
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51136-51141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20771]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 51137]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ PM10 refers to particles with diameters between 
2.5 and 10 microns, oftentimes referred to as ``coarse'' particles.
    \3\ EPA 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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

[[Page 51138]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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      24-hour max
                                              mean
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

[[Page 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

[[Page 51140]]

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]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. In Sec.  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:


Sec.  52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

[[Page 51141]]



                       EPA-Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable
    Name of nonregulatory SIP         geographic or          State       EPA approval date         Comments
            provision              nonattainment area   submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure  Statewide...........      8/15/2011,  8/24/2015, [Insert   This action
 Requirements for the 2006 24-                                7/9/2012   page number where    addresses the
 Hour PM2.5 NAAQS.                                                       the document         following CAA
                                                                         begins].             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.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Section 52.2591 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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


