8460 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

for inclusion into Puerto Rico’s SIP to 

address the requirements of Sections 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128 of the CAA. EPA 

is further proposing to approve these 

submissions, which are intended to 

apply to any person subject to CAA 128, 

for inclusion into the SIP as meeting 

CAA obligations section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 

PM2.5, 2008 lead, and 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

EPA is disapproving the following 

infrastructure SIP requirements as they 

relate to the PSD program for lack of a 

State adopted PSD rule to satisfy section 

110(a)(2) for the 1997 and 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

and 2008 lead NAAQS: sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i) prong 3, (D)(ii) and 

(J). It should be noted that a FIP clock 

will not be started because a PSD FIP is 

currently in place, and sanctions will 

not be triggered. Since Puerto Rico is 

not required to address the visibility 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) in the 

context of an infrastructure SIP, and 

therefore did not make a submission, 

action on this sub-element is not 

applicable. 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

Puerto Rico’s ‘‘Environmental Public 

Policy Act,’’ Act No. 416 (2004, as 

amended), Section 7.A, and Section 7.D 

and ‘‘Puerto Rico Government Ethics 

Law,’’ Act. No. 1 (approved January 3, 

2012), Section 5. These provisions are 

intended to apply to any person subject 

to CAA Section 128. The EPA has made, 

and will continue to make, these 

documents generally available 

electronically through http://

www.regulations (see the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

VII. 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 proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rulemaking 

action, pertaining to Puerto Rico’s 

section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

requirements for the 1997 and 2008 

ozone NAAQS, 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, and 2008 lead NAAQS 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, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 9, 2016. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03395 Filed 2–18–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0529; FRL–9942–57– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; 

Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

some elements of a state 

implementation plan (SIP) submission 

from Wisconsin regarding the 

infrastructure requirements of section 

110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 

2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(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. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 21, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0529 at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 8461 

1PM2.5 refers to particles with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers, 

oftentimes referred to as ‘‘fine’’ particles. 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

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

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6832, 

Liljegren.Jennifer@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background of this SIP 

submission? 

II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate 

this SIP submission? 

III. What is the result of EPA’s review of this 

SIP submission? 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background of this SIP 

submission? 

A. What state SIP submission does this 

rulemaking address? 

This rulemaking addresses a 

submission from the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR). The state submitted its 

infrastructure SIP for the 2012 

PM2.5 1 NAAQS on July 13, 2015. 

B. Why did the state make this SIP 

submission? 

Under section 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 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. This submission must contain 

any revisions needed for meeting the 

applicable SIP requirements of section 

110(a)(2), or certifications that their 

existing SIPs for the NAAQS 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 

Guidance) and has issued additional 

guidance documents, the most recent on 

September 13, 2013, entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements under CAA 

Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)’’ (2013 

Guidance). The SIP submission 

referenced in this rulemaking pertains 

to the applicable requirements of 

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

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submission from Wisconsin that 

addresses the infrastructure 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) 

and (2) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

requirement for states to make SIP 

submissions of this type arises out of 

CAA 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 

section 110(a)(1) and (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 SIP submissions that address 

the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D and the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) requirements of part C of title I of 

the CAA, and ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ 

submissions required to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A. 

This rulemaking will not cover three 

substantive areas that are not integral to 

acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions: (i) Existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction (’’SSM’’) at sources, that 

may be contrary to the CAA and EPA’s 

policies addressing such excess 

emissions; (ii) existing provisions 

related to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or 

‘‘director’s discretion’’ that purport to 

permit revisions to SIP-approved 

emissions limits with limited public 

notice or without requiring further 

approval by EPA, that may be contrary 

to the CAA; 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’’). Instead, EPA 

has the authority to address each one of 

these substantive areas in separate 

rulemakings. A detailed history, 

interpretation, and rationale as they 

relate to infrastructure SIP requirements 

can be found in EPA’s May 13, 2014, 

proposed rule entitled, ‘‘Approval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Illinois, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin; 

Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS’’ in the section, 

‘‘What is the scope of this rulemaking?’’ 

(see 79 FR 27241 at 27242–27245). 

II. What guidance is EPA using to 

evaluate this SIP submission? 

EPA’s guidance for this infrastructure 

SIP submission is embodied in the 2007 

Guidance referenced previously. 

Specifically, attachment A of the 2007 

Guidance (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. As 

discussed, EPA issued additional 

guidance, the most recent being the 

2013 Guidance that further clarifies 

aspects of infrastructure SIPs that are 

not NAAQS specific. 

III. What is the result of EPA’s review 

of this SIP submission? 

Pursuant to section 110(a), states must 

provide reasonable notice and 

opportunity for public hearing for all 

infrastructure SIP submissions. WDNR 

provided notice of a public comment 

period on May 19, 2015, held a public 

hearing at WDNR state Headquarters on 

June 17, 2015, and closed the public 

comment period on June 19, 2015. No 

comments were received during the 

WDNR’s public comment period. 

Wisconsin provided a detailed 

synopsis of how various components of 

its SIP meet each of the applicable 

requirements in section 110(a)(2) for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The following 

review evaluates the state’s submission. 

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, 

as well as schedules and timetables for 

compliance, and other related matters. 

However, EPA has long interpreted 

emission limits and control measures 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8462 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

2See, e.g., EPA’s final rule on ‘‘National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Lead.’’ 73 FR 66964 at 

67034. 

3PM10 refers to particles with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers. 

4 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 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 have 

been met irrespective of the NAAQS that triggered 

the requirement to submit an infrastructure SIP. 

for attaining the standards as being due 

when nonattainment planning 

requirements are due.2 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. 

Under Wisconsin Statutes (Wis. 

Stats.) 227 and 285, WDNR holds the 

authority to create new rules and 

implement existing emission limits and 

controls. Authority to monitor, update, 

and implement revisions to Wisconsin’s 

SIP, including revisions to emission 

limits and control measures as 

necessary to meet NAAQS, is contained 

in Wis. Stats. 285.11–285.19. Authority 

related to specific pollutants, including 

the establishment of ambient air quality 

standards and increments, identification 

of nonattainment areas, air resource 

allocations, and performance and 

emissions standards, is contained in 

Wis. Stats. 285.21–285.29. 

Specifically, authority for WNDR to 

create new rules and regulations is 

found in Wis. Stats. 227.11, 285.11, and 

285.21. Wis. Stats. 227.11(2)(a) 

expressly confers rulemaking authority 

to an agency. Wis. Stats. 285.11(1) and 

(6) require that WDNR promulgate rules 

and establish control strategies in order 

to prepare and implement the SIP for 

the prevention, abatement, and control 

of air pollution in Wisconsin. 

The 2013 Guidance states that to 

satisfy section 110(a)(2)(A) 

requirements, ‘‘an air agency’s 

submission should identify existing 

EPA-approved SIP provisions or new 

SIP provisions that the air agency has 

adopted and submitted for EPA 

approval that limit emissions of 

pollutants relevant to the subject 

NAAQS, including precursors of the 

relevant NAAQS pollutant where 

applicable.’’ The following current 

Wisconsin Administrative Code 

Chapters Natural Resources (NR) 

contain existing emission limits and 

control requirements that apply to 

particulate emissions: 

Chapter NR 415, Wis. Adm. Code— 

Control of Particulate Emissions 

Chapter NR 431, Wis. Adm. Code— 

Control of Visible Emissions 

These regulations can be applied to the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On January 1, 2015, EPA began 

implementing the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Wisconsin is 

subject to CSAPR’s requirements 

regarding annual oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX) and SO2 power plant emissions, 

which are intended to address transport 

of PM2.5 to downwind states. EPA and 

WDNR expect that CSAPR will result in 

reduced NOX and SO2 emissions from 

Wisconsin’s power plants, which will 

assist Wisconsin’s efforts to attain and 

maintain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In this rulemaking, EPA is not 

proposing to approve any new 

provisions in NR 415 or NR 431 that 

have not been previously approved by 

EPA. EPA is also not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing state 

provisions or rules related to start-up, 

shutdown or malfunction or director’s 

discretion in the context of section 

110(a)(2)(A). EPA proposes that 

Wisconsin has met the infrastructure 

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

with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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. 

WDNR continues to operate an 

extensive air monitoring network, 

which is used to determine compliance 

with the NAAQS. Furthermore, WDNR 

submits yearly monitoring network 

plans to EPA, and EPA approved 

WDNR’s Annual Air Monitoring 

Network Plan on October 31, 2014. 

Monitoring data from WDNR are entered 

into EPA’s 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 

Wisconsin has met the infrastructure 

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

with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for 

Enforcement of Control Measures; PSD 

This section requires each state to 

provide a program for enforcement of 

control measures. Section 110(a)(2)(C) 

also includes various requirements 

relating to PSD. 

1. Program for enforcement of control 

measures. 

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 new source 

review (NSR) requirements under PSD 

and nonattainment new source review 

(NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA 

(sections 160–169B) addresses PSD, 

while part D of the CAA (sections 171– 

193) addresses NNSR requirements. 

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 

Wis. Stats. 285.13, WDNR has the 

authority to impose fees and penalties to 

ensure that required measures are 

ultimately implemented. Wis. Stats. 

285.83 and Wis. Stats. 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 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

2. PSD. 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) includes various 

PSD requirements: identification of NOX

as a precursor to ozone provisions in the 

PSD program, identification of 

precursors to PM2.5 and the 

identification of PM2.5 and PM10 3

condensables in the PSD program, PM2.5

increments in the PSD program, and 

greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting and 

the ‘‘Tailoring Rule.’’ 4 In this 

rulemaking, we are not taking action on 

the state’s satisfaction of the various 

PSD permitting requirements. Instead, 

EPA will evaluate Wisconsin’s 

compliance with each of these 

requirements in a separate rulemaking. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 8463 

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate 

Transport; Pollution Abatement 

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. 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. 

1. Interstate transport—significant 

contribution. 

In this rulemaking, EPA is not 

evaluating section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements relating to significant 

contribution to transport for the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Instead, EPA will 

evaluate these requirements in a 

separate rulemaking. 

2. Interstate transport—interfere with 

maintenance. 

In this rulemaking, EPA is not 

evaluating section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements relating to interference 

with maintenance for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. Instead, EPA will evaluate 

these requirements in a separate 

rulemaking. 

3. Interstate transport—prevention of 

significant deterioration. 

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

SIPs to include provisions prohibiting 

interference with PSD. In this 

rulemaking, we are not taking action on 

the state’s satisfaction of PSD 

requirements. Instead, EPA will 

evaluate Wisconsin’s compliance with 

PSD requirements in separate 

rulemakings. 

4. Interstate transport—protect 

visibility. 

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 2013 Guidance states 

that these requirements can be satisfied 

by an approved SIP addressing 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment, if required, or an approved 

SIP addressing regional haze. 

On August 7, 2012, EPA published its 

final approval of Wisconsin’s regional 

haze plan (see 77 FR 46952). Therefore, 

EPA is proposing that Wisconsin has 

met the visibility protection 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

5. Interstate and international 

pollution abatement. 

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 of the CAA (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. 

Wisconsin has provisions in the EPAapproved portion of its PSD program 

requiring new or modified sources to 

notify neighboring states of potential 

negative air quality impacts. 

Wisconsin’s submission references these 

provisions as being adequate to meet the 

requirements of section 126(a). 

Wisconsin has no pending obligations 

under section 115. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing that Wisconsin has met all 

applicable infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate 

Authority and 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. 

1. Adequate resources. 

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 

Environmental Performance Partnership 

Agreement 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 Wis. Stats. 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 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

2. State board requirements. 

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. 

On July 2, 2015, WDNR submitted 

rules from Wis. Stats. for incorporation 

into the SIP, pursuant to section 128 of 

the CAA. Wisconsin maintains a state 

board, called the Wisconsin Natural 

Resources Board (NRB). However, the 

NRB’s functions are purely regulatory, 

advisory, and policy-making. Under 

Wis. Stats. 15.05, the administrative 

powers and duties of the WDNR, 

including issuance of permits and 

enforcement orders, are vested in the 

secretary. Under the statutes that govern 

its operations, the NRB does not and 

cannot approve permits or enforcement 

orders. Therefore, Wisconsin has no 

further obligations under section 

128(a)(1) of the CAA. 

Under section 128(a)(2) of the CAA, 

the head of the executive agency with 

the power to approve permits or 

enforcement orders must adequately 

disclose any potential conflicts of 

interest. In Wisconsin, this power is 

vested in the Secretary of the WDNR. 

Wis. Stats. 19.45(2) prevents financial 

gain of any public official, which 

addresses the issue of deriving any 

significant portion of income from 

persons subject to permits and 

enforcement orders. Additionally, Wis. 

Stats. 19.46 prevents a public official 

from taking actions where there is a 

conflict of interest. As a public official 

under Wis. Stats. 19, the Secretary of the 

WDNR is subject to these ethical 

obligations. EPA concludes that 

WDNR’s submission as it relates to the 

state board requirements under section 

128 is consistent with applicable CAA 

requirements. EPA approved these rules 

on Thursday, January 21, 2016 (81 FR 

3334). Therefore, EPA is proposing that 

Wisconsin has satisfied the applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements for this 

section of 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8464 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

5http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/AirQuality/

Particles.html. 

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. 

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 NR 

438 and NR 439. Additionally, WDNR 

routinely submits quality-assured 

analyses and data obtained from its 

stationary source monitoring system for 

review and publication by EPA. Basic 

authority for Wisconsin’s Federally 

mandated Compliance Assurance 

Monitoring reporting structure is 

provided in Wis. Stats. 285.65. EPA 

proposes that Wisconsin has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency 

Power 

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 2013 

Guidance states that infrastructure SIP 

submissions should specify authority, 

rested in an appropriate official, to 

restrain any source from causing or 

contributing to emissions which present 

an imminent and substantial 

endangerment to public health or 

welfare, or the environment. 

Wis. Stats. 285.85 requires WDNR to 

act upon a finding that an emergency 

episode or condition exists. 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 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP 

Revisions 

This section requires states to have 

the authority to revise their SIPs in 

response to changes in the NAAQS, 

availability of improved methods for 

attaining the NAAQS, or an EPA finding 

that the SIP is substantially inadequate. 

Wis. Stats. 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 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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

Planning Requirements of 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. 

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation 

With Government Officials; Public 

Notification; PSD; Visibility Protection 

The evaluation of the submission 

from Wisconsin with respect to the 

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

described below. 

1. Consultation with government 

officials. 

States must provide a process for 

consultation with local governments 

and Federal Land Managers carrying out 

NAAQS implementation requirements. 

Wis. Stats. 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 WDNR 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 the Lake Michigan Air 

Directors Consortium (LADCO), which 

provides technical assessments and a 

forum for discussion regarding air 

quality issues to member states. EPA 

proposes that Wisconsin has satisfied 

the infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

2. Public notification. 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires 

states to notify the public if NAAQS are 

exceeded in an area and to enhance 

public awareness of measures that can 

be taken to prevent exceedances of the 

NAAQS. WDNR maintains portions of 

its Web site specifically for issues 

related to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.5

Information related to monitoring sites 

is 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 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

3. PSD. 

States must meet applicable 

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

related to PSD. Wisconsin’s PSD 

program in the context of infrastructure 

SIPs has already been discussed in the 

paragraphs addressing section 

110(a)(2)(C) and (a)(2)(D)(i)(II). EPA will 

evaluate Wisconsin’s compliance with 

the various PSD and GHG infrastructure 

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

in a separate rulemaking. 

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, 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. However, as 

EPA discussed in section D, Wisconsin 

has a fully approved regional haze plan. 

This plan also meets the visibility 

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

proposes that Wisconsin has satisfied 

the infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality 

Modeling/Data 

SIPs must provide for the 

performance of air quality modeling for 

predicting effects on air quality of 

emissions from any NAAQS pollutant 

and the submission of such data to EPA 

upon request. 

WDNR maintains the capability to 

perform computer modeling of the air 

quality impacts of emissions of all 

criteria pollutants, including both 

source-oriented dispersion models and 

more regionally directed complex 

photochemical grid models. WDNR 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 8465 

collaborates with LADCO, EPA, and 

other Lake Michigan states in order to 

perform modeling. Wis. Stats. 285.11, 

Wis. Stats. 285.13, and Wis. Stats. 

285.60–285.69 authorize WDNR to 

perform modeling. EPA proposes that 

Wisconsin has met the infrastructure 

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

with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting Fees 

This section requires SIPs to mandate 

each major stationary source to pay 

permitting fees to cover the cost of 

reviewing, approving, implementing, 

and enforcing a permit. 

WDNR implements and operates the 

title V permit program, which EPA 

approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 

62951). EPA approved revisions to the 

program on February 28, 2006 (71 FR 

9934). 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 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/

Participation by Affected Local Entities 

States must consult with and allow 

participation from local political 

subdivisions affected by the SIP. 

In addition to the measures outlined 

in the paragraph addressing WDNR’s 

submittals regarding consultation 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), as 

contained in Wis. Stats. 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 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve most 

elements of the submission from 

Wisconsin certifying that its current SIP 

is sufficient to meet the required 

infrastructure elements under section 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

EPA’s proposed actions for the state’s 

satisfaction of infrastructure SIP 

requirements, by element of section 

110(a)(2) and NAAQS, are contained in 

the table below. 

Element 2012 PM2.5

(A)—Emission limits and other 

control measures.

A 

(B)—Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.A 

(C)1—Program for enforcement 

of control measures.

A 

(C)2—PSD. ............................... NA 

(D)1—I Prong 1: Interstate 

transport—significant contribution.

NA 

(D)2—I Prong 2: Interstate 

transport—interfere with 

maintenance.

NA 

(D)3—II Prong 3: Interstate 

transport—prevention of significant deterioration.

NA 

(D)4—II Prong 4: Interstate 

transport—protect visibility.

A 

(D)5—Interstate and international pollution abatement.A 

(E)1—Adequate resources ....... A 

(E)2—State board requirements.A 

(F)—Stationary source monitoring system.A 

(G)—Emergency power ............ A 

(H)—Future SIP revisions ........ A 

(I)—Nonattainment planning requirements of part D.NA 

(J)1—Consultation with government officials.A 

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

(J)3—PSD ................................ NA 

(J)4—Visibility protection .......... A 

(K)—Air quality modeling/data A 

(L)—Permitting fees ................. A 

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

In the above table, the key is as 

follows: 

A Approve 

NA .............. No Action/Separate Rulemaking. 

V. 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: February 3, 2016. 

Robert A. Kaplan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03404 Filed 2–18–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS