Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS, 70500-70505 [2024-19548]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
70500
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal
agencies to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on minority populations
and low-income populations to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. The EPA defines
environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect
to the development, implementation,
and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA
further defines the term fair treatment to
mean that ‘‘no group of people should
bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’
The State did not evaluate EJ
considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation.
The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis
and did not consider EJ in this proposed
action. Due to the nature of this
proposed action, this action is expected
to have a neutral to positive impact on
the air quality of the various ozone
nonattainment areas covered by this
proposed action. Consideration of EJ is
not required as part of this action, and
there is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goal of
Executive Order 12898, to achieve EJ for
people of color, low-income
populations, and Indigenous peoples.
This action is subject to the
Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House
of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. This action
is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by October 29, 2024.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:33 Aug 29, 2024
Jkt 262001
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,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: August 22, 2024.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations 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.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(611)(ii)(A)(2) to
read as follows:
■
§ 52.220
Identification of plan—in part.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(611) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(2) ‘‘California Smog Check
Performance Standard Modeling and
Program Certification for the 70 Parts
Per Billion (ppb) 8-Hour Ozone
Standard,’’ adopted on March 23, 2023,
excluding the San Diego County area
portion.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2024–19374 Filed 8–29–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2018–0664; FRL–12010–
01–R5]
Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin;
Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2015 Ozone NAAQS
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving elements of
a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission from Wisconsin regarding
the infrastructure requirements of
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
for the 2015 ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The
infrastructure requirements are designed
to ensure that the structural components
of each state’s air quality management
program are adequate to meet the state’s
responsibilities under the CAA.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
September 30, 2024.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R05–OAR–2018–0664. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI), Proprietary Business
Information (PBI), 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 at the
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Eric
Svingen, Environmental Engineer, at
(312) 353–4489 before visiting the
Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
Svingen, Air and Radiation Division
(AR–18J), Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312) 353–4489, svingen.eric@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
I. What is the background of this SIP
submission?
Whenever EPA promulgates a new or
revised NAAQS, CAA section 110(a)(1)
requires states to make SIP submissions
to provide for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the
NAAQS. This type of SIP submission is
commonly referred to as an
‘‘infrastructure SIP.’’ These submissions
must meet the various requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2), as applicable.
On September 30, 2020 (85 FR 61673),
EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking proposing to approve most
elements of a September 14, 2018,
submission from the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) intended to address all
E:\FR\FM\30AUR1.SGM
30AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
applicable infrastructure requirements
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA’s
proposed rulemaking contained a
detailed analysis of Wisconsin’s
submission. Public comments on the
September 30, 2020, proposed rule were
due by October 30, 2020.
EPA’s September 30, 2020, proposed
rulemaking did not address Wisconsin’s
infrastructure requirements under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and section
110(a)(2)(F). In separate rulemakings,
EPA has since taken action on these
elements. In a February 13, 2023 (88 FR
9384), rulemaking addressing the
interstate transport elements under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA approved
Wisconsin’s September 14, 2018,
submission as to the requirements of
prong 1 and disapproved the
submission as to the requirements of
prong 2. On July 24, 2023 (88 FR 47375),
EPA approved an August 3, 2022,
submission from Wisconsin certifying
that its SIP is sufficient to meet the
stationary source monitoring and
reporting element under section
110(a)(2)(F). In this action, which
finalizes EPA’s September 30, 2020,
proposed rulemaking, EPA is taking
final action on all remaining elements of
Wisconsin’s infrastructure requirements
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
II. What are EPA’s responses to
comments?
During the public comment period on
EPA’s September 30, 2020, proposed
rulemaking, EPA received one comment
in support of our action, as well as one
adverse comment, which addressed
three aspects of Wisconsin’s
infrastructure SIP submission. For each
aspect, summaries of the adverse
comment and EPA’s responses are
provided below.
Comment: A commenter alleges that
EPA cannot finalize approval of
Wisconsin’s submission as meeting the
infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(B). The commenter
notes that EPA’s proposed rule refers to
our October 2, 2019, approval of
Wisconsin’s 2020 Annual Monitoring
Network Plan (AMNP), but the
commenter suggests that Wisconsin
would have submitted a more recent
AMNP in July 2020. The commenter
asserts that EPA should have based its
proposal on the most recent AMNP. The
commenter notes that neither AMNP
was in the docket folder for the
proposed rulemaking, and requests that
EPA add both AMNPs to the docket and
open a new 30-day public comment
period.
Response: EPA disagrees that EPA
must propose approval only on the most
recently submitted AMNP. Wisconsin
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:33 Aug 29, 2024
Jkt 262001
submitted its 2021 AMNP on June 29,
2020, and EPA approved the 2021
AMNP on September 15, 2020. On
September 10, 2020, when the Deputy
Regional Administrator signed EPA’s
rulemaking proposing approval of the
state’s infrastructure SIP submission for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS with respect to
section 110(a)(2)(B), EPA’s approval of
the 2020 AMNP was the most current
approval, and therefore EPA could not
have cited approval of the 2021 AMNP.
Further, a state’s 2021 AMNP describes
changes it intended to make no earlier
than January 1, 2021. On the date EPA
published the proposed approval,
Wisconsin was implementing its
monitoring network according to the
2020 AMNP.
Additionally, in its 2021 AMNP,
Wisconsin outlined changes to its
monitoring network that had no adverse
impact on its ability to monitor ozone.
In Table 14 of its 2021 AMNP,
Wisconsin listed proposed changes at
only four monitoring sites. At its
Milwaukee SER DNR Headquarters site,
the state proposed to terminate
monitoring of eight pollutants including
ozone, because of the scheduled
demolition of the facility adjacent to
that site. At the other three sites, the
state proposed new monitoring or
increased monitoring of pollutants that
had earlier been monitored at the
Milwaukee SER DNR Headquarters site.
The state proposed to start monitoring
of five of those pollutants, including
ozone, nearby at a new Milwaukee
UWM Park & Ride site. At its
Milwaukee Sixteenth St. Health Center
site, the state proposed increasing the
frequency of sampling of particles with
an aerodynamic diameter of less than or
equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). The
state also proposed to start monitoring
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) at its
Chiwaukee site. Importantly, the 2021
AMNP was not Wisconsin’s first
mention of the proposed termination of
the Milwaukee SER DNR Headquarters
site. The state had already proposed this
termination in its 2020 AMNP, and
EPA’s September 30, 2020, rulemaking
references EPA’s October 2, 2019,
approval of that plan. EPA accordingly
concludes that referencing the most
recently approved 2020 AMNP at the
time of signature of the proposed
rulemaking, as opposed to the most
recently submitted 2021 AMNP, did not
deprive commenters of an ability to
raise concerns about adverse changes to
the state’s ozone monitoring network.
EPA is now adding the 2020 AMNP and
2021 AMNP to the docket folder for this
action.
EPA further disagrees that any AMNP
must have been included in the docket
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
70501
at the time of the comment period for
this action. Prior to submitting an
AMNP to EPA, WDNR makes each
AMNP broadly available through a
public comment process (see 40 CFR
58.10). Both the 2020 AMNP and 2021
AMNP are available at the WDNR
website. WDNR’s September 14, 2018,
submittal contains a link to a subpage of
this website, and EPA provided the
same link in the proposed rule.
Accordingly, EPA concludes that
commenters had knowledge of, and
access to, both the 2020 and 2021
AMNPs during the comment period and
thus there was no need for EPA to
provide an additional comment period
for this purpose.
Comment: A commenter alleges that
EPA cannot finalize approval of
Wisconsin’s submission as meeting the
infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(E). The commenter
asserts that Wisconsin’s infrastructure
SIP submission for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS fails to provide any
documentation, budgetary details, or
personnel numbers to support its
conclusions that Wisconsin meets the
infrastructure SIP requirements relating
to adequate resources to carry out the
SIP. The commenter notes that WDNR’s
submission identifies its section 105
grants and Environmental Performance
Partnership Agreement (EnPPA), but
states that these sources were neither
described in detail in the submission
nor included in the docket for EPA’s
proposed rulemaking. The commenter
refers to requirements at 40 CFR 51.280
and asserts that 1-, 3-, and 5-year
resource projections are required but not
included in Wisconsin’s submission.
The commenter also cites to a report
which states that environmental agency
funding in Wisconsin has been cut by
36 percent from 2008 to 2018. The
commenter alleges that Wisconsin
‘‘must provide concrete assurances that
it has adequate funding and personnel
both now and for the next 5 years.’’
Response: EPA agrees that CAA
section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires each state
to provide necessary assurances that the
state will have adequate personnel,
funding, and authority under state law
necessary to carry out the SIP during the
five years following the SIP
submission.1 However, CAA section 110
1 EPA guidance identifies a five-year period
following the SIP submission as the relevant
timeframe for this evaluation. See Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).’’
Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors,
Regions 1 through 10, September 13, 2013, at page
40 (2013 Guidance).
E:\FR\FM\30AUR1.SGM
30AUR1
70502
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
does not mandate a specific
methodology for EPA to evaluate the
adequacy of state resources available to
implement the SIP.
The commenter expresses concern
that that Wisconsin’s funding to
implement the SIP may be inadequate
based on potential budget cuts.
Specifically, the commenter asserts that
‘‘Wisconsin ranks first in environmental
protection funding cuts across the
country,’’ and to support this contention
cites to a report by the Environmental
Integrity Project, as well as a public
radio news story referencing that report,
which both allege that Wisconsin cut its
environmental agency funding by 36
percent between 2008 and 2018. As
discussed on page 8 of the report, the
alleged 36% cut is expressed in
inflation-adjusted dollars. As shown in
Table 1 of the report, this was a decrease
from a budget of $91.4 million in 2008
to a budget of $68.9 million in 2018,
which is a 25 percent cut without
adjusting for inflation.
To evaluate the commenter’s concern
that Wisconsin budgets are declining in
a way that would make the state unable
to continue to implement its SIP, EPA
reviewed the state’s enacted budgets,
which are posted online by the
Wisconsin Department of
Administration.2 Wisconsin’s budgets
are passed by the Wisconsin legislature
and signed by the governor on a
biennial cycle, covering periods from
July 1 of one odd-numbered year
through June 30 of the next oddnumbered year. To evaluate the
commenter’s claims regarding
Wisconsin’s 2008 budget, EPA reviewed
Wisconsin’s enacted biennial budget for
2007–2009. EPA also reviewed
Wisconsin’s four most recent enacted
biennial budgets, for the periods 2017–
2019, 2019–2021, 2021–2023, and 2023–
2025, which cover a total of eight years,
including the 2018 year referenced by
the commenter, and spanning the
complete five-year period following
Wisconsin’s September 14, 2018,
submittal.
As noted by the Environmental
Integrity Project, Wisconsin’s pollution
control and cleanup programs are
2 Wisconsin’s current enacted budget is available
at https://doa.wi.gov/Pages/StateFinances/
CurrentBiennialBudget.aspx. Previous enacted
budgets are available at https://doa.wi.gov/Pages/
StateFinances/PastBudgets.aspx.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:33 Aug 29, 2024
Jkt 262001
housed within WDNR, which also
manages state parks, recreational areas,
wildlife programs, and fisheries
programs. This structure is distinct from
the organization of most states, which
consolidate pollution control and
cleanup programs in a single agency,
like Indiana’s Department of
Environmental Management. In the case
of Wisconsin, the Environmental
Integrity Project has ‘‘attempted to
identify and distinguish spending for
those functions from the department’s
overall budget,’’ and the 25 percent
nominal budget cut is meant to quantify
cuts to the portion of WDNR’s funding
allocated to pollution control and
cleanup programs, which the
Environmental Integrity Project
describes as ‘‘environmental agency
funding.’’ The Environmental Integrity
Project report does not explain its
methodology for separating WDNR’s
‘‘environmental agency funding’’ from
other funding.
In reviewing biennial budgets, EPA
first reviewed data for WDNR’s
department-wide budget. WDNR’s
budget did decline between 2008 and
2018, but by an amount much smaller
than the 25 percent nominal cut
described in the Environmental Integrity
Project report. WDNR’s total budget was
$573 million for 2007–2008 and $580
million for 2008–2009, compared to
$549 million for 2017–2018 and $547
million for 2018–2019, which is a cut of
less than 6 percent. In the six years
preceding the current biennial budget,
starting in 2017–2018 and ending in
2022–2023, WNDR’s total budget was
between $549 million and $575 million,
which is a range of less than 5 percent,
with no clear trends of increases or
decreases within this period. In the
current biennial budget, WDNR’s total
budget has been increased relative to the
level of previous years, at $640 million
for 2023–2024 and $581 million for
2024–2025.
Given that the Environmental
Integrity Project analyzed only a portion
of WDNR’s budget, EPA also reviewed
previous and current biennial budget
allocations for the nine programs that
together comprise the total WDNR
budget. One of these programs, titled
‘‘environmental management’’, contains
pollution control and cleanup programs
including air management, water
quality, wastewater management, and
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
remediation. The environmental
management program budget was $70.8
million for 2017–2018 and $70.0 million
for 2018–2019, which differs by less
than 3 percent from the Environmental
Integrity Project’s calculation of $68.9
million in ‘‘environmental agency
funding’’ for 2018. Because the
Environmental Integrity Project did not
provide its methodology in the report,
EPA cannot verify whether WDNR’s
environmental management program
was the budget used by the
Environmental Integrity Project in
calculating 2018 ‘‘environmental agency
funding.’’ For 2008, WDNR’s nine
programs were organized and labeled
differently, and EPA does not see any
program or combination of programs
from 2008 that is similar to the $91.4
million funding level in the report, such
that the Environmental Integrity Project
might be able to draw comparisons to
2018 funding levels for WDNR’s
environmental management program.
During EPA’s evaluation of state
assurances of adequate resources under
section 110(a)(2)(E), it is not necessary
for EPA to determine the exact amount
of resources a state needs to carry out
its SIP. In this case, EPA’s evaluation of
the facts indicates that the WDNR
budget has not changed to the degree
that it would preclude the state from
implementing its SIP, given that the
overall budget did not decrease by more
than 6 percent between 2008 and 2018.
Further, as shown below in Table 1,
funding for WDNR and for its
environmental management program
has not decreased over the eight-year
period starting in 2017–2018 and ending
in 2024–2025. As noted above, WNDR’s
total budget in this period was between
$549 million and $640 million, with no
clear trends of increases or decreases
over the first six years followed by an
increase in the current 2023–2025
biennial budget. The environmental
management program budget in this
period was between $70.0 million and
$102 million, with an overall trend of
increased funding during this period,
particularly in the current 2023–2025
biennial budget. Considered together,
the biennial budgets show a trajectory of
stable or increasing resources for WNDR
and its environmental management
program over the five-year period
beginning with Wisconsin’s September
14, 2018, submission.
E:\FR\FM\30AUR1.SGM
30AUR1
70503
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—ENACTED BUDGETS FOR WDNR AND ITS ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Budget period
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
2017–2018
2018–2019
2019–2020
2020–2021
2021–2022
2022–2023
2023–2024
2024–2025
Total WDNR budget
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
Wisconsin’s submission additionally
identified the section 105 Air Pollution
Control Grant as a source of resources
applied towards implementing its air
program, and Wisconsin explains that
‘‘EPA and WDNR negotiate priorities
and grant commitments under the
EnPPA, which is a two-year agreement
itemizing performance measures and
outcomes across various funding
sources and grants.’’ To further assess
the adequacy of Wisconsin’s resources
towards carrying out the SIP, EPA
reviewed EnPPA documents from the
five-year period beginning with
Wisconsin’s September 14, 2018,
submission. EPA is placing the EnPPA
materials in the docket for this action.
The EnPPA documents provide further
support to EPA’s finding that Wisconsin
has had adequate resources to carry out
its SIP. In these materials, EPA and
WDNR staff review objectives and
activities relating to the SIP, across
categories including mobile source
programs, ambient air monitoring,
NAAQS implementation, and regional
haze. Within each category, EPA and
WDNR staff discuss progress towards
specific commitments, such as
conducting vehicle emissions testing in
ozone nonattainment areas, operating
ozone monitors, implementing
maintenance plans in areas that have
been redesignated to attainment of the
2015 ozone NAAQS, and issuing air
quality forecasts for criteria pollutants
including ozone. The EnPPA process
does not require documentation of every
commitment in every year, however
when progress within each commitment
is discussed, EPA and WDNR
consistently agree that Wisconsin’s
progress is ongoing or satisfactory.
Comment: A commenter alleges that
EPA cannot finalize approval of
Wisconsin’s submission as meeting the
infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C), section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) relating to the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD), or section 110(a)(2)(J). The
commenter notes EPA’s January 17,
2017 (82 FR 5182), rulemaking
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:33 Aug 29, 2024
Jkt 262001
promulgating revisions to the Guideline
on Air Quality Models at appendix W to
40 CFR part 51 (‘‘Guideline’’), which
required states to integrate the revisions
no later than January 17, 2018. The
commenter cites EPA’s July 6, 2020 (85
FR 40165), rulemaking proposing
approval of elements of an
infrastructure SIP submission from
Kentucky, which expressed EPA’s view
that applications of the Guideline
include the infrastructure requirements
relating to PSD, which means the
requirements at CAA section
110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
relating to PSD, and section 110(a)(2)(J).
The commenter notes that the
Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter
Natural Resources (NR) 405.10 specifies
that modeling required under the state’s
PSD rules shall be based on the
Guideline, but NR 484.04 incorporates
by reference the version of the
Guideline that was in effect on August
1, 2016. The commenter acknowledges
that states with references to earlier
versions of the Guideline may be able to
rely on their authority to use alternative
models to satisfy these infrastructure
requirements but suggests that neither
Wisconsin nor EPA has confirmed the
state’s ability to implement the current
version of the Guideline.
Response: The air quality modeling
procedures at NR 405.10 were approved
into the Wisconsin SIP on May 27, 1999
(64 FR 28745), as part of the state’s PSD
program. EPA agrees with the
commenter that NR 405.10 incorporates
by reference the version of the
Guideline that was effective on August
1, 2016, which is not the current version
of the Guideline. However, as the
commenter suggests, Wisconsin has the
authority to conduct modeling
according to the current Guideline
under substitution procedures provided
within NR 405.10. Specifically, where it
is inappropriate to use the modeling
procedures provided in the earlier
Guideline that is incorporated by
reference, then NR 405.10 provides that
another model may be substituted. NR
405.10 further provides that a
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
$549,243,200
549,243,200
574,682,800
548,896,600
566,301,400
558,779,900
640,434,900
580,922,900
Environmental management
program budget
$70,843,300
70,002,900
75,134,000
74,975,000
83,014,200
77,963,500
101,630,600
81,381,000
substitution shall be subject to public
comment procedures and that approval
of the EPA Administrator shall be
obtained for any substitution.
In EPA’s January 17, 2017, rulemaking
promulgating revisions to the Guideline,
EPA explained to states that the new
revisions to the Guideline ‘‘must be
integrated into the regulatory processes
of respective reviewing authorities and
followed by applicants’’ by January 17,
2018. In EPA’s view, by issuing this
direction to states to begin using the
revised Guideline, the Agency has in
effect provided its approval for the state
to substitute the current Guideline in
place of an earlier Guideline, which
thus functionally satisfies the
requirement for administrator approval
at NR 405.10. Were the state seeking to
use some alternative approach that EPA
had not already determined to be
appropriate by updating the Guideline
and instructing states to integrate it into
their programs, then the EPA approval
process required in NR 405.10 would
still apply. Further, any PSD application
is already subject to the public
participation requirements at NR
405.15, which satisfies the requirement
at NR 405.10 for public comment on air
quality modeling. EPA therefore
concludes that the SIP-approved
modeling procedures at NR 405.10 are
adequate to authorize and allow the
state to conduct modeling according to
the current Guideline, and thus
adequate to meet the infrastructure
requirements relating to PSD at CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C), section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and section
110(a)(2)(J).
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving most elements of a
submission from Wisconsin certifying
that its current SIP is sufficient to meet
the required infrastructure elements
under section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
2015 ozone NAAQS.
EPA’s actions for the state’s
satisfaction of infrastructure SIP
requirements pursuant to section
E:\FR\FM\30AUR1.SGM
30AUR1
70504
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
110(a)(2) and NAAQS are contained in
the table below.
Element
2015 Ozone
(A)—Emission limits and other control measures ...............................................................................................................................
(B)—Ambient air quality monitoring/data system ................................................................................................................................
(C)1—Program for enforcement of control measures .........................................................................................................................
(C)2—Minor NSR .................................................................................................................................................................................
(C)3—PSD ...........................................................................................................................................................................................
(D)1—I Prong 1: Interstate transport—significant contribution to nonattainment ...............................................................................
(D)2—I Prong 2: Interstate transport—interference with maintenance ...............................................................................................
(D)3—II Prong 3: Interstate transport—interference with PSD ...........................................................................................................
(D)4—II Prong 4: Interstate transport—interference with visibility protection .....................................................................................
(D)5—Interstate and international pollution abatement .......................................................................................................................
(E)1—Adequate resources ..................................................................................................................................................................
(E)2—State board requirements ..........................................................................................................................................................
(F)—Stationary source monitoring system ..........................................................................................................................................
(G)—Emergency powers .....................................................................................................................................................................
(H)—Future SIP revisions ....................................................................................................................................................................
(I)—Nonattainment planning requirements of part D ..........................................................................................................................
(J)1—Consultation with government officials ......................................................................................................................................
(J)2—Public notification .......................................................................................................................................................................
(J)3—PSD ............................................................................................................................................................................................
(J)4—Visibility protection .....................................................................................................................................................................
(K)—Air quality modeling/data .............................................................................................................................................................
(L)—Permitting fees .............................................................................................................................................................................
(M)—Consultation/participation by affected local entities ...................................................................................................................
A
A
A
A
A
NA
NA
A
A
A
A
A
NA
A
A
*
A
A
A
*
A
A
A
In the above table, the key is as
follows:
A ....
NA ..
* .....
Approve.
No Action/Separate Rulemaking.
Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
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 14094 (88 FR
21879, April 11, 2023);
• 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:33 Aug 29, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001); and
• 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.
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 12898 (Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal
agencies to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on communities with
environmental justice (EJ) concerns to
the greatest extent practicable and
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
permitted by law. EPA defines EJ as
‘‘the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of
race, color, national origin, or income
with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.’’ EPA further defines the term
fair treatment to mean that ‘‘no group of
people should bear a disproportionate
burden of environmental harms and
risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’
WDNR did not evaluate EJ
considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation.
EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and
did not consider EJ in this action. Due
to the nature of the action being taken
here, this action is expected to have a
neutral to positive impact on the air
quality of the affected area.
Consideration of EJ is not required as
part of this action, and there is no
information in the record inconsistent
with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of
achieving EJ for communities with EJ
concerns.
This action is subject to the
Congressional Review Act, and EPA will
submit a rule report to each House of
the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. This action
is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
E:\FR\FM\30AUR1.SGM
30AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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 October 29, 2024. 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,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: August 26, 2024.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, title 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 52.2591 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (i); and
■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph
(l).
The revision reads as follows:
■
■
§ 52.2591 Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
*
*
*
*
*
(i) Approval—In September 14, 2018,
and August 3, 2022, submissions,
WDNR certified that the state has
satisfied the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
through (H), and (J) through (M) for the
2015 ozone NAAQS. For section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 is approved
and prong 2 is disapproved.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2024–19548 Filed 8–29–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:33 Aug 29, 2024
Jkt 262001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0879; FRL–8899–02–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AV40
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engines and New Source Performance
Standards: Internal Combustion
Engines; Electronic Reporting
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is finalizing amendments
to the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for
Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engines (RICE), the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) for
Stationary Compression Ignition (CI)
Internal Combustion Engines, and the
NSPS for Stationary Spark Ignition (SI)
Internal Combustion Engines, to add
electronic reporting provisions. The
addition of electronic reporting
provisions will provide for simplified
reporting by sources and enhance
availability of data on sources to the
EPA and the public. In addition, a small
number of clarifications and corrections
to these rules are being finalized to
provide clarification and correct
inadvertent and other minor errors in
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
particularly related to tables.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
August 30, 2024.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0879. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) 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 electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher Werner, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (D243–01), Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box
12055, RTP, North Carolina 27711;
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
70505
telephone number: (919) 541–5133; and
email address: werner.christopher@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Organization of this document. The
information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document
and other related information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative
Review
II. Background
III. What changes did we propose and what
changes are we finalizing?
A. Summary of Actions Proposed
B. Electronic Reporting
C. Clarifications to Table 4 in NSPS
Subpart IIII
D. Correction of Inadvertent Errors in
NESHAP Subpart ZZZZ
E. Clarifications to the Oil Change
Requirement in NESHAP Subpart ZZZZ
F. Other Requests for Comments
G. Effective Date and Compliance Dates
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and
Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the benefits?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory
Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations and Executive Order 14096:
Revitalizing our Nation’s Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially
regulated by this action include
industries using stationary engines,
including both compression and spark
ignition internal combustion engines,
such as: Electric power generation,
transmission, or distribution; Medical
and surgical hospitals; Natural gas
transmission; Crude petroleum and
E:\FR\FM\30AUR1.SGM
30AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 169 (Friday, August 30, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70500-70505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-19548]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0664; FRL-12010-01-R5]
Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2015 Ozone NAAQS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from Wisconsin
regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that
the structural components of each state's air quality management
program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the
CAA.
DATES: This final rule is effective on September 30, 2024.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0664. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI), Proprietary Business Information (PBI), 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 at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region
5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that
you telephone Eric Svingen, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 353-4489
before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Svingen, Air and Radiation
Division (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-4489,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
I. What is the background of this SIP submission?
Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section
110(a)(1) requires states to make SIP submissions to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This type of
SIP submission is commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP.''
These submissions must meet the various requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2), as applicable.
On September 30, 2020 (85 FR 61673), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking proposing to approve most elements of a September
14, 2018, submission from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) intended to address all
[[Page 70501]]
applicable infrastructure requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA's
proposed rulemaking contained a detailed analysis of Wisconsin's
submission. Public comments on the September 30, 2020, proposed rule
were due by October 30, 2020.
EPA's September 30, 2020, proposed rulemaking did not address
Wisconsin's infrastructure requirements under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and section 110(a)(2)(F). In separate rulemakings,
EPA has since taken action on these elements. In a February 13, 2023
(88 FR 9384), rulemaking addressing the interstate transport elements
under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA approved Wisconsin's September
14, 2018, submission as to the requirements of prong 1 and disapproved
the submission as to the requirements of prong 2. On July 24, 2023 (88
FR 47375), EPA approved an August 3, 2022, submission from Wisconsin
certifying that its SIP is sufficient to meet the stationary source
monitoring and reporting element under section 110(a)(2)(F). In this
action, which finalizes EPA's September 30, 2020, proposed rulemaking,
EPA is taking final action on all remaining elements of Wisconsin's
infrastructure requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
II. What are EPA's responses to comments?
During the public comment period on EPA's September 30, 2020,
proposed rulemaking, EPA received one comment in support of our action,
as well as one adverse comment, which addressed three aspects of
Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP submission. For each aspect, summaries
of the adverse comment and EPA's responses are provided below.
Comment: A commenter alleges that EPA cannot finalize approval of
Wisconsin's submission as meeting the infrastructure SIP requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B). The commenter notes that EPA's proposed
rule refers to our October 2, 2019, approval of Wisconsin's 2020 Annual
Monitoring Network Plan (AMNP), but the commenter suggests that
Wisconsin would have submitted a more recent AMNP in July 2020. The
commenter asserts that EPA should have based its proposal on the most
recent AMNP. The commenter notes that neither AMNP was in the docket
folder for the proposed rulemaking, and requests that EPA add both
AMNPs to the docket and open a new 30-day public comment period.
Response: EPA disagrees that EPA must propose approval only on the
most recently submitted AMNP. Wisconsin submitted its 2021 AMNP on June
29, 2020, and EPA approved the 2021 AMNP on September 15, 2020. On
September 10, 2020, when the Deputy Regional Administrator signed EPA's
rulemaking proposing approval of the state's infrastructure SIP
submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS with respect to section
110(a)(2)(B), EPA's approval of the 2020 AMNP was the most current
approval, and therefore EPA could not have cited approval of the 2021
AMNP. Further, a state's 2021 AMNP describes changes it intended to
make no earlier than January 1, 2021. On the date EPA published the
proposed approval, Wisconsin was implementing its monitoring network
according to the 2020 AMNP.
Additionally, in its 2021 AMNP, Wisconsin outlined changes to its
monitoring network that had no adverse impact on its ability to monitor
ozone. In Table 14 of its 2021 AMNP, Wisconsin listed proposed changes
at only four monitoring sites. At its Milwaukee SER DNR Headquarters
site, the state proposed to terminate monitoring of eight pollutants
including ozone, because of the scheduled demolition of the facility
adjacent to that site. At the other three sites, the state proposed new
monitoring or increased monitoring of pollutants that had earlier been
monitored at the Milwaukee SER DNR Headquarters site. The state
proposed to start monitoring of five of those pollutants, including
ozone, nearby at a new Milwaukee UWM Park & Ride site. At its Milwaukee
Sixteenth St. Health Center site, the state proposed increasing the
frequency of sampling of particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less
than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). The state also
proposed to start monitoring oxides of nitrogen (NOX) at its
Chiwaukee site. Importantly, the 2021 AMNP was not Wisconsin's first
mention of the proposed termination of the Milwaukee SER DNR
Headquarters site. The state had already proposed this termination in
its 2020 AMNP, and EPA's September 30, 2020, rulemaking references
EPA's October 2, 2019, approval of that plan. EPA accordingly concludes
that referencing the most recently approved 2020 AMNP at the time of
signature of the proposed rulemaking, as opposed to the most recently
submitted 2021 AMNP, did not deprive commenters of an ability to raise
concerns about adverse changes to the state's ozone monitoring network.
EPA is now adding the 2020 AMNP and 2021 AMNP to the docket folder for
this action.
EPA further disagrees that any AMNP must have been included in the
docket at the time of the comment period for this action. Prior to
submitting an AMNP to EPA, WDNR makes each AMNP broadly available
through a public comment process (see 40 CFR 58.10). Both the 2020 AMNP
and 2021 AMNP are available at the WDNR website. WDNR's September 14,
2018, submittal contains a link to a subpage of this website, and EPA
provided the same link in the proposed rule. Accordingly, EPA concludes
that commenters had knowledge of, and access to, both the 2020 and 2021
AMNPs during the comment period and thus there was no need for EPA to
provide an additional comment period for this purpose.
Comment: A commenter alleges that EPA cannot finalize approval of
Wisconsin's submission as meeting the infrastructure SIP requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E). The commenter asserts that Wisconsin's
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS fails to provide
any documentation, budgetary details, or personnel numbers to support
its conclusions that Wisconsin meets the infrastructure SIP
requirements relating to adequate resources to carry out the SIP. The
commenter notes that WDNR's submission identifies its section 105
grants and Environmental Performance Partnership Agreement (EnPPA), but
states that these sources were neither described in detail in the
submission nor included in the docket for EPA's proposed rulemaking.
The commenter refers to requirements at 40 CFR 51.280 and asserts that
1-, 3-, and 5-year resource projections are required but not included
in Wisconsin's submission. The commenter also cites to a report which
states that environmental agency funding in Wisconsin has been cut by
36 percent from 2008 to 2018. The commenter alleges that Wisconsin
``must provide concrete assurances that it has adequate funding and
personnel both now and for the next 5 years.''
Response: EPA agrees that CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires each
state to provide necessary assurances that the state will have adequate
personnel, funding, and authority under state law necessary to carry
out the SIP during the five years following the SIP submission.\1\
However, CAA section 110
[[Page 70502]]
does not mandate a specific methodology for EPA to evaluate the
adequacy of state resources available to implement the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA guidance identifies a five-year period following the SIP
submission as the relevant timeframe for this evaluation. See
Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2).'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions 1
through 10, September 13, 2013, at page 40 (2013 Guidance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter expresses concern that that Wisconsin's funding to
implement the SIP may be inadequate based on potential budget cuts.
Specifically, the commenter asserts that ``Wisconsin ranks first in
environmental protection funding cuts across the country,'' and to
support this contention cites to a report by the Environmental
Integrity Project, as well as a public radio news story referencing
that report, which both allege that Wisconsin cut its environmental
agency funding by 36 percent between 2008 and 2018. As discussed on
page 8 of the report, the alleged 36% cut is expressed in inflation-
adjusted dollars. As shown in Table 1 of the report, this was a
decrease from a budget of $91.4 million in 2008 to a budget of $68.9
million in 2018, which is a 25 percent cut without adjusting for
inflation.
To evaluate the commenter's concern that Wisconsin budgets are
declining in a way that would make the state unable to continue to
implement its SIP, EPA reviewed the state's enacted budgets, which are
posted online by the Wisconsin Department of Administration.\2\
Wisconsin's budgets are passed by the Wisconsin legislature and signed
by the governor on a biennial cycle, covering periods from July 1 of
one odd-numbered year through June 30 of the next odd-numbered year. To
evaluate the commenter's claims regarding Wisconsin's 2008 budget, EPA
reviewed Wisconsin's enacted biennial budget for 2007-2009. EPA also
reviewed Wisconsin's four most recent enacted biennial budgets, for the
periods 2017-2019, 2019-2021, 2021-2023, and 2023-2025, which cover a
total of eight years, including the 2018 year referenced by the
commenter, and spanning the complete five-year period following
Wisconsin's September 14, 2018, submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Wisconsin's current enacted budget is available at https://doa.wi.gov/Pages/StateFinances/CurrentBiennialBudget.aspx. Previous
enacted budgets are available at https://doa.wi.gov/Pages/StateFinances/PastBudgets.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted by the Environmental Integrity Project, Wisconsin's
pollution control and cleanup programs are housed within WDNR, which
also manages state parks, recreational areas, wildlife programs, and
fisheries programs. This structure is distinct from the organization of
most states, which consolidate pollution control and cleanup programs
in a single agency, like Indiana's Department of Environmental
Management. In the case of Wisconsin, the Environmental Integrity
Project has ``attempted to identify and distinguish spending for those
functions from the department's overall budget,'' and the 25 percent
nominal budget cut is meant to quantify cuts to the portion of WDNR's
funding allocated to pollution control and cleanup programs, which the
Environmental Integrity Project describes as ``environmental agency
funding.'' The Environmental Integrity Project report does not explain
its methodology for separating WDNR's ``environmental agency funding''
from other funding.
In reviewing biennial budgets, EPA first reviewed data for WDNR's
department-wide budget. WDNR's budget did decline between 2008 and
2018, but by an amount much smaller than the 25 percent nominal cut
described in the Environmental Integrity Project report. WDNR's total
budget was $573 million for 2007-2008 and $580 million for 2008-2009,
compared to $549 million for 2017-2018 and $547 million for 2018-2019,
which is a cut of less than 6 percent. In the six years preceding the
current biennial budget, starting in 2017-2018 and ending in 2022-2023,
WNDR's total budget was between $549 million and $575 million, which is
a range of less than 5 percent, with no clear trends of increases or
decreases within this period. In the current biennial budget, WDNR's
total budget has been increased relative to the level of previous
years, at $640 million for 2023-2024 and $581 million for 2024-2025.
Given that the Environmental Integrity Project analyzed only a
portion of WDNR's budget, EPA also reviewed previous and current
biennial budget allocations for the nine programs that together
comprise the total WDNR budget. One of these programs, titled
``environmental management'', contains pollution control and cleanup
programs including air management, water quality, wastewater
management, and remediation. The environmental management program
budget was $70.8 million for 2017-2018 and $70.0 million for 2018-2019,
which differs by less than 3 percent from the Environmental Integrity
Project's calculation of $68.9 million in ``environmental agency
funding'' for 2018. Because the Environmental Integrity Project did not
provide its methodology in the report, EPA cannot verify whether WDNR's
environmental management program was the budget used by the
Environmental Integrity Project in calculating 2018 ``environmental
agency funding.'' For 2008, WDNR's nine programs were organized and
labeled differently, and EPA does not see any program or combination of
programs from 2008 that is similar to the $91.4 million funding level
in the report, such that the Environmental Integrity Project might be
able to draw comparisons to 2018 funding levels for WDNR's
environmental management program.
During EPA's evaluation of state assurances of adequate resources
under section 110(a)(2)(E), it is not necessary for EPA to determine
the exact amount of resources a state needs to carry out its SIP. In
this case, EPA's evaluation of the facts indicates that the WDNR budget
has not changed to the degree that it would preclude the state from
implementing its SIP, given that the overall budget did not decrease by
more than 6 percent between 2008 and 2018. Further, as shown below in
Table 1, funding for WDNR and for its environmental management program
has not decreased over the eight-year period starting in 2017-2018 and
ending in 2024-2025. As noted above, WNDR's total budget in this period
was between $549 million and $640 million, with no clear trends of
increases or decreases over the first six years followed by an increase
in the current 2023-2025 biennial budget. The environmental management
program budget in this period was between $70.0 million and $102
million, with an overall trend of increased funding during this period,
particularly in the current 2023-2025 biennial budget. Considered
together, the biennial budgets show a trajectory of stable or
increasing resources for WNDR and its environmental management program
over the five-year period beginning with Wisconsin's September 14,
2018, submission.
[[Page 70503]]
Table 1--Enacted Budgets for WDNR and Its Environmental Management Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental management
Budget period Total WDNR budget program budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017-2018.................................................... $549,243,200 $70,843,300
2018-2019.................................................... 549,243,200 70,002,900
2019-2020.................................................... 574,682,800 75,134,000
2020-2021.................................................... 548,896,600 74,975,000
2021-2022.................................................... 566,301,400 83,014,200
2022-2023.................................................... 558,779,900 77,963,500
2023-2024.................................................... 640,434,900 101,630,600
2024-2025.................................................... 580,922,900 81,381,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin's submission additionally identified the section 105 Air
Pollution Control Grant as a source of resources applied towards
implementing its air program, and Wisconsin explains that ``EPA and
WDNR negotiate priorities and grant commitments under the EnPPA, which
is a two-year agreement itemizing performance measures and outcomes
across various funding sources and grants.'' To further assess the
adequacy of Wisconsin's resources towards carrying out the SIP, EPA
reviewed EnPPA documents from the five-year period beginning with
Wisconsin's September 14, 2018, submission. EPA is placing the EnPPA
materials in the docket for this action. The EnPPA documents provide
further support to EPA's finding that Wisconsin has had adequate
resources to carry out its SIP. In these materials, EPA and WDNR staff
review objectives and activities relating to the SIP, across categories
including mobile source programs, ambient air monitoring, NAAQS
implementation, and regional haze. Within each category, EPA and WDNR
staff discuss progress towards specific commitments, such as conducting
vehicle emissions testing in ozone nonattainment areas, operating ozone
monitors, implementing maintenance plans in areas that have been
redesignated to attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and issuing air
quality forecasts for criteria pollutants including ozone. The EnPPA
process does not require documentation of every commitment in every
year, however when progress within each commitment is discussed, EPA
and WDNR consistently agree that Wisconsin's progress is ongoing or
satisfactory.
Comment: A commenter alleges that EPA cannot finalize approval of
Wisconsin's submission as meeting the infrastructure SIP requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) relating to
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), or section
110(a)(2)(J). The commenter notes EPA's January 17, 2017 (82 FR 5182),
rulemaking promulgating revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality
Models at appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 (``Guideline''), which required
states to integrate the revisions no later than January 17, 2018. The
commenter cites EPA's July 6, 2020 (85 FR 40165), rulemaking proposing
approval of elements of an infrastructure SIP submission from Kentucky,
which expressed EPA's view that applications of the Guideline include
the infrastructure requirements relating to PSD, which means the
requirements at CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
relating to PSD, and section 110(a)(2)(J). The commenter notes that the
Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter Natural Resources (NR) 405.10
specifies that modeling required under the state's PSD rules shall be
based on the Guideline, but NR 484.04 incorporates by reference the
version of the Guideline that was in effect on August 1, 2016. The
commenter acknowledges that states with references to earlier versions
of the Guideline may be able to rely on their authority to use
alternative models to satisfy these infrastructure requirements but
suggests that neither Wisconsin nor EPA has confirmed the state's
ability to implement the current version of the Guideline.
Response: The air quality modeling procedures at NR 405.10 were
approved into the Wisconsin SIP on May 27, 1999 (64 FR 28745), as part
of the state's PSD program. EPA agrees with the commenter that NR
405.10 incorporates by reference the version of the Guideline that was
effective on August 1, 2016, which is not the current version of the
Guideline. However, as the commenter suggests, Wisconsin has the
authority to conduct modeling according to the current Guideline under
substitution procedures provided within NR 405.10. Specifically, where
it is inappropriate to use the modeling procedures provided in the
earlier Guideline that is incorporated by reference, then NR 405.10
provides that another model may be substituted. NR 405.10 further
provides that a substitution shall be subject to public comment
procedures and that approval of the EPA Administrator shall be obtained
for any substitution.
In EPA's January 17, 2017, rulemaking promulgating revisions to the
Guideline, EPA explained to states that the new revisions to the
Guideline ``must be integrated into the regulatory processes of
respective reviewing authorities and followed by applicants'' by
January 17, 2018. In EPA's view, by issuing this direction to states to
begin using the revised Guideline, the Agency has in effect provided
its approval for the state to substitute the current Guideline in place
of an earlier Guideline, which thus functionally satisfies the
requirement for administrator approval at NR 405.10. Were the state
seeking to use some alternative approach that EPA had not already
determined to be appropriate by updating the Guideline and instructing
states to integrate it into their programs, then the EPA approval
process required in NR 405.10 would still apply. Further, any PSD
application is already subject to the public participation requirements
at NR 405.15, which satisfies the requirement at NR 405.10 for public
comment on air quality modeling. EPA therefore concludes that the SIP-
approved modeling procedures at NR 405.10 are adequate to authorize and
allow the state to conduct modeling according to the current Guideline,
and thus adequate to meet the infrastructure requirements relating to
PSD at CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and
section 110(a)(2)(J).
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving most elements of a submission from Wisconsin
certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to meet the required
infrastructure elements under section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2015
ozone NAAQS.
EPA's actions for the state's satisfaction of infrastructure SIP
requirements pursuant to section
[[Page 70504]]
110(a)(2) and NAAQS are contained in the table below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Element 2015 Ozone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A)--Emission limits and other control measures........ A
(B)--Ambient air quality monitoring/data system........ A
(C)1--Program for enforcement of control measures...... A
(C)2--Minor NSR........................................ A
(C)3--PSD.............................................. A
(D)1--I Prong 1: Interstate transport--significant NA
contribution to nonattainment.........................
(D)2--I Prong 2: Interstate transport--interference NA
with maintenance......................................
(D)3--II Prong 3: Interstate transport--interference A
with PSD..............................................
(D)4--II Prong 4: Interstate transport--interference A
with visibility protection............................
(D)5--Interstate and international pollution abatement. A
(E)1--Adequate resources............................... A
(E)2--State board requirements......................... A
(F)--Stationary source monitoring system............... NA
(G)--Emergency powers.................................. A
(H)--Future SIP revisions.............................. A
(I)--Nonattainment planning requirements of part D..... *
(J)1--Consultation with government officials........... A
(J)2--Public notification.............................. A
(J)3--PSD.............................................. A
(J)4--Visibility protection............................ *
(K)--Air quality modeling/data......................... A
(L)--Permitting fees................................... A
(M)--Consultation/participation by affected local A
entities..............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the above table, the key is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.............................. Approve.
NA............................. No Action/Separate Rulemaking.
*.............................. Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
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.
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 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on communities with environmental justice
(EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines EJ as ``the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of
all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with
respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies.'' EPA further defines
the term fair treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and
policies.''
WDNR did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of
the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral
to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area.
Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there
is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of
E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for communities with EJ concerns.
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
[[Page 70505]]
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 October 29, 2024. 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 26, 2024.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 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 52.2591 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (i); and
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (l).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 52.2591 Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements.
* * * * *
(i) Approval--In September 14, 2018, and August 3, 2022,
submissions, WDNR certified that the state has satisfied the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H),
and (J) through (M) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. For section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 is approved and prong 2 is disapproved.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-19548 Filed 8-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
