Rule2024-19548
Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 30, 2024
Effective
September 30, 2024
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 169 (Friday, August 30, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b7c4c1ded9d0d2d999d2c5ded4f7d2c7d699d0d8c1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cbb8bda2a5acaea5e5aeb9a2a88baebbaae5aca4bd">[email protected]</span></a>.
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 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>). The state also
proposed to start monitoring oxides of nitrogen (NO<INF>X</INF>) 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 <a href="https://doa.wi.gov/Pages/StateFinances/CurrentBiennialBudget.aspx">https://doa.wi.gov/Pages/StateFinances/CurrentBiennialBudget.aspx</a>. Previous
enacted budgets are available at <a href="https://doa.wi.gov/Pages/StateFinances/PastBudgets.aspx">https://doa.wi.gov/Pages/StateFinances/PastBudgets.aspx</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> 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
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 30, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.