81 FR 95043 - Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 248 (December 27, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 248 (December 27, 2016)
| Page Range | 95043-95047 | |
| FR Document | 2016-31017 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 27, 2016)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 95043-95047] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-31017] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0529; FRL-9957-16-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing approval of some elements of a July 13, 2015 state implementation plan (SIP) submittal from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) 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. The proposed rulemaking associated with this final action was published on February 19, 2016, and EPA received adverse comments during the comment period, which ended on March 21, 2016. Responses to comments are included below. In this rulemaking, EPA is not taking action on Wisconsin's satisfaction of the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F), also referred to as ``element F,'' which pertains to stationary source monitoring and reporting. EPA proposed approval of and received an adverse comment on our proposed approval of element F, which will be addressed in a separate rulemaking. In this rulemaking we respond to the remainder of the comments we received on our initial proposed rulemaking, which includes those comments not pertaining to element F, and finalize as initially proposed our approval of the other elements of Wisconsin's 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP. DATES: This final rule is effective on January 26, 2017. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0529. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either through www.regulations.gov or 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 Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist, at (312) 886- 6832 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6832, [email protected]. 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 submittal? II. Responses to Comments Received on EPA's Proposed Rulemaking III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background of this SIP submittal? A. What state SIP submittal does this rulemaking address? This rulemaking addresses a July 13, 2015 infrastructure SIP submittal from WDNR for the 2012 PM2.5 \1\ NAAQS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ PM2.5 refers to particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers, oftentimes referred to as ``fine'' particles. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Why did the State make this SIP submittal? 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 submittal must contain any revisions needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2) or certifications that the state's existing SIP for the NAAQS already meets 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'' 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).'' The SIP submittal referenced in this rulemaking pertains to the applicable [[Page 95044]] 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 submittal from WDNR 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 submittals of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). States must make SIP submittals ``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 submittals are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submittals, and the requirement to make the submittal 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'' submittal must address. EPA has historically referred to these SIP submittals made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submittals. Although the term ``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submittal from submittals that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as SIP submittals that address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of Title I of the CAA, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, and ``regional haze SIP'' submittals required to address the visibility protection requirements of section 169A of the CAA. This rulemaking will not cover three substantive areas that are not integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submittals: (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,'' which purport to permit revisions to SIP- approved emissions limits with limited public notice or without requiring further approval by EPA and 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). 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, WDNR; 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. Responses to Comments Received on EPA's Proposed Rulemaking The public comment period for our proposed rulemaking with respect to WDNR's satisfaction of the infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS closed on March 21, 2016. EPA received two comment letters, one from Clean Wisconsin and one from Midwest Environmental Advocates (MEA). A synopsis of the comments contained in these letters and EPA's responses are provided below. As mentioned previously, EPA is not taking action on CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) in this rulemaking. EPA's action on element F and our response to the comment from MEA pertaining to our proposed approval of element F will be addressed in a separate rulemaking. Comment 1: With regard to EPA proposing that WDNR has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, MEA comments that particulate and visible emissions limitations in Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapters NR 415 and NR 431 are outdated, do not reflect the current state of the art in air pollution control methods, are insufficient to ensure compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS, and must be supplemented to meet Federal standards. Part of this issue stems from the lack of information about PM2.5 emission factors, control measures, and public exposure. MEA urges EPA to require WDNR to use its enforcement program to expand upon the lack of knowledge of PM2.5 emission factors by requiring testing and monitoring in lieu of or in addition to fines when settling enforcement cases. Response 1: Section 110(a)(2)(A) 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. EPA has long interpreted these requirements as being due when nonattainment planning requirements are due.2 3 Thus, in the context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not evaluating the existing SIP provisions for the purpose of emissions limits and control measures, which are connected with nonattainment planning requirements. Instead, EPA is only evaluating whether the state's SIP has the basic structural provisions required for the implementation of the NAAQS. As explained in the proposed rule, EPA finds that WDNR has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ See, e.g., EPA's final rule on ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead.'' 73 FR 66964 at 67034. \3\ Currently, Wisconsin has no nonattainment areas for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the only nonattainment area in Wisconsin for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS--the Milwaukee-Racine Nonattainment Area, including Milwaukee, Racine, and Waukesha counties--has been redesignated (79 FR 22415) to a maintenance area. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires each state to provide a program for enforcement of all SIP measures. 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 take enforcement actions and assess penalties. While, in general, any efforts to expand upon the lack of knowledge of PM2.5 emission factors via testing and monitoring would be extremely useful for air quality planning, MEA's suggestion goes beyond the scope of this rulemaking and the minimum requirements under the CAA. EPA finds that WDNR's enforcement program, as it currently exists, has met the enforcement of SIP measures requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, in this rulemaking, EPA is not requiring WDNR to use its enforcement program to expand upon the lack of knowledge of PM2.5 emission factors--which is suggested by MEA--in lieu of or addition to fines when settling enforcement cases. Comment 2: With regard to EPA proposing that WDNR has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, MEA comments that WDNR's PM2.5 monitoring network only includes 20 monitoring sites for PM2.5 and is insufficient to characterize public exposure to PM2.5 . EPA should expand the ambient air monitoring network for PM2.5 by using its authority to require industrial facilities to install and operate ambient monitors where [[Page 95045]] members of the public are likely to be exposed to PM2.5 , especially at possible NAAQS hotspots. Response 2: WDNR submits annual monitoring network plans to EPA. EPA approved WDNR's 2016 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan on October 26, 2015, and EPA approved (with exceptions) \4\ WDNR's 2017 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan on October 31, 2016. EPA's review of the annual monitoring plan includes EPA's determination that the state monitors air quality at appropriate locations throughout the state in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. EPA's October 26, 2015 approval of WDNR's 2016 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan and EPA's October 31, 2016 approval of WDNR's 2017 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan indicates that WDNR has met the requirements of 40 CFR part 58 with respect to its 2016 and 2017 PM2.5 monitoring networks. Therefore, EPA finds that Wisconsin has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. WDNR's Annual Network Plan can be found at http://WDNR.wi.gov/topic/AirQuality/Monitor.html. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ The exceptions do not pertain to Wisconsin's PM2.5 monitoring network. There are two exceptions to EPA's approval of Wisconsin's 2017 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan. The first exception pertains to Wisconsin's request to shorten the ozone season which was extended with the revision of the ozone NAAQS in October 2015 (40 CFR part 58, section 4.1(i)). WDNR must plan to monitor for ozone, statewide, during the required ozone season in effect January 1, 2017. EPA's approval of Wisconsin's 2017 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan does not constitute approval of the shortened ozone season requested by Wisconsin. The second exception pertains to a nitrogen dioxide (NO2 ) monitor. Wisconsin may discontinue/shut-down the Photochemical Air Monitoring Station (PAMS) at the Southeast Regional office (SER/DNR) as per EPA's October 16, 2015 revisions to the PAMS monitoring requirements with the exception of the NO2 monitor at this site. 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.3 requires the Milwaukee- Waukesha-West Allis metropolitan statistical area to operate two NO2 monitoring sites. One site should be collocated with a near-road site and a second representative of area-wide NO2 emissions. Wisconsin meets the near-road station NO2 monitoring requirement with the College Avenue near- road station and the area-wide monitoring requirement with the NO2 monitoring conducted at the PAMS at SER/DNR. Therefore, Wisconsin may discontinue/shut-down the PAMS at SER/DNR with the exception of the NO2 monitor. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment 3: MEA comments that ``Compounding the issue of insufficient monitoring is the fact that the WDNR does not require industrial facilities to provide and report their annual PM2.5 emissions like they do for PM and PM10 . Each facility is in the best position to know their actual emissions from the previous year, so not requiring a report at the end of the year makes it even more difficult to identify any violations. The information needed to make that assessment would need to be sought out independently for each facility in the entire state, which requires a great deal more work than reading a report and comparing it to the limit. States such as Indiana and Iowa already have this requirement in place, so it has been successfully implemented elsewhere, and there is no reason it cannot be done in Wisconsin as well.'' Response 3: EPA will respond to this comment and address in a separate rulemaking Wisconsin's satisfaction of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F), also referred to as ``element F,'' which pertains to stationary source monitoring and reporting. Comment 4: (Note that we have grouped the following comments from MEA and Clean Wisconsin that are similar in content into a single comment and response section entitled ``Comment 4.'') MEA is concerned that WDNR underutilizes air quality modeling as a tool for determining facility-specific PM2.5 emissions limitations and that this may result in violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS. MEA, in its comment letter, provides examples of WDNR permits that set PM2.5 limits equal to PM10 limits without conducting PM2.5 modeling. MEA notes that the current WDNR guideline for permit renewals suggests that if there has been no change in historical particulate emissions since the last operation permit was issued, no modeling is necessary to verify compliance with the NAAQS. MEA also notes that WDNR registration permits only require that emission stacks be built to a certain height that is taller than any surrounding building, rather than require a modeling analysis of PM2.5 emissions. Both MEA and Clean Wisconsin submitted comments regarding WDNR's ``Guidance for Including PM2.5 in Air Pollution Control Permit Applications'' (Guidance). Clean Wisconsin notes the recently issued Guidance changes WDNR's methodology for calculating PM2.5 emissions from certain sources and uses a weight-of- evidence approach rather than modeling for permits for certain sources. Thus, the Guidance will affect WDNR's ability to adequately model and track PM2.5 emissions and compromise the quality of data and analysis in determining compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS. Clean Wisconsin believes the Guidance undermines WDNR's ability to provide air quality modeling data to accurately predict effects on air quality of PM2.5 emissions as required by section 110(a)(2)(K). MEA believes the WDNR's weight-of-evidence approach will not protect WDNR residents from exposure to unhealthy concentrations of PM2.5 and will fail to ensure that facilities are in compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS. Clean Wisconsin recommends, at a minimum, that WDNR conduct additional monitoring of direct PM2.5 before it can justify changes to its methodology for estimating PM2.5 emissions. Clean Wisconsin believes the Guidance serves to describe a general policy of the WDNR, carries the weight and effect of a rule, and impacts WDNR's implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS. MEA believes the Guidance is essentially a rule, as defined by administrative law, and because WDNR did not follow its rulemaking process, the Guidance is an unlawful rule. Clean Wisconsin requests that EPA require WDNR to withdraw the Guidance as a condition for approval of WDNR's 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP. Response 4: Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires SIPs to 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. EPA's 2013 infrastructure SIP guidance indicates that the best practice would be for an air agency to submit the statutory or regulatory provisions that provide the air agency or official with the authority to perform the following actions along with a narrative explanation of how the provisions meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K): (1) Conduct air quality modeling to predict the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which a NAAQS has been promulgated, and (2) provide such modeling data to the EPA Administrator upon request. EPA's 2013 infrastructure SIP guidance indicates EPA recognizes that some air agencies may have general authorizing provisions that do not enumerate specific activities but do implicitly authorize the air agency to perform such activities, in which case inclusion of those provisions would meet the intent of this best practice. WDNR maintains the capability and the authority 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. Wis. Stats. 285.11, Wis. Stats. 285.13, and Wis. Stats. 285.60-285.69 authorize WDNR to perform air quality modeling. Therefore EPA finds that WDNR has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. [[Page 95046]] III. What action is EPA taking? EPA is finalizing approval of most elements and deferring action on one element of a submittal from WDNR 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. The proposed rulemaking associated with this final action was published on February 19, 2016 (81 FR 8460), and EPA received comments during the comment period, which ended on March 21, 2016. EPA has responded to each of the comments received in the section above with the exception of ``Comment 3,'' which we intend to respond to in a separate rulemaking. EPA is taking final action to approve, as proposed, most elements of WDNR's submittal. EPA is not taking action on several elements of WDNR's submittal that will be addressed in separate rulemakings. EPA's 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 NA contribution.......................................... (D)2--I Prong 2: Interstate transport--interfere with NA maintenance........................................... (D)3--II Prong 3: Interstate transport--prevention of NA significant deterioration............................. (D)4--II Prong 4: Interstate transport--protect A visibility............................................ (D)5--Interstate and international pollution abatement. A (E)1--Adequate resources............................... A (E)2--State board requirements......................... A (F)--Stationary source monitoring and reporting........ NA (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 A entities.............................................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In the above table, the key is as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A................................. Approve. NA................................ No Action/Separate Rulemaking. D................................. Disapprove. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. [[Page 95047]] 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 February 27, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: December 13, 2016. Robert Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 0 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 0 2. Section 52.2591 is amended by adding paragraph (k) to read as follows: Sec. 52.2591 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements. * * * * * (k) Approval--In a July 13, 2015, submission, WDNR certified that the state has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS. We are not taking action on the prevention of significant deterioration requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), and (J), the transport provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and the stationary source monitoring and reporting requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F). We will address these requirements in a separate action. [FR Doc. 2016-31017 Filed 12-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 95043
Area for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 § 52.920 Identification of plan.
NAAQS’’ at the end of the table to read * * * * *
as follows: (e) * * *
EPA-APPROVED KENTUCKY NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
State
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable geographic or non- submittal EPA approval date Explanations
provision attainment area date/
effective date
* * * * * * *
RACM for the Kentucky por- Bullitt and Jefferson Counties 08/09/2016 12/27/2016, [Insert citation of
tion of Louisville, KY-IN publication].
Area for the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
[FR Doc. 2016–31023 Filed 12–23–16; 8:45 am] addressed in a separate rulemaking. In EPA. This supplementary information
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P this rulemaking we respond to the section is arranged as follows:
remainder of the comments we received I. What is the background of this SIP
on our initial proposed rulemaking, submittal?
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION which includes those comments not II. Responses to Comments Received on
AGENCY pertaining to element F, and finalize as EPA’s Proposed Rulemaking
initially proposed our approval of the III. What action is EPA taking?
40 CFR Part 52 other elements of Wisconsin’s 2012 IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0529; FRL–9957–16– PM2.5 infrastructure SIP. I. What is the background of this SIP
Region 5] DATES: This final rule is effective on submittal?
January 26, 2017.
Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; A. What state SIP submittal does this
Infrastructure SIP Requirements for ADDRESSES: EPA has established a rulemaking address?
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0529. All This rulemaking addresses a July 13,
AGENCY: Environmental Protection documents in the docket are listed on 2015 infrastructure SIP submittal from
Agency (EPA). the www.regulations.gov Web site. WDNR for the 2012 PM2.5 1 NAAQS.
ACTION: Final rule. Although listed in the index, some B. Why did the State make this SIP
information is not publicly available, submittal?
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection i.e., Confidential Business Information
Agency (EPA) is finalizing approval of (CBI) or other information whose Under section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the
some elements of a July 13, 2015 state disclosure is restricted by statute. CAA, states are required to submit
implementation plan (SIP) submittal Certain other material, such as infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their
from the Wisconsin Department of copyrighted material, is not placed on SIPs provide for implementation,
Natural Resources (WDNR) regarding the Internet and will be publicly maintenance, and enforcement of the
the infrastructure requirements of available only in hard copy form. NAAQS, including the 2012 PM2.5
section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Publicly available docket materials are NAAQS. This submittal must contain
for the 2012 fine particulate matter available either through any revisions needed for meeting the
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality www.regulations.gov or at the applicable SIP requirements of section
Standards (NAAQS). The infrastructure Environmental Protection Agency, 110(a)(2) or certifications that the state’s
requirements are designed to ensure that Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 existing SIP for the NAAQS already
the structural components of each West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, meets those requirements.
state’s air quality management program Illinois 60604. This facility is open from EPA highlighted this statutory
are adequate to meet the state’s 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through requirement in an October 2, 2007
responsibilities under the CAA. The Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance
proposed rulemaking associated with recommend that you telephone Jenny on SIP Elements Required Under
this final action was published on Liljegren, Physical Scientist, at (312) Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997
February 19, 2016, and EPA received 886–6832 before visiting the Region 5 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National
adverse comments during the comment office. Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ and
period, which ended on March 21, 2016. has issued additional guidance
Responses to comments are included FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist, documents, the most recent on
below. In this rulemaking, EPA is not September 13, 2013, entitled ‘‘Guidance
taking action on Wisconsin’s Attainment Planning and Maintenance
on Infrastructure State Implementation
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
satisfaction of the infrastructure Section, Air Programs Branch (AR18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Plan (SIP) Elements under CAA
requirements of CAA section Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).’’ The
110(a)(2)(F), also referred to as ‘‘element Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6832, SIP submittal referenced in this
F,’’ which pertains to stationary source rulemaking pertains to the applicable
monitoring and reporting. EPA Liljegren.Jennifer@epa.gov.
proposed approval of and received an SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1 PM
2.5 refers to particles with an aerodynamic
adverse comment on our proposed Throughout this document whenever diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers,
approval of element F, which will be ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean oftentimes referred to as ‘‘fine’’ particles.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:06 Dec 23, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_95291/page/1.svg)
![95044 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 (December 31, nonattainment planning requirements
and addresses the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June are due.2 3 Thus, in the context of an
13, 2007). Instead, EPA has the infrastructure SIP, EPA is not evaluating
C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
authority to address each one of these the existing SIP provisions for the
EPA is acting upon the SIP submittal substantive areas in separate purpose of emissions limits and control
from WDNR that addresses the rulemakings. A detailed history, measures, which are connected with
infrastructure requirements of CAA interpretation, and rationale, as they nonattainment planning requirements.
section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2012 relate to infrastructure SIP Instead, EPA is only evaluating whether
PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement for requirements, can be found in EPA’s the state’s SIP has the basic structural
states to make SIP submittals of this May 13, 2014, proposed rule entitled, provisions required for the
type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air implementation of the NAAQS. As
States must make SIP submittals Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois, explained in the proposed rule, EPA
‘‘within 3 years (or such shorter period Michigan, Minnesota, WDNR; finds that WDNR has met the
as the Administrator may prescribe) Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the infrastructure SIP requirements of
after the promulgation of a national 2008 Lead NAAQS’’ in the section, section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the
primary ambient air quality standard (or ‘‘What is the scope of this rulemaking?’’ 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
any revision thereof),’’ and these SIP (see 79 FR 27241 at 27242–27245). Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires each
submittals are to provide for the state to provide a program for
‘‘implementation, maintenance, and II. Responses to Comments Received on
EPA’s Proposed Rulemaking enforcement of all SIP measures. Under
enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The Wis. Stats. 285.13, WDNR has the
statute directly imposes on states the The public comment period for our authority to impose fees and penalties to
duty to make these SIP submittals, and proposed rulemaking with respect to ensure that required measures are
the requirement to make the submittal is WDNR’s satisfaction of the ultimately implemented. Wis. Stats.
not conditioned upon EPA’s taking any infrastructure SIP requirements for the 285.83 and Wis. Stats. 285.87 provide
action other than promulgating a new or 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS closed on March 21, WDNR with the authority to take
revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) 2016. EPA received two comment enforcement actions and assess
includes a list of specific elements that letters, one from Clean Wisconsin and penalties. While, in general, any efforts
‘‘[e]ach such plan’’ submittal must one from Midwest Environmental to expand upon the lack of knowledge
address. Advocates (MEA). A synopsis of the of PM2.5 emission factors via testing and
EPA has historically referred to these comments contained in these letters and
monitoring would be extremely useful
SIP submittals made for the purpose of EPA’s responses are provided below. As
for air quality planning, MEA’s
satisfying the requirements of CAA mentioned previously, EPA is not taking
section 110(a)(1) and (2) as suggestion goes beyond the scope of this
action on CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) in
‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submittals. rulemaking and the minimum
this rulemaking. EPA’s action on
Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ requirements under the CAA. EPA finds
element F and our response to the
does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses that WDNR’s enforcement program, as it
comment from MEA pertaining to our
the term to distinguish this particular currently exists, has met the
proposed approval of element F will be
type of SIP submittal from submittals enforcement of SIP measures
addressed in a separate rulemaking.
that are intended to satisfy other SIP Comment 1: With regard to EPA requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C)
requirements under the CAA, such as proposing that WDNR has met the with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
SIP submittals that address the infrastructure SIP requirements of Accordingly, in this rulemaking, EPA is
nonattainment planning requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2012 PM2.5 not requiring WDNR to use its
part D of Title I of the CAA, the NAAQS, MEA comments that enforcement program to expand upon
Prevention of Significant Deterioration particulate and visible emissions the lack of knowledge of PM2.5 emission
(PSD) requirements of part C of title I of limitations in Wisconsin Administrative factors—which is suggested by MEA—in
the CAA, and ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ Code Chapters NR 415 and NR 431 are lieu of or addition to fines when settling
submittals required to address the outdated, do not reflect the current state enforcement cases.
visibility protection requirements of of the art in air pollution control Comment 2: With regard to EPA
section 169A of the CAA. methods, are insufficient to ensure proposing that WDNR has met the
This rulemaking will not cover three compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS, and infrastructure SIP requirements of
substantive areas that are not integral to must be supplemented to meet Federal section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the
acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP standards. Part of this issue stems from 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, MEA comments
submittals: (i) Existing provisions the lack of information about PM2.5 that WDNR’s PM2.5 monitoring network
related to excess emissions during emission factors, control measures, and only includes 20 monitoring sites for
periods of start-up, shutdown, or public exposure. MEA urges EPA to PM2.5 and is insufficient to characterize
malfunction (‘‘SSM’’) at sources that require WDNR to use its enforcement public exposure to PM2.5. EPA should
may be contrary to the CAA and EPA’s program to expand upon the lack of expand the ambient air monitoring
policies addressing such excess knowledge of PM2.5 emission factors by network for PM2.5 by using its authority
emissions; (ii) existing provisions requiring testing and monitoring in lieu to require industrial facilities to install
related to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or of or in addition to fines when settling and operate ambient monitors where
‘‘director’s discretion,’’ which purport enforcement cases.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
2 See, e.g., EPA’s final rule on ‘‘National Ambient
to permit revisions to SIP-approved Response 1: Section 110(a)(2)(A)
Air Quality Standards for Lead.’’ 73 FR 66964 at
emissions limits with limited public requires SIPs to include enforceable 67034.
notice or without requiring further emission limits and other control 3 Currently, Wisconsin has no nonattainment
approval by EPA and may be contrary measures, means or techniques, as well areas for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the only
to the CAA; and, (iii) existing provisions as schedules and timetables for nonattainment area in Wisconsin for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS—the Milwaukee-Racine Nonattainment
for PSD programs that may be compliance, and other related matters. Area, including Milwaukee, Racine, and Waukesha
inconsistent with current requirements EPA has long interpreted these counties—has been redesignated (79 FR 22415) to
of EPA’s ‘‘Final NSR Improvement requirements as being due when a maintenance area.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:06 Dec 23, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_95291/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 95047
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION York 10007–1866, (212) 637–4085;
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). AGENCY email address: jon.frank@epa.gov.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
40 CFR Part 52 Throughout this document, references
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States to ‘‘EPA,’’ ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our,’’ are
[EPA–R02–OAR–2016–0478, FRL–9957–08– intended to mean the Environmental
Court of Appeals for the appropriate Region 2]
circuit by February 27, 2017. Filing a Protection Agency. The supplementary
information is arranged as follows:
petition for reconsideration by the Approval and Promulgation of
Administrator of this final rule does not Implementation Plans; New York I. What is the background for this action?
II. What sections of New York’s rules are we
affect the finality of this action for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration approving in this action?
purposes of judicial review nor does it of Air Quality and Nonattainment New III. What are EPA’s responses to comments to
extend the time within which a petition Source Review; Infrastructure State EPA’s proposal?
for judicial review may be filed, and Implementation Plan Requirements IV. What action is EPA taking?
shall not postpone the effectiveness of V. Incorporation By Reference.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.
such rule or action. This action may not Agency.
be challenged later in proceedings to I. What is the background for this
ACTION: Final rule.
enforce its requirements. (See section action?
307(b)(2).) SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection On October 12, 2011, the New York
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Agency (EPA) is taking final action to State Department of Environmental
approve revisions to the New York State Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted to
Environmental protection, Air Implementation Plan (SIP) amending EPA Region 2 a new set of revisions to
pollution control, Incorporation by existing nonattainment New Source the New York State Implementation
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Review (NNSR) and attainment New Plan (SIP). This submittal consists of
Particulate matter, Reporting and Source Review (Prevention of revisions to Title 6 of the New York
recordkeeping requirements. Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, Code of Rules and Regulations (6
PSD) program requirements that the NYCRR) Part 231, New Source Review
Dated: December 13, 2016. New York State Department of for New and Modified Facilities; 6
Robert Kaplan, Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) NYCRR Part 200, General Provisions;
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. submitted to EPA on October 12, 2011. and 6 NYCRR Part 201, Permits and
Specifically, the SIP revision includes Certificates. New York undertook this
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: new requirements pertaining to the rulemaking to comply with EPA’s May
regulation of particulate matter with an 16, 2008 NSR final rule for the
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal regulation of particulate matter with an
PROMULGATION OF
to 2.5 micrometer (PM2.5) and the aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
regulation of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). Also, the
under New York’s Part 231, ‘‘New revisions implement EPA’s October 20,
■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 Source Review for New and Modified 2010 final rule that establishes the PM2.5
continues to read as follows: Facilities;’’ Part 201, ‘‘Permits and increments, significant impact levels,
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Registrations;’’ and amendments to Part and significant monitoring
200, ‘‘General Provisions,’’ of Title 6 of concentrations. New York’s rulemaking
■ 2. Section 52.2591 is amended by the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules implements PM2.5 provisions that were
adding paragraph (k) to read as follows: and Regulations of the State of New not previously included in the
York (6 NYCRR). The SIP revision will November 17, 2010 EPA SIP approval of
§ 52.2591 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure
make the SIP consistent with existing Part 231. This SIP revision also
requirements.
federal requirements. The EPA is also incorporates provisions that conform to
* * * * * taking final action to approve certain EPA’s June 3, 2010 final rule for
(k) Approval—In a July 13, 2015, elements of New York SIP revisions Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) under its PSD
submission, WDNR certified that the submitted to demonstrate that the State and Title V programs, establishing major
state has satisfied the infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of section source applicability threshold levels for
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act GHG emissions and other conforming
through (H), and (J) through (M) for the (CAA) for the 2008 lead (Pb), 2008 changes such as the establishment of
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. We are not taking ozone, and 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) global warming potential values for
action on the prevention of significant national ambient air quality standards calculating CO2 equivalents under New
deterioration requirements related to (NAAQS). York’s PSD and Title V programs. In
section 110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), and (J), DATES: This rule is effective on January today’s action, the EPA is taking final
the transport provisions in section 26, 2017. action to approve those revisions by
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and the stationary issuing a full approval, as proposed (see
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
source monitoring and reporting 81 FR 63448 (September 15, 2016)).
docket for this action under Docket ID The EPA is also taking action to
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F). We number EPA–R02–OAR–2016–0478. All
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
approve certain elements of New York
will address these requirements in a documents in the docket are listed on SIP revisions as meeting CAA section
separate action. the http://www.regulations.gov Web 110(a) requirements for the 2008 Pb,
[FR Doc. 2016–31017 Filed 12–23–16; 8:45 am] site. 2008 ozone, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: NYSDEC submitted a SIP for the 2008
Frank Jon, Air Programs Branch, Pb NAAQS on October 13, 2011, as
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 supplemented on February 24, 2012,
Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New and for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on April
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:06 Dec 23, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_95291/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-14 09:13:56
Document Modified: 2018-02-14 09:13:56
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This final rule is effective on January 26, 2017. | |
| Contact | Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6832, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 95043 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Particulate Matter and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR