Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 23647 

Container barcode link from RIBBS 

http://ribbs.usps.gov. 

Electronic Documentation 

To participate in Full Service, mailers 

must submit their postage statements 

and mailing documentation, when 

applicable, electronically using one of 

three methods: Mail.dat®, Mail.XML®, 

or Postal Wizard® to transmit electronic 

information. These data are transmitted 

to the Postal Service’s PostalOne! 

system, where they are used for 

verification, acceptance, payment, 

service performance measurement, and 

induction planning and processing. The 

PostalOne! system can also use this 

information to automate payment 

processes using ACH Debit or Credit 

payment methods. With the PostalOne! 

system, mailers have access to their 

mailing documentation and financial 

transaction information 24 hours a day, 

seven days a week. 

Mail.dat: Mail.dat file submission is 

part of the overall PostalOne! 

application and provides customers the 

capability to submit mailing 

documentation over a secure 

connection. Mail.dat uses industrystandard electronic file formats to 

facilitate communication. Mailing 

information is used to generate 

documentation to support verification, 

payment, and induction processes. 

Mail.dat specifications are available at 

http://ribbs.usps.gov. 

Mail.XML: The Mail.XML is an 

overarching communication 

specification that allows mailers to 

communicate electronic documentation 

and manage appointments with the 

Postal Service, while enabling it to 

provide quality, address correction, 

induction, and visibility information 

back to mailers. Mail.XML can also be 

used to communicate between mailers 

and consolidators/transporters. 

Mail.XML is part of the overall 

PostalOne! application that enables a 

just-in-time connection (send 

information when you are ready to 

share). The Mail.XML Web Service uses 

a Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 

to submit information in an Extensible 

Markup Language (XML) format that 

ensures data are sent and received by 

applications written in various 

languages and deployed on various 

platforms. Mailing information is sent 

via Mail.XML to the PostalOne! system 

where the information is stored and 

used to generate documentation to 

support verification and payment. 

Mail.XML specifications are available at 

the following link: http://ribbs.usps.gov. 

Postal Wizard: The Postage Statement 

Wizard is an online tool that allows 

mailers to enter their postage statement 

information using a secure PostalOne! 

account. The Postage Statement Wizard 

verifies completed information for an 

online postage statement and 

automatically populates the Permit 

Holder section of the postage statement 

based on the account number provided. 

It guides the user through items needed 

to complete the statement. The Postal 

Wizard automatically calculates postage 

and validates information entered. Once 

a postage statement is completed online, 

electronic statements will be submitted 

directly to the acceptance unit. 

For detailed information about 

electronic mailing information options, 

access the following RIBBS link http:// 

ribbs.usps.gov. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Legal Policy & Legislative Advice. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9537 Filed 4–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2007–1179; FRL–9661–5] 

Approval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; Wisconsin; Disapproval of 

‘‘Infrastructure’’ SIP With Respect to 

Oxides of Nitrogen as a Precursor to 

Ozone Provisions and New Source 

Review Exemptions for Fuel Changes 

as Major Modifications for the 1997 

8-Hour Ozone and 24-Hour PM2.5

NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to EPA’s authority 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is 

proposing to disapprove two narrow 

portions of submissions made by the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WDNR) to address the 

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

the CAA, often referred to as the 

‘‘infrastructure’’ State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). Specifically, we are 

proposing to disapprove the portions of 

WDNR’s submissions intended to meet 

certain requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 8- 

hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 1997 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Among other 

conditions, section 110(a)(2)(C) of the 

CAA requires states to correctly address 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as a precursor 

to ozone in their respective prevention 

of significant deterioration (PSD) 

programs. EPA is proposing to 

disapprove a portion of Wisconsin’s 

submissions intended to satisfy this 

requirement. EPA is also proposing to 

disapprove a portion of Wisconsin’s 

submissions because the SIP currently 

contains a new source review (NSR) 

exemption for fuel changes as major 

modifications where the source was 

capable of accommodating the change 

before January 6, 1975. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 21, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2007–1179, 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 No. EPA–R05–OAR–2007– 

1179. 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
23648 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1See, e.g., Whitman v. American Trucking 

Associations, Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001). 

