Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Reasonable Further Progress Plan and Other Plan Elements for the Moderate Nonattainment Chicago Area for the 2008 Ozone Standards, 40715-40723 [2018-17590]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules
annual performance reports or, given
the long-term nature of many AFFH
goals, should the reporting period be
longer? Should planning and/or results
be integrated into existing report
structures, such as Consolidated Plans
and Consolidated Annual Performance
and Evaluation Reports (CAPERs), or
utilize an alternative structure?
4. Should the proposed rule specify
the types of obstacles to fair housing
that program participants must address
as part of their AFFH efforts, or should
program participants be able to
determine the number and types of
obstacles to address? Should HUD
incentivize program participants to
collaborate regionally to identify and
address obstacles to affirmatively
furthering fair housing, without holding
localities accountable for areas outside
of their control? Should HUD
incentivize grantees and PHAs to
collaborate in the jurisdiction and the
region to remove fair housing obstacles?
What are examples of obstacles that the
AFFH regulations should seek to
address? How might a jurisdiction
accurately determine itself to be free of
material obstacles?
5. How much deference should
jurisdictions be provided in establishing
objectives to address obstacles to
identified fair housing goals, and
associated metrics and milestones for
measuring progress?
6. How should HUD evaluate the
AFFH efforts of program participants?
What types of elements should
distinguish acceptable efforts from those
that should be deemed unacceptable?
What should be required of, or imposed
upon, jurisdictions with unacceptable
efforts (other than potential statutory
loss of Community Development Block
Grant, HOME, or similar funding
sources)? How should HUD address
PHAs whose efforts to AFFH are
unacceptable?
7. Should the rule specify certain
levels of effort on specific actions that
will be deemed to be in compliance
with the obligation to affirmatively
further the purposes and policies of the
Fair Housing Act (i.e., ‘‘safe harbors’’),
and if so, what should they be?
8. Are there any other revisions to the
current AFFH regulations that could
help further the policies of the Fair
Housing Act, add clarity, reduce
uncertainty, decrease regulatory burden,
or otherwise assist program participants
in meeting their AFFH obligations?
III. Findings and Certifications
Environmental Impact
This ANPR is exclusively concerned
with nondiscrimination standards.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Aug 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(3),
it is categorically excluded from
environmental review under the
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321–4347).
Regulatory Review—Executive Orders
12866 and 13563
Per Executive Order 12866
(Regulatory Planning and Review), a
determination must be made whether a
regulatory action is significant and
therefore, subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) in
accordance with the requirements of the
order. Executive Order 13563
(Improving Regulations and Regulatory
Review) directs executive agencies to
analyze regulations that are ‘‘outmoded,
ineffective, insufficient, or excessively
burdensome, and to modify, streamline,
expand, or repeal them in accordance
with what has been learned.’’ Executive
Order 13563 also directs that, where
relevant, feasible, and consistent with
regulatory objectives, and to the extent
permitted by law, agencies are to
identify and consider regulatory
approaches that reduce burdens and
maintain flexibility and freedom of
choice for the public. This ANPR was
reviewed by OMB and determined to
likely result in a ‘‘significant regulatory
action,’’ as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866.
Dated: August 9, 2018.
´
Anna Maria Farıas,
Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and
Equal Opportunity.
[FR Doc. 2018–17671 Filed 8–15–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0212; FRL–9982–
29—Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin;
Reasonable Further Progress Plan and
Other Plan Elements for the Moderate
Nonattainment Chicago Area for the
2008 Ozone Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to the Wisconsin State
Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet the
base year emissions inventory,
reasonable further progress (RFP), RFP
contingency measure, nitrogen oxides
(NOX) reasonably available control
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40715
technology (RACT), and motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M)
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
for the Wisconsin portion of the
Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-IndianaWisconsin nonattainment area (Chicago
area) for the 2008 ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS or standards). EPA is also
proposing to approve the 2017 and 2018
transportation conformity motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the
Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is
proposing to approve this SIP revision
pursuant to section 110 and part D of
the CAA and EPA’s regulations because
it satisfies the emission inventory, RFP,
RFP contingency measure, NOX RACT,
I/M, and transportation conformity
requirements for the Wisconsin portion
of the Chicago area, which is classified
as moderate nonattainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 17, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2017–0212, at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
of submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.,
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
40716
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6832,
Liljegren.Jennifer@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:
I. What is the background for this action?
II. EPA’s Evaluation of Wisconsin’s SIP
Submission
III. What action is EPA proposing?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background for this
action?
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Background on the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS
On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated
a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075
parts per million (ppm).1 Promulgation
of a revised NAAQS triggers a
requirement for EPA to designate areas
of the country as nonattainment,
attainment, or unclassifiable for the
standards. For the ozone NAAQS, this
also involves classifying any
nonattainment areas at the time of
designation.2 Ozone nonattainment
areas are classified based on the severity
of their ozone levels (as determined
based on the area’s ‘‘design value,’’
which represents air quality in the area
for the most recent 3 years). The
classifications for ozone nonattainment
areas are marginal, moderate, serious,
severe, and extreme.3
Areas that EPA designates
nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS are
subject to certain requirements,
including the general nonattainment
area planning requirements of CAA
section 172 and the ozone-specific
nonattainment planning requirements of
CAA section 182. Ozone nonattainment
areas in the lower classification levels
have fewer and/or less stringent
mandatory air quality planning and
control requirements than those in
higher classifications. For marginal
areas, a state is required to submit a
baseline emissions inventory, adopt
provisions into the SIP requiring
emissions statements from stationary
sources in the area, and implement a
nonattainment new source review (NSR)
program for the relevant ozone
NAAQS.4 For moderate areas, a state
needs to comply with the marginal area
requirements, plus additional moderate
area requirements, including the
requirement to submit a modeled
demonstration that the area will attain
the NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than 6 years
FR 16436.
sections 107(d)(1) and 181(a)(1).
3 CAA section 181(a)(1).
after designation, the requirement to
submit an RFP plan, the requirement to
adopt and implement certain emissions
controls, such as RACT and I/M, and the
requirement for greater emissions offsets
for new or modified major stationary
sources under the state’s nonattainment
NSR program.5
B. Background on the Chicago 2008
Ozone Nonattainment Area
On June 11, 2012,6 EPA designated
the Chicago area as a marginal
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. The Chicago area includes
Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry,
and Will Counties and part of Grundy
and Kendall Counties in Illinois; Lake
and Porter Counties in Indiana; and the
eastern portion of Kenosha County in
Wisconsin. On May 4, 2016,7 pursuant
to section 181(b)(2) of the CAA, EPA
determined that the Chicago area failed
to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the
July 20, 2015, marginal area attainment
deadline and thus reclassified the area
from marginal to moderate
nonattainment. In that action, EPA
established January 1, 2017, as the due
date for all moderate area nonattainment
plan SIP requirements applicable to
newly reclassified areas.
II. EPA’s Evaluation of Wisconsin’s SIP
Submission
Wisconsin submitted a SIP revision
on April 17, 2017, and supplemental
information on January 23, 2018, to
address the moderate nonattainment
area requirements for the Wisconsin
portion of the Chicago area for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. The submission
contained several nonattainment plan
elements, including a revised 2011 base
year emissions inventory for the two
ozone-forming precursor pollutants,
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
NOX, a 15% RFP plan, a 3% RFP
contingency measure plan, 2017 and
2018 VOC and NOX MVEBs, and an
enhanced I/M program certification. The
submission also included an attainment
demonstration, a nonattainment NSR
certification, and a VOC RACT
certification, which will be addressed in
a separate action(s).
A. Revised 2011 Base Year Emissions
Inventory
CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1),
42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3) and 7511a(a)(1),
require states to develop and submit, as
SIP revisions, comprehensive, accurate,
and complete emissions inventories for
all areas designated as nonattainment
1 73
4 CAA
7 81
2 CAA
5 CAA
8 78
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Aug 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
section 182(a).
section 182(b).
6 77 FR 34221, effective July 20, 2012.
for the ozone NAAQS. An emissions
inventory for ozone is an estimation of
actual emissions of VOC and NOX from
all sources located in the relevant
designated nonattainment area. For the
2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA has
recommended that states use 2011 as a
base year for the emissions estimates.8
EPA approved on March 7, 2016,9 the
2011 base year emissions inventory,
which Wisconsin submitted on
November 14, 2014, for the Wisconsin
portion of the Chicago area. In its April
17, 2017, submission, supplemented on
January 23, 2018, Wisconsin included a
revised 2011 base year emissions
inventory submission. Relative to its
original inventory, Wisconsin’s revised
2011 base year emissions inventory
modifies the emissions estimates for the
point, on-road mobile, and non-road
mobile sector, with emissions estimates
for the area source sector remaining
unchanged.
The methodology differences between
Wisconsin’s modified inventory and
original inventory are summarized in
Table 1 and the emissions difference are
shown in Table 2. Relative to the
original inventory, the modified
inventory includes a more conservative
(worst-case) emissions estimate from the
one electric generating unit (EGU) in the
Wisconsin portion of the area.
Wisconsin estimated the modified
inventory on-road emissions using the
Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator
(MOVES) model version 2014a, whereas
it estimated the original inventory onroad mobile sector emissions with an
older version of the model—MOVES
version 2010b. Finally, Wisconsin
estimated the modified inventory nonroad mobile sector ‘‘MAR’’ emissions,
which include commercial marine,
aircraft, and rail locomotive, using
EPA’s 2014 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) version 2 and it
estimated the ‘‘non-MAR’’ emissions,
which are the non-road mobile
emissions sources excluding
commercial marine, aircraft, and rail
locomotive, using MOVES 2014a,
whereas the original inventory relied on
the older NEI version 1 and National
Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM),
respectively. Because the modifications
to the original EPA-approved inventory
are based on updated resources and
information as summarized above, EPA
finds the updated inventory approvable
and is proposing to approve the revised
2011 base year emissions inventory as a
revision to the Wisconsin SIP.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
FR 26697.
FR 34178 at 34190.
9 81 FR 11673.
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
40717
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—METHODOLOGY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WISCONSIN’S MODIFIED INVENTORY AND WISCONSIN’S ORIGINAL EPAAPPROVED INVENTORY
Sector
Original inventory
Modified inventory
Point ...................
EGUs & non-EGUs: WI AEI for an average day in the third
quarter.
NEI v2 ......................................................................................
MOVES 2010b (Min/Max Temps: 70/94 °F) ............................
air & rail: NEI v1; com.mar.: LADCO/NEI v1; non-MAR:
NMIM model.
EGUs: CAMD for a maximum day; non-EGU: WI AEI for an
average day in the year.
NEI v2.
MOVES 2014a (Min/Max Temps: 70/94 °F).
MAR: NEI v2; non-MAR: MOVES 2014a.
Area ....................
Onroad ...............
Nonroad .............
CAMD = EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division database, com.mar. = commercial marine, EGU = electric generating unit, MAR = commercial marine, aircraft and rail locomotive, MOVES = Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator, NEI = National Emissions Inventory, NMIM = National Mobile Inventory Model, WI AEI = Wisconsin’s Air Emissions Inventory (which is used to develop NEI emissions).
TABLE 2—EMISSIONS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WISCONSIN’S MODIFIED INVENTORY AND WISCONSIN’S ORIGINAL EPAAPPROVED INVENTORY
VOC
Sector
Approved
inventory
NOX
RFP inventory
Approved
inventory
RFP inventory
0.70
4.78
2.14
2.42
0.72
4.78
2.42
1.51
8.80
1.09
4.67
2.33
11.16
1.09
5.15
2.07
Total ..........................................................................................................
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Point .................................................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................................
On-road ............................................................................................................
Non-road ..........................................................................................................
10.04
9.43
16.89
19.47
B. 15% RFP Plan and 3% Contingency
Plan
The CAA requires that states with
areas designated as nonattainment for
ozone achieve RFP toward attainment of
the ozone NAAQS. CAA section
172(c)(2) contains a general requirement
that nonattainment plans must provide
for emission reductions that meet RFP.
For areas classified moderate and above,
section 182(b)(1) imposes a more
specific RFP requirement that a state
had to meet through a 15% reduction in
VOC emissions from the baseline
anthropogenic emissions within 6 years
after November 15, 1990. The state must
meet the 15% requirement by the end of
the 6-year period, regardless of when
the nonattainment area attains the
NAAQS. As with other nonattainment
plan requirements for more recent
iterations of the ozone NAAQS, EPA has
promulgated regulations and guidance
to interpret the statutory requirements
of the CAA.
EPA’s final rule to implement the
2008 ozone NAAQS (SIP Requirements
Rule),10 addressed, among other things,
the RFP requirements as they apply to
areas designated nonattainment and
classified as moderate for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.11 EPA interprets the
15% VOC emission reduction
requirement in CAA section 182(b)(1)
such that a state that has already met the
15% requirement for VOC for an area
10 80
11 80
FR 12264.
FR 12264 at 12271 and 40 CFR 51.1110.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Aug 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
under either the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
or the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
would not have to fulfill that
requirement through reductions of VOC
again. Instead, EPA is interpreting CAA
section 172(c)(2) to require states with
such areas to obtain 15% ozone
precursor emission reductions (VOC
and/or NOX) over the first 6 years after
the baseline year for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Wisconsin previously met the
15% VOC reduction requirement of
CAA section 182(b)(1) for Kenosha
County for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.12
Therefore, the state may rely upon NOX
and/or VOC emissions reductions to
meet the RFP requirement for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
EPA’s SIP Requirements Rule
indicates the base year for the 2008
ozone NAAQS, for which areas were
designated nonattainment effective July
20, 2012, can be 2011 or a different year
12 For both the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the
1997 ozone NAAQS, the entirety of Kenosha
County was part of the 6-county Milwaukee
nonattainment area. For the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
Kenosha County (partial) is part of the Chicago
nonattainment area, since the statistical area
delineated based on U.S. Census Bureau data was
updated to include Kenosha County as part of the
Chicago statistical area. Wisconsin met the 15%
VOC reduction requirement for the Milwaukee area
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, which included the
entirety of Kenosha County, therefore, the
Wisconsin portion of the 2008 Chicago
nonattainment area (Kenosha County inclusive and
east of I–94) has already met the 15% VOC
reduction requirement.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of the states’ choosing.13 However, EPA
required that states selecting a pre-2011
alternate baseline year must achieve 3%
emission reductions each year after the
initial 6-year period has concluded up
to the beginning of the attainment year.
For a multi-state area, states must agree
on the same base year. Wisconsin,
Illinois, and Indiana have all selected
the EPA-recommended base year of
2011.
States may not take credit for VOC or
NOX reductions occurring from sources
outside the nonattainment area for
purposes of meeting the 15% RFP and
3% RFP requirements of CAA sections
172(c)(2), 182(b)(1) and (c)(2)(B).
Wisconsin’s 15% RFP represents
emissions reductions which occurred in
Wisconsin’s portion of the
nonattainment area in the time period
from 2011 to 2017 thereby satisfying
this requirement.
Except as specifically provided in
CAA section 182(b)(1)(D) of the CAA, all
state control measures approved into the
SIP or Federal measures that provide
emissions reductions that occur after the
baseline emissions inventory year are
creditable for purposes of the RFP
requirements, provided that the
reductions meet the standard
13 In South Coast Air Quality Management
District v. EPA, No. 15–1115, decided February 16,
2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit ruled to reverse the portion of the rule
that allowed for alternate years. However, since all
3 states for this multi-state area chose the default
of 2011 as the base year, the decision has no impact
here.
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
40718
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules
requirements for creditability which
include being enforceable, quantifiable,
permanent, and surplus in terms of not
having previously been counted toward
RFP.
States must also include contingency
measures in their nonattainment plans.
The contingency measures required for
areas classified as moderate and above
under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9) must provide for the
implementation of specific measures if
the area fails to attain or to meet any
applicable RFP milestone. The state
must submit these measures for
approval by EPA into the SIP as adopted
measures that would take effect without
further rulemaking action by the state or
EPA upon a determination that an area
failed to attain or to meet the applicable
milestone. Per EPA guidance for
purposes of the ozone NAAQS,
contingency measures should represent
one year’s worth of RFP progress,
amounting to reductions of at least 3%
of the baseline emissions inventory for
the nonattainment area. The purpose of
the contingency measures is to provide
additional emission reductions in the
event of a failure to attain or meet any
applicable milestone, which would
occur while the state is revising its SIP
for the area.14
Regarding the contingency measures,
EPA’s prior guidance for purposes of the
ozone NAAQS specifies that some
portion of the contingency measures
must include VOC reductions. This
previous limitation is no longer
necessary in all areas. In particular, EPA
has concluded that states with
nonattainment areas classified moderate
and above that have already completed
the initial 15% VOC reduction required
by CAA section 182(b)(1)(A)(i), can meet
the contingency measures requirement
based entirely on NOX controls if that is
what the state’s analyses have
demonstrated would be most effective
in bringing the area into attainment.
There is no minimum VOC requirement.
Also, EPA is continuing its longstanding policy that allows promulgated
Federal measures to be used as
contingency measures as long as they
provide emission reductions in the
relevant years in excess of those needed
for attainment or RFP.15
Wisconsin submitted documentation
showing that emission reductions in the
Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area
met the 15% RFP and 3% contingency
requirements. Table 3 shows
Wisconsin’s estimated reductions from
all sectors. Table 3 shows that the area’s
total VOC emissions decreased by
13.04% from 2011 to 2017 and 2.20%
from 2017 to 2018. Table 3 shows the
area’s total NOX emissions decreased by
15.41% from 2011 to 2017 and 2.25%
from 2017 to 2018.
TABLE 3—WISCONSIN’S SOURCE SECTOR EMISSIONS IN TONS PER SUMMER DAY (tpsd) FOR EASTERN KENOSHA COUNTY
VOC
NOX
Sector
2011
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
Onroad .....................................................
Nonroad ...................................................
Total (% decrease from 2011–2017
and 2017–2018) ............................
2017
2018
2011
2017
2018
0.72
4.78
2.42
1.51
0.87
4.77
1.56
1.00
0.87
4.74
1.44
0.96
11.16
1.09
5.15
2.07
10.87
1.08
3.05
1.47
10.87
1.08
2.75
1.40
9.43
........................
8.20
(13.04%)
8.02
(2.20%)
19.47
........................
16.47
(15.41%)
16.10
(2.25%)
Wisconsin is able to meet the RFP and
RFP contingency requirements entirely
through Federal permanent and
enforceable control measures within the
mobile source sectors. Table 4
specifically contains the calculations
showing Wisconsin’s mobile source
emissions reductions meet the RFP and
RFP contingency requirements. The
MOVES model for the on-road and nonroad sectors assumed increases of 11–
13% in vehicle or equipment
population and usage while projecting a
34–41% reduction in ozone precursor
emissions from 2011 to 2017. The
estimated emissions reductions,
therefore, cannot be attributed to
reductions in source activity. Table 4
shows that of the 14.95% total VOC
reductions from 2011–2018, 14.63% 16
came from the mobile sector. Table 4
also shows that of the 17.31% total NOX
reductions from 2011–2018, 15.77%
came from the mobile sector. Wisconsin
is choosing to count 5% VOC reductions
and 10% NOX reductions from 2011–
2017 to meet the 15% RFP requirement,
and 1% VOC reductions and 2% NOX
reductions from 2011–2018 to meet the
3% RFP contingency requirement. In
other words, 6% VOC reductions and
12% NOX reductions for a total of 18%
to satisfy the 15% RFP and 3% RFP
contingency requirements.
TABLE 4—WISCONSIN’S MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM 2011–2017 ARE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE 15%
RFP REQUIREMENT AND WISCONSIN’S MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM 2017–2018 ARE SUFFICIENT
TO MEET THE 3% RFP CONTINGENCY REQUIREMENT FOR WISCONSIN’S PORTION OF THE CHICAGO AREA
VOC
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
2011
Total emissions (tpsd) ..............................
% Reduction from base year emissions
from 2011–2017 and 2017–2018, respectively ..............................................
14 80
FR 12264 at 12285.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Aug 15, 2018
2017
2018
2011
2017
2018
9.43
8.20
8.02
19.47
16.47
16.10
........................
13.04%
1.91%
........................
15.41%
1.90%
15 80
Jkt 244001
NOX
PO 00000
FR 12264 at 12285.
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
16 Net the increase in emissions from the point
source sector from 2011–2017 (see Table 3).
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
40719
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—WISCONSIN’S MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM 2011–2017 ARE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE 15%
RFP REQUIREMENT AND WISCONSIN’S MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM 2017–2018 ARE SUFFICIENT
TO MEET THE 3% RFP CONTINGENCY REQUIREMENT FOR WISCONSIN’S PORTION OF THE CHICAGO AREA—Continued
VOC
2011
Total ..................................................
NOX
2017
2018
........................
2011
14.95%
2017
........................
2018
17.31%
Mobile sector (onroad + nonroad) emissions (tpsd) ...........................................
% Reductions attributable to the mobile
sector from base year emissions from
2011–2017 17 and 2017–2018, respectively .....................................................
3.93
2.56
2.40
7.22
4.52
4.15
........................
12.94%
1.70%
........................
13.87%
1.90%
Total ..................................................
........................
14.63%
Wisconsin’s choice for 15% RFP requirement and 3% RFP contingency requirement, respectively ........................
........................
5%
Total ..................................................
........................
The MOVES model incorporates a
number of Federal emissions control
programs into its projections. These
emissions reduction measures are
........................
1%
6%
15.77%
........................
10%
........................
permanent and enforceable and are
implemented everywhere, including in
the nonattainment area. Tables 5 and 6
list the Federal permanent and
2%
12%
enforceable control programs modeled
by the MOVES model for the on-road
sector and the non-road sector,
respectively.
TABLE 5—PERMANENT AND ENFORCEABLE CONTROL PROGRAMS MODELED BY THE MOVES MODEL FOR THE ONROAD
SECTOR
On-road control program
Pollutants
Model year *
Passenger vehicles, SUVs, and light duty trucks—emissions and fuel standards.
Light-duty trucks and medium duty passenger vehicle—
evaporative standards.
Heavy-duty highway compression engines .....................
Heavy-duty spark ignition engines ..................................
Motorcycles ......................................................................
Mobile Source Air Toxics—fuel formulation, passenger
vehicle emissions, and portable container emissions.
Light duty vehicle corporate average fuel economy
standards.
VOC & NOX .......................
VOC ...................................
2004–09+ (Tier 2) 2017+
(Tier 3).
2004–10 .............................
VOC & NOX .......................
VOC & NOX .......................
VOC & NOX .......................
Organic Toxics & VOC ......
2007+ ................................
2005–08+ ..........................
2006–10 (Tier 1 & 2) .........
2009–15 ** .........................
Fuel efficiency (VOC &
NOX).
2012–16 & 2017–25 ..........
Regulation
40 CFR Part 85 & 86.
40 CFR Part 86.
40 CFR
40 CFR
40 CFR
40 CFR
86.
40 CFR
Part
Part
Part
Part
86.
86.
86.
59, 80, 85, &
Part 600.
* The range in model years affected can reflect phasing of requirements based on engine size or initial years for replacing earlier tier requirements.
** The range in model years reflects phased implementation of fuel, passenger vehicle, and portable container emission requirements as well
as the phasing by vehicle size and type.
TABLE 6—PERMANENT AND ENFORCEABLE CONTROL PROGRAMS MODELED BY THE MOVES MODEL OR CONSIDERED IN
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MAR INVENTORY FOR THE NONROAD SECTOR
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Nonroad control program *
Pollutants
Model year **
Aircraft .............................................................................
Compression Ignition .......................................................
Large Spark Ignition ........................................................
Locomotive Engines ........................................................
VOC
VOC
VOC
VOC
&
&
&
&
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
Marine Compression Ignition ...........................................
Marine Spark Ignition ......................................................
Recreational Vehicle ........................................................
Small Spark Ignition Engine <19 Kw—emission standards.
VOC
VOC
VOC
VOC
&
&
&
&
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
2000–2005+ ......................
2000–2015+ (Tier 4) .........
2007+ ................................
2012–2014 (Tier 3) 2015+
(Tier 4).
2012–2018 .........................
2010+ ................................
2006–2012 (Tier 1–3) ........
2005–2012 (Tier 2 & 3) .....
17 Net the increase in emissions from the point
source sector from 2011–2017 (see Table 3).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Aug 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
Regulation
40
40
40
40
CFR
CFR
CFR
CFR
Part
Part
Part
Part
87.
89 & 1039.
1048.
1033.
40
40
40
40
CFR
CFR
CFR
CFR
Part
Part
Part
Part
1042.
1045.
1051.
90 & 1054.
40720
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6—PERMANENT AND ENFORCEABLE CONTROL PROGRAMS MODELED BY THE MOVES MODEL OR CONSIDERED IN
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MAR INVENTORY FOR THE NONROAD SECTOR—Continued
Nonroad control program *
Pollutants
Model year **
Small Spark Ignition Engine <19 Kw—evaporative
standards.
VOC ...................................
2008–2016 .........................
Regulation
40 CFR Part 1045, 54, &
60.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
* Compression ignition applies to diesel non-road compression engines including engines operated in construction, agricultural, and mining
equipment. Recreational vehicles include snowmobiles, off-road motorcycles, and all-terrain vehicles. Small spark ignition engines include engines operated in lawn and hand-held equipment.
** The range in model years affected can reflect phasing of requirements based on engine size or initial years for replacing earlier tier
requirements.
These emissions reductions are
surplus, meaning that Wisconsin has
not previously claimed them for the
purposes of other ozone NAAQS
requirements. These emission
reductions are also permanent,
enforceable, and occurred during the 6year attainment planning time period,
which started with the 2011 base year.
Wisconsin has demonstrated that these
emissions reductions result in at least
an 18% reduction (15% for RFP and 3%
for the RFP contingency measure
requirements, respectively) from the
2011 base year inventory emissions net
of growth (and including a MVEB safety
margin of 7.5% which will be discussed
in more detail below). Thus, EPA is
proposing to approve these emissions
reductions as satisfying the 15% RFP
and 3% RFP contingency measure
requirements for the moderate
nonattainment plan for the Wisconsin
portion of the Chicago area for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
EPA notes that the measures
Wisconsin is relying upon to meet the
contingency measures requirement are
already implemented. Contingency
measures may include Federal measures
and local measures already scheduled
for implementation, as long as the
resulting emission reductions are in
excess of those needed for attainment or
to meet RFP in the nonattainment plan.
EPA interprets the CAA not to preclude
a state from implementing such
measures before they are triggered by a
failure to meet RFP or failure to attain.
For more information on contingency
measures, see the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA
Amendments of 1990 (April 16, 1992,
57 FR 13498, 13510) and the 2008
Ozone Implementation Rule (March 6,
2015, 80 FR 12264, 12285).
The appropriateness of relying on
already-implemented reductions to meet
the contingency measures requirement
has been addressed in two Federal
circuit court decisions. See Louisiana
Environmental Action Network (LEAN)
v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575, 586 (5th Cir.
2004), Bahr v. United States EPA, 836
F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Aug 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
199 L. Ed. 2d 525, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 58
(Jan. 8, 2018). EPA believes that the
language of section 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9) is ambiguous with respect to
this issue, and that it is reasonable for
the agency to interpret the statutory
language to allow approval of already
implemented measures as contingency
measures, so long as they meet other
parameters such as providing excess
emissions reductions that the state has
not relied upon to meet RFP or for
attainment in the nonattainment plan
for the NAAQS at issue. Until the Bahr
decision, under EPA’s longstanding
interpretation of CAA section 172(c)(9)
and 182(c)(9), states could rely on
control measures that were already
implemented (so called ‘‘early
triggered’’ contingency measures) as a
valid means to meet the Act’s
contingency measures requirement. The
Ninth Circuit decision in Bahr leaves a
split among the Federal circuit courts,
with the Fifth Circuit upholding the
Agency’s interpretation of section
172(c)(9) to allow early triggered
contingency measures and the Ninth
Circuit rejecting that interpretation. The
Seventh Circuit in which Wisconsin is
located has not addressed the issue, nor
has the Supreme Court or any other
circuit court other than the Fifth and
Ninth.
Because there is a split in the Federal
circuits on this issue, EPA expects that
states located in circuits other than the
Ninth may elect to rely on EPA’s
longstanding interpretation of section
172(c)(9) allowing early triggered
measures to be approved as contingency
measures, in appropriate circumstances.
EPA’s revised Regional Consistency
regulations pertaining to SIP provisions
authorize the Agency to follow this
interpretation of section 172(c)(9) in
circuits other than the Ninth. See 40
CFR part 56. To ensure that early
triggered contingency measures
appropriately satisfy all other relevant
CAA requirements, the EPA will
carefully review each such measure, and
intends to consult with states
considering such measures early in the
attainment plan development process.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
As shown above, the emissions
reductions projected through 2018 are
sufficient to meet the requirements for
contingency measures, consistent with
EPA’s interpretation of the CAA to
allow approval of already implemented
control measures as contingency
measures in states outside the Ninth
Circuit. Therefore, we propose approval
of the contingency measures submitted
by the state in the nonattainment plan
for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago
area.
C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new
transportation plans, programs, or
projects that receive Federal funding or
support, such as the construction of new
highways, must ‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be
consistent with) the SIP. Conformity to
a SIP means that transportation
activities will not produce new air
quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of
the NAAQS. Under the CAA, states are
required to submit, at various times,
control strategy plans for nonattainment
areas and maintenance plans for areas
that qualify for redesignation to
attainment of the ozone standards
(maintenance areas).18 These control
strategy plans (including reasonable
further progress plans and attainment
plans for purposes of the ozone
NAAQS) and maintenance plans must
include MVEBs for the relevant criteria
pollutant or its precursor pollutants
(VOC and NOX for ozone) to address
pollution from on-road transportation
sources. The MVEBs are the portion of
the total allowable emissions that are
allocated to highway and transit vehicle
use that, together with emissions from
other sources in the area, will meet an
RFP milestone or provide for attainment
or maintenance of the NAAQS.19 The
MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions
18 See the SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone
standards in EPA’s March 6, 2015 implementation
rule (80 FR 12264).
19 40 CFR 93.101.
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules
from an area’s planned transportation
system.20
When reviewing submitted control
strategy or maintenance plan
submissions, EPA must affirmatively
find that the MVEBs contained therein
are adequate for use in determining
transportation conformity. Once EPA
affirmatively finds that the submitted
MVEBs are adequate for transportation
purposes, then the MVEBs must be used
by state and Federal agencies in
determining whether proposed
transportation projects conform to the
SIP as required by section 176(c) of the
CAA.
EPA’s substantive criteria for
determining adequacy of a MVEB are set
out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process
for determining adequacy consists of
three basic steps: public notification of
a SIP submission; provision for a public
comment period; and EPA’s adequacy
determination. This process for
determining the adequacy of submitted
MVEBs for transportation conformity
purposes was initially outlined in EPA’s
May 14, 1999 guidance, ‘‘Conformity
Guidance on Implementation of March
2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.’’
EPA adopted regulations to codify the
adequacy process in the Transportation
Conformity Rule Amendments for the
‘‘New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing
Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments—Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule Change,’’
on July 1, 2004.21 Additional
information on the adequacy process for
transportation conformity purposes is
available in a June 30, 2003, proposed
rule titled, ‘‘Transportation Conformity
Rule Amendments: Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule
Changes.’’ 22
On January 16, 2015, Wisconsin
submitted an early progress SIP
submission with MVEBs for its portion
of the Chicago 2008 ozone
nonattainment area. On April 1, 2015,
EPA found Wisconsin’s MVEBs
adequate for use in transportation
conformity determinations.23 As part of
its nonattainment plan submitted on
April 17, 2017, and supplemented on
January 23, 2018, Wisconsin submitted
new 2017 and 2018 NOX and VOC
MVEBs, which are lower than
20 The MVEB concept is further explained in the
preamble to the November 24, 1993, Transportation
Conformity Rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also
describes how to establish the MVEB in the SIP and
how to revise the MVEB, if needed, subsequent to
initially establishing a MVEB in the SIP.
21 69 FR 40004.
22 68 FR 38974, 38984.
23 80 FR 17428.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Aug 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
Wisconsin’s previous MVEBs found
adequate by EPA. Wisconsin’s 2017 and
2018 MVEBs include a safety margin
that Wisconsin applied in the form of a
7.5% greater mobile source activity than
actually projected for 2017 and 2018,
respectively. By applying this additional
7.5% on the front end of the analysis,
Wisconsin’s MOVES model output
estimates of NOX and VOC emissions for
2017 and 2018 include a built-in safety
margin. States typically do this in an
effort to accommodate future variations
in travel demand models and vehicle
miles traveled forecast. As shown in
Table 4 above, Wisconsin has
demonstrated that the Wisconsin
portion of the Chicago area can meet the
15% RFP and 3% RFP contingency
measure emission reduction
requirements for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS with mobile source (onroad +
nonroad) emissions, which include an
onroad budget of 1.56 tpsd VOC and
3.05 tpsd NOX in 2017 and 1.44 tpsd
VOC and 2.75 tpsd NOX in 2018 (Table
7 below), and these emissions will
remain under 2017 and 2018 RFP plus
contingency measure target levels, even
with the inclusion of the added 7.5%
safety margin.
Wisconsin’s 2017 and 2018 MVEBS
were developed as part of an
interagency consultation process which
includes Federal, state, and local
agencies. The MVEBS were clearly
identified and precisely quantified.
These MVEBs, when considered
together with all other emissions
sources, are consistent with the 15%
RFP and 3% contingency measure
emission reduction requirements for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for this area.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve
Wisconsin’s revised 2017 and 2018
MVEBs into the Wisconsin SIP. If EPA
finalizes this approval, these MVEBs
will replace the MVEBs previously
established for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
early progress plan and Wisconsin must
use these updated MVEBs for future
transportation conformity
determinations for the Wisconsin
portion of the Chicago nonattainment
area. The 2017 and 2018 MVEBs are
listed in Table 7.
40721
D. Motor Vehicle I/M Program
Certification
The requirement to adopt a motor
vehicle I/M program for moderate ozone
nonattainment areas is described in
CAA section 182(b)(4) and the
regulations for basic and enhanced I/M
programs are found at 40 CFR part 51,
subpart S. Under these cumulative
requirements, states with areas
classified as moderate nonattainment for
ozone with 1990 Census-defined
urbanized populations of 200,000 or
more are required to adopt basic I/M
programs, while serious and higher
classified ozone nonattainment areas
outside of the northeast ozone transport
region with 1980 Census-defined
urbanized populations of 200,000 or
more are required to adopt enhanced I/
M programs. The Chicago area meets the
criteria for mandatory I/M under the
2008 ozone NAAQS and the Wisconsin
portion of the Chicago area is already
operating an enhanced I/M program due
to being designated nonattainment and
classified as serious or above under an
earlier ozone NAAQS. EPA initially
approved on August 16, 2001,24
Wisconsin’s I/M program and later
approved on September 19, 2013,25
revisions to Wisconsin’s I/M program.
Wisconsin’s approved enhanced I/M
program in the SIP is consistent with
the requirements of 40 CFR part 51,
subpart S for the alternate low enhanced
performance standards. In its April 17,
2017, submission, Wisconsin certified
that it still meets the Federal enhanced
I/M performance requirement.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to find that
Wisconsin has met the I/M requirement
for its portion of the Chicago area for the
2008 ozone NAAQS.
E. NOX RACT Certification
Section 182(f) of the CAA requires
RACT level controls for major stationary
sources of NOX located in moderate
ozone nonattainment areas. ‘‘RACT’’ is
defined as the lowest emission
limitation that a particular source is
capable of meeting by the application of
control technology that is reasonably
available considering technological and
economic feasibility.26 Section 302 of
the CAA defines a major stationary
TABLE 7—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS source as any facility which has the
BUDGETS (MVEBS) FOR EASTERN potential to emit 100 tons per year of
KENOSHA COUNTY FOR 2017 AND any air pollutant. EPA approved
Wisconsin’s NOX RACT program into
2018
the SIP on October 19, 2010,27 for
purposes of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
Emissions
(tons per summer day)
Wisconsin’s NOX RACT requirements
Year
VOC
2017 ..........
2018 ..........
PO 00000
Frm 00037
NOX
1.56
1.44
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24 66
3.05
2.75
FR 42949.
FR 57501.
26 44 FR 53762.
27 75 FR 64155.
25 78
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
40722
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
are codified at NR 428.20 to 428.26 of
the Wisconsin Administrative Code.
Wisconsin’s NOX RACT rules are
applicable to major stationary sources of
NOX located in Wisconsin’s moderate
ozone nonattainment areas, including
Kenosha County. The only major source
of NOX in the portion of Kenosha
County that is designated nonattainment
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is Wisconsin
Electric Power Company, D/B/A We
Energies-Pleasant Prairie Power Plant.
This source has selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) technology for
controlling NOX emissions from each of
its two coal-fired boilers and has been
subject to an emission limit of 0.10
pounds of NOX per Million British
Thermal Unit (MMBTU) since May 1,
2009. Because Wisconsin has EPAapproved NOX RACT rules applicable to
Kenosha County sources in its SIP, and
EPA considers the current control
technology and limit at the major
stationary source in the 2008 ozone
NAAQS nonattainment portion of
Kenosha County to be RACT for NOX,
EPA is proposing to find that Wisconsin
has satisfied the NOX RACT
requirements for its moderate
nonattainment plan for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS for the Wisconsin portion of the
Chicago nonattainment area, which is
the portion of Kenosha County inclusive
and east of Highway 94.
F. Emissions Statement Certification
For marginal ozone nonattainment
areas, states must adopt SIP provisions
requiring emissions statements from
stationary sources of VOC and NOX.28
States may waive this requirement for
sources emitting less than 25 tons per
year of VOC and less than 25 tons per
year of NOX.29 Under NR 438 of the
Wisconsin Administrative Code,
Wisconsin requires annual NOX and
VOC emission reporting from any
facility in the state that emits NOX
above 10,000 pounds (5 tons) per year
and VOC above 6,000 pounds (3 tons)
per year. This includes facilities in
nonattainment areas such as the
Wisconsin portion of the Chicago
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. EPA previously approved NR
438 into the Wisconsin SIP on
December 6, 1993.30
As part of a moderate ozone
nonattainment plan, states should
certify that the proper emissions
statement reporting requirements are in
place. If an area has a previously
approved emission statement provision
in the SIP in force for the 1997 ozone
28 CAA
section 182(a)(3)(B)(i).
section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii).
30 58 FR 64155.
NAAQS or the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
that covers all portions of the
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, then such rule should be
sufficient for purposes of the emissions
statement requirement for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. The state should review
the existing rule to ensure it is adequate
and, if it is, may rely on it to meet the
emission statement requirement for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. In cases when an
existing emission statement requirement
is still adequate to meet the
requirements of the implementation rule
for the 2008 ozone standard, states can
provide the rationale for that
determination to EPA in a written
statement in its SIP submission to meet
this requirement.31
In a separate submission to EPA on
August 15, 2016, Wisconsin included a
certification that its emissions statement
provision in the SIP is still adequate to
meet the requirements for the Wisconsin
portion of the Chicago 2008 ozone
nonattainment area. In Wisconsin’s
January 23, 2018, supplemental
submission to EPA regarding
Wisconsin’s moderate area ozone
nonattainment plan for the Chicago
area, Wisconsin requested that EPA act
on its August 15, 2016, emission
statement certification as part of the
action on Wisconsin’s nonattainment
plan elements included in this proposal.
Because Wisconsin has an EPA
approved SIP provision requiring
stationary sources to report annually
their NOX and VOC emissions at least as
high as 25 tons per year for each
precursor, EPA proposes that Wisconsin
has satisfied the emissions statement
requirement for its nonattainment plan
for the Chicago area for the purposes of
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
III. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to approve revisions
to Wisconsin’s SIP pursuant to section
110 and part D of the CAA and EPA’s
regulations because Wisconsin’s April
17, 2017, nonattainment plan
submissions and January 23, 2018,
supplement along with a prior
submission on August 15, 2016, satisfy
the emission inventory, RFP, RFP
contingency measure, NOX RACT,
emissions statement, I/M, and
transportation conformity requirements
for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago
area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
29 CAA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Aug 15, 2018
31 80
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
FR 12264 at 12291.
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• 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, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: August 1, 2018.
James Payne,
Acting Deputy Regional Administrator,
Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018–17590 Filed 8–15–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0165; FRL–9982–
30—Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Approval of
Sulfur Dioxide Regulations
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve,
under the Clean Air Act, Ohio’s revised
sulfur dioxide (SO2) regulations, which
Ohio submitted to EPA on March 13,
2017. Ohio updated its regulations to
correct facility information which has
changed and to add new emission limits
for selected sources in Lake and
Jefferson Counties. The revised
regulations do not impose substantive
changes or additional emission
restrictions upon the Ohio State
Implementation Plan (SIP) except for
the site-specific provisions which have
been revised in response to Ohio’s
nonattainment area designations of
August 5, 2013. EPA is proposing to
approve the majority of the revised
regulations which the state submitted.
EPA proposes to take no action on a
portion of one submitted rule, which
has never been federally approved. EPA
also proposes to remove one rule from
the SIP, which Ohio rescinded and
replaced in 2009.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 17, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2017–0165 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
Blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Aug 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Portanova, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)353–5954,
portanova.mary@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. Introduction
II. Review of Rules
A. Overview
B. Revisions to General Rules
C. Rules Addressing Nonattainment Areas
1. Lake County Area
2. Muskingum River Area (Morgan and
Washington Counties)
3. Steubenville Area (Jefferson County)
D. County-Specific Issues
1. Cuyahoga County
2. Lorain County
3. Ross County
4. Wayne County
E. Removal of Rescinded Rule
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Introduction
On March 13, 2017, Ohio submitted
revisions to the Ohio Administrative
Code Chapter 3745–18 (OAC 3745–18),
effective on February 16, 2017, for
incorporation by EPA into the Ohio SO2
SIP. OAC 3745–18 contains Ohio’s air
emission regulations for SO2, which
include both statewide requirements
and emission limits for each Ohio
county. This submittal was the product
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40723
of a comprehensive examination of the
state’s SO2 rules which Ohio undertook
in accordance with its routine five-year
rule review process. The state made a
number of revisions to OAC 3745–18,
updating facility data to match the
current information in its operating
permits database and removing
requirements which only applied to
facilities which have closed or units
which have been removed from existing
facilities. For several sources, Ohio
retained the existing limits in OAC
3745–18, but separately issued federally
enforceable permits containing tighter
limits than those in the rule, or new
provisions reflecting physical changes at
the facility. Generally, these permits
addressed changes which had occurred
too late to include in the state’s
rulemaking action. The effect of EPA’s
approval of the revised OAC 3745–18
SIP rules submitted on March 13, 2017,
would be to retain federal enforceability
of both sets of limits for each source.
Ohio’s March 13, 2017 submittal also
included rules which Ohio had
developed to address Clean Air Act
(CAA) requirements for three 1-hour
SO2 nonattainment areas. Ohio first
adopted these new rules, which are
found in OAC 3745–18–03, OAC 3745–
18–04, OAC 3745–18–47, and OAC
3745–18–49, on October 13, 2015, and
submitted the rules to EPA as part of the
state’s October 13, 2015, nonattainment
SIP submittal. Later, Ohio made
significant revisions and corrections to
some of the nonattainment area rules.
The state adopted the revised
nonattainment area rules on February 6,
2017, and submitted them to EPA on
March 13, 2017, within Ohio’s larger
five-year rule review package. EPA is
proposing action on Ohio’s entire March
13, 2017 submittal of revisions to OAC
3745–18, regarding their incorporation
into the state’s SO2 SIP. Separate action
will address whether Ohio’s revisions to
OAC 3745–18–03, OAC 3745–18–04,
OAC 3745–18–47, and OAC 3745–18–49
satisfy EPA’s nonattainment planning
requirements.
II. Review of Rules
A. Overview
Ohio’s federally approved SO2 SIP
contains six generally applicable
chapters of OAC 3745–18 and 88
county-specific chapters. The six
generally applicable chapters are OAC
3745–18–01, ‘‘Definitions and
incorporation by reference,’’ OAC 3745–
18–02, ‘‘Ambient air quality standards;
sulfur dioxide,’’ OAC 3745–18–03,
‘‘Attainment dates and compliance time
schedules,’’ OAC 3745–18–04,
‘‘Measurement methods and
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 159 (Thursday, August 16, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40715-40723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17590]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0212; FRL-9982-29--Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Reasonable Further Progress Plan
and Other Plan Elements for the Moderate Nonattainment Chicago Area for
the 2008 Ozone Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP) to
meet the base year emissions inventory, reasonable further progress
(RFP), RFP contingency measure, nitrogen oxides (NOX)
reasonably available control technology (RACT), and motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M) requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-
Indiana-Wisconsin nonattainment area (Chicago area) for the 2008 ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards). EPA is
also proposing to approve the 2017 and 2018 transportation conformity
motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Wisconsin portion of
the Chicago area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing to approve
this SIP revision pursuant to section 110 and part D of the CAA and
EPA's regulations because it satisfies the emission inventory, RFP, RFP
contingency measure, NOX RACT, I/M, and transportation
conformity requirements for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area,
which is classified as moderate nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 17, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2017-0212, at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard,
[[Page 40716]]
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6832, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:
I. What is the background for this action?
II. EPA's Evaluation of Wisconsin's SIP Submission
III. What action is EPA proposing?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background for this action?
A. Background on the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of
0.075 parts per million (ppm).\1\ Promulgation of a revised NAAQS
triggers a requirement for EPA to designate areas of the country as
nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable for the standards. For the
ozone NAAQS, this also involves classifying any nonattainment areas at
the time of designation.\2\ Ozone nonattainment areas are classified
based on the severity of their ozone levels (as determined based on the
area's ``design value,'' which represents air quality in the area for
the most recent 3 years). The classifications for ozone nonattainment
areas are marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 73 FR 16436.
\2\ CAA sections 107(d)(1) and 181(a)(1).
\3\ CAA section 181(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas that EPA designates nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS are
subject to certain requirements, including the general nonattainment
area planning requirements of CAA section 172 and the ozone-specific
nonattainment planning requirements of CAA section 182. Ozone
nonattainment areas in the lower classification levels have fewer and/
or less stringent mandatory air quality planning and control
requirements than those in higher classifications. For marginal areas,
a state is required to submit a baseline emissions inventory, adopt
provisions into the SIP requiring emissions statements from stationary
sources in the area, and implement a nonattainment new source review
(NSR) program for the relevant ozone NAAQS.\4\ For moderate areas, a
state needs to comply with the marginal area requirements, plus
additional moderate area requirements, including the requirement to
submit a modeled demonstration that the area will attain the NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than 6 years after
designation, the requirement to submit an RFP plan, the requirement to
adopt and implement certain emissions controls, such as RACT and I/M,
and the requirement for greater emissions offsets for new or modified
major stationary sources under the state's nonattainment NSR
program.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ CAA section 182(a).
\5\ CAA section 182(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Background on the Chicago 2008 Ozone Nonattainment Area
On June 11, 2012,\6\ EPA designated the Chicago area as a marginal
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Chicago area includes
Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties and part of Grundy
and Kendall Counties in Illinois; Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana;
and the eastern portion of Kenosha County in Wisconsin. On May 4,
2016,\7\ pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the CAA, EPA determined that
the Chicago area failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the July 20,
2015, marginal area attainment deadline and thus reclassified the area
from marginal to moderate nonattainment. In that action, EPA
established January 1, 2017, as the due date for all moderate area
nonattainment plan SIP requirements applicable to newly reclassified
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 77 FR 34221, effective July 20, 2012.
\7\ 81 FR 26697.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. EPA's Evaluation of Wisconsin's SIP Submission
Wisconsin submitted a SIP revision on April 17, 2017, and
supplemental information on January 23, 2018, to address the moderate
nonattainment area requirements for the Wisconsin portion of the
Chicago area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The submission contained several
nonattainment plan elements, including a revised 2011 base year
emissions inventory for the two ozone-forming precursor pollutants,
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NOX, a 15% RFP plan, a
3% RFP contingency measure plan, 2017 and 2018 VOC and NOX
MVEBs, and an enhanced I/M program certification. The submission also
included an attainment demonstration, a nonattainment NSR
certification, and a VOC RACT certification, which will be addressed in
a separate action(s).
A. Revised 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory
CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3) and
7511a(a)(1), require states to develop and submit, as SIP revisions,
comprehensive, accurate, and complete emissions inventories for all
areas designated as nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS. An emissions
inventory for ozone is an estimation of actual emissions of VOC and
NOX from all sources located in the relevant designated
nonattainment area. For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA has recommended that
states use 2011 as a base year for the emissions estimates.\8\ EPA
approved on March 7, 2016,\9\ the 2011 base year emissions inventory,
which Wisconsin submitted on November 14, 2014, for the Wisconsin
portion of the Chicago area. In its April 17, 2017, submission,
supplemented on January 23, 2018, Wisconsin included a revised 2011
base year emissions inventory submission. Relative to its original
inventory, Wisconsin's revised 2011 base year emissions inventory
modifies the emissions estimates for the point, on-road mobile, and
non-road mobile sector, with emissions estimates for the area source
sector remaining unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 78 FR 34178 at 34190.
\9\ 81 FR 11673.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The methodology differences between Wisconsin's modified inventory
and original inventory are summarized in Table 1 and the emissions
difference are shown in Table 2. Relative to the original inventory,
the modified inventory includes a more conservative (worst-case)
emissions estimate from the one electric generating unit (EGU) in the
Wisconsin portion of the area. Wisconsin estimated the modified
inventory on-road emissions using the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator
(MOVES) model version 2014a, whereas it estimated the original
inventory on-road mobile sector emissions with an older version of the
model--MOVES version 2010b. Finally, Wisconsin estimated the modified
inventory non-road mobile sector ``MAR'' emissions, which include
commercial marine, aircraft, and rail locomotive, using EPA's 2014
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) version 2 and it estimated the
``non-MAR'' emissions, which are the non-road mobile emissions sources
excluding commercial marine, aircraft, and rail locomotive, using MOVES
2014a, whereas the original inventory relied on the older NEI version 1
and National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM), respectively. Because the
modifications to the original EPA-approved inventory are based on
updated resources and information as summarized above, EPA finds the
updated inventory approvable and is proposing to approve the revised
2011 base year emissions inventory as a revision to the Wisconsin SIP.
[[Page 40717]]
Table 1--Methodology Differences Between Wisconsin's Modified Inventory
and Wisconsin's Original EPA-Approved Inventory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Original inventory Modified inventory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.................. EGUs & non-EGUs: WI AEI EGUs: CAMD for a
for an average day in maximum day; non-EGU:
the third quarter. WI AEI for an average
day in the year.
Area................... NEI v2................. NEI v2.
Onroad................. MOVES 2010b (Min/Max MOVES 2014a (Min/Max
Temps: 70/94 [deg]F). Temps: 70/94 [deg]F).
Nonroad................ air & rail: NEI v1; MAR: NEI v2; non-MAR:
com.mar.: LADCO/NEI MOVES 2014a.
v1; non-MAR: NMIM
model.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMD = EPA's Clean Air Markets Division database, com.mar. = commercial
marine, EGU = electric generating unit, MAR = commercial marine,
aircraft and rail locomotive, MOVES = Motor Vehicle Emissions
Simulator, NEI = National Emissions Inventory, NMIM = National Mobile
Inventory Model, WI AEI = Wisconsin's Air Emissions Inventory (which
is used to develop NEI emissions).
Table 2--Emissions Differences Between Wisconsin's Modified Inventory and Wisconsin's Original EPA-Approved
Inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Approved Approved
inventory RFP inventory inventory RFP inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................... 0.70 0.72 8.80 11.16
Area............................................ 4.78 4.78 1.09 1.09
On-road......................................... 2.14 2.42 4.67 5.15
Non-road........................................ 2.42 1.51 2.33 2.07
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 10.04 9.43 16.89 19.47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. 15% RFP Plan and 3% Contingency Plan
The CAA requires that states with areas designated as nonattainment
for ozone achieve RFP toward attainment of the ozone NAAQS. CAA section
172(c)(2) contains a general requirement that nonattainment plans must
provide for emission reductions that meet RFP. For areas classified
moderate and above, section 182(b)(1) imposes a more specific RFP
requirement that a state had to meet through a 15% reduction in VOC
emissions from the baseline anthropogenic emissions within 6 years
after November 15, 1990. The state must meet the 15% requirement by the
end of the 6-year period, regardless of when the nonattainment area
attains the NAAQS. As with other nonattainment plan requirements for
more recent iterations of the ozone NAAQS, EPA has promulgated
regulations and guidance to interpret the statutory requirements of the
CAA.
EPA's final rule to implement the 2008 ozone NAAQS (SIP
Requirements Rule),\10\ addressed, among other things, the RFP
requirements as they apply to areas designated nonattainment and
classified as moderate for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\11\ EPA interprets the
15% VOC emission reduction requirement in CAA section 182(b)(1) such
that a state that has already met the 15% requirement for VOC for an
area under either the 1-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
would not have to fulfill that requirement through reductions of VOC
again. Instead, EPA is interpreting CAA section 172(c)(2) to require
states with such areas to obtain 15% ozone precursor emission
reductions (VOC and/or NOX) over the first 6 years after the
baseline year for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Wisconsin previously met the
15% VOC reduction requirement of CAA section 182(b)(1) for Kenosha
County for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.\12\ Therefore, the state may rely
upon NOX and/or VOC emissions reductions to meet the RFP
requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 80 FR 12264.
\11\ 80 FR 12264 at 12271 and 40 CFR 51.1110.
\12\ For both the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
the entirety of Kenosha County was part of the 6-county Milwaukee
nonattainment area. For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, Kenosha County
(partial) is part of the Chicago nonattainment area, since the
statistical area delineated based on U.S. Census Bureau data was
updated to include Kenosha County as part of the Chicago statistical
area. Wisconsin met the 15% VOC reduction requirement for the
Milwaukee area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, which included the
entirety of Kenosha County, therefore, the Wisconsin portion of the
2008 Chicago nonattainment area (Kenosha County inclusive and east
of I-94) has already met the 15% VOC reduction requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's SIP Requirements Rule indicates the base year for the 2008
ozone NAAQS, for which areas were designated nonattainment effective
July 20, 2012, can be 2011 or a different year of the states'
choosing.\13\ However, EPA required that states selecting a pre-2011
alternate baseline year must achieve 3% emission reductions each year
after the initial 6-year period has concluded up to the beginning of
the attainment year. For a multi-state area, states must agree on the
same base year. Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana have all selected the
EPA-recommended base year of 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ In South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, No.
15-1115, decided February 16, 2018, the United States Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled to reverse the portion of the
rule that allowed for alternate years. However, since all 3 states
for this multi-state area chose the default of 2011 as the base
year, the decision has no impact here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States may not take credit for VOC or NOX reductions
occurring from sources outside the nonattainment area for purposes of
meeting the 15% RFP and 3% RFP requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2),
182(b)(1) and (c)(2)(B). Wisconsin's 15% RFP represents emissions
reductions which occurred in Wisconsin's portion of the nonattainment
area in the time period from 2011 to 2017 thereby satisfying this
requirement.
Except as specifically provided in CAA section 182(b)(1)(D) of the
CAA, all state control measures approved into the SIP or Federal
measures that provide emissions reductions that occur after the
baseline emissions inventory year are creditable for purposes of the
RFP requirements, provided that the reductions meet the standard
[[Page 40718]]
requirements for creditability which include being enforceable,
quantifiable, permanent, and surplus in terms of not having previously
been counted toward RFP.
States must also include contingency measures in their
nonattainment plans. The contingency measures required for areas
classified as moderate and above under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9) must provide for the implementation of specific measures if
the area fails to attain or to meet any applicable RFP milestone. The
state must submit these measures for approval by EPA into the SIP as
adopted measures that would take effect without further rulemaking
action by the state or EPA upon a determination that an area failed to
attain or to meet the applicable milestone. Per EPA guidance for
purposes of the ozone NAAQS, contingency measures should represent one
year's worth of RFP progress, amounting to reductions of at least 3% of
the baseline emissions inventory for the nonattainment area. The
purpose of the contingency measures is to provide additional emission
reductions in the event of a failure to attain or meet any applicable
milestone, which would occur while the state is revising its SIP for
the area.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 80 FR 12264 at 12285.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the contingency measures, EPA's prior guidance for
purposes of the ozone NAAQS specifies that some portion of the
contingency measures must include VOC reductions. This previous
limitation is no longer necessary in all areas. In particular, EPA has
concluded that states with nonattainment areas classified moderate and
above that have already completed the initial 15% VOC reduction
required by CAA section 182(b)(1)(A)(i), can meet the contingency
measures requirement based entirely on NOX controls if that
is what the state's analyses have demonstrated would be most effective
in bringing the area into attainment. There is no minimum VOC
requirement. Also, EPA is continuing its long-standing policy that
allows promulgated Federal measures to be used as contingency measures
as long as they provide emission reductions in the relevant years in
excess of those needed for attainment or RFP.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 80 FR 12264 at 12285.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin submitted documentation showing that emission reductions
in the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area met the 15% RFP and 3%
contingency requirements. Table 3 shows Wisconsin's estimated
reductions from all sectors. Table 3 shows that the area's total VOC
emissions decreased by 13.04% from 2011 to 2017 and 2.20% from 2017 to
2018. Table 3 shows the area's total NOX emissions decreased
by 15.41% from 2011 to 2017 and 2.25% from 2017 to 2018.
Table 3--Wisconsin's Source Sector Emissions in Tons per Summer Day (tpsd) for Eastern Kenosha County
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
Sector -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 2017 2018 2011 2017 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 0.72 0.87 0.87 11.16 10.87 10.87
Area.................................................... 4.78 4.77 4.74 1.09 1.08 1.08
Onroad.................................................. 2.42 1.56 1.44 5.15 3.05 2.75
Nonroad................................................. 1.51 1.00 0.96 2.07 1.47 1.40
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total (% decrease from 2011-2017 and 2017-2018)..... 9.43 8.20 8.02 19.47 16.47 16.10
.............. (13.04%) (2.20%) .............. (15.41%) (2.25%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin is able to meet the RFP and RFP contingency requirements
entirely through Federal permanent and enforceable control measures
within the mobile source sectors. Table 4 specifically contains the
calculations showing Wisconsin's mobile source emissions reductions
meet the RFP and RFP contingency requirements. The MOVES model for the
on-road and non-road sectors assumed increases of 11-13% in vehicle or
equipment population and usage while projecting a 34-41% reduction in
ozone precursor emissions from 2011 to 2017. The estimated emissions
reductions, therefore, cannot be attributed to reductions in source
activity. Table 4 shows that of the 14.95% total VOC reductions from
2011-2018, 14.63% \16\ came from the mobile sector. Table 4 also shows
that of the 17.31% total NOX reductions from 2011-2018,
15.77% came from the mobile sector. Wisconsin is choosing to count 5%
VOC reductions and 10% NOX reductions from 2011-2017 to meet
the 15% RFP requirement, and 1% VOC reductions and 2% NOX
reductions from 2011-2018 to meet the 3% RFP contingency requirement.
In other words, 6% VOC reductions and 12% NOX reductions for
a total of 18% to satisfy the 15% RFP and 3% RFP contingency
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Net the increase in emissions from the point source sector
from 2011-2017 (see Table 3).
Table 4--Wisconsin's Mobile Source Emissions Reductions From 2011-2017 Are Sufficient To Meet the 15% RFP Requirement and Wisconsin's Mobile Source
Emissions Reductions From 2017-2018 Are Sufficient To Meet the 3% RFP Contingency Requirement for Wisconsin's Portion of the Chicago Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 2017 2018 2011 2017 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total emissions (tpsd).................................. 9.43 8.20 8.02 19.47 16.47 16.10
% Reduction from base year emissions from 2011-2017 and .............. 13.04% 1.91% .............. 15.41% 1.90%
2017-2018, respectively................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40719]]
Total............................................... .............. 14.95% .............. 17.31%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile sector (onroad + nonroad) emissions (tpsd)....... 3.93 2.56 2.40 7.22 4.52 4.15
% Reductions attributable to the mobile sector from base .............. 12.94% 1.70% .............. 13.87% 1.90%
year emissions from 2011-2017 \17\ and 2017-2018,
respectively...........................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... .............. 14.63% .............. 15.77%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin's choice for 15% RFP requirement and 3% RFP .............. 5% 1% .............. 10% 2%
contingency requirement, respectively..................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... .............. 6% .............. 12%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Net the increase in emissions from the point source sector
from 2011-2017 (see Table 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MOVES model incorporates a number of Federal emissions control
programs into its projections. These emissions reduction measures are
permanent and enforceable and are implemented everywhere, including in
the nonattainment area. Tables 5 and 6 list the Federal permanent and
enforceable control programs modeled by the MOVES model for the on-road
sector and the non-road sector, respectively.
Table 5--Permanent and Enforceable Control Programs Modeled by the MOVES Model for the Onroad Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-road control program Pollutants Model year * Regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger vehicles, SUVs, and light VOC & NOX.............. 2004-09+ (Tier 2) 2017+ 40 CFR Part 85 & 86.
duty trucks--emissions and fuel (Tier 3).
standards.
Light-duty trucks and medium duty VOC.................... 2004-10................ 40 CFR Part 86.
passenger vehicle--evaporative
standards.
Heavy-duty highway compression VOC & NOX.............. 2007+.................. 40 CFR Part 86.
engines.
Heavy-duty spark ignition engines.... VOC & NOX.............. 2005-08+............... 40 CFR Part 86.
Motorcycles.......................... VOC & NOX.............. 2006-10 (Tier 1 & 2)... 40 CFR Part 86.
Mobile Source Air Toxics--fuel Organic Toxics & VOC... 2009-15 **............. 40 CFR Part 59, 80, 85,
formulation, passenger vehicle & 86.
emissions, and portable container
emissions.
Light duty vehicle corporate average Fuel efficiency (VOC & 2012-16 & 2017-25...... 40 CFR Part 600.
fuel economy standards. NOX).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The range in model years affected can reflect phasing of requirements based on engine size or initial years
for replacing earlier tier requirements.
** The range in model years reflects phased implementation of fuel, passenger vehicle, and portable container
emission requirements as well as the phasing by vehicle size and type.
Table 6--Permanent and Enforceable Control Programs Modeled by the MOVES Model or Considered in Development of
the MAR Inventory for the Nonroad Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonroad control program * Pollutants Model year ** Regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft............................. VOC & NOX.............. 2000-2005+............. 40 CFR Part 87.
Compression Ignition................. VOC & NOX.............. 2000-2015+ (Tier 4).... 40 CFR Part 89 & 1039.
Large Spark Ignition................. VOC & NOX.............. 2007+.................. 40 CFR Part 1048.
Locomotive Engines................... VOC & NOX.............. 2012-2014 (Tier 3) 40 CFR Part 1033.
2015+ (Tier 4).
Marine Compression Ignition.......... VOC & NOX.............. 2012-2018.............. 40 CFR Part 1042.
Marine Spark Ignition................ VOC & NOX.............. 2010+.................. 40 CFR Part 1045.
Recreational Vehicle................. VOC & NOX.............. 2006-2012 (Tier 1-3)... 40 CFR Part 1051.
Small Spark Ignition Engine <19 Kw-- VOC & NOX.............. 2005-2012 (Tier 2 & 3). 40 CFR Part 90 & 1054.
emission standards.
[[Page 40720]]
Small Spark Ignition Engine <19 Kw-- VOC.................... 2008-2016.............. 40 CFR Part 1045, 54, &
evaporative standards. 60.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Compression ignition applies to diesel non-road compression engines including engines operated in
construction, agricultural, and mining equipment. Recreational vehicles include snowmobiles, off-road
motorcycles, and all-terrain vehicles. Small spark ignition engines include engines operated in lawn and hand-
held equipment.
** The range in model years affected can reflect phasing of requirements based on engine size or initial years
for replacing earlier tier requirements.
These emissions reductions are surplus, meaning that Wisconsin has
not previously claimed them for the purposes of other ozone NAAQS
requirements. These emission reductions are also permanent,
enforceable, and occurred during the 6-year attainment planning time
period, which started with the 2011 base year. Wisconsin has
demonstrated that these emissions reductions result in at least an 18%
reduction (15% for RFP and 3% for the RFP contingency measure
requirements, respectively) from the 2011 base year inventory emissions
net of growth (and including a MVEB safety margin of 7.5% which will be
discussed in more detail below). Thus, EPA is proposing to approve
these emissions reductions as satisfying the 15% RFP and 3% RFP
contingency measure requirements for the moderate nonattainment plan
for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
EPA notes that the measures Wisconsin is relying upon to meet the
contingency measures requirement are already implemented. Contingency
measures may include Federal measures and local measures already
scheduled for implementation, as long as the resulting emission
reductions are in excess of those needed for attainment or to meet RFP
in the nonattainment plan. EPA interprets the CAA not to preclude a
state from implementing such measures before they are triggered by a
failure to meet RFP or failure to attain. For more information on
contingency measures, see the General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (April 16, 1992, 57 FR 13498,
13510) and the 2008 Ozone Implementation Rule (March 6, 2015, 80 FR
12264, 12285).
The appropriateness of relying on already-implemented reductions to
meet the contingency measures requirement has been addressed in two
Federal circuit court decisions. See Louisiana Environmental Action
Network (LEAN) v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575, 586 (5th Cir. 2004), Bahr v.
United States EPA, 836 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 199 L.
Ed. 2d 525, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 58 (Jan. 8, 2018). EPA believes that the
language of section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) is ambiguous with respect
to this issue, and that it is reasonable for the agency to interpret
the statutory language to allow approval of already implemented
measures as contingency measures, so long as they meet other parameters
such as providing excess emissions reductions that the state has not
relied upon to meet RFP or for attainment in the nonattainment plan for
the NAAQS at issue. Until the Bahr decision, under EPA's longstanding
interpretation of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), states could
rely on control measures that were already implemented (so called
``early triggered'' contingency measures) as a valid means to meet the
Act's contingency measures requirement. The Ninth Circuit decision in
Bahr leaves a split among the Federal circuit courts, with the Fifth
Circuit upholding the Agency's interpretation of section 172(c)(9) to
allow early triggered contingency measures and the Ninth Circuit
rejecting that interpretation. The Seventh Circuit in which Wisconsin
is located has not addressed the issue, nor has the Supreme Court or
any other circuit court other than the Fifth and Ninth.
Because there is a split in the Federal circuits on this issue, EPA
expects that states located in circuits other than the Ninth may elect
to rely on EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 172(c)(9)
allowing early triggered measures to be approved as contingency
measures, in appropriate circumstances. EPA's revised Regional
Consistency regulations pertaining to SIP provisions authorize the
Agency to follow this interpretation of section 172(c)(9) in circuits
other than the Ninth. See 40 CFR part 56. To ensure that early
triggered contingency measures appropriately satisfy all other relevant
CAA requirements, the EPA will carefully review each such measure, and
intends to consult with states considering such measures early in the
attainment plan development process.
As shown above, the emissions reductions projected through 2018 are
sufficient to meet the requirements for contingency measures,
consistent with EPA's interpretation of the CAA to allow approval of
already implemented control measures as contingency measures in states
outside the Ninth Circuit. Therefore, we propose approval of the
contingency measures submitted by the state in the nonattainment plan
for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area.
C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans,
programs, or projects that receive Federal funding or support, such as
the construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e., be
consistent with) the SIP. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation
activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. Under the CAA,
states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy plans
for nonattainment areas and maintenance plans for areas that qualify
for redesignation to attainment of the ozone standards (maintenance
areas).\18\ These control strategy plans (including reasonable further
progress plans and attainment plans for purposes of the ozone NAAQS)
and maintenance plans must include MVEBs for the relevant criteria
pollutant or its precursor pollutants (VOC and NOX for
ozone) to address pollution from on-road transportation sources. The
MVEBs are the portion of the total allowable emissions that are
allocated to highway and transit vehicle use that, together with
emissions from other sources in the area, will meet an RFP milestone or
provide for attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.\19\ The MVEB serves
as a ceiling on emissions
[[Page 40721]]
from an area's planned transportation system.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See the SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone standards in
EPA's March 6, 2015 implementation rule (80 FR 12264).
\19\ 40 CFR 93.101.
\20\ The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to
the November 24, 1993, Transportation Conformity Rule (58 FR 62188).
The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEB in the SIP and
how to revise the MVEB, if needed, subsequent to initially
establishing a MVEB in the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When reviewing submitted control strategy or maintenance plan
submissions, EPA must affirmatively find that the MVEBs contained
therein are adequate for use in determining transportation conformity.
Once EPA affirmatively finds that the submitted MVEBs are adequate for
transportation purposes, then the MVEBs must be used by state and
Federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation
projects conform to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
EPA's substantive criteria for determining adequacy of a MVEB are
set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process for determining adequacy
consists of three basic steps: public notification of a SIP submission;
provision for a public comment period; and EPA's adequacy
determination. This process for determining the adequacy of submitted
MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes was initially outlined in
EPA's May 14, 1999 guidance, ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of
March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.'' EPA adopted regulations to
codify the adequacy process in the Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments for the ``New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing
Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments--Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule Change,'' on July 1, 2004.\21\ Additional
information on the adequacy process for transportation conformity
purposes is available in a June 30, 2003, proposed rule titled,
``Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision
and Additional Rule Changes.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 69 FR 40004.
\22\ 68 FR 38974, 38984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 16, 2015, Wisconsin submitted an early progress SIP
submission with MVEBs for its portion of the Chicago 2008 ozone
nonattainment area. On April 1, 2015, EPA found Wisconsin's MVEBs
adequate for use in transportation conformity determinations.\23\ As
part of its nonattainment plan submitted on April 17, 2017, and
supplemented on January 23, 2018, Wisconsin submitted new 2017 and 2018
NOX and VOC MVEBs, which are lower than Wisconsin's previous
MVEBs found adequate by EPA. Wisconsin's 2017 and 2018 MVEBs include a
safety margin that Wisconsin applied in the form of a 7.5% greater
mobile source activity than actually projected for 2017 and 2018,
respectively. By applying this additional 7.5% on the front end of the
analysis, Wisconsin's MOVES model output estimates of NOX
and VOC emissions for 2017 and 2018 include a built-in safety margin.
States typically do this in an effort to accommodate future variations
in travel demand models and vehicle miles traveled forecast. As shown
in Table 4 above, Wisconsin has demonstrated that the Wisconsin portion
of the Chicago area can meet the 15% RFP and 3% RFP contingency measure
emission reduction requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS with mobile
source (onroad + nonroad) emissions, which include an onroad budget of
1.56 tpsd VOC and 3.05 tpsd NOX in 2017 and 1.44 tpsd VOC
and 2.75 tpsd NOX in 2018 (Table 7 below), and these
emissions will remain under 2017 and 2018 RFP plus contingency measure
target levels, even with the inclusion of the added 7.5% safety margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 80 FR 17428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin's 2017 and 2018 MVEBS were developed as part of an
interagency consultation process which includes Federal, state, and
local agencies. The MVEBS were clearly identified and precisely
quantified. These MVEBs, when considered together with all other
emissions sources, are consistent with the 15% RFP and 3% contingency
measure emission reduction requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
for this area. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve Wisconsin's
revised 2017 and 2018 MVEBs into the Wisconsin SIP. If EPA finalizes
this approval, these MVEBs will replace the MVEBs previously
established for the 2008 ozone NAAQS early progress plan and Wisconsin
must use these updated MVEBs for future transportation conformity
determinations for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago nonattainment
area. The 2017 and 2018 MVEBs are listed in Table 7.
Table 7--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) for Eastern Kenosha
County for 2017 and 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions (tons per summer
day)
Year -------------------------------
VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017.................................... 1.56 3.05
2018.................................... 1.44 2.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Motor Vehicle I/M Program Certification
The requirement to adopt a motor vehicle I/M program for moderate
ozone nonattainment areas is described in CAA section 182(b)(4) and the
regulations for basic and enhanced I/M programs are found at 40 CFR
part 51, subpart S. Under these cumulative requirements, states with
areas classified as moderate nonattainment for ozone with 1990 Census-
defined urbanized populations of 200,000 or more are required to adopt
basic I/M programs, while serious and higher classified ozone
nonattainment areas outside of the northeast ozone transport region
with 1980 Census-defined urbanized populations of 200,000 or more are
required to adopt enhanced I/M programs. The Chicago area meets the
criteria for mandatory I/M under the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the Wisconsin
portion of the Chicago area is already operating an enhanced I/M
program due to being designated nonattainment and classified as serious
or above under an earlier ozone NAAQS. EPA initially approved on August
16, 2001,\24\ Wisconsin's I/M program and later approved on September
19, 2013,\25\ revisions to Wisconsin's I/M program. Wisconsin's
approved enhanced I/M program in the SIP is consistent with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart S for the alternate low
enhanced performance standards. In its April 17, 2017, submission,
Wisconsin certified that it still meets the Federal enhanced I/M
performance requirement. Therefore, EPA is proposing to find that
Wisconsin has met the I/M requirement for its portion of the Chicago
area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 66 FR 42949.
\25\ 78 FR 57501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. NOX RACT Certification
Section 182(f) of the CAA requires RACT level controls for major
stationary sources of NOX located in moderate ozone
nonattainment areas. ``RACT'' is defined as the lowest emission
limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the
application of control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility.\26\ Section 302 of
the CAA defines a major stationary source as any facility which has the
potential to emit 100 tons per year of any air pollutant. EPA approved
Wisconsin's NOX RACT program into the SIP on October 19,
2010,\27\ for purposes of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Wisconsin's
NOX RACT requirements
[[Page 40722]]
are codified at NR 428.20 to 428.26 of the Wisconsin Administrative
Code. Wisconsin's NOX RACT rules are applicable to major
stationary sources of NOX located in Wisconsin's moderate
ozone nonattainment areas, including Kenosha County. The only major
source of NOX in the portion of Kenosha County that is
designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is Wisconsin Electric
Power Company, D/B/A We Energies-Pleasant Prairie Power Plant. This
source has selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology for
controlling NOX emissions from each of its two coal-fired
boilers and has been subject to an emission limit of 0.10 pounds of
NOX per Million British Thermal Unit (MMBTU) since May 1,
2009. Because Wisconsin has EPA-approved NOX RACT rules
applicable to Kenosha County sources in its SIP, and EPA considers the
current control technology and limit at the major stationary source in
the 2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment portion of Kenosha County to be RACT
for NOX, EPA is proposing to find that Wisconsin has
satisfied the NOX RACT requirements for its moderate
nonattainment plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Wisconsin portion
of the Chicago nonattainment area, which is the portion of Kenosha
County inclusive and east of Highway 94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 44 FR 53762.
\27\ 75 FR 64155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Emissions Statement Certification
For marginal ozone nonattainment areas, states must adopt SIP
provisions requiring emissions statements from stationary sources of
VOC and NOX.\28\ States may waive this requirement for
sources emitting less than 25 tons per year of VOC and less than 25
tons per year of NOX.\29\ Under NR 438 of the Wisconsin
Administrative Code, Wisconsin requires annual NOX and VOC
emission reporting from any facility in the state that emits
NOX above 10,000 pounds (5 tons) per year and VOC above
6,000 pounds (3 tons) per year. This includes facilities in
nonattainment areas such as the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA previously approved NR
438 into the Wisconsin SIP on December 6, 1993.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(i).
\29\ CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii).
\30\ 58 FR 64155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of a moderate ozone nonattainment plan, states should
certify that the proper emissions statement reporting requirements are
in place. If an area has a previously approved emission statement
provision in the SIP in force for the 1997 ozone NAAQS or the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS that covers all portions of the nonattainment area for the
2008 ozone NAAQS, then such rule should be sufficient for purposes of
the emissions statement requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The state
should review the existing rule to ensure it is adequate and, if it is,
may rely on it to meet the emission statement requirement for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. In cases when an existing emission statement requirement
is still adequate to meet the requirements of the implementation rule
for the 2008 ozone standard, states can provide the rationale for that
determination to EPA in a written statement in its SIP submission to
meet this requirement.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 80 FR 12264 at 12291.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a separate submission to EPA on August 15, 2016, Wisconsin
included a certification that its emissions statement provision in the
SIP is still adequate to meet the requirements for the Wisconsin
portion of the Chicago 2008 ozone nonattainment area. In Wisconsin's
January 23, 2018, supplemental submission to EPA regarding Wisconsin's
moderate area ozone nonattainment plan for the Chicago area, Wisconsin
requested that EPA act on its August 15, 2016, emission statement
certification as part of the action on Wisconsin's nonattainment plan
elements included in this proposal. Because Wisconsin has an EPA
approved SIP provision requiring stationary sources to report annually
their NOX and VOC emissions at least as high as 25 tons per
year for each precursor, EPA proposes that Wisconsin has satisfied the
emissions statement requirement for its nonattainment plan for the
Chicago area for the purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
III. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Wisconsin's SIP pursuant
to section 110 and part D of the CAA and EPA's regulations because
Wisconsin's April 17, 2017, nonattainment plan submissions and January
23, 2018, supplement along with a prior submission on August 15, 2016,
satisfy the emission inventory, RFP, RFP contingency measure,
NOX RACT, emissions statement, I/M, and transportation
conformity requirements for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
[[Page 40723]]
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 1, 2018.
James Payne,
Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018-17590 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
