[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 209 (Monday, October 29, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65478-65488]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26289]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0805; EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0567; FRL-9742-4]

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve most elements, and
disapprove narrow portions of other elements, of State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submissions by Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,
and Wisconsin regarding the infrastructure requirements 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 taking final action
to approve portions of a submission from Indiana addressing EPA's
requirements for its new source review (NSR) and prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) program. The proposed rulemaking was
published on August 2, 2012. During the comment period, which ended on
September 4, 2012, EPA received five comment letters. The concerns
raised in these letters, as well as EPA's responses, will be addressed
in this final action.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established two dockets for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0805 (infrastructure SIP elements for all
Region 5 States) and EPA-R05-OAR-

2012-0567 (Indiana NSR/PSD elements). 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., Confidential Business
Information 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 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 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?
II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background of these SIP submissions?

A. What State SIP submissions does this rulemaking address?

    This rulemaking addresses submissions 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 Region 5 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 March 28, 2011,
and June 29, 2012.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ WDNR noted in a comment letter that its initial
infrastructure SIP submission was dated December 12, 2007. EPA
observes, however, that the December 12, 2007, submission by WDNR
only addresses the 1997 8-hour ground level ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, and not the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indiana also made a SIP submission intended to address various EPA
requirements for its 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.

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).
On September 25, 2009, EPA issued an additional 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). The SIP submissions 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 primarily the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,
with a narrow evaluation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; this final
rulemaking addresses only these pollutants as well.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On June 14, 2012, the EPA Administrator 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?

    As originally detailed in the proposed rulemaking, the applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements are contained in section 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA. EPA is finalizing action of each Region 5 State's
satisfaction of the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
through section 110(a)(2)(M), except for the elements detailed in the
following paragraphs.
    This rulemaking will not cover four substantive areas 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 indicated that it
has other authority to address any such existing SIP defects in other
rulemakings, as appropriate. A detailed rationale for why these four
substantive areas 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 areas above, EPA is not acting
in this action on portions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--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 stated in our
proposed rulemaking that we were not proposing to act on the portion of
any Region 5 State's submission intended to address the interstate
transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (see 77 FR 45992
at 46000), nor were we proposing to approve or disapprove each Region 5
State's satisfaction of the state board requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (see 77 FR 45992 at 46002). We have previously
finalized our rulemaking for the interstate transport requirements for
Indiana and Ohio (see FR 43175), and we have yet to take action on the
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of the SIP submissions from
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. We will also take action
on compliance with section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for 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.
    With respect to the visibility protection requirements of section
110(a)(2)(J), EPA notes that these requirements are different from
those in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) in that the visibility protection
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are not ``triggered'' by the
promulgation of a new or updated NAAQS. In other words, the visibility
protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to
infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA realizes
that our proposed rulemaking may have engendered confusion with respect
to section 110(a)(2)(J) (see 77 FR 45992 at 46005), and we want to
clarify in this final action that the visibility protection
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to the
infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also not
acting on section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan
Revisions Under Part D, in its entirety. Instead, EPA takes action on
part D attainment plans through separate processes.
    Furthermore, as a result of the current status of the Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR),\3\ EPA is not finalizing action on portions
of the interstate transport requirements for addressing visibility
protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for certain Region 5 States
where we had previously proposed approval; the reasoning can be found
in the following section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See http://epa.gov/airtransport/. Notably, the Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an opinion vacating CSAPR on
August 21, 2012, and ordering EPA to continue administering the
Clean Air Interstate Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also not finalizing our action on narrow portions of
Michigan's infrastructure SIP for section 110(a)(2)(C), section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and section 110(a)(2)(J), specifically with
respect to the applicable requirements obligated by EPA's final rule
for the ``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for
Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' (2008
NSR Rule) (see 73 FR 28321) and the ``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) (see 70 FR 71612). On September
4, 2012, MDEQ submitted a comment letter to EPA that requires more
evaluation; the specific issues are described in the following section.
    Lastly, as a result of a comment received during the comment
period, EPA is not finalizing action on a narrow portion of Indiana's
infrastructure SIP for section 110(a)(2)(C), section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and section 110(a)(2)(J), specifically for the
source impact analysis requirements of the State's PSD program as it
relates to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; the specific issues are
described in the following section.

II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?

    The public comment period for EPA's proposed action to approve most
elements and disapprove narrow portions of other elements of
submissions from the Region 5 States closed on September 4, 2012. EPA
received five comment letters, and a synopsis of the significant
individual comments contained in these letters, as well as EPA's
response to each comment, is discussed below.
    Comment 1: A comment letter was submitted on behalf of the Ohio
Utility Group (OUG) and its member companies. While OUG generally
supported EPA's proposed actions with respect to Ohio's infrastructure
SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the group recommended that EPA
withdraw its prior disapproval of the portions of Ohio's infrastructure
SIP addressing the interstate transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (see 76 FR 43175). Instead, OUG stated that it was
EPA's intent to implement a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in Ohio
to meet these requirements, and that the finalized CSAPR was published
in the Federal Register on August 8, 2011 (see 76 FR 48208), as a FIP
that would simultaneously remedy and replace the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR). OUG noted that CSAPR was stayed by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit pending judicial review on
December 31, 2011, and that the court also ordered EPA to continue
administering CAIR. OUG further noted that on August 21, 2012, the
court vacated and remanded CSAPR back to EPA, and again ordered EPA to
continue administering CAIR. Therefore, OUG believes that EPA should
withdraw its prior disapproval of Ohio's interstate transport SIP, and
propose approval of Ohio's submissions intended to address the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), making the emission
reductions that have already occurred Federally enforceable. Lastly,
OUG stated that when EPA issues a new interstate transport rule, EPA
can then make a determination that the emission reductions as a result
of Ohio's interstate transport SIP are insufficient and require Ohio to
develop an updated SIP.
    Response 1: In EPA's August 2, 2012, proposed rulemaking, we stated
that we were not proposing to approve or disapprove any provisions
intended to address interstate transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (see 76 FR 45992 at 46000); with respect to Ohio,
EPA noted that the disapproval of portions of Ohio's infrastructure SIP
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS intended to address these
requirements was finalized on July 20, 2011, and that the State did not
have any SIP submission relevant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS pending before the Agency. In other words,
OUG's comments are not germane to today's rulemaking.
    Comment 2: One commenter noted that although EPA had proposed
approval for all Region 5 States (except for Michigan) as meeting the
visibility protection requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the
Region 5 States' visibility SIPs relied on CSAPR to satisfy the
requirement of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for electric
generating units. Since CSAPR has been vacated with CAIR temporarily in
place, the commenter asserts that there exists no current and permanent
cross state air pollution rule for EPA and the Region 5 States to rely
on to satisfy the visibility protection requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), which includes BART limits for electric generating
units. Therefore, EPA must disapprove the portions of infrastructure
SIPs intended to address the visibility

protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Response 2: The 2009 Memo recommends to states that the visibility
protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) can be satisfied
by an approved SIP addressing reasonably attributable visibility
impairment, if required, and an approved SIP addressing regional
haze.\4\ The commenter is correct in stating that if Region 5 States'
regional haze plans relied on CSAPR in the context of BART and electric
generating units, the visibility protection requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) would not be met because CSAPR has been vacated.
However, the commenter is incorrect in his characterization of
Illinois' regional haze plan. Specifically, Illinois has two sets of
provisions in its SIP rules that meet the BART requirement of electric
generating units \5\ without relying on CSAPR (or CAIR). EPA's final
approval of Illinois' regional haze plan was published on July 6, 2012,
(see 76 FR 39943) and affirms that existing provisions in Illinois
satisfy the BART requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA notes that the 2009 Memo distinguishes section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) from the visibility element of section
110(a)(2)(J), which EPA believes is not germane in infrastructure
SIPs for this NAAQS.
    \5\ The Combined Pollutant Standards are contained in 35
Illinois Administrative Code 225.233, and the Multi-Pollutant
Standards are contained in 35 Illinois Administrative Code 225.293-
225.299.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In today's rulemaking, EPA is not finalizing our proposed approval
of the visibility protection requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. EPA is
also not taking any action on the visibility protection requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for Michigan. EPA will take action on these
States' SIPs in a separate rulemaking. However, EPA is finalizing
approval of Illinois' satisfaction of the visibility protection
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) in this rulemaking.
    Comment 3: The same commenter stated that the Indiana SIP is
insufficient for purposes of the State's PSD program for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. The commenter observes that 326 Indiana
Administrative Code (IAC) 2-2-5(a)(1) requires an analysis of a new or
modified source's emissions demonstrating that the emissions will not
cause or contribute to air pollution in violation of any ambient air
quality standard, as designated in 326 IAC 1-3. The language contained
in 326 IAC 1-3 explicitly references only the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, and not the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 micrograms per
cubic meter. Therefore, a literal read of Indiana's PSD regulations
indicates that a source impact analysis would only need to comply with
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The commenter did note that 326 IAC 2-
1.1-5 contains language that would prohibit issuance of a registration,
permit, modification approval, or operating permit revision if issuance
would allow a source to cause or contribute to a violation of the
NAAQS. 326 IAC 2-1.1-5 is currently not in the SIP, and the language
contained therein has not been submitted by Indiana for incorporation
into the SIP.
    Response 3: After evaluating the commenter's points, EPA agrees
that the State's EPA-approved PSD SIP contained in 326 IAC 2-2-5(a)
only requires a source impact analysis for PM2.5 to comply
with the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and not the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. 326 IAC 2-2-5(a) states that ``The owner or operator of the
proposed major stationary source or major modification shall
demonstrate that allowable emissions increases in conjunction with all
other applicable emissions increases or reductions (including secondary
emissions) will not cause or contribute to air pollution in violation
of any: (1) Ambient air quality standard, as designated in 326 IAC 1-3,
in any air quality control region * * *'' 326 IAC 1-3-4 contains the
ambient air quality standards as they apply in Indiana; the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS as codified in 40 CFR 50.13, has not been
incorporated into this section. IDEM has informed EPA that the State is
in the process of adopting revisions to its SIP, specifically contained
in IAC 326 1-3-4, to incorporate the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as
codified in 40 CFR 50.13. EPA is therefore not finalizing any action on
this narrow portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) for Indiana's
infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; we will address
the PSD source impact analysis requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in a separate rulemaking. EPA notes
that there are also PSD requirements associated with section
110(A)(2)(D)(i)(II) and section 110(a)(2)(J). As a result, we are also
not finalizing any action on this narrow portion of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and section 110(a)(2)(J) for Indiana's
infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; we will address
the same PSD source impact analysis requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the same action for section 110(a)(2)(C).
    Comment 4: The same commenter as above also stated that Wisconsin's
PSD SIP does not contain the maximum allowable increases in ambient
pollutant concentrations (increments) for PM2.5. The final
rule for the ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--
Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring
Concentration (SMC)'' requiring states to incorporate increments into
their PSD SIPs was published in the Federal Register on October 20,
2010 (2010 NSR Rule) (see 75 FR 64864). This requirement was also
codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(c). The 2010 NSR Rule
required states to submit revisions to their SIPs addressing this
required program element by July 20, 2012 (see 75 FR 64864 at 64898).
Therefore, because Wisconsin had not made revisions to its PSD SIP
incorporating the increments by the deadline prescribed by the 2010 NSR
Rule, EPA must disapprove the appropriate portions of the
infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The commenter
did state that WDNR has applied the appropriate increments when issuing
PSD permits.
    Response 4: The commenter asserts that EPA should now disapprove
portions of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS because, since the date of EPA's proposal, the
deadline for the submission of a SIP revision addressing the
PM2.5 increments has passed. However, pursuant to the 2010
NSR Rule and CAA section 166(b), states were not required to submit a
revised SIP addressing the PM2.5 increments until July 20,
2012. The Agency proposed action on the Wisconsin infrastructure SIP
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in a notice signed on July 20,
2012.\6\ Therefore, on the date that the proposed rule was signed by
the Agency, the PM2.5 increments were not required to be
included in the Wisconsin SIP in order for Wisconsin to meet the PSD
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Although the proposed action was published by the Federal
Register on August 2, 2012, it was signed by the Regional
Administrator on July 20, 2012, before the statutory deadline for
submission of the SIP revision addressing the PM2.5
increments had passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter's concerns relate to the timing of Agency action on
collateral, yet related, SIP submissions. These concerns highlight an
important overarching question that the EPA has to confront when
assessing the various infrastructure SIP submittals addressed in the
proposed rule: How to proceed when the timing and sequencing of
multiple related SIP submissions impact the ability of the State and
the Agency to address certain substantive issues in

the infrastructure SIP submission in a reasonable fashion.
    It is appropriate for EPA to take into consideration the timing and
sequence of related SIP submissions as part of determining what it is
reasonable to expect a State to have addressed in an infrastructure SIP
submission for a NAAQS at the time when the EPA acts on such
submission. EPA has historically interpreted section 110(a)(2)(C),
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and section 110(a)(2)(J) to require us to
assess a State's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to the
then-applicable and Federally enforceable PSD regulations required to
be included in a State's SIP at the time EPA takes action on the SIP.
    However, EPA does not consider it reasonable to interpret section
110(a)(2)(C), section 110(D)(i)(II), and section 110(a)(2)(J) to
require us to propose to disapprove a State's infrastructure SIP
submissions because the State had not yet, at the time of proposal,
made a submission that was not yet due for the 2010 PM2.5
NSR Rule. To adopt a different approach by which EPA could not act on
an infrastructure SIP, or at least could not approve an infrastructure
SIP, whenever there was any impending revision to the SIP required by
another collateral rulemaking action would result in regulatory
gridlock and make it impracticable or impossible for EPA to act on
infrastructure SIPs if EPA is in the process of revising collateral PSD
regulations. EPA believes that such an outcome would be an unreasonable
reading of the statutory process for the infrastructure SIPs
contemplated in section 110(a)(1) and (2).
    EPA acknowledges that it is important that these additional PSD
program revisions be evaluated and approved into the State's SIP in
accordance with the CAA, and EPA intends to address the
PM2.5 increments in a subsequent rulemaking. EPA appreciates
the commenter's point that Wisconsin has been applying the appropriate
increments consistent with the requirements codified in 40 CFR
52.21(c), and we will actively work with the State to ensure that these
increments are correctly evaluated in permitting decisions.
Furthermore, we will work with Wisconsin to ensure that revisions to
its SIP incorporating these increments will be wholly consistent with
the requirements obligated by the 2010 NSR Rule, as codified in 40 CFR
51.166(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(c).
    Comment 5: The same commenter as above agreed with EPA's proposed
disapproval of portions of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the explicit identification and
regulation of condensable PM2.5 and PM10 in its
PSD program.\7\ Wisconsin's existing SIP contained in Wisconsin
Administrative Code NR 400.02(123e)--NR 400.02(124) does not contain
the explicit references to condensables in PM2.5 and
PM10 emissions, as obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule.
Furthermore, revisions to its PSD program submitted by WDNR on May 11,
2011, do not contain the explicit identification or regulation of
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables. However, the
commenter notes that WDNR has been including condensable fraction of
particulate matter in permits for facilities for many years, as alluded
to in NR 415.09. The commenter suggests that EPA clarify that a final
disapproval of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the explicit identification and
regulation of PM2.5 and PM10 condensables does
``not negate or otherwise undermine the fact that all limits in all
existing permits in Wisconsin already include condensable PM.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Condensables'' are defined as gases that at ambient
temperatures, could condense to form particulate matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 5: EPA appreciates the commenter's point that WDNR has
historically considered some condensable PM in its permits. The SIP-
approved portions of NR 415.09 include references to condensable
particulate matter, as defined in NR 439.02(4). NR 439 contains the
requirements for reporting, recordkeeping, testing, inspection, and
determination of compliance for air contaminant sources and their
owners and operators. Specifically, NR 439.02(4) defines
``condensible[sic] particulate matter'' as ``any material, except
uncombined water, that may not be collected in the front half of the
particulate emission sampling train but which exists as a solid or
liquid at standard conditions.'' EPA agrees that WDNR has the authority
to regulate some condensables, and also agrees with the commenter that
a final disapproval of portions of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the explicit
identification and regulation of PM2.5 and PM10
condensables does not negate that WDNR has considered some condensable
particulate matter in its permits. However, at this point in time, the
State has not revised its SIP to contain the required explicit
references to condensables that are necessary for purposes of the PSD
program, and to make that requirement a Federally enforceable part of
the State's SIP. EPA will continue to work with the State to develop
SIP revisions that account for PM2.5 and PM10
condensables in applicability determinations and permitting emissions
limits, consistent with the 2008 NSR Rule. In the interim, we expect
the State to correctly account for these condensables in applicability
determinations and permitting emissions limits.
    Comment 6: MDEQ submitted a comment letter to EPA affirming that
the State is adopting revisions to its rules that would be wholly
consistent with the required infrastructure SIP requirements obligated
by the 2008 NSR Rule and the Phase 2 Rule. MDEQ stated that the
necessary revisions would be submitted to EPA imminently for
incorporation into the SIP, specifically before the end of 2012, and
also included the draft rules reflecting the appropriate revisions. The
State urged EPA to issue a conditional approval for the relevant
portions of its infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
in lieu of finalizing a narrow disapproval.
    Response 6: EPA appreciates MDEQ's efforts in adopting revisions to
its SIP to be wholly consistent with the required infrastructure SIP
requirements obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule and the Phase 2 Rule. In
our proposed rulemaking addressing the relevant requirements, EPA noted
that the State is in the process of adopting required revisions to its
regulations to: Address pollutants responsible for the secondary
formation of PM2.5, i.e., precursors; \8\ account for
condensables in PM2.5 and PM10 applicability
determinations and emission limits in NSR permits; and, explicitly
identify oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as a precursor to ozone
(see FR 77 45995 at 45996-45998). EPA believes that MDEQ's specific
commitments, including the revisions in progress specific to the
applicable requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule and the Phase 2 Rule, as
well as the time frame noted, i.e., prior to the end of 2012, require
more evaluation. Therefore, in today's rulemaking, EPA is not
finalizing our proposed disapproval of portions of Michigan's
infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to
the PSD requirements contained in section

110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and section 110(a)(2)(J) to:
Identify the precursors to PM2.5 consistent with the
requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule; account for PM2.5 and
PM10 condensables in applicability determinations and
emissions limits for permits consistent with the 2008 NSR Rule; and,
identify NOX as a precursor to ozone consistent with the
Phase 2 Rule. EPA will address Michigan's satisfaction of these
requirements in a separate rulemaking. In the interim, however, EPA
expects Michigan 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 applicability determinations and permitting emissions
limits in its PSD program. We also expect Michigan to treat and
explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to ozone for PSD
permitting, consistent with the requirements of the Phase 2 Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In the 2008 NSR Rule, EPA identified precursors to
PM2.5 for the PSD program to be sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and NOX (unless the state demonstrates
to the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that
NOX emissions in an area are not a significant
contributor to that area's ambient PM2.5 concentrations).
The 2008 NSR Rule also specifies that volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) are not considered to be precursors to PM2.5 in
the PSD program unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's
satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that emissions of VOCs in an area
are significant contributors to that area's ambient PM2.5
concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 7: Ohio EPA submitted a comment letter to EPA disagreeing
with our proposed disapproval of portions of its infrastructure SIP for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS intended to address the relevant
requirements obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule and the Phase 2 Rule. Ohio
EPA observes that EPA proposed a narrow disapproval of portions of its
infrastructure SIP intended to meet the PSD requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C): Identifying PM2.5 precursors; identifying
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in the PSD program;
and, identifying NOX as a precursor to ozone. Ohio notes
that our proposed rulemaking states that ``the infrastructure SIP
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.'' Ohio also notes that under
section 110(a)(2)(C), states are required to ``include a program'' for
the regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary
source to assure that NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as
required under parts C and D. Citing Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 3704.03,
the State argues that the director of Ohio EPA has the authority to
implement Ohio's NSR program contained in Ohio Administrative Code
(OAC) 3745-31. Specifically, OAC 3745-31-01 defines ``regulated NSR
pollutant'' as including 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.
Therefore, under this authority, Ohio EPA has been applying its PSD
program in accordance with the 2008 NSR Rule and the Phase 2 Rule, and
as a result--Ohio EPA meets the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(C) to
``include a program'' that meets parts C and D. Ohio EPA asserts that
EPA must approve these elements of Ohio's SIP because the State has met
the infrastructure SIP requirements for including a program that
assures the PM2.5 NAAQS is addressed in Ohio's permit
program, even absent Ohio submitting revisions to its PSD regulations
as mandated by the 2008 NSR Rule and Phase 2 Rule.
    Response 8: While it is true that Ohio EPA has included a program
under parts C and D of the CAA in its SIP, and that EPA has approved
various aspects of the State's PSD program in the past,\9\ EPA
explained in our proposed rulemaking that the 2008 NSR Rule and Phase 2
Rule now obligate states to make explicit regulatory changes in order
to clarify and remove any ambiguity concerning the requirements to
specifically identify PM2.5 precursors, to properly account
for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables, and to treat
NOX as a precursor to ozone in permitting contexts. EPA
recognizes that Ohio currently has some authority to treat
SO2 and NOX as presumed precursors to
PM2.5, and in a similar manner, to treat NOX as a
precursor to ozone in permitting decisions. Our proposed rulemaking
also recognized that Ohio EPA is in the process of adopting revisions
to its PSD program to be wholly consistent with the applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule and
Phase 2 Rule (see FR 77 45995 at 45996-45998). EPA's regulations as
codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i) for
PM2.5 precursors, and 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi) and 40 CFR
52.21(b)(50)(vi) for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables,
required states to make specific revisions by May 16, 2011 (see 73 FR
28321 at 28341). Because Ohio has not yet made these required
revisions, however, EPA is finalizing a disapproval of these narrow
portions of Ohio's infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. Likewise, the changes obligated by the Phase 2 Rule to
explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to ozone and codified
in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(ii), 40 CFR 51.166(b)(2)(ii), 40 CFR
51.166(b)(23)(i), 40 CFR 51.166(49)(i), and footnote 1 to 40 CFR
51.166(i)(5)(i)(e) required states to submit specific revisions to EPA
by June 15, 2007 (see 70 FR 71612 at 71683). Because Ohio has not yet
made these required revisions, EPA is finalizing a disapproval of this
narrow portion of Ohio's infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\10\ EPA will work actively with the State to
ensure that the necessary SIP revisions are completed as expeditiously
as possible. In the interim, we expect the State 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 applicability
determinations and permitting emissions limits in its PSD program. We
also expect Ohio to treat and explicitly identify NOX as a
precursor to ozone for PSD permitting consistent with the requirements
of the Phase 2 Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., http://www.epa.gov/reg5oair/permits/const/frn-nsr.html.
    \10\ EPA has also taken other actions germane to the explicit
identification of NOX as a precursor to ozone in
Federally approved PSD programs, e.g., ``Completeness Findings for
Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans for the 8-hour Ozone
NAAQS'' (see 73 FR 16205), and ``Partial Disapproval of
``Infrastructure'' State Implementation Plan'' for Wisconsin (77 FR
35870).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 9: WDNR submitted a comment letter to EPA disagreeing with
our proposed disapproval of portions of its infrastructure SIP for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS intended to address the relevant
requirements obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule. WDNR states that EPA
proposed a narrow disapproval of portions of its infrastructure SIP
intended to meet the PSD requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C):
Identifying PM2.5 precursors; and, identifying
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in the PSD program.
    Wisconsin notes that our proposed rulemaking states that ``the
infrastructure SIP 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.''
Wisconsin also notes that under section 110(a)(2)(C), states are
required to ``include a program'' for the regulation of the
modification and construction of any stationary source to assure that
NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as required under parts
C and D of CAA section 110(A)(2). Wisconsin argues that its
infrastructure SIP submissions have clearly stated that WDNR has the
resources and authorities necessary to implement and satisfy the
requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for
PM2.5 and PM10.
    Citing the definition of ``regulated NSR air contaminant'' in
Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 405.02(25i) as including ``any
contaminant for which a national ambient air quality standard has been
promulgated and any

constituents or precursors for the air contaminant identified by the
administrator,'' the State asserts that it has been applying the PSD
program in accordance with the explicit identification of precursor(s)
to PM2.5 and ozone, consistent with the 2008 NSR Rule and
Phase 2 Rule. Furthermore, the State observes that all permits issued
by WDNR address these requirements as codified by EPA, or through EPA
guidance under the authority provided in Wisconsin State Statute and
Wisconsin Administrative Code. WDNR therefore contends that it has met
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program that
meets part C and D.
    WDNR also notes that it has been accounting for condensable
particulate matter in its PSD permitting program since the beginning of
the program; particulate matter and particulate matter emissions have
been defined to include condensables since 1989 and have been a part of
the approved SIP since 1993. Wisconsin asserts that EPA must approve
these elements of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP, because WDNR has met
the applicable requirements.
    Response 9: While it is true that WDNR has included a program
required under parts C and D of the CAA in its SIP, and EPA has
approved various aspects of the State's PSD program in the past,\11\
EPA explained in our proposed rulemaking that the 2008 NSR Rule and
Phase 2 Rule now obligate states to make explicit regulatory changes in
order to clarify and remove any ambiguity concerning the requirements
to explicitly identify PM2.5 precursors, to properly account
for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables, and to treat
NOX as a precursor to ozone in permitting contexts.\12\ Our
proposed rulemaking referenced Wisconsin's definition of ``regulated
NSR air contaminant'' as providing generic language to define what
constitutes a regulated NSR pollutant; however, the State's current
rules do not contain provisions that would directly account for
PM2.5 and its precursors in NSR permitting. EPA's
regulations as codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i) and 40 CFR
52.21(b)(50)(i) for PM2.5 precursors, required states to
make specific revisions by May 16, 2011. Because Wisconsin has not yet
made these required revisions, EPA is finalizing a disapproval of this
narrow portion of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the explicit identification of
PM2.5 precursors. With respect to accounting for particulate
matter condensables in its PSD permitting program, EPA recognizes that
Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 439 contains the requirements for
reporting, recordkeeping, testing, inspection, and determination of
compliance for air contaminant sources and their owners and operators.
Of note, NR 439.02(4) defines ``condensible [sic] particulate matter''
as ``any material, except uncombined water, that may not be collected
in the front half of the particulate emission sampling train but which
exists as a solid or liquid at standard conditions.'' However,
Wisconsin's current SIP does not contain the explicit language to
account for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in
applicability determinations and permitting decisions, as required by
40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(vi), and to date, the
State has not made a submission with such revisions. As a result of
EPA's own regulations and the May 16, 2011 deadline for submitting
revisions consistent with the 2008 NSR Rule, we are finalizing the
disapproval of this narrow portion of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the explicit
regulation of PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in
permits. EPA will work actively with the State to ensure that the
necessary SIP revisions are completed as expeditiously as possible. We
will work with Wisconsin to rectify these issues promptly, and in the
interim, we expect the State 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 applicability determinations and
permitting emissions limits in its PSD program. Although not germane to
this action, we also expect Wisconsin to treat and explicitly identify
NOX as a precursor to ozone for PSD permitting consistent
with the requirements of the Phase 2 Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., http://www.epa.gov/reg5oair/permits/const/frn-nsr.html.
    \12\ Note that EPA has already finalized the disapproval of
narrow portions of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the NOX as a
precursor to ozone provisions per the Phase 2 Rule (see 77 FR
35870).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What action is EPA taking?

    For the reasons discussed in the proposed rulemaking, EPA is taking
final action to approve most elements and disapprove narrow portions of
other 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 taking final action to approve
portions of a submission from Indiana intended to meet EPA's
requirements for the NSR and PSD programs in that State. Specifically,
they are: (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). As detailed in our proposed rulemaking,
these revisions are wholly consistent with the infrastructure SIP
requirements associated with the 2008 NSR Rule and the Phase 2 Rule.
    Due to the current status of CSAPR, EPA is not finalizing our
previously proposed approval for the interstate transport requirements
addressing visibility protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for
Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, and Wisconsin for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA is also not taking any action on Michigan's satisfaction of
these requirements. As explained in the comments and responses section,
EPA is finalizing our previously proposed approval of Illinois'
infrastructure SIP for the interstate transport requirements addressing
visibility protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    As a result of a comment letter submitted by the State of Michigan,
EPA is not finalizing our previously proposed disapproval of narrow
portions of section 110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and
section 110(a)(2)(J) for the State. Instead, EPA will address
Michigan's satisfaction of the applicable PSD requirements obligated by
the 2008 NSR Rule and the Phase 2 Rule in a separate rulemaking.
Lastly, as a result of a comment received during the public comment
period, EPA is not finalizing its proposed approval of the submission
from Indiana with respect to one narrow issue that relates to section
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). Specifically, EPA will address the
PSD source impact analysis requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in the State of Indiana in a later action.
    EPA's final 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 \13\       OH          MI          MN          WI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A: Emission limits and other control              A           A           A           A           A           A
 measures...............................
B: Ambient air quality monitoring and             A           A           A           A           A           A
 data system............................
C1: Enforcement of SIP measures.........          A           A           A           A           A           A
C2: PM2.5 precursors for PSD............        * D           A           D          NA         * D           D
C3: PM2.5 and PM10 condensables for PSD.        * D           A           D          NA         * D           D
C4: NOX as a precursor to ozone for PSD.        * D           A           D          NA         * D          NA
C5: GHG permitting thresholds in PSD            * D           A           A           A         * D           A
 regulations............................
D1: Contribute to nonattainment/                 NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
 interfere with maintenance of NAAQS....
D2: PSD.................................         **          **          **          **          **          **
D3: Visibility Protection...............          A          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
D4: Interstate Pollution Abatement......        * D           A           A           A         * D           A
D5: International Pollution Abatement...          A           A           A           A           A           A
E: Adequate resources...................          A           A           A           A           A           A
E: State boards.........................         NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
F: Stationary source monitoring system..          A           A           A           A           A           A
G: Emergency powers.....................          A           A           A           A           A           A
H: Future SIP revisions.................          A           A           A           A           A           A
I: Nonattainment area plan or plan               NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
 revisions under part D.................
J1: Consultation with government                  A           A           A           A           A           A
 officials..............................
J2: Public notification.................          A           A           A           A           A           A
J3: PSD.................................         **          **          **          **          **          **
J4: Visibility protection...............          +           +           +           +           +           +
K: Air quality modeling and data........          A           A           A           A           A           A
L: Permitting fees......................          A           A           A           A           A           A
M: Consultation and participation by              A           A           A           A           A           A
 affected local entities................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the above table, the key is as follows:
A Approve.
NA No Action/Separate Rulemaking.
D Disapprove.
+ Not relevant in these actions.
* Federally promulgated rules in place.
** Previously discussed in element (C).

    As originally described in the proposed rulemaking, EPA is
finalizing disapproval of 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In addition to the information provided in this table for
the State of Indiana, EPA reiterates once again that we are not
finalizing any action with respect to the PSD source impact analysis
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is also finalizing the disapproval of 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 as a
result of this disapproval 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. This final disapproval for Illinois and 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 subject to the Federally promulgated PSD
regulations, and both States administer these regulations via EPA's
delegated authority.
    The grounds for EPA's final disapproval of portions of the
infrastructure SIP submittals from Ohio and Wisconsin are very narrow,
and pertain only to these specific deficiencies in the States' SIPs
described in the relevant sections of the proposed rulemaking, as well
as in the responses to comments section of today's rulemaking.
    As previously discussed, EPA believes that Ohio has been actively
preparing necessary revisions to its PSD program, consistent with the
requirements of the Phase 2 Rule and the 2008 NSR Rule. We will work
with the State 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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 Ohio or Wisconsin to meet either of those requirements.
Therefore, 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 detailed in the proposed rulemaking, EPA
anticipates that Ohio EPA will make submissions rectifying each of the
deficiencies that are the basis for the disapprovals in this action.
Further, EPA anticipates acting on the anticipated submissions from the
State within the two year time frame prior to our FIP obligation on
these very narrow issues. In the interim, EPA expects 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 the State 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 applicability determinations and
permitting emissions limits in its PSD program.
    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
applicability determinations and 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 applicability determinations and
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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate Matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 26, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 52.731 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.731  Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) Approval and Disapproval--In an August 9, 2011, submittal, and
supplemented on August 25, 2011, and June 27, 2012, Illinois certified
that the State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is not taking action on (D)(i)(I) and
the state board requirements of (E)(ii). Although EPA is disapproving
portions of Illinois' submission addressing the prevention of
significant deterioration, Illinois continues to implement the
Federally promulgated rules for this purpose as they pertain to (C),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J).

0
3. In Sec.  52.770:
0
a. The table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding an entry in
numerical order for ``2-1.1-1'', and revising the entries for ``2-2-
1'', and ``2-2-4''.
0
b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding entries in
alphabetical order for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements
for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS''.
    The revised and added text reads as follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Indiana Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Indiana citation           Subject          Indiana effective date    EPA approval date          Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
2-1.1-1..............  Definitions.........  July 11, 2012............  October 29 2012,     (2) and (10) only.
                                                                         [Insert page
                                                                         number where the
                                                                         document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
2-2-1................  Definitions.........  July 11, 2012............  October 29 2012,     (dd)(1), (ff)(7),
                                                                         [Insert page         (ss)(1),
                                                                         number where the     (ww)(1)(F), and
                                                                         document begins].    (ww)(1)(G) only.

                                                  * * * * * * *
2-2-4................  Air quality           July 11, 2012............  October 29 2012,     (b)(2)(vi) only.
                        analysis;                                        [Insert page
                        requirements.                                    number where the
                                                                         document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Indiana Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Title                      Indiana date            EPA approval               Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure     10/20/2009, 6/25/2012,  10/29/2012, [Insert     This action addresses the
 Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour    7/12/2012.              page number where the   following CAA elements:
 PM2.5 NAAQS.                                                 document begins].       110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M). We are not
                                                                                finalizing action on the
                                                                                PSD source impact analysis
                                                                                requirements of section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II),
                                                                                and (J), the visibility
                                                                                protection requirements of
                                                                                (D)(i)(II), and the state
                                                                                board requirements of
                                                                                (E)(ii). We will address
                                                                                these requirements in a
                                                                                separate action.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
4. In Sec.  52.1170, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry at the end of the table for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Name of nonregulatory SIP    Applicable geographic   State submittal    EPA approval
           provision            or nonattainment area        date              date               Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2)               Statewide............  8/15/2011, 7/9/   10/29/2012,       This action addresses
 Infrastructure Requirements                            2012.             [Insert page      the following CAA
 for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5                                               number where      elements:
 NAAQS.                                                                   the document      110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                          begins].          (C), (D)(i)(II),
                                                                                (D)(ii), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M). We are
                                                                                not taking action on
                                                                                the visibility
                                                                                protection
                                                                                requirements of
                                                                                (D)(i)(II) and the
                                                                                state board
                                                                                requirements of
                                                                                (E)(ii). We will
                                                                                address these
                                                                                requirements in a
                                                                                separate action. We
                                                                                are taking no action
                                                                                on portions of
                                                                                Michigan's
                                                                                infrastructure SIP
                                                                                submission
                                                                                addressing the
                                                                                relevant prevention
                                                                                of significant
                                                                                deterioration
                                                                                requirements of the
                                                                                2008 NSR Rule
                                                                                (identifying PM2.5
                                                                                precursors, and the
                                                                                regulation of PM2.5
                                                                                and PM10
                                                                                condensables in
                                                                                permits) and the
                                                                                Phase 2 Rule
                                                                                (identification of
                                                                                NOX as a precursor
                                                                                to ozone) with
                                                                                respect to section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II), and (J).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
5. In Sec.  52.1220, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry in alphabetical order for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Minnesota Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable        State submittal
   Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or       date/ effective    EPA approved           Comments
           provision              nonattainment area         date              date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2)               Statewide............  5/23/2011, 6/27/  10/29/2012,       This action addresses
 Infrastructure Requirements                            2012 (submittal   [Insert page      the following CAA
 for the 2006 24-Hour Ozone                             dates).           number where      elements:
 NAAQS.                                                                   the document      110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                          begins].          (C), (D)(i)(II),
                                                                                (D)(ii), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M). We are
                                                                                not finalizing
                                                                                action on the
                                                                                visibility
                                                                                protection
                                                                                requirements of
                                                                                (D)(i)(II) or the
                                                                                state board
                                                                                requirements of
                                                                                (E)(ii). We will
                                                                                address these
                                                                                requirements in a
                                                                                separate action.
                                                                                Although EPA is
                                                                                disapproving
                                                                                portions of
                                                                                Minnesota's
                                                                                submission
                                                                                addressing the
                                                                                prevention of
                                                                                significant
                                                                                deterioration,
                                                                                Minnesota continues
                                                                                to implement the
                                                                                Federally
                                                                                promulgated rules
                                                                                for this purpose as
                                                                                they pertain to
                                                                                section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii),
                                                                                and (J).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
6. Section 52.1891 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1891  Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) Approval and Disapproval--In a September 4, 2009 submittal,
supplemented on June 3, 2011, and July 5, 2012, Ohio certified that the
State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. We are not finalizing action on the visibility
protection requirements of (D)(i)(II) or the state board requirements
of (E)(ii). We will address these requirements in a separate action. We
are disapproving narrow portions of Ohio's infrastructure SIP
submission addressing the relevant prevention of significant
deterioration requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule (identifying
PM2.5 precursors, and the regulation of PM2.5 and
PM10 condensables in permits) and the Phase 2 Rule
(identification of NOX as a precursor to ozone) with respect
to section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).

0
7. Section 52.2591 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2591  Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) Approval and Disapproval--In a January 24, 2011, submittal,
supplemented on March 28, 2011, and June 29, 2012, Wisconsin certified
that the State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. We are not finalizing action on (D)(i)(I),
the visibility protection requirements of (D)(i)(II), and the state
board requirements of (E)(ii). We will address these requirements in a
separate action. We are disapproving narrow portions of Wisconsin's
infrastructure SIP submission addressing the relevant prevention of
significant deterioration requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule
(identifying PM2.5 precursors and the regulation of
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in permits) with
respect to section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).

[FR Doc. 2012-26289 Filed 10-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P