2EPA noted that each state’s PSD program must 

meet certain basic program requirements, e.g., if a 

state lacks provisions needed to address NOX as a 

precursor to ozone, the provisions of section 

110(a)(2)(C) requiring an adequate permitting 

program must be considered not to be met, 

irrespective of the pollutant being addressed in the 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

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 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 for this action? 

III. What is EPA’s evaluation of Wisconsin’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone and 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS? 

A. NOX as a precursor to ozone provisions. 

B. Fuel Changes as Major Modifications 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is the background for this 

action? 

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

CAA, and implementing EPA guidance, 

states were required to submit either 

revisions to their existing EPA approved 

SIPs necessary to provide for 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, or 

certifications that their existing SIPs for 

ozone and particulate matter already 

met those basic requirements. The 

statute requires that states make these 

submissions within three years after the 

promulgation of new or revised 

NAAQS. However, intervening litigation 

over the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS created uncertainty 

about how states were to proceed.1

Accordingly, both EPA and the states 

were delayed in addressing these basic 

SIP requirements. 

In a consent decree with Earth Justice, 

EPA agreed to make completeness 

findings with respect to these SIP 

submissions. Pursuant to this consent 

decree, EPA published completeness 

findings for all states for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS on March 27, 2008, 

and for all states for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS on October 22, 2008. 

On October 2, 2007, EPA issued a 

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,’’ 

making recommendations to states 

concerning these SIP submissions (the 

2007 Guidance). Within the 2007 

Guidance, EPA gave general guidance 

relevant to matters such as the timing 

and content of the submissions. 

Wisconsin made its infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS on December 12, 2007. 

The State provided supplemental 

submissions to EPA on January 24, 

2011, and March 28, 2011. 

On April 28, 2011, EPA published its 

proposed action on the Region 5 states’ 

submissions (see 76 FR 23757). Notably, 

we proposed to find that Wisconsin had 

met the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) concerning state PSD 

programs generally, and in particular 

the requirement to include NOX as a 

precursor to ozone (see 76 FR 23757 at 

23760–23761), thereby satisfying the 

requirement that the State has an 

adequate PSD program pursuant to 

section 110(a)(2)(C) for both the 1997 

ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.2

During the comment period for the 

April 28, 2011, proposed rulemaking, 

EPA received three sets of comments. 

Two of the commenters observed that 

although we had proposed to approve 

Wisconsin’s infrastructure SIP as 

meeting the correct requirements for 

NOX as a precursor to ozone in the 

State’s PSD program, Wisconsin’s PSD 

SIP does not contain the most recent 

PSD program revisions required by EPA 

for this purpose. One of the commenters 

also noted that Wisconsin’s existing SIP 

does not meet current EPA requirements 

with respect to NSR because Wisconsin 

has not included fuel changes as ‘‘major 

modifications’’ in its NSR program for 

certain sources under certain 

conditions. A detailed discussion of 

these comments as they relate to 

Wisconsin’s SIP will follow in the 

section entitled, ‘‘What is EPA’s 

evaluation of Wisconsin’s infrastructure 

SIP for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS?’’ 

As a result of the comments, we did 

not promulgate final action on those two 

limited aspects of Wisconsin’s 

infrastructure SIP in our July 13, 2011, 

final rulemaking (see 76 FR 41075). We 

did, however, promulgate final action 

on all other applicable elements of 

Wisconsin’s infrastructure SIP. In the 

July 13, 2011, rulemaking, we 

committed to address the issues raised 

in the comments concerning NOX as a 

precursor to ozone and the definition of 

‘‘major modification’’ related to fuel 

changes for certain sources in 

Wisconsin in a separate action; this 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 23649 

3Although the evaluation of states’ definitions of 

‘‘major modification’’ related to fuel changes was 

not a criterion outlined in EPA’s April 28, 2011 

proposed rulemaking, this issue is intrinsically 

linked to states’ PSD regulations, covered under 

section 110(a)(2)(C). 4Similar changes were codified in 40 CFR 52.21. 

5EPA’s proposed action for South Dakota was 

published on May 12, 2011 (see 76 FR 27622), and 

our final action for South Dakota was published on 

July 22, 2011 (see 76 FR 43912). 

proposed rulemaking and future final 

rulemaking serve as that action. 

III. What is EPA’s evaluation of 

Wisconsin’s infrastructure SIP for the 

1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS? 

As stated above, EPA promulgated 

final action on all applicable elements 

of Wisconsin’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions for the 1997 ozone and 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS except for the 

narrow issues related to section 

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

regulatory requirements for NOX as a 

precursor to ozone in PSD permitting 

and the definition of ‘‘major 

modification’’ related to fuel changes for 

certain sources.3 The following 

discussion is applicable only to these 

two unresolved issues for Wisconsin’s 

infrastructure SIP, and will not extend 

to the elements or requirements of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for which EPA 

has previously promulgated final action. 

A. NOX as a Precursor to Ozone 

Provisions 

During the public comment period 

following EPA’s April 28, 2011 

proposed rulemaking, commenters 

disagreed with EPA’s proposed 

conclusion that the SIP for Wisconsin 

currently meets the requirements for 

NOX as a precursor for ozone in 

permitting contexts. The commenters 

noted that in the proposed rulemaking, 

EPA stated that Wisconsin’s PSD rules 

include NOX as a precursor to ozone, 

and that EPA cited the approval of this 

provision as occurring on May 27, 1999 

(see 64 FR 28745). The commenters 

disagreed with EPA’s conclusion that 

the May 27, 1999, approval, specifically 

of NR 405.02(21)(a), adequately 

addresses the issue of inclusion of NOX

as a precursor to ozone. 

After careful consideration of the 

comments, we have concluded that the 

commenters were correct on this point 

because the current EPA approved SIP 

for the state does not contain specific 

SIP revisions for the PSD program 

required by EPA. On November 29, 

2005, EPA published the ‘‘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) (see 70 FR 71612). One 

aspect of the Phase 2 Rule was the 

specific requirement to identify NOX as 

an explicit ozone precursor (see 70 FR 

71612 at 71679, 71699–71700). This 

requirement was codified in 40 CFR 

51.166, and consisted of the following: 4

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

source that is major for volatile organic 

compounds or NOX shall be considered 

major for ozone; 

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

significant emissions increase (as 

defined at paragraph (b)(39) of this 

section) from any emissions units or net 

emissions increase (as defined in 

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

major stationary source that is 

significant for volatile organic 

compounds or NOX shall be considered 

significant for ozone; 

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

tons per year of volatile organic 

compounds or nitrogen oxides; 

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

pollutant for which a national ambient 

air quality standard has been 

promulgated and any constituents or 

precursors for such pollutants identified 

by the Administrator (e.g., volatile 

organic compounds and NOX) are 

precursors for ozone; and 

40 CFR 51.166 (i)(5)(i)(e) footnote 1: 

No de minimis air quality level is 

provided for ozone. However, any net 

emissions increase of 100 tons per year 

or more of volatile organic compounds 

or nitrogen oxides 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). 

EPA believes that states’ SIPs do not 

meet current structural requirements for 

the PSD program, and thus do not meet 

the infrastructure SIP requirements 

relevant to section 110(a)(2)(C), unless 

states have made these revisions 

required in 2007. Thus, states that did 

not incorporate the changes specific to 

identifying NOX as a precursor to ozone 

required by the Phase 2 Rule were 

included in EPA’s March 27, 2008 

‘‘Completeness Findings for Section 

110(a) State Implementation Plans for 

the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS’’ and 

received a finding of failure to submit 

related to section 110(a)(2)(C) for this 

reason (see 73 FR 16205). Wisconsin 

was not included in the March 27, 2008 

findings notice. 

Similarly, consistent with the Phase 2 

Rule, EPA has disapproved portions of 

other states’ infrastructure SIPs on the 

basis that they have not explicitly 

identified NOX as a precursor to ozone. 

Notably, we disapproved the portion of 

Montana’s infrastructure SIP with 

respect to this requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(C) on July 22, 2011 (see 76 FR 

43918). EPA also finalized a partial 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) on 

August 8, 2011, which included 

provisions that explicitly include NOX

as a precursor to ozone in the North 

Coast Unified Air Quality Management 

District of California (see 76 FR 48006). 

Likewise, EPA has acted on portions of 

the SIP submission required by the 

Phase 2 Rule in conjunction with acting 

on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission. For example, EPA 

promulgated final approval with respect 

to South Dakota’s revisions to its PSD 

program identifying NOX as a precursor 

to ozone consistent with the 

requirements of the Phase 2 Rule 

concurrently with final action on South 

Dakota’s infrastructure SIP for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS.5

Therefore, based on EPA’s own 

regulations, submission deadlines, and 

actions germane to the explicit 

identification of NOX as a precursor to 

ozone in Federally approved PSD 

programs, we are proposing to 

disapprove the portions of Wisconsin’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to the NOX as a precursor to 

ozone provision requirements of section 

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

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

B. Fuel Changes as Major Modifications 

During the comment period following 

EPA’s April 28, 2011, proposed 

rulemaking, one commenter argued that 

Wisconsin’s existing SIP is deficient for 

purposes of section 110(a)(2)(C) because 

it does not meet current EPA 

requirements with respect to the NSR 

program. The commenter noted that the 

NSR program requires states to adopt 

definitions that are identical to, or more 

stringent than, EPA’s definitions. 

Contrary to EPA’s definition, the 

commenter asserted that Wisconsin has 

not included fuel changes as ‘‘major 

modifications’’ in its NSR program. The 

commenter cited a 2009 letter from EPA 

to the state requesting that the state 

update its regulations to address this 

specific issue. 

The definition of ‘‘major 

modification’’ as it relates to PSD is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
23650 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

generally defined in NR 405.02(21) of 

Wisconsin’s SIP. The exemptions to 

‘‘physical change’’ are contained at NR 

405.02(21)(b). One exemption is the 

ability of a source capable of 

accommodating different types of fuels 

before 1975 to switch the type of fuel 

burned, unless strictly prohibited by a 

restriction in a permit established after 

1975. 

EPA regulations contained at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(2)(iii)(e)(1) and (2) specifically 

prescribe when use of an alternative fuel 

is not considered a physical change for 

purposes of defining a ‘‘major 

modification.’’ These regulations require 

that a physical change or change in the 

method shall not include use of an 

alternative fuel or raw material by a 

stationary source which: 

The source was capable of accommodating 

before January 6, 1975, unless such change 

would be prohibited under any federally 

enforceable permit condition which was 

established after January 6, 1975 pursuant to 

40 CFR 52.21 or under regulations approved 

pursuant to 40 CFR [part 51], subpart I, or 40 

CFR 51.166; or 

The source is approved to use [the fuel] 

under any permit issued under 40 CFR 52.21 

or under regulations approved pursuant to 40 

CFR 51.166. 

The Wisconsin regulations set out the 

conditions for the fuel change 

exemption as follows: 

The source was capable of accommodating 

the alternative fuel or raw material before 

January 6, 1975, unless the change would be 

prohibited under any federally enforceable 

permit condition which was established after 

January 6, 1975 pursuant to this chapter or 

ch. NR 406 or 408 or under an operation 

permit issued pursuant to ch. NR 407. 

[Or, t]he source is approved to use the 

alternative fuel or raw material under any 

permit issued under this chapter or ch. NR 

406, 407, or 408. See proposed NR 

405.02(21)(b)5. 

The Wisconsin rule is similar to the 

Federal rule, but differs by substituting 

references to Wisconsin Administrative 

Code sections, omitting EPA’s phrase 

‘‘pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 or under 

regulations approved pursuant to 40 

CFR [part 51], subpart I, or 40 CFR 

51.166.’’ The commenter objected that 

failure to cite Federal regulations results 

in the loss of prohibitions on fuel use 

exemptions that may have been 

contained in Federally-issued PSD 

permits, issued prior to EPA’s approval 

of Wisconsin’s PSD SIP. The result, the 

commenter noted that Wisconsin’s rule 

allows more exemptions to the 

definition of ‘‘major modification’’ than 

allowed by the Federal rules. 

After careful consideration of the 

comment, we have concluded that the 

commenters were correct on this point 

because the current EPA approved SIP 

for the state does contain a specific 

provision that is inconsistent with the 

NSR program required by EPA. Because 

this provision is relevant to a structural 

requirement of the PSD permitting 

program, EPA believes that this issue 

affects the approvability of the 

infrastructure SIP submissions for 

purposes of meeting the requirements of 

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

EPA notes that this is an issue that 

has previously arisen and that the State 

has acknowledged and agreed to address 

it. The Sierra Club first raised a concern 

about this issue in the context of EPA’s 

approval of Wisconsin’s NSR Reform 

regulations on December 17, 2008 (see 

73 FR 76560). In that final rulemaking, 

EPA stated that the definition of ‘‘major 

modification’’ and the associated fuel 

use prohibitions were not part of the 

specific SIP submission being acted 

upon by EPA at that time. However, we 

did agree that the language in the 

Wisconsin SIP needed to be revised (see 

73 FR 76560 at 76566). 

On June 17, 2009, EPA requested that 

the State revise its regulatory language 

in NR 405.02(21)(b)(5) and (6), and NR 

408.02(20)(e)(5) and (6), to include 

permit conditions in Federally-issued 

permits. On June 1, 2011, WDNR 

committed to begin the rulemaking 

process necessary to do so within 120 

days by including the requested revision 

in its next major rulemaking. However, 

WDNR’s commitment did not include a 

date certain by which it would complete 

the requested revision of the State’s 

regulations. As a result, EPA may not at 

this time promulgate an approval or 

conditional approval of the section 

110(a)(2)(C) portion of Wisconsin’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to this 

narrow issue. 

After reviewing Wisconsin’s current 

SIP in light of EPA’s own regulations 

and request to the State to make 

appropriate revisions to the SIP 

necessary to address this issue, we are 

proposing to disapprove Wisconsin’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS with 

respect to the NSR exemption for fuel 

changes as ‘‘major modifications’’ where 

the source was capable of 

accommodating the change before 

January 6, 1975. We note that this 

disapproval is a narrow one, and limited 

to the specific state regulatory language 

concerning the exemption. 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to disapprove two 

narrow portions of Wisconsin’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(C). 

Specifically, we are proposing to 

disapprove the portions of Wisconsin’s 

submissions because the current SIP 

does not satisfy the requirements of the 

Phase 2 Rule for explicit identification 

of NOX as a precursor to ozone in PSD 

permitting. We are also proposing to 

disapprove the portions of Wisconsin’s 

submissions because the current SIP 

contains an impermissible NSR 

exemption for fuel changes as ‘‘major 

modifications’’ where the source was 

capable of accommodating the change 

before January 6, 1975. These grounds 

for disapproval are narrow, and pertain 

only to these specific deficiencies in 

Wisconsin’s SIP. We anticipate that the 

State will be able to rectify these issues 

readily and we will work with the State 

to rectify these issues promptly. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submission that 

addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan 

(section 171—section 193 of the CAA), 

or is required in response to a finding 

of substantial inadequacy as described 

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

clock. The provisions in the 

submissions we are disapproving were 

not submitted by Wisconsin to meet 

either of those requirements. Therefore, 

if EPA takes final action to disapprove 

these submissions, no sanctions under 

section 179 will be triggered. 

The full or partial disapproval of a SIP 

revision triggers the requirement under 

section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a 

FIP no later than two years from the 

date of the disapproval unless the State 

corrects the deficiency, and the 

Administrator approves the plan or plan 

revision before the Administrator 

promulgates such FIP. As previously 

mentioned, EPA anticipates that WDNR 

will make a submission rectifying each 

of these deficiencies. Further, EPA 

anticipates acting on WDNR’s 

submissions within the two year time 

frame prior to our FIP obligation on 

these very narrow issues. In the interim, 

EPA expects WDNR to treat and 

explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to 

ozone for PSD permitting consistent 

with the requirements of the Phase 2 

Rule, and to ensure adherence to the 

prohibitions on fuel use exemptions in 

Federally-issued permits. 

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. In this case EPA is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 23651 

disapproving two aspects of the 

Wisconsin SIP that fail to meet Federal 

requirements. 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

and, therefore, is not subject to review 

under the Executive Order. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this 

proposed SIP disapproval under section 

110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA 

will not create any new information 

collection burdens but simply 

disapproves certain State requirements 

for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise that is independently owned 

and operated and is not dominant in its 

field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule does not impose any 

requirements or create impacts on small 

entities. This proposed SIP disapproval 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D, of the CAA will not create any new 

requirements but simply disapproves 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no 

opportunity for EPA to fashion for small 

entities less burdensome compliance or 

reporting requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

The fact that the CAA prescribes that 

various consequences (e.g., higher offset 

requirements) may or will flow from 

this disapproval does not mean that 

EPA either can or must conduct a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

action. Therefore, this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector.’’ EPA 

has determined that the proposed 

disapproval action does not include a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to either State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This action proposes to 

disapprove pre-existing requirements 

under State or local law, and imposes 

no new requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this action. 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP EPA is proposing 

to disapprove would not 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. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it 

because it is not an economically 

significant regulatory action based on 

health or safety risks subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This proposed SIP 

disapproval under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D, of the CAA will not 

create any new regulations but simply 

disapproves certain State requirements 

for inclusion into the SIP. 

Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
23652 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

The EPA believes that this action is 

not subject to requirements of Section 

12(d) of NTTAA because application of 

those requirements would be 

inconsistent with the CAA. 

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

Consistent with EPA guidance 

addressing Executive Order 12898, EPA 

has determined that this proposed rule 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental health effects on 

minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

States’ EPA-approved PSD and NSR 

regulations must meet certain minimum 

requirements promulgated by EPA, and 

these regulations apply to all affected 

populations within the State of 

Wisconsin. This action proposes to 

disapprove the portions of Wisconsin’s 

SIP that do not contain certain EPApromulgated minimum requirements. 

Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by sections 110 of the CAA, 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 9, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9608 Filed 4–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0944; FRL–9648–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; 

Leisure Properties LLC/D/B/A 

Crownline Boats; Adjusted Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

into the Illinois State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) an adjusted standard for 

Leisure Properties LLC/D/B/A 

Crownline Boats (Crownline) at its West 

Frankfort, Illinois facility. On June 10, 

2011, the Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency submitted to EPA for 

approval an adjustment to the general 

rule, Use of Organic Material Rule, 

commonly known as the eight pound 

per hour rule, as it applies to emissions 

of volatile organic matter (VOM) from 

Crownline’s manufacturing facility. The 

adjusted standard relieves Crownline 

from being subject to the general rule for 

VOM emissions from its West Frankfort 

facility. EPA is proposing to approve 

this SIP revision because it will not 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 21, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2011–0944, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies 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. 

Please see the direct final rule which is 

located in the Final Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carolyn Persoon, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8290, 

persoon.carolyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the state’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: February 29, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9495 Filed 4–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 120409403–2403–01] 

RIN 0648–BB93 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; 

Comprehensive Annual Catch Limit 

Amendment Supplement 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS