[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 27, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 95043-95047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31017]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0529; FRL-9957-16-Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
approval of some elements of a July 13, 2015 state implementation plan
(SIP) submittal from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2012 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The
infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural
components of each state's air quality management program are adequate
to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. The proposed
rulemaking associated with this final action was published on February
19, 2016, and EPA received adverse comments during the comment period,
which ended on March 21, 2016. Responses to comments are included
below. In this rulemaking, EPA is not taking action on Wisconsin's
satisfaction of the infrastructure requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(F), also referred to as ``element F,'' which pertains to
stationary source monitoring and reporting. EPA proposed approval of
and received an adverse comment on our proposed approval of element F,
which will be addressed in a separate rulemaking. In this rulemaking we
respond to the remainder of the comments we received on our initial
proposed rulemaking, which includes those comments not pertaining to
element F, and finalize as initially proposed our approval of the other
elements of Wisconsin's 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP.
DATES: This final rule is effective on January 26, 2017.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0529. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend
that you telephone Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist, at (312) 886-
6832 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6832,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What is the background of this SIP submittal?
II. Responses to Comments Received on EPA's Proposed Rulemaking
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background of this SIP submittal?
A. What state SIP submittal does this rulemaking address?
This rulemaking addresses a July 13, 2015 infrastructure SIP
submittal from WDNR for the 2012 PM2.5 \1\ NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PM2.5 refers to particles with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers, oftentimes
referred to as ``fine'' particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Why did the State make this SIP submittal?
Under section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to
submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This submittal must contain any
revisions needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2) or certifications that the state's existing SIP for the NAAQS
already meets those requirements.
EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007
guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' and has
issued additional guidance documents, the most recent on September 13,
2013, entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).'' The SIP
submittal referenced in this rulemaking pertains to the applicable
[[Page 95044]]
requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) and addresses the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
EPA is acting upon the SIP submittal from WDNR that addresses the
infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make SIP
submittals of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). States
must make SIP submittals ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as
the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
these SIP submittals are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submittals, and the
requirement to make the submittal is not conditioned upon EPA's taking
any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section
110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach such
plan'' submittal must address.
EPA has historically referred to these SIP submittals made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2)
as ``infrastructure SIP'' submittals. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submittal from submittals that
are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as
SIP submittals that address the nonattainment planning requirements of
part D of Title I of the CAA, the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, and
``regional haze SIP'' submittals required to address the visibility
protection requirements of section 169A of the CAA.
This rulemaking will not cover three substantive areas that are not
integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submittals: (i)
Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction (``SSM'') at sources that may be
contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess
emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance''
or ``director's discretion,'' which purport to permit revisions to SIP-
approved emissions limits with limited public notice or without
requiring further approval by EPA and may be contrary to the CAA; and,
(iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent
with current requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67
FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13,
2007). Instead, EPA has the authority to address each one of these
substantive areas in separate rulemakings. A detailed history,
interpretation, and rationale, as they relate to infrastructure SIP
requirements, can be found in EPA's May 13, 2014, proposed rule
entitled, ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, WDNR; Infrastructure SIP
Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS'' in the section, ``What is the
scope of this rulemaking?'' (see 79 FR 27241 at 27242-27245).
II. Responses to Comments Received on EPA's Proposed Rulemaking
The public comment period for our proposed rulemaking with respect
to WDNR's satisfaction of the infrastructure SIP requirements for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS closed on March 21, 2016. EPA received two
comment letters, one from Clean Wisconsin and one from Midwest
Environmental Advocates (MEA). A synopsis of the comments contained in
these letters and EPA's responses are provided below. As mentioned
previously, EPA is not taking action on CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) in
this rulemaking. EPA's action on element F and our response to the
comment from MEA pertaining to our proposed approval of element F will
be addressed in a separate rulemaking.
Comment 1: With regard to EPA proposing that WDNR has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, MEA comments that particulate and visible
emissions limitations in Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapters NR 415
and NR 431 are outdated, do not reflect the current state of the art in
air pollution control methods, are insufficient to ensure compliance
with the PM2.5 NAAQS, and must be supplemented to meet
Federal standards. Part of this issue stems from the lack of
information about PM2.5 emission factors, control measures,
and public exposure. MEA urges EPA to require WDNR to use its
enforcement program to expand upon the lack of knowledge of
PM2.5 emission factors by requiring testing and monitoring
in lieu of or in addition to fines when settling enforcement cases.
Response 1: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include
enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means or
techniques, as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, and
other related matters. EPA has long interpreted these requirements as
being due when nonattainment planning requirements are
due.2 3 Thus, in the context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA
is not evaluating the existing SIP provisions for the purpose of
emissions limits and control measures, which are connected with
nonattainment planning requirements. Instead, EPA is only evaluating
whether the state's SIP has the basic structural provisions required
for the implementation of the NAAQS. As explained in the proposed rule,
EPA finds that WDNR has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, e.g., EPA's final rule on ``National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Lead.'' 73 FR 66964 at 67034.
\3\ Currently, Wisconsin has no nonattainment areas for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the only nonattainment area in Wisconsin
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS--the Milwaukee-Racine
Nonattainment Area, including Milwaukee, Racine, and Waukesha
counties--has been redesignated (79 FR 22415) to a maintenance area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires each state to provide a program for
enforcement of all SIP measures. Under Wis. Stats. 285.13, WDNR has the
authority to impose fees and penalties to ensure that required measures
are ultimately implemented. Wis. Stats. 285.83 and Wis. Stats. 285.87
provide WDNR with the authority to take enforcement actions and assess
penalties. While, in general, any efforts to expand upon the lack of
knowledge of PM2.5 emission factors via testing and
monitoring would be extremely useful for air quality planning, MEA's
suggestion goes beyond the scope of this rulemaking and the minimum
requirements under the CAA. EPA finds that WDNR's enforcement program,
as it currently exists, has met the enforcement of SIP measures
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, in this rulemaking, EPA is not
requiring WDNR to use its enforcement program to expand upon the lack
of knowledge of PM2.5 emission factors--which is suggested
by MEA--in lieu of or addition to fines when settling enforcement
cases.
Comment 2: With regard to EPA proposing that WDNR has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, MEA comments that WDNR's
PM2.5 monitoring network only includes 20 monitoring sites
for PM2.5 and is insufficient to characterize public
exposure to PM2.5. EPA should expand the ambient air
monitoring network for PM2.5 by using its authority to
require industrial facilities to install and operate ambient monitors
where
[[Page 95045]]
members of the public are likely to be exposed to PM2.5,
especially at possible NAAQS hotspots.
Response 2: WDNR submits annual monitoring network plans to EPA.
EPA approved WDNR's 2016 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan on October
26, 2015, and EPA approved (with exceptions) \4\ WDNR's 2017 Annual Air
Monitoring Network Plan on October 31, 2016. EPA's review of the annual
monitoring plan includes EPA's determination that the state monitors
air quality at appropriate locations throughout the state in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58. EPA's October 26, 2015 approval of WDNR's 2016
Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan and EPA's October 31, 2016 approval
of WDNR's 2017 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan indicates that WDNR
has met the requirements of 40 CFR part 58 with respect to its 2016 and
2017 PM2.5 monitoring networks. Therefore, EPA finds that
Wisconsin has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. WDNR's
Annual Network Plan can be found at http://WDNR.wi.gov/topic/AirQuality/Monitor.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The exceptions do not pertain to Wisconsin's
PM2.5 monitoring network. There are two exceptions to
EPA's approval of Wisconsin's 2017 Annual Air Monitoring Network
Plan. The first exception pertains to Wisconsin's request to shorten
the ozone season which was extended with the revision of the ozone
NAAQS in October 2015 (40 CFR part 58, section 4.1(i)). WDNR must
plan to monitor for ozone, statewide, during the required ozone
season in effect January 1, 2017. EPA's approval of Wisconsin's 2017
Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan does not constitute approval of
the shortened ozone season requested by Wisconsin. The second
exception pertains to a nitrogen dioxide (NO2) monitor.
Wisconsin may discontinue/shut-down the Photochemical Air Monitoring
Station (PAMS) at the Southeast Regional office (SER/DNR) as per
EPA's October 16, 2015 revisions to the PAMS monitoring requirements
with the exception of the NO2 monitor at this site. 40
CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.3 requires the Milwaukee-
Waukesha-West Allis metropolitan statistical area to operate two
NO2 monitoring sites. One site should be collocated with
a near-road site and a second representative of area-wide
NO2 emissions. Wisconsin meets the near-road station
NO2 monitoring requirement with the College Avenue near-
road station and the area-wide monitoring requirement with the
NO2 monitoring conducted at the PAMS at SER/DNR.
Therefore, Wisconsin may discontinue/shut-down the PAMS at SER/DNR
with the exception of the NO2 monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: MEA comments that ``Compounding the issue of
insufficient monitoring is the fact that the WDNR does not require
industrial facilities to provide and report their annual
PM2.5 emissions like they do for PM and PM10.
Each facility is in the best position to know their actual emissions
from the previous year, so not requiring a report at the end of the
year makes it even more difficult to identify any violations. The
information needed to make that assessment would need to be sought out
independently for each facility in the entire state, which requires a
great deal more work than reading a report and comparing it to the
limit. States such as Indiana and Iowa already have this requirement in
place, so it has been successfully implemented elsewhere, and there is
no reason it cannot be done in Wisconsin as well.''
Response 3: EPA will respond to this comment and address in a
separate rulemaking Wisconsin's satisfaction of CAA section
110(a)(2)(F), also referred to as ``element F,'' which pertains to
stationary source monitoring and reporting.
Comment 4: (Note that we have grouped the following comments from
MEA and Clean Wisconsin that are similar in content into a single
comment and response section entitled ``Comment 4.'') MEA is concerned
that WDNR underutilizes air quality modeling as a tool for determining
facility-specific PM2.5 emissions limitations and that this
may result in violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS. MEA, in its
comment letter, provides examples of WDNR permits that set
PM2.5 limits equal to PM10 limits without
conducting PM2.5 modeling. MEA notes that the current WDNR
guideline for permit renewals suggests that if there has been no change
in historical particulate emissions since the last operation permit was
issued, no modeling is necessary to verify compliance with the NAAQS.
MEA also notes that WDNR registration permits only require that
emission stacks be built to a certain height that is taller than any
surrounding building, rather than require a modeling analysis of
PM2.5 emissions.
Both MEA and Clean Wisconsin submitted comments regarding WDNR's
``Guidance for Including PM2.5 in Air Pollution Control
Permit Applications'' (Guidance). Clean Wisconsin notes the recently
issued Guidance changes WDNR's methodology for calculating
PM2.5 emissions from certain sources and uses a weight-of-
evidence approach rather than modeling for permits for certain sources.
Thus, the Guidance will affect WDNR's ability to adequately model and
track PM2.5 emissions and compromise the quality of data and
analysis in determining compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS.
Clean Wisconsin believes the Guidance undermines WDNR's ability to
provide air quality modeling data to accurately predict effects on air
quality of PM2.5 emissions as required by section
110(a)(2)(K). MEA believes the WDNR's weight-of-evidence approach will
not protect WDNR residents from exposure to unhealthy concentrations of
PM2.5 and will fail to ensure that facilities are in
compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS. Clean Wisconsin recommends,
at a minimum, that WDNR conduct additional monitoring of direct
PM2.5 before it can justify changes to its methodology for
estimating PM2.5 emissions. Clean Wisconsin believes the
Guidance serves to describe a general policy of the WDNR, carries the
weight and effect of a rule, and impacts WDNR's implementation of the
PM2.5 NAAQS. MEA believes the Guidance is essentially a
rule, as defined by administrative law, and because WDNR did not follow
its rulemaking process, the Guidance is an unlawful rule. Clean
Wisconsin requests that EPA require WDNR to withdraw the Guidance as a
condition for approval of WDNR's 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure
SIP.
Response 4: Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires SIPs to provide for the
performance of air quality modeling for predicting effects on air
quality of emissions from any NAAQS pollutant and the submission of
such data to EPA upon request. EPA's 2013 infrastructure SIP guidance
indicates that the best practice would be for an air agency to submit
the statutory or regulatory provisions that provide the air agency or
official with the authority to perform the following actions along with
a narrative explanation of how the provisions meet the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(K): (1) Conduct air quality modeling to predict the
effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for
which a NAAQS has been promulgated, and (2) provide such modeling data
to the EPA Administrator upon request. EPA's 2013 infrastructure SIP
guidance indicates EPA recognizes that some air agencies may have
general authorizing provisions that do not enumerate specific
activities but do implicitly authorize the air agency to perform such
activities, in which case inclusion of those provisions would meet the
intent of this best practice. WDNR maintains the capability and the
authority to perform computer modeling of the air quality impacts of
emissions of all criteria pollutants, including both source-oriented
dispersion models and more regionally directed complex photochemical
grid models. Wis. Stats. 285.11, Wis. Stats. 285.13, and Wis. Stats.
285.60-285.69 authorize WDNR to perform air quality modeling. Therefore
EPA finds that WDNR has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
[[Page 95046]]
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is finalizing approval of most elements and deferring action on
one element of a submittal from WDNR certifying that its current SIP is
sufficient to meet the required infrastructure elements under section
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The proposed
rulemaking associated with this final action was published on February
19, 2016 (81 FR 8460), and EPA received comments during the comment
period, which ended on March 21, 2016. EPA has responded to each of the
comments received in the section above with the exception of ``Comment
3,'' which we intend to respond to in a separate rulemaking. EPA is
taking final action to approve, as proposed, most elements of WDNR's
submittal. EPA is not taking action on several elements of WDNR's
submittal that will be addressed in separate rulemakings.
EPA's actions for the state's satisfaction of infrastructure SIP
requirements, by element of section 110(a)(2) and NAAQS, are contained
in the table below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Element 2012 PM2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A)--Emission limits and other control measures........ A
(B)--Ambient air quality monitoring/data system........ A
(C)1--Program for enforcement of control measures...... A
(C)2--PSD.............................................. NA
(D)1--I Prong 1: Interstate transport--significant NA
contribution..........................................
(D)2--I Prong 2: Interstate transport--interfere with NA
maintenance...........................................
(D)3--II Prong 3: Interstate transport--prevention of NA
significant deterioration.............................
(D)4--II Prong 4: Interstate transport--protect A
visibility............................................
(D)5--Interstate and international pollution abatement. A
(E)1--Adequate resources............................... A
(E)2--State board requirements......................... A
(F)--Stationary source monitoring and reporting........ NA
(G)--Emergency power................................... A
(H)--Future SIP revisions.............................. A
(I)--Nonattainment planning requirements of part D..... NA
(J)1--Consultation with government officials........... A
(J)2--Public notification.............................. A
(J)3--PSD.............................................. NA
(J)4--Visibility protection............................ A
(K)--Air quality modeling/data......................... A
(L)--Permitting fees................................... A
(M)--Consultation and participation by affected local A
entities..............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the above table, the key is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A................................. Approve.
NA................................ No Action/Separate Rulemaking.
D................................. Disapprove.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register.
[[Page 95047]]
This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 27, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 13, 2016.
Robert Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. Section 52.2591 is amended by adding paragraph (k) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2591 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.
* * * * *
(k) Approval--In a July 13, 2015, submission, WDNR certified that
the state has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. We are not taking action on the prevention of
significant deterioration requirements related to section
110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), and (J), the transport provisions in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and the stationary source monitoring and
reporting requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F). We will address these
requirements in a separate action.
[FR Doc. 2016-31017 Filed 12-23-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P