45992 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Navigation Area (RNA) (2007 Final 

Rule) applicable to First Coast Guard 

District waters. (72 FR 50052; corrected 

by 72 FR 70780). The purpose of these 

amendments was to further reduce the 

probability of an incident that could 

result in the discharge or release of oil 

or hazardous material, or cause serious 

harm, to navigable waters of the United 

States. As part of the process to 

implement the 2007 Final Rule, the 

USCG prepared a Categorical Exclusion 

Determination as defined in its Agency 

Procedures for Implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act. In a 

ruling on May 17, 2011, the 1st U.S. 

Circuit Court of Appeals determined 

that the USCG ‘‘failed to comply with its 

obligations under the National 

Environmental Policy Act’’ when it 

failed to prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) or an 

Environmental Assessment (EA). 

The Coast Guard has completed a 

draft EA in order to cure the procedural 

deficiency. This analysis indicates that 

an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) will not be necessary for 

implementation of any of the action 

alternatives. The Coast Guard 

anticipates that a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) will be 

appropriate for implementation of the 

2007 Final Rule preferred alternative. 

We are seeking public input on the 

draft EA, including comments on the 

completeness and adequacy of the 

document, and on the measures and 

operating conditions described in the 

EA as alternatives designed to reduce or 

eliminate potential environmental 

impacts. The Coast Guard will consider 

public comments on the EA in 

determining the preferred alternative 

and whether to issue a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI), or to 

conduct additional NEPA analysis. 

Dated: July 18, 2012. 

D.B. Abel, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2012–18832 Filed 8–1–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0805; EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0567; FRL–9708–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; 

Indiana; Michigan; Minnesota; Ohio; 

Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards; Indiana NSR/PSD 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

some elements, and disapprove other 

elements, of State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submissions 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 

2006 24-hour fine particle national 

ambient air quality standards (2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS). The infrastructure 

requirements are designed to ensure that 

the structural components of each 

state’s air quality management program 

are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. EPA is 

also proposing to approve portions of a 

submittal from Indiana addressing 

EPA’s requirements for its new source 

review (NSR) and prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) program. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 4, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2009–0805 (infrastructure SIP 

elements for all Region 5 States) or 

EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0567 (Indiana 

NSR/PSD elements), 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. EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0805 

(infrastructure SIP elements for all 

Region 5 States) or EPA–R05–OAR– 

2012–0567 (Indiana NSR/PSD 

elements). 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. 

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 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, 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 45993 

1On June 14, 2012, the Administrator of EPA 

signed a proposed rule that would strengthen 

various aspects of the existing PM2.5 NAAQS (see 

77 FR 38890). The State submittals and EPA’s 

rulemaking do not extend to these proposed 

NAAQS. 

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 SIP 

submissions? 

A. What State SIP submissions does this 

rulemaking address? 

B. Why did the States make these SIP 

submissions? 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate 

these SIP submissions? 

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

these SIP submissions? 

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; PSD 

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 

Powers 

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; PSD; 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. 

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 SIP 

submissions? 

A. What State SIP submissions does this 

rulemaking address? 

This rulemaking addresses 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 

SIP submissions on the following dates: 

Illinois—August 9, 2011, and 

supplemented on August 25, 2011 and 

June 27, 2012; Indiana—October 20, 

2009, and supplemented on June 25, 

2012 and July 12, 2012; Michigan— 

August 15, 2011, and supplemented on 

July 9, 2012; Minnesota—May 23, 2011, 

and supplemented on June 27, 2012; 

Ohio—September 4, 2009, and 

supplemented on June 3, 2011 and July 

5, 2012; and, Wisconsin—January 24, 

2011, and supplemented on June 29, 

2012. 

The States of Indiana and Wisconsin 

have also made SIP submissions 

intended to address various EPA 

requirements for their respective NSR 

and PSD programs. IDEM submitted 

revisions on July 12, 2012, for 

incorporation into its NSR and PSD 

program, and also requested that EPA 

approve these revisions as satisfying any 

applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. WDNR submitted revisions to 

its NSR and PSD programs on May 12, 

2011, and while the SIP submission was 

not explicitly made to satisfy the 

infrastructure SIP requirements for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, a discussion of the 

relevant infrastructure SIP requirements 

and the State’s satisfaction of these 

requirements is contained in the 

paragraphs addressing section 

110(a)(2)(C). 

B. Why did the States make these SIP 

submissions? 

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

CAA, and implementing EPA policy, the 

States are required to submit 

infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their 

SIPs provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS, including the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. These submissions must 

contain any revisions needed for 

meeting the applicable SIP requirements 

of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that 

their existing SIPs for particulate matter 

already met those requirements. EPA 

highlighted this statutory requirement 

in an October 2, 2007, guidance 

document entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards’’ (2007 Memo). States 

were required to make SIP submissions 

meeting the requirements to EPA within 

three years after promulgation of the 

revised standards. The three-year 

submittal window was reiterated in a 

September 25, 2009, EPA-issued 

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)’’ (2009 Memo). Because the 

finalized 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS was signed 

and widely disseminated on September 

21, 2006, the due date for infrastructure 

SIP submissions to EPA was September 

21, 2009. The certifications referenced 

in this rulemaking pertain to the 

applicable requirements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. The SIP 

submissions from the six Region 5 

States being evaluated here address only 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 

proposed rulemaking addresses only 

this pollutant as well.1

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

This rulemaking will not cover four 

substantive issues that are not integral 

to acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission: (i) Existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction at sources, that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions 

(‘‘SSM’’); (ii) existing provisions related 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45994 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2Although the public hearing process was not 

necessary at the State level, Ohio EPA held a public 

hearing on August 13, 2009, and provided an 

opportunity for written comments as well. No 

comments were received in person, or in writing. 

to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or ‘‘director’s 

discretion’’ that purport to permit 

revisions to SIP approved emissions 

limits with limited public process or 

without requiring further approval by 

EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA 

(‘‘director’s discretion’’); (iii) existing 

provisions for minor source NSR 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

the requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs (‘‘minor source NSR’’); and, 

(iv) existing provisions for PSD 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final 

NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). Instead, EPA has committed 

to address each of these four issues in 

separate rulemakings. A detailed 

rationale for why these four substantive 

issues are not part of the scope of 

infrastructure SIP rulemakings can be 

found in EPA’s July 13, 2011, final rule 

entitled, ‘‘Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 1997 8-hour Ozone 

and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ in the section entitled, 

‘‘What is the scope of this final 

rulemaking?’’ (see 76 FR 41075 at 

41076–41079). 

In addition to the four substantive 

issues above, EPA is not acting on 

portions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)— 

Interstate transport; section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii)—Adequate resources; 

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

with government officials, public 

notifications, PSD, and visibility 

protection. EPA is also 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. 

III. What guidance is EPA using to 

evaluate these SIP Submissions? 

EPA’s guidance for these 

infrastructure SIP submissions is 

embodied in the 2007 Memo. 

Specifically, Attachment A of this 

memorandum (Required Section 110 

SIP Elements) identified the statutory 

elements that states need to meet in 

order to satisfy the requirements for an 

infrastructure SIP submission. The 2009 

Memo was issued to provide additional 

guidance for certain elements to meet 

the requirements of section 110(a)(1) 

and (2) of the CAA for 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Where appropriate, EPA will 

reference the guidance contained in 

both the 2007 Memo and the 2009 

Memo as they pertain to the Region 5 

States’ submissions. 

IV. What is the result of EPA’s review 

of these SIP submissions? 

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 for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Therefore, consistent with the 

2009 Memo, EPA believes that no public 

hearing or comment process was 

necessary at the State level for this 

NAAQS.2 Nevertheless, the public will 

now have the opportunity to comment 

on EPA’s evaluation of 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 

SIPs meet each of the requirements in 

section 110(a)(2), as applicable. The 

following review evaluates the six 

States’ submissions. 

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission 

Limits and Other Control Measures 

This section requires SIPs to include 

enforceable emission limits and other 

control measures, means or techniques, 

schedules for compliance, and other 

related matters. The specific 

nonattainment area plan requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(I), however, are 

subject to the timing requirements of 

section 172, not the timing requirement 

of section 110(a)(1). Thus, section 

110(a)(2)(A) does not require that states 

submit regulations or emissions limits 

specifically for attaining the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Those SIP provisions are due 

as part of each state’s attainment plan, 

and will be addressed separately from 

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

In the context of an infrastructure SIP, 

EPA is not evaluating the existing SIP 

provisions for this purpose. Instead, 

EPA is only evaluating whether the 

state’s SIP has basic structural 

provisions for the implementation of the 

NAAQS. 

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, 

providing the IPCB with 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 proposes that Illinois has met 

the infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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 proposes that Indiana has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 

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

the 2006 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 with 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 proposes 

that Michigan has met the infrastructure 

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

with respect to the 2006 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 proposes that Minnesota has met 

the infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 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 proposes that Ohio has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Wisconsin Statutes (WS) chapter 

285.11 through WS chapter 285.19 

establish general authority for 

monitoring, updating, and 

implementing necessary revisions to the 

Wisconsin SIP. Additional authorities 

related to specific pollutants are 

contained in WS chapter 285.21 through 

WS chapter 285.29. EPA proposes that 

Wisconsin has met the infrastructure 

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

with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

As previously noted, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing state provisions or rules related 

to SSM or director’s discretion in the 

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


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 45995 

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 is evaluating compliance 

with section 110(a)(2)(B) in 

infrastructure SIP submissions by 

verifying that the state has submitted an 

annual monitoring plan for the relevant 

NAAQS, and that EPA has approved the 

most recent plan. This review of the 

annual monitoring plan includes EPA’s 

determination that the state: (i) Monitors 

air quality at appropriate locations 

throughout the state using EPAapproved Federal Reference Methods or 

Federal Equivalent Method monitors; 

(ii) submits data to EPA’s Air Quality 

System (AQS) in a timely manner; and, 

(iii) provides EPA Regional Offices with 

prior notification of any planned 

changes to monitoring sites or the 

network plan. 

Illinois EPA continues to operate an 

extensive monitoring network 

incorporating more than 200 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 EPA approved the 2012 

Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan 

for PM2.5 on December 19, 2011. 

Monitoring data from Illinois EPA 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 proposes that Illinois 

has met the infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

IDEM continues to operate an air 

monitoring network; EPA approved the 

State’s 2012 Annual Air Monitoring 

Network Plan for PM2.5 on January 3, 

2012, including the plan for PM2.5. EPA 

noted, however, that IDEM should 

continue to search for a suitable 

replacement location for one monitoring 

site. IDEM 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 proposes that Indiana 

has met the infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

MDEQ maintains a comprehensive 

network of air quality monitors 

throughout Michigan. EPA approved 

MDEQ’s 2012 Annual Air Monitoring 

Network Plan on December 19, 2011. 

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 proposes that Michigan 

has met the infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

MPCA continues to operate an 

ambient pollutant monitoring network, 

and compiles and reports air quality 

data to EPA. EPA approved MPCA’s 

2012 Annual Air Monitoring Network 

Plan for PM2.5 on December 19, 2011. 

MPCA also provides prior notification 

to EPA when changes to its monitoring 

network or plan are being considered. 

EPA proposes that Minnesota has met 

the infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Ohio EPA continues to operate a 

monitoring network; EPA approved the 

State’s 2012 Annual Air Monitoring 

Network Plan for PM2.5 on January 11, 

2012. 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 proposes that 

Ohio has met the infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

WDNR continues to operate an 

extensive monitoring network; EPA 

approved the State’s 2012 Annual Air 

Monitoring Network Plan for PM2.5 on 

January 3, 2012. 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 

proposes that Wisconsin has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for 

Enforcement of Control Measures; PSD 

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 NSR 

requirements under the PSD and 

nonattainment new source review 

(NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA 

(sections 160–169B) addresses PSD, 

while part D of the CAA (sections 171– 

193) addresses NNSR requirements. 

The evaluation of the Region 5 States’ 

certifications addressing the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) covers: (i) 

Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) 

identification of precursors to PM2.5 in 

the PSD program; (iii) identification of 

PM2.5 condensables in the PSD program; 

(iv) oxides of nitrogen (NOx) as a 

precursor to ozone in the PSD program; 

and, (v) greenhouse gas (GHG) 

permitting and the ‘‘Tailoring Rule.’’ 

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 

proposes that Illinois has met the 

enforcement of SIP measures 

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

with respect to the 2006 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 proposes that 

Indiana has met the enforcement of SIP 

measures requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2006 

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 proposes that Michigan 

has met the enforcement of SIP 

measures requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Minnesota Statute chapter 116.07 

gives the MPCA the authority to enforce 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45996 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3 Indiana has also specified that ammonia is not 

a presumed precursor to PM2.5. Ammonia is 

relevant only in the context of NNSR; for the 

purposes of this rulemaking related to structural 

PSD elements, EPA observes that Indiana has 

properly identified VOCs as not being a presumed 

PM2.5 precursor. 

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. Minnesota 

Statute chapter 116.072 authorizes 

MPCA to issue orders and assess 

administrative penalties to correct 

violations of the agency’s rules, statutes, 

and permits. Lastly, Minnesota Statute 

Chapter 115.071 outlines the remedies 

that are available to address such 

violations. EPA proposes that Minnesota 

has met the enforcement of SIP 

measures requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Ohio EPA staffs and implements an 

enforcement program. ORC 3704.03 

provides the Director of Ohio EPA with 

the authority 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 

proposes that Ohio has met the 

enforcement of SIP measures 

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

with respect to the 2006 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 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. WS chapter 

285.83 and WS chapter 285.87 provide 

the authority to enforce violations and 

assess penalties. EPA proposes that 

Wisconsin has met the enforcement of 

SIP measures requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 2: Identification of 

Precursors to PM2.5 in the PSD Program 

On May 16, 2008 (see 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)’’ (2008 NSR Rule). The 2008 

NSR Rule finalized several new 

requirements for SIPS to address 

sources that emit direct PM2.5 and other 

pollutants that contribute to secondary 

PM2.5 formation. One of these 

requirements is for NSR permits to 

address pollutants responsible for the 

secondary formation of PM2.5, otherwise 

known as precursors. In the 2008 rule, 

the EPA identified precursors to PM2.5

for the PSD program to be sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) and NOX (unless the state 

demonstrates to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that 

NOX emissions in an area are not a 

significant contributor to that area’s 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The 

2008 NSR Rule also specifies that 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are 

not considered to be precursors to PM2.5

in the PSD program unless the state 

demonstrates to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that 

emissions of VOCs in an area are 

significant contributors to that area’s 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations. The 

explicit references to SO2, NOX, and 

VOCs as they pertain to secondary PM2.5

formation are codified at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(i) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)(i). The deadline for states to 

submit SIP revisions to their PSD 

programs incorporating these changes 

was May 16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 

28341). 

As part of identifying pollutants that 

are precursors to PM2.5, the 2008 NSR 

Rule also required states to revise the 

definition of ‘‘significant’’ as it relates to 

a net emissions increase or the potential 

of a source to emit pollutants. 

Specifically, 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i) and 

40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i) define 

‘‘significant’’ for PM2.5 to mean the 

following emissions rates: 10 Tons per 

year (tpy) of direct PM2.5; 40 tpy of SO2; 

and 40 tpy of NOX (unless the state 

demonstrates to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that 

NOX emissions in an area are not a 

significant contributor to that area’s 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations). 

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 

precursors to PM2.5 both in the 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ 

and ‘‘significant.’’ EPA acknowledges 

that the States have not satisfied the 

requirement for a SIP submission, 

which results in a proposed disapproval 

with respect to this set of infrastructure 

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

However, Illinois and Minnesota have 

no further obligations to EPA because 

both States administer the Federally 

promulgated PSD regulations. 

Indiana submitted revisions to its PSD 

program incorporating the necessary 

changes regarding PM2.5 precursors on 

July 12, 2012. In this rulemaking, we are 

proposing to approve portions of these 

revisions for incorporation into 

Indiana’s SIP, and we are also proposing 

to find that Indiana has met this set of 

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

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, 

changes to 326 Indiana Administrative 

Code (IAC) 2–2–1(ss), ‘‘Regulated NSR 

pollutant,’’ have been made to explicitly 

identify SO2 and NOX as precursors to 

PM2.5 that will be evaluated in NSR 

permit contexts. Additionally, IDEM has 

also specified that VOCs are not 

presumed to be precursors to PM2.5.3

The definition of ‘‘Significant’’ has been 

revised at 326 IAC 2–2–1(ww)(1)(F) to 

identify the significant emissions rates 

for direct PM2.5, and SO2 and NOX as its 

precursors, consistent with the 2008 

NSR Rule. EPA is proposing to approve 

these revisions into the SIP, and also 

proposes that Indiana has met this set of 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Michigan is in the process of adopting 

revisions to its PSD program that 

incorporate the necessary changes 

regarding PM2.5 precursors. Specifically, 

changes to the Part 18 Rules (R 

336.2801–R 336.2823) have been filed at 

the State level, and MDEQ has 

committed to submitting the revisions 

for incorporation into the SIP when the 

rules are adopted at the State level. 

Although the State has made a specific 

commitment to EPA to make the 

submission required by the 2008 NSR 

Rule, the deadline for when states must 

submit those SIP revisions has since 

passed. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove this narrow portion of 

Michigan’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

with respect to the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) regarding the 

identification of PM2.5 precursors for 

NSR permitting. 

Ohio is in the process of adopting 

revisions to its PSD program that 

incorporate the necessary changes 

regarding PM2.5 precursors. Specifically, 

draft changes are being made to OAC 

3745–31–01, and Ohio has committed to 

submitting the revisions for 

incorporation into the SIP when final 

rules are adopted at the State level. For 

the same reasons discussed above for 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 45997 

4PM10 refers to particles with diameters between 

2.5 and 10 microns, oftentimes referred to as 

‘‘coarse’’ particles. 5Similar changes were codified in 40 CFR 52.21. 

Michigan, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove this narrow portion of 

Ohio’s infrastructure SIP submission for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to 

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

regarding the identification of PM2.5

precursors for NSR permitting. 

Wisconsin submitted revisions to its 

PSD program on May 12, 2011, intended 

to meet the requirements of the 2008 

NSR Rule. Specifically, WDNR’s 

revisions to NR 405.02(27)(a)(5) include 

the significant emissions rates for direct 

PM2.5, and SO2 and NOX as PM2.5

precursors, consistent with the 2008 

NSR Rule. However, Wisconsin’s PSD 

regulations include only generic 

language to define what constitutes a 

regulated NSR pollutant that does not 

directly account for PM2.5 and its 

precursors in NSR permitting. NR 

405(02)(25i) defines ‘‘Regulated NSR air 

contaminant’’ as ‘‘[a]ny air contaminant 

for which a national ambient air quality 

standard has been promulgated and any 

constituents or precursors for the air 

contaminants identified by the 

administrator * * *.’’ The 2008 NSR 

Rule obligates the State to explicitly 

identify the precursors to PM2.5 to be 

addressed in NSR permitting as part of 

the definition for ‘‘Regulated NSR air 

contaminant.’’ EPA notes that although 

Wisconsin has incorporated the 

significant emissions rates in 

accordance with the 2008 NSR Rule, 

WDNR has not explicitly identified SO2

and NOX as precursors to PM2.5 in 

defining pollutants regulated by the PSD 

program. Therefore, we are proposing to 

disapprove this narrow portion of 

Wisconsin’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

with respect to the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) regarding the 

identification of PM2.5 precursors. 

Sub-Element 3: Identification of 

Condensables in the PSD Program 

The 2008 NSR Rule did not require 

states to immediately account for gases 

that could condense to form particulate 

matter, known as condensables, in PM2.5

and PM104 emission limits in NSR 

permits. Instead, EPA determined that 

states had to account for PM2.5 and PM10

condensables beginning on or after 

January 1, 2011. This requirement is 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi) and 

40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(vi). Revisions to 

states’ PSD programs incorporating the 

inclusion of condensables were required 

be submitted to EPA by May 16, 2011 

(see 73 FR 28321 at 28341). 

Illinois and Minnesota have not 

adopted or submitted regulations for 

PSD, although Federal rules for this 

purpose, promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21, 

are in effect in these two States. EPA has 

currently delegated the authority to 

implement these regulations to Illinois 

and Minnesota. These Federally 

promulgated rules include provisions 

defining ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ to 

include condensables for PM2.5 and 

PM10. EPA acknowledges that the States 

have not satisfied the requirement for a 

SIP submission, which results in a 

proposed disapproval with respect to 

this set of infrastructure SIP 

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

However, Illinois and Minnesota have 

no further obligations to EPA because 

both States administer the Federally 

promulgated PSD regulations. 

Indiana submitted revisions to its PSD 

program incorporating the necessary 

changes regarding PM2.5 and PM10

condensables on July 12, 2012. 

Specifically, 326 IAC 2–1.1–1(2) has 

been revised to account for 

condensables in the definition of 

‘‘Direct PM2.5,’’ and analogous changes 

were made at 326 IAC 2–1.1–1(10) for 

‘‘Direct PM10.’’ EPA is proposing to 

approve these revisions into the SIP, 

and also proposes that Indiana has met 

the infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) to account for PM2.5

and PM10 condensables with respect to 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Michigan is in the process of adopting 

revisions to its regulations that 

incorporate the necessary changes 

regarding PM2.5 and PM10 condensables. 

Changes to Part 1 Rules (R 336.1101–R 

336.1128) have been filed at the State 

level, and MDEQ has committed to 

submitting the revisions for 

incorporation into the SIP when the 

rules are adopted at the State level. 

However, for the same reasons 

discussed above regarding the 

identification of PM2.5 precursors, EPA 

is proposing to disapprove this narrow 

portion of Michigan’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

with respect to the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) regarding the 

regulation of PM2.5 and PM10

condensables in the PSD program. 

Ohio is in the process of adopting 

revisions to its regulations that 

incorporate the necessary changes 

regarding PM2.5 and PM10 condensables. 

Specifically, draft changes are being 

made to OAC 3745–31–01, and Ohio has 

committed to submitting the revisions 

for incorporation into the SIP when 

final rules are adopted at the State level. 

However, for the same reasons 

described above, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove this narrow portion of 

Ohio’s infrastructure SIP submission for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to 

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

regarding the regulation of PM2.5 and 

PM10 condensables in the PSD program. 

Wisconsin submitted revisions to its 

PSD program on May 12, 2011. 

However, these revisions do not 

incorporate the necessary changes 

regarding the regulation of condensables 

for PM2.5 and PM10, nor does 

Wisconsin’s existing SIP account for 

PM2.5 and PM10 condensables. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove this narrow portion of 

Wisconsin’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

with respect to the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) regarding the 

regulation of PM2.5 and PM10

condensables in the PSD program. 

Sub-Element 4: NOX as a Precursor to 

Ozone in the PSD Program 

EPA’s ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8- 

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule 

to Implement Certain Aspects of the 

1990 Amendments Relating to New 

Source Review and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration as They Apply 

in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, 

and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for 

Reformulated Gasoline’’ (Phase 2 Rule) 

was published on November 8, 2005 

(see 70 FR 71612). Among other 

requirements, the Phase 2 Rule 

obligated states to revise their PSD 

programs to explicitly identify NOX as 

a precursor to ozone (70 FR 71612 at 

71679, 71699–71700). This requirement 

was codified in 40 CFR 51.166, and 

consisted of the following5: 

40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(ii): A major source that 

is major for volatile organic compounds or 

NOX shall be considered major for ozone; 

40 CFR 51.166(b)(2)(ii): Any significant 

emissions increase (as defined at paragraph 

(b)(39) of this section) from any emissions 

units or net emissions increase (as defined in 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section) at a major 

stationary source that is significant for 

volatile organic compounds or NOX shall be 

considered significant for ozone; 

40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i): Ozone: 40 Tons 

per year of volatile organic compounds or 

nitrogen oxides; 

40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i): Any pollutant for 

which a national ambient air quality standard 

has been promulgated and any constituents 

or precursors for such pollutants identified 

by the Administrator (e.g., volatile organic 

compounds and NOX) are precursors for 

ozone; and 

40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(e) footnote 1: No de 

minimis air quality level is provided for 

ozone. However, any net emissions increase 

of 100 tons per year or more of volatile 

organic compounds or nitrogen oxides 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45998 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

subject to PSD would be required to perform 

an ambient impact analysis, including the 

gathering of air quality data. 

