Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 64155 

designated available area at the same 

time, and the area cannot reasonably 

accommodate multiple occupancy, the 

superintendent will, whenever possible, 

direct the later-arriving group to relocate 

to another nearby designated available 

area. 

(c) Application for permit. An 

application must provide: 

(1) The name of the applicant or the 

name of the organization (if any); 

(2) The date, time, duration, nature, 

and place of the proposed event; 

(3) An estimate of the number of 

persons expected to attend; 

(4) A statement of equipment and 

facilities to be used; 

(5) Whether there is any reason to 

believe that there will be an attempt to 

disrupt, protest, or prevent the event; 

and 

(6) Any other information required by 

the permit application form. 

(d) The superintendant must not 

accept an application more than one 

year before the proposed event 

(including time required for set-up); 

applications received more than a year 

in advance will be returned to the 

applicant. 

(e) Processing the application. The 

superintendent must issue a permit 

within ten days of receiving a complete 

and fully executed application unless: 

(1) The superintendant has granted or 

will grant a prior application for a 

permit for the same time and place, and 

the activities authorized by that permit 

do not reasonably allow multiple 

occupancy of the particular area; 

(2) It reasonably appears that the sale 

or distribution will present a clear and 

present danger to the public health and 

safety; 

(3) The number of persons engaged in 

the sale or distribution exceeds the 

number that can reasonably be 

accommodated in the particular location 

applied for, considering such things as 

damage to park resources or facilities, 

impairment of a protected area’s 

atmosphere of peace and tranquility, 

interference with program activities, or 

impairment of public use facilities; 

(4) The location applied for has not 

been designated as available under 

§ 2.51(c)(2); 

(5) The application was submitted 

more than one year before the proposed 

event (including set-up); or 

(6) The activity would constitute a 

violation of an applicable law or 

regulation. 

(f) Written denial of permit. If a permit 

is denied, the superintendant will 

inform the applicant in writing of the 

denial and the reasons for it. 

(g) Permit conditions. The permit may 

contain conditions reasonably 

consistent with the requirements of 

public health and safety, protection of 

park resources, and the use of the park 

area for the purposes for which it was 

established. 

(h) Permit duration. (1) Permits may 

be issued for a maximum of 14 

consecutive days. 

(2) A permit may be extended for up 

to 14 days, but a new application must 

be submitted for each extension 

requested. 

(3) The extension may be denied if 

another applicant has requested use of 

the same location and the location 

cannot reasonably accommodate 

multiple occupancy. 

(i) Misrepresentation. It is prohibited 

for persons engaged in the sale or 

distribution of printed matter under this 

section to misrepresent the purposes or 

affiliations of those engaged in the sale 

or distribution, or to misrepresent 

whether the printed matter is available 

without cost or donation. 

(j) Violation prohibited. Violation of 

these regulations or the terms of the 

permit is prohibited. 

(k) Permit revocation, termination of 

small group exception. (1) The 

superintendent may revoke a permit for 

any violation of its terms and 

conditions. 

(2) The superintendent may revoke a 

permit, or order a small group permit 

exception activity to cease, when any of 

the conditions listed in paragraph (e) of 

this section exist. 

(3) The superintendent will make the 

revocation or order to cease in writing, 

with the reasons clearly set forth. In 

emergency circumstances the 

superintendent will make an immediate 

verbal revocation or order to cease, 

followed by written confirmation within 

72 hours. 

Dated: October 1, 2010. 

Will Shafroth, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26392 Filed 10–15–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4312–52–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2007–0587; EPA–R05– 

OAR–2009–0732; FRL–9205–8] 

Approval of Implementation Plans of 

Wisconsin: Nitrogen Oxides 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to 

the Wisconsin State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submitted on June 12, 2007 

and on September 14, 2009. These 

revisions incorporate provisions related 

to the implementation of nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for major 

sources in the Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan County ozone nonattainment 

areas. EPA is approving SIP revisions 

that address the NOX RACT 

requirements found in the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). EPA is also approving other 

miscellaneous rule changes that affect 

NOX regulations that were previously 

adopted and approved into the SIP. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

November 18, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established the 

following dockets for this action: Docket 

ID Nos. EPA–R05–OAR–2007–0587 and 

EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0732. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

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

Friday, excluding federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Douglas 

Aburano, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 353–6960, before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Douglas Aburano, Environmental 

Engineer, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 353–6960, 

aburano.douglas@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: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for this rule? 

II. What comments did we receive on the 

proposed rule? 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
64156 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

III. What actions is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this rule? 

The CAA amendments of 1990 

introduced the requirement for existing 

major stationary sources of NOX in 

nonattainment areas that are classified 

as moderate or above to install and 

operate NOX RACT. Specifically, section 

182(b)(2) of the CAA requires states to 

adopt RACT for all major sources of 

VOC in ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as moderate or above, and 

section 182(f) requires that the RACT 

provisions for VOC also apply to major 

stationary sources of NOX. ‘‘RACT’’ is 

defined as the lowest emission 

limitation that a particular source is 

capable of meeting by the application of 

control technology that is reasonably 

available considering technological and 

economic feasibility (44 FR 53762). 

Section 302 of the CAA defines a 

major stationary source as any facility 

which has the potential to emit 100 tons 

per year of any air pollutant. For serious 

ozone nonattainment areas, a major 

source is defined by section 182(c) as a 

source that has the potential to emit 50 

tons of NOX per year. For severe ozone 

nonattainment areas, a major source is 

defined by section 182(d) as a source 

that has the potential to emit 25 tons per 

year. 

