5270 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add a temporary § 33 CFR 

165.T07–0995 to read as follows: 

§ 165.T07–0995 Safety Zone; Beaufort 

River/Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, 

Beaufort, SC. 

(a) Regulated Area. The following 

regulated area is a safety zone: all waters 

of the Beaufort River in Beaufort, South 

Carolina encompassed within an 

imaginary line connecting the following 

points: starting at Point 1 in position 

32°23′44.92′′ N, 80°40′31.43′′ W; thence 

south to Point 2 in position 32°23′30.92′′ 

N, 80°40′30.75′′ W; thence east to Point 

3 in position 32°23′30.15′′ N, 

80°40′12.93′′ W; thence north to Point 4 

in position 32°23′44.22′′ N, 80°40′18.68′′ 

W; thence west to origin. All 

coordinates are North American Datum 

1983. 

(b) Definition. The term ‘‘designated 

representative’’ means Coast Guard 

Patrol Commanders, including Coast 

Guard coxswains, petty officers, and 

other officers operating Coast Guard 

vessels, and federal, state, and local 

officers designated by or assisting the 

Captain of the Port Charleston in the 

enforcement of the regulated area. 

(c) Regulations. 

(1) All persons and vessels are 

prohibited from entering, transiting 

through, anchoring in, or remaining 

within the regulated area unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Charleston or a designated 

representative. 

(2) Persons and vessels desiring to 

enter, transit through, anchor in, or 

remain within the regulated area may 

contact the Captain of the Port 

Charleston by telephone at 843–740– 

7050, or a designated representative via 

VHF radio on channel 16 to seek 

authorization. If authorization to enter, 

transit through, anchor in, or remain 

within the regulated area is granted by 

the Captain of the Port Charleston or a 

designated representative, all persons 

and vessels receiving such permission 

must comply with the instructions of 

the Captain of the Port Charleston or a 

designated representative. 

(3) The Coast Guard will provide 

notice of the regulated area through 

advanced notice via broadcast notice to 

mariners, marine safety information 

bulletins, and by on-scene designated 

representatives. 

(d) Effective Date and Enforcement 

Periods. The rule is effective from 9 a.m. 

on January 31, 2011 through 5 p.m. on 

February 4, 2011. The rule will be 

enforced daily from 9 a.m. until 12 p.m. 

and from 2 p.m. until 5 p.m. on January 

31, 2011 through February 4, 2011. 

Dated: January 21, 2011. 

Michael F. White, Jr., 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Charleston. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1980 Filed 1–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0731; FRL–9250–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Wisconsin; Particulate Matter Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving Wisconsin’s 

revision to its State Implementation 

Plan (SIP), which updates its ambient 

air quality standards for fine 

particulates to conform with current 

Federal ambient air quality standards 

for the same criteria air pollutants. EPA 

received comments on its April 8, 2010, 

proposed rule and withdrew the 

accompanying Direct Final Rule. After 

considering the comments, EPA is 

approving the revisions to the 

Wisconsin SIP as requested by the State 

on September 11, 2009. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

March 2, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0731. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://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 Matt Rau, Environmental 

Engineer, at (312) 886–6524 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control 

Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 

(312) 886–6524, rau.matthew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background for this action? 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of the revision? 

III. What are the environmental effects of this 

action? 

IV. What comments were received and what 

is the EPA response? 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

On September 11, 2009, Wisconsin 

requested a revision to its SIP to update 

the particulate matter ambient air 

quality standards to conform with the 

2006 revisions to the Federal standards. 

EPA originally established National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for particulate matter in 1971. 

Particulate matter was measured in total 

suspended particulate (TSP). TSP is 

particulate up to 100 micrometers in 

diameter. Then in 1987, EPA changed 

the indicator to coarse particulate matter 

(PM10), which is particulate up to 10 

micrometers in diameter. The PM10

standards replaced the TSP standards. 

Particulate matter larger than 10 

micrometers generally is not inhaled 

into the lungs and thus PM10 was found 

to adequately protect human health. 

EPA added fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) as an indicator of particulate 

matter in 1997, but also retained its 

PM10 NAAQS. The finer particulate 

matter measured as PM2.5 can remain 

suspended in the air longer and can 

penetrate deeply into the lungs more 

easily than PM10, so a lower PM2.5

concentration is needed to protect 

human health. Then in 2006, EPA 

revised its particulate matter ambient air 

quality standards again. EPA 

strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 standard 

to its current level of 35 micrograms per 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 5271 

meter cubed (μg/m3) and retained the 

annual PM2.5 standard of 15.0 μg/m3. In 

2006, EPA also revoked the annual 

standard for PM10 because available 

evidence did not suggest a link between 

long term PM10 exposure and health 

problems. The 24-hour PM10 NAAQS of 

150 μg/m3 remains in place. Retaining 

the 24-hour PM10 standard protects 

against health problems linked to shortterm coarse particle exposure; the 

annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards 

protect against long-term and short-term 

fine particulate exposure respectively. 

Having both the PM2.5 and PM10 24-hour 

standards protects against the effects of 

short-term exposure to elevated levels of 

fine particulate and inhalable coarse 

PM, particulate between 2.5 and 10 μm. 

There is no difference between the 

primary standard, which protects 

human health, and the secondary 

standard, which protects public welfare, 

for each PM NAAQS. 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

revision? 

Wisconsin revised chapters NR 404 

and 484 of the Wisconsin 

Administration Code to add the 

definition of PM2.5 and the PM2.5

ambient air quality standards to its 

rules, consistent with current Federal 

PM2.5 standards. Wisconsin also 

removed the annual PM10 standard and 

retained the 24-hour PM10 standard. 

Thus, the Wisconsin PM10 standards are 

also consistent with the current Federal 

PM10 standards. 

The revisions made by Wisconsin are 

in accordance with the current Federal 

PM2.5 and PM10 standards. EPA is 

approving the revisions because the 

State’s standards are at least as stringent 

as the Federal NAAQS for both PM2.5

and PM10 and thus will adequately 

protect human health and public 

welfare. Updating the Wisconsin 

standards adds clarity as an outdated 

state standard could cause confusion. 

Wisconsin’s PM2.5 and PM10 standards 

are now the same as the 2006 Federal 

NAAQS. 

III. What are the environmental effects 

of this action? 

This action incorporates into the SIP 

Wisconsin’s revised PM standards, 

which are consistent with the Federal 

PM2.5 and PM10 ambient air quality 

standards, including the more stringent 

standard for 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 

The current Federal standards are 

effective and enforceable nationwide. 

Particulate matter interferes with lung 

function when inhaled. Exposure to 

particulates can cause heart and lung 

disease. Particulate matter also 

aggravates asthma. Airborne particulate 

is the main source of haze that causes 

a reduction in visibility. Particulate 

matter is also deposited on the ground 

and in the water, changing nutrient and 

chemical balances. 

IV. What comments were received and 

what is the EPA response? 

EPA published a direct final rule 

accompanied by a proposed rule on 

April 8, 2010 (75 FR 17865 and 17894). 

During the comment period EPA 

received comments from the Wisconsin 

Paper Council (WPC) adverse to the 

proposed approval. Therefore, EPA 

withdrew the direct final rule on June 

2, 2010 (75 FR 30710). 

In its May 7, 2010 letter, the WPC 

opposed approval of the rule on five 

grounds. First, WPC asserts, ‘‘EPA’s 

stated basis for approving WDNR’s SIP 

submittal is not completely accurate.’’ 

WPC makes this claim because EPA 

stated that the Wisconsin particulate 

matter standards now match the current 

Federal standards, whereas Wisconsin 

has retained the annual secondary TSP, 

which was revoked at the Federal level 

in 1987. EPA responds by noting that 

Wisconsin’s submission only requested 

that revisions to the PM2.5 and PM10

standards be incorporated into its SIP. 

Wisconsin never requested a revision to 

the TSP standard and thus EPA did not 

consider such a revision. EPA’s April 8, 

2010 Federal Register notice states in 

Section I (What is the background for 

this action?) that Wisconsin’s request ‘‘is 

to update the particulate matter ambient 

air quality standards.’’ The particulate 

matter standards were revised to match 

the 2006 Federal standards (75 FR 

17865). There is no mention of the TSP 

standard, which, as stated earlier, 

Wisconsin did not submit to EPA for 

review. EPA has revised its rule 

summary to clearly state that the 

Wisconsin PM2.5 and PM10 standards 

now match the current Federal PM2.5

and PM10 standards. This makes it 

unmistakable that this approval applies 

only to the PM2.5 and PM10 standards 

and not to the TSP standards. This 

revision was made only for clarification 

and thus the basis of the proposed 

approval remains valid. 

Second, WPC asserts, ‘‘Wisconsin 

Statute section 285.21(1)(a) requires that 

WDNR repeal Wisconsin’s particulate 

matter standard based on total 

suspended particulate as part of its 

request to adopt the new PM2.5

standard,’’ and, third, that ‘‘Wisconsin 

Statute section 285.21(4) also requires 

that WDNR repeal the Wisconsin TSP 

standard as part of its request to adopt 

the new PM2.5 standard.’’ These 

comments concern a state matter, as the 

requested SIP revision does not involve 

TSP. EPA also notes that the Wisconsin 

Natural Resources Board passed a 

resolution on May 25, 1989, that found 

it was necessary for Wisconsin to retain 

the secondary 24-hour TSP standard to 

protect public health and welfare in 

Wisconsin. Therefore, the retention of 

the 24-hour TSP standard is irrelevant 

to this approval and appears to be 

allowed under Wisconsin Statute 

section 285.21 and the May 1989 

Wisconsin Natural Resources Board 

resolution. 

WPC’s fourth point is that, ‘‘EPA’s 

approval of the September 11, 2009 SIP 

revision request would violate the 

Wisconsin SIP.’’ A SIP is a state’s 

collection of rules and orders designed 

to attain and maintain the NAAQS and 

Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements 

which are federally enforceable by EPA. 

There is no prohibition in the CAA, 

however, against a state adopting a 

standard or limitation into its SIP that 

is more stringent than the Federal 

standard, and EPA may enforce a state’s 

SIP that goes beyond the Federal 

standard. 

The final comment was, ‘‘EPA should 

disapprove WDNR’s SIP revision 

request because it lacks the necessary 

regulatory tools to implement the PM2.5

standard.’’ WPC seeks test methods, 

emission factors, significant impact 

levels, and more for fine particulates. 

WPC states that it would be difficult for 

sources to limit PM2.5 emission without 

such regulatory tools. EPA notes that 

this approval is only for PM2.5 and PM10

ambient air quality standards. An 

ambient air quality standard does not 

place restrictions on emission sources 

by itself. Wisconsin must adopt 

emission control requirements to 

implement the PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

sources will be expected to comply with 

the state rules once promulgated. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving revisions to the 

Wisconsin SIP. Wisconsin revised 

chapters NR 404 and 484 of the 

Wisconsin Administration Code, to 

remove the annual PM10 standard from 

chapter NR 404, and added the 

definition of PM2.5 and the 2006 PM2.5

standards. Wisconsin incorporated by 

reference the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) monitoring 

requirements into chapter NR 484 that 

correspond to the chapter NR 404 

revisions. Specifically, Wisconsin 

incorporated 40 CFR part 50 

Appendices K, L, and M and 40 CFR 

Part 53 by reference into chapter NR 

484. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
5272 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by April 1, 2011. Filing a petition 

for reconsideration by the Administrator 

of this final rule does not affect the 

finality of this action for the purposes of 

judicial review nor does it extend the 

time within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: December 29, 2010. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart YY—Wisconsin 

■ 2. Section 52.2570 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(121) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2570 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(121) On September 11, 2009, the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources submitted a State 

Implementation Plan revision request. 

The State’s ambient air quality 

standards were revised by adding fine 

particulate matter, PM2.5, standards and 

revising the coarse particulate matter, 

PM10, standards. Wisconsin added 

annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. It 

also revoked the annual PM10 ambient 

air quality standard while retaining the 

24-hour PM10 standard. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. The 

following sections of the Wisconsin 

Administrative Code are incorporated 

by reference: 

(A) NR 404.02 Definitions. NR 

404.02(4e) ‘‘PM2.5’’ as published in the 

Wisconsin Administrative Register, on 

September 30, 2009, No. 645, effective 

October 1, 2009. 

(B) NR 404.04 Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. NR 404.04 (8) ‘‘PM10: 

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY 

STANDARDS.’’ and NR 404.04(9) 

‘‘PM2.5: PRIMARY AND SECONDARY 

STANDARDS’’ as published in the 

Wisconsin Administrative Register, on 

September 30, 2009, No. 645, effective 

October 1, 2009. 

(ii) Additional material. 

(A) NR 484.03 Code of Federal 

Regulations. NR 484.03(5) in Table 1 as 

published in the Wisconsin 

Administrative Register, on September 

30, 2009, No. 645, effective October 1, 

2009. 

(B) NR 484.04 Code of Federal 

Regulations appendices. NR 484.04 (6), 

(6g), and (6r) in Table 2, as published in 

the Wisconsin Administrative Register, 

on September 30, 2009, No. 645, 

effective October 1, 2009. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–2042 Filed 1–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0697–201102, FRL– 

9259–8] 

Removal of Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Provisions Concerning Greenhouse 

Gas Emitting-Sources in State 

Implementation Plans; Alabama 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is amending its 

regulations to remove language which 

narrowed its previous approval of 

Alabama’s New Source Review (NSR) 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program regarding thresholds for 

determining which new stationary 

sources and modification projects 

become subject to Alabama’s PSD 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES