Air Plan Disapproval; Wisconsin; Redesignation Request for the Wisconsin Portion of the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin Area to Attainment of the 2008 Ozone Standard, 16214-16216 [2019-07715]
Download as PDF
16214
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 75 / Thursday, April 18, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
Dam to Lake Michigan including Des
Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal, Chicago River, CalumetSaganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL,
listed in 33 CFR 165.930. The safety
zone will encompass all waters of the
South Branch Chicago River east of the
Ashland Avenue Bridge, north of the
Adlai E. Stevenson Expressway Bridge
and west of the South Halsted Street
Bridge. Enforcement will occur from
April 15, 2019 through April 21, 2019.
Construction involving airlifts will take
place from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.
intermittently in fifteen-minute
intervals. During the enforcement
period, no vessel may transit this
regulated area without approval from
the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan
or a Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan
designated representative. Vessels and
persons granted permission to enter the
safety zone shall obey all lawful orders
or directions of the Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene
representative.
This notice of enforcement is issued
under the authority of 33 CFR 165.930
and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this
publication in the Federal Register, the
Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will
also provide notice through other
means, which will include Broadcast
Notice to Mariners. Additionally, the
Captain of the Port Lake Michigan may
notify representatives from the maritime
industry through telephonic
notifications, email notifications, or by
direct communication from on scene
patrol commanders. If the Captain of the
Port Lake Michigan or a designated
representative determines that the
regulated area does not need to be
enforced for the full duration stated in
this notice of enforcement, he or she
may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners
to grant general permission to enter the
regulated area. The Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene
representative may be contacted via
Channel 16, VHF–FM or at (414) 747–
7182.
Dated: April 15, 2019.
Thomas J. Stuhlreyer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2019–07819 Filed 4–17–19; 8:45 am]
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG–2018–0713]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Chicago Harbor, Navy
Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL
Coast Guard, DHS.
Correcting amendments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard published a
document in the Federal Register on
March 4, 2019, concerning a final rule
for the Safety Zone; Chicago Harbor,
Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL. The
final rule contained an error in the
coordinates within the regulatory text.
This document corrects the regulation.
DATES: This rule is effective May 20,
2019.
SUMMARY:
If
you have questions about this rule, call
or email LT John Ramos, Waterways
Management Division, Marine Safety
Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone (630) 986–2155, email D09DG-MSUChicago-Waterways@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Coast Guard’s
correction to the final rule published
March 4, 2019 (84 FR 7290). This
document corrects the coordinates for
the location of the safety zone. This is
the first correction.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
Accordingly, 33 CFR part 165 is
corrected by making the following
correcting amendments:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR
1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Amend § 165.931 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
§ 165.931 Safety Zone, Chicago Harbor,
Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL.
(a) Location. The following area is a
safety zone: The waters of Lake
Michigan within Chicago Harbor
bounded by coordinates beginning at
41°53′23.3″ N, 087°36′04.5″ W; then
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:34 Apr 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
south to 41°53′11.8″ N, 087°36′04.1″ W;
then west to 41°53′12.1″ N, 087°35′40.5″
W; then north to 41°53′23.6″ N,
087°35′40.07″ W; then east back to the
point of origin (NAD 83).
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: April 15, 2019.
Thomas J. Stuhlreyer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2019–07818 Filed 4–17–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0496; FRL–9992–43–
Region 5]
Air Plan Disapproval; Wisconsin;
Redesignation Request for the
Wisconsin Portion of the ChicagoNaperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin
Area to Attainment of the 2008 Ozone
Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is disapproving an
August 15, 2016 request from Wisconsin
to redesignate the Wisconsin portion of
the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-IndianaWisconsin (IL-IN-WI) ozone
nonattainment area (Chicago
nonattainment area) to attainment of the
2008 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard),
because the area is violating the
standard with 2015–2017 monitoring
data. EPA is also disapproving
Wisconsin’s maintenance plan and
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
(MVEBs), submitted with the State’s
redesignation request, since approval of
these State Implementation Plan (SIP)
components is contingent on attainment
of the ozone standard. The Chicago area
includes Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake,
McHenry and Will Counties, Aux Sable
and Goose Lake Townships in Grundy
County, and Oswego Township in
Kendall County in Illinois; Lake and
Porter Counties in Indiana; and the area
east of and including the corridor of
Interstate 94 in Kenosha County,
Wisconsin.
SUMMARY:
This final rule is effective May
20, 2019.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0496. All
documents in the docket are listed in
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\18APR1.SGM
18APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 75 / Thursday, April 18, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604, (312) 886–1767,
dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with RULES
I. What is the background for this
action?
The background for this action is
discussed in detail in EPA’s February
15, 2019 proposed rule (84 FR 4426). In
that proposed rulemaking, we noted
that, under EPA regulations at 40 CFR
50, the 2008 ozone standard is violated
when the three-year average of the
annual fourth-highest daily maximum
eight-hour ozone concentrations at any
monitoring site in the subject area is
greater than 0.075 parts per million
parts of air (ppm). See 77 FR 30088
(May 21, 2012) for further information
regarding area designations for the 2008
ozone standard and 77 FR 34221 (June
11, 2012) for information regarding the
designation of the Chicago-Naperville,
IL-IN-WI area for the 2008 ozone
standard. See 40 CFR 50.15 and
appendix P to 40 CFR part 50 regarding
the ozone data requirements for a
determination of whether an area has
attained the 2008 ozone standard. Under
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), EPA may redesignate a
nonattainment area (or a portion
thereof) to attainment if sufficient
complete, quality-assured data are
available to demonstrate that the
nonattainment area as a whole has
attained the standard and if all other
requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E)
have been met.
Wisconsin submitted a request for the
redesignation of the Wisconsin portion
of the Chicago nonattainment area to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:34 Apr 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
16215
attainment of the 2008 ozone standard
on August 15, 2016. The redesignation
request included summarized ozone
data for all monitors in the ChicagoNaperville, IL-IN-WI ozone
nonattainment area along with other
information specific to Kenosha County
to demonstrate that all requirements of
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA have
been satisfied. The February 15, 2019
proposed disapproval provides a
detailed discussion of the ozone data for
the period of 2013 through 2017 (see
table 1 in the February 15, 2019
proposed rule at 84 FR 4428), which
show a violation of the 2008 ozone
standard in the Chicago area based on
current, quality-assured ozone data. The
proposal also notes that preliminary
monitoring data for 2018 indicate that
the Chicago nonattainment area will
continue to violate the standard when
that data is considered. It does not,
however, discuss in detail other
components of Wisconsin’s submittal
because EPA believes that Wisconsin
failed to meet the most basic
requirement for redesignation, a
demonstration that the Chicago ozone
nonattainment area has attained the
2008 ozone standard. We proposed to
disapprove Wisconsin’s ozone
redesignation request based on the
violation of the 2008 ozone standard
and proposed to disapprove Wisconsin’s
maintenance plan and MVEBs since
approval of these SIP components is
contingent on attainment of the ozone
standard.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
II. What comments did we receive on
the proposed rule?
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
EPA provided a 30-day review and
comment period for the February 15,
2019, proposed rule. The comment
period ended on March 18, 2019. We
received one comment in support of
EPA’s proposed action. We received no
adverse comments on the proposed rule.
III. What action is EPA taking?
Based on the above and the
information contained in EPA’s
proposed rule, EPA is disapproving
Wisconsin’s August 15, 2016 request to
redesignate the Wisconsin portion of the
Chicago nonattainment area to
attainment of the 2008 ozone standard,
because the Chicago nonattainment area
continues to violate this standard based
on the most recent three years of
quality-assured, certified air quality
monitoring data. Because this area
continues to violate the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, we are also disapproving the
ozone maintenance plan and MVEBs
included in the State’s submittal.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563:
Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76
FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action
is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
and, therefore, is not subject to review
by the Office of Management and
Budget.
Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This action is an Executive Order
13771 regulatory action because this
action is not significant under Executive
Order 12866.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This action merely proposes to
disapprove state law as not meeting
Federal requirements and imposes no
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Because this rule proposes to
disapprove pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it 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).
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the
national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
proposes to disapprove a state rule, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.
E:\FR\FM\18APR1.SGM
18APR1
16216
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 75 / Thursday, April 18, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply.
Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This rule also is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it proposes to
disapprove a state rule.
Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy
action,’’ this action is also not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001).
National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with RULES
In reviewing state submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. In this context, in the absence
of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a state submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a
state submission that otherwise satisfies
the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:34 Apr 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629
(February 16, 1994)) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority
to address environmental justice in this
action. In reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve or disapprove
state choices, based on the criteria of the
CAA. Accordingly, this action merely
disapproves certain state requirements
for inclusion into the SIP under section
110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA
and will not in-and-of itself create any
new requirements. Accordingly, it 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.
Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by June 17, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: April 4, 2019.
Cheryl L. Newton,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Section 52.2585 is amended by
adding paragraph (gg) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.2585
Control strategy: Ozone.
*
*
*
*
*
(gg) Disapproval—EPA is
disapproving Wisconsin’s August 15,
2016, ozone redesignation request for
the Wisconsin portion of the ChicagoNaperville, IL–IN–WI nonattainment
area for the 2008 ozone standard. EPA
is also disapproving Wisconsin’s
maintenance plan and motor vehicle
emission budgets submitted with the
redesignation request.
[FR Doc. 2019–07715 Filed 4–17–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\18APR1.SGM
18APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 75 (Thursday, April 18, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16214-16216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07715]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0496; FRL-9992-43-Region 5]
Air Plan Disapproval; Wisconsin; Redesignation Request for the
Wisconsin Portion of the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin
Area to Attainment of the 2008 Ozone Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is disapproving an
August 15, 2016 request from Wisconsin to redesignate the Wisconsin
portion of the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin (IL-IN-
WI) ozone nonattainment area (Chicago nonattainment area) to attainment
of the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or
standard), because the area is violating the standard with 2015-2017
monitoring data. EPA is also disapproving Wisconsin's maintenance plan
and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs), submitted with the State's
redesignation request, since approval of these State Implementation
Plan (SIP) components is contingent on attainment of the ozone
standard. The Chicago area includes Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry
and Will Counties, Aux Sable and Goose Lake Townships in Grundy County,
and Oswego Township in Kendall County in Illinois; Lake and Porter
Counties in Indiana; and the area east of and including the corridor of
Interstate 94 in Kenosha County, Wisconsin.
DATES: This final rule is effective May 20, 2019.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0496. All documents in the docket are listed in
[[Page 16215]]
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-1767,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
I. What is the background for this action?
The background for this action is discussed in detail in EPA's
February 15, 2019 proposed rule (84 FR 4426). In that proposed
rulemaking, we noted that, under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50, the 2008
ozone standard is violated when the three-year average of the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour ozone concentrations at any
monitoring site in the subject area is greater than 0.075 parts per
million parts of air (ppm). See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012) for further
information regarding area designations for the 2008 ozone standard and
77 FR 34221 (June 11, 2012) for information regarding the designation
of the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area for the 2008 ozone standard.
See 40 CFR 50.15 and appendix P to 40 CFR part 50 regarding the ozone
data requirements for a determination of whether an area has attained
the 2008 ozone standard. Under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA), EPA may redesignate a nonattainment area (or a portion
thereof) to attainment if sufficient complete, quality-assured data are
available to demonstrate that the nonattainment area as a whole has
attained the standard and if all other requirements of section
107(d)(3)(E) have been met.
Wisconsin submitted a request for the redesignation of the
Wisconsin portion of the Chicago nonattainment area to attainment of
the 2008 ozone standard on August 15, 2016. The redesignation request
included summarized ozone data for all monitors in the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI ozone nonattainment area along with other
information specific to Kenosha County to demonstrate that all
requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA have been satisfied.
The February 15, 2019 proposed disapproval provides a detailed
discussion of the ozone data for the period of 2013 through 2017 (see
table 1 in the February 15, 2019 proposed rule at 84 FR 4428), which
show a violation of the 2008 ozone standard in the Chicago area based
on current, quality-assured ozone data. The proposal also notes that
preliminary monitoring data for 2018 indicate that the Chicago
nonattainment area will continue to violate the standard when that data
is considered. It does not, however, discuss in detail other components
of Wisconsin's submittal because EPA believes that Wisconsin failed to
meet the most basic requirement for redesignation, a demonstration that
the Chicago ozone nonattainment area has attained the 2008 ozone
standard. We proposed to disapprove Wisconsin's ozone redesignation
request based on the violation of the 2008 ozone standard and proposed
to disapprove Wisconsin's maintenance plan and MVEBs since approval of
these SIP components is contingent on attainment of the ozone standard.
II. What comments did we receive on the proposed rule?
EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period for the February
15, 2019, proposed rule. The comment period ended on March 18, 2019. We
received one comment in support of EPA's proposed action. We received
no adverse comments on the proposed rule.
III. What action is EPA taking?
Based on the above and the information contained in EPA's proposed
rule, EPA is disapproving Wisconsin's August 15, 2016 request to
redesignate the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago nonattainment area to
attainment of the 2008 ozone standard, because the Chicago
nonattainment area continues to violate this standard based on the most
recent three years of quality-assured, certified air quality monitoring
data. Because this area continues to violate the 2008 ozone NAAQS, we
are also disapproving the ozone maintenance plan and MVEBs included in
the State's submittal.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action is not a
``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This action is an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because
this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This action merely proposes to disapprove state law as not meeting
Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule proposes to disapprove pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty
beyond that required by state law, it 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).
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely proposes to disapprove a state rule, and
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.
[[Page 16216]]
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it proposes to disapprove a state rule.
Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely disapproves certain state requirements
for inclusion into the SIP under section 110 and subchapter I, part D
of the CAA and will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements.
Accordingly, it 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.
Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 17, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: April 4, 2019.
Cheryl L. Newton,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. Section 52.2585 is amended by adding paragraph (gg) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2585 Control strategy: Ozone.
* * * * *
(gg) Disapproval--EPA is disapproving Wisconsin's August 15, 2016,
ozone redesignation request for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone standard.
EPA is also disapproving Wisconsin's maintenance plan and motor vehicle
emission budgets submitted with the redesignation request.
[FR Doc. 2019-07715 Filed 4-17-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P