The Phase 2 Rule required that states 

submit SIP revisions incorporating the 

requirements of the rule, including 

these specific NOX as a precursor to 

ozone provisions, by June 15, 2007 (see 

70 FR 71612 at 71683). 

In EPA’s April 28, 2011, proposed 

rulemaking for infrastructure SIPS for 

the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, we 

stated that each state’s PSD program 

must meet applicable requirements for 

evaluation of pollutants in PSD permits. 

In other words, if a state lacks 

provisions needed to address NOX as a 

precursor to ozone, the provisions of 

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

PSD permitting program must be 

considered not to be met irrespective of 

the pollutant being addressed (see 76 FR 

23757 at 23760). In the same April 28, 

2011, notice, we proposed to approve all 

six Region 5 States’ infrastructure SIPs 

with respect to the NOX as a precursor 

to ozone provisions in the PSD program 

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

In our July 13, 2011, final rulemaking 

for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

infrastructure SIPs, EPA finalized 

approval of the portions of the 

infrastructure SIPs from Indiana, 

Michigan, and Ohio with respect to the 

NOX as a precursor to ozone provisions 

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

However, EPA subsequently realized 

that these three States also lacked 

sufficient provisions to identify NOX as 

a precursor to ozone in their respective 

PSD programs, as required by the Phase 

2 Rule. 

In lieu of an error correction pursuant 

to section 110(k)(6) of the CAA, EPA 

informed Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio 

of the factual matter that portions of 

their infrastructure SIPs intended to 

address NOX as a precursor to ozone 

provisions were approved as an 

oversight. We committed to work with 

these States to address the NOX as a 

precursor to ozone provisions, 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Phase 2 Rule, in the next infrastructure 

SIP rulemaking, i.e., today’s rulemaking. 

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 that explicitly 

identify NOX as a precursor to ozone. 

EPA acknowledges that the States have 

not satisfied the requirement for a SIP 

submission, which results in a proposed 

disapproval with respect to this set of 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C). However, Illinois 

and Minnesota have no further 

obligations to EPA because both States 

administer the Federally promulgated 

PSD regulations. 

On July 12, 2012, Indiana submitted 

revisions to its PSD program 

incorporating the necessary changes 

regarding NOX as a precursor to ozone, 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Phase 2 Rule. In this rulemaking, we are 

proposing to approve these revisions to 

Indiana’s SIP, and we are also proposing 

to find that Indiana has met this set of 

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

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, 

Indiana has revised the following 

sections to align with EPA’s own 

regulations contained in 40 CFR 51.166: 

326 IAC 2–2–1(dd)(1): 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(2)(ii); 326 IAC 2–2–1(ff)(7): 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(1)(ii); 326 IAC 2–2– 

1(ss)(1): 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i); 326 

IAC 2–2–1(ww)(1)(G): 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(23)(i); and, 326 IAC 2–2– 

4(b)(2)(vi): footnote to 40 CFR 51.166 

(i)(5)(i)(e). EPA is proposing to approve 

these revisions into the SIP, and also 

proposes that Indiana has met the 

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

with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

regarding the explicit identification of 

NOX as a precursor to ozone, consistent 

with the Phase 2 Rule. 

Michigan is in the process of adopting 

revisions to its PSD program that 

incorporate the necessary changes 

regarding the explicit identification of 

NOX as a precursor to ozone, consistent 

with the requirements of the Phase 2 

Rule. Specifically, changes to the Part 

18 Rules (R 336.2801—R 336.2823) have 

been filed at the State level, and MDEQ 

has committed to submitting the 

revisions for incorporation into the SIP 

when the rules are adopted at the State 

level. However, consistent with actions 

in Region 5 and other regions germane 

to the explicit identification of NOX as 

a precursor to ozone in PSD programs, 

EPA is proposing to disapprove this 

narrow portion of Michigan’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS with respect to the 

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

regarding the explicit identification of 

NOX as a precursor to ozone in the PSD 

program. 

Ohio is in the process of adopting 

revisions to its PSD program that 

incorporate the necessary changes 

regarding the explicit identification of 

NOX as a precursor to ozone, consistent 

with the Phase 2 Rule. Specifically, 

draft changes are being made to OAC 

3745–31–01, and Ohio has committed to 

submitting the revisions for 

incorporation into the SIP when final 

rules are adopted at the State level. For 

the same reasons discussed above, EPA 

is proposing to disapprove this narrow 

portion of Ohio’s infrastructure SIP for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to 

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

regarding the explicit identification of 

NOX as a precursor to ozone in the PSD 

program. 

During the comment period following 

the April 28, 2011, notice, two 

commenters observed that although we 

proposed to approve Wisconsin’s 

infrastructure SIP as meeting the correct 

requirements for NOX as a precursor to 

ozone in the State’s PSD program, 

Wisconsin’s PSD SIP does not contain 

the most recent PSD program revisions 

required by EPA for this purpose. A 

subsequent review of Wisconsin’s PSD 

SIP indicated that the commenters were 

correct in their assertion. Specifically, 

Wisconsin had not made necessary 

revisions to its PSD program with 

respect to the identification of NOX as 

a precursor to ozone, consistent with the 

explicit requirements of the Phase 2 

Rule. As a result, EPA could not finalize 

this portion of Wisconsin’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS in our July 13, 2011, 

final rulemaking. Instead, a subsequent 

set of actions led EPA to disapprove 

Wisconsin’s infrastructure SIP for this 

narrow portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS on June 15, 2012 (see 77 

FR 35870). A detailed rationale for our 

disapproval can be found in the 

associated April 20, 2012, proposed 

rulemaking (see 77 FR 23647). 

This final disapproval triggered the 

requirement under section 110(c) that 

EPA promulgate a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than 

two years from the date of the 

disapproval unless the State corrects the 

deficiency, and the Administrator 

approves the plan or plan revision 

before the Administrator promulgates 

such FIP. Wisconsin has not made a 

subsequent submittal to address the 

NOX as a precursor to ozone provisions 

per the Phase 2 Rule. To clarify, EPA is 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

any portion of Wisconsin’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS as it relates to NOX as a 

precursor to ozone provisions, 

specifically because we have already 

finalized disapproval of these 

provisions for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS infrastructure SIPs. However, 

as discussed above, we are proposing to 

disapprove portions of Wisconsin’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS with respect to certain 

requirements obligated by the 2008 NSR 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 45999 

6http://www.epa.gov/NSR/actions.html#2010. 

7Section 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. 

8Letter from the Director of MDEQ to EPA Region 

5 Regional Administrator dated July 27, 2010. 

Rule, including the explicit 

identification of NOX as a precursor to 

PM2.5. 

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 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.6 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 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. 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 GHG thresholds as outlined 

in the Tailoring Rule. EPA 

acknowledges that the States have not 

satisfied the requirement for a SIP 

submission, which results in a proposed 

disapproval with respect to this set of 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C). However, Illinois 

and Minnesota have no further 

obligations to EPA because both States 

administer the Federally promulgated 

PSD regulations. Note, however, that 

EPA does propose that Illinois and 

Minnesota have met the requirement 

contained in section 110(a)(2)(E) 

regarding resources specific to 

permitting GHG.7

EPA finalized approval of revisions to 

Indiana’s PSD SIP on September 28, 

2011 (see 76 FR 59899). These revisions 

included the adoption of the Federal 

thresholds for PSD permitting of GHGemitting sources. On June 25, 2012, 

Indiana clarified that they intended for 

our September 28, 2011 approval to 

satisfy applicable GHG requirements 

related to their 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

infrastructure SIP. Therefore, EPA 

proposes that Indiana’s GHG permitting 

program has met this set of 

requirements related to section 

110(a)(2)(C) and (E) for the 2006 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.8 Therefore, EPA 

proposes that Michigan’s GHG PSD 

permitting program has met this set of 

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

and (E) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The States of 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 two States only require PSD 

permitting of sources emitting GHG at or 

above the thresholds established in the 

Tailoring Rule. 

On June 3, 2011, Ohio EPA 

transmitted a letter confirming that its 

2006 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submittal 

before our review includes only those 

parts of their PSD SIP that remain 

approved after the PSD SIP Narrowing 

Rule. On March 28, 2011, Wisconsin 

transmitted a similar letter for the 

purposes of satisfying the same 

requirements for the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIPs. 

Wisconsin also submitted revisions to 

its PSD program on May 4, 2011, 

adopting the Federal thresholds for GHG 

emitting sources. EPA is taking separate 

action on Wisconsin’s May 4, 2011, 

submission, but for the purposes of 

evaluating WDNR’s infrastructure SIP 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA notes 

that the portions of Wisconsin’s 

submittal before our review include 

only those parts of the PSD SIP that 

remain approved after the PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule. Thus, the GHG PSD 

permitting requirements included in the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP 

submittals from Ohio and Wisconsin 

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 proposes 

that the GHG PSD permitting program in 

Ohio and Wisconsin have met this set 

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

and (E) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA reiterates that minor NSR 

regulations and NSR reform regulations 

are not in the scope of infrastructure SIP 

actions. Therefore, we are not proposing 

to approve or disapprove existing minor 

NSR regulations or NSR reform 

regulations for each of the Region 5 

States’ 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

infrastructure SIP. Furthermore, 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)(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, 

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

to include provisions prohibiting any 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46000 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from interfering 

with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality or 

to protect visibility. 

In this notice, we are not proposing to 

act on the portions of any state 

submittal intended to address the 

interstate transport requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). We previously 

disapproved those portions of the SIP 

submittals from Indiana and Ohio (see 

76 FR 43175), and today’s action neither 

proposes to approve nor proposes to 

disapprove those portions of the SIP 

submittals from Illinois, Michigan, 

Minnesota, and Wisconsin. EPA intends 

to take separate action on the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of the SIP 

submittals from Illinois, Michigan, 

Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Neither 

Indiana nor Ohio has a 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

SIP submittal pending before the 

Agency at this time. 

With respect to the PSD requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), EPA notes 

that each Region 5 State’s satisfaction of 

the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

has been detailed in the section 

addressing section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA 

notes that the proposed actions in that 

section related to PSD are consistent 

with the proposed actions related to 

PSD for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 

they are reiterated below. 

Although 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. 

The PSD regulations in question 

include: (i) The explicit identification of 

SO2 and NOX as PM2.5 precursors (and 

the significant emissions rates for direct 

PM2.5, and SO2 and NOX as its 

precursors), consistent with the 

requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule; (ii) 

the regulation of PM2.5 and PM10

condensables consistent with the 

requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule; (iii) 

the explicit identification of NOX as a 

precursor to ozone consistent with the 

Phase 2 Rule; and, (iv) permitting of 

GHG emitting sources at the Federal 

Tailoring Rule thresholds. EPA 

acknowledges that the States have not 

satisfied the requirement for a SIP 

submission, which results in a proposed 

disapproval with respect to this set of 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). However, 

Illinois and Minnesota have no further 

obligations to EPA because both States 

administer the Federally promulgated 

PSD regulations. 

EPA is proposing to approve revisions 

to Indiana’s PSD SIP that identify SO2

and NOX as PM2.5 precursors, along with 

the significant emissions rates for direct 

PM2.5 and SO2 and NOX as its 

precursors, consistent with the 

requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule. We 

are also proposing to approve revisions 

to Indiana’s SIP that regulate PM2.5 and 

PM10 condensables, consistent with the 

requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule. 

Lastly, EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to Indiana’s SIP that explicitly 

identify NOX as a precursor to ozone, 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Phase 2 Rule. EPA approved revisions to 

Indiana’s SIP on September 28, 2011, 

that incorporate the Federal thresholds 

for GHG emitting sources for PSD 

permitting. Therefore, EPA proposes 

that Indiana has met all of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements for PSD 

associated with section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

portions of infrastructure SIP 

submissions from Michigan, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin regarding PM2.5 precursors, 

and PM2.5 and PM10 condensables, in 

each of these States’ PSD programs. 

These States have not made revisions to 

their PSD programs consistent with the 

requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule, and 

therefore EPA proposes that they have 

not met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements to identify PM2.5

precursors, or regulate PM2.5 and PM10

condensables, with respect to the PSD 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

portions of infrastructure SIP 

submissions from Michigan and Ohio 

regarding the explicit identification of 

NOX as a precursor to ozone in each of 

these States’ PSD programs. These 

States have not made revisions to their 

PSD programs consistent with the 

requirements of the Phase 2 Rule, and 

therefore EPA proposes that they have 

not met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements to identify NOX as a 

precursor to ozone with respect to the 

PSD requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). As previously noted, 

EPA has already finalized disapproval 

of portions of Wisconsin’s infrastructure 

SIP with respect to this requirement. 

As stated above, EPA approved 

revisions to Indiana’s SIP on September 

28, 2011, that incorporate the Federal 

Tailoring Rule thresholds for GHG 

emitting sources. Michigan retains the 

necessary authority, resources, and 

personnel to permit GHG emitting 

sources at the Federal Tailoring Rule 

thresholds. Ohio and Wisconsin have 

the necessary authority to permit GHG 

emitting sources at the Federal Tailoring 

Rule, and both States have transmitted 

letters to EPA stating that their 

infrastructure SIPs before our review 

includes only those parts of their PSD 

SIP that remain approved after the PSD 

SIP Narrowing Rule. Thus, the GHG 

PSD permitting requirements included 

in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure 

SIP submittals from Ohio and 

Wisconsin consist of only those portions 

of their PSD SIP programs that apply 

PSD permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions at or above Tailoring Rule 

thresholds. EPA proposes that the States 

of Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and 

Ohio have met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements for permitting GHG 

emitting sources at the Federal Tailoring 

Rule thresholds with respect to the PSD 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

EPA reiterates once again that minor 

NSR regulations and NSR reform 

regulations are not in the scope of 

infrastructure SIP actions. Therefore, we 

are not proposing to approve or 

disapprove existing minor NSR 

regulations or NSR reform regulations 

for each of the Region 5 States’ 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP. 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are 

subject to visibility and regional haze 

program requirements under part C of 

the CAA (which includes sections 169A 

and 169B). The 2009 Memo states that 

these requirements can be satisfied by 

an approved SIP addressing reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment, if 

required, and an approved SIP 

addressing regional haze. 

EPA’s final approval of Illinois’ 

regional haze plan was published on 

July 6, 2012 (see 76 FR 39943). EPA’s 

final approval of Indiana’s regional haze 

plan was published on June 11, 2012 

(see 77 FR 34218). EPA’s final approval 

of Ohio’s regional haze plan was 

published on July 2, 2012 (see 77 FR 

39177). EPA’s final approval of 

Minnesota’s regional haze plan was 

published on June 12, 2012 (see 77 FR 

34801). EPA’s final approval of 

Wisconsin’s regional haze plan was 

signed by the Regional Administrator on 

June 15, 2012, and is awaiting 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Therefore, EPA proposes that the States 

of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, 

and Wisconsin have met this set of 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is taking separate 

action on Michigan’s regional haze plan, 

which was submitted on November 5, 

2010, and is not proposing to approve 

or disapprove the visibility protection 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46001 

and regional haze plan requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for Michigan 

in today’s action. We will address 

Michigan’s satisfaction of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements related 

to visibility protection and regional haze 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) after EPA 

finalizes action on the regional haze 

submission. 

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

SIP to contain adequate provisions 

requiring compliance with the 

applicable requirements of section 126 

and section 115 (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 

modified sources to notify neighboring 

states of potential negative air quality 

impacts. EPA acknowledges that the 

States have not satisfied the requirement 

for a SIP submission, which results in 

a proposed disapproval with respect to 

this set of infrastructure SIP 

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

However, Illinois and Minnesota have 

no further obligations to EPA because 

both States administer the Federally 

promulgated PSD regulations. 

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. The 

original submissions from Indiana, 

Michigan, and Wisconsin reference each 

State’s PSD program as having adequate 

provisions to meet the requirements of 

section 126(a). Ohio EPA’s June 3, 2011, 

supplemental submission clarifies that 

provisions in their PSD program satisfy 

the requirements of section 126(a). EPA 

is proposing that Indiana, Michigan, 

Ohio, and Wisconsin have met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 126(a) with respect to the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. None of the Region 5 

States have obligations under any other 

section of section 126. 

The original submissions from 

Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and 

Wisconsin affirm that none of these 

States have pending obligations under 

section 115, while Illinois EPA’s August 

25, 2011, and Ohio EPA’s June 3, 2011, 

supplemental submissions confirmed 

the same satisfaction of section 115. 

EPA therefore is proposing that all 

Region 5 States have met the applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

115 of the CAA (international pollution 

abatement). 

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

requires each state to comply with the 

requirements respecting state boards 

under section 128. 

Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, 

Funding, and Legal Authority Under 

State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and 

Related Issues 

At the time of their submittal, Illinois 

EPA cited the most recent House Bill 

and Public Act in the State that provides 

appropriations for the Illinois Bureau of 

Air Programs and associated personnel. 

In addition to the environmental 

performance partnership agreement 

(EnPPA) with EPA, Illinois has 

confirmed that it retains all necessary 

resources to carry out required air 

programs. 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 

proposes that Illinois has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of this 

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

respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Indiana’s biennial budget and their 

EnPPA with EPA document 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 proposes that Indiana 

has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of this portion of section 

110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2006 

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. Michigan’s EnPPA with EPA 

documents certain funding and 

personnel levels for MDEQ. 

Furthermore, Act 451 provides the legal 

authority under State law to carry out 

the Michigan SIP. EPA proposes that 

Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Minnesota provided information on 

the State’s authorized spending by 

program, program priorities, and the 

State budget. MPCA’s EnPPA with EPA 

provides the MPCA’s assurances of 

resources to carry out certain air 

programs. EPA also notes that 

Minnesota Statute chapter 116.07 

provides the legal authority under State 

law to carry out the SIP. EPA proposes 

that Minnesota has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Ohio EPA has included its most 

recent 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. Ohio’s EnPPA with EPA 

documents certain funding and 

personnel levels at Ohio EPA. As 

discussed in previous sections, ORC 

3704.03 provides the legal authority 

under State law to carry out the SIP. 

EPA proposes that Ohio has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 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. Wisconsin’s 

EnPPA with EPA documents certain 

funding and personnel levels at WDNR. 

As discussed in previous sections, basic 

duties and authorities in the State are 

outlined in WS chapter 285.11. EPA 

proposes that Wisconsin has met the 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46002 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 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 

Ohio and Wisconsin do not involve 

permitting GHG sources smaller than 

the Tailoring Rule thresholds, EPA 

proposes that these States also have the 

resources necessary to implement the 

requirements of their respective SIPs. 

As previously discussed, EPA 

approved revisions to Indiana’s PSD 

program adopting the Federal Tailoring 

Rule thresholds for GHG on September 

28, 2011. Therefore, Indiana’s SIP as it 

relates to GHG-emitting sources for PSD 

does not involve permitting sources 

smaller than the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds, and EPA proposes that 

Indiana retains the resources necessary 

to implement the requirements of its 

SIP. 

EPA confirms that Michigan’s PSD 

regulations provide the State with 

adequate resources to permit GHG 

consistent with the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds; therefore, EPA proposes that 

Michigan retains all the resources 

necessary to implement the 

requirements of its SIP. 

Sub-Element 2: State Board 

Requirements Under Section 128 of the 

CAA 

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

SIP to contain provisions that respect 

the state board requirements of section 

128, which has two explicit 

requirements: (i) that any board or body 

which approves permits or enforcement 

orders under this chapter shall have at 

least a majority of members who 

represent the public interest and do not 

derive any significant portion of their 

income from persons subject to permits 

and enforcement orders under this 

chapter, and (ii) that any potential 

conflicts of interest by members of such 

board or body or the head of an 

executive agency with similar powers be 

adequately disclosed. 

In today’s action, EPA is neither 

proposing to approve or disapprove 

each Region 5 State’s satisfaction of the 

state board requirements of section 

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

separate action on compliance with 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the States of 

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Ohio, and Wisconsin at a later time. 

EPA is working with each of the Region 

5 States to address these requirements 

in the most appropriate way. 

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary 

Source Monitoring System 

States must establish a system to 

monitor emissions from stationary 

sources and submit periodic emissions 

reports. Each plan shall also require the 

installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources. The state plan shall 

also require periodic reports on the 

nature and amounts of emissions and 

emissions-related data from such 

sources, and correlation of such reports 

by each state agency with any emission 

limitations or standards established 

pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the 

reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection. 

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 

proposes that Illinois has satisfied the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The Indiana State rules for monitoring 

requirements are contained in 326 IAC 

3. Additional emissions reporting 

requirements are found in 326 IAC 2–6. 

Emission reports are available upon 

request by EPA or other interested 

parties. EPA proposes that Indiana has 

satisfied the infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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 

proposes that Michigan has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 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. Minnesota Statute 

chapter 116.07 gives MPCA the 

authority to require owners or operators 

of emission facilities to install and 

operate monitoring equipment, while 

Chapter 7007.0800 of Minnesota’s SIP 

sets forth the minimum monitoring 

requirements that must be included in 

stationary source permits. Lastly, 

Chapter 7017 of Minnesota’s SIP 

contains monitoring and testing 

requirements, including rules for 

continuous monitoring. EPA proposes 

that Minnesota has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 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 

proposes that Ohio has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 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. Basic authority 

for Wisconsin’s Federally mandated 

Compliance Assurance Monitoring 

reporting structure is provided in 

Wisconsin Statute Chapter 285.65. EPA 

proposes that Wisconsin has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency 

Powers 

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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46003 

Director of the Air Quality Policy 

Division to the Regional Air Division 

Directors. In accordance with this 

guidance, EPA believes that all states 

must have general emergency authority 

comparable to section 303 of the CAA. 

With respect to contingency plans, EPA 

believes that where a state can 

demonstrate that PM2.5 levels have 

consistently remained below 140.4 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), the 

state may satisfy section 110(a)(2)(G) 

without necessarily providing for 

specific emergency episode plans or 

contingency measures for 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

On June 27, 2012, Illinois EPA 

confirmed that all monitored values of 

PM2.5 have been well below 140.4 mg/m3

at all monitoring sites in Illinois, and 

therefore Illinois does not need 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, and these provisions are 

contained in 415 ILCS 5/34 and 415 

ILCS 5/43(a). EPA proposes that Illinois 

has met the infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On June 25, 2012, IDEM confirmed 

that all monitored values of PM2.5 have 

been well below 140.4 mg/m3 at all 

monitoring sites in Indiana since 1999, 

and therefore Indiana does not need to 

submit an emergency episode plan and 

contingency measures for PM2.5 at this 

time. Several statutory provisions in the 

Indiana Code and the IAC provide the 

proper mechanisms to address air 

pollution emergency episodes. EPA 

proposes that Indiana has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On July 9, 2012, MDEQ confirmed 

that all monitored PM2.5 values in 

Michigan have been well below 140.4 

mg/m3, therefore, MDEQ does not need 

to submit an emergency episode plan 

and contingency measures for PM2.5 at 

this time. 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 proposes that Michigan 

has met the infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On June 27, 2012, MPCA observed 

that all monitored values of PM2.5 have 

been well below 140.4 mg/m3 at all 

monitoring sites in Minnesota since 

2006. Therefore, Minnesota does not 

need to submit an emergency episode 

plan and contingency measures for 

PM2.5 at this time. Chapter 7000.5000 

and 7009.1050 of the Minnesota SIP 

contain the emergency powers set forth 

in the State. Chapter 7009.1000– 

7009.1110 of Minnesota SIP contain the 

provisions necessary for determining air 

quality emergency episodes. EPA 

proposes that Minnesota has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On July 5, 2012, Ohio EPA confirmed 

that all monitored values of PM2.5 have 

been well below 140.4 mg/m3 at all 

monitoring sites in Ohio, and therefore 

Ohio does not need 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 proposes 

that Ohio has met the infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On July 2, 2012, WDNR confirmed 

that that all monitored values of PM2.5

have been well below 140.4 mg/m3 at all 

monitoring sites in Wisconsin, and 

therefore Wisconsin does not need 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 proposes that 

Wisconsin has met the infrastructure 

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

with respect to the 2006 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. 

Furthermore, they have the authority to 

respond to any EPA findings of 

inadequacy with the Illinois SIP 

program. EPA proposes that Illinois has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 

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

the 2006 p.m.2.5 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 proposes that 

Indiana has met the infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS. 

Michigan Act 451 324.5503 and 

324.5512 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 proposes that Michigan 

has met the infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to 2006 p.m.2.5 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 proposes that 

Minnesota has met the infrastructure 

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

with respect to the 2006 p.m.2.5 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 

proposes that Ohio has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 p.m.2.5 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 

proposes that Wisconsin has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 p.m.2.5 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46004 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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; PSD; 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 EPA Region 5 States 

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 proposes 

that Illinois has met the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of this portion of 

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

2006 p.m.2.5 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 

proposes that Indiana has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of this 

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

respect to the 2006 p.m.2.5 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 proposes that 

Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of this portion of section 

110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2006 

p.m.2.5 NAAQS. 

MPCA actively participates in the 

Central Regional Air Planning 

Association as well as the Central States 

Air Resource Agencies. MPCA has 

historically participated in LADCO, and 

is in the process of becoming a full-time 

member of the organization. MPCA has 

also demonstrated that it frequently 

consults and discusses issues with 

pertinent Tribes. Therefore, EPA 

proposes that Minnesota has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of this 

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

respect to the 2006 p.m.2.5 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 proposes 

that Ohio has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of this portion of section 

110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2006 

p.m.2.5 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 proposes 

that Wisconsin has satisfied the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of this 

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

respect to the 2006 p.m.2.5 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 

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 

available on Illinois EPA’s Web site. 

EPA proposes that Illinois has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of this 

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

respect to the 2006 p.m.2.5 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 proposes 

that Indiana has met the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of this portion of 

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

2006 p.m.2.5 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 proposes that 

Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of this portion of section 

110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2006 

p.m.2.5 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 proposes that 

Minnesota has met the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of this portion of 

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

2006 p.m.2.5 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 proposes that Ohio has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 

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

with respect to the 2006 p.m.2.5 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46005 

noted. Public notice is provided at 

levels associated with the extent of the 

monitored problems ranging from a 

simple advisory to alert levels, 

consistent with the provisions of WS 

chapter 285.11. 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 proposes that 

Wisconsin has met the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of this portion of 

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

2006 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 3: PSD 

States must meet applicable 

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

related to PSD. All six Region 5 States 

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 NSR 

program. Each Region 5 State’s PSD 

program in the context of infrastructure 

SIPs has already been discussed in the 

paragraphs addressing section 

110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 

EPA notes that the proposed actions for 

those sections are consistent with the 

proposed actions for this portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(J). Our proposed 

actions are reiterated below. 

Although 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. 

The PSD regulations in question 

include: (i) The explicit identification of 

SO2 and NOX as PM2.5 precursors (and 

the significant emissions rates for direct 

PM2.5, and SO2 and NOX as its 

precursors) consistent with the 

requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule; (ii) 

the regulation of PM2.5 and PM10

condensables consistent with the 

requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule; (iii) 

the explicit identification of NOX as a 

precursor to ozone consistent with the 

Phase 2 Rule; and, (iv) permitting of 

GHG emitting sources at the Federal 

Tailoring Rule thresholds. EPA 

acknowledges that the States have not 

satisfied the requirement for a SIP 

submission, which results in a proposed 

disapproval with respect to this set of 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(J). However, Illinois 

and Minnesota have no further 

obligations to EPA because both States 

administer the Federally promulgated 

PSD regulations. 

EPA is proposing to approve revisions 

to Indiana’s PSD SIP that identify SO2

and NOX as PM2.5 precursors, along with 

the significant emissions rates for direct 

PM2.5, and SO2 and NOX as its 

precursors, consistent with the 

requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule. We 

are also proposing to approve revisions 

to Indiana’s SIP that regulate PM2.5 and 

PM10 condensables, consistent with the 

requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule. 

Lastly, EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to Indiana’s SIP that explicitly 

identify NOX as a precursor to ozone, 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Phase 2 Rule. EPA approved revisions to 

Indiana’s SIP on September 28, 2011, 

that incorporate the Federal thresholds 

for GHG emitting sources for PSD 

permitting. Therefore, EPA proposes 

that Indiana has met all of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements for PSD 

associated with section 110(a)(2)(D)(J) 

for the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

portions of infrastructure SIP 

submissions from Michigan, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin regarding PM2.5 precursors, 

and PM2.5 and PM10 condensables, in 

each of these States’ PSD programs. 

These States have not made revisions to 

their PSD programs consistent with the 

requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule, and 

therefore EPA proposes that they have 

not met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements to identify PM2.5

precursors, or regulate PM2.5 and PM10

condensables, with respect to the PSD 

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

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

portions of infrastructure SIP 

submissions from Michigan and Ohio 

regarding the explicit identification of 

NOX as a precursor to ozone in each of 

these States’ PSD programs. These 

States have not made revisions to their 

PSD programs consistent with the 

requirements of the Phase 2 Rule, and 

therefore EPA proposes that they have 

not met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements to identify NOX as a 

precursor to ozone with respect to the 

PSD requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J). 

As previously noted, EPA has already 

finalized disapproval of portions of 

Wisconsin’s infrastructure SIP with 

respect to this requirement. 

As stated above, EPA approved 

revisions to Indiana’s SIP on September 

28, 2011, that incorporate the Federal 

Tailoring Rule thresholds for GHG 

emitting sources. Michigan retains the 

necessary authority, resources, and 

personnel to permit GHG emitting 

sources at the Federal Tailoring Rule 

thresholds. Ohio and Wisconsin have 

the necessary authority to permit GHG 

emitting sources at the Federal Tailoring 

Rule, and both States have transmitted 

letters to EPA stating that their 

infrastructure SIPs before our review 

includes only those parts of their PSD 

SIP that remain approved after the PSD 

SIP Narrowing Rule. Thus, the GHG 

PSD permitting requirements included 

in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure 

SIP submittals from Ohio and 

Wisconsin consist of only those portions 

of their PSD SIP programs that apply 

PSD permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions at or above Tailoring Rule 

thresholds. EPA proposes that the States 

of Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and 

Ohio have met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements for permitting GHG 

emitting sources at the Federal Tailoring 

Rule thresholds with respect to the PSD 

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

EPA reiterates once again that minor 

NSR regulations and NSR reform 

regulations are not in the scope of 

infrastructure SIP actions. Therefore, we 

are not proposing to approve or 

disapprove existing minor NSR 

regulations or NSR reform regulations 

for each of the Region 5 States’ 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP. 

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. 

EPA’s final approval of Illinois’ 

regional haze plan was published on 

July 6, 2012 (see 76 FR 39943). EPA’s 

final approval of Indiana’s regional haze 

plan was published on June 11, 2012 

(see 77 FR 34218). EPA’s final approval 

of Ohio’s regional haze plan was 

published on July 2, 2012 (see 77 FR 

39177). EPA’s final approval of 

Minnesota’s regional haze plan was 

published on June 12, 2012 (see 77 FR 

34801). EPA’s final approval of 

Wisconsin’s regional haze plan was 

signed by the Regional Administrator on 

June 15, 2012, and is awaiting 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Therefore, EPA proposes that the States 

of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, 

and Wisconsin have met this set of 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA 

is taking separate action on Michigan’s 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46006 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

regional haze plan, which was 

submitted on November 5, 2010, and is 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

the visibility protection and regional 

haze plan requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(J) for Michigan in today’s 

action. We will address Michigan’s 

satisfaction of the infrastructure SIP 

requirements related to visibility 

protection and regional haze of section 

110(a)(2)(J) after EPA finalizes action on 

the regional haze submission. 

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 

proposes that Illinois EPA has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 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 proposes that Indiana has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 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 

proposes that Michigan has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 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. 

Because Minnesota administers the 

Federally promulgated PSD regulations, 

pre-construction permitting modeling is 

conducted in compliance with EPA’s 

regulations. EPA proposes that 

Minnesota has met the infrastructure 

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

with respect to the 2006 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 proposes that Ohio has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 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. 

The authorities to perform modeling in 

Wisconsin reside in WS chapter 285.11, 

WS chapter 285.13, and WS chapter 

285.60—285.69. EPA proposes that 

Wisconsin has met the infrastructure 

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

with respect to the 2006 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 proposes that 

Illinois has met the infrastructure SIP 

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 proposes that Indiana has 

met the infrastructure SIP 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 proposes that Michigan has 

met the infrastructure SIP 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 proposes that 

Minnesota has met the infrastructure 

SIP 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 proposes that Ohio has met 

the infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

WDNR 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 proposes that Wisconsin has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 

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

EPA proposes that all Region 5 States 

have met the infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to 2006 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 

proposes that Illinois has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 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 proposes that Indiana has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 

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

the 2006 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 

proposes that Michigan has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46007 

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 proposes that Minnesota 

has met the infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2006 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 proposes that Ohio has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 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 proposes that 

Wisconsin has met the infrastructure 

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

with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve some 

elements and disapprove remaining 

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 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to 

approve portions of a submittal from 

Indiana intended to meet EPA’s 

requirements for the NSR and PSD 

program in that State. Specifically, they 

include: (i) 326 IAC 2–1.1–1(2); (ii) 326 

IAC 2–1.1–1(10); (iii) 326 IAC 2–2– 

1(dd)(1); (iv) 326 IAC 2–2–1(ff)(7); (v) 

326 IAC 2–2–1(ss)(1); (vi) 326 IAC 2–2– 

1(ww)(1)(F); (vii) 326 IAC 2–2– 

1(ww)(1)(G); and, (viii) 326 IAC 2–2– 

4(b)(2)(vi). 

EPA’s proposed actions for each 

Region 5 State’s satisfaction of 

infrastructure SIP requirements, by 

element of section 110(a)(2) are 

contained in the table below. 

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: PM2.5 precursors for PSD ................................................................................ D,* A D D D,* D 

C3: PM2.5 and PM10 condensables for PSD ........................................................... D,* A D D D,* D 

C4: NOx as a precursor to ozone for PSD ............................................................ D,* A D D D,* NA 

C5: GHG permitting thresholds in PSD regulations ............................................... D,* A A A D,* A 

D1: Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with maintenance of NAAQS ............... NA NA NA NA NA NA 

D2: PSD .................................................................................................................. **   **  ** ** 

D3: Visibility Protection ........................................................................................... A A A NA A A 

D4: Interstate Pollution Abatement ......................................................................... D,* A A A D,* A 

D5: International Pollution Abatement .................................................................... A A A A A A 

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

E: State boards ....................................................................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA 

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) ................................................................. A A A NA A A 

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. 

NA No Action/Separate Rulemaking. 

D Disapprove. 

* Federally promulgated rules in place. 

** Previously discussed in element (C). 

To clarify, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the infrastructure SIP 

submissions from Illinois and 

Minnesota with respect to certain PSD 

requirements including: (i) The explicit 

identification of SO2 and NOX as PM2.5

precursors (and the significant 

emissions rates for direct PM2.5, and SO2

and NOX as its precursors) consistent 

with the requirements of the 2008 NSR 

Rule; (ii) the regulation of PM2.5 and 

PM10 condensables consistent with the 

requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule; (iii) 

the explicit identification of NOX as a 

precursor to ozone consistent with the 

Phase 2 Rule; and, (iv) permitting of 

GHG emitting sources at the Federal 

Tailoring Rule thresholds. 

EPA is also proposing to disapprove 

the infrastructure SIP submissions from 

Illinois and Minnesota with respect to 

the requirements of section 

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

pollution abatement. Specifically, this 

section requires states with PSD 

programs have provisions requiring a 

new or modified source to notify 

neighboring states of the potential 

impacts from the source, consistent with 

the requirements of section 126(a). 

However, Illinois and Minnesota have 

no further obligations to EPA because 

Federally promulgated rules, 

promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21 are in 

effect in each of these States. EPA has 

delegated the authority to Illinois and 

Minnesota to administer these rules, 

which include provisions related to PSD 

and interstate pollution abatement. A 

final disapproval for Illinois or 

Minnesota for these infrastructure SIP 

requirements will not result in sanctions 

under section 179(a), nor will it obligate 

EPA to promulgate a FIP within two 

years of final action if the States do not 

submit revisions to their PSD SIPs 

addressing these deficiencies. Instead, 

Illinois and Minnesota are already 

administering the Federally 

promulgated PSD regulations. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46008 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

9Although not specific to this action, EPA will 

also continue to work with WDNR to ensure that 

revisions to the State’s PSD program contain 

provisions that explicitly identify NOX as a 

precursor to ozone, consistent with the Phase 2 

Rule. 

The grounds for EPA’s proposed 

disapproval of portions of the 

infrastructure SIP submittals from Ohio, 

Michigan, and Wisconsin are very 

narrow, and pertain only to these 

specific deficiencies in the States’ SIPs 

described in the relevant sections of this 

proposed action. 

As previously discussed, Michigan 

and Ohio have been working on 

revisions to their PSD programs, 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Phase 2 Rule and the 2008 NSR Rule. 

We will work with the States to rectify 

these issues promptly. In addition, EPA 

will work with WDNR to account for the 

explicit identification of precursors to 

PM2.5, as well as PM2.5 and PM10

condensables, in its PSD program.9

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submission that 

addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan 

(section 171—section 193 of the CAA), 

or is required in response to a finding 

of substantial inadequacy as described 

in section 110(k)(5) starts a sanction 

clock. The provisions in the 

submissions we are disapproving were 

not submitted by Michigan, Ohio, or 

Wisconsin to meet either of those 

requirements. Therefore, if EPA takes 

final action to disapprove these 

submissions, no sanctions under section 

179 will be triggered. 

The full or partial disapproval of a SIP 

revision triggers the requirement under 

section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a 

FIP no later than two years from the 

date of the disapproval unless the state 

corrects the deficiency, and the 

Administrator approves the plan or plan 

revision before the Administrator 

promulgates such FIP. As previously 

mentioned, EPA anticipates that MDEQ 

and Ohio EPA will make submissions 

rectifying each of these deficiencies. 

Further, EPA anticipates acting on the 

submissions within the two year time 

frame prior to our FIP obligation on 

these very narrow issues. In the interim, 

EPA expects Michigan and Ohio to treat 

and explicitly identify NOX as a 

precursor to ozone for PSD permitting 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Phase 2 Rule. EPA also expects these 

States to adhere to the requirements of 

the 2008 NSR Rule with respect to the 

treatment and identification of PM2.5

precursors and the accounting for PM2.5

and PM10 condensables in permitting 

emissions limits in their respective PSD 

programs. 

EPA will actively work with 

Wisconsin to incorporate changes to its 

PSD program that explicitly identify 

PM2.5 precursors and account for PM2.5

and PM10 condensables in permitting 

emissions limits, consistent with the 

2008 NSR Rule. In the interim, EPA 

expects WDNR to adhere to the 

associated requirements of the 2008 

NSR Rule in its PSD program, 

specifically with respect to the explicit 

identification of PM2.5 precursors, and 

the accounting for PM2.5 and PM10

condensables in permitting emissions 

limits. 

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, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: July 20, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–18880 Filed 8–1–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2011–0194; FRL–9709–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans: Idaho; BoiseNorthern Ada County Air Quality 

Maintenance Area; Second 10-Year 

Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of Idaho 

(the State). The Idaho State Department 

of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) 

submitted the Northern Ada County Air 

Quality Maintenance Area Second 10- 

year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance 

Plan on February 10, 2011. In 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Federal Clean Air Act (the Act), EPA is 

proposing to approve the revision 

because the State adequately 

demonstrates that the Boise-Northern 

Ada County Air Quality Maintenance 

Area will maintain air quality standards 

for carbon monoxide (CO) through the 

year 2022. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 4, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS