[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 149 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45992-46008]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18880]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0805; EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0567; FRL-9708-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Illinois; Indiana; Michigan; Minnesota; Ohio; Wisconsin; Infrastructure
SIP Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards; Indiana NSR/PSD

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve some elements, and disapprove
other elements, of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions by
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin regarding
the infrastructure requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2006 24-hour fine particle national ambient
air quality standards (2006 PM2.5 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. EPA is also proposing to
approve portions of a submittal from Indiana addressing EPA's
requirements for its new source review (NSR) and prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 4, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2009-0805 (infrastructure SIP elements for all Region 5 States) or
EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0567 (Indiana NSR/PSD elements), by one of the
following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID. EPA-R05-OAR-2009-
0805 (infrastructure SIP elements for all Region 5 States) or EPA-R05-
OAR-2012-0567 (Indiana NSR/PSD elements). 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<PHONE_NUMBER> 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,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 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 submittals from each State (and
appropriate State agency) in EPA Region 5: Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (Illinois EPA); Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM); Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ);
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA); Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (Ohio EPA); and Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources Bureau of Air Management (WDNR). Each State made SIP
submissions on the following dates: Illinois--August 9, 2011, and
supplemented on August 25, 2011 and June 27, 2012; Indiana--October 20,
2009, and supplemented on June 25, 2012 and July 12, 2012; Michigan--
August 15, 2011, and supplemented on July 9, 2012; Minnesota--May 23,
2011, and supplemented on June 27, 2012; Ohio--September 4, 2009, and
supplemented on June 3, 2011 and July 5, 2012; and, Wisconsin--January
24, 2011, and supplemented on June 29, 2012.
    The States of Indiana and Wisconsin have also made SIP submissions
intended to address various EPA requirements for their respective NSR
and PSD programs. IDEM submitted revisions on July 12, 2012, for
incorporation into its NSR and PSD program, and also requested that EPA
approve these revisions as satisfying any applicable infrastructure SIP
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. WDNR submitted
revisions to its NSR and PSD programs on May 12, 2011, and while the
SIP submission was not explicitly made to satisfy the infrastructure
SIP requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, a discussion of
the relevant infrastructure SIP requirements and the State's
satisfaction of these requirements is contained in the paragraphs
addressing section 110(a)(2)(C).

B. Why did the States make these SIP submissions?

    Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, and implementing EPA
policy, the States are required to submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure
that their SIPs provide for implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS, including the 2006 PM2.5 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 particulate matter already met 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).
States were required to make SIP submissions meeting the requirements
to EPA within three years after promulgation of the revised standards.
The three-year submittal window was reiterated in a September 25, 2009,
EPA-issued guidance document pertaining to the 2006 PM2.5
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). Because
the finalized 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS was signed and widely
disseminated on September 21, 2006, the due date for infrastructure SIP
submissions to EPA was September 21, 2009. The certifications
referenced in this rulemaking pertain to the applicable requirements of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. The SIP submissions from the six
Region 5 States being evaluated here address only the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the proposed rulemaking addresses only this
pollutant as well.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On June 14, 2012, the Administrator of EPA signed a proposed
rule that would strengthen various aspects of the existing
PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 38890). The State submittals and
EPA's rulemaking do not extend to these proposed NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    This rulemaking will not cover four substantive issues that are not
integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i)
Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources, 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 purport to
permit revisions to SIP approved emissions limits with limited public
process or without requiring further approval by EPA, that may be
contrary to the CAA (``director's discretion''); (iii) existing
provisions for minor source NSR programs that may be inconsistent with
the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such
programs (``minor source NSR''); and, (iv) 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''). Instead, EPA
has committed to address each of these four issues in separate
rulemakings. A detailed rationale for why these four substantive issues
are not part of the scope of infrastructure SIP rulemakings can be
found in EPA's July 13, 2011, final rule entitled, ``Infrastructure SIP
Requirements for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards'' in the section entitled, ``What is the
scope of this final rulemaking?'' (see 76 FR 41075 at 41076-41079).
    In addition to the four substantive issues above, EPA is not acting
on portions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Interstate transport;
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)--Adequate resources; and section
110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation with government officials, public
notifications, PSD, and visibility protection. EPA is also not acting
on section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions
Under Part D, in its entirety. The rationale for not acting on elements
of these requirements is discussed below.

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) identified the statutory elements
that states need to meet 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 for 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Where appropriate, EPA will reference the guidance contained in both
the 2007 Memo and the 2009 Memo as they pertain to the Region 5 States'
submissions.

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

    The six States in Region 5 have certified that they meet the
applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) without
further revisions to their respective SIPs for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, consistent with the 2009 Memo, EPA
believes that no public hearing or comment process was necessary at the
State level for this NAAQS.\2\ Nevertheless, the public will now have
the opportunity to comment on EPA's evaluation of each certification
through our notice-and-comment rulemaking process. Illinois EPA, IDEM,
MDEQ, MPCA, Ohio EPA, and WDNR provided detailed synopses of how
various components of their respective SIPs meet each of the
requirements in section 110(a)(2), as applicable. The following review
evaluates the six States' submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Although the public hearing process was not necessary at the
State level, Ohio EPA held a public hearing on August 13, 2009, and
provided an opportunity for written comments as well. No comments
were received in person, or in writing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The specific nonattainment area
plan requirements of section 110(a)(2)(I), however, are subject to the
timing requirements of section 172, not the timing requirement of
section 110(a)(1). Thus, section 110(a)(2)(A) does not require that
states submit regulations or emissions limits specifically for
attaining the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Those SIP provisions are due
as part of each state's attainment plan, and will be addressed
separately from the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A). 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.
    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 the Director of 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 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    IDEM's authority to adopt emissions standards and compliance
schedules is found at Indiana Code (IC) 13-14-8, IC 13-17-3-4, IC 13-
17-3-11, and IC 13-17-3-14. EPA proposes that Indiana has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to
the 2006 PM2.5 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 2006 PM2.5 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 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 3704.03 provides the Director of Ohio EPA
with the authority to develop rules and regulations necessary to meet
State and Federal ambient air quality standards. EPA proposes that Ohio
has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 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
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 2006 PM2.5 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. EPA is evaluating compliance with section
110(a)(2)(B) in infrastructure SIP submissions by verifying that the
state has submitted an annual monitoring plan for the relevant NAAQS,
and that EPA has approved the most recent plan. 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 summarizes air quality trends.
Furthermore, Illinois EPA submits yearly monitoring network plans to
EPA, and EPA approved the 2012 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan for
PM2.5 on December 19, 2011. 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 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    IDEM continues to operate an air monitoring network; EPA approved
the State's 2012 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan for
PM2.5 on January 3, 2012, including the plan for
PM2.5. EPA noted, however, that IDEM should continue to
search for a suitable replacement location for one monitoring site.
IDEM 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 Indiana has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    MDEQ maintains a comprehensive network of air quality monitors
throughout Michigan. EPA approved MDEQ's 2012 Annual Air Monitoring
Network Plan on December 19, 2011. 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 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    MPCA continues to operate an ambient pollutant monitoring network,
and compiles and reports air quality data to EPA. EPA approved MPCA's
2012 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan for PM2.5 on
December 19, 2011. 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 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Ohio EPA continues to operate a monitoring network; EPA approved
the State's 2012 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan for
PM2.5 on January 11, 2012. Furthermore, Ohio EPA populates
AQS with air quality monitoring data in a timely manner, and provides
EPA with prior notification when considering a change to its monitoring
network or plan. EPA proposes that Ohio has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    WDNR continues to operate an extensive monitoring network; EPA
approved the State's 2012 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan for
PM2.5 on January 3, 2012. 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 2006 PM2.5 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 the PSD and
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA
(sections 160-169B) addresses PSD, while part D of the CAA (sections
171-193) addresses NNSR requirements.
    The evaluation of the Region 5 States' certifications addressing
the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) covers: (i)
Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) identification of precursors to
PM2.5 in the PSD program; (iii) identification of
PM2.5 condensables in the PSD program; (iv) oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) as a precursor to ozone in the PSD program; and, (v)
greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting and the ``Tailoring Rule.''
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 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    IDEM maintains an enforcement program to ensure compliance with SIP
requirements. IC 13-14-1-12 provides the Commissioner with the
authority to enforce rules ``consistent with the purpose of the air
pollution control laws.'' Additionally, IC 13-14-2-7 and IC 13-17-3-3
provide the Commissioner with the authority to assess civil penalties
and obtain compliance with any applicable rule a board has adopted in
order to enforce air pollution control laws. Lastly, IC 13-14-10-2
allows for an emergency restraining order that prevents any person from
causing, or introducing contaminants, that cause or contribute to air
pollution. EPA proposes that Indiana has met the enforcement of SIP
measures requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 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 2006
PM2.5 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. Lastly, Minnesota Statute
Chapter 115.071 outlines the remedies that are available to address
such violations. EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the enforcement of
SIP measures requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Ohio EPA staffs and implements an enforcement program. ORC 3704.03
provides the Director of Ohio EPA with the authority to implement the
enforcement program as well as the updated NSR provisions within Ohio
Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-31. Ohio EPA compiles all air pollution
control enforcement settlements in the State, and makes them available
for public review on its Web site. EPA proposes that Ohio has met the
enforcement of SIP measures requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with
respect to the 2006 PM2.5 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 most actions to the Wisconsin Department of
Justice with the involvement of WDNR. Under WS chapter 285.13, the
agency 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 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 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: Identification of Precursors to PM2.5 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, the EPA identified precursors to
PM2.5 for the PSD program to be sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and NOX (unless the state demonstrates to
the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that
NOX emissions in an area are not a significant contributor
to that area's ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The 2008 NSR
Rule also specifies that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are not
considered to be precursors to PM2.5 in the PSD program
unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction or
EPA demonstrates that emissions of VOCs in an area are significant
contributors to that area's ambient PM2.5 concentrations.
The explicit references to SO2, NOX, and VOCs as
they pertain to secondary PM2.5 formation are codified at 40
CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i). 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).
    As part of identifying pollutants that are precursors to
PM2.5, the 2008 NSR Rule also required states to revise the
definition of ``significant'' as it relates to a net emissions increase
or the potential of a source to emit pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR
51.166(b)(23)(i) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i) define ``significant'' for
PM2.5 to mean the following emissions rates: 10 Tons per
year (tpy) of direct PM2.5; 40 tpy of SO2; and 40
tpy of NOX (unless the state demonstrates to the
Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that NOX
emissions in an area are not a significant contributor to that area's
ambient PM2.5 concentrations).
    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 establishing precursors to PM2.5 both in the
definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' and ``significant.'' 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.
    Indiana submitted revisions to its PSD program incorporating the
necessary changes regarding PM2.5 precursors on July 12,
2012. In this rulemaking, we are proposing to approve portions of these
revisions for incorporation into Indiana's SIP, and we are also
proposing to find that Indiana has met this set of requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically,
changes to 326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 2-2-1(ss), ``Regulated
NSR pollutant,'' have been made to explicitly identify SO2
and NOX as precursors to PM2.5 that will be
evaluated in NSR permit contexts. Additionally, IDEM has also specified
that VOCs are not presumed to be precursors to PM2.5.\3\ The
definition of ``Significant'' has been revised at 326 IAC 2-2-
1(ww)(1)(F) to identify the significant emissions rates for direct
PM2.5, and SO2 and NOX as its
precursors, consistent with the 2008 NSR Rule. EPA is proposing to
approve these revisions into the SIP, and also proposes that Indiana
has met this set of infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Indiana has also specified that ammonia is not a presumed
precursor to PM2.5. Ammonia is relevant only in the
context of NNSR; for the purposes of this rulemaking related to
structural PSD elements, EPA observes that Indiana has properly
identified VOCs as not being a presumed PM2.5 precursor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Michigan is in the process of adopting revisions to its PSD program
that incorporate the necessary changes regarding PM2.5
precursors. Specifically, changes to the Part 18 Rules (R 336.2801-R
336.2823) have been filed at the State level, and MDEQ has committed to
submitting the revisions for incorporation into the SIP when the rules
are adopted at the State level. Although the State has made a specific
commitment to EPA to make the submission required by the 2008 NSR Rule,
the deadline for when states must submit those SIP revisions has since
passed. Therefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove this narrow portion
of Michigan's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C) regarding the identification of PM2.5
precursors for NSR permitting.
    Ohio is in the process of adopting revisions to its PSD program
that incorporate the necessary changes regarding PM2.5
precursors. Specifically, draft changes are being made to OAC 3745-31-
01, and Ohio has committed to submitting the revisions for
incorporation into the SIP when final rules are adopted at the State
level. For the same reasons discussed above for

Michigan, EPA is proposing to disapprove this narrow portion of Ohio's
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with
respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) regarding the
identification of PM2.5 precursors for NSR permitting.
    Wisconsin submitted revisions to its PSD program on May 12, 2011,
intended to meet the requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule. Specifically,
WDNR's revisions to NR 405.02(27)(a)(5) include the significant
emissions rates for direct PM2.5, and SO2 and
NOX as PM2.5 precursors, consistent with the 2008
NSR Rule. However, Wisconsin's PSD regulations include only generic
language to define what constitutes a regulated NSR pollutant that does
not directly account for PM2.5 and its precursors in NSR
permitting. NR 405(02)(25i) defines ``Regulated NSR air contaminant''
as ``[a]ny air contaminant for which a national ambient air quality
standard has been promulgated and any constituents or precursors for
the air contaminants identified by the administrator * * *.'' The 2008
NSR Rule obligates the State to explicitly identify the precursors to
PM2.5 to be addressed in NSR permitting as part of the
definition for ``Regulated NSR air contaminant.'' EPA notes that
although Wisconsin has incorporated the significant emissions rates in
accordance with the 2008 NSR Rule, WDNR has not explicitly identified
SO2 and NOX as precursors to PM2.5 in
defining pollutants regulated by the PSD program. Therefore, we are
proposing to disapprove this narrow portion of Wisconsin's
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with
respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) regarding the
identification of PM2.5 precursors.
Sub-Element 3: Identification of Condensables in the PSD Program
    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\4\ emission
limits in NSR permits. Instead, EPA determined that states had to
account for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables beginning
on or after January 1, 2011. This requirement is codified in 40 CFR
51.166(b)(49)(vi) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(vi). 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ PM10 refers to particles with diameters between
2.5 and 10 microns, oftentimes referred to as ``coarse'' particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Illinois and Minnesota have not adopted or submitted regulations
for PSD, although Federal rules for this purpose, promulgated at 40 CFR
52.21, are in effect in these two States. EPA has currently delegated
the authority to implement these regulations to Illinois and Minnesota.
These Federally promulgated rules include provisions defining
``regulated NSR pollutant'' to include condensables for
PM2.5 and PM10. 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.
    Indiana submitted revisions to its PSD program incorporating the
necessary changes regarding PM2.5 and PM10
condensables on July 12, 2012. Specifically, 326 IAC 2-1.1-1(2) has
been revised to account for condensables in the definition of ``Direct
PM2.5,'' and analogous changes were made at 326 IAC 2-1.1-
1(10) for ``Direct PM10.'' EPA is proposing to approve these
revisions into the SIP, and also proposes that Indiana has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) to account for
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables with respect to the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Michigan is in the process of adopting revisions to its regulations
that incorporate the necessary changes regarding PM2.5 and
PM10 condensables. Changes to Part 1 Rules (R 336.1101-R
336.1128) have been filed at the State level, and MDEQ has committed to
submitting the revisions for incorporation into the SIP when the rules
are adopted at the State level. However, for the same reasons discussed
above regarding the identification of PM2.5 precursors, EPA
is proposing to disapprove this narrow portion of Michigan's
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with
respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) regarding the
regulation of PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in the
PSD program.
    Ohio is in the process of adopting revisions to its regulations
that incorporate the necessary changes regarding PM2.5 and
PM10 condensables. Specifically, draft changes are being
made to OAC 3745-31-01, and Ohio has committed to submitting the
revisions for incorporation into the SIP when final rules are adopted
at the State level. However, for the same reasons described above, EPA
is proposing to disapprove this narrow portion of Ohio's infrastructure
SIP submission for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) regarding the regulation of
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in the PSD program.
    Wisconsin submitted revisions to its PSD program on May 12, 2011.
However, these revisions do not incorporate the necessary changes
regarding the regulation of condensables for PM2.5 and
PM10, nor does Wisconsin's existing SIP account for
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to disapprove this narrow portion of Wisconsin's
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with
respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) regarding the
regulation of PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in the
PSD program.
Sub-Element 4: 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 8, 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\5\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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 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
volatile organic compounds or NOX shall be considered
significant for ozone;
    40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i): Ozone: 40 Tons per year of volatile
organic compounds or nitrogen oxides;
    40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i): Any pollutant for which a national
ambient air quality standard has been promulgated and any
constituents or precursors for such pollutants identified by the
Administrator (e.g., volatile organic compounds and NOX)
are precursors for ozone; and
    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 tons per year or more of volatile organic compounds or nitrogen
oxides

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).
    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
pollutants in PSD permits. In other words, if a state lacks provisions
needed to address NOX as a precursor to ozone, the
provisions of section 110(a)(2)(C) requiring a suitable PSD permitting
program must be considered not to be met irrespective of the pollutant
being addressed (see 76 FR 23757 at 23760). In the same April 28, 2011,
notice, we proposed to approve all six Region 5 States' infrastructure
SIPs with respect to the NOX as a precursor to ozone
provisions in the PSD program requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C).
    In our July 13, 2011, final rulemaking for the 1997 ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIPs, EPA finalized approval of
the portions of the infrastructure SIPs from Indiana, Michigan, and
Ohio with respect to the NOX as a precursor to ozone
provisions requirement of section 110(a)(2)(C). However, EPA
subsequently realized that these three States also lacked sufficient
provisions to identify NOX as a precursor to ozone in their
respective PSD programs, as required by the Phase 2 Rule.
    In lieu of an error correction pursuant to section 110(k)(6) of the
CAA, EPA informed Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio of the factual matter
that portions of their infrastructure SIPs intended to address
NOX as a precursor to ozone provisions were approved as an
oversight. We committed to work with these States to address the
NOX as a precursor to ozone provisions, consistent with the
requirements of the Phase 2 Rule, in the next infrastructure SIP
rulemaking, i.e., today's rulemaking.
    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 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.
    On July 12, 2012, Indiana 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. In this rulemaking, we are proposing to approve these revisions
to Indiana's SIP, and we are also proposing to find that Indiana has
met this set of requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, Indiana has revised the following
sections to align with EPA's own regulations contained in 40 CFR
51.166: 326 IAC 2-2-1(dd)(1): 40 CFR 51.166(b)(2)(ii); 326 IAC 2-2-
1(ff)(7): 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(ii); 326 IAC 2-2-1(ss)(1): 40 CFR
51.166(b)(49)(i); 326 IAC 2-2-1(ww)(1)(G): 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i);
and, 326 IAC 2-2-4(b)(2)(vi): footnote to 40 CFR 51.166 (i)(5)(i)(e).
EPA is proposing to approve these revisions into the SIP, and also
proposes that Indiana has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C)
with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS regarding the explicit
identification of NOX as a precursor to ozone, consistent
with the Phase 2 Rule.
    Michigan is in the process of adopting revisions to its PSD program
that incorporate the necessary changes regarding the explicit
identification of NOX as a precursor to ozone, consistent
with the requirements of the Phase 2 Rule. Specifically, changes to the
Part 18 Rules (R 336.2801--R 336.2823) have been filed at the State
level, and MDEQ has committed to submitting the revisions for
incorporation into the SIP when the rules are adopted at the State
level. However, consistent with actions in Region 5 and other regions
germane to the explicit identification of NOX as a precursor
to ozone in PSD programs, EPA is proposing to disapprove this narrow
portion of Michigan's infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C)
regarding the explicit identification of NOX as a precursor
to ozone in the PSD program.
    Ohio is in the process of adopting revisions to its PSD program
that incorporate the necessary changes regarding the explicit
identification of NOX as a precursor to ozone, consistent
with the Phase 2 Rule. Specifically, draft changes are being made to
OAC 3745-31-01, and Ohio has committed to submitting the revisions for
incorporation into the SIP when final rules are adopted at the State
level. For the same reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to
disapprove this narrow portion of Ohio's infrastructure SIP for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C) regarding the explicit identification of NOX as
a precursor to ozone in the PSD program.
    During the comment period following the April 28, 2011, notice, two
commenters observed that although we proposed to approve Wisconsin's
infrastructure SIP as meeting the correct requirements for
NOX as a precursor to ozone in the State's PSD program,
Wisconsin's PSD SIP does not contain the most recent PSD program
revisions required by EPA for this purpose. A subsequent review of
Wisconsin's PSD SIP indicated that the commenters were correct in their
assertion. Specifically, Wisconsin had not made necessary revisions to
its PSD program with respect to the identification of NOX as
a precursor to ozone, consistent with the explicit requirements of the
Phase 2 Rule. As a result, EPA could not finalize this portion of
Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS in our July 13, 2011, final rulemaking. Instead, a subsequent set
of actions led EPA to disapprove Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP for
this narrow portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS on June 15, 2012 (see 77 FR 35870). A
detailed rationale for our disapproval can be found in the associated
April 20, 2012, proposed rulemaking (see 77 FR 23647).
    This final disapproval triggered the requirement under section
110(c) that EPA promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) no later
than two years from the date of the disapproval unless the State
corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or
plan revision before the Administrator promulgates such FIP. Wisconsin
has not made a subsequent submittal to address the NOX as a
precursor to ozone provisions per the Phase 2 Rule. To clarify, EPA is
not proposing to approve or disapprove any portion of Wisconsin's
infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as it relates to
NOX as a precursor to ozone provisions, specifically because
we have already finalized disapproval of these provisions for the 1997
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIPs. However, as
discussed above, we are proposing to disapprove portions of Wisconsin's
infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to
certain requirements obligated by the 2008 NSR

Rule, including the explicit identification of NOX as a
precursor to PM2.5.
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 (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
apartment complexes, strip malls, small farms, restaurants, etc.
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.\6\
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 (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. Each
Region 5 State's status with respect to its GHG PSD program, as well as
EPA's proposed actions, is discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA finalized approval of revisions to Indiana's PSD SIP on
September 28, 2011 (see 76 FR 59899). These revisions included the
adoption of the Federal thresholds for PSD permitting of GHG-emitting
sources. On June 25, 2012, Indiana clarified that they intended for our
September 28, 2011 approval to satisfy applicable GHG requirements
related to their 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP.
Therefore, EPA proposes that Indiana's GHG permitting program has met
this set of requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(C) and (E) for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    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.\8\ 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 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Letter from the Director of MDEQ to EPA Region 5 Regional
Administrator dated July 27, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The States of Ohio and Wisconsin have the legal authority under
their approved PSD SIPs to regulate GHGs as part of their PSD
permitting programs. In the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA narrowed its
previous approval of these States' PSD programs to ensure that the
Federally approved PSD programs in these two States only require PSD
permitting of sources emitting GHG at or above the thresholds
established in the Tailoring Rule.
    On June 3, 2011, Ohio EPA transmitted a letter confirming that its
2006 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submittal before our review
includes only those parts of their PSD SIP that remain approved after
the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule. On March 28, 2011, Wisconsin transmitted a
similar letter for the purposes of satisfying the same requirements for
the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIPs.
Wisconsin also submitted revisions to its PSD program on May 4, 2011,
adopting the Federal thresholds for GHG emitting sources. EPA is taking
separate action on Wisconsin's May 4, 2011, submission, but for the
purposes of evaluating WDNR's infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA notes that the portions of Wisconsin's
submittal before our review include only those parts of the PSD SIP
that remain approved after the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule. Thus, the GHG
PSD permitting requirements included in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
infrastructure SIP submittals from Ohio and Wisconsin consist of only
those portions of their PSD SIP programs that apply PSD permitting
requirements to GHG emissions at or above Tailoring Rule thresholds.
Therefore, EPA proposes that the GHG PSD permitting program in Ohio and
Wisconsin have met this set of requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C)
and (E) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA reiterates that minor NSR regulations and NSR reform
regulations are not in the scope of infrastructure SIP actions.
Therefore, we are not proposing to approve or disapprove existing minor
NSR regulations or NSR reform regulations for each of the Region 5
States' 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP. Furthermore,
various sub-elements in this section overlap with elements of 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. Furthermore, 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 this notice, we are not proposing to act on the portions of any
state submittal intended to address the interstate transport
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). We previously disapproved
those portions of the SIP submittals from Indiana and Ohio (see 76 FR
43175), and today's action neither proposes to approve nor proposes to
disapprove those portions of the SIP submittals from Illinois,
Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. EPA intends to take separate action
on the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of the SIP submittals from
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Neither Indiana nor Ohio
has a 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submittal pending before the Agency at
this time.
    With respect to the PSD requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), EPA notes that each Region 5 State's satisfaction
of the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 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.
    Although 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. The PSD regulations in question include: (i)
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), consistent with the requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule;
(ii) the regulation of PM2.5 and PM10
condensables consistent with the requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule;
(iii) the explicit identification of NOX as a precursor to
ozone consistent with the Phase 2 Rule; and, (iv) permitting of GHG
emitting sources at the Federal Tailoring Rule thresholds. 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)(i)(II). However, Illinois and Minnesota have no further
obligations to EPA because both States administer the Federally
promulgated PSD regulations.
    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Indiana's PSD SIP that
identify SO2 and NOX as PM2.5
precursors, along with the significant emissions rates for direct
PM2.5 and SO2 and NOX as its
precursors, consistent with the requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule. We
are also proposing to approve revisions to Indiana's SIP that regulate
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables, consistent with the
requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule. Lastly, EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to Indiana's SIP that explicitly identify NOX as a
precursor to ozone, consistent with the requirements of the Phase 2
Rule. EPA approved revisions to Indiana's SIP on September 28, 2011,
that incorporate the Federal thresholds for GHG emitting sources for
PSD permitting. Therefore, EPA proposes that Indiana has met all of the
infrastructure SIP requirements for PSD associated with section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA is proposing to disapprove the portions of infrastructure SIP
submissions from Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin regarding
PM2.5 precursors, and PM2.5 and PM10
condensables, in each of these States' PSD programs. These States have
not made revisions to their PSD programs consistent with the
requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule, and therefore EPA proposes that they
have not met the infrastructure SIP requirements to identify
PM2.5 precursors, or regulate PM2.5 and
PM10 condensables, with respect to the PSD requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    EPA is proposing to disapprove the portions of infrastructure SIP
submissions from Michigan and Ohio regarding the explicit
identification of NOX as a precursor to ozone in each of
these States' PSD programs. These States have not made revisions to
their PSD programs consistent with the requirements of the Phase 2
Rule, and therefore EPA proposes that they have not met the
infrastructure SIP requirements to identify NOX as a
precursor to ozone with respect to the PSD requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). As previously noted, EPA has already finalized
disapproval of portions of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP with respect
to this requirement.
    As stated above, EPA approved revisions to Indiana's SIP on
September 28, 2011, that incorporate the Federal Tailoring Rule
thresholds for GHG emitting sources. Michigan retains the necessary
authority, resources, and personnel to permit GHG emitting sources at
the Federal Tailoring Rule thresholds. Ohio and Wisconsin have the
necessary authority to permit GHG emitting sources at the Federal
Tailoring Rule, and both States have transmitted letters to EPA stating
that their infrastructure SIPs before our review includes only those
parts of their PSD SIP that remain approved after the PSD SIP Narrowing
Rule. Thus, the GHG PSD permitting requirements included in the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submittals from Ohio and
Wisconsin consist of only those portions of their PSD SIP programs that
apply PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions at or above
Tailoring Rule thresholds. EPA proposes that the States of Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio have met the infrastructure SIP
requirements for permitting GHG emitting sources at the Federal
Tailoring Rule thresholds with respect to the PSD requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    EPA reiterates once again that minor NSR regulations and NSR reform
regulations are not in the scope of infrastructure SIP actions.
Therefore, we are not proposing to approve or disapprove existing minor
NSR regulations or NSR reform regulations for each of the Region 5
States' 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP.
    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 states that
these requirements can be satisfied by an approved SIP addressing
reasonably attributable visibility impairment, if required, and an
approved SIP addressing regional haze.
    EPA's final approval of Illinois' regional haze plan was published
on July 6, 2012 (see 76 FR 39943). EPA's final approval of Indiana's
regional haze plan was published on June 11, 2012 (see 77 FR 34218).
EPA's final approval of Ohio's regional haze plan was published on July
2, 2012 (see 77 FR 39177). EPA's final approval of Minnesota's regional
haze plan was published on June 12, 2012 (see 77 FR 34801). EPA's final
approval of Wisconsin's regional haze plan was signed by the Regional
Administrator on June 15, 2012, and is awaiting publication in the
Federal Register. Therefore, EPA proposes that the States of Illinois,
Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have met this set of
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is taking separate action on
Michigan's regional haze plan, which was submitted on November 5, 2010,
and is not proposing to approve or disapprove the visibility protection

and regional haze plan requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for
Michigan in today's action. We will address Michigan's satisfaction of
the infrastructure SIP requirements related to visibility protection
and regional haze of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) after EPA finalizes
action on the regional haze submission.
    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.
    Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, 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 original submissions from Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin
reference each State's PSD program as having adequate provisions to
meet the requirements of section 126(a). Ohio EPA's June 3, 2011,
supplemental submission clarifies that provisions in their PSD program
satisfy the requirements of section 126(a). EPA is proposing that
Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin have met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 126(a) with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. None of the Region 5 States have obligations
under any other section of section 126.
    The original submissions from Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin affirm that none of these States have pending obligations
under section 115, while Illinois EPA's August 25, 2011, and Ohio EPA's
June 3, 2011, supplemental submissions confirmed the same satisfaction
of section 115. EPA therefore is proposing that all Region 5 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 their submittal, Illinois EPA cited the most recent
House Bill and 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, 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 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Indiana's biennial budget and their EnPPA with EPA document funding
and personnel levels for IDEM every two years. As discussed in earlier
sections, IC 13-14-1-12 provides the Commissioner of IDEM with the
authority to enforce air pollution control laws. Furthermore, IC 13-14-
8, IC 13-17-3-11, and IC 13-17-3-14 contain the authority for IDEM to
adopt air emissions standards and compliance schedules. EPA proposes
that Indiana has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this
portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    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 section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to
the 2006 PM2.5 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
section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Ohio EPA has included its most recent biennial budget with its
submittal, which details the funding sources and program priorities
addressing the required SIP programs. Ohio EPA has routinely
demonstrated that it retains adequate personnel to administer its air
quality management program. Ohio's EnPPA with EPA documents certain
funding and personnel levels at Ohio EPA. As discussed in previous
sections, ORC 3704.03 provides the legal authority under State law to
carry out the SIP. EPA proposes that Ohio has met the infrastructure
SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 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 section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to
the 2006 PM2.5 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).
    Given the effect of EPA's Narrowing Rule to provide that approved
SIPs for Ohio and Wisconsin do not involve permitting GHG sources
smaller than the Tailoring Rule thresholds, EPA proposes that these
States also have the resources necessary to implement the requirements
of their respective SIPs.
    As previously discussed, EPA approved revisions to Indiana's PSD
program adopting the Federal Tailoring Rule thresholds for GHG on
September 28, 2011. Therefore, Indiana's SIP as it relates to GHG-
emitting sources for PSD does not involve permitting sources smaller
than the Tailoring Rule thresholds, and EPA proposes that Indiana
retains the resources necessary to implement the requirements of its
SIP.
    EPA confirms that Michigan's PSD regulations provide the State with
adequate resources to permit GHG consistent with the Tailoring Rule
thresholds; therefore, EPA proposes that Michigan retains all 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 respect the state board requirements of section 128, which has 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 each Region 5 State's satisfaction of 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 the
States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin
at a later time. EPA is working with each of the Region 5 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 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    The Indiana State rules for monitoring requirements are contained
in 326 IAC 3. Additional emissions reporting requirements are found in
326 IAC 2-6. Emission reports are available upon request by EPA or
other interested parties. EPA proposes that Indiana has satisfied the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Michigan Administrative Code (MAC) R336.2001 to R336.2004 provide
requirements for performance testing and sampling. MAC R336.2101 to
R336.2199 provide requirements for continuous emission monitoring, and
MAC R336.201 and R336.202 require annual reporting of emissions. EPA
proposes that Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 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 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Ohio EPA district offices and local air agencies are currently
required to witness 50% of all source testing and review 100% of all
tests. EPA recognizes that Ohio has routinely submitted quality assured
analyses and data for publication. Furthermore, requirements for
continuous emissions monitoring under 40 CFR part 51, appendix P are
contained in OAC 3745-17-03(c). EPA proposes that Ohio has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Wisconsin DNR 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 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

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

    EPA is currently in the process of promulgating new guidance
providing values that we would recommend for defining emergency
episodes for PM2.5. Subsequent to the December 2007
submittals, EPA has provided guidance regarding PM2.5
emergency episode planning. This guidance was provided in Attachment B
of a memorandum dated September 25, 2009, from the

Director of the Air Quality Policy Division to the Regional Air
Division Directors. In accordance with this guidance, EPA believes that
all states must have general emergency authority comparable to section
303 of the CAA. With respect to contingency plans, EPA believes that
where a state can demonstrate that PM2.5 levels have
consistently remained below 140.4 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/
m\3\), the state may satisfy section 110(a)(2)(G) without necessarily
providing for specific emergency episode plans or contingency measures
for 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On June 27, 2012, Illinois EPA confirmed that all monitored values
of PM2.5 have been well below 140.4 [micro]g/m\3\ at all
monitoring sites in Illinois, and therefore Illinois does not need to
submit an emergency episode plan and contingency measures for
PM2.5 at this time. Illinois also has the necessary general
authority to address emergency episodes, and these provisions are
contained in 415 ILCS 5/34 and 415 ILCS 5/43(a). EPA proposes that
Illinois has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On June 25, 2012, IDEM confirmed that all monitored values of
PM2.5 have been well below 140.4 [micro]g/m\3\ at all
monitoring sites in Indiana since 1999, and therefore Indiana does not
need to submit an emergency episode plan and contingency measures for
PM2.5 at this time. Several statutory provisions in the
Indiana Code and the IAC provide the proper mechanisms to address air
pollution emergency episodes. EPA proposes that Indiana has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On July 9, 2012, MDEQ confirmed that all monitored PM2.5
values in Michigan have been well below 140.4 [micro]g/m\3\, therefore,
MDEQ does not need to submit an emergency episode plan and contingency
measures for PM2.5 at this time. 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 infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) with
respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On June 27, 2012, MPCA observed that all monitored values of
PM2.5 have been well below 140.4 [micro]g/m\3\ at all
monitoring sites in Minnesota since 2006. Therefore, Minnesota does not
need to submit an emergency episode plan and contingency measures for
PM2.5 at this time. Chapter 7000.5000 and 7009.1050 of the
Minnesota SIP contain the emergency powers set forth in the State.
Chapter 7009.1000-7009.1110 of Minnesota SIP contain the provisions
necessary for determining air quality emergency episodes. EPA proposes
that Minnesota has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On July 5, 2012, Ohio EPA confirmed that all monitored values of
PM2.5 have been well below 140.4 [micro]g/m\3\ at all
monitoring sites in Ohio, and therefore Ohio does not need to submit an
emergency episode plan and contingency measures for PM2.5 at
this time. OAC 3745-25 provides the requirement to implement emergency
action plans in the event of an Air Quality Alert or higher. EPA
proposes that Ohio has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On July 2, 2012, WDNR confirmed that that all monitored values of
PM2.5 have been well below 140.4 [micro]g/m\3\ at all
monitoring sites in Wisconsin, and therefore Wisconsin does not need to
submit an emergency episode plan and contingency measures for
PM2.5 at this time. WS chapter 285.85 provides the
requirement for WDNR to act upon a finding that episode or emergency
conditions exist. EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

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 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS.
    IDEM continues to update and implement needed revisions to
Indiana's SIP as necessary to meet ambient air quality standards. As
discussed in previous sections, authority to adopt emissions standards
and compliance schedules is found at IC 13-4-8, IC 13-17-3-4, IC 13-17-
3-11, and IC 13-17-3-14. EPA proposes that Indiana has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to
the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS.
    Michigan Act<PHONE_NUMBER> and 324.5512 provides 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 2006 p.m.2.5 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 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS.
    ORC 3704.03 provides the Director of Ohio EPA with the authority to
develop rules and regulations necessary to meet ambient air quality
standards. EPA proposes that Ohio has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 2006
p.m.2.5 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 2006 p.m.2.5 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.

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

    The evaluation of the Region 5 States' certifications addressing
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. All EPA Region 5 States consult with
appropriate governments, stakeholders, and FLM in their planning
efforts.
    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, Wisconsin, Michigan, and
Ohio. Lastly, Illinois EPA participates in the Regional Haze Planning
Process through its membership in the Midwest Regional Planning
Organization. EPA proposes that Illinois has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to
the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS.
    IDEM actively participates in the regional planning efforts that
include State rule developers, representatives from the FLMs, and other
affected stakeholders. Additionally, Indiana is an active member of
LADCO. EPA proposes that Indiana has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to
the 2006 p.m.2.5 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 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS.
    MPCA actively participates in the Central Regional Air Planning
Association as well as the Central States Air Resource Agencies. MPCA
has historically participated in LADCO, and is in the process of
becoming a full-time member of the organization. MPCA 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 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS.
    Ohio EPA actively participates in the regional planning efforts
that include both the State rule developers as well as representatives
from the FLMs and other affected stakeholders. The FLMs are also
included in Ohio EPA's interested party lists which provide
announcements of draft and proposed rule packages. Additionally, Ohio
is an active member of LADCO. Therefore, EPA proposes that Ohio has met
the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section
110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2006 p.m.2.5 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 2006 p.m.2.5 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.
Illinois EPA provides air quality data to EPA's AIRNOW program, and
also provides the daily air quality index (AQI) to the media.
Additionally, Illinois EPA provides the AQI to local stakeholder groups
including Partners for Clean Air in Chicago and the Clean Air
Partnership in St. Louis. Lastly, air quality data, as well as measures
that can be taken to prevent exceedances, are available on Illinois
EPA's Web site. EPA proposes that Illinois has met the infrastructure
SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect
to the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS.
    IDEM monitors air quality data daily, and reports the AQI to the
interested public and media if necessary. IDEM also participates and
submits information to EPA's AIRNOW program, and maintains SmogWatch,
which is an informational tool created by IDEM to share air quality
forecasts for each day. SmogWatch provides daily information about
ground-level ozone, particulate matter concentration levels, health
information, and monitoring data for seven regions in Indiana. EPA
proposes that Indiana has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of
this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2006
p.m.2.5 NAAQS.
    MDEQ actively participates in programs such as Ozone Action,
AIRNOW, and EnviroFlash. Additionally, MDEQ posts current air quality
concentrations on the its web pages, and prepares an annual air quality
report. EPA proposes that Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to
the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS.
    Minnesota consistently notifies the public when exceedances occur,
participates in the AIRNOW program, and dedicates portions of the MPCA
Web site to enhancing public awareness of measures that can be taken to
prevent exceedances. EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J)
with respect to the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS.
    Ohio EPA's district offices and local air agencies monitor air
quality daily, and where required, report the daily AQI to the
interested media. In addition, Ohio EPA's remote access of data system
provides online reports of real time air quality data on the internet
and feeds raw information to EPA's AIRNOW program. Furthermore, Ohio
EPA actively involves local stakeholder groups in the AIRNOW forecast
program. EPA proposes that Ohio has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to
the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS.
    In addition to maintaining an active monitoring network for
multiple criteria pollutants (with NAAQS), WDNR also routinely
forecasts air quality when elevated pollutant concentrations are

noted. Public notice is provided at levels associated with the extent
of the monitored problems ranging from a simple advisory to alert
levels, consistent with the provisions of WS chapter 285.11. Wisconsin
also participates in the AIRNOW program, and dedicates portions of the
WDNR Web site to enhancing public awareness of measures that can be
taken to prevent exceedances. EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J)
with respect to the 2006 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 3: PSD
    States must meet applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C)
related to PSD. All six Region 5 States have stated their commitment to
addressing both long-term requirements to meet natural visibility
levels by 2064 as well as concurrent review of new major sources and
major modifications under each State's approved PSD NSR program. Each
Region 5 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.
    Although 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. The PSD regulations in question include: (i)
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) consistent with the requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule; (ii)
the regulation of PM2.5 and PM10 condensables
consistent with the requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule; (iii) the
explicit identification of NOX as a precursor to ozone
consistent with the Phase 2 Rule; and, (iv) permitting of GHG emitting
sources at the Federal Tailoring Rule thresholds. 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)(J). However,
Illinois and Minnesota have no further obligations to EPA because both
States administer the Federally promulgated PSD regulations.
    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Indiana's PSD SIP that
identify SO2 and NOX as PM2.5
precursors, along with the significant emissions rates for direct
PM2.5, and SO2 and NOX as its
precursors, consistent with the requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule. We
are also proposing to approve revisions to Indiana's SIP that regulate
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables, consistent with the
requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule. Lastly, EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to Indiana's SIP that explicitly identify NOX as a
precursor to ozone, consistent with the requirements of the Phase 2
Rule. EPA approved revisions to Indiana's SIP on September 28, 2011,
that incorporate the Federal thresholds for GHG emitting sources for
PSD permitting. Therefore, EPA proposes that Indiana has met all of the
infrastructure SIP requirements for PSD associated with section
110(a)(2)(D)(J) for the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA is proposing to disapprove the portions of infrastructure SIP
submissions from Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin regarding
PM2.5 precursors, and PM2.5 and PM10
condensables, in each of these States' PSD programs. These States have
not made revisions to their PSD programs consistent with the
requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule, and therefore EPA proposes that they
have not met the infrastructure SIP requirements to identify
PM2.5 precursors, or regulate PM2.5 and
PM10 condensables, with respect to the PSD requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(J).
    EPA is proposing to disapprove the portions of infrastructure SIP
submissions from Michigan and Ohio regarding the explicit
identification of NOX as a precursor to ozone in each of
these States' PSD programs. These States have not made revisions to
their PSD programs consistent with the requirements of the Phase 2
Rule, and therefore EPA proposes that they have not met the
infrastructure SIP requirements to identify NOX as a
precursor to ozone with respect to the PSD requirements of section
110(a)(2)(J). As previously noted, EPA has already finalized
disapproval of portions of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP with respect
to this requirement.
    As stated above, EPA approved revisions to Indiana's SIP on
September 28, 2011, that incorporate the Federal Tailoring Rule
thresholds for GHG emitting sources. Michigan retains the necessary
authority, resources, and personnel to permit GHG emitting sources at
the Federal Tailoring Rule thresholds. Ohio and Wisconsin have the
necessary authority to permit GHG emitting sources at the Federal
Tailoring Rule, and both States have transmitted letters to EPA stating
that their infrastructure SIPs before our review includes only those
parts of their PSD SIP that remain approved after the PSD SIP Narrowing
Rule. Thus, the GHG PSD permitting requirements included in the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submittals from Ohio and
Wisconsin consist of only those portions of their PSD SIP programs that
apply PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions at or above
Tailoring Rule thresholds. EPA proposes that the States of Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio have met the infrastructure SIP
requirements for permitting GHG emitting sources at the Federal
Tailoring Rule thresholds with respect to the PSD requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(J).
    EPA reiterates once again that minor NSR regulations and NSR reform
regulations are not in the scope of infrastructure SIP actions.
Therefore, we are not proposing to approve or disapprove existing minor
NSR regulations or NSR reform regulations for each of the Region 5
States' 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP.
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. This would be the case even in the event a secondary
PM2.5 NAAQS for visibility is established, because this
NAAQS would not affect visibility requirements under part C.
    EPA's final approval of Illinois' regional haze plan was published
on July 6, 2012 (see 76 FR 39943). EPA's final approval of Indiana's
regional haze plan was published on June 11, 2012 (see 77 FR 34218).
EPA's final approval of Ohio's regional haze plan was published on July
2, 2012 (see 77 FR 39177). EPA's final approval of Minnesota's regional
haze plan was published on June 12, 2012 (see 77 FR 34801). EPA's final
approval of Wisconsin's regional haze plan was signed by the Regional
Administrator on June 15, 2012, and is awaiting publication in the
Federal Register. Therefore, EPA proposes that the States of Illinois,
Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have met this set of
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA is taking separate action on
Michigan's

regional haze plan, which was submitted on November 5, 2010, and is not
proposing to approve or disapprove the visibility protection and
regional haze plan requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for Michigan in
today's action. We will address Michigan's satisfaction of the
infrastructure SIP requirements related to visibility protection and
regional haze of section 110(a)(2)(J) after EPA finalizes action on the
regional haze submission.

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 EPA has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    IDEM continues to review the potential impact of major and some
minor new sources using computer models. Indiana's rules regarding air
quality modeling are contained in 326 IAC 2-2-4, 326 IAC 2-2-5, 326 IAC
2-2-6, and 326 IAC 2-2-7. These modeling data are available to EPA or
other interested parties upon request. EPA proposes that Indiana has
met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) with
respect to the 2006 PM2.5 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. EPA proposes that Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    MPCA reviews the potential impact of major and some minor new
sources. Applicable major sources in Minnesota are required 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 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Ohio EPA reviews the potential impact of major and some minor new
sources, consistent with 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, ``Guidelines on
Air Quality Models,'' as well as Ohio EPA Engineering Guide 69. These
modeling data are available to EPA upon request. EPA proposes that Ohio
has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K)
with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 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 2006 PM2.5 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); therefore, EPA
proposes that Illinois has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(L).
    IDEM implements and operates the title V permit program, which EPA
approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 62969); revisions to program were
approved on August 13, 2002 (67 FR 52615). EPA proposes that Indiana
has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L).
    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). EPA proposes that
Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(L).
    MPCA implements and operates the title V permit program, which EPA
approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 62967); therefore, EPA proposes
that Minnesota has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(L).
    Ohio EPA implements and operates the title V permit program, which
EPA approved on August 15, 1995 (60 FR 42045); revisions to the program
were approved on November 20, 2003 (68 FR 65401). EPA proposes that
Ohio has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(L).
    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). EPA proposes that
Wisconsin has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(L).
    EPA proposes that all Region 5 States have met the infrastructure
SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) with respect to 2006
PM2.5 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 proposes that
Illinois has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Any IDEM rulemaking procedure contained in IC 13-14-9 requires
public participation in the SIP development process. In addition, IDEM
ensures that the requirements of 40 CFR 51.102 are satisfied during the
SIP development process. EPA proposes that Indiana has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to
the 2006 PM2.5 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.
EPA proposes that Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5
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 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Ohio EPA follows approved procedures for allowing public
participation, consistent with OAC 3745-47, which is part of the
approved SIP. EPA proposes that Ohio has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 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. EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve some elements and disapprove remaining
elements of submissions from the EPA Region 5 States certifying that
the current SIPs are sufficient to meet the required infrastructure
elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve portions of a submittal from
Indiana intended to meet EPA's requirements for the NSR and PSD program
in that State. Specifically, they include: (i) 326 IAC 2-1.1-1(2); (ii)
326 IAC 2-1.1-1(10); (iii) 326 IAC 2-2-1(dd)(1); (iv) 326 IAC 2-2-
1(ff)(7); (v) 326 IAC 2-2-1(ss)(1); (vi) 326 IAC 2-2-1(ww)(1)(F); (vii)
326 IAC 2-2-1(ww)(1)(G); and, (viii) 326 IAC 2-2-4(b)(2)(vi).
    EPA's proposed actions for each Region 5 State's satisfaction of
infrastructure SIP requirements, by element of section 110(a)(2) are
contained in the table below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Element                  IL            IN            OH            MI            MN           WI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A: Emission limits and other    A             A             A             A             A            A
 control measures.
B: Ambient air quality          A             A             A             A             A            A
 monitoring and data system.
C1: Enforcement of SIP          A             A             A             A             A            A
 measures.
C2: PM2.5 precursors for PSD..  D,*           A             D             D             D,*          D
C3: PM2.5 and PM10              D,*           A             D             D             D,*          D
 condensables for PSD.
C4: NOx as a precursor to       D,*           A             D             D             D,*          NA
 ozone for PSD.
C5: GHG permitting thresholds   D,*           A             A             A             D,*          A
 in PSD regulations.
D1: Contribute to               NA            NA            NA            NA            NA           NA
 nonattainment/interfere with
 maintenance of NAAQS.
D2: PSD.......................  **            **            **            **            **           **
D3: Visibility Protection.....  A             A             A             NA            A            A
D4: Interstate Pollution        D,*           A             A             A             D,*          A
 Abatement.
D5: International Pollution     A             A             A             A             A            A
 Abatement.
E: Adequate resources.........  A             A             A             A             A            A
E: State boards...............  NA            NA            NA            NA            NA           NA
F: Stationary source            A             A             A             A             A            A
 monitoring system.
G: Emergency power............  A             A             A             A             A            A
H: Future SIP revisions.......  A             A             A             A             A            A
I: Nonattainment area plan or   NA            NA            NA            NA            NA           NA
 plan revisions under part D.
J1: Consultation with           A             A             A             A             A            A
 government officials.
J2: Public notification.......  A             A             A             A             A            A
J3: PSD.......................  **            **            **            **            **           **
J4: Visibility protection       A             A             A             NA            A            A
 (Regional Haze).
K: Air quality modeling and     A             A             A             A             A            A
 data.
L: Permitting fees............  A             A             A             A             A            A
M: Consultation and             A             A             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.
* 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) 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) consistent with
the requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule; (ii) the regulation of
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables consistent with the
requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule; (iii) the explicit identification of
NOX as a precursor to ozone consistent with the Phase 2
Rule; and, (iv) 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 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.

    The grounds for EPA's proposed disapproval of portions of the
infrastructure SIP submittals from Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin are
very narrow, and pertain only to these specific deficiencies in the
States' SIPs described in the relevant sections of this proposed
action.
    As previously discussed, Michigan and Ohio have been working on
revisions to their PSD programs, consistent with the requirements of
the Phase 2 Rule and the 2008 NSR Rule. We will work with the States to
rectify these issues promptly. In addition, EPA will work with WDNR to
account for the explicit identification of precursors to
PM2.5, as well as PM2.5 and PM10
condensables, in its PSD program.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Although not specific to this action, EPA will also continue
to work with WDNR to ensure that revisions to the State's PSD
program contain provisions that explicitly identify NOX
as a precursor to ozone, consistent with the Phase 2 Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submission
that addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan (section 171--section 193
of the CAA), or is required in response to a finding of substantial
inadequacy as described in section 110(k)(5) starts a sanction clock.
The provisions in the submissions we are disapproving were not
submitted by Michigan, Ohio, or Wisconsin to meet either of those
requirements. Therefore, if EPA takes final action to disapprove these
submissions, no sanctions under section 179 will be triggered.
    The full or partial disapproval of a SIP revision triggers the
requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a FIP no later
than two years from the date of the disapproval unless the state
corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or
plan revision before the Administrator promulgates such FIP. As
previously mentioned, EPA anticipates that MDEQ and Ohio EPA will make
submissions rectifying each of these deficiencies. Further, EPA
anticipates acting on the submissions within the two year time frame
prior to our FIP obligation on these very narrow issues. In the
interim, EPA expects Michigan and Ohio to treat and explicitly identify
NOX as a precursor to ozone for PSD permitting consistent
with the requirements of the Phase 2 Rule. EPA also expects these
States to adhere to the requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule with respect
to the treatment and identification of PM2.5 precursors and
the accounting for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in
permitting emissions limits in their respective PSD programs.
    EPA will actively work with Wisconsin to incorporate changes to its
PSD program that explicitly identify PM2.5 precursors and
account for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in
permitting emissions limits, consistent with the 2008 NSR Rule. In the
interim, EPA expects WDNR to adhere to the associated requirements of
the 2008 NSR Rule in its PSD program, specifically with respect to the
explicit identification of PM2.5 precursors, and the
accounting for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in
permitting emissions limits.

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, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: July 20, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2012-18880 Filed 8-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P