites in Ohio, and therefore Ohio 

is not specifically required to submit an 

emergency episode plan and 

contingency measures for PM2.5 at this 

time. OAC 3745–25 provides the 

requirement to implement emergency 

action plans in the event of an Air 

Quality Alert or higher. EPA concludes 

that Ohio has met the requirements of 

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

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On January 24, 2011, WDNR 

confirmed that that all monitored values 

of PM2.5 have been well below 140.4 μg/ 

m3 at all sites in Wisconsin, and 

therefore Wisconsin is not specifically 

required to submit an emergency 

episode plan and contingency measures 

for PM2.5 at this time. WS chapter 

285.85 provides the requirement for 

WDNR to act upon a finding that 

episode or emergency conditions exist. 

EPA concludes that Wisconsin has met 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) 

with respect to the 1997 PM2.5 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. 

As previously mentioned, 415 ILCS 5⁄4

and 415 ILCS 5/10 provide the Director 

of Illinois EPA, in conjunction with 

IPCB, with the authority to develop 

rules and regulations necessary to meet 

ambient air quality standards. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23765 

Furthermore, they have the authority to 

respond to any EPA findings of 

inadequacy with the Illinois SIP 

program. EPA concludes that Illinois 

has met the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

IDEM continues to update and 

implement needed revisions to 

Indiana’s SIP as necessary to meet 

ambient air quality standards. As 

discussed in previous sections, 

authority to adopt emissions standards 

and compliance schedules is found at IC 

13–4–8, IC 13–17–3–4, IC 13–17–3–11, 

and IC 13–17–3–14. EPA concludes that 

Indiana has met the requirements of 

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

1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Michigan Act 451 provides the 

authority to: promulgate rules to 

establish standards for ambient air 

quality and emissions; issue, deny, 

revoke, or reissue permits; make 

findings of fact and determinations; 

make, modify, or cancel orders that 

require the control of air pollution and/ 

or permits rules and regulations 

necessary to meet NAAQS; and prepare 

and develop a general comprehensive 

plan for the control or abatement of 

existing air pollution and for control or 

prevention of any new air pollution. 

EPA concludes that Michigan has met 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(H) 

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Minnesota Statute chapter 116.07 

grants the agency the authority to 

‘‘[a]dopt, amend, and rescind rules and 

standards having the force of law 

relating to any purpose * * * for the 

prevention, abatement, or control of air 

pollution.’’ EPA concludes that 

Minnesota has met the requirements of 

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

1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

ORC 3704.03 provides the Director of 

Ohio EPA with the authority to develop 

rules and regulations necessary to meet 

ambient air quality standards. EPA 

concludes that Ohio has met the 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

WS chapter 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 

concludes that Wisconsin has met the 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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

Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under 

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 

Notifications; Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration; Visibility Protection 

The evaluation of the Region 5 States’ 

certifications addressing the 

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

described below. 

Sub-Element 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. All States in EPA Region 

5 consult with appropriate governments, 

stakeholders, and FLM in their planning 

efforts. 

Illinois EPA is required to give notice 

to the Office of the Attorney General 

and the Illinois Department of Natural 

Resources during the rulemaking 

process. Furthermore, Illinois provides 

notice to reasonably anticipated 

stakeholders and interested parties, as 

well as to any FLM if the rulemaking 

applies to Federal land which the FLM 

has authority over. Additionally, Illinois 

EPA participates in the Lake Michigan 

Air Director’s Consortium (LADCO), 

which consists of collaboration with the 

States of Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, 

and Ohio. Lastly, Illinois EPA 

participates in the Regional Haze 

Planning Process through its 

membership in the Midwest Regional 

Planning Organization. EPA concludes 

that Illinois has met the requirements of 

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

respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. 

IDEM actively participates in the 

regional planning efforts that include 

State rule developers, representatives 

from the FLMs, and other affected 

stakeholders. Additionally, Indiana is 

an active member of LADCO. EPA 

concludes that Indiana has met the 

requirements of this portion of section 

110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

MDEQ actively participates in 

planning efforts that include 

stakeholders from local governments, 

the business community, and 

community activist groups. MDEQ also 

routinely involves FLMs and Tribal 

groups in Michigan SIP development. 

Michigan is also an active member of 

LADCO. Therefore, EPA concludes that 

Michigan has met the requirements of 

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

respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. 

MPCA actively participates in the 

Central Regional Air Planning 

Association as well as the Central States 

Air Resource Agencies. MPCA has also 

demonstrated that it frequently consults 

and discusses issues with pertinent 

Tribes. Therefore, EPA concludes that 

Minnesota has met the requirements of 

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

respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Ohio EPA actively participates in the 

regional planning efforts that include 

both the State rule developers as well as 

representatives from the FLMs and other 

affected stakeholders. The FLMs are also 

included in Ohio EPA’s interested party 

lists which provide announcements of 

draft and proposed rule packages. 

Additionally, Ohio is an active member 

of LADCO. Therefore, EPA concludes 

that Ohio has met the requirements of 

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

respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. 

WS chapter 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 the agency 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 LADCO. EPA 

concludes that Wisconsin has satisfied 

the requirements of this portion of 

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

1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 2: Public Notification 

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

States to notify the public if NAAQS are 

exceeded in an area and must enhance 

public awareness of measures that can 

be taken to prevent exceedances. 

Illinois EPA continues to collaborate 

with the Cook County Department of 

Environmental Control. This consists of: 

continued and routine monitoring of air 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

23766 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

quality throughout the State, and 

notifying the public when unhealthy air 

quality is measured or forecasted. 

Illinois EPA provides air quality data to 

EPA’s AIRNOW program, and also 

provides the daily air quality index 

(AQI) to the media. Additionally, 

Illinois EPA provides the AQI to local 

stakeholder groups including Partners 

for Clean Air in Chicago and the Clean 

Air Partnership in St. Louis. Lastly, air 

quality data, as well as measures that 

can be taken to prevent exceedances, are 

made available on Illinois EPA’s Web 

site. EPA concludes that Illinois has met 

the requirements of this portion of 

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

1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

IDEM monitors air quality data daily, 

and reports the AQI to the interested 

public and media if necessary. IDEM 

also participates and submits 

information to EPA’s AIRNOW program, 

and maintains SmogWatch, which is an 

informational tool created by IDEM to 

share air quality forecasts for each day. 

SmogWatch provides daily information 

about ground-level ozone, particulate 

matter concentration levels, health 

information, and monitoring data for 

seven regions in Indiana. EPA 

concludes that Indiana has met the 

requirements of this portion of section 

110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

MDEQ actively participates in 

programs such as Ozone Action, 

AIRNOW, and EnviroFlash. 

Additionally, MDEQ posts current air 

quality concentrations on the its Web 

pages, and prepares an annual air 

quality report. EPA concludes that 

Michigan has met the requirements of 

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

respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Minnesota consistently notifies the 

public when exceedances occur, 

participates in the AIRNOW program, 

and dedicates portions of the MPCA 

Web site to enhancing public awareness 

of measures that can be taken to prevent 

exceedances. EPA concludes that 

Minnesota has met the requirements of 

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

respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Ohio EPA’s district offices and local 

air agencies monitor air quality daily, 

and where required, report the daily 

AQI to the interested media. In addition, 

Ohio EPA’s remote access of data 

system provides online reports of real 

time air quality data on the Internet and 

feeds raw information to EPA’s 

AIRNOW program. Furthermore, Ohio 

EPA actively involves local stakeholder 

groups in the AIRNOW forecast 

program. EPA concludes that Ohio has 

met the requirements of this portion of 

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

1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In addition to maintaining an active 

monitoring network for multiple criteria 

pollutants (with NAAQS), WDNR also 

routinely forecasts air quality when 

elevated pollutant concentrations are 

noted. Public notice is provided at 

levels associated with the extent of the 

monitored problems ranging from a 

simple advisory to alert levels. 

Wisconsin also participates in the 

AIRNOW program, and dedicates 

portions of the WDNR Web site to 

enhancing public awareness of 

measures that can be taken to prevent 

exceedances. EPA concludes that 

Wisconsin has met the requirements of 

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

respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 3: Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration 

States must meet applicable 

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

related to PSD. All six States in Region 

5 have stated their commitment to 

addressing both long-term requirements 

to meet natural visibility levels by 2064 

as well as concurrent review of new 

major sources and major modifications 

under each State’s approved PSD new 

source review program. Each State’s 

PSD program has already been 

discussed in the paragraphs addressing 

section 110(a)(2)(C), and will not be 

addressed in this section. 

Sub-Element 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, however, 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. This would be the 

case even in the event a secondary PM2.5

NAAQS for visibility is established, 

because this NAAQS would not affect 

visibility requirements under part C. 

Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, and 

Ohio have submitted such plans to EPA 

on November 5, 2010, December 30, 

2009, January 14, 2011, and March 11, 

2011, respectively. EPA expects the 

other Region 5 States to submit their 

plans in the coming months. EPA will 

conduct separate rulemakings on 

regional haze plans as the States submit 

them; these rulemakings will address 

each State’s satisfaction of the visibility 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA is 

neither proposing to approve, nor 

disapprove, the regional haze 

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

any of the Region 5 States in today’s 

action. 

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. 

Illinois EPA maintains the capability 

to perform modeling of the air quality 

impacts of emissions of all criteria 

pollutants, including the capability to 

use complex photochemical grid 

models. This modeling is used in 

support of the SIP for all nonattainment 

areas in the State. Illinois EPA also 

requires air quality modeling in support 

of permitting the construction of major 

and some minor new sources under the 

PSD program. These modeling data are 

available to EPA as well as the public 

upon request. Lastly, Illinois EPA 

participates in LADCO, which conducts 

regional modeling that is used for 

statewide planning purposes. EPA 

concludes that Illinois EPA has met the 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

IDEM continues to review the 

potential impact of major and some 

minor new sources using computer 

models. Indiana’s rules regarding air 

quality modeling are contained in 326 

IAC 2–2–4, 326 IAC 2–2–5, 326 IAC 2– 

2–6, and 326 IAC 2–2–7. These 

modeling data are available to EPA or 

other interested parties upon request. 

EPA concludes that Indiana has met the 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

MDEQ reviews the potential impact of 

major and some minor new sources, 

consistent with 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix W, ‘‘Guidelines on Air 

Quality Models.’’ These modeling data 

are available to EPA upon request. EPA 

concludes that Michigan has met the 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

MPCA reviews the potential impact of 

major and some minor new sources. 

Applicable major sources in Minnesota 

are required to perform modeling to 

show that emissions do not cause or 

contribute to a violation of any NAAQS. 

Furthermore, MPCA maintains the 

capability to perform its own modeling. 

EPA concludes that Minnesota has met 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23767 

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Ohio EPA reviews the potential 

impact of major and some minor new 

sources, consistent with 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix W, ‘‘Guidelines on Air 

Quality Models,’’ as well as Ohio EPA 

Engineering Guide 69. These modeling 

data are available to EPA upon request. 

EPA concludes that Ohio has met the 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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. 

EPA concludes that Wisconsin has met 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) 

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 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. 

Illinois EPA implements and operates 

the title V permit program, which EPA 

approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 

62946); therefore, EPA concludes that 

Illinois has met the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(L). 

IDEM implements and operates the 

title V permit program, which EPA 

approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 

62969); revisions to program were 

approved on August 13, 2002 (67 FR 

52615). EPA concludes that Indiana has 

met the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(L). 

MDEQ implements and operates the 

title V permit program, which EPA 

approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 

62949); revisions to the program were 

approved on November 10, 2003 (68 FR 

63735). EPA concludes that Michigan 

has met the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(L). 

MPCA implements and operates the 

title V permit program, which EPA 

approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 

62967); therefore, EPA concludes that 

Minnesota has met the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(L). 

Ohio EPA implements and operates 

the title V permit program, which EPA 

approved on August 15, 1995 (60 FR 

42045); revisions to the program were 

approved on November 20, 2003 (68 FR 

65401). EPA concludes that Ohio has 

met the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(L). 

Wisconsin DNR implements and 

operates the title V permit program, 

which EPA approved on December 4, 

2001 (66 FR 62951); revisions to the 

program were approved on February 28, 

2006 (71 FR 9934). EPA concludes that 

Wisconsin has met the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(L). 

EPA concludes that all Region 5 

States have met the requirements of 

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

1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 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. 

All public participation procedures 

pertaining to Illinois EPA are consistent 

with 35 Illinois Administrative Code 

Part 164 and Part 252. Part 252 is an 

approved portion of Illinois’ SIP. EPA 

concludes that Illinois has met the 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Any IDEM rulemaking procedure 

contained in IC 13–14–9 requires public 

participation in the SIP development 

process. In addition, IDEM ensures that 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.102 are 

satisfied during the SIP development 

process. EPA concludes that Indiana has 

met the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In Michigan, memoranda of 

understanding regarding consultation or 

participation in the SIP development 

process have been entered between 

MDEQ and local political subdivisions. 

MDEQ also provides opportunity for 

stakeholder workgroup participation in 

rule development processes. EPA 

concludes that Michigan has met the 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Minnesota regularly consults with 

local political subdivisions affected by 

the SIP, where applicable. EPA observes 

that Minnesota Statute chapter 116.05 

authorizes cooperation and agreement 

between MPCA and other State and 

local governments. Additionally, the 

Minnesota Administrative Procedures 

Act (Minnesota Statute chapter 14) 

provides general notice and comment 

procedures that are followed during SIP 

development. Lastly, MPCA regularly 

issues public notices on proposed 

actions. EPA concludes that Minnesota 

has met the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Ohio EPA follows approved 

procedures for allowing public 

participation, consistent with OAC 

3745–47, which is part of the approved 

SIP. EPA concludes that Ohio has met 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) 

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In addition to the measures outlined 

in the paragraph addressing WDNR’s 

submittal regarding consultation 

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

contained in WS chapter 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. EPA concludes 

that Wisconsin has met the 

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

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve some 

elements and conditionally approve 

other elements of submissions from the 

EPA Region 5 States certifying that the 

current SIPs are sufficient to meet the 

required infrastructure elements under 

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

8-hour ground-level ozone NAAQS and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Specifically, these are EPA’s proposed 

actions, by element of section 110(a)(2): 

Element IL IN OH MI MN WI 

A: Emission limits and other control measures ...................................................................... A A A A A A 

B: Ambient air quality monitoring and data system ................................................................ A A A A A A 

C1: Enforcement of SIP measures ......................................................................................... A A A A A A 

C2: NOX as a precursor to ozone in PSD regulations ........................................................... * A A A * A 

C3: PM10 surrogate policy in PSD regulations ....................................................................... * CA CA CA * A 

C4: NSR reform ...................................................................................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA 

C5: GHG permitting in PSD regulations ................................................................................. * A A A * A 

C6: Minor NSR regulations ..................................................................................................... A A A A A A 

D(i): Interstate transport .......................................................................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA 

D(ii): Interstate and international pollution abatement ............................................................ A A A A A A 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

23768 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Element IL IN OH MI MN WI 

E: Adequate resources ........................................................................................................... A A A A A A 

F: Stationary source monitoring system ................................................................................. A A A A A A 

G: Emergency power .............................................................................................................. A A A A A A 

H: Future SIP revisions ........................................................................................................... A A A A A A 

I: Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under part D .................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA 

J1: Consultation with government officials ............................................................................. A A A A A A 

J2: Public notification .............................................................................................................. A A A A A A 

J3: PSD ................................................................................................................................... **   **  ** ** 

J4: Visibility protection (Regional Haze) ................................................................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA 

K: Air quality modeling and data ............................................................................................. A A A A A A 

L: Permitting fees .................................................................................................................... A A A A A A 

M: Consultation and participation by affected local entities ................................................... A A A A A A 

In the above table, the key is as 

follows: 

A ........ Approve. 

CA ..... Conditionally Approve. 

NA ..... No Action/Separate Rulemaking. 

* ......... Federally promulgated rules in 

place. 

** ........ Previously discussed in element (C). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (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, this rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 19, 2011. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2011–10331 Filed 4–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234; EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0044, FRL–9300–1] 

RIN 2060–AP52 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coaland Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam 

Generating Units and Standards of 

Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired 

Electric Utility, Industrial-CommercialInstitutional, and Small IndustrialCommercial-Institutional Steam 

Generating Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice of public 

hearings. 

SUMMARY: EPA published in the Federal 

Register on May 3, 2011, the proposed 

rule ‘‘National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coaland Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam 

Generating Units and Standards of 

Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired 

Electric Utility, Industrial-CommercialInstitutional, and Small IndustrialCommercial-Institutional Steam 

Generating Units.’’ EPA is announcing 

three public hearings to be held for the 

proposed rule. 

DATES: The public hearings will be held 

on May 24, 2011, and May 26, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Public hearings will be held 

on May 24, 2011, in Chicago, IL, and 

Philadelphia, PA. The Chicago, IL, 

hearing will be held at the Crowne Plaza 

Chicago Metro in Ballroom D located at 

733 West Madison Street, Chicago, IL 

60611; Telephone: (312) 829–5000. The 

Philadelphia, PA, hearing will be held 

at the Westin Philadelphia in the 

Georgian Room located at 99 South 17th 

Street at Liberty Place, Philadelphia, PA 

19103; Telephone: (888) 627–8153. The 

May 26, 2011, hearing will be held in 

the EPA Region IV offices at the Sam 

Nunn Atlanta Federal Center (AFC) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS