[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23757-23768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10331]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1179; FRL-9299-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve some elements and conditionally 
approve other elements of certifications submitted 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 1997 eight-hour ground level ozone national 
ambient air quality standards (1997 ozone NAAQS) and 1997 fine particle 
national ambient air quality standards (1997 PM2.5 NAAQS). 
The requirements are designed to ensure that the components of each 
State's air quality management program are adequate to meet the State's 
responsibilities under the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 31, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2007-1179, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: [email protected].
    3. Fax: (312) 692-2551.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, 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-2007-
1179. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in 
the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail 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 http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal 
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Andy Chang, Environmental 
Engineer, at (312) 886-0258 before visiting the Region 5 office.

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

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

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background of these submittals?
    A. What State submittals does this rulemaking address?
    B. Why did the States make these submittals?
III. What criteria is EPA using to judge these submittals?
IV. What did EPA find from its review of these submittals?
    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
    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 Power
    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; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 
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.

[[Page 23758]]

    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 submittals?

A. What State submittals does this rulemaking address?

    This rulemaking addresses State 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 submittals 
on the following dates: Illinois--December 12, 2007; Indiana--December 
7, 2007, and supplemented on September 19, 2008, March 23, 2011, and 
April 7, 2011; Michigan--December 6, 2007, and supplemented on 
September 19, 2008 and April 6, 2011; Minnesota--November 29, 2007; 
Ohio--December 5, 2007, and supplemented on April 7, 2011; and, 
Wisconsin--December 12, 2007, and supplemented on January 24, 2011 and 
March 28, 2011.

B. Why did the States make these submittals?

    Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, and implementing EPA 
policy, the States were required to submit either revisions to their 
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) that provide for implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement of the 1997 standards, or certifications 
that their existing SIPs for ozone and particulate matter already met 
those requirements. In accordance with an October 2, 2007 ``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'' (1997 Infrastructure Memo), the submittals meeting the 
requirements were to be submitted to EPA within three years after 
promulgation of the revised standards. As the guidance acknowledged, 
July 16, 2000 was the initial due date; however, intervening litigation 
over the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS created uncertainty 
about how States were to proceed.\1\ In subsequent consent decrees with 
Earth Justice, EPA agreed to make official findings on whether the 
States had made SIP submissions to satisfy the CAA requirements by 
specified dates. SIPs intended to satisfy the infrastructure elements 
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS were due on December 15, 2007; SIPs intended 
to satisfy the infrastructure elements for the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS were due on October 15, 2008. The certifications referenced in 
this rulemaking pertain to the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 
(2) of the CAA. The six State submittals being evaluated here address 
both ozone and PM2.5, and the proposed rulemaking addresses 
both pollutants as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, e.g., Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 
531 U.S. 457 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What criteria is EPA using to judge these submittals?

    EPA discussed the applicable review criteria in the 1997 
Infrastructure Memo. Specifically, Attachment A of this memorandum 
(Required Section 110 SIP Elements) identified criteria for the States 
to meet in order to satisfy these sections of the CAA. On September 25, 
2009, EPA issued an updated 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)'' 
(2006 Infrastructure Memo), which clarifies expectations for certain 
elements to meet the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 
CAA under the new NAAQS. Where possible and appropriate, EPA will 
reference the guidance contained in the 2006 Infrastructure Memo as it 
pertains to the States' submittals.
    In this proposed rulemaking, EPA is not acting on portions of 
section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for enforcement of control measures; 
section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate transport; and section 110(a)(2)(J)--
Consultation with government officials, public notifications, 
prevention of significant deterioration, and visibility protection. In 
addition, EPA is 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.

IV. What did EPA find from its review of these submittals?

    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. Therefore, consistent with 
the 2006 Infrastructure Memo, no public hearing process was necessary 
at the State level. Nevertheless, EPA believes that the public will 
have the opportunity to review 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 air quality management programs meet each of the 
requirements in section 110(a)(2). The following review evaluates the 
six States' submittals.

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) are subject to the timing 
requirements of section 172, not the timing requirement of section 
110(a)(1). Section 110(a)(2)(A) does not require that States submit 
regulations or emissions limits specifically for attaining either the 
1997 ozone or PM2.5 NAAQS. Those regulations are due as part 
of each State's attainment demonstration, and will be addressed 
separately from the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A).
    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, and has 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 concludes that Illinois 
has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the 
1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.

[[Page 23759]]

    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 concludes that Indiana has met the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
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 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 concludes that 
Michigan has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect 
to the 1997 ozone and 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 concludes that Minnesota has met the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
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 concludes that 
Ohio has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to 
the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Wisconsin Statutes (WS) chapter 285.11 through WS chapter 285.19 
establishes general authority for monitoring, updating, and 
implementing necessary revisions to the Wisconsin SIP. EPA concludes 
that Wisconsin has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with 
respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    A number of States have provisions regarding excess emissions 
during startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) which are contrary to 
the CAA and existing EPA guidance, including a September 20, 1999 
memorandum entitled, ``State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding 
Excess Emissions During Malfunction, Startup, and Shutdown.'' As a 
result, in this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or 
disapprove any existing State provisions with regard to excess 
emissions during SSM of operations at facilities. EPA plans to address 
such State regulations in the future. In the meantime, EPA encourages 
any State having a deficient SSM provision to take steps to correct it 
as soon as possible.
    In the same manner, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove 
any existing State rules with regard to so-called ``Director's 
discretion'' or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of 
States have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA existing EPA 
guidance (52 FR 45109) issued on November 24, 1987. EPA plans to take 
action in the future to address such State regulations. In the 
meantime, EPA encourages any State having a Director's discretion or 
variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to 
take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.

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 has determined that in order to meet the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B), each State should: Submit an 
annual monitoring plan for the relevant NAAQS, and have this plan 
approved by EPA; monitor air quality for the relevant pollutant at 
appropriate locations throughout the State using EPA-approved Federal 
Reference Methods or Federal Equivalent Method monitors; submit data to 
EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) in a timely manner; and, provide 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 300 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 the 2011 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan was approved by 
EPA on October 29, 2010. Monitoring data from Illinois EPA is 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 concludes that Illinois has met the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    IDEM continues to operate an air monitoring network; the State's 
2011 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan was approved by EPA on October 
29, 2010. Monitoring data from IDEM 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 concludes 
that Indiana has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with 
respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    MDEQ maintains a comprehensive network of air quality monitors 
throughout Michigan. MDEQ's 2011 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan was 
approved by EPA on October 29, 2010. 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 
concludes that Michigan has met the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    MPCA continues to operate an ambient pollutant monitoring network, 
and compiles and reports air quality data to EPA. MPCA's 2011 Annual 
Air Monitoring Network Plan was approved by EPA on October 29, 2010. 
MPCA also provides prior notification to EPA when changes to its 
monitoring network or plan are being considered. EPA concludes that 
Minnesota has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect 
to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Ohio EPA continues to operate a monitoring network; the State's 
2011 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan was approved by EPA on December 
2, 2010. 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 concludes that Ohio has met the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    WDNR continues to operate an extensive monitoring network; the 
State's 2011 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan was approved by EPA on 
December 21, 2010. 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 concludes that Wisconsin has met 
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 1997 ozone 
and PM2.5 NAAQS.

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control Measures

    States are required to include a program providing for enforcement 
of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or 
modified stationary sources to meet new source review (NSR) 
requirements under the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) 
and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) programs. Part C of the

[[Page 23760]]

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 requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) covers: Enforcement of SIP 
measures; oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as a precursor to ozone 
in the PSD program; PM10 \2\ as a surrogate for 
PM2.5 in the PSD program; NSR Reform; Greenhouse gas (GHG) 
permitting and the ``tailoring rule''; and, minor NSR regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ PM10 refers to particles with diameters between 
2.5 and 10 microns, oftentimes referred to as ``coarse'' particles. 
Coarse particles are frequently the result from crushing or grinding 
operations, and can come from dust on paved or unpaved roads as 
well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
concludes that Illinois has met the enforcement of SIP measures 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
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 concludes that Indiana has met the enforcement of SIP 
measures requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 
ozone and 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 concludes that Michigan has met the enforcement of SIP 
measures requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 
ozone and 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. EPA concludes that Minnesota has met the 
enforcement of SIP measures requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with 
respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Ohio EPA continues to staff and implement an enforcement program. 
ORC 3704.03 provides the Director of Ohio EPA with the authority to 
continue 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 
concludes that Ohio has met the enforcement of SIP measures 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
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 strong 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. EPA concludes that 
Wisconsin has met the enforcement of SIP measures requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: NOX as a Precursor to Ozone in the PSD 
Program
    Each State's PSD program must include NOX as a precursor 
to ozone in order for this sub-element to be approvable. This 
requirement was contained in the November 29, 2005 final rule to 
implement the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (see 70 FR 71699), and codified 
at 40 CFR 52.21. Furthermore, EPA has determined that the analyses of 
each State's PSD program must be holistic; if a State lacks provisions 
needed to address NOX as a precursor to ozone, the 
provisions of section 110(a) requiring a suitable permitting program 
must be considered not to be met irrespective of the pollutant being 
addressed.
    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 NOX as a precursor to ozone. While 
EPA acknowledges that the States have not satisfied the requirement for 
a SIP submittal, they have no further obligations because EPA believes 
that the plans for Illinois and Minnesota, specifically including the 
Federally promulgated PSD regulations, meet this set of requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Indiana's PSD regulations were conditionally approved by EPA on 
March 3, 2003 (68 FR 9892), and fully approved on May 20, 2004 (69 FR 
29071). These regulations contain provisions establishing 
NOX as a precursor to ozone. Therefore, EPA concludes that 
Indiana has met this set of requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with 
respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Michigan's PSD regulations were conditionally approved by EPA on 
September 16, 2008 (73 FR 53366), and fully approved by EPA on March 
25, 2010 (75 FR 14352). These regulations contain provisions 
establishing NOX as a precursor to ozone. Therefore, EPA 
concludes that Michigan has met this set of requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA conditionally approved Ohio EPA's PSD regulations on October 
10, 2001 (66 FR 51570), and fully approved by EPA on January 22, 2003 
(68 FR 2909). These regulations contain provisions establishing 
NOX as a precursor to ozone. Therefore, EPA concludes that 
Ohio has met this set of requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with 
respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA approved Wisconsin's PSD rules on May 27, 1999 (64 FR 28745). 
These

[[Page 23761]]

regulations contain provisions establishing NOX as a 
precursor to ozone. Therefore, EPA finds that Wisconsin has met this 
set of requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 3: PM10 as a Surrogate for PM2.5 in 
the PSD Program
    On October 23, 1997, EPA issued a policy allowing PM10 
emissions to be used as a surrogate for PM2.5 emissions in 
the PSD program. This policy was issued by the Director of the Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, and entitled, ``Interim 
Implementation of New Source Review for PM2.5.'' At that 
time, EPA's justification for using PM10 as a surrogate for 
PM2.5 was that permitting authorities were not able to 
accurately calculate emissions of PM2.5 and related 
precursors or to predict PM2.5 ambient air quality impacts 
from projects. On May 16, 2008 (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),'' 
which ended the PM10 surrogate policy, and confirmed that 
States wanting to submit PSD program regulations for EPA approval would 
need to evaluate PM2.5 emissions rather than 
PM10. The deadline for States to submit revised PSD 
regulations addressing PM2.5 emissions is May 16, 2011; in 
the interim, States may still use the PM10 surrogate policy. 
Furthermore, EPA has determined that the evaluation of the PSD program 
must be holistic; if States do not submit amendments that evaluate 
direct PM2.5 emissions by May 16, 2011, EPA would consider 
the PSD requirements under section 110(a) unmet, irrespective of the 
pollutant for which EPA is evaluating the satisfaction of section 
110(a).
    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 require that 
States evaluate PM2.5 emissions in the PSD program. While 
EPA acknowledges that the States have not satisfied the requirement for 
a SIP submittal, they have no further obligations because EPA believes 
that the plans for Illinois and Minnesota, specifically including the 
Federally promulgated PSD regulations, meet this set of requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan do not currently have the evaluation of 
PM2.5 emissions adopted into their respective State 
regulations. The May 16, 2011 deadline for submitting revisions to 
their respective SIPs addressing the direct evaluation of 
PM2.5 and its precursors may pass prior to final action of 
these infrastructure SIPs. As a result, EPA has determined that so long 
as States provide a formal commitment to submit the requisite 
PM2.5 revisions for SIP approval not later than one year 
after final action of these infrastructure SIPs, we can propose a 
conditional approval for Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin with 
respect to this set of requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C).
    EPA received formal commitments from IDEM (March 23, 2011), Ohio 
EPA (April 7, 2011), and MDEQ (April 6, 2011) affirming that each State 
will submit revisions to the SIP incorporating the direct evaluation of 
PM2.5 and its precursors within one year of our final action 
of these infrastructure SIPs. Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally 
approve the plans for Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan addressing this set 
of requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 ozone 
and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    If, however, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan do not submit revisions to 
their respective SIPs incorporating the direct evaluation of 
PM2.5 and its precursors within one year of final action on 
these infrastructure SIPs, the conditional approval will automatically 
revert to disapproval with respect to this set of requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    In a March 28, 2011 letter from Wisconsin's Director of the Bureau 
of Air Management, WDNR informed EPA that current State rules provide 
for NSR permitting for PM2.5 without the use of the 
PM10 surrogate policy. EPA therefore concludes that 
Wisconsin has met this set of requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with 
respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 4: NSR Reform
    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any 
State rules with regard to NSR reform requirements (see 67 FR 80186). 
EPA has acted on NSR reform submittals from Region 5 States through 
earlier separate rulemakings.\3\ For the purpose of this action, ``NSR 
reform'' applies to major NSR only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ http://www.epa.gov/reg5oair/permits/const/frn-nsr.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 tons 
per year (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.\4\ 
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 
previous 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ http://www.epa.gov/NSR/actions.html#2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has found that the six Region 5 States and their respective PSD 
programs fall into three distinct categories: States that have not 
adopted

[[Page 23762]]

or submitted any regulations for PSD; States that have a previously 
approved PSD program that predates both the tailoring rule and the 
narrowing rule; and, a State that has submitted certifications of PSD 
program with GHG permitting applicability consistent with 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.
    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 
threshold as outlined in the tailoring rule. While EPA acknowledges 
that the States have not satisfied the requirement for a SIP submittal, 
they have no further obligations because EPA believes that the plans 
for Illinois and Minnesota, specifically including the Federally 
promulgated PSD regulations, meet this set of requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(C) and (E) \5\ with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The States of Indiana, 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 three States only require PSD 
permitting of sources emitting GHG at or above the thresholds 
established in the tailoring rule.
    As noted above, EPA received the infrastructure SIP submittals from 
these three States in December 2007, before EPA identified GHG as a 
regulated pollutant and before EPA promulgated the Tailoring Rule. On 
April 7, 2011, Indiana and Ohio transmitted letters clarifying to EPA 
that their respective submissions, currently before EPA for our review, 
include only those parts of their PSD SIPs that remain approved after 
the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule. Wisconsin transmitted a similar letter on 
March 28, 2011. Thus, the GHG PSD permitting requirements included in 
these three States' infrastructure SIP submittals 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 concludes that the GHG PSD permitting program in 
Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin have met this set of requirements of 
sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (E) for both the 1997 ozone and 
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.\6\ Therefore, EPA concludes 
that Michigan's GHG PSD permitting program has met this set of 
requirements requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (E) for both the 
1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Letter from the Director of MDEQ to EPA Region 5 Regional 
Administrator dated July 27, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sub-Element 6: Minor NSR Regulations
    EPA has provided States with a broad degree of discretion in 
implementing their programs for review of minor new sources (minor 
NSR), as reflected in the less detailed regulations for minor NSR 
outlined in 40 CFR 51.160 to 40 CFR 51.164.
    EPA previously approved each Region 5 State's minor NSR program 
into the SIP, including provisions that adequately address the 
emissions of PM2.5. EPA approvals for each State's minor NSR 
program occurred on: Illinois--May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10862); Indiana--
October 7, 1994 (59 FR 51108); Michigan--May 6, 1980 (45 FR 29790); 
Minnesota--May 24, 1995 (60 FR 27411); Ohio--January 22, 2003 (68 FR 
2909); and, Wisconsin--February 17, 1995 (60 FR 3543). Since the date 
of each approval, each Region 5 State and EPA have relied on the 
existing minor NSR program to ensure that new and modified sources not 
captured by the major NSR permitting programs do not interfere with 
attainment and maintenance of the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 
NAAQS. In this action, EPA concludes that Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, 
Ohio, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have met this set of requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    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) 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, this section 
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 
address regional haze.
    EPA is not acting on any of the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i). The requirements that States have provisions 
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in that 
State from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering 
with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another State are being addressed by 
a new rule pertaining to interstate transport which EPA proposed on 
August 2, 2010, entitled the ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone'' (Transport 
Rule).\7\ PSD requirements have been addressed in the analysis of 
section 110(a)(2)(C), and visibility requirements will be addressed in 
the analysis of section 110(a)(2)(J). Again, in the context of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA is not taking action on the requirements for PSD 
and visibility protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate 
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Proposed Rule,'' 75 
FR 45210 (August 2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each SIP to contain adequate 
provisions requiring compliance with the applicable requirements of 
section 126 and 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

[[Page 23763]]

modified sources to notify neighboring States of potential negative air 
quality impacts. While EPA acknowledges that the States have not 
satisfied the requirements of a SIP submittal, they have no further 
obligations because EPA believes that the plans from Illinois and 
Minnesota, specifically including the Federally promulgated PSD 
regulations, meet this set of requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) with 
respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    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. 
EPA concludes that Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin have met the 
requirements of section 126(a) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    None of the Region 5 States have pending obligations under any 
other section of section 126, nor do any of the Region 5 States have 
any obligations under section 115. Therefore, EPA finds that all States 
in Region 5 have met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) with 
respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.

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.
    Illinois Public Act 95-0348, Article 215 provides appropriations 
for the Illinois EPA Bureau of Air Programs and associated personnel. 
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 concludes that Illinois 
has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 
1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Indiana's biennial budget sets 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 concludes that Indiana has met 
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 1997 ozone 
and 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. 
Furthermore, Act 451 provides the legal authority under State law to 
carry out the Michigan SIP. EPA concludes that Michigan has met the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Although MPCA did not expressly address this section, EPA 
recognizes that the State's budget has been, and is, adequate for 
administering its air quality management program. MPCA has routinely 
demonstrated that it retains adequate personnel to carry out the duties 
of this program. EPA also notes that Minnesota Statue chapter 116.07 
provides the legal authority under State law to carry out the SIP. EPA 
concludes that Minnesota has met the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Ohio EPA has included its 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. As discussed in previous sections, ORC 3704.03 provides the 
legal authority under State law to carry out the SIP. EPA concludes 
that Ohio has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect 
to the 1997 ozone and 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. As discussed in previous sections, basic duties and 
authorities in the State are outlined in WS chapter 285.11. EPA 
concludes that Wisconsin has met the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 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 Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin do not involve permitting GHG 
sources smaller than the tailoring rule thresholds, EPA concludes that 
these States also have the resources necessary to implement the 
requirements of their respective SIPs.
    As previously discussed, Michigan's PSD regulations provide the 
State with adequate resources to permit GHG consistent with the 
tailoring rule thresholds; therefore, EPA concludes that Michigan 
retains all the resources necessary to implement the requirements of 
its SIP.

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 period 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 concludes that Illinois has satisfied 
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the 1997 ozone 
and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    The Indiana State rules for monitoring requirements are contained 
in 326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 3. Additional emissions 
reporting requirements are found in 326 IAC 2-6. EPA concludes that 
Indiana has satisfied the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) with 
respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.

[[Page 23764]]

    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 
concludes that Michigan has met the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 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. EPA concludes that Minnesota has met the requirements 
of section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
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 concludes that Ohio has met the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
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. EPA concludes Wisconsin has met the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
PM2.5 NAAQS.

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

    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 where a State can 
demonstrate that PM2.5 levels have consistently remained 
below 140.4 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), provided the State 
has appropriate general emergency powers to address PM2.5 
related episodes, the State may satisfy section 110(a)(2)(G) without 
necessarily providing for specific emergency episode plans or 
contingency measures for PM2.5.
    On January 11, 2011, Illinois EPA confirmed that all monitored 
values of PM2.5 have been well below 140.4 [mu]g/m\3\ at all 
sites in Illinois, and therefore Illinois is not specifically required 
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. EPA concludes that Illinois 
has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On January 11, 2011, IDEM confirmed that all monitored values of 
PM2.5 have been well below 140.4 [mu]g/m\3\ at all sites in 
Indiana since 1999, and therefore Indiana is not specifically required 
to submit an emergency episode plan and contingency measures for 
PM2.5 at this time. Several statutory provisions in the 
Indiana Code and the Indiana Administrative Code provide the proper 
mechanisms to address air pollution emergency episodes. EPA concludes 
that Indiana has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) with 
respect to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On January 11, 2011, MPCA observed that all monitored values of 
PM2.5 have been well below 140.4 [mu]g/m\3\ at all sites in 
Minnesota since 2006, with the highest recorded value since then being 
57.5 [mu]g/m\3\. Therefore, Minnesota is not specifically required to 
submit an emergency episode plan and contingency measures for 
PM2.5 at this time. Chapter 7009 of the Minnesota SIP 
contains the provisions necessary for determining air quality emergency 
episodes. EPA concludes that Minnesota has met the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On January 24, 2011, MDEQ confirmed that all reliable monitored 
PM2.5 values in Michigan have been well below 140.4 [mu]g/
m\3\. MDEQ did cite elevated readings in 2007 at a site operated by the 
Intertribal Council (ITC). Although the data has not been removed by 
ITC, EPA staff completed an analysis on March 30, 2011, attesting that 
the data from the ITC site was reported to AQS without supporting 
quality assurance measures. Therefore, EPA believes that the data 
collected at this site is of unknown quality, and should be considered 
invalid and unusable, especially for regulatory purposes. Since no 
reliable observations in Michigan exceed 140.4 [mu]g/m\3\, EPA has 
determined that Michigan is not specifically required to submit an 
emergency episode plan and contingency measures for PM2.5 at 
this time. Additionally, EPA is working with ITC to either invalidate 
or delete the invalid data from AQS. 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 concludes that Michigan has met 
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On January 11, 2011, Ohio EPA confirmed that all monitored values 
of PM2.5 have been well below 140.4 [mu]g/m\3\ at all sites 
in Ohio, and therefore Ohio is not specifically required 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 
concludes that Ohio has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) 
with respect to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On January 24, 2011, WDNR confirmed that that all monitored values 
of PM2.5 have been well below 140.4 [mu]g/m\3\ at all sites 
in Wisconsin, and therefore Wisconsin is not specifically required 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 concludes that Wisconsin has met the requirements 
of section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 1997 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.

[[Page 23765]]

Furthermore, they have the authority to respond to any EPA findings of 
inadequacy with the Illinois SIP program. EPA concludes that Illinois 
has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 
1997 ozone and PM2.5 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 concludes that Indiana has met the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Michigan Act 451 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 concludes that Michigan has met the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
PM2.5 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 concludes that Minnesota has met the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
PM2.5 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 concludes that Ohio has met the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 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 concludes that 
Wisconsin has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect 
to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 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; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 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 States in EPA Region 5 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 concludes that Illinois has met the requirements of 
this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
PM2.5 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 concludes that Indiana has met the requirements of this 
portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
PM2.5 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 concludes that Michigan has met the 
requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to 
the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    MPCA actively participates in the Central Regional Air Planning 
Association as well as the Central States Air Resource Agencies. MPCA 
has also demonstrated that it frequently consults and discusses issues 
with pertinent Tribes. Therefore, EPA concludes that Minnesota has met 
the requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect 
to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 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 concludes that Ohio has 
met the requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with 
respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 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 concludes that Wisconsin 
has satisfied the requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) 
with respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 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

[[Page 23766]]

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 
made available on Illinois EPA's Web site. EPA concludes that Illinois 
has met the requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with 
respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 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 
concludes that Indiana has met the requirements of this portion of 
section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
PM2.5 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 concludes that Michigan has met the requirements of this 
portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
PM2.5 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 concludes that Minnesota has met the 
requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to 
the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 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 concludes that Ohio has met the requirements of this 
portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
PM2.5 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. 
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 concludes that Wisconsin 
has met the requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with 
respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 3: Prevention of Significant Deterioration
    States must meet applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 
related to PSD. All six States in Region 5 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 new source review 
program. Each State's PSD program has already been discussed in the 
paragraphs addressing section 110(a)(2)(C), and will not be addressed 
in this section.
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.
    Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, and Ohio have submitted such plans to 
EPA on November 5, 2010, December 30, 2009, January 14, 2011, and March 
11, 2011, respectively. EPA expects the other Region 5 States to submit 
their plans in the coming months. EPA will conduct separate rulemakings 
on regional haze plans as the States submit them; these rulemakings 
will address each State's satisfaction of the visibility portion of 
section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA is neither proposing to approve, nor 
disapprove, the regional haze requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for 
any of the Region 5 States in today's action.

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 concludes that Illinois EPA has met the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
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 concludes that Indiana has 
met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 1997 
ozone and 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 concludes that Michigan has met the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
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. EPA concludes that Minnesota has met the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K)

[[Page 23767]]

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 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 concludes that 
Ohio has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to 
the 1997 ozone and 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. EPA concludes that Wisconsin has 
met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 1997 
ozone and 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 
concludes that Illinois has met the 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 concludes that Indiana 
has met the 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 concludes that 
Michigan has met the 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 concludes 
that Minnesota has met the 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 concludes that 
Ohio has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L).
    Wisconsin DNR 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 concludes 
that Wisconsin has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L).
    EPA concludes that all Region 5 States have met the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(L) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 1997 
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 concludes that 
Illinois has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect 
to the 1997 ozone and 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 concludes that Indiana has met the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
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 concludes that Michigan has met the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 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 concludes that Minnesota has met the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
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 concludes that Ohio has met the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
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 concludes that Wisconsin has met the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 
PM2.5 NAAQS.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve some elements and conditionally approve 
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 1997 
8-hour ground-level ozone NAAQS and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Specifically, these are EPA's proposed actions, by element of 
section 110(a)(2):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             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 measures.  A             A             A            A            A            A
C2: NOX as a precursor to ozone   *             A             A            A            *            A
 in PSD regulations.
C3: PM10 surrogate policy in PSD  *             CA            CA           CA           *            A
 regulations.
C4: NSR reform..................  NA            NA            NA           NA           NA           NA
C5: GHG permitting in PSD         *             A             A            A            *            A
 regulations.
C6: Minor NSR regulations.......  A             A             A            A            A            A
D(i): Interstate transport......  NA            NA            NA           NA           NA           NA
D(ii): Interstate and             A             A             A            A            A            A
 international pollution
 abatement.

[[Page 23768]]

 
E: Adequate resources...........  A             A             A            A            A            A
F: Stationary source monitoring   A             A             A            A            A            A
 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 government  A             A             A            A            A            A
 officials.
J2: Public notification.........  A             A             A            A            A            A
J3: PSD.........................  **            **            **           **           **           **
J4: Visibility protection         NA            NA            NA           NA           NA           NA
 (Regional Haze).
K: Air quality modeling and data  A             A             A            A            A            A
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.
CA........................................  Conditionally Approve.
NA........................................  No Action/Separate
                                             Rulemaking.
*.........................................  Federally promulgated rules
                                             in place.
**........................................  Previously discussed in
                                             element (C).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: April 19, 2011.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2011-10331 Filed 4-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P