51136 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA–APPROVED MISSOURI NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision 

Applicable geographic 

area or nonattainment 

area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(66) Cross State Air Pollution Rule—State-Determined Allowance Allocations for the 2016 control periods.Statewide ...................... 3/30/15 8/24/15 and [Insert Federal Register citation].

■ 3. Section 52.1326 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(3) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.1326 Interstate pollutant transport 

provisions; What are the FIP requirements 

for decreases in emissions of nitrogen 

oxides? 

(a) * * * 

(3) Pursuant to § 52.38(a)(3), 

Missouri’s state-determined TR NOX

Annual allowance allocations 

established in the March 30, 2015, SIP 

revision replace the unit-level TR NOX

Annual allowance allocation provisions 

of the TR NOX Annual Trading Program 

at 40 CFR 97.411(a) for the State for the 

2016 control period with a list of TR 

NOX Annual units that commenced 

operation prior to January 1, 2010, in 

the State and the state-determined 

amount of TR NOX Annual allowances 

allocated to each unit on such list for 

the 2016 control period, as approved by 

EPA on August 24, 2015, [Insert Federal 

Register citation]. 

(b) * * * 

(3) Pursuant to § 52.38(b)(3), 

Missouri’s state-determined TR NOX

Ozone Season allowance allocations 

established in the March 30, 2015, SIP 

revision replace the unit-level TR NOX

Ozone Season allowance allocation 

provisions of the TR NOX Ozone Season 

Trading Program at 40 CFR 97.511(a) for 

the State for the 2016 control period 

with a list of TR NOX Ozone Season 

units that commenced operation prior to 

January 1, 2010, in the State and the 

state-determined amount of TR NOX

Ozone Season allowances allocated to 

each unit on such list for the 2016 

control period, as approved by EPA on 

August 24, 2015, [Insert Federal 

Register citation]. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20774 Filed 8–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0805; FRL–9932–65– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Michigan and 

Wisconsin; 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS PSD 

and Visibility Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving elements of 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

submissions from Michigan regarding 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Wisconsin regarding 

visibility infrastructure requirements of 

section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

for the 2006 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: This direct final rule will be 

effective October 23, 2015, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

September 23, 2015. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2009–0805 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID. EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0805. 

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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 51137 

1For Michigan, action was taken on sections 

110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M), except 

for the prevention of significant deterioration 

requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and 

(J), the visibility portion of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 

the state board requirements in (E)(ii). For 

Wisconsin, action was taken on sections 

110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M), except 

the prevention of significant deterioration 

requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and 

(J), the visibility portion of (D)(i)(II), and the state 

board requirements in (E)(ii). 

2PM10 refers to particles with diameters between 

2.5 and 10 microns, oftentimes referred to as 

‘‘coarse’’ particles. 

3EPA highlights 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’’ and has issued additional guidance 

documents, the most recent on September 13, 2013, 

‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2)’’ (2013 memo). 

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 Sarah 

Arra, Environmental Scientist, at (312) 

886–9401 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

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

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–9401, 

arra.sarah@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 these SIP 

submissions? 

II. What is EPA’s review of these SIP 

submissions? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background of these SIP 

submissions? 

This rulemaking addresses 

submissions from the Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) and the Wisconsin Department 

of Natural Resources (WDNR). The 

states submitted their infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on the 

following dates: Michigan—August 15, 

2011, supplemented on July 9, 2012; 

Wisconsin—January 24, 2011, 

supplemented on March 28, 2011 and 

June 29, 2012. 

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. This 

specific rulemaking is only taking action 

on the PSD elements of the Michigan 

submittal and the visibility element of 

the Wisconsin submittal. The majority 

of the other infrastructure elements 

were addressed in a proposed 

rulemaking published August 2, 2012, 

(77 FR 45992). Final action was taken 

on those elements on October 29, 2012, 

(77 FR 65478).1 The infrastructure 

elements for PSD are found in CAA 

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

110(a)(2)(J) and will be discussed in 

detail below. The infrastructure 

elements for visibility are also in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D). For further 

discussion on the background of 

infrastructure submittals, see 77 FR 

45992. 

II. What is EPA’s review of these SIP 

submissions? 

A. Michigan—PSD 

PSD infrasture elements are addressed 

in different sections of the CAA: 

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

and 110(a)(2)(J). 

1. 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 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. 

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 

provisions that explicitly identify 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as a precursor 

to ozone in the PSD program; (iii) 

identification of precursors to PM2.5 and 

the identification of PM2.5 and PM10 2

condensables in the PSD program; (iv) 

PM2.5 increments in the PSD program; 

and, (v) Greenhouse Gas(GHG) 

permitting and the ‘‘Tailoring Rule.’’ 3

(i) Enforcement of SIP Measures 

The enforcement of SIP measures 

provision was approved in the October 

29, 2012 rulemaking (77 FR 65478) for 

the 2006 PM2.5. 

(ii): 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. 

The Phase 2 Rule required that states 

submit SIP revisions incorporating the 

requirements of the rule, including 

those identifying NOX as a precursor to 

ozone, by June 15, 2007 (see 70 FR 

71612 at 71683, November 29, 2005). 

EPA approved revisions to Michigan’s 

PSD SIP reflecting these requirements 

on April 4, 2014 (see 79 FR 18802), and 

therefore finds that Michigan has met 

the set of infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

(iii): 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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
51138 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Court of Appeals for the D.C. 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. As the 

subpart 4 provisions apply only to nonattainment 

areas, 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, 

EPA’s approval of Michigan’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 subparts 2 through 5 under part 

D, extending as far as 10 years following 

designations for some elements. 

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 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are 

not considered to be precursors to PM2.5

in the PSD program unless the state 

demonstrates to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that 

emissions of VOCs in an area are 

significant contributors to that area’s 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations. 

The explicit references to SO2, NOX, 

and VOCs as they pertain to secondary 

PM2.5 formation are codified at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(i)(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 

pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR 

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

52.21(b)(23)(i) define ‘‘significant’’ for 

PM2.5 to mean the following emissions 

rates: 10 tons per year (tpy) of direct 

PM2.5; 40 tpy of SO2; and 40 tpy of NOX

(unless the state demonstrates to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA 

demonstrates that NOX emissions in an 

area are not a significant contributor to 

that area’s ambient PM2.5

concentrations). 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).4

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). 

EPA approved revisions to Michigan’s 

PSD SIP reflecting these requirements 

on April 4, 2014 (see 79 FR 18802), and 

therefore proposes that Michigan has 

met this set of infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

(iv): 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). 

On April 4, 2014 (79 FR 18802), EPA 

finalized approval of the applicable 

infrastructure SIP PSD revisions; 

therefore, we are proposing that 

Michigan has met this set of 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

(v): GHG permitting and the ‘‘Tailoring 

Rule’’ 

With respect to CAA Sections 

110(a)(2)(C) and (J), EPA interprets the 

CAA to require each state to make an 

infrastructure SIP submission for a new 

or revised NAAQS that demonstrates 

that the air agency has a complete PSD 

permitting program meeting the current 

requirements for all regulated NSR 

pollutants. The requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) may also be satisfied 

by demonstrating the air agency has a 

complete PSD permitting program 

correctly addressing all regulated NSR 

pollutants. Michigan has shown that it 

currently has a PSD program in place 

that covers all regulated NSR pollutants, 

including GHGs. 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court issued a decision 

addressing the application of PSD 

permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group 

v. Environmental Protection Agency, 

134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said 

that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an 

air pollutant for purposes of 

determining whether a source is a major 

source required to obtain a PSD permit. 

The Court also said that the EPA could 

continue to require that PSD permits, 

otherwise required based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs, contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT). 

In order to act consistently with its 

understanding of the Court’s decision 

pending further judicial action to 

effectuate the decision, the EPA is not 

continuing to apply EPA regulations 

that would require that SIPs include 

permitting requirements that the 

Supreme Court found impermissible. 

Specifically, EPA is not applying the 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 51139 

requirement that a state’s SIP-approved 

PSD program require that sources obtain 

PSD permits when GHGs are the only 

pollutant (i) that the source emits or has 

the potential to emit above the major 

source thresholds, or (ii) for which there 

is a significant emissions increase and a 

significant net emissions increase from 

a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(v)). 

EPA anticipates a need to revise 

Federal PSD rules and for many states 

to revise their existing SIP-approved 

PSD programs in light of the Supreme 

Court opinion. The timing and content 

of subsequent EPA actions with respect 

to the EPA regulations and state PSD 

program approvals are expected to be 

informed by additional legal process 

before the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not 

expecting states to have revised their 

PSD programs for purposes of 

infrastructure SIP submissions and is 

only evaluating such submissions to 

ensure that the state’s program correctly 

addresses GHGs consistent with the 

Supreme Court’s decision. 

At present, EPA is proposing that 

Michigan’s SIP is sufficient to satisfy 

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

with respect to GHGs because the PSD 

permitting program previously 

approved by EPA into the SIP continues 

to require that PSD permits (otherwise 

required based on emissions of 

pollutants other than GHGs) contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of BACT. Although the 

approved Michigan PSD permitting 

program may currently contain 

provisions that are no longer necessary 

in light of the Supreme Court decision, 

this does not render the infrastructure 

SIP submission inadequate to satisfy 

Section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). 

The SIP contains the necessary PSD 

requirements at this time, and the 

application of those requirements is not 

impeded by the presence of other 

previously-approved provisions 

regarding the permitting of sources of 

GHGs that EPA does not consider 

necessary at this time in light of the 

Supreme Court decision. 

For the purposes of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS infrastructure SIPs, EPA 

reiterates that NSR Reform regulations 

are not within the scope of these 

actions. Therefore, we are not taking 

action on existing NSR Reform 

regulations for Michigan. EPA approved 

Michigan’s minor NSR program on May 

6, 1980 (see 45 FR 29790); and since 

that date, MDEQ 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 

NAAQS. 

Certain 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. 

2. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Interstate 

transport 

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

SIPs 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 Michigan’s satisfaction 

of the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

have been detailed in the section 

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

further 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. 

EPA has previously approved 

revisions to Michigan’s SIP that meet 

certain requirements obligated by the 

Phase 2 Rule and the 2008 NSR Rule. 

These revisions included provisions 

that: Explicitly identify NOX as a 

precursor to ozone, explicitly identify 

SO2 and NOX as precursors to PM2.5, 

and regulate condensable PM2.5 and 

PM10 in applicability determinations 

and establishing emissions limits. EPA 

has also previously approved revisions 

to Michigan’s SIP that incorporate the 

PM2.5 increments and the associated 

implementation regulations including 

the major source baseline date, trigger 

date, and level of significance for PM2.5

per the 2010 NSR Rule. EPA is 

proposing that Michigan’s SIP contains 

provisions that adequately address the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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. 

Michigan’s EPA–approved NNSR 

regulations found in Part 2 of the SIP, 

specifically in Michigan Administrative 

Code sections R 336.1220 and R 

336.1221, are consistent with 40 CFR 

51.165, or 40 CFR part 51, appendix S. 

Therefore, EPA proposes that Michigan 

has met all of the applicable PSD 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

for transport prong 3 related to section 

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

3. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation 

With Government Officials; Public 

Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection 

States must meet applicable 

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

related to PSD. MDEQ’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). Therefore, EPA 

proposes that Michigan has met all of 

the infrastructure SIP requirements for 

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

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

B. Wisconsin—Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Interstate Transport 

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, addressing visibility 

protection). The 2013 Memo 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 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving the PSD related 

infrastructure requirements for 

Michigan’s 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

submittals found in CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). EPA is 

also approving the visibility related 

infrastructure requirements for 

Wisconsin’s 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

submittals found in CAA section 110 

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

We are publishing this action without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

state plan if relevant adverse written 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective October 23, 2015 without 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
51140 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

further notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by September 

23, 2015. If we receive such comments, 

we will withdraw this action before the 

effective date by publishing a 

subsequent document that will 

withdraw the final action. All public 

comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed action. 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. If we do not receive any 

comments, this action will be effective 

October 23, 2015. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive 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 Clean Air Act; 

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). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 23, 2015. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 10, 2015. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 52.1170, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.1170 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 51141 

EPA-APPROVED MICHIGAN NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory 

SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic 

or nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements 

for the 2006 24-Hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide .... 8/15/2011, 

7/9/2012 

8/24/2015, [Insert page 

number where the document begins].

This action addresses the following CAA elements: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are not taking action 

on the visibility protection requirements of (D)(i)(II) 

and the state board requirements of (E)(ii). We will 

address these requirements in a separate action. 

*******

■ 3. Section 52.2591 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2591 Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) Approval and Disapproval — In a 

January 24, 2011, submittal, 

supplemented on March 28, 2011, and 

June 29, 2012, Wisconsin certified that 

the State has satisfied the infrastructure 

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

through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is 

approving Wisconsin’s submission 

addressing the infrastructure SIP 

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

(B), (C) with respect to enforcement and 

the GHG permitting threshold PSD 

requirement, (D)(i)(II) with respect to 

the GHG permitting threshold PSD 

requirement and visibility protection, 

(D)(ii), (E) except for state board 

requirements, (F) through (H), (J) except 

for narrow prevention of significant 

deterioration requirements, and (K) 

through (M). We are not finalizing 

action on (D)(i)(I), the state board 

requirements of (E)(ii), and the PSD 

requirement of NOX as a precursor to 

ozone in (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). We will 

address these requirements in a separate 

action. We are disapproving narrow 

portions of Wisconsin’s infrastructure 

SIP submission addressing the relevant 

prevention of significant deterioration 

requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule 

(identifying PM2.5 precursors and the 

regulation of PM2.5 and PM10

condensables in permits) with respect to 

section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–20771 Filed 8–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R04–RCRA–2015–0294; FRL–9932– 

93–Region 4] 

North Carolina: Final Authorization of 

State Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: North Carolina has applied to 

the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) for final 

authorization of changes to its 

hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that 

these changes satisfy all requirements 

needed to qualify for final authorization, 

and is authorizing the State’s changes 

through this direct final rule. In the 

‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of today’s 

Federal Register, EPA is also publishing 

a separate document that serves as the 

proposal to authorize these changes. 

EPA believes this action is not 

controversial and does not expect 

comments that oppose it. Unless EPA 

receives written comments that oppose 

this authorization during the comment 

period, the decision to authorize North 

Carolina’s changes to its hazardous 

waste program will take effect. If EPA 

receives comments that oppose this 

action, EPA will publish a document in 

the Federal Register withdrawing 

today’s direct final rule before it takes 

effect, and the separate document 

published in today’s ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ 

section of this Federal Register will 

serve as the proposal to authorize the 

changes. 

DATES: This final authorization will 

become effective on October 23, 2015 

unless EPA receives adverse written 

comment by September 23, 2015. If EPA 

receives such comment, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of this 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

and inform the public that this 

authorization will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

RCRA–2015–0294, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: gleaton.gwen@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (404) 562–9964 (prior to 

faxing, please notify the EPA contact 

listed below). 

• Mail: Send written comments to 

Gwendolyn Gleaton, RCRA Programs 

and Materials Management Section, 

Materials and Waste Management 

Branch, Resource Conservation and 

Restoration Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303– 

8960. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to Gwendolyn Gleaton, 

RCRA Programs and Materials 

Management Section, Materials and 

Waste Management Branch, Resource 

Conservation and Restoration Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303– 

8960. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: EPA must receive your 

comments by September 23, 2015. 

Direct your comments to Docket ID No. 

EPA–R04–RCRA–2015–0294. 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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES