Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 27241 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0888; FRL–9910–74– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin; 

Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of state implementation plan 

(SIP) submissions from Michigan and 

Wisconsin while proposing to approve 

some elements and disapprove other 

elements of SIP submissions from 

Illinois and Minnesota regarding the 

infrastructure requirements of section 

110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 

2008 lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (2008 Pb 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. Illinois 

and Minnesota already administer 

federally promulgated regulations that 

address the proposed disapprovals 

described in today’s rulemaking and as 

a result, there is no practical effect for 

either of these states. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 12, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2011–0888 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–2011–0888. 

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, 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

27242 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1PM2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns 

or less in diameter, oftentimes referred to as ‘‘fine’’ 

particles. 

2For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides 

that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title 

I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that 

states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

3See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport 

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air 

Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; 

Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 

25162, at 25163–65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 

relationship between timing requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)). 

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 

submissions from the following states in 

EPA Region 5: Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency (Illinois EPA); 

Michigan Department of Environmental 

Quality (MDEQ); Minnesota Pollution 

Control Agency (MPCA); and Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR). The states submitted their 

2008 Pb NAAQS infrastructure SIPs on 

the following dates: Illinois—December 

31, 2012; Michigan—April 3, 2012, and 

supplemented on August 9, 2013, and 

September 19, 2013; Minnesota—June 

19, 2012; and, Wisconsin—July 26, 

2012. 

B. Why did the states make these SIP 

submissions? 

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

CAA, states are required to submit 

infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their 

SIPs provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS, including the 2008 Pb 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 Pb and ozone already 

meet 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). On September 25, 2009, EPA 

issued an additional guidance document 

pertaining to the 2006 PM2.5 1 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), 

followed by the October 14, 2011, 

‘‘Guidance on infrastructure SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)’’ (2011 Memo). Most recently, 

EPA issued ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2)’’ on September 13, 

2013 (2013 Memo). The SIP submissions 

referenced in this rulemaking pertain to 

the applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (2), and primarily address 

the 2008 Pb NAAQS. To the extent that 

the prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) program is 

comprehensive and non-NAAQS 

specific, a narrow evaluation of other 

NAAQS, such as the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS will be 

included in the appropriate sections. 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submissions from Illinois, Michigan, 

Minnesota, and Wisconsin that 

addresses the infrastructure 

requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

The requirement for states to make a SIP 

submission of this type arises out of 

CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to 

section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP 

submissions ‘‘within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may 

prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and 

these SIP submissions are to provide for 

the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

EPA’s taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A, and nonattainment 

new source review (NNSR) permit 

program submissions to address the 

permit requirements of CAA, title I, part 

D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.2 EPA 

therefore believes that while the timing 

requirement in section 110(a)(1) is 

unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, EPA believes that the list of 

required elements for infrastructure SIP 

submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

The following examples of 

ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 

to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and 

section 110(a)(2) requirements with 

respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions for a given new or revised 

NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is 

that section 110(a)(2) requires that 

‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the 

list of requirements therein, while EPA 

has long noted that this literal reading 

of the statute is internally inconsistent 

and would create a conflict with the 

nonattainment provisions in part D of 

title I of the CAA, which specifically 

address nonattainment SIP 

requirements.3 Section 110(a)(2)(I) 

pertains to nonattainment SIP 

requirements and part D addresses 

when attainment plan SIP submissions 

to address nonattainment area 

requirements are due. For example, 

section 172(b) requires EPA to establish 

a schedule for submission of such plans 

for certain pollutants when the 

Administrator promulgates the 

designation of an area as nonattainment, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 27243 

4EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 

110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various 

subparts of part D set specific dates for submission 

of certain types of SIP submissions in designated 

nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, 

e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates 

for submission of emissions inventories for the 

ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are 

necessarily later than three years after promulgation 

of the new or revised NAAQS. 

5See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to 

the New Source Review (NSR) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR 

4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action 

approving the structural PSD elements of the New 

Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to 

meet the requirements of EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ (78 FR 

4337) (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action on the 

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

6On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, 

through the Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA 

demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action 

for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on 

January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action 

on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 

2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 

42997), EPA took separate proposed and final 

actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007 

submittal. 

7For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

8EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA 

requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate 

regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The 

CAA directly applies to states and requires the 

submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, 

regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance 

or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA 

elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 

states, as appropriate. 

9EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not 

make recommendations with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly 

after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the 

D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 

(D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of 

the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA 

elected not to provide additional guidance on the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that 

time. As the guidance is neither binding nor 

required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide 

guidance on a particular section has no impact on 

a state’s CAA obligations. 

and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to 

two years, or in some cases three years, 

for such designations to be 

promulgated.4 This ambiguity illustrates 

that rather than apply all the stated 

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

strict literal sense, EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

are applicable for a particular 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Another example of ambiguity within 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with 

respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to 

whether states must meet all of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements in a 

single SIP submission, and whether EPA 

must act upon such SIP submission in 

a single action. Although section 

110(a)(1) directs states to submit ‘‘a 

plan’’ to meet these requirements, EPA 

interprets the CAA to allow states to 

make multiple SIP submissions 

separately addressing infrastructure SIP 

elements for the same NAAQS. If states 

elect to make such multiple SIP 

submissions to meet the infrastructure 

SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act 

on such submissions either individually 

or in a larger combined action.5

Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to 

allow it to take action on the individual 

parts of one larger, comprehensive 

infrastructure SIP submission for a 

given NAAQS without concurrent 

action on the entire submission. For 

example, EPA has sometimes elected to 

act at different times on various 

elements and sub-elements of the same 

infrastructure SIP submission.6

Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) may also arise with 

respect to infrastructure SIP submission 

requirements for different NAAQS. 

Thus, EPA notes that not every element 

of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, 

or as relevant, or relevant in the same 

way, for each new or revised NAAQS. 

The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP 

submissions for each NAAQS therefore 

could be different. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that a state 

might need to meet in its infrastructure 

SIP submission for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for 

different pollutants, for example 

because the content and scope of a 

state’s infrastructure SIP submission to 

meet this element might be very 

different for an entirely new NAAQS 

than for a minor revision to an existing 

NAAQS.7

EPA notes that interpretation of 

section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when 

EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submissions required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submissions, EPA also has to identify 

and interpret the relevant elements of 

section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to 

these other types of SIP submissions. 

For example, section 172(c)(7) requires 

that attainment plan SIP submissions 

required by part D have to meet the 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ of section 

110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment 

plan SIP submissions must meet the 

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

regarding enforceable emission limits 

and control measures and section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency 

resources and authority. By contrast, it 

is clear that attainment plan SIP 

submissions required by part D would 

not need to meet the portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD 

program required in part C of title I of 

the CAA, because PSD does not apply 

to a pollutant for which an area is 

designated nonattainment and thus 

subject to part D planning requirements. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

elements of section 110(a)(2) but not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in 

some of the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) 

in the context of acting on a particular 

SIP submission. In other words, EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 

intended that each and every SIP 

submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 

question or the history of SIP 

development for the relevant pollutant, 

would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, EPA has adopted an 

approach under which it reviews 

infrastructure SIP submissions against 

the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), 

but only to the extent each element 

applies for that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use 

guidance documents to make 

recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements.8 EPA’s 2013 Memo 

was developed to provide states with 

up-to-date guidance for infrastructure 

SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS. 

Within this guidance, EPA describes the 

duty of states to make infrastructure SIP 

submissions to meet basic structural SIP 

requirements within three years of 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. EPA also made 

recommendations about many specific 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are 

relevant in the context of infrastructure 

SIP submissions.9 The guidance also 

discusses the substantively important 

issues that are germane to certain 

subsections of section 110(a)(2). 

Significantly, EPA interprets sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that 

infrastructure SIP submissions need to 

address certain issues and need not 

address others. Accordingly, EPA 

reviews each infrastructure SIP 

submission for compliance with the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

27244 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

10By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to 

include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that contained a legal deficiency, such 

as a new exemption for excess emissions during 

SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that 

provision for compliance against the rubric of 

applicable CAA requirements in the context of the 

action on the infrastructure SIP. 

11For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to 

address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to 

the treatment of excess emissions during SSM 

events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639 

(April 18, 2011). 

applicable statutory provisions of 

section 110(a)(2), as appropriate. 

As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

is a required element of section 

110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP 

submissions. Under this element, a state 

must meet the substantive requirements 

of section 128, which pertain to state 

boards that approve permits or 

enforcement orders and heads of 

executive agencies with similar powers. 

Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP 

submissions to ensure that the state’s 

SIP appropriately addresses the 

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

and section 128. The 2013 Memo 

explains EPA’s interpretation that there 

may be a variety of ways by which states 

can appropriately address these 

substantive statutory requirements, 

depending on the structure of an 

individual state’s permitting or 

enforcement program (e.g., whether 

permits and enforcement orders are 

approved by a multi-member board or 

by a head of an executive agency). 

However they are addressed by the 

state, the substantive requirements of 

section 128 are necessarily included in 

EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure SIP 

submissions because section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that 

the state satisfy the provisions of section 

128. 

As another example, EPA’s review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions with 

respect to the PSD program 

requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the 

structural PSD program requirements 

contained in part C and EPA’s PSD 

regulations. Structural PSD program 

requirements include provisions 

necessary for the PSD program to 

address all regulated sources and NSR 

pollutants, including greenhouse gases 

(GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD 

program requirements do not include 

provisions that are not required under 

EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but 

are merely available as an option for the 

state, such as the option to provide 

grandfathering of complete permit 

applications with respect to the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter 

optional provisions are types of 

provisions EPA considers irrelevant in 

the context of an infrastructure SIP 

action. 

For other section 110(a)(2) elements, 

however, EPA’s review of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission focuses 

on assuring that the state’s SIP meets 

basic structural requirements. For 

example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, 

inter alia, the requirement that states 

have a program to regulate minor new 

sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether 

the state has an EPA-approved minor 

new source review (NSR) program and 

whether the program addresses the 

pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In 

the context of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, however, 

EPA does not think it is necessary to 

conduct a review of each and every 

provision of a state’s existing minor 

source program (i.e., already in the 

existing SIP) for compliance with the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, 

EPA does not believe that an action on 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission is 

necessarily the appropriate type of 

action in which to address possible 

deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. 

These issues include: (i) Existing 

provisions related to excess emissions 

from sources during periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions 

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

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

discretion’’ that may be contrary to the 

CAA because they purport to allow 

revisions to SIP-approved emissions 

limits while limiting public process or 

not requiring further approval by EPA; 

and (iii) 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’’). Thus, EPA believes it may 

approve an infrastructure SIP 

submission without scrutinizing the 

totality of the existing SIP for such 

potentially deficient provisions and may 

approve the submission even if it is 

aware of such existing provisions.10 It is 

important to note that EPA’s approval of 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission 

should not be construed as explicit or 

implicit re-approval of any existing 

potentially deficient provisions that 

relate to the three specific issues just 

described. 

EPA’s approach to review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions is to 

identify the CAA requirements that are 

logically applicable to that submission. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

review of a particular infrastructure SIP 

submission is appropriate, because it 

would not be reasonable to read the 

general requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 

110(a)(2) as requiring review of each 

and every provision of a state’s existing 

SIP against all requirements in the CAA 

and EPA regulations merely for 

purposes of assuring that the state in 

question has the basic structural 

elements for a functioning SIP for a new 

or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 

grown by accretion over the decades as 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

under the CAA have evolved, they may 

include some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts. These provisions, 

while not fully up to date, nevertheless 

may not pose a significant problem for 

the purposes of ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a 

new or revised NAAQS when EPA 

evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 

SIP submission. EPA believes that a 

better approach is for states and EPA to 

focus attention on those elements of 

section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely 

to warrant a specific SIP revision due to 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or other factors. 

For example, the 2013 Memo gives 

simpler recommendations with respect 

to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS 

pollutants to meet the visibility 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon 

monoxide does not affect visibility. As 

a result, an infrastructure SIP 

submission for any future new or 

revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide 

need only state this fact in order to 

address the visibility prong of section 

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

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach with respect to infrastructure 

SIP requirements is based on a 

reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides 

other avenues and mechanisms to 

address specific substantive deficiencies 

in existing SIPs. These other statutory 

tools allow EPA to take appropriately 

tailored action, depending upon the 

nature and severity of the alleged SIP 

deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes 

EPA to issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the 

Agency determines that a state’s SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or to otherwise 

comply with the CAA.11 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 27245 

12EPA has used this authority to correct errors in 

past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD 

programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 

82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously 

used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to 

remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See, 

e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 

(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 

FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to 

California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 

2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

13See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 

(July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s 

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) 

(final disapproval of such provisions). 

14See, e.g., EPA’s 73 FR 66964 at 67034, final rule 

on ‘‘National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Lead.’’ 

approvals of SIP submissions.12

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission is not the appropriate time 

and place to address all potential 

existing SIP deficiencies does not 

preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action to correct those 

deficiencies at a later time. For example, 

although it may not be appropriate to 

require a state to eliminate all existing 

inappropriate director’s discretion 

provisions in the course of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, EPA 

believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be 

among the statutory bases that EPA 

relies upon in the course of addressing 

such deficiency in a subsequent 

action.13

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) identifies the statutory 

elements that states need to submit 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, and the 2011 Memo 

provides guidance specific to the 2008 

Pb NAAQS. Lastly, the 2013 Memo 

identifies and further clarifies aspects of 

infrastructure SIPs that are not NAAQS 

specific. 

IV. What is the result of EPA’s review 

of these SIP submissions? 

As noted in the 2011 Memo and 

reiterated in the 2013 Memo, pursuant 

to section 110(a), states must provide 

reasonable notice and opportunity for 

public hearing for all infrastructure SIP 

submissions. Each state referenced in 

this rulemaking provided the 

opportunity for public comment that 

ended on the following dates: Illinois— 

October 24, 2012; Michigan—February 

29, 2012; Minnesota—May 25, 2012; 

and, Wisconsin—June 18, 2012. Each 

state also provided an opportunity for a 

public hearing. None of the states 

referenced in this rulemaking received 

any written comments, nor were public 

hearings requested by interested parties. 

EPA is also soliciting comment on our 

evaluation of each state’s infrastructure 

SIP submission in this notice of 

proposed rulemaking. Illinois, 

Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin 

provided detailed synopses of how 

various components of their SIPs meet 

each of the requirements in section 

110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, as 

applicable. The following review 

evaluates the 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. However, EPA has long 

interpreted emission limits and control 

measures for attaining the standards as 

being due when nonattainment 

planning requirements are due.14 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 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 

2008 Pb 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 2008 Pb 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 

2008 Pb 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 

for WDNR 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 

2008 Pb 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). 

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. 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

27246 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

15PM10 refers to particles with diameters between 

2.5 and 10 microns, oftentimes referred to as 

‘‘coarse’’ particles. 

16 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 

all regulated NSR pollutants in PSD permits (see 76 

FR 23757 at 23760). This view was reiterated in 

EPA’s August 2, 2012, proposed rulemaking for 

infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 

77 FR 45992 at 45998). In other words, if a state 

lacks provisions needed to adequately address Pb, 

NOX as a precursor to ozone, PM2.5 precursors, 

PM2.5 and PM10 condensables, PM2.5 increments, or 

the Federal GHG permitting thresholds, the 

provisions of section 110(a)(2)(C) requiring a 

suitable PSD permitting program must be 

considered not to be met irrespective of the NAAQS 

that triggered the requirement to submit an 

infrastructure SIP, including 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

summarizes air quality trends. 

Furthermore, Illinois EPA submits 

yearly monitoring network plans to 

EPA, and EPA approved the 2014 

Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan 

for Pb on August 21, 2013. In this 

monitoring network approval, EPA 

noted that the operation of two ambient 

air monitoring sites for Pb, 

ArcelorMittal Steel and Johnson 

Controls, needed to commence as 

expeditiously as possible. On November 

8, 2013, Illinois EPA confirmed that that 

these two sites had begun operating on 

October 7, 2013, and October 31, 2013, 

respectively. 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 

2008 Pb NAAQS. 

MDEQ maintains a comprehensive 

network of air quality monitors 

throughout Michigan. EPA approved 

MDEQ’s 2014 Annual Air Monitoring 

Network Plan for Pb on October 23, 

2013. 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 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

MPCA continues to operate an 

ambient pollutant monitoring network, 

and compiles and reports air quality 

data to EPA. EPA approved MPCA’s 

2014 Annual Air Monitoring Network 

Plan for Pb on October 23, 2013. 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 

2008 Pb NAAQS. 

WDNR continues to operate an 

extensive monitoring network; EPA 

approved the state’s 2014 Annual Air 

Monitoring Network Plan for Pb on 

August 19, 2013. 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 

2008 Pb 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 PSD and 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 each state’s 

submission addressing the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD 

program for the 2008 Pb NAAQS; (iii) 

PSD provisions that explicitly identify 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as a precursor 

to ozone in the PSD program; (iv) 

identification of precursors to PM2.5 and 

the identification of PM2.5 and PM10 15

condensables in the PSD program; (v) 

PM2.5 increments in the PSD program; 

and, (vi) GHG permitting and the 

‘‘Tailoring Rule.’’ 16 In today’s 

rulemaking, we are evaluating each 

state’s submission as it relates to the 

enforcement of SIP measures. We are 

also evaluating the submissions from 

Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota with 

respect to the various PSD program and 

GHG permitting requirements. We are 

not taking action on Wisconsin’s 

satisfaction of these requirements, 

which include a PSD program for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS, PSD provisions that 

explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to 

ozone in the PSD program, the 

identification of precursors to PM2.5 and 

the identification of PM2.5 and PM10

condensables in the PSD program, PM2.5

increments in the PSD program, and 

GHG permitting and the ‘‘Tailoring 

Rule.’’ Instead, EPA will evaluate 

Wisconsin’s compliance with each of 

these requirements in a separate 

rulemaking. 

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 2008 Pb 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 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

Minnesota Statute chapter 116.07 

gives the MPCA the authority to enforce 

any provisions of the chapter relating to 

air contamination. These provisions 

include: Entering into orders; schedules 

of compliance; stipulation agreements; 

requiring owners or operators of 

emissions facilities to install and 

operate monitoring equipment; and 

conducting investigations. 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, and Minnesota Statute 

chapter 115.071 outlines the remedies 

that are available to address such 

violations. Lastly, Minnesota 

Administrative Rules 7009.0030 to 

7009.0040 provide for enforcement 

measures. EPA proposes that Minnesota 

has met the enforcement of SIP 

measures requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 Pb 

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 actions as necessary 

to the Wisconsin Department of Justice 

with the involvement of WDNR. Under 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 27247 

17Similar changes were codified in 40 CFR 52.21. 

18Note that this section of 40 CFR 51.166 has 

been amended as a result of EPA’s Final Rule on 

the ‘‘Implementation of the New Source Review 

(NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5); the regulatory text as listed 

was current as of the issuance of the Phase 2 Rule. 

The current citation for the VOCs and NOX as 

precursors for ozone are contained in 40 CFR 

51.166 (b)(49)(i)(b)(i). 

WS chapter 285.13, WDNR 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 

WDNR with 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 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 2: PSD Program for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS 

Pursuant to the 2011 Memo, a state 

should demonstrate that it is authorized 

to implement its PSD permit program to 

ensure that the construction of major 

stationary sources does not cause or 

contribute to a violation of the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

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 ensure that the 

construction of major stationary sources 

does not cause or contribute to a 

violation of the 2008 Pb NAAQS. EPA 

acknowledges that these two 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. 

Michigan’s EPA-approved PSD rules, 

contained at R 336.2801–R 336.2823, 

contain provisions that adequately 

address the applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements related to the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. EPA proposes that Michigan 

has met this set of infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 3: PSD Provisions That 

Explicitly Identify 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 29, 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 following: 17

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

is major for volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) 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 VOCs 

or NOX shall be considered significant for 

ozone; 

40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i): Ozone: 40 tons per 

year (tpy) of VOCs or NOX; 

40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i): 18 Any pollutant 

for which a NAAQS has been promulgated 

and any constituents or precursors for such 

pollutants identified by the Administrator 

(e.g., VOCs 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 tpy or more of VOCs or NOX 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). 

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 these two 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 August 9, 2013, and supplemented 

on September 19, 2013, Michigan 

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. MDEQ also requested that 

these revisions satisfy not only the 

requirements of the Phase 2 Rule, but 

any applicable PSD requirements 

associated with the 2008 Pb NAAQS 

infrastructure SIP. EPA’s final approval 

of MDEQ’s SIP revisions with respect to 

the Phase 2 Rule was published on 

April 4, 2014 (see 79 FR 18802). 

Therefore, we are proposing to find that 

Michigan has met this set of 

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

the 2008 Pb NAAQS regarding the 

explicit identification of NOX as a 

precursor to ozone, consistent with the 

Phase 2 Rule. 

Sub-Element 4: Identification of 

Precursors to PM2.5 and the 

Identification of PM2.5 and PM10

Condensables 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, 

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 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)(b) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

27248 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

19EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 

(D.C. Cir.), held that EPA should have issued the 

2008 NSR Rule in accordance with the CAA’s 

requirements for PM10 nonattainment areas (Title I, 

Part D, subpart 4), and not the general requirements 

for nonattainment areas under subpart 1 (Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 08–1250). 

As the subpart 4 provisions apply only to 

nonattainment areas, the EPA does not consider the 

portions of the 2008 rule that address requirements 

for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be 

affected by the court’s opinion. Moreover, EPA does 

not anticipate the need to revise any PSD 

requirements promulgated by the 2008 NSR rule in 

order to comply with the court’s decision. 

Accordingly, the EPA’s approval of Indiana’s 

infrastructure SIP as to elements (C), (D)(i)(II), or (J) 

with respect to the PSD requirements promulgated 

by the 2008 implementation rule does not conflict 

with the court’s opinion. The Court’s decision with 

respect to the nonattainment NSR requirements 

promulgated by the 2008 implementation rule also 

does not affect EPA’s action on the present 

infrastructure action. EPA interprets the CAA to 

exclude nonattainment area requirements, 

including requirements associated with a 

nonattainment NSR program, from infrastructure 

SIP submissions due three years after adoption or 

revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are 

typically referred to as nonattainment SIP or 

attainment plan elements, which would be due by 

the dates statutorily prescribed under subpart 2 

through 5 under part D, extending as far as 10 years 

following designations for some elements. 

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 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). 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).19

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 PM10 emission limits in NSR 

permits. Instead, EPA determined that 

states had to account for PM2.5 and PM10

condensables for applicability 

determinations and in establishing 

emissions limitations for PM2.5 and 

PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or 

after January 1, 2011. This requirement 

is codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) 

and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). 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 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 address the 

requirements obligated by the 2008 NSR 

Rule, including those that explicitly 

identify precursors to PM2.5, and 

account for PM2.5 and PM10

condensables for applicability 

determinations and in establishing 

emissions limitations for PM2.5 and 

PM10 in PSD permits. EPA 

acknowledges that these two 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 August 9, 2013, and supplemented 

on September 19, 2013, Michigan 

submitted revisions to its PSD program 

incorporating the necessary changes 

obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule, 

including provisions that explicitly 

identify precursors to PM2.5 and account 

for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables for 

applicability determinations and in 

establishing emissions limitations for 

PM2.5 and PM10 in PSD permits. MDEQ 

also requested that these revisions 

satisfy not only the requirements of the 

2008 NSR Rule, but any applicable PSD 

requirements associated with the 2008 

Pb NAAQS infrastructure SIP. EPA’s 

final approval of MDEQ’s SIP revisions 

with respect to the 2008 NSR Rule was 

published on April 4, 2014 (see 79 FR 

18802). Therefore, we are proposing that 

Michigan has met this set of 

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

the 2008 Pb NAAQS regarding the 

requirements obligated by the 2008 NSR 

Rule. 

Sub-Element 5: PM2.5 Increments in the 

PSD Program 

On October 20, 2010, EPA issued the 

final rule on the ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC)’’ (2010 NSR Rule). This rule 

established several components for 

making PSD permitting determinations 

for PM2.5, including a system of 

‘‘increments’’ which is the mechanism 

used to estimate significant 

deterioration of ambient air quality for 

a pollutant. These increments are 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 

CFR 52.21(c), and are included in the 

table below. 

TABLE 1—PM2.5 INCREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE 2010 NSR RULE IN

MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER

Annual 

arithmetic 

mean 

24-hour max 

Class I ....... 1 2 

Class II ...... 4 9 

Class III ..... 8 18 

The 2010 NSR Rule also established a 

new ‘‘major source baseline date’’ for 

PM2.5 as October 20, 2010, and a new 

trigger date for PM2.5 as October 20, 

2011. These revisions are codified in 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c), 

and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14)(i)(c) and 

(b)(14)(ii)(c). Lastly, the 2010 NSR Rule 

revised the definition of ‘‘baseline area’’ 

to include a level of significance of 0.3 

micrograms per cubic meter, annual 

average, for PM2.5. This change is 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i) and 

40 CFR 52.21(b)(15)(i). 

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 address the 

requirements obligated by the 2010 NSR 

Rule, including the increments 

established by the 2010 NSR Rule for 

incorporation into the SIP, as well as the 

revised major source baseline date, 

trigger date, and baseline area level of 

significance for PM2.5. EPA 

acknowledges that these two 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 August 9, 2013, and supplemented 

on September 19, 2013, Michigan 

submitted revisions to its PSD program 

incorporating the necessary changes 

obligated by the 2010 NSR Rule, 

including the increments established by 

the 2010 NSR Rule for incorporation 

into the SIP, as well as the revised major 

source baseline date, trigger date, and 

baseline area level of significance for 

PM2.5. MDEQ also requested that these 

revisions satisfy not only the 

requirements of the 2010 NSR Rule, but 

any applicable PSD requirements 

associated with the 2008 Pb NAAQS 

infrastructure SIP. EPA’s final approval 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 27249 

20http://www.epa.gov/NSR/actions.html#2010. 

21Section 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. 

22Letter from the Director of MDEQ to EPA 

Region 5 Regional Administrator dated July 27, 

2010. 

of MDEQ’s SIP revisions with respect to 

the 2010 NSR Rule was published on 

April 4, 2014 (see 79 FR 18802). 

Therefore, we are proposing that 

Michigan has met this set of 

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

the 2008 Pb NAAQS regarding the 

requirements obligated by the 2010 NSR 

Rule. 

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 

(see 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 certain residential 

and commercial sources 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.20 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 (see 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. 

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.21

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.22 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 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

For the purposes of the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS infrastructure SIPs, EPA 

reiterates that NSR reform regulations 

are not in the scope of these actions. 

Therefore, we are not taking action on 

existing NSR reform regulations for 

Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and 

Wisconsin. 

To address the pre-construction 

regulation of the modification and 

construction of minor stationary sources 

and minor modifications of major 

stationary sources, an infrastructure SIP 

submission should identify the existing 

EPA-approved SIP provisions and/or 

include new provisions that govern the 

minor source pre-construction program 

that regulates emissions of the relevant 

NAAQS pollutants. EPA approvals for 

each state’s minor NSR program 

occurred on: Illinois—May 31, 1972 (37 

FR 10862); Michigan—May 6, 1980 (45 

FR 29790); Minnesota—May 24, 1995 

(60 FR 27411); and, Wisconsin— 

February 17, 1995 (60 FR 3543). Since 

these dates, each state agency and EPA 

have relied on the existing minor NSR 

program to ensure that new and 

modified sources not captured by the 

major NSR permitting programs do not 

interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

Furthermore, various sub-elements in 

this section overlap with elements of 

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

With respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS, 

the 2011 Memo notes that the physical 

properties of Pb prevent it from 

experiencing the same travel or 

formation phenomena as PM2.5 or 

ozone. Specifically, there is a sharp 

decrease in Pb concentrations as the 

distance from a Pb source increases. 

Accordingly, it may be possible for a 

source in a state to emit Pb at a location 

and in such quantities that contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in, or 

interference with maintenance by, any 

other state. However, EPA anticipates 

that this would be a rare situation, e.g., 

sources emitting large quantities of Pb 

are in close proximity to state 

boundaries. The 2011 Memo suggests 

that the applicable interstate transport 

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

can be met through a state’s assessment 

as to whether or not emissions from Pb 

sources located in close proximity to its 

borders have emissions that impact a 

neighboring state such that they 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in that state. One way that 

a state’s conclusion could be supported 

is by the technical support documents 

used for initial area designations for Pb. 

In its infrastructure SIP submission, 

Illinois noted that a small portion of 

Madison County and Cook County were 

designated as nonattainment for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS (see 75 FR 71033 and 

76 FR 72097). EPA’s final technical 

support documents for these two 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

27250 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

nonattainment areas support the notion 

that the ambient concentration of Pb are 

not expected to exceed the NAAQS 

outside of the nonattainment 

boundaries. Furthermore, EPA does not 

believe that the elevated levels of 

ambient Pb concentrations in Madison 

County or Cook County (or emissions 

from any other county) would cause or 

contribute to a violation of the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS in a neighboring state, or create 

a situation in a neighboring state where 

maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS 

was not possible. Therefore, EPA 

proposes that Illinois has met this set of 

requirements related to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

Michigan noted that EPA designated a 

small portion of Ionia County as 

nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS 

(see 76 FR 72097). EPA’s final technical 

support documents for this 

nonattainment area support the notion 

that the ambient concentration of Pb are 

not expected to exceed the NAAQS 

outside of the nonattainment 

boundaries. MDEQ’s submission also 

confirms that impact screening 

performed by the state indicates that no 

adverse impacts to air quality are 

expected to neighboring states, Canada, 

or Class I areas from existing Pbemitting sources in Michigan. 

Furthermore, EPA does not believe that 

the elevated levels of ambient Pb 

concentrations in Ionia County (or Pb 

emissions from any other county) would 

cause or contribute to a violation of the 

2008 Pb NAAQS in a neighboring state, 

the closest of which is Indiana 

(approximately 100 miles away from the 

nonattainment area in Ionia County). 

Similarly, EPA does not believe that Pb 

concentrations in this area would create 

a situation in a neighboring state where 

maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS 

was not possible. Therefore, EPA 

proposes that Michigan has met this set 

of requirements related to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

EPA designated a portion of Dakota 

County in Minnesota as nonattainment 

for the 2008 Pb NAAQS (see 75 FR 

71033). Minnesota’s submission notes, 

and EPA has confirmed, that but for the 

ambient air monitor located in Dakota 

County, all other monitors in the state 

have recorded very low values of Pb. 

EPA’s final technical support 

documents for the nonattainment area 

in Dakota County support the notion 

that the ambient concentration of Pb are 

not expected to exceed the NAAQS 

outside of the nonattainment 

boundaries; the distance from Dakota 

County to the Minnesota-Wisconsin 

state line is approximately 20 miles. 

MPCA also notes that the sources of Pb 

emissions in Minnesota with yearly 

emissions greater than 0.5 tpy are not 

located close to any borders with 

neighboring states. Furthermore, EPA 

does not believe that the elevated levels 

of ambient Pb concentrations in Dakota 

(or emissions from any other county) 

would cause or contribute to a violation 

of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in a neighboring 

state or create a situation in a 

neighboring state where maintenance of 

the 2008 Pb NAAQS was not possible. 

Therefore, EPA proposes that Minnesota 

has met this set of requirements related 

to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 

Pb NAAQS. 

EPA has designated the entirety of 

Wisconsin as unclassifiable/attainment 

for the 2008 Pb NAAQS (see 76 FR 

72097). In its submission, WDNR notes 

that there is only one site in the state 

which requires continued ambient air 

monitoring for Pb emissions, and this 

area is approximately 70 miles from the 

Wisconsin-Illinois state line. Wisconsin 

also notes that other sources emitting at 

or above 0.5 tpy or more of Pb were 

found to contribute less than 50% of the 

NAAQS to the surrounding area’s 

ambient air quality. EPA does not 

believe that emissions in any county of 

Wisconsin would cause or contribute to 

a violation of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in a 

neighboring state or create a situation in 

a neighboring state where maintenance 

of the 2008 Pb NAAQS was not 

possible. Therefore, EPA proposes that 

Wisconsin has met this set of 

requirements related to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires 

SIPs to include provisions prohibiting 

any source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from interfering 

with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality or 

to protect visibility in another state. 

EPA notes that each state’s 

satisfaction of the applicable 

infrastructure SIP PSD requirements for 

the 2008 Pb 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. 

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 applicable provisions 

contained in the Phase 2 Rule, the 2008 

NSR Rule, the 2010 NSR Rule, and 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 these requirements. 

However, Illinois and Minnesota have 

no further obligations to EPA because 

both states administer the Federally 

promulgated PSD regulations. 

Michigan has submitted revisions to 

its PSD regulations that are wholly 

consistent with the EPA’s requirements 

contained in the Phase 2 Rule, the 2008 

NSR Rule, and the 2010 Rule. These 

revisions were approved on April 4, 

2014 (see 79 FR 18802), and in this 

rulemaking, we are proposing that 

Michigan has met the applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS as they relate to the 

requirements obligated by EPA’s PSD 

regulations. We are also proposing that 

Michigan has met the applicable PSD 

requirements associated with the 

permitting of GHG emitting sources 

consistent with the thresholds laid out 

in the Tailoring Rule. 

States also have an obligation to 

ensure that sources located in 

nonattainment areas do not interfere 

with a neighboring state’s PSD program. 

One way that this requirement can be 

satisfied is through an NNSR program 

consistent with the CAA that addresses 

any pollutants for which there is a 

designated nonattainment area within 

the state. 

Illinois’ EPA-approved NNSR 

regulations can be found in Part 203 of 

the SIP; Michigan’s EPA-approved 

NNSR regulations can be found in Part 

2 of the SIP, specifically in R 336.1220 

and R 336.1221; Minnesota’s EPAapproved NNSR regulations can be 

found in chapter 7007.4000–7007.4030; 

and, Wisconsin’s EPA-approved NNSR 

regulations can be found in NR 408. 

Each state’s NNSR regulations contain 

provisions for how the state must treat 

and control sources in Pb nonattainment 

areas, consistent with 40 CFR 51.165, or 

appendix S to 40 CFR 51. EPA proposes 

that Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and 

Wisconsin have met the requirements 

with respect to the prohibition of 

interference with a neighboring state’s 

PSD program for the 2008 Pb NAAQS 

related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

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, the 2011 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 27251 

Memo, and 2013 Memo state that these 

requirements can be satisfied by an 

approved SIP addressing reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment, if 

required, or an approved SIP addressing 

regional haze. Alternatively, the 2011 

Memo states that most, if not all, Pb 

stationary sources are located at 

distances from Class I areas such that 

visibility impacts would be negligible. 

Although Pb can be a component of 

coarse and fine particles, it generally 

comprises a small fraction. When EPA 

evaluated the extent that Pb could 

impact visibility, Pb-related visibility 

impacts were found to be insignificant 

(e.g., less than 0.10%). Therefore, EPA 

anticipates that Pb emissions will 

contribute only negligibly to visibility 

impairment at Class I areas, and states 

can include an assessment as to this 

assumption in their submissions. 

EPA’s final approval of Illinois’ 

regional haze plan was published on 

July 6, 2012 (see 77 FR 39943). The 

closest Class I area (Mingo National 

Wildlife Refuge, Missouri) is located 

more than 150 miles away from the 

partial Madison County nonattainment 

area. As a result, EPA anticipates that 

Class I areas would experience less than 

0.10% of adverse visibility impact from 

any Pb-emitting sources in Illinois. EPA 

proposes that Illinois has met this set of 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

EPA’s final approval of Michigan’s 

regional haze plan was published on 

December 3, 2012 (see 77 FR 71533). 

Michigan’s impact screening of Pbemitting sources indicated that no 

adverse impacts on air quality should be 

expected in Class I areas. As a result, 

EPA anticipates that Class I areas would 

experience less than 0.10% of adverse 

visibility impact from any Pb-emitting 

source in Michigan. EPA proposes that 

Michigan has met this set of 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

EPA’s final approval of Minnesota’s 

regional haze plan was published on 

June 12, 2012 (see 77 FR 34801). While 

the U.S. Steel Minntac facility is located 

approximately 50 miles from the closest 

Class I area (Boundary Waters, 

Minnesota), EPA had previously 

determined that the ambient 

concentrations of Pb in the area around 

the facility were expected to be less than 

50% of the 2008 Pb NAAQS. When the 

distance between the facility and the 

Boundary Waters is considered, EPA 

anticipates that Class I areas would 

experience less than 0.10% of adverse 

visibility impact from any Pb-emitting 

source in Minnesota. EPA proposes that 

Minnesota has met this set of 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

EPA’s final approval of Wisconsin’s 

regional haze plan was published on 

August 7, 2012 (see 77 FR 46952). As 

previously discussed in the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), there is only one 

required Pb monitor in the state, and the 

local impacts from all other Pb-emitting 

sources at or above 0.5 tpy are expected 

to be less than half of the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. The closest Class I area 

(Rainbow Lake, Wisconsin) is located 

more than 200 miles from the closest 

Pb-emitting source emitting at or above 

0.5 tpy, and EPA anticipates that this 

area (or any other Class I area) would 

experience less than 0.10% of adverse 

visibility impact from any Pb-emitting 

sources in Wisconsin. EPA proposes 

that Wisconsin has met this set of 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

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. 

Michigan and Wisconsin have 

provisions in their respective EPAapproved PSD programs requiring new 

or modified sources to notify 

neighboring states of potential negative 

air quality impacts. The states’ 

submissions reference these provisions 

as being adequate to meet the 

requirements of section 126(a). EPA 

proposes that Michigan and Wisconsin 

have met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 126(a) with 

respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. None of 

the states referenced in this rulemaking 

have obligations under any other section 

of section 126. 

The submissions from Illinois, 

Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin 

affirm that none of these states have 

pending obligations under section 115. 

EPA therefore is proposing that these 

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 its submittal, Illinois 

EPA cited the recently passed 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, the 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 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

27252 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 this portion of section 

110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2008 Pb 

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 this 

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

respect to the 2008 Pb 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 

infrastructure SIP requirements of this 

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

respect to the 2008 Pb 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). 

EPA confirms that Michigan’s PSD 

regulations provide the state with 

adequate resources to issue permits to 

sources with GHG emissions consistent 

with the Tailoring Rule thresholds; 

therefore, EPA proposes that Michigan 

retains all the resources necessary to 

implement the requirements of its SIP. 

Given the effect of EPA’s Narrowing 

Rule to provide that Wisconsin’s 

approved SIP does not involve 

permitting GHG sources smaller than 

the Tailoring Rule thresholds, EPA 

proposes that Wisconsin has 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 comply 

with the state board requirements of 

section 128 of the CAA. That provision 

contains 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 the 

portions of the submissions from 

Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and 

Wisconsin intended to address 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 these states at 

a later time. EPA is working with each 

of these 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 

2008 Pb NAAQS. 

Michigan Administrative Code (MAC) 

R 336.2001 to R 336.2004 provide 

requirements for performance testing 

and sampling. MAC R 336.2101 to R 

336.2199 provide requirements for 

continuous emission monitoring, and 

MAC R 336.201 and R 336.202 require 

annual reporting of emissions. This data 

is available to the public for inspection. 

EPA proposes that Michigan has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2008 Pb 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 

2008 Pb NAAQS. 

WDNR 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 

2008 Pb NAAQS. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 27253 

23See appendix R to 40 CFR Part 50 for data 

handling conventions and computations necessary 

for determining when the NAAQS are met. 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency 

Powers 

This section requires that a plan 

provide for authority that is analogous 

to what is provided in section 303 of the 

CAA, and adequate contingency plans 

to implement such authority. The 2011 

Memo states that infrastructure SIP 

submissions should specify authority, 

rested in an appropriate official, to 

restrain any source from causing or 

contributing to Pb emissions which 

present an imminent and substantial 

endangerment to public health or 

welfare, or the environment. 

Illinois has the necessary authority to 

address emergency episodes, and these 

provisions are contained in 415 ILCS 5/ 

34. 415 ILCS 5/43(a) authorizes the 

Illinois EPA to request a state’s attorney 

from Illinois Attorney General’s office to 

seek immediate injunctive relief in 

circumstances of substantial danger to 

the environment or to the public health 

of persons. EPA proposes that Illinois 

has met the applicable infrastructure 

SIP requirements for this portion of 

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

2008 Pb NAAQS. 

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 

applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements for this portion of section 

110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

Minnesota Statute 116.11 and Chapter 

7000.5000 of the Minnesota SIP contain 

the emergency powers set forth in the 

state. Specifically, these regulations 

allow the agency to direct the 

immediate discontinuance or abatement 

of the pollution without notice and 

without a hearing, or at the request of 

the agency, the Attorney General may 

bring an action in the name of the state 

in the appropriate district court for a 

temporary restraining order to 

immediately abate or prevent the 

pollution. EPA proposes that Minnesota 

has met the applicable infrastructure 

SIP requirements for this portion of 

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

2008 Pb NAAQS. 

WS chapter 285.85 provides the 

requirement for WDNR to act upon a 

finding that episode or emergency 

conditions exist. The language 

contained in this chapter authorizes 

WDNR to seek immediate injunctive 

relief in circumstances of substantial 

danger to the environment or to public 

health. EPA proposes that Wisconsin 

has met the applicable infrastructure 

SIP requirements for this portion of 

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

2008 Pb NAAQS. 

As indicated in the 2011 Memo, EPA 

believes that the central components of 

a contingency plan for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS would be to reduce emissions 

from the source at issue and to 

communicate with the public as needed. 

Where a state believes, based on its 

inventory of Pb sources and historic 

monitoring data, that it does not need a 

more specific contingency plan beyond 

having authority to restrain any source 

from causing or contributing to an 

imminent and substantial 

endangerment, then the state could 

provide such a detailed rationale in 

place of a specific contingency plan. 

EPA has reviewed historic data at Pb 

monitoring sites throughout Illinois, 

Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, 

and believes that a specific contingency 

plan beyond having authority to restrain 

any source from causing or contributing 

to an imminent and substantial 

endangerment is not necessary at this 

time. For example, one way to quantify 

the possibility of imminent and 

substantial endangerment in this 

context would be a daily monitored 

value for Pb that could by itself cause 

a violation of the 2008 Pb NAAQS.23

EPA has reviewed data from 2011–2013 

(the most recent consecutive 36-month 

block of complete data) and observes 

that no such daily monitored value 

exists. As described in the section 

detailing interstate transport of Pb, EPA 

does not anticipate other areas in these 

states needing specific contingency 

measures due to low Pb emissions. EPA 

proposes that Illinois, Michigan, 

Minnesota, and Wisconsin have met the 

applicable infrastructure SIP 

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

related to contingency measures for the 

2008 Pb 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 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

Michigan Act 451 324.5503 and 

324.5512 provide 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 2008 Pb 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 2008 Pb 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 

2008 Pb NAAQS. 

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

Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under 

Part D 

The CAA requires that each plan or 

plan revision for an area designated as 

a nonattainment area meet the 

applicable requirements of part D of the 

CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment 

areas. 

EPA has determined that section 

110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the 

infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA 

takes action on part D attainment plans 

through separate processes. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

27254 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

24See http://www.epa.state.il.us/communityrelations/fact-sheets/pilsen-neighborhood-lead/factsheet-1.html. 

25See http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7- 

135-3307_29693_30031-244345--,00.html. 

26See http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/

waste/waste-and-cleanup/waste-management/

lead.html. 

27See http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/

about-mpca/legislative-resources/legislativereports/air-quality-in-minnesota-reports-to-thelegislature.html. 

28http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/AirQuality/

Pollutants.html. 

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation 

With Government Officials; Public 

Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection 

The evaluation of the submissions 

from Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and 

Wisconsin with respect to 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. 

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, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Ohio, and Wisconsin. EPA proposes that 

Illinois has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of this portion of section 

110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2008 Pb 

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 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

Historically, MPCA actively 

participated in the Central Regional Air 

Planning Association as well as the 

Central States Air Resource Agencies. 

MPCA is now a full-time member of 

LADCO, and it 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 2008 Pb 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 2008 Pb 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. 

Specific to Pb, Illinois EPA maintains a 

publicly available Web site that allows 

interested members of the community 

and other stakeholders to obtain 

information about the adverse health 

effects associated with Pb, as well as the 

efforts being taken to mitigate elevated 

levels of Pb.24 EPA proposes that Illinois 

has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of this portion of section 

110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

MDEQ posts current air quality 

concentrations on its Web pages, and 

prepares an annual air quality report. 

Specific to Pb, the agency maintains a 

Web site devoted to informing the 

public and other interested parties of 

the health and environmental effects 

associated with exposure to Pb, as well 

as resources for retailers who recycle 

batteries containing Pb. Lastly, the Pb 

oriented Web site contains information 

relating to the nonattainment area in 

Ionia County including: Monitored 

values of Pb in Ionia County as well as 

other sites in Michigan, technical 

information about the nonattainment 

designation, soil sampling data, public 

outreach documents, and ways that the 

state is addressing the elevated levels of 

Pb in Ionia County.25 EPA proposes that 

Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of this portion of section 

110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

Minnesota dedicates portions of the 

MPCA Web site to enhancing public 

awareness of measures that can be taken 

to prevent exceedances. For example, 

information on these pages includes 

ways to reduce Pb exposure,26 as well 

as the biennial reports that MPCA 

prepares for the state legislature.27 EPA 

proposes that Minnesota has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of this 

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

respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

WDNR maintains portions of its Web 

site specifically for issues related to the 

2008 Pb NAAQS.28 Information related 

to the one Pb monitoring site can be 

found on Wisconsin’s Web site, as is the 

calendar for all public events and public 

hearings held in the state. EPA proposes 

that Wisconsin has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of this 

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

respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 3: PSD 

States must meet applicable 

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

related to PSD. Each 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. 

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 applicable provisions 

contained in the Phase 2 Rule, the 2008 

NSR Rule, the 2010 NSR Rule, and 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 these requirements. 

However, Illinois and Minnesota have 

no further obligations to EPA because 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 27255 

both states administer the Federally 

promulgated PSD regulations. 

Michigan has submitted revisions to 

its PSD regulations that are wholly 

consistent with the EPA’s requirements 

contained in the Phase 2 Rule, the 2008 

NSR Rule, and the 2010 Rule. EPA 

approved these revisions on April 4, 

2014 (see 79 FR 18802) and we are 

proposing that Michigan has met the 

applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS as 

they relate to the requirements obligated 

by EPA’s PSD regulations. We are also 

proposing that Michigan has met the 

applicable PSD requirements associated 

with the permitting of GHG emitting 

sources consistent with the thresholds 

laid out in the Tailoring Rule. 

In today’s action, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove 

Wisconsin’s satisfaction of the structural 

PSD elements for infrastructure SIPs, 

including the requirements obligated by 

the Phase 2 Rule, the 2008 NSR Rule, 

and the 2010 NSR Rule. Further, we are 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

Wisconsin’s satisfaction of the 

applicable PSD requirements associated 

with the permitting of GHG emitting 

sources consistent with the thresholds 

laid out in the Tailoring Rule. We will 

address Wisconsin’s compliance with 

all of these requirements in a separate 

rulemaking. 

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. In other words, the 

visibility protection requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to 

infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

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 has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2008 Pb 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. 

Michigan also participates and 

coordinates with the other LADCO 

states on regional planning efforts. EPA 

proposes that Michigan has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2008 Pb NAAQS. 

MPCA reviews the potential impact of 

major and some minor new sources. 

Under R 7007.0500, MPCA may require 

applicable major sources in Minnesota 

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, preconstruction 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 2008 Pb 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 2008 Pb 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) and the provisions, 

requirements, and structures associated 

with the costs for reviewing, approving, 

implementing, and enforcing various 

types of permits are contained in 415 

ILCS 5/39.5. EPA proposes that Illinois 

has met the infrastructure SIP 

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

the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

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). Section 324.5522 of Act 451 

confers upon MDEQ the authority to 

levy and collect an annual air quality 

fee from owners or operators of each feesubject facility in Michigan as defined 

in R 336.1212. Michigan R 336.1201 

contains the provisions, requirements, 

and structures associated with the costs 

for reviewing, approving, implementing, 

and enforcing various types of permits. 

EPA proposes that Michigan has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

MPCA implements and operates the 

title V permit program, which EPA 

approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 

62967). Minnesota Rules 7002.0005 

through 7002.0085 contain the 

provisions, requirements, and structures 

associated with the costs for reviewing, 

approving, implementing, and enforcing 

various types of permits. EPA proposes 

that Minnesota has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

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). Wisconsin NR 410 contains the 

provisions, requirements, and structures 

associated with the costs for reviewing, 

approving, implementing, and enforcing 

various types of permits. EPA proposes 

that Wisconsin has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2008 Pb 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

27256 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

proposes that Illinois has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2008 Pb 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. Public 

comment periods, and hearings, if 

requested, are held in accordance with 

the requirements in 40 CFR Part 51. EPA 

proposes that Michigan has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2008 Pb NAAQS. 

Minnesota regularly consults with 

local political subdivisions affected by 

the SIP, where applicable. EPA observes 

that Minnesota Statute chapter 116.05 

authorizes cooperation and agreement 

between MPCA and other State and 

local governments. Additionally, the 

Minnesota Administrative Procedures 

Act (Minnesota Statute chapter 14) 

provides general notice and comment 

procedures that are followed during SIP 

development. Lastly, MPCA regularly 

issues public notices on proposed 

actions. EPA proposes that Minnesota 

has met the infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2008 Pb 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. For SIP revisions 

covering more than one source, WDNR 

is required to provide the standing 

committees of the state legislature with 

jurisdiction over environmental matters 

with a 60 day review period to ensure 

that local entities have been properly 

engaged in the development process. 

EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met 

the infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2008 Pb NAAQS. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve most 

elements of submissions from Illinois, 

Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin 

certifying that their current SIPs are 

sufficient to meet the required 

infrastructure elements under sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. We are also proposing to 

disapprove some elements of 

submissions from Illinois and 

Minnesota as they relate to each state’s 

PSD program. As described above, both 

of these states already administer 

federally promulgated PSD regulations 

through delegation, and therefore no 

practical effect is associated with 

today’s proposed disapproval or future 

final disapproval of those elements. 

EPA’s proposed actions for each 

state’s satisfaction of infrastructure SIP 

requirements, by element of section 

110(a)(2) are contained in the table 

below. 

Element IL MI MN WI 

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

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

(C)1: Enforcement of SIP measures ................................................................................................................................... A A A A 

(C)2: PSD program for Pb .................................................................................................................................................. D,* A D,* NA 

(C)3: NOX as a precursor to ozone for PSD ...................................................................................................................... D,* A D,* NA 

(C)4: PM2.5 Precursors/PM2.5 and PM10 condensables for PSD ........................................................................................ D,* A D,* NA 

(C)5: PM2.5 Increments ....................................................................................................................................................... D,* A D,* NA 

(C)5: GHG permitting thresholds in PSD regulations ......................................................................................................... D,* A D,* NA 

(D)1: Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with maintenance of NAAQS ......................................................................... A A A A 

(D)2: PSD ............................................................................................................................................................................ **   **  

(D)3: Visibility Protection ..................................................................................................................................................... A A A A 

(D)4: Interstate Pollution Abatement .................................................................................................................................. D,* A D,* A 

(D)5: International Pollution Abatement .............................................................................................................................. A A A A 

(E): Adequate resources ..................................................................................................................................................... A A A A 

(E): State boards ................................................................................................................................................................. NA NA NA NA 

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

(G): Emergency power ........................................................................................................................................................ A A A A 

(H): Future SIP revisions .................................................................................................................................................... A A A A 

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

(J)1: Consultation with government officials ....................................................................................................................... A A A A 

(J)2: Public notification ........................................................................................................................................................ A A A A 

(J)3: PSD ............................................................................................................................................................................ **   **  

(J)4: Visibility protection ...................................................................................................................................................... + + + + 

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

(L): Permitting fees ............................................................................................................................................................. A A A A 

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

In the above table, the key is as 

follows: 

A Approve 

NA No Action/Separate Rulemaking 

D Disapprove 

+ Not germane to infrastructure SIPs 

* 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) Provisions 

that adequate address the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS; (ii) the explicit identification 

of NOX as a precursor to ozone 

consistent with the Phase 2 Rule; (iii) 

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), and the regulation of PM2.5

and PM10 condensables, consistent with 

the requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule; 

(iv) the PM2.5 increments and associated 

implementation rules consistent with 

the 2010 NSR Rule; and, (v) 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 27257 

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. 

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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: May 2, 2014. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2014–11022 Filed 5–12–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0099; FRL–9910–80– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Reasonable Further Progress Plan and 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 

the Dallas/Fort Worth 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone Nonattainment Area; Enhanced 

Monitoring; Clean Fuel Fleets and 

Transportation Conformity 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Texas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet 

certain serious area requirements under 

section 182(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) for the Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) 

nonattainment area under the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard. Further, we are 

proposing to approve revisions to the 

DFW moderate area attainment 

demonstration SIP that address the 

failure-to-attain contingency measures 

and proposing to approve revisions to 

the Texas SIP that address control of air 

pollution from motor vehicles and 

transportation conformity. The EPA is 

proposing to approve these SIP 

revisions because they satisfy the 

requirements of section 110 and part D 

of the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 12, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2012–0099, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

• Email: Ms. Carrie Paige at 

paige.carrie@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, 

Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2012– 

0099. 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 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email, if you believe that it is CBI or 

otherwise protected from disclosure. 

The http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means that 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 http://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 along with any disk or CD– 

ROM submitted. 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 and any form of encryption 

and should be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS