Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 24373 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0465; FRL–9805–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Wisconsin; Amendments to Vehicle 

Inspection and Maintenance Program 

for Wisconsin 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a state implementation plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR) on June 7, 2012, concerning the 

State’s vehicle inspection and 

maintenance (I/M) program in southeast 

Wisconsin. The revision amends I/M 

program requirements in the active 

control measures portion of the ozone 

SIP to reflect changes that have been 

implemented at the state level since 

EPA fully approved the I/M program on 

August 16, 2001. The submittal also 

includes a demonstration under section 

110(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

addressing lost emission reductions 

associated with the program changes. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 28, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0465, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012– 

0465. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 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 

Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, at (312) 886–6061 

before visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, Control Strategies 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6061, 

acevedo.francisco@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. Background 

III. What changes have been made to the 

Wisconsin I/M program? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s 

submittal? 

a. Substantive I/M Requirements 

b. Performance Evaluation 

c. Demonstrating Noninterference With 

Attainment and Maintenance Under 

CAA Section 110(l) 

V. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period. 

II. Background 

The general purpose of motor vehicle 

I/M programs is to reduce emissions 

from in-use motor vehicles in need of 

repairs and thereby contribute to state 

and local efforts to improve air quality 

and to attain the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

Wisconsin has operated an I/M 

program in southeastern Wisconsin 

since 1984. The program is presently 

operating in Kenosha, Milwaukee, 

Ozaukee, Racine, Sheboygan, 

Washington and Waukesha Counties. 

Initially, all vehicles were inspected by 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
24374 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1The purpose of adding I/M testing requirements 

for heavier gasoline and diesel vehicles was to 

offset any lost emission reductions from the 

elimination of tailpipe testing. 

measuring tailpipe emission levels. 

Since July of 2001, all model year (MY) 

1996 and later cars and light trucks have 

been inspected by scanning the 

vehicle’s computerized second 

generation on-board diagnostic (OBDII) 

systems. EPA fully approved 

Wisconsin’s I/M program on August 16, 

2001, (66 FR 42949) including the 

program’s legal authority and 

administrative requirements found in 

sections 100.20 and 285.30 of the 

Wisconsin Statutes and Chapters NR 

485 and Trans 131 of the Wisconsin 

Administrative Code. As of July 2008, 

the program dropped tailpipe testing 

entirely and inspected all vehicles by 

scanning the OBDII systems. This 

change was the result of statutory 

changes in the State’s 2007–2009 

biennial budget which exempted model 

years of vehicles not Federally required 

to be equipped with the OBDII 

technology (MY 1995 and earlier cars 

and light trucks and MY 2006 and 

earlier heavy trucks). 

III. What changes have been made to 

the Wisconsin I/M program? 

The Wisconsin I/M SIP revision 

submitted on June 7, 2012, reflects 

several changes to the approved 

program. The most significant changes 

to the Wisconsin I/M program took 

effect beginning on July 2008 and 

include: 

• The elimination of I/M program 

testing requirements for non-OBDII 

equipped vehicles. This change 

impacted MY 1968 through 1995 

vehicles. These vehicles were 

previously subject to tailpipe testing. 

• The elimination of I/M program 

testing requirements for gasoline 

vehicles with gross vehicle weight 

rating (GVWR) between 8,500 to 10,000 

pounds (lbs). This change impacted MY 

1996 through 2006 vehicles. Previously, 

all vehicles up to 10,000 lbs. were 

subject to testing. 

• The addition of I/M program testing 

requirements for gasoline vehicles with 

a GVWR of 10,000 to 14,000 lbs. This 

change impacted MY 2007 and later 

vehicles. 

• The addition of I/M program testing 

requirements for diesel vehicles with a 

GVWR up to 14,000 lbs. This change 

impacted MY 2007 and later vehicles.1

In addition to the changes discussed 

above, the June 7, 2012, submittal 

included a number of minor revisions to 

the program that do not have a 

significant impact on overall program 

operations or the emissions reductions 

associated with it. A full list of the 

changes submitted by Wisconsin for 

EPA approval include: Revisions to 

Section 100.20, Wisconsin Statutes 

(2001 Wisconsin Act 16, published 

August 31, 2001; 2003 Wisconsin Act 

220, published April 22, 2003; 2005 

Wisconsin Act 49, published October 

27, 2005; 2007 Wisconsin Act 20, 

published October 26, 2007; 2009 

Wisconsin Act 228, published May 19, 

2010). Revisions to Section 285.30, 

Wisconsin Statutes (2003 Wisconsin Act 

192, published April 21, 2004; 2007 

Wisconsin Act 20, published October 

26, 2007; 2007 Wisconsin Act 33, 

published December 3, 2007; 2009 

Wisconsin Act 157, published March 

24, 2010; 2009 Wisconsin Act 311, 

published May 26, 2010). Revisions to 

Wisconsin Administrative Code, 

Chapter NR 485 (Clearinghouse Rule CR 

05–072 effective April 1, 2006; 

Clearinghouse Rule CR 10–049 effective 

December 1, 2010). Revisions to 

Wisconsin Administrative Code, 

Chapter Trans 131 (Clearinghouse Rule 

CR 01–121 effective April 1, 2002; 

Clearinghouse Rule CR 07–114 effective 

July 1, 2008; Clearinghouse Rule CR 10– 

088 effective January 1, 2011). 

To support the changes outlined 

above, the revision also included a 

summary of the MOVES2010a modeling 

inputs used to calculate program 

benefits; a demonstration for meeting 

the modeling requirements for EPA’s 

alternate low enhanced I/M 

performance standard; a section 110(l) 

demonstration that includes offset 

emission credits; and an emissions 

inventory evaluation by Sonoma 

Technology, Inc. WDNR held a public 

hearing on the Wisconsin I/M SIP 

revision on May 7, 2012, in Milwaukee, 

Wisconsin and allowed for written 

public comments until May 11, 2012. 

Full copies of the SIP revision are 

located in EPA’s docket. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s 

submittal? 

a. Substantive I/M Requirements 

EPA’s requirements for basic and 

enhanced I/M programs are found in 40 

CFR part 51, subpart S. The I/M SIP 

revision submitted by Wisconsin must 

be consistent with these requirements 

and must meet EPA’s requirements for 

enforceability and section 110(l) 

requirements of the CAA. The specific 

aspects of I/M affected by the submitted 

revisions to the Wisconsin I/M program 

include vehicle coverage and 

exemptions, test procedures and 

standards, test equipment, waivers and 

compliance, enforcement against 

contractors, inspector training and 

licensing or certification, and the 

performance standard evaluation. 

1. Vehicle Coverage—40 CFR 51.356 

Under 40 CFR 51.356, the 

performance standard for enhanced I/M 

programs (including alternate low 

enhanced programs) assumes coverage 

of all MY 1968 and later light duty 

vehicles and trucks up to 8,500 pounds 

GVWR, and includes vehicles operating 

on all fuel types. Vehicles registered or 

required to be registered within the I/M 

program area boundaries, and fleets 

primarily operated within the I/M 

program area boundaries and belonging 

to the covered model years and vehicle 

classes comprise the subject vehicles. 

Under EPA regulations, other levels of 

coverage may be approved if the 

necessary emission reductions are 

achieved. The Wisconsin I/M program 

originally approved in the SIP by EPA, 

required testing of MY 1968 and later 

gasoline vehicles with a GVWR up to 

10,000 lbs. Vehicles were first subject to 

the requirements when the vehicles 

were two model years old and every two 

years thereafter. The I/M SIP revision 

amends these provisions to eliminate 

emission inspection of vehicles MY 

1995 and earlier, and exempts from 

testing off-road utility vehicles, 

lightweight utility vehicles, and lowspeed vehicles. The I/M SIP revision 

adds emission inspection requirements 

for vehicles MY 2007 and later with a 

GVWR up to 14,000 lbs., while limiting 

emission inspection of vehicles MY 

2006 and earlier to only those with a 

GVWR up to 8,500 lbs. Finally, the I/M 

SIP revision adds emission inspection of 

vehicles MY 2007 and later that are 

powered by diesel fuel. Under the 

revised requirements, vehicles are first 

subject to the requirements when 

vehicles are four model years old and 

every two years thereafter. However, as 

described in section IV.b below, EPA 

concludes that the state has 

demonstrated that it meets the alternate 

low enhanced performance standards 

with the revised program changes. Thus, 

the changes in vehicle coverage under 

the revised requirements are acceptable 

under 40 CFR 51.356. 

2. Test Procedures-Standards—40 CFR 

51.357 

Under 40 CFR 51.357, I/M programs 

must establish and implement written 

test procedures and pass/fail standards 

for each model year and vehicle type. 

The Wisconsin I/M program originally 

approved in the SIP by EPA already 

contains detailed procedures for 

connecting to the OBDII system in 1996 

and newer vehicles, information on 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 24375 

2EPA announced the release of MOVES2010 in 

March 2010 (75 FR 9411). EPA subsequently 

released two minor model revisions: MOVES2010a 

in September 2010 and MOVES2010b in April 

2012. Both of these minor revisions enhance model 

performance and do not significantly affect the 

criteria pollutant emissions results from 

MOVES2010. 

readiness codes for OBDII tests, and 

pass/fail standards for OBDII equipped 

vehicles. Under the revised 

requirements Wisconsin establishes 

OBDII as the primary testing method 

and eliminates the previously 

established idle and transient tailpipe 

testing methods. The changes repeal 

references in the requirements relating 

to these now eliminated testing methods 

including emission equipment 

specifications and inspection 

requirements. In addition, the revised 

requirements eliminate the evaporative 

emission test also known as the ‘‘gas cap 

test’’, which was previously required 

but is no longer necessary with OBDII 

technology. This part of the submittal 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.357 and 40 CFR 51.358 of the Federal 

I/M regulation. 

3. Test Equipment—40 CFR 51.358 

Computerized test systems are 

required for performing any 

measurement on subject vehicles. The 

Federal I/M regulation requires that the 

state SIP submittal include written 

technical specifications for all test 

equipment used in the program. The 

specifications must describe the 

analysis process, the necessary test 

equipment, the required features, and 

written acceptance testing criteria and 

procedures. The Wisconsin I/M program 

originally approved in the SIP by EPA 

already contains detailed technical 

specifications for program test 

equipment that mirror EPA’s 

requirements and guidance. As 

mentioned before, the revised changes 

repeal references in the requirements 

relating to idle and transient tailpipe 

testing methods, including emission 

equipment specifications and inspection 

requirements retaining the requirements 

and specifications for OBDII testing. 

This part of the submittal continues to 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.358 

of the Federal I/M regulation. 

4. Waivers and Compliance via 

Diagnostic Inspection—40 CFR 51.360 

The Federal I/M regulation allows for 

the issuance of a waiver, which is a 

form of compliance with the program 

requirements that allows a motorist to 

comply without meeting the applicable 

test standards. An expenditure of at 

least $450 in repairs, adjusted annually 

to reflect the change in the Consumer 

Price Index (CPI) as compared to the CPI 

for 1989, is required in order to qualify 

for a waiver in enhanced I/M areas. An 

expenditure of at least $75 for pre-1981 

vehicles and $200 for 1981 and newer 

vehicles is required in order to qualify 

for a waiver in basic I/M areas. Waivers 

can only be issued after a vehicle has 

failed a retest performed after all 

qualifying repairs have been made. Any 

available warranty coverage must be 

used to obtain repairs before 

expenditures can be counted toward the 

cost limit. Tampering related repairs 

must not be applied toward the cost 

limit. Repairs must be appropriate to the 

cause of the test failure. Under the I/M 

program approved in the SIP, Wisconsin 

established waiver limits in section 

110.20(13) of the Wisconsin Statutes 

and in NR 485.045(1) requiring an 

expenditure of at least $75 for pre-1981 

vehicles and $200 for 1981 and newer 

vehicles in order to qualify for a waiver 

in Sheboygan County and an 

expenditure of at least $450 in repairs, 

adjusted annually to reflect the change 

in the CPI as compared to the CPI for 

1989, as established by the EPA, for the 

remaining I/M counties. Sheboygan 

County had a lower repair cost limits 

since its nonattainment classification 

established in 1992 was at a lower level 

than that for the other six counties. In 

the Wisconsin I/M SIP revision, the 

requirements have expanded the 

coverage of the inflation adjusted repair 

cost limit in NR 485.045 to all counties 

subject to the I/M program and to 

vehicles with OBDII systems, thereby 

raising the lower limits for Sheboygan 

County. In addition, the revision 

clarifies that to obtain a waiver of 

compliance on the basis of statutory 

repair cost limit, a vehicle must pass a 

waiver emission equipment inspection. 

This part of the submittal continues to 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.360. 

5. Enforcement Against Contractors, 

Stations and Inspectors—40 CFR 51.364 

and Inspector Training and Licensing or 

Certification—40 CFR 51.367 

The Federal I/M regulation requires 

all inspectors to be formally trained and 

licensed or certified to perform 

inspections. In addition, the regulation 

requires the establishment of minimum 

penalties for violations of program rules 

and procedures that can be imposed 

against stations, contactors and 

inspectors. The state must include in 

the SIP the legal authority for 

establishing and imposing penalties, 

civil fines, license suspensions and 

revocations. The Wisconsin I/M 

program originally approved in the SIP 

by EPA already includes the legal 

authority that addresses these 

requirements. However, the Wisconsin 

I/M SIP revision includes amendments 

to the legal authority that also allow the 

State to establish methods for emission 

testing and delivery of testing services, 

in addition to the previously established 

method of a single contractor. It 

establishes as the service delivery 

method a possibility of contractors who 

perform the test at their own facilities, 

or by subcontracted testing at 

subcontractors’ facilities, or at selfservice facilities where a vehicle owner 

may test the vehicle. The revisions 

expands the inspector training and 

licensing requirements to include all 

employees of any authorized inspection 

facility subcontractor and expands the 

penalty and audit requirements 

originally approved by EPA to include 

other authorized testing facilities. This 

part of the submittal meets the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.364 and 

51.365. 

b. Performance Evaluation 

As part of the June 7, 2012, I/M SIP 

revision, WDNR provided an updated 

performance evaluation using the EPA’s 

motor vehicle emissions simulator 

model, MOVES2010a.2 The updated 

performance evaluation included a 

summary report outlining the modeling 

results and paper copies of the 

MOVES2010a modeling input files. The 

purpose of the updated performance 

evaluation is to demonstrate that 

Wisconsin’s vehicle I/M program, as 

amended, would continue to meet the 

Federal enhanced I/M performance 

standard in southeast Wisconsin. The 

results of WDNR’s analysis are 

summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below, 

which show that the emissions 

reductions achieved by the Wisconsin I/ 

M program, as amended, are higher than 

those achieved under the performance 

standards. The amended Wisconsin I/M 

program thus continues to achieve 

greater emissions reductions than the 

Federal model program because the 

Wisconsin I/M program includes 

elements that go beyond Federal I/M 

requirements. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
24376 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF WDNR’S ALTERNATIVE LOW ENHANCED PERFORMANCE MODELING FOR SIX COUNTY MILWAUKEE-RACINE NONATTAINMENT AREA (KENOSHA, MILWAUKEE, OZAUKEE, RACINE, WASHINGTON AND

WAUKESHA COUNTIES) 

Year 

2002 2009 2012 2015 

VOC 3 NOX 4 VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

I/M Performance Standard Benefits (grams/mile) ........................... 0.071 0.040 0.039 0.009 0.025 0.004 0.017 0.002 

Actual I/M Program Benefits (grams/mile) ....................................... 0.134 0.193 0.060 0.097 0.037 0.063 0.027 0.041 

3Volatile organic compound. 

4Oxides of nitrogen. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF WDNR’S ALTERNATIVE LOW ENHANCED PERFORMANCE MODELING FOR SHEBOYGAN

COUNTY NONATTAINMENT AREA

Year 

2002 2009 2012 2015 

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

I/M Performance Standard Benefits (grams/mile) ........................... 0.080 0.044 0.044 0.009 0.030 0.005 0.020 0.002 

Actual I/M Program Benefits (grams/mile) ....................................... 0.113 0.165 0.065 0.095 0.044 0.069 0.032 0.045 

Based on our review of the I/M SIP 

revision, EPA finds that WDNR’s 

performance standard evaluation and 

use of the alternate low enhanced I/M 

performance standard to be acceptable. 

EPA also finds that the Wisconsin I/M 

program, as amended, exceeds the 

alternate low enhanced performance 

standard in both the Milwaukee-Racine 

and Sheboygan County nonattainment 

areas as required under 40 CFR 51.351. 

c. Demonstrating Noninterference With 

Attainment and Maintenance Under 

CAA Section 110(l) 

Revisions to SIP-approved control 

measures must meet the requirements of 

CAA section 110(l) to be approved by 

EPA. Section 110(l) states: 

‘‘The Administrator shall not approve a 

revision of a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (as defined 

in section 171), or any other applicable 

requirement of this Act.’’ 

EPA interprets section 110(l) to apply 

to all requirements of the CAA and to 

all areas of the country, whether 

attainment, nonattainment, 

unclassifiable, or maintenance for one 

or more of the six criteria pollutants. 

EPA also interprets section 110(l) to 

require a demonstration addressing all 

pollutants whose emissions and/or 

ambient concentrations may change as a 

result of the SIP revision. In the absence 

of an attainment demonstration, to 

demonstrate no interference with any 

applicable NAAQS or requirement of 

the CAA under section 110(l), EPA 

believes it is appropriate to allow states 

to substitute equivalent emissions 

reductions to compensate for any 

change to a SIP approved program, as 

long as actual emissions in the air are 

not increased. ‘‘Equivalent’’ emissions 

reductions mean reductions which are 

equal to or greater than those reductions 

achieved by the control measure 

approved in the active portion of the 

SIP. In order to show that compensating 

emissions reductions are equivalent, 

modeling or adequate justification must 

be provided. The compensating, 

equivalent reductions must represent 

actual, new emissions reductions 

achieved in a contemporaneous time 

frame to the change of the existing SIP 

control measure, in order to preserve the 

status quo level of emission in the air. 

In addition to being contemporaneous, 

the equivalent emissions reductions 

must also be permanent, enforceable, 

quantifiable, and surplus to be approved 

into the SIP. 

The Wisconsin I/M SIP revision 

includes a 110(l) demonstration that 

uses equivalent emissions reductions to 

compensate for emission reduction 

losses resulting from changes to the SIP 

approved I/M program in southeast 

Wisconsin. The submittal indicates that 

WDNR used the latest version of EPA’s 

motor vehicle emissions model 

program, MOVES2010a, to estimate the 

emissions effects of the program 

changes. Based on our review of the 

information provided, EPA finds that 

WDNR used reasonable methods and 

appropriate models in estimating the 

emissions effects of the program 

changes. WDNR’s MOVES modeling 

shows that the changes to the Wisconsin 

I/M program result in fewer reductions 

than would have otherwise been 

obtained from the pre-2008 I/M program 

approved in the SIP by EPA. Table 3 

below summarizes WDNR’s emissions 

calculations comparing the current 

program to the SIP approved I/M 

program in units of tons per summer 

weekday (tpswd) and highlights the 

emissions difference that needs to be 

addressed as part of the 110(l) 

demonstration. 

TABLE 3—(SIP I/M PROGRAM VS. CURRENT I/M PROGRAM) 

Year 

SIP I/M 

program 

Revised I/M 

program 

Emissions 

difference 

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

2009 ................................................................................................................................. 4.55 6.53 3.47 5.59 1.08 0.94 

2012 ................................................................................................................................. 3.55 4.92 2.31 3.97 1.24 0.95 

2015 ................................................................................................................................. 2.59 3.14 1.76 2.66 0.83 0.48 

2018 ................................................................................................................................. 1.88 2.06 1.46 1.85 0.42 0.21 

2022 ................................................................................................................................. 1.59 1.49 1.27 1.35 0.32 0.14 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 24377 

The Wisconsin I/M program reduces 

emissions of VOC and NOX. VOC and 

NOX are contributors to the formation of 

ground-level ozone and fine particular 

matter. Thus, the increase in VOC and 

NOX needs to be offset with equivalent 

(or greater) emissions reductions from 

another control measure in order to 

demonstrate non-interference with the 

8-hour ozone and particulate matter 

(PM2.5) NAAQS. Although the program 

also results in carbon monoxide (CO) 

emissions reductions, substitute CO 

emissions reductions are not needed for 

this demonstration, because southeast 

Wisconsin is attaining the CO NAAQS 

and CO levels in the area are well below 

the standard. WDNR has estimated that 

the 10.13 tpswd of CO lost from the I/ 

M program changes in 2012, the year 

where the amended changes have the 

greatest emission impact, represent only 

0.98 percent of the total CO emissions 

inventory in the region and it is unlikely 

that the amendments to the Wisconsin 

I/M program will interfere with the 

area’s ability to continue to attain the 

CO NAAQS. 

To address the projected loss of VOC 

and NOX emission reductions, WDNR 

reviewed its records of permitted 

emissions sources in southeast 

Wisconsin and identified those sources 

that have ceased operation since the 

Wisconsin I/M program changes have 

taken place. WDNR identified eleven 

facilities (See table 4) in the 6 County 

Milwaukee-Racine (Kenosha, 

Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, 

Washington and Waukesha Counties) 

and Sheboygan County nonattainment 

areas that have permanently closed and 

have expired permits that have been 

revoked. The expiration and revocation 

of these sources’ permits allows the 

State to use the emission credits 

associated with them for other purposes 

under the SIP and makes such 

reductions permanent and enforceable. 

WDNR accounted for 506.47 tons of 

VOC per year and 72.71 tons of NOX per 

year based on maximum annual 

reported emissions from 2005 through 

2009. 

TABLE 4—NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS FROM CLOSED FACILITIES IN SOUTHEAST WISCONSIN

Name FID Date closed 

Emission reductions 

VOC 

(tons) 

NOX

(tons) 

INPRO CORPORATION .................................................................................. 268165150 06/30/09 21.33 0.00 

PHOENIX COLOR CORPORATION ............................................................... 241227910 08/31/11 07.36 0.08 

MIDWEST COMPOSITE TECHNOLOGIES, INC ........................................... 268270750 12/31/10 19.26 01.28 

ROCK TENN CONVERTING COMPANY ....................................................... 241017920 06/30/11 24.35 0.98 

CHARTER WIRE DIVISION COMPANY ......................................................... 241041130 12/31/09 37.70 0.00 

GREDE FOUNDRIES INC.—MILWAUKEE ALLOY ........................................ 241027600 11/30/07 34.90 1.84 

MILWAUKEE GRAY IRON, LLC. .................................................................... 241006370 12/31/08 53.50 31.29 

DELPHI ENERGY & CHASSIS SYSTEMS ..................................................... 241045750 06/10/10 0.76 19.73 

VIASYSTEMS MILWAUKEE, INC. .................................................................. 241116700 01/01/09 19.10 3.44 

S.C JOHNSON & SON–WAXDALE/POLYMER .............................................. 252236380 04/01/10 11.40 4.26 

MOMENTIVE SPECIALITY CHEMICALS, INC. (LAWTER INTERNATIONAL, INC.) ......................................................................................... 230089090 03/27/09 276.81 9.81 

TOTAL SIP CREDITS FROM SHUTDOWN FACILITIES ........................ ........................ ........................ 506.47 72.71 

In addition, EPA policy allows for 

substitution between VOC and NOX

emissions in its guidance on reasonable 

further progress. This guidance 

recommends that states assume, as an 

approximation, that equivalent percent 

changes in the area’s inventory for the 

respective pollutant yield an equivalent 

change in ozone levels. For example, 

decreasing area NOX emissions by 3 

percent would have the same effect as 

decreasing area VOC emissions by 3 

percent. Stated another way, if an area 

has twice as many tons of NOX

emissions as VOC emissions, then 2 

tons of NOX emissions would be 

assumed to have the same effect on 

ozone as 1 ton of VOC emissions. 

Following this approach WDNR used a 

4 to 1 NOX to VOC conversion ratio 

based on a top-down evaluation 

performed by Sonoma Technology, Inc. 

and outlined in a report dated May 

2011, entitled ‘‘A Top-Down Emissions 

Inventory Evaluation for the Upper 

Midwest’’ using 2005 and 2008 

emissions inventories provided by the 

Lake Michigan Air Directors 

Consortium. 

Table 5 below summarizes WDNR’s 

I/M emissions make-up demonstration. 

The table specifically highlights the 

annual emissions shortfall that has 

taken place since the Wisconsin I/M 

program changes occurred and outlines 

the amount of VOC and NOX emission 

credits that are being used to cover the 

shortfall using the VOC to NOX

substitution approach discussed above. 

Based on the use of permanent, 

enforceable, contemporaneous, surplus 

emissions reductions achieved through 

the shutdown of permitted emissions 

sources, EPA believes that the revisions 

to the Wisconsin I/M program do not 

interfere with southeast Wisconsin’s 

ability to demonstrate compliance with 

the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

TABLE 5—I/M EMISSIONS MAKE-UP DEMONSTRATION

Year 

MOVES 

emissions 

shortfall 

SIP credits from 

shutdown 

facilities 

Trading VOC 

emissions for 

NOX emissions 5

Revised SIP 

redits from shutdown facilities 

Difference 

(shortfall—Credits) 6

VOC 

(tons) 

NOX

tons) 

VOC 

(tons) 

NOX

(tons) 

VOC 

(tons) 

NOX

(tons) 

VOC 

(tons) 

NOX

(tons) 

VOC 

(tons) 

NOX

(tons) 

2009 ......................................................... 341.18 302.15 455.66 63.60 70.00 280.00 385.66 343.60 ¥44.47 ¥41.45 

2012 ......................................................... 394.45 306.29 506.47 72.71 70.00 280.00 436.47 352.71 ¥42.02 ¥46.42 

2015 ......................................................... 262.29 154.04 506.47 72.71 70.00 280.00 436.47 352.71 ¥174.18 ¥198.66 

2018 ......................................................... 134.04 66.46 506.47 72.71 70.00 280.00 436.47 352.71 ¥302.43 ¥286.25 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
24378 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5—I/M EMISSIONS MAKE-UP DEMONSTRATION—Continued 

Year 

MOVES 

emissions 

shortfall 

SIP credits from 

shutdown 

facilities 

Trading VOC 

emissions for 

NOX emissions 5

Revised SIP 

redits from shutdown facilities 

Difference 

(shortfall—Credits) 6

VOC 

(tons) 

NOX

tons) 

VOC 

(tons) 

NOX

(tons) 

VOC 

(tons) 

NOX

(tons) 

VOC 

(tons) 

NOX

(tons) 

VOC 

(tons) 

NOX

(tons) 

2022 ......................................................... 103.41 45.37 506.47 72.71 70.00 280.00 436.47 352.71 ¥333.05 ¥307.34 

5 4:1 VOC to NOX Ratio (i.e., 1 ton of VOC = 4 tons of NOX). 6 Negative numbers indicate that the emissions shortfall has been adequately covered. 

EPA also examined whether the 

amendments to the approved I/M 

program in southeast Wisconsin have 

interfered with attainment of other air 

quality standards. Southeast Wisconsin 

is designated attainment for all other 

standards including sulfur dioxide and 

nitrogen dioxide. EPA has no reason to 

believe that the amendments to the 

approved I/M program in southeast 

Wisconsin have caused or will cause the 

area to become nonattainment for any of 

these pollutants. In addition, EPA 

believes that the amendments to the 

approved I/M program in southeast 

Wisconsin will not interfere with the 

area’s ability to meet any other CAA 

requirement. 

Based on the above discussion and 

the state’s 100(l) demonstration, EPA 

believes that the changes to the 

Wisconsin I/M program would not 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of any of the NAAQS in 

both the Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan County nonattainment areas 

and would not interfere with any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA, and 

thus, are approvable under CAA section 

110(l). 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

revisions to the Wisconsin ozone SIP 

submitted on June 7, 2012, concerning 

the I/M program in southeast 

Wisconsin. EPA finds that the revisions 

meet all applicable requirements and 

will not interfere with reasonable 

further progress or attainment of any of 

the NAAQS. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: April 12, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2013–09536 Filed 4–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 98 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0934; FRL–9789–1] 

RIN 2060–AR52 

2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule and Proposed 

Confidentiality Determinations for New 

or Substantially Revised Data 

Elements 

Correction 

In proposed rule document 2013– 

06093, appearing on pages 19802–19877 

in the issue of Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 

make the following correction: 

§ 98.173 Calculating GHG emissions. 

[Corrected] 

On page 19854, the equation titled as 

‘‘(Eq. Q–5)’’ is corrected to read as set 

forth below: 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS