
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 92 (Tuesday, May 13, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27241-27257]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11022]



[[Page 27241]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0888; FRL-9910-74-Region 5]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP 
Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve elements of state implementation plan (SIP) submissions from 
Michigan and Wisconsin while proposing to approve some elements and 
disapprove other elements of SIP submissions from Illinois and 
Minnesota regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of 
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 lead National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (2008 Pb 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. Illinois and Minnesota already administer federally 
promulgated regulations that address the proposed disapprovals 
described in today's rulemaking and as a result, there is no practical 
effect for either of these states.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 12, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2011-0888 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-2011-
0888. 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 
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 U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal 
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Andy Chang, Environmental 
Engineer, at (312) 886-0258 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer, 
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-0258, chang.andy@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
section is arranged as follows:

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background of these SIP submissions?
    A. What state SIP submissions does this rulemaking address?
    B. Why did the states make these SIP submissions?
    C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?
IV. What is the result of EPA's review of these SIP submissions?
    A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits and Other Control 
Measures
    B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data 
System
    C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control 
Measures; PSD
    D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate Transport
    E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate Resources
    F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary Source Monitoring System
    G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Powers
    H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP Revisions
    I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan 
Revisions Under Part D
    J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation With Government Officials; 
Public Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection
    K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)--Air Quality Modeling/Data
    L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting Fees
    M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/Participation by Affected 
Local Entities
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific 
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at

[[Page 27242]]

your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.

II. What is the background of these SIP submissions?

A. What state SIP submissions does this rulemaking address?

    This rulemaking addresses submissions from the following states in 
EPA Region 5: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA); 
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ); Minnesota 
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA); and Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resources (WDNR). The states submitted their 2008 Pb NAAQS 
infrastructure SIPs on the following dates: Illinois--December 31, 
2012; Michigan--April 3, 2012, and supplemented on August 9, 2013, and 
September 19, 2013; Minnesota--June 19, 2012; and, Wisconsin--July 26, 
2012.

B. Why did the states make these SIP submissions?

    Under sections 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 2008 Pb NAAQS. These submissions must contain any revisions needed 
for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2), or 
certifications that their existing SIPs for Pb and ozone already meet 
those requirements.
    EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007, 
guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under 
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and 
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007 Memo). 
On September 25, 2009, EPA issued an additional guidance document 
pertaining to the 2006 PM2.5 \1\ NAAQS entitled 
``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 
for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' (2009 Memo), followed by the October 
14, 2011, ``Guidance on infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under 
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' (2011 Memo). Most recently, EPA issued 
``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements 
under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)'' on September 13, 2013 
(2013 Memo). The SIP submissions referenced in this rulemaking pertain 
to the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2), and 
primarily address the 2008 Pb NAAQS. To the extent that the prevention 
of significant deterioration (PSD) program is comprehensive and non-
NAAQS specific, a narrow evaluation of other NAAQS, such as the 1997 8-
hour ozone and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS will be included in the 
appropriate sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PM2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns 
or less in diameter, oftentimes referred to as ``fine'' particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Illinois, Michigan, 
Minnesota, and Wisconsin that addresses the infrastructure requirements 
of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 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.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the 
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term 
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to 
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions 
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such 
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to 
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of 
the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to 
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and 
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit program submissions to 
address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for 
infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more 
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list 
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide 
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required 
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program 
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both 
authority and substantive program provisions.\2\ EPA therefore believes 
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, 
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, 
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP 
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states 
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority 
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) 
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address 
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and 
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority 
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements 
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or 
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) 
requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of 
requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal 
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a 
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the 
CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\3\ 
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and 
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address 
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) 
requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for 
certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation 
of an area as nonattainment,

[[Page 27243]]

and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two years, or in some cases three 
years, for such designations to be promulgated.\4\ This ambiguity 
illustrates that rather than apply all the stated requirements of 
section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, EPA must determine which 
provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular 
infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine 
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions 
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; 
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) 
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \4\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is 
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific 
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in 
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., 
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of 
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific 
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of 
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether 
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single 
SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a 
single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a 
plan'' to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow 
states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing 
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make 
such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP 
requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either 
individually or in a larger combined action.\5\ Similarly, EPA 
interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts 
of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given 
NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For example, 
EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements 
and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State 
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR 
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural 
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately 
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule), 
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013) 
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \6\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the 
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP 
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for 
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On 
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA 
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14, 
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise 
with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for 
different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 
110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same 
way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant 
infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be 
different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might 
need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of 
section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants, 
for example because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure 
SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an 
entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure 
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also 
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required 
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA 
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. 
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP 
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable 
requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan 
SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 
regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By 
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by 
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that 
pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA, 
because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is 
designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning 
requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission 
may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language 
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is 
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) 
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP 
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have 
intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, 
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same 
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews 
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that 
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make 
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some 
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and 
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\8\ EPA's 
2013 Memo was developed to provide states with up-to-date guidance for 
infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, 
EPA describes the duty of states to make infrastructure SIP submissions 
to meet basic structural SIP requirements within three years of 
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations 
about many specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant 
in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions.\9\ The guidance also 
discusses the substantively important issues that are germane to 
certain subsections of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets 
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP 
submissions need to address certain issues and need not address others. 
Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for 
compliance with the

[[Page 27244]]

applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to 
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP 
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the 
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether 
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such 
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 
states, as appropriate.
    \9\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make 
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to 
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly 
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit 
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had 
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light 
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to 
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding 
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a 
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of 
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this 
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, 
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement 
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA 
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's SIP 
appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 
and section 128. The 2013 Memo explains EPA's interpretation that there 
may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately address 
these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the structure of 
an individual state's permitting or enforcement program (e.g., whether 
permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-member board or 
by a head of an executive agency). However they are addressed by the 
state, the substantive requirements of section 128 are necessarily 
included in EPA's evaluation of infrastructure SIP submissions because 
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that the state satisfy the 
provisions of section 128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions 
with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program 
requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural 
PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD 
program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including 
greenhouse gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program 
requirements do not include provisions that are not required under 
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an 
option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of 
complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of 
provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure 
SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a 
state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the 
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a 
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the 
state has an EPA-approved minor new source review (NSR) program and 
whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In 
the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA 
does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every 
provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in 
the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and 
EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an 
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the 
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in 
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions 
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's 
policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (ii) existing 
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's 
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to 
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public 
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing 
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current 
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR 
Reform''). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP 
submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for 
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission 
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\10\ It is important to 
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission 
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any 
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three 
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a 
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a 
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions 
during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision 
for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in 
the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to 
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that 
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a 
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it 
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of 
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all 
requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of 
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements 
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory 
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded 
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully 
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the 
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new 
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP 
submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA 
to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA 
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation 
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, the 2013 Memo gives simpler recommendations with 
respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the 
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon 
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP 
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need 
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to 
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of 
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues 
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing 
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately 
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged 
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP 
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is 
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\11\ Section 
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as 
past

[[Page 27245]]

approvals of SIP submissions.\12\ Significantly, EPA's determination 
that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is not the 
appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP 
deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on provisions 
in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to correct those 
deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it may not be 
appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate 
director's discretion provisions in the course of acting on an 
infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) 
may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in the course of 
addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address 
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of 
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial 
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \12\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past 
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation 
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation 
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has 
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove 
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had 
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, 
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \13\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from 
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's 
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 
FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?

    EPA's guidance for these infrastructure SIP submissions is embodied 
in the 2007 Memo. Specifically, attachment A of this memorandum 
(Required Section 110 SIP Elements) identifies the statutory elements 
that states need to submit in order to satisfy the requirements for an 
infrastructure SIP submission. The 2009 Memo was issued to provide 
additional guidance for certain elements to meet the requirements of 
section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, and the 2011 Memo provides 
guidance specific to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Lastly, the 2013 Memo 
identifies and further clarifies aspects of infrastructure SIPs that 
are not NAAQS specific.

IV. What is the result of EPA's review of these SIP submissions?

    As noted in the 2011 Memo and reiterated in the 2013 Memo, pursuant 
to section 110(a), states must provide reasonable notice and 
opportunity for public hearing for all infrastructure SIP submissions. 
Each state referenced in this rulemaking provided the opportunity for 
public comment that ended on the following dates: Illinois--October 24, 
2012; Michigan--February 29, 2012; Minnesota--May 25, 2012; and, 
Wisconsin--June 18, 2012. Each state also provided an opportunity for a 
public hearing. None of the states referenced in this rulemaking 
received any written comments, nor were public hearings requested by 
interested parties. EPA is also soliciting comment on our evaluation of 
each state's infrastructure SIP submission in this notice of proposed 
rulemaking. Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin provided 
detailed synopses of how various components of their SIPs meet each of 
the requirements in section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, as 
applicable. The following review evaluates the states' submissions.

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

    This section requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits 
and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for 
compliance, and other related matters. However, EPA has long 
interpreted emission limits and control measures for attaining the 
standards as being due when nonattainment planning requirements are 
due.\14\ In the context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not evaluating 
the existing SIP provisions for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only 
evaluating whether the state's SIP has basic structural provisions for 
the implementation of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., EPA's 73 FR 66964 at 67034, final rule on 
``National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Illinois Environmental Protection Act is contained in chapter 
415, section 5, of the Illinois Compiled Statutes (415 ILCS 5). 415 
ILCS 5/4 provides Illinois EPA with the authority to develop rules and 
regulations necessary to meet ambient air quality standards. 
Additionally, the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) was created 
under 415 ILCS 5, providing the IPCB with the authority to develop 
rules and regulations necessary to promote the purposes of the Illinois 
Environmental Protection Act. Furthermore, the IPCB ensures compliance 
with required laws and other elements of the State's attainment plan 
that are necessary to attain the NAAQS, and to comply with the 
requirements of the CAA. (415 ILCS 5/10) EPA proposes that Illinois has 
met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with 
respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    The Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 
1994 PA 451, as amended (Act 451), sections 324.5503 and 324.5512, 
provide the Director of MDEQ with the authority to regulate the 
discharge of air pollutants, and to promulgate rules to establish 
standards for emissions for ambient air quality and for emissions. EPA 
proposes that Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    Minnesota Statute chapter 116.07 gives MPCA the authority to 
``[a]dopt, amend, and rescind rules and standards having the force of 
law relating to any purpose . . . for the prevention, abatement, or 
control of air pollution.'' EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the 
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    Wisconsin Statutes (WS) chapter 285.11 through WS chapter 285.19 
establish general authority for monitoring, updating, and implementing 
necessary revisions to the Wisconsin SIP. Additional authorities for 
WDNR related to specific pollutants are contained in WS chapter 285.21 
through WS chapter 285.29. EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met the 
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    As previously noted, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove 
any existing state provisions or rules related to SSM or director's 
discretion in the context of section 110(a)(2)(A).

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

    This section requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for 
establishing and operating ambient air quality monitors, collecting and 
analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these data available to 
EPA upon request. This review of the annual monitoring plan includes 
EPA's determination that the state: (i) Monitors air quality at 
appropriate locations throughout the state using EPA-approved Federal 
Reference Methods or Federal Equivalent Method monitors; (ii) submits 
data to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) in a timely manner; and, (iii) 
provides EPA Regional Offices with prior notification of any planned 
changes to monitoring sites or the network plan.
    Illinois EPA continues to operate an extensive monitoring network 
incorporating more than 200 monitors throughout the state. Illinois EPA 
also publishes an annual report that

[[Page 27246]]

summarizes air quality trends. Furthermore, Illinois EPA submits yearly 
monitoring network plans to EPA, and EPA approved the 2014 Annual Air 
Monitoring Network Plan for Pb on August 21, 2013. In this monitoring 
network approval, EPA noted that the operation of two ambient air 
monitoring sites for Pb, ArcelorMittal Steel and Johnson Controls, 
needed to commence as expeditiously as possible. On November 8, 2013, 
Illinois EPA confirmed that that these two sites had begun operating on 
October 7, 2013, and October 31, 2013, respectively. Monitoring data 
from Illinois EPA are entered into AQS in a timely manner, and the 
state provides EPA with prior notification when changes to its 
monitoring network or plan are being considered. EPA proposes that 
Illinois has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    MDEQ maintains a comprehensive network of air quality monitors 
throughout Michigan. EPA approved MDEQ's 2014 Annual Air Monitoring 
Network Plan for Pb on October 23, 2013. MDEQ enters air monitoring 
data into AQS, and the State provides EPA with prior notification when 
changes to its monitoring network or plan are being considered. EPA 
proposes that Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    MPCA continues to operate an ambient pollutant monitoring network, 
and compiles and reports air quality data to EPA. EPA approved MPCA's 
2014 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan for Pb on October 23, 2013. 
MPCA also provides prior notification to EPA when changes to its 
monitoring network or plan are being considered. EPA proposes that 
Minnesota has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    WDNR continues to operate an extensive monitoring network; EPA 
approved the state's 2014 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan for Pb on 
August 19, 2013. WDNR enters air quality data into AQS in a timely 
manner, and gives EPA prior notification when considering a change to 
its monitoring network or plan. EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met the 
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

C. 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 NSR requirements under PSD and 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 program for the 2008 Pb NAAQS; 
(iii) PSD provisions that explicitly identify oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX) as a precursor to ozone in the PSD program; (iv) 
identification of precursors to PM2.5 and the identification 
of PM2.5 and PM10 \15\ condensables in the PSD 
program; (v) PM2.5 increments in the PSD program; and, (vi) 
GHG permitting and the ``Tailoring Rule.'' \16\ In today's rulemaking, 
we are evaluating each state's submission as it relates to the 
enforcement of SIP measures. We are also evaluating the submissions 
from Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota with respect to the various PSD 
program and GHG permitting requirements. We are not taking action on 
Wisconsin's satisfaction of these requirements, which include a PSD 
program for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, PSD provisions that explicitly identify 
NOX as a precursor to ozone in the PSD program, the 
identification of precursors to PM2.5 and the identification 
of PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in the PSD 
program, PM2.5 increments in the PSD program, and GHG 
permitting and the ``Tailoring Rule.'' Instead, EPA will evaluate 
Wisconsin's compliance with each of these requirements in a separate 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ PM10 refers to particles with diameters between 
2.5 and 10 microns, oftentimes referred to as ``coarse'' particles.
    \16\ In EPA's April 28, 2011, proposed rulemaking for 
infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, 
we stated that each state's PSD program must meet applicable 
requirements for evaluation of all regulated NSR pollutants in PSD 
permits (see 76 FR 23757 at 23760). This view was reiterated in 
EPA's August 2, 2012, proposed rulemaking for infrastructure SIPs 
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 45992 at 45998). In 
other words, if a state lacks provisions needed to adequately 
address Pb, NOX as a precursor to ozone, PM2.5 
precursors, PM2.5 and PM10 condensables, 
PM2.5 increments, or the Federal GHG permitting 
thresholds, the provisions of section 110(a)(2)(C) requiring a 
suitable PSD permitting program must be considered not to be met 
irrespective of the NAAQS that triggered the requirement to submit 
an infrastructure SIP, including 2008 Pb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP Measures
    Illinois continues to staff and implement an enforcement program 
comprised, and operated by, the Compliance Section and Division of 
Legal Counsel. 415 ILCS 5/4 provides the Director of Illinois EPA with 
the authority to implement and administer this enforcement program. 
Furthermore, Illinois EPA has confirmed that all enforcement actions 
are brought by the Office of the Illinois Attorney General or local 
State's Attorney offices, with whom Illinois EPA consults. EPA proposes 
that Illinois has met the enforcement of SIP measures requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    MDEQ continues to staff and implement an enforcement program to 
assure compliance with all requirements under State law, consistent 
with the provisions of Act 451. Additionally, this air quality 
enforcement unit provides support and technical assistance to 
Michigan's Attorney General on all air pollution enforcement issues 
referred by MDEQ's Air Quality Division for escalated enforcement 
action. Lastly, the air quality enforcement unit at MDEQ coordinates 
formal administrative actions such as contested case hearings, 
administrative complaints, and revocation of permits to install. 
Therefore, EPA proposes that Michigan has met the enforcement of SIP 
measures requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 
Pb NAAQS.
    Minnesota Statute chapter 116.07 gives the MPCA the authority to 
enforce any provisions of the chapter relating to air contamination. 
These provisions include: Entering into orders; schedules of 
compliance; stipulation agreements; requiring owners or operators of 
emissions facilities to install and operate monitoring equipment; and 
conducting investigations. Minnesota Statute chapter 116.072 authorizes 
MPCA to issue orders and assess administrative penalties to correct 
violations of the agency's rules, statutes, and permits, and Minnesota 
Statute chapter 115.071 outlines the remedies that are available to 
address such violations. Lastly, Minnesota Administrative Rules 
7009.0030 to 7009.0040 provide for enforcement measures. EPA proposes 
that Minnesota has met the enforcement of SIP measures requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    WDNR maintains an enforcement program to ensure compliance with SIP 
requirements. The Bureau of Air Management houses an active statewide 
compliance and enforcement team that works in all geographic regions of 
the State. WDNR refers actions as necessary to the Wisconsin Department 
of Justice with the involvement of WDNR. Under

[[Page 27247]]

WS chapter 285.13, WDNR has the authority to impose fees and penalties 
to ensure that required measures are ultimately implemented. WS chapter 
285.83 and WS chapter 285.87 provide WDNR with the authority to enforce 
violations and assess penalties. EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met 
the enforcement of SIP measures requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 
with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: PSD Program for the 2008 Pb NAAQS
    Pursuant to the 2011 Memo, a state should demonstrate that it is 
authorized to implement its PSD permit program to ensure that the 
construction of major stationary sources does not cause or contribute 
to a violation of the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    Illinois and Minnesota have not adopted or submitted regulations 
for PSD, although Federally promulgated rules for this purpose are in 
effect in these two states, promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21. EPA has 
currently delegated the authority to implement these regulations to 
Illinois and Minnesota. These Federally promulgated rules include 
provisions that ensure that the construction of major stationary 
sources does not cause or contribute to a violation of the 2008 Pb 
NAAQS. EPA acknowledges that these two states have not satisfied the 
requirement for a SIP submission, which results in a proposed 
disapproval with respect to this set of infrastructure SIP requirements 
of section 110(a)(2)(C). However, Illinois and Minnesota have no 
further obligations to EPA because both states administer the Federally 
promulgated PSD regulations.
    Michigan's EPA-approved PSD rules, contained at R 336.2801-R 
336.2823, contain provisions that adequately address the applicable 
infrastructure SIP requirements related to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. EPA 
proposes that Michigan has met this set of infrastructure SIP 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
Sub-Element 3: 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, and consisted of the following: \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Similar changes were codified in 40 CFR 52.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(ii): A major source that is major for 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or NOX shall be 
considered major for ozone;
    40 CFR 51.166(b)(2)(ii): Any significant emissions increase (as 
defined at paragraph (b)(39) of this section) from any emissions 
units or net emissions increase (as defined in paragraph (b)(3) of 
this section) at a major stationary source that is significant for 
VOCs or NOX shall be considered significant for ozone;
    40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i): Ozone: 40 tons per year (tpy) of VOCs 
or NOX;
    40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i): \18\ Any pollutant for which a NAAQS 
has been promulgated and any constituents or precursors for such 
pollutants identified by the Administrator (e.g., VOCs and 
NOX) are precursors for ozone; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Note that this section of 40 CFR 51.166 has been amended as 
a result of EPA's Final Rule on the ``Implementation of the New 
Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 
Micrometers (PM2.5); the regulatory text as listed was 
current as of the issuance of the Phase 2 Rule. The current citation 
for the VOCs and NOX as precursors for ozone are 
contained in 40 CFR 51.166 (b)(49)(i)(b)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(e) footnote 1: No de minimis air quality 
level is provided for ozone. However, any net emissions increase of 
100 tpy or more of VOCs or NOX subject to PSD would be 
required to perform an ambient impact analysis, including the 
gathering of air quality data.

    The Phase 2 Rule required that states submit SIP revisions 
incorporating the requirements of the rule, including these specific 
NOX as a precursor to ozone provisions, by June 15, 2007 
(see 70 FR 71612 at 71683).
    Illinois and Minnesota have not adopted or submitted regulations 
for PSD, although Federally promulgated rules for this purpose are in 
effect in these two states, promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21. EPA has 
currently delegated the authority to implement these regulations to 
Illinois and Minnesota. These Federally promulgated rules include 
provisions that explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to 
ozone. EPA acknowledges that these two states have not satisfied the 
requirement for a SIP submission, which results in a proposed 
disapproval with respect to this set of infrastructure SIP requirements 
of section 110(a)(2)(C). However, Illinois and Minnesota have no 
further obligations to EPA because both states administer the Federally 
promulgated PSD regulations.
    On August 9, 2013, and supplemented on September 19, 2013, Michigan 
submitted revisions to its PSD program incorporating the necessary 
changes regarding NOX as a precursor to ozone, consistent 
with the requirements of the Phase 2 Rule. MDEQ also requested that 
these revisions satisfy not only the requirements of the Phase 2 Rule, 
but any applicable PSD requirements associated with the 2008 Pb NAAQS 
infrastructure SIP. EPA's final approval of MDEQ's SIP revisions with 
respect to the Phase 2 Rule was published on April 4, 2014 (see 79 FR 
18802). Therefore, we are proposing to find that Michigan has met this 
set of requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS 
regarding the explicit identification of NOX as a precursor 
to ozone, consistent with the Phase 2 Rule.
Sub-Element 4: 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 
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 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

[[Page 27248]]

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 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).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the DC 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 (Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 08-1250). 
As the subpart 4 provisions apply only to nonattainment areas, the 
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, the EPA's approval of Indiana'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 subpart 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).
    Illinois and Minnesota have not adopted or submitted regulations 
for PSD, although Federally promulgated rules for this purpose are in 
effect in these two states, promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21. EPA has 
currently delegated the authority to implement these regulations to 
Illinois and Minnesota. These Federally promulgated rules include 
provisions that address the requirements obligated by the 2008 NSR 
Rule, including those that explicitly identify precursors to 
PM2.5, and account for PM2.5 and PM10 
condensables for applicability determinations and in establishing 
emissions limitations for PM2.5 and PM10 in PSD 
permits. EPA acknowledges that these two states have not satisfied the 
requirement for a SIP submission, which results in a proposed 
disapproval with respect to this set of infrastructure SIP requirements 
of section 110(a)(2)(C). However, Illinois and Minnesota have no 
further obligations to EPA because both states administer the Federally 
promulgated PSD regulations.
    On August 9, 2013, and supplemented on September 19, 2013, Michigan 
submitted revisions to its PSD program incorporating the necessary 
changes obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule, including provisions that 
explicitly identify precursors to PM2.5 and account for 
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables for applicability 
determinations and in establishing emissions limitations for 
PM2.5 and PM10 in PSD permits. MDEQ also 
requested that these revisions satisfy not only the requirements of the 
2008 NSR Rule, but any applicable PSD requirements associated with the 
2008 Pb NAAQS infrastructure SIP. EPA's final approval of MDEQ's SIP 
revisions with respect to the 2008 NSR Rule was published on April 4, 
2014 (see 79 FR 18802). Therefore, we are proposing that Michigan has 
met this set of requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 
Pb NAAQS regarding the requirements obligated by the 2008 
NSR Rule.
Sub-Element 5: 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).
    Illinois and Minnesota have not adopted or submitted regulations 
for PSD, although Federally promulgated rules for this purpose are in 
effect in these two states, promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21. EPA has 
currently delegated the authority to implement these regulations to 
Illinois and Minnesota. These Federally promulgated rules include 
provisions that address the requirements obligated by the 2010 NSR 
Rule, including the increments established by the 2010 NSR Rule for 
incorporation into the SIP, as well as the revised major source 
baseline date, trigger date, and baseline area level of significance 
for PM2.5. EPA acknowledges that these two states have not 
satisfied the requirement for a SIP submission, which results in a 
proposed disapproval with respect to this set of infrastructure SIP 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C). However, Illinois and Minnesota 
have no further obligations to EPA because both states administer the 
Federally promulgated PSD regulations.
    On August 9, 2013, and supplemented on September 19, 2013, Michigan 
submitted revisions to its PSD program incorporating the necessary 
changes obligated by the 2010 NSR Rule, including the increments 
established by the 2010 NSR Rule for incorporation into the SIP, as 
well as the revised major source baseline date, trigger date, and 
baseline area level of significance for PM2.5. MDEQ also 
requested that these revisions satisfy not only the requirements of the 
2010 NSR Rule, but any applicable PSD requirements associated with the 
2008 Pb NAAQS infrastructure SIP. EPA's final approval

[[Page 27249]]

of MDEQ's SIP revisions with respect to the 2010 NSR Rule was published 
on April 4, 2014 (see 79 FR 18802). Therefore, we are proposing that 
Michigan has met this set of requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS regarding the requirements obligated by the 2010 NSR 
Rule.
Sub-Element 5: GHG Permitting and the ``Tailoring Rule''
    On June 3, 2010, EPA issued a final rule establishing a ``common 
sense'' approach to addressing GHG emissions from stationary sources 
under the CAA permitting programs. The ``Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule,'' or 
``Tailoring Rule,'' set thresholds for GHG emissions that define when 
permits under the NSR PSD and title V operating permit programs are 
required for new and existing industrial facilities (see 75 FR 31514). 
The Tailoring Rule set the GHG PSD applicability threshold at 75,000 
tpy as expressed in carbon dioxide equivalent; if states have not 
adopted this threshold, sources with GHG emissions above 100 tpy or 250 
tpy (depending on source category) would be subject to PSD, effective 
January 2, 2011. The lower thresholds could potentially result in 
certain residential and commercial sources triggering GHG PSD 
requirements.
    On December 23, 2010, EPA issued a subsequent series of rules that 
put the necessary framework in place to ensure that industrial 
facilities can get CAA permits covering their GHG emissions when 
needed, and that facilities emitting GHGs at levels below those 
established in the Tailoring Rule do not need to obtain CAA 
permits.\20\ Included in this series of rules was EPA's issuance of the 
``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State 
Implementation Plans,'' referred to as the PSD SIP ``Narrowing Rule'' 
on December 30, 2010 (see 75 FR 82536). The Narrowing Rule limits, or 
``narrows,'' EPA's approval of PSD programs that were previously 
approved into SIPs; the programs in question are those that apply PSD 
to sources that emit GHG. Specifically, the effect of the Narrowing 
Rule is that provisions that are no longer approved--e.g., portions of 
already approved SIPs that apply PSD to GHG emissions increases from 
sources emitting GHG below the Tailoring Rule thresholds--now have the 
status of having been submitted by the state but not yet acted upon by 
EPA. In other words, the Narrowing Rule focuses on eliminating the PSD 
obligations under Federal law for sources below the Tailoring Rule 
thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ http://www.epa.gov/NSR/actions.html#2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Illinois and Minnesota have not adopted or submitted regulations 
for PSD, although Federally promulgated rules for this purpose are in 
effect in these two states, promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21. EPA has 
currently delegated the authority to implement these regulations to 
Illinois and Minnesota. These Federally promulgated rules contain the 
GHG thresholds as outlined in the Tailoring Rule. EPA acknowledges that 
the states have not satisfied the requirement for a SIP submission, 
which results in a proposed disapproval with respect to this set of 
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C). However, 
Illinois and Minnesota have no further obligations to EPA because both 
states administer the Federally promulgated PSD regulations. Note, 
however, that EPA does propose that Illinois and Minnesota have met the 
requirement contained in section 110(a)(2)(E) regarding resources 
specific to permitting GHG.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that states have the 
resources to administer an air quality management program. Some 
states that are not covered by the Narrowing Rule may not be able to 
adequately demonstrate that they have adequate personnel to issue 
GHG permits to all sources that emit GHG under the Tailoring Rule 
thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 27, 2010, Michigan informed EPA that the State has both the 
legal and regulatory authority, as well as the resources, to permit GHG 
under its SIP-approved PSD permitting program, consistent with the 
thresholds laid out in the Tailoring Rule.\22\ Therefore, EPA proposes 
that Michigan's GHG PSD permitting program has met this set of 
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (E) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Letter from the Director of MDEQ to EPA Region 5 Regional 
Administrator dated July 27, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of the 2008 Pb NAAQS infrastructure SIPs, EPA 
reiterates that NSR reform regulations are not in the scope of these 
actions. Therefore, we are not taking action on existing NSR reform 
regulations for Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.
    To address the pre-construction regulation of the modification and 
construction of minor stationary sources and minor modifications of 
major stationary sources, an infrastructure SIP submission should 
identify the existing EPA-approved SIP provisions and/or include new 
provisions that govern the minor source pre-construction program that 
regulates emissions of the relevant NAAQS pollutants. EPA approvals for 
each state's minor NSR program occurred on: Illinois--May 31, 1972 (37 
FR 10862); Michigan--May 6, 1980 (45 FR 29790); Minnesota--May 24, 1995 
(60 FR 27411); and, Wisconsin--February 17, 1995 (60 FR 3543). Since 
these dates, each state agency 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 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    Furthermore, various 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.

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate Transport

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions 
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state 
from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with 
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state.
    With respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS, the 2011 Memo notes that the 
physical properties of Pb prevent it from experiencing the same travel 
or formation phenomena as PM2.5 or ozone. Specifically, 
there is a sharp decrease in Pb concentrations as the distance from a 
Pb source increases. Accordingly, it may be possible for a source in a 
state to emit Pb at a location and in such quantities that contribute 
significantly to nonattainment in, or interference with maintenance by, 
any other state. However, EPA anticipates that this would be a rare 
situation, e.g., sources emitting large quantities of Pb are in close 
proximity to state boundaries. The 2011 Memo suggests that the 
applicable interstate transport requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) can be met through a state's assessment as to 
whether or not emissions from Pb sources located in close proximity to 
its borders have emissions that impact a neighboring state such that 
they contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance in that state. One way that a state's conclusion could be 
supported is by the technical support documents used for initial area 
designations for Pb.
    In its infrastructure SIP submission, Illinois noted that a small 
portion of Madison County and Cook County were designated as 
nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS (see 75 FR 71033 and 76 FR 72097). 
EPA's final technical support documents for these two

[[Page 27250]]

nonattainment areas support the notion that the ambient concentration 
of Pb are not expected to exceed the NAAQS outside of the nonattainment 
boundaries. Furthermore, EPA does not believe that the elevated levels 
of ambient Pb concentrations in Madison County or Cook County (or 
emissions from any other county) would cause or contribute to a 
violation of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in a neighboring state, or create a 
situation in a neighboring state where maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS 
was not possible. Therefore, EPA proposes that Illinois has met this 
set of requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 
Pb NAAQS.
    Michigan noted that EPA designated a small portion of Ionia County 
as nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS (see 76 FR 72097). EPA's final 
technical support documents for this nonattainment area support the 
notion that the ambient concentration of Pb are not expected to exceed 
the NAAQS outside of the nonattainment boundaries. MDEQ's submission 
also confirms that impact screening performed by the state indicates 
that no adverse impacts to air quality are expected to neighboring 
states, Canada, or Class I areas from existing Pb-emitting sources in 
Michigan. Furthermore, EPA does not believe that the elevated levels of 
ambient Pb concentrations in Ionia County (or Pb emissions from any 
other county) would cause or contribute to a violation of the 2008 Pb 
NAAQS in a neighboring state, the closest of which is Indiana 
(approximately 100 miles away from the nonattainment area in Ionia 
County). Similarly, EPA does not believe that Pb concentrations in this 
area would create a situation in a neighboring state where maintenance 
of the 2008 Pb NAAQS was not possible. Therefore, EPA proposes that 
Michigan has met this set of requirements related to section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    EPA designated a portion of Dakota County in Minnesota as 
nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS (see 75 FR 71033). Minnesota's 
submission notes, and EPA has confirmed, that but for the ambient air 
monitor located in Dakota County, all other monitors in the state have 
recorded very low values of Pb. EPA's final technical support documents 
for the nonattainment area in Dakota County support the notion that the 
ambient concentration of Pb are not expected to exceed the NAAQS 
outside of the nonattainment boundaries; the distance from Dakota 
County to the Minnesota-Wisconsin state line is approximately 20 miles. 
MPCA also notes that the sources of Pb emissions in Minnesota with 
yearly emissions greater than 0.5 tpy are not located close to any 
borders with neighboring states. Furthermore, EPA does not believe that 
the elevated levels of ambient Pb concentrations in Dakota (or 
emissions from any other county) would cause or contribute to a 
violation of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in a neighboring state or create a 
situation in a neighboring state where maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS 
was not possible. Therefore, EPA proposes that Minnesota has met this 
set of requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 
Pb NAAQS.
    EPA has designated the entirety of Wisconsin as unclassifiable/
attainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS (see 76 FR 72097). In its submission, 
WDNR notes that there is only one site in the state which requires 
continued ambient air monitoring for Pb emissions, and this area is 
approximately 70 miles from the Wisconsin-Illinois state line. 
Wisconsin also notes that other sources emitting at or above 0.5 tpy or 
more of Pb were found to contribute less than 50% of the NAAQS to the 
surrounding area's ambient air quality. EPA does not believe that 
emissions in any county of Wisconsin would cause or contribute to a 
violation of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in a neighboring state or create a 
situation in a neighboring state where maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS 
was not possible. Therefore, EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met this 
set of requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 
Pb NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to include provisions 
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state 
from interfering with measures required to prevent significant 
deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in another state.
    EPA notes that each state's satisfaction of the applicable 
infrastructure SIP PSD requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS has been 
detailed in the section addressing section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA 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.
    Illinois and Minnesota have not adopted or submitted regulations 
for PSD, although Federally promulgated rules for this purpose are in 
effect in these two states, promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21. EPA has 
currently delegated the authority to implement these regulations to 
Illinois and Minnesota. These Federally promulgated rules contain the 
applicable provisions contained in the Phase 2 Rule, the 2008 NSR Rule, 
the 2010 NSR Rule, and the GHG thresholds as outlined in the Tailoring 
Rule. EPA acknowledges that the states have not satisfied the 
requirement for a SIP submission, which results in a proposed 
disapproval with respect to these requirements. However, Illinois and 
Minnesota have no further obligations to EPA because both states 
administer the Federally promulgated PSD regulations.
    Michigan has submitted revisions to its PSD regulations that are 
wholly consistent with the EPA's requirements contained in the Phase 2 
Rule, the 2008 NSR Rule, and the 2010 Rule. These revisions were 
approved on April 4, 2014 (see 79 FR 18802), and in this rulemaking, we 
are proposing that Michigan has met the applicable infrastructure SIP 
requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS as they relate to the requirements 
obligated by EPA's PSD regulations. We are also proposing that Michigan 
has met the applicable PSD requirements associated with the permitting 
of GHG emitting sources consistent with the thresholds laid out in the 
Tailoring Rule.
    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.
    Illinois' EPA-approved NNSR regulations can be found in Part 203 of 
the SIP; Michigan's EPA-approved NNSR regulations can be found in Part 
2 of the SIP, specifically in R 336.1220 and R 336.1221; Minnesota's 
EPA-approved NNSR regulations can be found in chapter 7007.4000-
7007.4030; and, Wisconsin's EPA-approved NNSR regulations can be found 
in NR 408. Each state's NNSR regulations contain provisions for how the 
state must treat and control sources in Pb nonattainment areas, 
consistent with 40 CFR 51.165, or appendix S to 40 CFR 51. EPA proposes 
that Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have met the 
requirements with respect to the prohibition of interference with a 
neighboring state's PSD program for the 2008 Pb NAAQS related to 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility 
protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are subject to 
visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the 
CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2009 Memo, the 2011

[[Page 27251]]

Memo, and 2013 Memo state that these requirements can be satisfied by 
an approved SIP addressing reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment, if required, or an approved SIP addressing regional haze. 
Alternatively, the 2011 Memo states that most, if not all, Pb 
stationary sources are located at distances from Class I areas such 
that visibility impacts would be negligible. Although Pb can be a 
component of coarse and fine particles, it generally comprises a small 
fraction. When EPA evaluated the extent that Pb could impact 
visibility, Pb-related visibility impacts were found to be 
insignificant (e.g., less than 0.10%). Therefore, EPA anticipates that 
Pb emissions will contribute only negligibly to visibility impairment 
at Class I areas, and states can include an assessment as to this 
assumption in their submissions.
    EPA's final approval of Illinois' regional haze plan was published 
on July 6, 2012 (see 77 FR 39943). The closest Class I area (Mingo 
National Wildlife Refuge, Missouri) is located more than 150 miles away 
from the partial Madison County nonattainment area. As a result, EPA 
anticipates that Class I areas would experience less than 0.10% of 
adverse visibility impact from any Pb-emitting sources in Illinois. EPA 
proposes that Illinois has met this set of infrastructure SIP 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    EPA's final approval of Michigan's regional haze plan was published 
on December 3, 2012 (see 77 FR 71533). Michigan's impact screening of 
Pb-emitting sources indicated that no adverse impacts on air quality 
should be expected in Class I areas. As a result, EPA anticipates that 
Class I areas would experience less than 0.10% of adverse visibility 
impact from any Pb-emitting source in Michigan. EPA proposes that 
Michigan has met this set of infrastructure SIP requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    EPA's final approval of Minnesota's regional haze plan was 
published on June 12, 2012 (see 77 FR 34801). While the U.S. Steel 
Minntac facility is located approximately 50 miles from the closest 
Class I area (Boundary Waters, Minnesota), EPA had previously 
determined that the ambient concentrations of Pb in the area around the 
facility were expected to be less than 50% of the 2008 Pb NAAQS. When 
the distance between the facility and the Boundary Waters is 
considered, EPA anticipates that Class I areas would experience less 
than 0.10% of adverse visibility impact from any Pb-emitting source in 
Minnesota. EPA proposes that Minnesota has met this set of 
infrastructure SIP requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 Pb 
NAAQS.
    EPA's final approval of Wisconsin's regional haze plan was 
published on August 7, 2012 (see 77 FR 46952). As previously discussed 
in the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), there is only one required Pb monitor 
in the state, and the local impacts from all other Pb-emitting sources 
at or above 0.5 tpy are expected to be less than half of the 2008 Pb 
NAAQS. The closest Class I area (Rainbow Lake, Wisconsin) is located 
more than 200 miles from the closest Pb-emitting source emitting at or 
above 0.5 tpy, and EPA anticipates that this area (or any other Class I 
area) would experience less than 0.10% of adverse visibility impact 
from any Pb-emitting sources in Wisconsin. EPA proposes that Wisconsin 
has met this set of infrastructure SIP requirements of 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each SIP to contain adequate 
provisions requiring compliance with the applicable requirements of 
section 126 and section 115 (relating to interstate and international 
pollution abatement, respectively).
    Section 126(a) requires new or modified sources to notify 
neighboring states of potential impacts from the source. The statute 
does not specify the method by which the source should provide the 
notification. States with SIP-approved PSD programs must have a 
provision requiring such notification by new or modified sources. A 
lack of such a requirement in state rules would be grounds for 
disapproval of this element.
    While Illinois and Minnesota have not adopted or submitted 
regulations for PSD, Federally promulgated rules for this purpose are 
in effect in each of the states, promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21. EPA has 
currently delegated the authority to implement these regulations to 
Illinois and Minnesota. These Federally promulgated rules contain 
provisions requiring new or modified sources to notify neighboring 
states of potential negative air quality impacts. EPA acknowledges that 
the states have not satisfied the requirement for a SIP submission, 
which results in a proposed disapproval with respect to this set of 
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). However, 
Illinois and Minnesota have no further obligations to EPA because both 
states administer the Federally promulgated PSD regulations.
    Michigan and Wisconsin have provisions in their respective EPA-
approved PSD programs requiring new or modified sources to notify 
neighboring states of potential negative air quality impacts. The 
states' submissions reference these provisions as being adequate to 
meet the requirements of section 126(a). EPA proposes that Michigan and 
Wisconsin have met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 
126(a) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. None of the states referenced 
in this rulemaking have obligations under any other section of section 
126.
    The submissions from Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin 
affirm that none of these states have pending obligations under section 
115. EPA therefore is proposing that these states have met the 
applicable infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 
related to section 115 of the CAA (international pollution abatement).

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate Resources

    This section requires each state to provide for adequate personnel, 
funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP, and 
related issues. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also requires each state to 
comply with the requirements respecting state boards under section 128.
Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, Funding, and Legal Authority Under 
State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and Related Issues
    At the time of its submittal, Illinois EPA cited the recently 
passed Public Act in the state that provides appropriations for the 
Illinois Bureau of Air Programs and associated personnel. In addition 
to the environmental performance partnership agreement (EnPPA) with 
EPA, Illinois has confirmed that it retains all necessary resources to 
carry out required air programs. As discussed in previous sections, 
Illinois EPA has affirmed that 415 ILCS 5/4 and 415 ILCS 5/10 provide 
the Director, in conjunction with IPCB, with the authority to develop 
rules and regulations necessary to meet ambient air quality standards 
and respond to any EPA findings of inadequacy with the Illinois SIP 
program. Lastly, the IPCB ensures compliance with required laws or 
elements of the state's attainment plan that are necessary to attain 
the NAAQS, or that are necessary to comply with the requirements of the 
CAA. EPA proposes that Illinois has met the infrastructure SIP 
requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

[[Page 27252]]

    Michigan's budget ensures that EPA grant funds as well as state 
funding appropriations are sufficient to administer its air quality 
management program, and MDEQ has routinely demonstrated that it retains 
adequate personnel to carry out the duties of this program. Michigan's 
EnPPA with EPA documents certain funding and personnel levels for MDEQ. 
Furthermore, Act 451 provides the legal authority under state law to 
carry out the Michigan SIP. EPA proposes that Michigan has met the 
infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) 
with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    Minnesota provided information on the state's authorized spending 
by program, program priorities, and the State budget. MPCA's EnPPA with 
EPA provides the MPCA's assurances of resources to carry out certain 
air programs. EPA also notes that Minnesota Statute chapter 116.07 
provides the legal authority under State law to carry out the SIP. EPA 
proposes that Minnesota has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of 
this portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    Wisconsin's biennial budget ensures that EPA grant funds as well as 
State funding appropriations are sufficient to administer its air 
quality management program, and WDNR has routinely demonstrated that it 
retains adequate personnel to administer its air quality management 
program. Wisconsin's EnPPA with EPA documents certain funding and 
personnel levels at WDNR. As discussed in previous sections, basic 
duties and authorities in the State are outlined in WS chapter 285.11. 
EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met the infrastructure SIP requirements 
of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2008 Pb 
NAAQS.
    As noted above in the discussion addressing section 110(a)(2)(C), 
the resources needed to permit all sources emitting more than 100 tpy 
or 250 tpy (as applicable) of GHG would require more resources than any 
Region 5 State appears to have. This is not a concern in Illinois and 
Minnesota, because PSD permitting for GHGs is based on Federally 
promulgated PSD rules that ``tailor'' the applicability to 75,000 tons 
per year (expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent).
    EPA confirms that Michigan's PSD regulations provide the state with 
adequate resources to issue permits to sources with GHG emissions 
consistent with the Tailoring Rule thresholds; therefore, EPA proposes 
that Michigan retains all the resources necessary to implement the 
requirements of its SIP.
    Given the effect of EPA's Narrowing Rule to provide that 
Wisconsin's approved SIP does not involve permitting GHG sources 
smaller than the Tailoring Rule thresholds, EPA proposes that Wisconsin 
has the resources necessary to implement the requirements of its SIP.
Sub-Element 2: State Board Requirements Under Section 128 of the CAA
    Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each SIP to contain provisions 
that comply with the state board requirements of section 128 of the 
CAA. That provision contains two explicit requirements: (i) That any 
board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this 
chapter shall have at least a majority of members who represent the 
public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their 
income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under 
this chapter, and (ii) that any potential conflicts of interest by 
members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with 
similar powers be adequately disclosed.
    In today's action, EPA is neither proposing to approve or 
disapprove the portions of the submissions from Illinois, Michigan, 
Minnesota, and Wisconsin intended to address the state board 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). Instead, EPA will take 
separate action on compliance with section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for these 
states at a later time. EPA is working with each of these states to 
address these requirements in the most appropriate way.

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary Source Monitoring System

    States must establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary 
sources and submit periodic emissions reports. Each plan shall also 
require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, 
and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators 
of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources. The state 
plan shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of 
emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and correlation 
of such reports by each state agency with any emission limitations or 
standards established pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the reports 
shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
    Illinois EPA requires regulated sources to submit various reports, 
dependent on applicable requirements and the type of permit issued to 
the source. These reports are submitted to the Bureau of Air's 
Compliance Unit for review, and all reasonable efforts are made by 
Illinois EPA to maximize the effectiveness of available resources to 
review the required reports. EPA proposes that Illinois has satisfied 
the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) with 
respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    Michigan Administrative Code (MAC) R 336.2001 to R 336.2004 provide 
requirements for performance testing and sampling. MAC R 336.2101 to R 
336.2199 provide requirements for continuous emission monitoring, and 
MAC R 336.201 and R 336.202 require annual reporting of emissions. This 
data is available to the public for inspection. EPA proposes that 
Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    Under Minnesota State air quality rules, any NAAQS is an applicable 
requirement for stationary sources. Minnesota's monitoring rules have 
been previously approved by EPA and are contained in Chapter 7011 of 
Minnesota's SIP. Minnesota Statute chapter 116.07 gives MPCA the 
authority to require owners or operators of emission facilities to 
install and operate monitoring equipment, while Chapter 7007.0800 of 
Minnesota's SIP sets forth the minimum monitoring requirements that 
must be included in stationary source permits. Lastly, Chapter 7017 of 
Minnesota's SIP contains monitoring and testing requirements, including 
rules for continuous monitoring. EPA proposes that Minnesota has met 
the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) with 
respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    WDNR requires regulated sources to submit various reports, 
dependent on applicable requirements and the type of permit issued, to 
the Bureau of Air Management Compliance Team. The frequency and 
requirements for report review are incorporated as part of Wisconsin 
Administrative Code NR 438 and Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 439. 
Additionally, WDNR routinely submits quality assured analyses and data 
obtained from its stationary source monitoring system for review and 
publication. Basic authority for Wisconsin's Federally mandated 
Compliance Assurance Monitoring reporting structure is provided in 
Wisconsin Statute Chapter 285.65. EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met 
the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) with 
respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

[[Page 27253]]

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Powers

    This section requires that a plan provide for authority that is 
analogous to what is provided in section 303 of the CAA, and adequate 
contingency plans to implement such authority. The 2011 Memo states 
that infrastructure SIP submissions should specify authority, rested in 
an appropriate official, to restrain any source from causing or 
contributing to Pb emissions which present an imminent and substantial 
endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment.
    Illinois has the necessary authority to address emergency episodes, 
and these provisions are contained in 415 ILCS 5/34. 415 ILCS 5/43(a) 
authorizes the Illinois EPA to request a state's attorney from Illinois 
Attorney General's office to seek immediate injunctive relief in 
circumstances of substantial danger to the environment or to the public 
health of persons. EPA proposes that Illinois has met the applicable 
infrastructure SIP requirements for this portion of section 
110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    Michigan R 324.5518 of Act 451 provides MDEQ with the authority to 
require the immediate discontinuation of air contaminant discharges 
that constitute an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public 
health, safety, or welfare, or to the environment. Furthermore, R 
324.5530 of Act 451 provides for civil action by the Michigan Attorney 
General for violations described in R 324.5518. EPA proposes that 
Michigan has met the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for 
this portion of section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    Minnesota Statute 116.11 and Chapter 7000.5000 of the Minnesota SIP 
contain the emergency powers set forth in the state. Specifically, 
these regulations allow the agency to direct the immediate 
discontinuance or abatement of the pollution without notice and without 
a hearing, or at the request of the agency, the Attorney General may 
bring an action in the name of the state in the appropriate district 
court for a temporary restraining order to immediately abate or prevent 
the pollution. EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the applicable 
infrastructure SIP requirements for this portion of section 
110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    WS chapter 285.85 provides the requirement for WDNR to act upon a 
finding that episode or emergency conditions exist. The language 
contained in this chapter authorizes WDNR to seek immediate injunctive 
relief in circumstances of substantial danger to the environment or to 
public health. EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met the applicable 
infrastructure SIP requirements for this portion of section 
110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    As indicated in the 2011 Memo, EPA believes that the central 
components of a contingency plan for the 2008 Pb NAAQS would be to 
reduce emissions from the source at issue and to communicate with the 
public as needed. Where a state believes, based on its inventory of Pb 
sources and historic monitoring data, that it does not need a more 
specific contingency plan beyond having authority to restrain any 
source from causing or contributing to an imminent and substantial 
endangerment, then the state could provide such a detailed rationale in 
place of a specific contingency plan.
    EPA has reviewed historic data at Pb monitoring sites throughout 
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, and believes that a 
specific contingency plan beyond having authority to restrain any 
source from causing or contributing to an imminent and substantial 
endangerment is not necessary at this time. For example, one way to 
quantify the possibility of imminent and substantial endangerment in 
this context would be a daily monitored value for Pb that could by 
itself cause a violation of the 2008 Pb NAAQS.\23\ EPA has reviewed 
data from 2011-2013 (the most recent consecutive 36-month block of 
complete data) and observes that no such daily monitored value exists. 
As described in the section detailing interstate transport of Pb, EPA 
does not anticipate other areas in these states needing specific 
contingency measures due to low Pb emissions. EPA proposes that 
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have met the applicable 
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) related to 
contingency measures for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See appendix R to 40 CFR Part 50 for data handling 
conventions and computations necessary for determining when the 
NAAQS are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP Revisions

    This section requires states to have the authority to revise their 
SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved 
methods for attaining the NAAQS, or to an EPA finding that the SIP is 
substantially inadequate.
    As previously mentioned, 415 ILCS 5/4 and 415 ILCS 5/10 provide the 
Director of Illinois EPA, in conjunction with IPCB, with the authority 
to develop rules and regulations necessary to meet ambient air quality 
standards. Furthermore, they have the authority to respond to any EPA 
findings of inadequacy with the Illinois SIP program. EPA proposes that 
Illinois has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    Michigan Act 451 324.5503 and 324.5512 provide the authority to: 
Promulgate rules to establish standards for ambient air quality and 
emissions; issue, deny, revoke, or reissue permits; make findings of 
fact and determinations; make, modify, or cancel orders that require 
the control of air pollution and/or permits rules and regulations 
necessary to meet NAAQS; and prepare and develop a general 
comprehensive plan for the control or abatement of existing air 
pollution and for control or prevention of any new air pollution. EPA 
proposes that Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    Minnesota Statute chapter 116.07 grants the agency the authority to 
``[a]dopt, amend, and rescind rules and standards having the force of 
law relating to any purpose . . . for the prevention, abatement, or 
control of air pollution.'' EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the 
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    WS chapter 285.11(6) provides WDNR with the authority to develop 
all rules, limits, and regulations necessary to meet the NAAQS as they 
evolve, and to respond to any EPA findings of inadequacy with the 
overall Wisconsin SIP and air management programs. EPA proposes that 
Wisconsin has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions 
Under Part D

    The CAA requires that each plan or plan revision for an area 
designated as a nonattainment area meet the applicable requirements of 
part D of the CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment areas.
    EPA has determined that section 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to 
the infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA takes action on part D 
attainment plans through separate processes.

[[Page 27254]]

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation With Government Officials; Public 
Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection

    The evaluation of the submissions from Illinois, Michigan, 
Minnesota, and Wisconsin with respect to the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(J) are described below.
Sub-Element 1: Consultation With Government Officials
    States must provide a process for consultation with local 
governments and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS 
implementation requirements.
    Illinois EPA is required to give notice to the Office of the 
Attorney General and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources 
during the rulemaking process. Furthermore, Illinois provides notice to 
reasonably anticipated stakeholders and interested parties, as well as 
to any FLM if the rulemaking applies to Federal land which the FLM has 
authority over. Additionally, Illinois EPA participates in the Lake 
Michigan Air Director's Consortium (LADCO), which consists of 
collaboration with the states of Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, 
and Wisconsin. EPA proposes that Illinois has met the infrastructure 
SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect 
to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    MDEQ actively participates in planning efforts that include 
stakeholders from local governments, the business community, and 
community activist groups. MDEQ also routinely involves FLMs and Tribal 
groups in Michigan SIP development. Michigan is also an active member 
of LADCO. Therefore, EPA proposes that Michigan has met the 
infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) 
with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    Historically, MPCA actively participated in the Central Regional 
Air Planning Association as well as the Central States Air Resource 
Agencies. MPCA is now a full-time member of LADCO, and it has also 
demonstrated that it frequently consults and discusses issues with 
pertinent Tribes. Therefore, EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the 
infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) 
with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    WS chapter 285.13(5) contains the provisions for WDNR to advise, 
consult, contract, and cooperate with other agencies of the state and 
local governments, industries, other states, interstate or inter-local 
agencies, the Federal government, and interested persons or groups 
during the entire process of SIP revision development and 
implementation and for other elements regarding air management for 
which the agency is the officially charged agency. WDNR's Bureau of Air 
Management has effectively used formal stakeholder structures in the 
development and refinement of all SIP revisions. Additionally, 
Wisconsin is an active member of LADCO. EPA proposes that Wisconsin has 
satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of 
section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: Public Notification
    Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires states to notify the public if 
NAAQS are exceeded in an area and must enhance public awareness of 
measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances.
    Illinois EPA continues to collaborate with the Cook County 
Department of Environmental Control. This consists of: Continued and 
routine monitoring of air quality throughout the State, and notifying 
the public when unhealthy air quality is measured or forecasted. 
Specific to Pb, Illinois EPA maintains a publicly available Web site 
that allows interested members of the community and other stakeholders 
to obtain information about the adverse health effects associated with 
Pb, as well as the efforts being taken to mitigate elevated levels of 
Pb.\24\ EPA proposes that Illinois has met the infrastructure SIP 
requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See http://www.epa.state.il.us/community-relations/fact-sheets/pilsen-neighborhood-lead/fact-sheet-1.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MDEQ posts current air quality concentrations on its Web pages, and 
prepares an annual air quality report. Specific to Pb, the agency 
maintains a Web site devoted to informing the public and other 
interested parties of the health and environmental effects associated 
with exposure to Pb, as well as resources for retailers who recycle 
batteries containing Pb. Lastly, the Pb oriented Web site contains 
information relating to the nonattainment area in Ionia County 
including: Monitored values of Pb in Ionia County as well as other 
sites in Michigan, technical information about the nonattainment 
designation, soil sampling data, public outreach documents, and ways 
that the state is addressing the elevated levels of Pb in Ionia 
County.\25\ EPA proposes that Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP 
requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-3307_29693_
30031-244345_,00.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minnesota dedicates portions of the MPCA Web site to enhancing 
public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. 
For example, information on these pages includes ways to reduce Pb 
exposure,\26\ as well as the biennial reports that MPCA prepares for 
the state legislature.\27\ EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the 
infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) 
with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/waste/waste-and-cleanup/waste-management/lead.html.
    \27\ See http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/about-mpca/legislative-resources/legislative-reports/air-quality-in-minnesota-reports-to-the-legislature.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    WDNR maintains portions of its Web site specifically for issues 
related to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.\28\ Information related to the one Pb 
monitoring site can be found on Wisconsin's Web site, as is the 
calendar for all public events and public hearings held in the state. 
EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met the infrastructure SIP requirements 
of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2008 Pb 
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/AirQuality/Pollutants.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sub-Element 3: PSD
    States must meet applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 
related to PSD. Each state'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). Our proposed 
actions are reiterated below.
    Illinois and Minnesota have not adopted or submitted regulations 
for PSD, although Federally promulgated rules for this purpose are in 
effect in these two states, promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21. EPA has 
currently delegated the authority to implement these regulations to 
Illinois and Minnesota. These Federally promulgated rules contain the 
applicable provisions contained in the Phase 2 Rule, the 2008 NSR Rule, 
the 2010 NSR Rule, and the GHG thresholds as outlined in the Tailoring 
Rule. EPA acknowledges that the states have not satisfied the 
requirement for a SIP submission, which results in a proposed 
disapproval with respect to these requirements. However, Illinois and 
Minnesota have no further obligations to EPA because

[[Page 27255]]

both states administer the Federally promulgated PSD regulations.
    Michigan has submitted revisions to its PSD regulations that are 
wholly consistent with the EPA's requirements contained in the Phase 2 
Rule, the 2008 NSR Rule, and the 2010 Rule. EPA approved these 
revisions on April 4, 2014 (see 79 FR 18802) and we are proposing that 
Michigan has met the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for the 
2008 Pb NAAQS as they relate to the requirements obligated by EPA's PSD 
regulations. We are also proposing that Michigan has met the applicable 
PSD requirements associated with the permitting of GHG emitting sources 
consistent with the thresholds laid out in the Tailoring Rule.
    In today's action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove 
Wisconsin's satisfaction of the structural PSD elements for 
infrastructure SIPs, including the requirements obligated by the Phase 
2 Rule, the 2008 NSR Rule, and the 2010 NSR Rule. Further, we are not 
proposing to approve or disapprove Wisconsin's satisfaction of the 
applicable PSD requirements associated with the permitting of GHG 
emitting sources consistent with the thresholds laid out in the 
Tailoring Rule. We will address Wisconsin's compliance with all of 
these requirements in a separate rulemaking.
Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility 
protection, states are subject to visibility and regional haze program 
requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 
169B). In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the 
visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not 
change. Thus, we find that there is no new visibility obligation 
``triggered'' under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes 
effective. In other words, the visibility protection requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to infrastructure SIPs for the 
2008 Pb NAAQS.

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)--Air Quality Modeling/Data

    SIPs must provide for performing air quality modeling for 
predicting effects on air quality of emissions from any NAAQS pollutant 
and submission of such data to EPA upon request.
    Illinois EPA maintains the capability to perform modeling of the 
air quality impacts of emissions of all criteria pollutants, including 
the capability to use complex photochemical grid models. This modeling 
is used in support of the SIP for all nonattainment areas in the state. 
Illinois EPA also requires air quality modeling in support of 
permitting the construction of major and some minor new sources under 
the PSD program. These modeling data are available to EPA as well as 
the public upon request. Lastly, Illinois EPA participates in LADCO, 
which conducts regional modeling that is used for statewide planning 
purposes. EPA proposes that Illinois has met the infrastructure SIP 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    MDEQ reviews the potential impact of major and some minor new 
sources, consistent with 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, ``Guidelines on 
Air Quality Models.'' These modeling data are available to EPA upon 
request. Michigan also participates and coordinates with the other 
LADCO states on regional planning efforts. EPA proposes that Michigan 
has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) 
with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    MPCA reviews the potential impact of major and some minor new 
sources. Under R 7007.0500, MPCA may require applicable major sources 
in Minnesota to perform modeling to show that emissions do not cause or 
contribute to a violation of any NAAQS. Furthermore, MPCA maintains the 
capability to perform its own modeling. Because Minnesota administers 
the Federally promulgated PSD regulations, pre-construction permitting 
modeling is conducted in compliance with EPA's regulations. EPA 
proposes that Minnesota has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    WDNR maintains the capability to perform computer modeling of the 
air quality impacts of emissions of all criteria pollutants, including 
both source-oriented and more regionally directed complex photochemical 
grid models. WDNR collaborates with LADCO, EPA, and other Lake Michigan 
States in order to perform modeling. The authorities to perform 
modeling in Wisconsin reside in WS chapter 285.11, WS chapter 285.13, 
and WS chapter 285.60-285.69. EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met the 
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

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

    This section requires SIPs to mandate each major stationary source 
to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving, 
implementing, and enforcing a permit.
    Illinois EPA implements and operates the title V permit program, 
which EPA approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 62946) and the 
provisions, requirements, and structures associated with the costs for 
reviewing, approving, implementing, and enforcing various types of 
permits are contained in 415 ILCS 5/39.5. EPA proposes that Illinois 
has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) for 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    MDEQ implements and operates the title V permit program, which EPA 
approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 62949); revisions to the program 
were approved on November 10, 2003 (68 FR 63735). Section 324.5522 of 
Act 451 confers upon MDEQ the authority to levy and collect an annual 
air quality fee from owners or operators of each fee-subject facility 
in Michigan as defined in R 336.1212. Michigan R 336.1201 contains the 
provisions, requirements, and structures associated with the costs for 
reviewing, approving, implementing, and enforcing various types of 
permits. EPA proposes that Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    MPCA implements and operates the title V permit program, which EPA 
approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 62967). Minnesota Rules 7002.0005 
through 7002.0085 contain the provisions, requirements, and structures 
associated with the costs for reviewing, approving, implementing, and 
enforcing various types of permits. EPA proposes that Minnesota has met 
the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 
2008 Pb NAAQS.
    WDNR implements and operates the title V permit program, which EPA 
approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 62951); revisions to the program 
were approved on February 28, 2006 (71 FR 9934). Wisconsin NR 410 
contains the provisions, requirements, and structures associated with 
the costs for reviewing, approving, implementing, and enforcing various 
types of permits. EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met the 
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2008 Pb 
NAAQS.

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/Participation by Affected Local 
Entities

    States must consult with and allow participation from local 
political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
    All public participation procedures pertaining to Illinois EPA are 
consistent with 35 Illinois Administrative Code Part 164 and Part 252. 
Part 252 is an approved portion of Illinois' SIP. EPA

[[Page 27256]]

proposes that Illinois has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    In Michigan, memoranda of understanding regarding consultation or 
participation in the SIP development process have been entered between 
MDEQ and local political subdivisions. MDEQ also provides opportunity 
for stakeholder workgroup participation in rule development processes. 
Public comment periods, and hearings, if requested, are held in 
accordance with the requirements in 40 CFR Part 51. EPA proposes that 
Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    Minnesota regularly consults with local political subdivisions 
affected by the SIP, where applicable. EPA observes that Minnesota 
Statute chapter 116.05 authorizes cooperation and agreement between 
MPCA and other State and local governments. Additionally, the Minnesota 
Administrative Procedures Act (Minnesota Statute chapter 14) provides 
general notice and comment procedures that are followed during SIP 
development. Lastly, MPCA regularly issues public notices on proposed 
actions. EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the infrastructure SIP 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    In addition to the measures outlined in the paragraph addressing 
WDNR's submittal regarding consultation requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(J), as contained in WS chapter 285.13(5), the state follows a 
formal public hearing process in the development and adoption of all 
SIP revisions that entail new or revised control programs or strategies 
and targets. For SIP revisions covering more than one source, WDNR is 
required to provide the standing committees of the state legislature 
with jurisdiction over environmental matters with a 60 day review 
period to ensure that local entities have been properly engaged in the 
development process. EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met the 
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve most elements of submissions from 
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin certifying that their 
current SIPs are sufficient to meet the required infrastructure 
elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. We are 
also proposing to disapprove some elements of submissions from Illinois 
and Minnesota as they relate to each state's PSD program. As described 
above, both of these states already administer federally promulgated 
PSD regulations through delegation, and therefore no practical effect 
is associated with today's proposed disapproval or future final 
disapproval of those elements.
    EPA's proposed actions for each state's satisfaction of 
infrastructure SIP requirements, by element of section 110(a)(2) are 
contained in the table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Element                 IL        MI        MN        WI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A): Emission limits and other    A         A         A         A
 control measures.
(B): Ambient air quality          A         A         A         A
 monitoring and data system.
(C)1: Enforcement of SIP          A         A         A         A
 measures.
(C)2: PSD program for Pb........  D,*       A         D,*       NA
(C)3: NOX as a precursor to       D,*       A         D,*       NA
 ozone for PSD.
(C)4: PM2.5 Precursors/PM2.5 and  D,*       A         D,*       NA
 PM10 condensables for PSD.
(C)5: PM2.5 Increments..........  D,*       A         D,*       NA
(C)5: GHG permitting thresholds   D,*       A         D,*       NA
 in PSD regulations.
(D)1: Contribute to               A         A         A         A
 nonattainment/interfere with
 maintenance of NAAQS.
(D)2: PSD.......................  **        **        **        **
(D)3: Visibility Protection.....  A         A         A         A
(D)4: Interstate Pollution        D,*       A         D,*       A
 Abatement.
(D)5: International Pollution     A         A         A         A
 Abatement.
(E): Adequate resources.........  A         A         A         A
(E): State boards...............  NA        NA        NA        NA
(F): Stationary source            A         A         A         A
 monitoring system.
(G): Emergency power............  A         A         A         A
(H): Future SIP revisions.......  A         A         A         A
(I): Nonattainment area plan or   NA        NA        NA        NA
 plan revisions under part D.
(J)1: Consultation with           A         A         A         A
 government officials.
(J)2: Public notification.......  A         A         A         A
(J)3: PSD.......................  **        **        **        **
(J)4: Visibility protection.....  +         +         +         +
(K): Air quality modeling and     A         A         A         A
 data.
(L): Permitting fees............  A         A         A         A
(M): Consultation and             A         A         A         A
 participation by affected local
 entities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the above table, the key is as follows:

A Approve
NA No Action/Separate Rulemaking
D Disapprove
+ Not germane to infrastructure SIPs
* Federally promulgated rules in place
** Previously discussed in element (C)

    To clarify, EPA is proposing to disapprove the infrastructure SIP 
submissions from Illinois and Minnesota with respect to certain PSD 
requirements including: (i) Provisions that adequate address the 2008 
Pb NAAQS; (ii) the explicit identification of NOX as a 
precursor to ozone consistent with the Phase 2 Rule; (iii) the explicit 
identification of SO2 and NOX as PM2.5 
precursors (and the significant emissions rates for direct 
PM2.5, and SO2 and NOX as its 
precursors), and the regulation of PM2.5 and PM10 
condensables, consistent with the requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule; 
(iv) the PM2.5 increments and associated implementation 
rules consistent with the 2010 NSR Rule; and, (v) permitting of GHG 
emitting sources at the Federal Tailoring Rule thresholds.
    EPA is also proposing to disapprove the infrastructure SIP 
submissions from Illinois and Minnesota with respect to the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to interstate 
pollution abatement. Specifically, this section requires states with 
PSD

[[Page 27257]]

programs have provisions requiring a new or modified source to notify 
neighboring states of the potential impacts from the source, consistent 
with the requirements of section 126(a).
    However, Illinois and Minnesota have no further obligations to EPA 
because federally promulgated rules, promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21 are in 
effect in each of these states. EPA has delegated the authority to 
Illinois and Minnesota to administer these rules, which include 
provisions related to PSD and interstate pollution abatement. A final 
disapproval for Illinois or Minnesota for these infrastructure SIP 
requirements will not result in sanctions under section 179(a), nor 
will it obligate EPA to promulgate a FIP within two years of final 
action if the states do not submit revisions to their PSD SIPs 
addressing these deficiencies. Instead, Illinois and Minnesota are 
already administering the federally promulgated PSD regulations.

VI. 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 Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 2, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2014-11022 Filed 5-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


