Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 76427 

Par. 2. Section 1.509(a)–4 is amended 

by revising paragraphs (i)(5)(ii)(B), 

(i)(5)(ii)(C), and (i)(8) to read as follows: 

§ 1.509(a)–4 Supporting organizations. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(B) [The text of proposed amendments 

to § 1.509(a)–4(i)(5)(ii)(B) is the same as 

the text of § 1.509(a)–4T(i)(5)(ii)(B) 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register]. 

(C) [The text of proposed amendments 

to § 1.509(a)–4(i)(5)(ii)(C) is the same as 

the text of § 1.509(a)–4T(i)(5)(ii)(C) 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register]. 

* * * * * 

(8) [The text of proposed amendments 

to § 1.509(a)–4(i)(8) is the same as the 

text of § 1.509(a)–4T(i)(8) published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register]. 

Steven T. Miller, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2012–31046 Filed 12–21–12; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0347; FRL–9765–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Wisconsin; Milwaukee-Racine 

Nonattainment Area; Determination of 

Attainment for the 2006 24-Hour Fine 

Particle Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On April 24, 2012, EPA 

proposed to determine that the 

Milwaukee-Racine, Wisconsin area had 

attained the 2006 24-hour fine particle 

(2006 PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA 

received several comments on the 

original proposal, including one 

suggesting that the suspension of certain 

Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements 

cannot be applied in this instance 

because it only pertains to the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS and not to the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. As a result, we are reproposing 

a narrow portion of our original 

determination to address this issue. We 

will address all comments received on 

the original proposal and this proposal 

in our final notice. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 28, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2011–0347, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2011– 

3047. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Gilberto 

Alvarez, Environmental Scientist, at 

(312) 886–6143 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental 

Scientist, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–6143, 

alvarez.gilberto@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 action is EPA taking? 

III. What is the background for this action? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
76428 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1While EPA recognizes that 40 CFR 51.1004(c) 

does not itself expressly apply to the 2006 PM2.5

standard, the statutory interpretation that it 

embodies is identical and is applicable to both the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards. 

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 action is EPA taking? 

On April 24, 2012, at 77 FR 24436, 

EPA proposed to determine that the 

Milwaukee-Racine, Wisconsin area had 

attained the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

received several comments on the 

original proposal, including one 

suggesting that 40 CFR 51.1004(c) 

cannot be applied in this instance 

because it only pertains to the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS and not to the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 40 CFR 51.1004(c) pertains to 

the suspension of certain CAA 

requirements including the 

requirements for Wisconsin to submit 

an attainment demonstration, associated 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM) to include reasonably available 

control technology (RACT), a reasonable 

further progress (RFP) plan, contingency 

measures, and any other planning State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) related to 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

and continues until such time, if any, 

that EPA subsequently determines that 

the area has violated the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Our original proposal did not clearly 

explain EPA’s views on the applicability 

of CFR 51.1004(c) to the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. As a result, in this re-proposal, 

EPA today is explaining its views and 

soliciting comment on this specific 

issue. We will address all comments 

received on the original proposal and 

this proposal in our final notice. 

III. What is the background for this 

action? 

In April 2007, EPA issued its PM2.5

Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM2.5

standard. 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007). 

In March 2012, EPA published 

implementation guidance for the 2006 

PM2.5 standard. See Memorandum from 

Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, 

‘‘Implementation Guidance for the 2006 

24-Hour Final Particle (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)’’ (March 2, 2012). In that 

guidance, EPA stated its view ‘‘that the 

overall framework and policy approach 

of the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

continues to provide effective and 

appropriate guidance on the EPA’s 

interpretation of the general statutory 

requirements that states should address 

in their SIPs. In general, EPA believes 

that the interpretations of the statute in 

the framework of the 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule are relevant to the 

statutory requirements for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS * * *.’’ Id., page 1. 

With respect to the statutory provisions 

applicable to 2006 PM2.5

implementation, the guidance 

emphasized that ‘‘EPA outlined its 

interpretation of many of these 

provisions in the 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule. In addition to 

regulatory provisions, EPA provided 

substantial general guidance for 

attainment plans for PM2.5 in the 

preamble to the final the [sic] 2007 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule.’’ Id., page 2. 

In keeping with the principles set forth 

in the guidance, and with respect to the 

effect of a determination of attainment 

for the 2006 PM2.5 standard, EPA is 

applying the same interpretation with 

respect to the implications of clean data 

determinations that it set forth in the 

preamble to the 1997 PM2.5 standard 

and in the regulation that embodies this 

interpretation. 40 CFR 51.1004(c).1 EPA 

has long applied this interpretation in 

regulations and individual rulemakings 

for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour 

ozone standards, the PM–10 standard, 

and the lead standard. While EPA 

recognizes that the regulatory provisions 

of 51.1004(c) do not explicitly apply to 

the 2006 PM2.5 standard, the statutory 

interpretation that it embodies is 

identical for both the 1997 PM2.5 and 

2006 PM2.5 standards. 

History and Basis of EPA’s Clean Data 

Policy 

Following enactment of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990, EPA promulgated 

its interpretation of the requirements for 

implementing the NAAQS in the 

general preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990 (General 

Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 

1992). In 1995, based on the 

interpretation of CAA sections 171 and 

172, and section 182 in the General 

Preamble, EPA set forth what has 

become known as its ‘‘Clean Data 

Policy’’ for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

See Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, ‘‘Reasonable Further 

Progress, Attainment Demonstration, 

and Related Requirements for Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas Meeting the 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard’’ (May 10, 1995). In 2004, EPA 

indicated its intention to extend the 

Clean Data Policy to the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

See Memorandum from Stephen Page, 

Director, EPA Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, ‘‘Clean Data 

Policy for the Fine Particle National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ 

(December 14, 2004). Since 1995, EPA 

has applied its interpretation under the 

Clean Data Policy in many rulemakings, 

suspending certain attainment-related 

planning requirements for individual 

areas, based on a determination of 

attainment. See 60 FR 36723 (July 18, 

1995) (Salt Lake and Davis Counties, 

Utah, 1-hour ozone); 61 FR 20458 (May 

7, 1996) (Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, 

1-hour ozone); 61 FR 31831 (June 21, 

1996) (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1-hour 

ozone); 65 FR 37879 (June 19, 2000) 

(Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky, 

1-hour ozone); 66 FR 53094 (October 19, 

2001) (Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, 

Pennsylvania, 1-hour ozone); 68 FR 

25418 (May 12, 2003) (St. Louis, 

Missouri-Illinois, 1-hour ozone); 69 FR 

21717 (April 22, 2004) (San Francisco 

Bay Area, California, 1-hour ozone), 75 

FR 6570 (February 10, 2010) (Baton 

Rouge, Louisiana, 1-hour ozone), 75 FR 

27944 (May 19, 2010) (Coso Junction, 

California, PM10). 

EPA also incorporated its 

interpretation under the Clean Data 

Policy in several implementation rules. 

See Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule, 72 FR 20586 

(April 25, 2007); Final Rule To 

Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 

2, 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). 

The Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) upheld 

EPA’s rule embodying the Clean Data 

Policy for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 

(D.C. Cir. 2009). Other courts have 

reviewed and considered individual 

rulemakings applying EPA’s Clean Data 

Policy, and have consistently upheld 

them in every case. Sierra Club v. EPA, 

99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 

2004); Our Children’s Earth Foundation 

v. EPA, No. 04–73032 (9th Cir. June 28, 

2005 (Memorandum Opinion)), Latino 

Issues Forum v. EPA, Nos. 06–75831 

and 08–71238 (9th Cir. March 2, 2009 

(Memorandum Opinion)). 

EPA sets forth below a brief 

explanation of the statutory 

interpretations in the Clean Data Policy. 

EPA also incorporates the discussions of 

its interpretation set forth in prior 

rulemakings, including the 1997 PM2.5

implementation rulemaking. See 72 FR 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 76429 

2See also 75 FR 31288 (June 3, 2010) (Providence, 

Rhode Island, 1997 8-hour ozone), 75 FR 62470 

(October 12, 2010) (Knoxville, Tennessee, 1997 8- 

hour ozone), 75 FR 53219 (August 31, 2010) 

(Greater Connecticut Area, 1997 8-hour ozone), 75 

FR 54778 (September 9, 2010) (Baton Rouge, 

Louisiana, 1997 8-hour ozone), 75 FR 64949 

(October 21, 2010) (Providence, Rhode Island, 1997 

8-hour ozone), 76 FR 11080 (March 1, 2011) 

(Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan Areas, 

Wisconsin, 1997 8-hour ozone), 76 FR 31273 (May 

31, 2011) (Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 

1997 8-hour ozone), 76 FR 33647 (June 9, 2011) (St. 

Louis, Missouri-Illinois, 1997 8-hour ozone), 76 FR 

7145 (November 15, 2011) (Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock 

Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina, 1997 8-hour 

ozone), 77 FR 31496 (May 29, 2012) (BostonLawrence-Worchester, Massachusetts, 1997 8-hour 

ozone). See also, 75 FR 56 (January 4, 2010) 

(Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, North 

Carolina, 1997 PM2.5), 75 FR 230 (January 5, 2010) 

(Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, North Carolina, 1997 

PM2.5), 76 FR 12860 (March 9, 2011) (Louisville, 

Kentucky-Indiana, 1997 PM2.5), 76 FR 1850 (April 

5, 2011) (Rome, Georgia, 1997 PM2.5), 76 FR 31239 

(May 31, 2011) (Chattanooga, Tennessee-GeorgiaAlabama, 1997 PM2.5), 76 FR 31858 (June 2, 2011) 

(Macon, Georgia, 1997 PM2.5), 76 FR 36873 (June 23, 

2011) (Atlanta, Georgia, 1997 PM2.5), 76 FR 38023 

(June 29, 2011) (Birmingham, Alabama, 1997 PM2.5), 

76 FR 5542 (September 7, 2011) (HuntingtonAshland, West Virginia-Kentucky-Ohio, 1997 

PM2.5), 76 FR 60373 (September 29, 2011) 

(Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana, 1997 PM2.5), 

77 FR 18922 (March 29, 2012) (Harrisburg-LebanonCarlisle-York, Allentown, Johnstown and Lancaster, 

Pennsylvania, 1997 PM2.5). 

3This discussion refers to subpart 1 because 

subpart 1 contains the requirements relating to 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

4This interpretation was adopted in the General 

Preamble, see 57 FR 13498, and has been upheld 

as applied to the Clean Data Policy, as well as to 

nonattainment SIP submissions. See NRDC v. EPA, 

571 F.3d 1245 (DC Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 

294 F.3d 155 (DC Cir. 2002). 

20586, at 20603–20605 (April 25, 

2007).2

The Clean Data Policy represents 

EPA’s interpretation that certain 

requirements of subpart 1 of part D of 

the CAA are by their terms not 

applicable to areas that are currently 

attaining the NAAQS.3 As explained 

below, the specific requirements that are 

inapplicable to an area attaining the 

standard are the requirements to submit 

a SIP that provides for: Attainment of 

the NAAQS; implementation of all 

RACM; RFP; and implementation of 

contingency measures for failure to meet 

deadlines for RFP and attainment. 

CAA section 172(c)(1), the 

requirement for an attainment 

demonstration, provides in relevant part 

that SIPs ‘‘shall provide for attainment 

of the [NAAQS].’’ EPA has interpreted 

this requirement as not applying to 

areas that have already attained the 

standard. If an area has attained the 

standard, there is no need to submit a 

plan demonstrating how the area will 

reach attainment. In the General 

Preamble (57 FR 13564), EPA stated that 

no other measures to provide for 

attainment would be needed by areas 

seeking redesignation to attainment 

since ‘‘attainment will have been 

reached.’’ See also Memorandum from 

John Calcagni, ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ (September 4, 

1992), at page 6. 

A component of the attainment plan 

specified under section 172(c)(1) is the 

requirement to provide for ‘‘the 

implementation of all RACM as 

expeditiously as practicable’’. Since 

RACM is an element of the attainment 

demonstration, see General Preamble 

(57 FR 13560), for the same reason the 

attainment demonstration no longer 

applies by its own terms, RACM also no 

longer applies to areas that EPA has 

determined have attained the NAAQS. 

Furthermore, EPA has consistently 

interpreted this provision to require 

only implementation of such potential 

RACM measures that could advance 

attainment.4 Thus, where an area is 

already attaining the standard, no 

additional RACM measures are 

required. EPA’s interpretation that the 

statute requires only implementation of 

the RACM measures that would advance 

attainment was upheld by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 

Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 

735, 743–745, 5th Cir. 2002) and by the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

DC Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F. 

3d 155, 162–163, DC Cir. 2002). See also 

the final rulemakings for PittsburghBeaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 66 FR 

53096 (October 19, 2001) and St. Louis, 

Missouri-Illinois, 68 FR 25418 (May 12, 

2003). 

CAA section 172(c)(2) provides that 

SIP provisions in nonattainment areas 

must require ‘‘reasonable further 

progress.’’ The term ‘‘reasonable further 

progress’’ is defined in section 171(1) as 

‘‘such annual incremental reductions in 

emissions of the relevant air pollutant as 

are required by this part or may 

reasonably be required by the 

Administrator for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment of the applicable 

NAAQS by the applicable date.’’ Thus, 

by definition, the ‘‘reasonable further 

progress’’ provision under subpart 1 

requires only such reductions in 

emissions as are necessary to attain the 

NAAQS. If an area has attained the 

NAAQS, the purpose of the RFP 

requirement has been fulfilled, and 

since the area has already attained, 

showing that the state will make RFP 

towards attainment ‘‘[has] no meaning 

at that point.’’ General Preamble, 57 FR 

13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992). 

CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that 

SIPs in nonattainment areas ‘‘shall 

provide for the implementation of 

specific measures to be undertaken if 

the area fails to make reasonable further 

progress, or to attain the [NAAQS] by 

the attainment date applicable under 

this part. Such measures shall be 

included in the plan revision as 

contingency measures to take effect in 

any such case without further action by 

the State or [EPA].’’ This contingency 

measure requirement is inextricably tied 

to the RFP and attainment 

demonstration requirements. 

Contingency measures are implemented 

if RFP targets are not achieved, or if 

attainment is not realized by the 

attainment date. Where an area has 

already achieved attainment, it has no 

need to rely on contingency measures to 

come into attainment or to make further 

progress to attainment. As EPA stated in 

the General Preamble: ‘‘The section 

172(c)(9) requirements for contingency 

measures are directed at ensuring RFP 

and attainment by the applicable date.’’ 

See 57 FR 13564. Thus these 

requirements no longer apply when an 

area has attained the standard. 

It is important to note that should an 

area attain the 2006 PM2.5 standard 

based on three years of data, its 

obligation to submit an attainment 

demonstration and related planning 

submissions is suspended only for so 

long as the area continues to attain the 

standard. If EPA subsequently 

determines, after notice and comment 

rulemaking, that the area has violated 

the NAAQS, the requirements for 

Wisconsin to submit a SIP to meet the 

previously suspended requirements 

would be reinstated. It is likewise 

important to note that the area remains 

designated nonattainment pending a 

further redesignation action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews. 

This action proposes to make a 

determination of attainment based on 

air quality, and would, if finalized, 

result in the suspension of certain 

Federal requirements, and it would not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
76430 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

• 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 proposed 2006 PM2.5

clean NAAQS data determination for 

the Milwaukee-Racine, Wisconsin area 

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, Particulate Matter, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: December 17, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–31290 Filed 12–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0467; EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0538; FRL–9765–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Wisconsin; Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Greenhouse Gas 

Tailoring and Biomass Deferral Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Wisconsin State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WDNR) to EPA on May 4, 

2011, June 20, 2012, and September 28, 

2012. The proposed revisions modify 

Wisconsin’s Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program to establish 

appropriate emission thresholds for 

determining which new stationary 

sources and modification projects 

become subject to Wisconsin’s PSD 

permitting requirements for their 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

Additionally, these revisions propose to 

defer until July 21, 2014, the application 

of the PSD permitting requirements to 

biogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions 

from bioenergy and other biogenic 

stationary sources in the State of 

Wisconsin. EPA is proposing approval 

of Wisconsin’s revisions because the 

Agency has made the preliminary 

determination that these revisions are in 

accordance with the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and EPA regulations regarding 

PSD permitting for GHGs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 28, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2011–0467, or EPA–R05–OAR– 

2012–0538 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: damico.genevieve@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312)692–2450. 

4. Mail: Genevieve Damico, Chief, Air 

Permits Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Genevieve Damico, 

Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID Nos. EPA–R05–OAR–2011– 

0467, or EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0538. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Danny 

Marcus, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 353–8781 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Danny Marcus, Environmental Engineer, 

Air Permits Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 353–8781, 

marcus.danny@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with