The requirements for NOX RACT can 

be waived under section 182(f) of the 

CAA. See EPA memorandum dated 

December 16, 1993, from John Seitz, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards to Air Division Directors 

entitled, ‘‘Guideline for Determining the 

Applicability of Nitrogen Oxide 

Requirements Under Section 182(f).’’ 

Waivers can be granted if the 

Administrator determines that any one 

of the following tests is met: 

1. In any area, the net air quality 

benefits are greater in the absence of 

NOX reductions from the sources 

concerned; 

2. In nonattainment areas not within 

an ozone transport region, additional 

NOX reductions would not contribute to 

ozone attainment in the area; or 

3. In nonattainment areas within an 

ozone transport region, additional NOX

reductions would not produce net ozone 

air quality benefits in the transport 

region. 

Wisconsin received a NOX RACT 

waiver under the 1-hour ozone standard 

on January 26, 1996 and, therefore, was 

not required to adopt NOX RACT 

regulations for that standard. However, 

there are areas in Wisconsin that are 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. These areas were 

designated nonattainment on June 15, 

2004 (69 FR 23947). Because Wisconsin 

does not have a waiver for the NOX

requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, NOX RACT rules are required 

in the areas that are classified as 

moderate or above. 

Since the only areas in Wisconsin that 

are required to adopt NOX RACT are 

classified as moderate for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard, the rules that have 

been adopted only need to address 

sources with the potential to emit 100 

tons per year. The NOX RACT rules 

were to have been submitted by 

September 15, 2006. 

On June 12, 2007, Wisconsin 

submitted rules and supporting material 

for addressing the NOX RACT 

requirements. The Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR) held a public hearing for these 

rules on March 15, 2007. WDNR also 

provided a comment period that was 

announced on February 2, 2007, and 

ended on March 19, 2007. 

On September 14, 2009, Wisconsin 

submitted a supplemental SIP revision 

and additional supporting material for 

addressing the NOX RACT 

requirements. WDNR held a public 

hearing for these rules on December 5, 

2008, and also provided a comment 

period that was announced on October 

30, 2008, and ended on December 10, 

2008. 

On March 24, 2010, EPA proposed to 

approve Wisconsin’s submittals as 

meeting the section 182(f) requirements 

for NOX RACT. 75 FR 14116. In the 

same action, EPA also proposed to 

approve other non-RACT NOX rules that 

Wisconsin submitted for approval into 

the SIP. These non-RACT rules that 

Wisconsin submitted for approval were 

primarily miscellaneous changes to the 

NOX rules that were approved into the 

SIP to meet Reasonable Further Progress 

requirements for the 1990 1-hour ozone 

standard. The primary background for 

today’s actions is contained in EPA’s 

March 24, 2010, proposal to approve 

Wisconsin’s NOX RACT submittal. 

II. What comments did we receive on 

the proposed rule? 

EPA provided a 30-day review and 

comment period. The comment period 

closed on April 12, 2010. During the 

comment period, we received comments 

from three individuals. These comments 

are summarized and addressed below. 

Comment 1 

A commenter notes that the correct 

reference in the Wisconsin 

Administrative Code for the ‘‘Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) equals RACT’’ 

provision is not 428.25(3), as identified 

in the proposal to approve the 

Wisconsin NOX RACT rules published 

on March 24, 2010 (75 FR 14116), but 

rather it is 428.25(2). 

Response 1 

EPA recognizes this typographical 

error and will correct the reference in 

this final approval. EPA is, however, not 

rulemaking on the CAIR equals RACT 

provisions at this time. See discussion 

under Comment 2. 

Comment 2 

A commenter claims that the EPA’s 

CAIR equals RACT determination found 

in the ‘‘Phase 2 of the Final Rule To 

Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard—Notice 

of Reconsideration’’ (72 FR 31730), ‘‘is 

not mere ‘‘guidance’’; it was and is a rule 

that is binding on EPA.’’ The commenter 

goes on to state that, ‘‘The D.C. Circuit’s 

remand of CAIR did nothing to impair 

the continued applicability of the 

CAIR=RACT rule.’’ 

The commenter, therefore, opposes 

EPA’s decision to not rulemake on 

Wisconsin’s rule 428.25(2) and suggests 

that EPA should instead promptly 

approve that provision as part of 

Wisconsin’s NOX RACT SIP. 

Response 2 

The D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR to 

EPA and, because there is uncertainty 

regarding the rule that will replace 

CAIR, it is not appropriate to move 

forward with the approval of this 

portion of Wisconsin’s NOX RACT rule. 

We should, however, point out that this 

is not a disapproval of rule 428.25(2). 

We are merely deferring making a 

decision now and will revisit rule 

428.25(2) once EPA promulgates a rule 

that replaces CAIR. 

On July 6, 2010, EPA Administrator 

Lisa P. Jackson signed a proposed 

replacement rule for CAIR. In the event 

that this CAIR replacement rule is 

finalized, Wisconsin’s rule 428.25(2) 

must reference and conform to the new 

rule. 

Comment 3 

The commenter asserts that EPA has 

a well-known and longstanding 

definition of RACT, citing various 

Federal Registers and a memorandum 

from Roger Stelow, Assistant 

Administrator of Air and Waste 

Management, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, to 

Regional Administrators (December 9, 

1979). The definition of RACT that the 

commenter cites is, ‘‘the lowest emission 

limitation that a particular source is 

capable of meeting by the application of 

control technology that is reasonably 

available considering technological and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 64157 

economic feasibility.’’ (emphasis added). 

The commenter uses this point as the 

basis for stating that, ‘‘RACT must apply 

to each individual source, based on the 

technological feasibility and cost of 

control at that source.’’ 

Response 3 

While we do not disagree with the 

cited definition of RACT, we do not 

view RACT as a program that should 

necessarily be evaluated on a facility-byfacility basis. The Nitrogen Oxides 

Supplement to the General Preamble for 

the Implementation of Title I of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

speaks to this very issue. See section 4.2 

General Definition of RACT (57 FR 

55624): 

The EPA has defined RACT as the lowest 

emission limitation that a particular source is 

capable of meeting by the application of 

control technology that is reasonably 

available considering technological and 

economic feasibility (44 FR 53762; 

September 17, 1979). Although EPA has 

historically recommended source-categorywide presumptive RACT limits, and plans to 

continue that practice, decisions on RACT 

may be made on a case-by-case basis* * * 

The emission limits found in 

Wisconsin’s rule NR 428.22 ‘‘Emission 

limitation requirements’’ are sourcecategory wide limits that EPA has 

traditionally accepted and approved, 

and there is no requirement for RACT to 

be evaluated on a facility-by-facility 

basis other than as an exception to the 

general rule. 

Comment 4 

The commenter points out that, 

‘‘RACT must be applied to sources 

within the non-attainment area.’’ 

Response 4 

We agree with this comment and we 

would respond that the RACT 

requirements apply in the 

nonattainment area. 

Comment 5 

The commenter states that, ‘‘Other 

states are also requiring much lower 

emission rates than proposed in DNR’s 

draft rule. For example, Texas adopted 

rules in 2001 that require coal-fired 

power plants to achieve the following 

emission rates: 

• 0.033 lb/MMBtu in the Dallas/Ft. 

Worth area on a 24-hour average. 

• 0.050 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day 

average for wall fired units in the 

Houston/Galveston area. 

• 0.045 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day 

average for tangential-fired units. 

30 Tex. Admin. Code Section 117.106.’’ 

Response 5 

We do not dispute that these limits 

are lower than the 0.10–0.18 lb/mmBtu 

limits on a 30-day average for coal-fired 

units that Wisconsin has adopted. It 

should, however, be recognized that 

Texas adopted these NOX limits for 

attainment purposes. Reductions 

necessary for attainment will vary from 

nonattainment area to nonattainment 

area and will often require greater 

reductions than RACT level reductions. 

Texas recognizes that the limits the 

commenter pointed to are more 

stringent than RACT levels. The rule 

immediately preceding the citation 

provided by the commenter, 30 Tex. 

Admin. Code Code Section 117.105, 

‘‘Emission Specifications for Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT),’’ 

contains Texas’ emission limits adopted 

to meet RACT. The RACT limits 

adopted by Texas for coal-fired units are 

in the 0.38–0.43 lb/mmBtu range on a 

24-hour rolling average basis. While not 

directly comparable to the Wisconsin 

limits, because of the difference in 

averaging time, the Texas RACT limits 

are clearly much less stringent than the 

Texas limits the commenter pointed to 

which have been adopted for attainment 

purposes. 

RACT limits are not meant to be the 

lowest achievable emission rates. The 

Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990 addresses 

the issue of an acceptable emission 

limit. See section 4.6 RACT for Certain 

Electric Utility Boilers (57 FR 55626), 

‘‘The EPA expects States, to the extent 

practicable, to demonstrate that the 

variety of emission controls adopted are 

consistent with the most effective level 

of combustion modification reasonably 

available for its individual affected 

sources.’’ Presumptive limits (emission 

rates expressed in a lb/mm Btu basis) 

were listed for various utility boilers in 

this section: 

• 0.45 for tangentially fired, coal 

burning, 

• 0.50 for dry bottom wall fired (other 

than cell burner), coal burning, 

• 0.20 for tangentially fired, gas/oil 

burning, and 

• 0.30 for wall fired, gas/oil burning. 

These limits were based on 

combustion modifications, the control 

technology that was deemed reasonably 

available at the time. Add-on controls 

like selective catalytic reduction (SCR) 

and selective non-catalytic reduction 

(SNCR) capable of achieving greater 

NOX reductions than the presumptive 

NOX limits were also evaluated but EPA 

chose to not base the presumptive limits 

on these controls and EPA chose to not 

set the limits at a lower point at that 

time. 

To take into account the time that has 

passed since EPA set presumptive NOX

RACT limits for utility coal-fired boilers 

and other NOX RACT technology 

guidance documents EPA issued in the 

mid-1990s, Wisconsin evaluated various 

control technologies on a source 

category-by-source category basis to 

determine what control level and 

emission limits are reasonably available 

today. Wisconsin re-evaluated coal-fired 

boiler limits and generally found that 

emission limits based on add-on control 

technology like selective catalytic 

reduction and selective non-catalytic 

reduction are now reasonably available. 

While Wisconsin did not adopt limits 

based on the lowest achievable emission 

rates based on these technologies, 

Wisconsin did adopt limits considered 

to be reasonably available based on 

capabilities and problems that are 

general to utility coal-fired boilers in 

Wisconsin. 

Wisconsin also evaluated the costeffectiveness of the control technologies 

on which the NOX RACT limits were 

based. As described in the March 16, 

1994, memorandum, ‘‘Cost-Effective 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT)’’ 

from E. Kent Berry, Acting Director of 

EPA’s Air Quality Management 

Division, ‘‘NOX technologies with a costeffectiveness range that overlaps the 

$160 to $1,300 range should, at 

minimum, be considered by States in 

the development of their NOX RACT 

requirements.’’ WDNR took the $1,300/ 

ton figure and grew this out to the 2005 

equivalent of roughly $2,000/ton using 

the consumer price index. WDNR took 

the additional step to increase the 

reasonable cost-effectiveness of controls 

upwards to $2,500/ton for evaluating 

RACT based on several considerations. 

The WDNR found $2,500/ton to be 

consistent with costs considered under 

NOX RACT programs in other states 

including the NOX RACT developed by 

Illinois concurrently with the Wisconsin 

rules. The WDNR also found $2,500/ton 

cost-effectiveness to encompass top-tier 

NOX controls of selective catalytic 

reduction for most coal fire boilers, 

which is the largest source category of 

NOX emissions affected by the rules. 

Applying this level of cost-effectiveness 

across the other affected source 

categories achieves comparability of 

RACT controls in a manner consistent 

with the 1994 memorandum. 

In its evaluation of RACT for sources 

in Wisconsin, WDNR examined various 

control technologies that can reduce 

NOX emissions and determined what is 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
64158 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

reasonably achievable given the 

availability of these technologies, the 

type of source, the level of control that 

is generally achievable, and the costs 

associated with achieving the 

reductions associated with the 

technology. 

EPA reviewed the method used by 

Wisconsin to update RACT limits for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and 

found it to be appropriate. Therefore, 

EPA is approving the NOX RACT limits 

adopted by Wisconsin. 

Comment 6 

The commenter indicates that SCR is 

capable of achieving emissions 

reductions from coal-fired power plants. 

Therefore, NOX RACT emission rates 

should be lower than the limits adopted 

in Wisconsin’s NOX RACT rules. 

Response 6 

We do not dispute the fact that SCR 

is capable of achieving NOX emission 

rates lower than the NOX RACT limits 

adopted by Wisconsin. The question is 

whether or not Wisconsin appropriately 

evaluated emission limits and the costs 

associated with such controls on the 

affected facilities and arrived at limits 

suitable for NOX RACT. We believe 

Wisconsin referred to the appropriate 

EPA guidance and set the limits in 

accordance with this guidance. See 

response to Comment 5 above. 

Comment 7 

The commenter suggests that the 

compliance margin used by Wisconsin 

should not have been used to calculate 

the emission limits for the sources 

subject to the NOX RACT rules. The 

commenter states that, ‘‘There are two 

reasons that the compliance margin is 

unnecessary. First, there is a compliance 

margin built in to the existing rate 

limitations. By assuming a lower than 

90% emissions control efficiency (some 

as low as 46%) for SCR technology, the 

rule already provides significant leeway 

for achieving a cost-effective emission 

rate * * * Second, the multi-unit and 

multi-facility averaging provided for in 

the Rule provides an additional cushion 

for facilities that are unable to meet the 

emission limitations.’’ 

Response 7 

Wisconsin has adopted definitive 

NOX limits for the various types of 

electric generating units in the 

nonattainment area. In its evaluation of 

the adopted limits, the State followed 

the applicable EPA guidance. See 

Response 5. The limits that the State has 

adopted are at an acceptable level. 

Comment 8 

The commenter states that, ‘‘RACT is 

a measure intended to improve local air 

quality * * * Thus, each plant affected 

by RACT must be required to reduce 

pollution locally, and may not be 

allowed to trade in pollution reductions 

in other areas to justify continued high 

emission by certain plants.’’ 

Response 8 

We agree that NOX RACT is a measure 

intended to improve local air quality 

(i.e., the air quality within the 

nonattainment areas). We do not agree 

that sources subject to Wisconsin’s NOX

RACT rules should not be allowed to 

comply through an averaging program 

within the nonattainment areas. 

Wisconsin’s NOX RACT averaging 

provisions do not allow sources outside 

of the moderate nonattainment areas to 

participate in this averaging program. 

This ensures that the reductions of NOX

will occur in the nonattainment areas 

where these reductions are needed. 

The Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to 

the General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990 clearly 

anticipates and even encourages states 

to adopt averaging plans as a 

compliance option. See section 4.6 

RACT for Certain Electric Utility Boilers: 

‘‘EPA believes that the above emission 

rates are appropriate for application to 

groups of boil[ers] on an areawide 

average, Btu-weighted basis’’ and ‘‘* * * 

EPA encourages States to structure their 

RACT requirements to inherently 

incorporate an emissions averaging 

concept (i.e., installing more stringent 

controls on some units in exchange for 

lesser controls on others). Therefore, in 

the interest of simplifying State RACT 

determinations and enhancing the 

ability of States to adopt market-based 

trading systems for NOX, the State may 

allow individual owners/operators in 

the nonattainment area (or, 

alternatively, Statewide within an ozone 

transport region) to have emission limits 

which result in greater or lesser 

emission reductions so long as the 

areawide emission rates described above 

are met on a Btu-weighted basis.’’ See 57 

FR 55625. Allowing emissions averaging 

to meet the NOX RACT rules makes 

sense for reducing ozone in the 

nonattainment area in a cost-effective 

way without compromising the 

environmental benefit of these 

reductions. Moreover, Wisconsin has 

enhanced the environmental benefit of 

the State’s NOX RACT rules by requiring 

an additional 10% reduction of 

emissions from those sources that are 

complying with the NOX RACT 

requirements by using the multi-facility 

averaging compliance provisions. 

Comment 9 

The commenter also states that multifacility averaging threatens 

environmental justice. The commenter 

points out that NOX is a precursor not 

only to ozone but to fine particulates 

(PM2.5) and that EPA has recently 

promulgated a new NO2 standard. The 

commenter adds that because of the 

multi-facility averaging provisions, 

Wisconsin Energy is allowed to put 

greater controls on its Pleasant Prairie 

facility, located in Kenosha County, that 

will, in effect, reduce the need for 

additional reductions at its Valley Plant 

located in downtown Milwaukee where, 

the commenter asserts, greater 

environmental protection is warranted. 

Response 9 

The commenter states that the Valley 

Power Plant is located in the City of 

Milwaukee and that, because of 

compliance options in the rule that 

allow multi-facility averaging, the 

Valley Power Plant has the option of 

averaging its emission with other power 

plants that would make more significant 

reductions of NOX. 

Emissions from the Valley Power 

Plant do not impact any community 

greater than any other power plants 

affected by this rule. The compliance 

option allowing emissions averaging 

does not disproportionately impact any 

group of people in any area. The rule is 

required to reduce ozone precursors and 

the rule accomplishes this. Everyone in 

the Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan 

nonattainment areas, as well as 

downwind areas, will be breathing 

cleaner air because of the NOX

reductions required by this rule. The 

compliance option of multi-facility 

averaging allows companies to make 

reductions within their own fleet of 

facilities, which would result in lower 

emissions than simply complying with 

the general provisions of the rule to 

meet the NOX RACT requirements (See 

response to Comment 8), due to the 

additional 10% emissions reduction 

requirement for facilities using the 

multi-facility averaging provisions as 

the compliance option. There will be no 

increases of emissions from the Valley 

Power Plant, which seems to be of 

particular concern to the commenter. 

The facility has, in fact, seen emissions 

reductions from new combustion 

modifications that have been installed 

as a result of this rule. 

Other than the fact that add-on 

controls are being placed on the 

Pleasant Prairie Power Plant that are not 

being placed on the Valley Power Plant, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 64159 

it is unclear why the commenter 

believes there is a case of environmental 

injustice. Table 1 shows the ozone 

design values for various monitors in 

the southeast portion of Wisconsin. All 

of the monitors are meeting the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard of 0.08 ppm. In 

fact, all of the monitors in Wisconsin are 

currently meeting the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. The monitor that is 

closest to the Valley Plant, the 16th St. 

Health Center monitor, has the lowest 

monitored ozone values in the southeast 

Wisconsin area. It is roughly 1.1 miles 

to the south-southwest of the Valley 

Plant, the plant of greatest concern to 

the commenter. For comparison, the 

monitor closest to the Pleasant Prairie 

Plant has the highest values recorded in 

the southeast Wisconsin area. The 

monitoring data do not indicate that 

ozone is a problem in the immediate 

vicinity of the Valley Power Plant and 

that greater controls should be placed 

on the Valley Power Plant. 

It is not always the case that 

reductions will benefit the immediate 

area where they are made. It is, 

however, clear that ozone and its 

precursors tend to travel from south to 

north along the Lake Michigan shoreline 

in Wisconsin. The high levels of ozone 

monitored in Kenosha County at the 

Pleasant Prairie monitor are most likely 

due in part to emissions from sources in 

the Chicago area. Similarly, if 

reductions are made at the Pleasant 

Prairie Power Plant, the benefits will be 

experienced downwind in the 

Milwaukee area (i.e., near the Valley 

Power Plant). Similarly, reductions 

made at the Valley Power Plant will 

likely reduce ozone downwind. The 

nearest monitor that would be able to 

verify this is the WDNR’s Regional 

Headquarters (WDNR SER HQTRS) 

monitor that is roughly 2.2 miles to the 

north-northeast of the Valley Power 

Plant. 

TABLE 1 

Monitor 

2004–2006 

Design value 

(ppm) 

2005–2007 

Design value 

(ppm) 

2006–2008 

Design value 

(ppm) 

2007–2009 

Design value 

(ppm) 

Pleasant Prairie ............................................................................... 0.083 0.085 0.078 0.076 

Health Center ................................................................................... 0.068 0.070 0.063 0.064 

WDNR SER HQTRS ....................................................................... 0.074 0.077 0.068 0.068 

The commenter also raises NO2 levels 

as a concern. As the commenter states 

in the comment submitted, ‘‘The 

Milwaukee County design value for 

2007–2009 is 47 ppb or 89 μg/m3.’’ 

However, 47 ppb is well below the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) for NO2, which is 100 ppb. 

The NAAQS are established to protect 

human health and the environment. 

With this in mind, monitors to 

determine if areas are meeting or 

violating the NAAQS are required in 

and around areas where people live, and 

these monitors are usually placed at 

ground-level where people are breathing 

the ambient air. 

The commenter claims to have 

modeled a violation of the NO2

standard, but the commenter’s modeling 

technique is flawed. The commenter 

takes NO2 emissions concentrations 

from the Valley Power Plant stack and 

adds them to background concentrations 

to get a modeled ambient concentration 

that shows a violation of the NO2

NAAQS. First, the emissions data that 

the commenter uses are outdated (from 

1998–2000) and these data fail to reflect 

controls added since that time, the same 

controls the commenter mentions in a 

separate part of its comments. The 

controls that were added to the Valley 

Power Plant in 2008 are low NOX

burners, which reduced NOX emissions 

by roughly 45%. Second, adding a 

source’s estimated emissions 

concentrations to background 

concentration for comparison does not 

accurately reflect the source’s 

contribution to ground-level NO2 levels 

for comparison to a NAAQS. It is 

inaccurate to use a facility’s modeled 

stack emissions and to add this figure to 

a background concentration for 

comparison to a NAAQS, because a 

facility’s stack emissions are at a much 

higher concentration than what a 

monitor would record at ground level. 

Because of dispersion and other 

chemical reactions that take place in the 

atmosphere, monitored levels of NO2 at 

ground level are much lower than the 

levels the commenter used in their 

‘‘modeled’’ violation of the NO2 NAAQS. 

This also explains why the actual 

monitored values (47 ppb) are less than 

half of the NO2 NAAQS (100 ppb) where 

the commenter claims to have modeled 

a violation. Because the MilwaukeeRacine area is meeting both the ozone 

and NO2 standards, the health of all 

people within this area is protected with 

respect to these pollutants. 

It is true that the Milwaukee area is 

in violation of the PM2.5 standard. As is 

the case with ozone, however, the 

formation of PM2.5 as a secondary 

pollutant resulting from the NOX

emissions from the Valley Power Plant 

is more likely to impact communities 

farther downwind than communities in 

the immediate vicinity. Conversely, the 

emissions and/or emissions reductions 

from other power plants upwind of the 

Milwaukee area (e.g., the Pleasant 

Prairie Power Plant) are likely to have 

more of an impact on the communities 

around the Valley Power Plant. Finally, 

because the Milwaukee area has been 

designated as nonattainment for PM2.5, 

Wisconsin is required to develop a plan 

to reduce emissions of PM2.5 precursors 

to bring the area into attainment with 

the PM2.5 standard. If reductions are 

needed from the Valley Power Plant, 

they will be included in the PM2.5

attainment demonstration that will be 

submitted to EPA for approval. Such a 

demonstration would constitute a 

separate and distinct rulemaking 

process than the evaluation of the NOX

RACT rules that we are approving today 

for purposes of attainment and 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

Comment 10 

The commenter states that, ‘‘U.S. EPA 

Should Not Adopt DNR’s Reasonable 

Cost of Control Value of $2,500/ton.’’ 

Response 10 

EPA has never established a brightline 

dollars per ton amount as RACT. RACT 

determinations are not solely based on 

a dollars per ton of NOX reduced. RACT 

determinations take various factors into 

account. As described in the March 16, 

1994, memorandum, ‘‘Cost-Effective 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT)’’ 

from E. Kent Berry, Acting Director of 

EPA’s Air Quality Management 

Division, ‘‘NOX technologies with a costeffectiveness range that overlaps the 

$160 to $1,300 range should, at a 

minimum, be considered by States in 

the development of their NOX RACT 

requirements.’’ WDNR took the $1,300/ 

ton figure and grew this out to the 2005 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
64160 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

equivalent of roughly $2,000/ton using 

the consumer price index. WDNR took 

the additional step to increase the costeffectiveness to $2,500/ton as a 

reasonable measure for evaluating 

various controls that would constitute 

RACT. In its evaluation of RACT for 

sources in Wisconsin, WDNR examined 

various control technologies that can 

reduce NOX emissions and determined 

what is reasonably achievable given the 

availability of these technologies, the 

type of source, the level of reduction 

that is generally achievable, and the 

costs associated with achieving the 

reductions associated with the 

technology. 

We believe that Wisconsin established 

significantly stringent limits using the 

$2,500/ton cost-effectiveness in its 

evaluation process. Again, we would 

stress that the dollar per ton factor 

should be weighed in combination with 

the actual limits adopted by a state to 

determine RACT levels. In this case, the 

NOX limits that have been adopted are 

deemed sufficient to meet RACT when 

considered with the dollar per ton costeffectiveness used to evaluate the 

controls assumed to determine the 

actual limits. 

Comment 11 

The commenter states that Wisconsin 

proposed to require sources to perform 

combustion tuning as part of the State’s 

NOX RACT requirements. These 

provisions were removed from the rules 

that were adopted in final by Wisconsin. 

The commenter suggests that 

combustion tuning should be a required 

part of a RACT determination for any 

steam generator. 

Response 11 

WDNR proposed that sources should 

participate in combustion tuning, since 

it provides energy and environmental 

benefits. However, the provisions of the 

proposed rule dealing with combustion 

tuning were controversial, because they 

were viewed by some as overly 

prescriptive and requiring unnecessary 

recordkeeping. Considering the 

comments from the industrial sector in 

Wisconsin, WDNR dropped combustion 

tuning requirements from the NOX

RACT rule. This provision would not 

have accounted for very large emission 

reductions, because it would have 

applied to smaller sources and some of 

the reductions will be achieved through 

voluntary combustion tuning. 

Comment 12 

The commenter contends that the 

Valley Power Plant, located in 

downtown Milwaukee, causes or 

contributes to violations of the 1-hour 

NO2 NAAQS of 100 parts per billion 

(ppb) published in the Federal Register 

on February 19, 2010. See 75 FR 6474. 

Response 12 

As the commenter points out, the 

most current (2007–2009) data available 

show the Milwaukee area is well below 

the 100 ppb NO2 NAAQS with a 

monitored value of 47 ppb. The purpose 

of the NOX RACT rules, as set forth in 

section 182(f) of the CAA, is to help 

areas attain and maintain the ozone 

standard. The NOX RACT rules do not 

address the protection of any other 

NAAQS. If additional NOX reductions 

are needed to attain or maintain any 

other NAAQS, additional measures will 

be adopted for those NAAQS. 

There is no monitored violation of the 

NO2 NAAQS. If there was a monitored 

violation of the NO2 NAAQS, controls to 

address a NO2 nonattainment problem 

would be dealt with through a separate 

NO2 SIP requirement. 

EPA Conclusions Resulting From the 

Public Comments 

After considering all public comments 

received and our responses to those 

comments, we conclude that no issues 

have been raised that would cause us to 

alter the conclusions set forth in the 

March 24, 2010, proposed rule. 

III. What actions is EPA taking? 

After reviewing Wisconsin’s NOX

RACT SIP submittal, EPA has 

determined that it meets the criteria set 

forth in section 182(f) of the CAA. EPA 

has received comments on the proposed 

approval of the NOX RACT rules and, 

after evaluating these comments, has 

determined that no changes to the 

proposed approval made on March 24, 

2010 (75 FR 14116) are necessary. 

Therefore, EPA is approving the NOX

RACT SIP submittal for the MilwaukeeRacine and Sheboygan County 1997 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment areas. EPA is 

not, however, rulemaking on Wisconsin 

NR 428.25(2). EPA will reconsider this 

portion of the Wisconsin NOX RACT 

rules after EPA has finalized a 

replacement rule for the remanded 

CAIR. 

Non-RACT Portion of June 12, 2007 and 

September 14, 2009 Submittals 

We are also approving miscellaneous 

changes to other NOX rules previously 

approved into the SIP for ozone 

attainment purposes. These non-RACT 

NOX rules, originally approved into 

Wisconsin’s SIP on November 13, 2001 

(66 FR 56931), were submitted as part 

of Wisconsin’s reasonable further 

progress SIP for the 1990 1-hour ozone 

standard. A description of the rules and 

the miscellaneous changes being made 

to those rules can be found in the March 

24, 2010, proposed approval (75 FR 

14116). The changes clarify the intent of 

the existing rules and correct 

typographical errors. 

IV. 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, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 64161 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by December 20, 2010. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: September 14, 2010. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart YY—Wisconsin 

■ 2. Section 52.2570 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(122) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2570 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(122) On June 12, 2007, the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

submitted a State Implementation Plan 

revision request for the state’s nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) rules. This 

request was supplemented on 

September 14, 2009. The state adopted 

NOX RACT rules to satisfy section 182(f) 

of the Clean Air Act for the MilwaukeeRacine and Sheboygan County areas that 

were designated as nonattainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and 

classified as moderate under that 

standard. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. The 

following sections of the Wisconsin 

Administrative Code are incorporated 

by reference: 

(A) NR 428.02 Definitions. 

(1) NR 428.02(7e) ‘‘Maximum 

theoretical emissions’’ published in the 

Wisconsin Administrative Register, on 

August 30, 2009, No. 644, effective 

September 1, 2009. 

(2) NR 428.02(7m)‘‘Process heater’’ as 

published in the Wisconsin 

Administrative Register, on July 30, 

2007, No. 619, effective August 1, 2007. 

(B) NR 428.04 Requirements and 

performance standards for new or 

modified sources. 

(1) NR 428.04(1) and NR 428.04(3)(b) 

as published in the Wisconsin 

Administrative Register, on August 30, 

2009, No. 644, effective September 1, 

2009. 

(2) NR 428.04(2)(h)1. and NR 

428.04(2)(h)2. as published in the 

Wisconsin Administrative Register, on 

July 30, 2007, No. 619, effective August 

1, 2007. 

(C) NR 428.05 Requirements and 

performance standards for existing 

sources. 

(1) NR 428.05(1) and NR 

428.05(4)(b)2. as published in the 

Wisconsin Administrative Register, on 

August 30, 2009, No. 644, effective 

September 1, 2009. 

(2) NR 428.05(3)(e)1. to 4. as 

published in the Wisconsin 

Administrative Register, on July 30, 

2007, No. 619, effective August 1, 2007. 

(D) NR 428.07 General Requirements. 

NR 428.07(intro.), NR 428.07(1)(a), 

NR428.07(1)(b)1., NR 428.07(1)(b)3., NR 

428.07(3), NR 428.07(4)(c) as published 

in the Wisconsin Administrative 

Register, on August 30, 2009, No. 644, 

effective September 1, 2009. 

(E) NR 428.08 Specific provisions for 

monitoring NOX and heat input for the 

purpose of calculating NOX emissions. 

NR 428.08(title), NR 428.08(2)(title) and 

NR 428.08(2)(f) as published in the 

Wisconsin Administrative Register, on 

August 30, 2009, No. 644, effective 

September 1, 2009. 

(F) NR 428.09 Quarterly reports. NR 

428.09(2)(a) as published in the 

Wisconsin Administrative Register, on 

August 30, 2009, No. 644, effective 

September 1, 2009. 

(G) NR 428.12 Alternative monitoring, 

recordkeeping. NR 428.12 as published 

in the Wisconsin Administrative 

Register, on August 30, 2009, No. 644, 

effective September 1, 2009. 

(H) NR 428.20 Applicability and 

purpose. 

(1) NR 428.20(1) as published in the 

Wisconsin Administrative Register, on 

August 30, 2009, No. 644, effective 

September 1, 2009. 

(2) NR 428.20(2) as published in the 

Wisconsin Administrative Register, on 

July 30, 2007, No. 619, effective August 

1, 2007. 

(I) NR 428.21 Emissions unit 

exemptions. NR 428.21 as published in 

the Wisconsin Administrative Register, 

on July 30, 2007, No. 619, effective 

August 1, 2007. 

(J) NR 428.22 Emission limitation 

requirements. 

(1) NR 428.22(1)(intro), NR 

428.22(1)(a) to (c), NR 428.22(1)(e) to (i), 

NR 428.22(2)(a) to (b) as published in 

the Wisconsin Administrative Register, 

on July 30, 2007, No. 619, effective 

August 1, 2007. 

(2) NR 428.22(1)(d) and NR 

428.22(2)(intro) as published in the 

Wisconsin Administrative Register 

on August 30, 2009, No. 644, effective 

September 1, 2009. 

(K) NR 428.23 Demonstrating 

compliance with mission limitations. 

(1) NR 428.23(intro), NR 428.23(1)(a), 

NR 428(1)(b)2. to 8., and NR 428.23(2) 

as published in the Wisconsin 

Administrative Register, on July 30, 

2007, No. 619, effective August 1, 2007. 

(2) NR 428.23(1)(b)1. and NR 

428.23(1)(b)9. as published in the 

Wisconsin Administrative Register on 

August 30, 2009, No. 644, effective 

September 1, 2009. 

(L) NR 428.24 Recordkeeping and 

reporting. 

(1) NR 428.24(1)(intro), NR 

428.24(1)(a), NR 428.24(1)(b)1. to 3., and 

NR 428.24(2) to (4) as published in the 

Wisconsin Administrative Register, on 

July 30, 2007, No. 619, effective August 

1, 2007. 

(2) NR 428.24(1)(b)(intro) as 

published in the Wisconsin 

Administrative Register on August 30, 

2009, No. 644, effective September 1, 

2009. 

(M) NR 428.25 Alternative 

compliance methods and approaches. 

(1) NR 428.25(1)(intro), NR 

428.25(1)(a)1.b., NR 428.25(1)(a)2. to 4., 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
64162 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1An exceedance is defined as a daily value that 

is above the level of the 24-hour standard (150 μg/ 

m3) after rounding to the nearest 10 μg/m3 (i.e. 

values ending in 5 or greater are to be rounded up). 

Thus, a recorded value of 154 μg/m3 would not be 

an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150μ/ 

m3 whereas a recorded value of 155 μg/m3 would 

be an exceedance since it would be rounded to 160 

μ/m3. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 1.0. 

NR 428.25(1)(b) to (d), NR 428.25(2), NR 

428.25(3)(a), and NR 428.25(3)(c) as 

published in the Wisconsin 

Administrative Register, on July 30, 

2007, No. 619, effective August 1, 2007. 

(2) NR 428.25(1)(a)1.a. and c. and 

(3)(b) as published in the Wisconsin 

Administrative Register on August 30, 

2009, No. 644, effective September 1, 

2009. 

(N) NR 428.26 Utility reliability 

waiver. NR 428.26 as published in the 

Wisconsin Administrative Register, on 

July 30, 2007, No. 619, effective August 

1, 2007. 

(ii) Additional material. 

(A) NR 484.04 Code of federal 

regulations appendices. NR 428.04(13), 

(15m), (16m), (21m), (26m)(bm), 

(26m)(d) and (27) as published in the 

Wisconsin Administrative Register, on 

July 30, 2007, No. 619, effective August 

1, 2007. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26256 Filed 10–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[Docket EPA–R10–OAR–2010–0433; FRL– 

9214–7] 

Determination of Attainment for PM10: 

Eagle River PM10 Nonattainment Area, 

AK 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA has determined that the 

Eagle River nonattainment area in 

Alaska attained the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to a 

nominal ten micrometers (PM10) as of 

December 31, 1994. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

December 20, 2010, without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by November 18, 2010. If EPA 

receives adverse comment, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2010–0433, by any of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: vaupel.claudia@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel, 

EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, AWT–107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 

Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 

10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Claudia 

Vergnani Vaupel, Office of Air, Waste 

and Toxics, AWT–107. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2010– 

0433. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

WA 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Claudia Vergnani Vaupel at telephone 

number: (206) 553–6121, e-mail address: 

vaupel.claudia@epa.gov, or the above 

EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Comments 

I. Background 

A. PM10 Standard 

B. The Eagle River PM10 Nonattainment 

Area 

C. Attainment Date for the Eagle River 

PM10 Nonattainment Area 

D. PM10 Planning in the Eagle River PM10

Nonattainment Area 

II. Attainment Determination 

A. What are the requirements for 

attainment determinations? 

B. What do the air quality data show as of 

the December 31, 1994 attainment date? 

C. What do more recent air quality data 

show? 

III. EPA’s Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. PM10 Standard 

The NAAQS are levels for certain 

ambient air pollutants set by EPA to 

protect public health and welfare. PM10, 

or particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 10 micrometers, is among 

the ambient air pollutants for which 

EPA has established health-based 

standards. On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 

24634), EPA promulgated two primary 

standards for PM10: A 24-hour standard 

of 150 micrograms per cubic meter 

(μg/m3) and an annual PM10 standard of 

50 μg/m3. EPA also promulgated 

secondary PM10 standards that were 

identical to the primary standards. 

Effective December 18, 2006, EPA 

revoked the annual PM10 standard but 

retained the 24-hour PM10 standard. 71 

FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). The 24- 

hour PM10 standard is attained when the 

expected number of days per calendar 

year with a 24-hour concentration above 

154 μg/m3, as determined in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, is 

equal to or less than one.1 40 CFR 50.6 

and 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES