Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6727 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

proposed action. In reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve or 

disapprove state choices, based on the 

criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 

action merely proposes to disapprove 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the CAA and will 

not in-and-of itself create any new 

requirements. Accordingly, it does not 

provide EPA with the discretionary 

authority to address, as appropriate, 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects, using practicable 

and legally permissible methods, under 

Executive Order 12898. 

K. Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by section 110 of the CAA, 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxides, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: January 30, 2012. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2012–2902 Filed 2–8–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0730; FRL–9629–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Wisconsin; Redesignation 

of the Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan Areas to Attainment for 

1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

requests from the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR) to redesignate the MilwaukeeRacine and Sheboygan areas to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, because the requests meet the 

statutory requirements for redesignation 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

The Milwaukee-Racine area includes 

Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, 

Washington, Waukesha, and Kenosha 

Counties. The Sheboygan area includes 

Sheboygan County. WDNR submitted 

these requests on September 11, 2009, 

and supplemented the submittal on 

November 16, 2011. This proposed 

approval also involves several related 

actions. EPA is proposing to approve, as 

revisions to the Wisconsin State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), the state’s 

plans for maintaining the 1997 8-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS or standard) through 

2022 in the above-mentioned areas. EPA 

is also proposing to approve the 2005 

comprehensive emissions inventories 

for the Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan areas as meeting the 

requirements of the CAA. Finally, EPA 

finds adequate and is proposing to 

approve the state’s 2015 and 2022 Motor 

Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for 

the Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan 

areas. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 12, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2009–0730, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Doug Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand delivery: Doug Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, 18th floor, 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–2009– 

0730. 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 this document, ‘‘What Should I 

Consider as I Prepare My Comments for 

EPA?’’ 

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 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Engineer, at (312) 886–1767 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Engineer, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6728 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1To determine the 8-hour design value for an 

area, the three-year average of the fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration 

is calculated for each monitor within an area. The 

highest three-year average is the design value for 

the area. 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–1767, 

dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What actions is EPA proposing to take? 

III. What is the background for these actions? 

A. What is the general background 

information? 

B. What are the impacts of the December 

22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, United States 

Court of Appeals decisions regarding 

EPA’s Phase 1 Implementation Rule? 

IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to 

attainment? 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s 

request? 

A. Redesignation 

B. Adequacy of Wisconsin’s MVEBs 

C. 2005 Comprehensive Emissions 

Inventory 

VI. Summary of Actions 

VII. 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 

deadline identified. 

II. What actions is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan 

ozone nonattainment areas have met the 

requirements for redesignation under 

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is 

thus proposing to approve Wisconsin’s 

requests to change the legal designations 

of the Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan areas from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to 

approve Wisconsin’s maintenance plan 

SIP revisions for the Milwaukee-Racine 

and Sheboygan areas (such approval 

being one of the CAA criteria for 

redesignation to attainment status). The 

maintenance plans are designed to keep 

the Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan 

areas in attainment of the ozone NAAQS 

through 2022. EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2005 comprehensive 

emissions inventories for the 

Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan areas 

as meeting the requirements of section 

182(a)(1) of the CAA. Finally, EPA is 

proposing to approve the newlyestablished 2015 and 2022 MVEBs for 

the Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan 

areas. The adequacy comment period for 

the MVEBs began on December 6, 2011, 

with EPA’s posting of the availability of 

the submittal on EPA’s Adequacy Web 

site (at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/ 

adequacy.htm). The adequacy comment 

period for these MVEBs ended on 

January 5, 2012. EPA did not receive 

any requests for this submittal, or 

adverse comments on this submittal 

during the adequacy comment period. 

See section V. B. of this rulemaking, 

‘‘Adequacy of Wisconsin’s MVEBs,’’ for 

further explanation on this process. 

Therefore, EPA finds adequate, and is 

proposing to approve, the state’s 2015 

and 2022 MVEBs for use in future 

transportation conformity analyses for 

the areas. 

III. What is the background for these 

actions? 

A. What is the general background 

information? 

Ground-level ozone is not emitted 

directly by sources. Rather, emissions of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) react in the 

presence of sunlight to form groundlevel ozone. NOX and VOCs are referred 

to as precursors of ozone. 

The CAA establishes a process for air 

quality management through the 

NAAQS. Before promulgation of the 

8-hour standard, the ozone NAAQS was 

based on a 1-hour standard. On 

November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56693 and 

56852), the Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan areas were designated as 

severe and moderate nonattainment 

areas, respectively, under the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The Sheboygan area was 

subsequently redesignated to attainment 

of the 1-hour standard on August 26, 

1996 (61 FR 43675). Although the 

Milwaukee-Racine area was monitoring 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard 

by the end of the 2005 ozone season, at 

the time EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS, on June 15, 2005, the 

Milwaukee-Racine area was never 

redesignated as attainment under the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA 

promulgated an 8-hour ozone standard 

of 0.08 parts per million parts (ppm). On 

April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA 

published a final rule designating and 

classifying areas under the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. These designations and 

classifications became effective June 15, 

2004. EPA designated as nonattainment 

any area that was violating the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS based on the three most 

recent years of air quality data, 2001– 

2003. 

The CAA contains two sets of 

provisions, subpart 1 and subpart 2, that 

address planning and control 

requirements for nonattainment areas. 

(Both are found in title I, part D, 42 

U.S.C. 7501–7509a and 7511–7511f, 

respectively.) Subpart 1 contains general 

requirements for nonattainment areas 

for any pollutant, including ozone, 

governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 

provides more specific requirements for 

ozone nonattainment areas. 

Under EPA’s implementation rule for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, (69 FR 

23951, April 30, 2004), an area was 

classified under subpart 2 based on its 

8-hour ozone design value,1 if it had a 

1-hour design value at the time of 

designation at or above 0.121 ppm (the 

lowest 1-hour design value in Table 1 of 

subpart 2) (69 FR 23954). All other areas 

were covered under subpart 1, based 

upon their 8-hour design values (69 FR 

23958). The Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan areas were designated as 

subpart 2, 8-hour ozone moderate 

nonattainment areas by EPA on April 

30, 2004 (69 FR 23857 and 23947) based 

on air quality monitoring data from 

2001–2003 (69 FR 23860). 

40 CFR 50.10 and appendix I of 40 

CFR part 50 provide that the 8-hour 

ozone standard is attained when the 

three-year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average 

ozone concentration is less than or 

equal to 0.08 ppm, when rounded. The 

data completeness requirement is met 

when the average percent of days with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6729 

2Applies only to areas classified as extreme; 

therefore, not a requirement for the MilwaukeeRacine area. 

valid ambient monitoring data is greater 

than 90 percent, and no single year has 

less than 75 percent data completeness. 

See 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, 2.3(d). 

WDNR submitted requests to 

redesignate the Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan areas to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard on 

September 11, 2009, and supplemented 

the request on November 16, 2011. 

Complete, quality-assured and certified 

data for the 2006–2008, 2007–2009, and 

2008–2010 time periods indicate the 

8-hour NAAQS for ozone, as 

promulgated in 1997, has been attained 

for the Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan areas. In addition, available 

monitoring data for 2011 continue to 

show the areas in attainment of the 

standard. Under the CAA, 

nonattainment areas may be 

redesignated to attainment if sufficient 

complete, quality-assured data are 

available for the Administrator to 

determine that the area has attained the 

standard, and the area meets the other 

CAA redesignation requirements in 

section 107(d)(3)(E). 

On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), 

EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour 

ozone standard of 0.075 ppm. EPA has 

not yet designated areas under the 2008 

standard. The actions addressed in this 

proposed rulemaking relate only to the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

B. What are the impacts of the 

December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, 

United States Court of Appeals 

decisions regarding EPA’s Phase 1 

Implementation Rule? 

1. Summary of Court Decision 

On December 22, 2006, in South 

Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. 

EPA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia (DC Circuit) 

vacated EPA’s Phase 1 Implementation 

Rule for the 1997 8-hour Ozone 

Standard (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). 

472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). On June 

8, 2007, in response to several petitions 

for rehearing, the DC Circuit clarified 

that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only 

with regard to those parts of the rule 

that had been successfully challenged. 

Id., Docket No. 04 1201. Therefore, 

several provisions of the Phase 1 Rule 

remain effective: Provisions related to 

classifications for areas currently 

classified under subpart 2 of title I, part 

D, of the CAA as 8-hour nonattainment 

areas; the 8-hour attainment dates; and 

the timing for emissions reductions 

needed for attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The June 8, 2007, 

decision also left intact the court’s 

rejection of EPA’s reasons for 

implementing the 8-hour standard in 

certain nonattainment areas under 

subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By 

limiting the vacatur, the D.C. Circuit let 

stand EPA’s revocation of the 1-hour 

standard and those anti-backsliding 

provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that had 

not been successfully challenged. 

The June 8, 2007, decision reaffirmed 

the December 22, 2006, decision that 

EPA had improperly failed to retain four 

measures required for 1-hour 

nonattainment areas under the antibacksliding provisions of the 

regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New 

Source Review (NSR) requirements 

based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment 

classification; (2) Section 185 penalty 

fees for 1-hour severe or extreme 

nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be 

implemented pursuant to section 

172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the 

contingency of an area not making 

reasonable further progress toward 

attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for 

failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) 

certain transportation conformity 

requirements for certain types of Federal 

actions. The June 8, 2007, decision 

clarified that the court’s reference to 

conformity requirements was limited to 

requiring the continued use of 1-hour 

motor vehicle emissions budgets until 

8-hour budgets were available for 

8-hour conformity determinations. 

This section sets forth EPA’s views on 

the potential effect of the Court’s rulings 

on this proposed redesignation action. 

For the reasons set forth below, EPA 

does not believe that the court’s rulings 

alter any requirements relevant to this 

redesignation action so as to preclude 

redesignation or prevent EPA from 

proposing or ultimately finalizing this 

redesignation. EPA believes that the 

D.C. Circuit’s December 22, 2006, and 

June 8, 2007, decisions impose no 

impediment to moving forward with 

redesignation of this area to attainment, 

because even in light of the court’s 

decisions, redesignation is appropriate 

under the relevant redesignation 

provisions of the CAA and longstanding 

policies regarding redesignation 

requests. 

2. Requirements Under the 8-Hour 

Ozone Standard 

With respect to the 1997 8-hour 

standard, the Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan areas are classified under 

subpart 2. The June 8, 2007, opinion 

clarifies that the court did not vacate the 

Phase 1 Rule’s provisions with respect 

to classifications for areas under subpart 

2. The court’s decision therefore 

upholds EPA’s classifications for those 

areas classified under subpart 2 for the 

8-hour ozone standard. 

3. Requirements Under the 1-Hour 

Ozone Standard 

a. Milwaukee-Racine Area 

In its June 8, 2007 decision the D.C. 

Circuit limited its vacatur so as to 

uphold those provisions of the antibacksliding requirements that were not 

successfully challenged. Therefore, an 

area must meet the anti-backsliding 

requirements which apply by virtue of 

the area’s classification for the 1-hour 

ozone standard. See 40 CFR 51.900, et 

seq.; 70 FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 

2005). As set forth in more detail below, 

the area must also address four 

additional anti-backsliding provisions 

identified by the court in its decisions. 

The anti-backsliding provisions at 40 

CFR 51.905(a)(1) prescribe 1-hour ozone 

standard requirements that continue to 

apply after revocation of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS to former 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas. 40 CFR 

51.905(a)(1)(i) provides that: 

The area remains subject to the obligation 

to adopt and implement the applicable 

requirements as defined in section 51.900(f), 

except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of 

this section, and except as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

40 CFR 51.900(f), as amended by 70 FR 

30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005), states that: 

Applicable requirements means for an area 

the following requirements to the extent such 

requirements apply or applied to the area for 

the area’s classification under section 

181(a)(1) of the CAA for the 1-hour NAAQS 

at designation for the 8-hour NAAQS: 

(1) Reasonably available control technology 

(RACT). 

(2) Inspection and maintenance programs 

(I/M). 

(3) Major source applicability cut-offs for 

purposes of RACT. 

(4) Rate of Progress (ROP) reductions. 

(5) Stage II vapor recovery. 

(6) Clean fuels fleet program under section 

182(c)(4) of the CAA. 

(7) Clean fuels for boilers under section 

182(e)(3) of the CAA.2

(8) Transportation Control Measures 

(TCMs) during heavy traffic hours as 

provided section 182(e)(4) of the CAA.2

(9) Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under 

section 182(c)(1) of the CAA. 

(10) Transportation controls under section 

182(c)(5) of the CAA. 

(11) Vehicle miles traveled provisions of 

section 182(d)(1) of the CAA. 

(12) NOX requirements under section 182(f) 

of the CAA. 

(13) Attainment demonstration or an 

alternative as provided under 

§ 51.905(a)(1)(ii). 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.905(c), the 

Milwaukee-Racine area is subject to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6730 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

obligations set forth in 40 CFR 51.905(a) 

and 40 CFR 51.900(f). 

In addition, the D.C. Circuit held that 

EPA should have retained four 

additional measures in its antibacksliding provisions: (1) 

Nonattainment area NSR; (2) section 185 

penalty fees; (3) contingency measures 

under section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of 

the Act; and (4) 1-hour MVEBs that were 

not yet replaced by 8-hour emissions 

budgets. EPA has addressed these four 

requirements as follows: 

With respect to NSR, EPA has 

determined that an area being 

redesignated need not have an approved 

nonattainment NSR program, provided 

that the state demonstrates maintenance 

of the standard in the area without part 

D NSR in effect. The rationale for this 

view is described in a memorandum 

from Mary Nichols, Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, 

dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ‘‘Part 

D New Source Review Requirements for 

Areas Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment.’’ This policy assumes that 

the state’s PSD program will become 

effective in the area immediately upon 

redesignation to attainment. 

Consequently EPA concludes that an 

approved NSR program is not an 

applicable requirement for purposes of 

redesignation. See the more detailed 

explanations in the following 

rulemakings: Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 

12467–12468, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, Ohio (61 FR 

20458, 20469–70, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 

53669, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR 31831, 31836–31837, 

June 21, 1996). Furthermore, EPA 

approved Wisconsin’s NSR program on 

January 18, 1995 (60 FR 3538), February 

6, 2006 (71 FR 5979), March 8, 2006 (71 

FR 55062) and May 16, 2006 (71 FR 

28274). 

With regard to the requirement for 

section 185 source penalty fees, the 

Milwaukee-Racine area was classified as 

severe nonattainment under the 1-hour 

standard and is, therefore, subject to this 

requirement. EPA approved an excess 

VOC emissions fee rule for the 

Milwaukee-Racine area on June 25, 2002 

(67 FR 42729). On April 24, 2009 (74 FR 

18641), EPA published a final rule 

making a determination that the 

Milwaukee-Racine area had attained the 

1-hour ozone standard and confirming 

that this finding of attainment relieved 

Wisconsin of the obligation to adopt 

section 185 source penalty fee 

regulations for this area. 

With respect to the 1-hour MVEBs 

that were not yet replaced by 8-hour 

emissions budgets, the conformity 

portion of the court’s June 8, 2007 ruling 

clarified that, for those areas with 

MVEBs for the 1-hour ozone standard, 

anti-backsliding requires that these 

MVEBs be used for 8-hour conformity 

determinations until replaced by 

MVEBs for the 8-hour ozone standard. 

To meet this requirement, conformity 

determinations in such areas must 

comply with the applicable 

requirements of EPA’s conformity 

regulations at 40 CFR part 93. Note 

below that EPA is proposing to find 

adequate and approve 8-hour MVEBs 

established by Wisconsin’s 8-hour 

ozone maintenance plans for the 

Milwaukee and Sheboygan areas. 

With respect to the contingency 

measure requirements under sections 

172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the CAA, 

these requirements must be addressed 

in state ozone Reasonable Further 

Progress (RFP) and attainment 

demonstration plans. Wisconsin 

addressed these requirements in the 

1-hour ozone RFP and attainment 

demonstration plans for the MilwaukeeRacine area by adopting and 

implementing extra VOC and NOX

emission controls that go beyond the 

emission reductions needed for RFP and 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

standard. EPA approved these ozone 

control plans, including their 

contingency elements as follows: VOC 

15 percent RFP plan, March 22, 1996 

(61 FR 11735); post-1996 RFP plan, 

November 10, 2001 (66 FR 51572); and 

1-hour ozone attainment demonstration 

and post-1999 RFP plan, November 13, 

2001 (66 FR 56931). Therefore, 

Wisconsin has met the contingency 

measure requirements of sections 

172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the CAA for 

the 1-hour ozone standard. 

b. Sheboygan Area 

With respect to the 1-hour standard 

requirements, the Sheboygan area was 

an attainment area subject to a CAA 

section 175A maintenance plan under 

the 1-hour standard. The D.C. Circuit’s 

decisions do not impact redesignation 

requests for these types of areas, except 

to the extent that the court, in its June 

8, 2007, decision, clarified that for those 

areas with 1-hour MVEBs in their 

maintenance plans, anti-backsliding 

provisions require that those 1-hour 

budgets must be used for 8-hour 

conformity determinations until 

replaced by 8-hour budgets. All 

conformity determinations must comply 

with the applicable requirements of 

EPA’s conformity regulations at 40 CFR 

part 93. 

With respect to the three other antibacksliding provisions for the 1-hour 

standard that the court found were not 

properly retained, the Sheboygan area is 

an attainment area subject to a 

maintenance plan for the 1-hour 

standard, and the nonattainment NSR, 

contingency measures (pursuant to 

section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)), and fee 

provision requirements no longer apply 

to an area that has been redesignated to 

attainment of the 1-hour standard. 

Thus the decision in South Coast 

should not alter requirements that 

would preclude EPA from proposing or 

finalizing the redesignations of these 

areas. 

IV. What are the criteria for 

redesignation to attainment? 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation 

provided that: (1) The Administrator 

determines that the area has attained the 

applicable NAAQS; (2) the 

Administrator has fully approved the 

applicable implementation plan for the 

area under section 110(k); (3) the 

Administrator determines that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP 

and applicable Federal air pollutant 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable reductions; (4) the 

Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A; and, (5) the state containing such 

area has met all requirements applicable 

to the area under section 110 and part 

D. 

EPA provided guidance on 

redesignation in the General Preamble 

for the Implementation of Title I of the 

CAA Amendments of 1990 on April 16, 

1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented 

this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 

18070). EPA has provided further 

guidance on processing redesignation 

requests in the following documents: 

‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design 

Value Calculations,’’ Memorandum 

from William G. Laxton, Director 

Technical Support Division, June 18, 

1990; 

‘‘Maintenance Plans for Redesignation 

of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 

Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum 

from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 

Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 

1992; 

‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone 

and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from 

G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 

Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 

1992; 

‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests 

to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6731 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, September 4, 1992; 

‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Actions Submitted in Response to Clean 

Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,’’ 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, October 28, 1992; 

‘‘Technical Support Documents 

(TSD’s) for Redesignation Ozone and 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment 

Areas,’’ Memorandum from G.T. Helms, 

Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide 

Programs Branch, August 17, 1993; 

‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, September 17, 1993; 

‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in 

Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone 

and CO Nonattainment Areas,’’ 

Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, 

Acting Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, to Air Division 

Directors, Regions 1–10, November 30, 

1993. 

‘‘Part D New Source Review (part D 

NSR) Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary 

D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; 

and 

‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, 

Attainment Demonstration, and Related 

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas Meeting the Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ 

Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, May 10, 1995. 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s 

request? 

A. Redesignation 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan 

areas have met all applicable 

redesignation criteria under CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E). The bases for EPA’s 

proposed approval of the redesignation 

requests are as follows: 

1. The Areas Have Attained the 1997 

8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. (Section 

107(d)(3)(E)(i)) 

On March 1, 2011 (76 FR 11080), EPA 

determined that the Milwaukee-Racine 

and Sheboygan areas have attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on 

monitoring data for 2006–2008 and 

2007–2009, and 2008–2010 time 

periods. An area may be considered to 

be attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS if there are no violations, as 

determined in accordance with 40 CFR 

50.10 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, 

based on three complete, consecutive 

calendar years of quality-assured air 

quality monitoring data. To attain this 

standard, the three-year average of the 

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average ozone concentrations measured 

at each monitor within an area over 

each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. 

Based on the rounding convention 

described in 40 CFR part 50, appendix 

I, the standard is attained if the design 

value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data 

must be collected and quality-assured in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and 

recorded in EPA’s Air Quality System 

(AQS). The monitors generally should 

have remained at the same location for 

the duration of the monitoring period 

required for demonstrating attainment. 

All 2006–2010 monitoring data have 

been quality-assured in accordance with 

40 CFR 58.10, recorded in the AQS 

database, and certified. The data meet 

the completeness criteria in 40 CFR 50, 

appendix I, which requires a minimum 

completeness of 75 percent annually 

and 90 percent over each three-year 

period. Monitoring data is presented in 

Table 1 below. In addition, available 

preliminary monitoring data for 2011 

continue to show the areas in 

attainment of the standard. 

TABLE 1—ANNUAL 4TH HIGH DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS AND THREE-YEAR AVERAGES OF 4TH

HIGH DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS

Area County Monitor 

2006 

4th 

high 

(ppm) 

2007 

4th 

high 

(ppm) 

2008 

4th 

high 

(ppm) 

2009 

4th 

high 

(ppm) 

2010 

4th 

high 

(ppm) 

2006– 

2008 

average 

(ppm) 

2007– 

2009 

average 

(ppm) 

2008– 

2010 

average 

(ppm) 

MilwaukeeRacine.Kenosha ...... Pleasant Prairie 55–059– 

0019.

0.079 0.085 0.072 0.071 0.081 0.078 0.076 0.074 

Milwaukee ... 16th St. HC 55–079–0010 0.064 0.067 0.059 0.066 0.065 0.063 0.064 0.063 

WDNR SERHQ 55–079– 

0026.

0.068 0.075 0.063 0.067 0.076 0.068 0.068 0.068 

UWM-North 55–079–0041 0.073 0.078 0.065 0.068 n/a 0.072 0.070 n/a 

Bayside 55–079–0085 ...... 0.073 0.083 0.069 0.072 0.082 0.075 0.074 0.074 

Ozaukee ...... Grafton 55–089–0008 ...... 0.071 0.082 0.064 0.067 0.075 0.072 0.071 0.068 

Harr. Beach 55–089–0009 0.072 0.084 0.067 0.070 0.078 0.074 0.073 0.071 

Racine ......... Racine 55–101–0017 ....... 0.071 0.077 0.065 0.071 0.078 0.071 0.071 0.071 

Washington Slinger 55–131–0009 ....... 0.066 0.071 0.060 0.065 0.064 0.065 0.065 0.063 

Waukesha ... Waukesha 55–133–0027 0.067 0.072 0.060 0.059 0.062 0.066 0.063 0.060 

Sheboygan .. Sheboygan .. Kohler Andre Park 55– 

117–0006.

0.083 0.088 0.075 0.074 0.085 0.082 0.079 0.078 

In addition, as discussed below with 

respect to the maintenance plan, WDNR 

has committed to continue to operate an 

EPA-approved monitoring network in 

the areas. WDNR will continue to 

quality assure monitoring data in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and 

enter all data into the AQS in 

accordance with Federal guidelines. In 

summary, EPA believes that the data 

provide an adequate demonstration that 

the Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan 

areas have attained and continue to 

attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D; and the Area Has a Fully 

Approved SIP Under Section 110(k). 

(Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 

107(d)(3)(E)(ii)) 

We are proposing to determine that 

Wisconsin has met all currently 

applicable SIP requirements for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6732 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued 

a NOX SIP call requiring the District of Columbia 

and 22 states to reduce emissions of NOX in order 

to reduce the transport of ozone and ozone 

precursors. Wisconsin was not included in EPA’s 

NOX SIP call. 

purposes of redesignation of the 

Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan areas 

to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard under section 110 and part D 

of the CAA, in accordance with section 

107(d)(3)(E)(v). We are also proposing to 

determine that the Wisconsin SIP, with 

the exception of the comprehensive 

emission inventory and certain VOC 

RACT rules, is fully approved with 

respect to all applicable requirements 

for purposes of redesignation to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, in accordance with section 

107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA. As 

discussed below, in this action EPA is 

proposing to approve Wisconsin’s 2005 

comprehensive emissions inventory as 

meeting the comprehensive emissions 

inventory requirement of section 

182(a)(1) for the areas. EPA is taking 

action on the Wisconsin VOC RACT 

regulations in a separate rule. 

Recognizing that the comprehensive 

emissions inventory and VOC RACT 

rules must be approved on or before we 

complete final rulemaking approving 

the redesignation requests, we 

determine here that, assuming that this 

occurs, Wisconsin will have met all 

applicable section 110 and part D SIP 

requirements of the CAA for purposes of 

approval of Wisconsin’s ozone 

redesignation requests for the 

Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan 

areas. In making these determinations, 

we have ascertained what SIP 

requirements are applicable to the area 

for purposes of redesignation, and have 

determined that the portions of the SIP 

meeting these requirements are fully 

approved or will be fully approved 

under section 110(k) of the CAA by the 

time we complete final rulemaking on 

Wisconsin’s ozone redesignation 

requests for the Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan areas. As discussed more 

fully below, SIPs must be fully 

approved only with respect to currently 

applicable requirements of the CAA. 

The September 4, 1992, Calcagni 

memorandum (see ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, 

September 4, 1992) describes EPA’s 

interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of 

the CAA. Under this interpretation, a 

state and the area it wishes to 

redesignate must meet the relevant CAA 

requirements that are due prior to the 

state’s submittal of a complete 

redesignation request for the area. See 

also the September 17, 1993, Michael 

Shapiro memorandum and 60 FR 12459, 

12465–66 (March 7, 1995) 

(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, 

Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS). Applicable 

requirements of the CAA that come due 

subsequent to the state’s submittal of a 

complete request remain applicable 

until a redesignation to attainment is 

approved, but are not required as a 

prerequisite to redesignation. See 

section 175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra Club 

v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See 

also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) 

(redesignation of the St. Louis/East St. 

Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS). 

Since EPA determined that the areas 

have attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, under 40 CFR 51.918, the 

requirements to submit certain planning 

SIPs related to attainment, including 

attainment demonstration requirements 

(the reasonably available control 

measure (RACM) requirement of section 

172(c)(1) of the CAA, the RFP and 

attainment demonstration requirements 

of sections 172(c)(2) and (6) and 

182(b)(1) of the CAA, and the 

requirement for contingency measures 

of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA) are not 

applicable to the areas as long as they 

continue to attain the NAAQS and will 

cease to apply upon redesignation. In 

addition, in the context of 

redesignations, EPA has interpreted 

requirements related to attainment as 

not applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. For example, in the 

General Preamble EPA stated that: 

[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are 

directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by 

the applicable date. These requirements no 

longer apply when an area has attained the 

standard and is eligible for redesignation. 

Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance 

plans * * * provides specific requirements 

for contingency measures that effectively 

supersede the requirements of section 

172(c)(9) for these areas. ‘‘General Preamble 

for the Interpretation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ (General 

Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 

1992). 

See also Calcagni memorandum at 6 

(‘‘The requirements for reasonable 

further progress and other measures 

needed for attainment will not apply for 

redesignations because they only have 

meaning for areas not attaining the 

standard.’’). 

a. The Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan Areas Have Met All 

Applicable Requirements Under Section 

110 and Part D of the CAA for Purposes 

of Redesignation 

i. Section 110 General SIP Requirements 

Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA 

contains the general requirements for a 

SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the 

implementation plan submitted by a 

state must have been adopted by the 

state after reasonable public notice and 

hearing, and that, among other things, it 

includes enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means or techniques necessary to meet 

the requirements of the CAA; provides 

for establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems 

and procedures necessary to monitor 

ambient air quality; provides for 

implementation of a source permit 

program to regulate the modification 

and construction of any stationary 

source within the areas covered by the 

plan; includes provisions for the 

implementation of part C, PSD, and part 

D, NSR permit programs; includes 

criteria for stationary source emission 

control measures, monitoring, and 

reporting; includes provisions for air 

quality modeling; and provides for 

public and local agency participation in 

planning and emission control rule 

development. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA 

requires that SIPs contain measures to 

prevent sources in a state from 

significantly contributing to air quality 

problems in another state. To 

implement this provision, EPA has 

required certain states to establish 

programs to address transport of air 

pollutants, e.g., the NOX SIP Call.3

However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) 

requirements for a state are not linked 

with a particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classification. EPA 

believes that the requirements linked 

with a particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classification are the 

relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. The 

transport SIP submittal requirements, 

where applicable, continue to apply to 

a state regardless of the designation of 

any one particular area in the state. 

Thus, we believe that these 

requirements should not be construed to 

be applicable requirements for purposes 

of redesignation. 

Further, we conclude that the other 

section 110 elements described above 

that are not connected with 

nonattainment plan submissions and 

not linked with an area’s attainment 

status are also not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. A state remains subject to 

these requirements after an area is 

redesignated to attainment. We 

conclude that only the section 110 and 

part D requirements which are linked 

with a particular area’s designation and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6733 

classification are the relevant measures 

which we may consider in evaluating a 

redesignation request. This approach is 

consistent with EPA’s existing policy on 

applicability of conformity and 

oxygenated fuels requirements for 

redesignation purposes, as well as with 

section 184 ozone transport 

requirements. See Reading, 

Pennsylvania, proposed and final 

rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176, 

October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 

1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, 

final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 

1996); and Tampa, Florida, final 

rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 

1995). See also the discussion on this 

issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio 1-hour 

ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 

19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania 1-hour ozone 

redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 

2001). 

We have reviewed Wisconsin’s SIP 

and have concluded that it meets the 

general SIP requirements under section 

110 of the CAA, to the extent those 

requirements are applicable for 

purposes of redesignation. EPA has 

previously approved provisions of the 

Wisconsin SIP addressing section 110 

elements under the 1-hour ozone 

standard (40 CFR 52.2570). Further, in 

submittals dated December 12, 2007, 

January 24, 2011, and March 28, 2011, 

Wisconsin confirmed that the state 

continues to meet the section 110 

requirements for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. EPA approved some elements 

of this Wisconsin submittal on July 13, 

2011, at 76 FR 41075. The requirements 

of section 110(a)(2), however, are 

statewide requirements that are not 

linked to the 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment status of the MilwaukeeRacine and Sheboygan areas. Therefore, 

EPA concludes that these infrastructure 

SIP elements are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of review of 

the state’s 8-hour ozone redesignation 

request. 

ii. Part D Requirements 

EPA has determined that, if EPA 

finalizes the approval of the 2005 

comprehensive emissions inventory, 

discussed in section V.C. of this 

rulemaking, and the VOC RACT 

submittal, discussed below under the 

heading ‘‘Subpart 2 Section 182(a) and 

(b) Requirements,’’ the Wisconsin SIP 

will meet the SIP requirements 

applicable for purposes of redesignation 

under part D of the CAA for the 

Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan 

areas. Subpart 1 of part D, found in 

sections 172–176 of the CAA, sets forth 

the basic nonattainment requirements 

applicable to all nonattainment areas. 

Subpart 2 of part D, which includes 

section 182 of the CAA, establishes 

additional specific requirements 

depending on the area’s nonattainment 

classification. 

The Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan areas were classified as 

moderate areas under subpart 2. 

Therefore, the state must meet the 

applicable requirements of both subpart 

1 and subpart 2 of part D. The 

applicable subpart 1 requirements are 

contained in sections 172(c)(1)–(9) and 

in section 176. The applicable subpart 2 

requirements are contained in sections 

182(a) and (b) (marginal and moderate 

nonattainment area requirements). 

Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements. 

For purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation request, the applicable 

section 172 SIP requirements for the 

Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan areas 

are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9). A 

thorough discussion of the requirements 

contained in section 172 can be found 

in the General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, 

April 16, 1992). 

Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans 

for all nonattainment areas to provide 

for the implementation of all RACM as 

expeditiously as practicable and to 

provide for attainment for the national 

primary ambient air quality standards. 

EPA interprets this requirement to 

impose a duty on all states containing 

nonattainment areas to consider all 

available control measures and to adopt 

and implement such measures as are 

reasonably available for implementation 

in each area as components of the area’s 

attainment demonstration. Because 

attainment has been reached in the 

Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan 

areas, no additional measures are 

needed to provide for attainment and 

section 172(c)(1) requirements are no 

longer considered to be applicable as 

long as the area continues to attain the 

standard until redesignation. See 40 

CFR 51.918. 

The RFP requirement under section 

172(c)(2) is defined as progress that 

must be made toward attainment. This 

requirement is not relevant for purposes 

of redesignation because the 

Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan areas 

have demonstrated monitored 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. (General Preamble, 57 FR 

13564). See also 40 CFR 51.918. In 

addition, because the Milwaukee-Racine 

and Sheboygan areas have attained the 

ozone NAAQS and are no longer subject 

to an RFP requirement, the section 

172(c)(9) contingency measures are not 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. Id. 

Section 172(c)(3) requires submission 

and approval of a comprehensive, 

accurate and current inventory of actual 

emissions. This requirement was 

superseded by the inventory 

requirement in section 182(a)(1) 

discussed below. 

Section 172(c)(4) requires the 

identification and quantification of 

allowable emissions for major new and 

modified stationary sources in an area, 

and section 172(c)(5) requires source 

permits for the construction and 

operation of new and modified major 

stationary sources anywhere in the 

nonattainment area. EPA approved 

Wisconsin’s current NSR program on 

December 17, 2008 (73 FR 76558 and 

76560). Nonetheless, EPA has 

determined that, since PSD 

requirements will apply after 

redesignation, areas being redesignated 

need not comply with the requirement 

that a NSR program be approved prior 

to redesignation, provided that the area 

demonstrates maintenance of the 

NAAQS without part D NSR. A more 

detailed rationale for this view is 

described in a memorandum from Mary 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ 

Wisconsin has demonstrated that the 

Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan areas 

will be able to maintain the standard 

without part D NSR in effect; therefore, 

EPA concludes that the state need not 

have a fully approved part D NSR 

program prior to approval of the 

redesignation request. The state’s PSD 

program will become effective in the 

Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan areas 

upon redesignation to attainment. See 

rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 

FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 

20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 

October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21, 

1996). 

Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to 

contain control measures necessary to 

provide for attainment of the standard. 

Because attainment has been reached, 

no additional measures are needed to 

provide for attainment. 

Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to 

meet the applicable provisions of 

section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we 

believe the Wisconsin SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) for 

purposes of redesignation. 

Subpart 1, Section 176 Conformity 

Requirements. 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

states to establish criteria and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6734 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

procedures to ensure that Federallysupported or funded activities, 

including highway projects, conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIPs. The requirement to 

determine conformity applies to 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects developed, funded or approved 

under title 23 of the U.S. Code and the 

Federal Transit Act (transportation 

conformity) as well as to all other 

Federally-supported or funded projects 

(general conformity). State conformity 

revisions must be consistent with 

Federal conformity regulations relating 

to consultation, enforcement, and 

enforceability, which EPA promulgated 

pursuant to CAA requirements. 

EPA interprets the conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request under section 107(d) for two 

reasons. First, the requirement to submit 

SIP revisions to comply with the 

conformity provisions of the CAA 

continues to apply to areas after 

redesignation to attainment, since such 

areas would be subject to a section 175A 

maintenance plan. Second, EPA’s 

Federal conformity rules require the 

performance of conformity analyses in 

the absence of Federally-approved state 

rules. Therefore, because areas are 

subject to the conformity requirements 

regardless of whether they are 

redesignated to attainment and, because 

they must implement conformity under 

Federal rules if state rules are not yet 

approved, it is reasonable to view these 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating a redesignation 

request. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 

(6th Cir. 2001), upholding this 

interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748, 

62749–62750 (Dec. 7, 1995) (Tampa, 

Florida). 

EPA approved Wisconsin’s general 

and transportation conformity SIPs on 

July 29, 1996 (61 FR 39329) and August 

27, 1996 (61 FR 43970), respectively. 

Wisconsin has submitted onroad motor 

vehicle budgets for the MilwaukeeRacine area of 21.08 tons per day (tpd) 

and 15.98 tpd VOC and 51.22 tpd and 

31.91 tpd NOX for the years 2015 and 

2022, respectively. Wisconsin has 

submitted onroad motor vehicle budgets 

for the Sheboygan area of 2.024 tpd and 

1.615 tpd VOC and 4.321 tpd and 2.778 

tpd NOX for the years 2015 and 2022, 

respectively. The areas must use the 

MVEBs from the maintenance plan in 

any conformity determination that is 

effective on or after the effective date of 

the maintenance plan approval. 

Subpart 2 Section 182(a) and (b) 

Requirements. 

Comprehensive Emissions Inventory. 

Section 182(a)(1) requires the 

submission of a comprehensive 

emissions inventory. As part of 

Wisconsin’s redesignation request for 

the Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan 

areas, the state submitted a 2005 

comprehensive emissions inventory. As 

discussed below in section V.C., EPA is 

proposing to approve the 2005 

inventory as meeting the section 

182(a)(1) comprehensive emissions 

inventory requirement. 

Emissions Statements. EPA approved 

Wisconsin’s emission statement SIP, as 

required by section 182(a)(3)(B), on 

December 6, 1993 (58 FR 64155). 

Reasonable Further Progress and 

Attainment Demonstration. On 

September 11, 2009, Wisconsin 

submitted an attainment demonstration 

and RFP plans for the MilwaukeeRacine and Sheboygan areas as required 

by section 182(b)(1) of the CAA. 

Because attainment has been reached, 

section 182(b)(1) requirements are no 

longer considered to be applicable as 

long as the area continues to attain the 

standard. If EPA finalizes approval of 

the redesignation of the MilwaukeeRacine and Sheboygan areas, EPA will 

take no further action on the attainment 

demonstration and RFP plans submitted 

by Wisconsin for the areas. 

VOC RACT Requirements. Section 

182(b)(2) requires states with moderate 

nonattainment areas to implement 

RACT under section 172(c)(1) with 

respect to each of the following: (1) All 

sources covered by a Control 

Technology Guideline (CTG) document 

issued between November 15, 1990, and 

the date of attainment; (2) all sources 

covered by a CTG issued prior to 

November 15, 1990; and, (3) all other 

major non-CTG stationary sources. As 

required under the 1-hour ozone 

standard, Wisconsin submitted VOC 

RACT rules covering the second and 

third categories. EPA approved these 

VOC RACT rules on the following dates: 

August 15, 1994 (59 FR 41709), April 

27, 1995 (60 FR 20643), June 30, 1995 

(60 FR 34170), July 28, 1995 (60 FR 

38722), February 12, 1996 (61 FR 5307), 

February 13, 1996 (61 FR 5514), April 

4, 1996 (61 FR 14972), April 9, 1996 

(61 FR 15706), April 25, 1996 (61 FR 

18257), July 17, 1996 (61 FR 37216), 

August 29, 1996 (61 FR 45327), June 8, 

2000 (65 FR 36351), November 13, 2001 

(66 FR 56931), and September 22, 2006 

(71 FR 55287). With respect to the first 

category, EPA issued CTGs for five 

source categories in September 2006 

and three additional source categories in 

September 2007. Areas classified as 

moderate and above were required to 

submit VOC RACT for the source 

categories covered by these CTGs, by 

September 2007 and September 2008, 

respectively. Wisconsin submitted SIP 

revisions to address these CTGs on 

September 1, 2009, and November 16, 

2011. EPA is taking action on these 

revisions in a separate rulemaking 

action. Full approval of Wisconsin’s 

RACT submittals is a prerequisite for 

approval of the redesignation of the 

Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan areas 

to attainment. 

NOX RACT. Section 182(f) establishes 

NOX requirements for ozone 

nonattainment areas. EPA approved 

Wisconsin’s NOX RACT SIP on October 

19, 2010 (75 FR 64155). 

Stage II Vapor Recovery. Section 

182(b)(3) requires states to submit Stage 

II rules no later than November 15, 

1992. EPA approved Wisconsin’s Stage 

II rule on August 13, 1993 (58 FR 

43080), August 15, 1994 (59 FR 41709), 

and April 27, 1995 (60 FR 206423). 

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

(I/M). EPA’s final I/M regulations in 

40 CFR part 85 required the states to 

submit a fully adopted I/M program by 

November 15, 1993. EPA approved 

Wisconsin’s enhanced I/M program on 

January 12, 1995 (60 FR 2881) and 

August 16, 2001 (66 FR 42949). 

Thus, as discussed above, with 

approval of the comprehensive 

emissions inventory and Wisconsin’s 

VOC RACT submittals, the MilwaukeeRacine and Sheboygan areas will satisfy 

the requirements applicable for 

purposes of redesignation under section 

110 and part D of the CAA. 

b. The Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan Areas Have a Fully 

Approved Applicable SIP for Purposes 

of Redesignation Under Section 110(k) 

of the CAA 

If EPA issues a final approval of the 

comprehensive emissions inventory and 

Wisconsin’s VOC RACT submittals, EPA 

will have fully approved the Wisconsin 

SIP for the Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan areas under section 110(k) of 

the CAA for all requirements applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. EPA may 

rely on prior SIP approvals in approving 

a redesignation request (See page three 

of the September 4, 1992, John Calcagni 

memorandum; Southwestern 

Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. 

Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–990 (6th 

Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 

(6th Cir. 2001)), plus any additional 

measures it may approve in conjunction 

with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 

25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the 

passage of the CAA of 1970, Wisconsin 

has adopted and submitted, and EPA 

has fully approved, provisions 

addressing the various required SIP 

elements applicable to the MilwaukeeRacine and Sheboygan areas under the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6735 

1-hour ozone standard. In this action, 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Wisconsin’s 2005 comprehensive 

emissions inventory for the MilwaukeeRacine and Sheboygan areas as meeting 

the requirement of section 182(a)(1) of 

the CAA. In a separate rule, EPA will 

take action on the Wisconsin VOC 

RACT submittals. 

c. The Milwaukee-Racine Area Has a 

Fully Approved SIP and Meets AntiBacksliding Requirements Under the 

1-Hour Ozone Standard 

The anti-backsliding provisions at 40 

CFR 51.905(a)(1) prescribe 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS requirements that continue to 

apply after the revocation of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS for former 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas. 40 CFR 

51.905(a)(1)(i) provides that: 

The area remains subject to the obligation 

to adopt and implement the applicable 

requirements defined in 40 CFR 51.900(f), 

except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of 

this section, and except as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

40 CFR 51.900(f), as amended by 70 FR 

30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005), provides 

that: 

Applicable requirements means for an area 

the following requirements to the extent such 

requirements apply or applied to the area for 

the area’s classification under section 

181(a)(1) of the CAA for the 1-hour NAAQS 

at designation for the 8-hour NAAQS: 

(1) Reasonably available control technology 

(RACT). 

(2) Inspection and maintenance programs 

(I/M). 

(3) Major source applicability cut-offs for 

purposes of RACT. 

(4) Rate of Progress (ROP) reductions. 

(5) Stage II vapor recovery. 

(6) Clean fuels fleet program under section 

182(c)(4) of the CAA. 

(7) Clean fuels for boilers under section 

182(e)(3) of the CAA. [Not a requirement for 

the Milwaukee-Racine area.] 

(8) Transportation Control Measures 

(TCMs) during heavy traffic hours as 

provided under section 182(e)(4) of the CAA. 

(9) Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under 

section 182(c)(1) of the CAA. 

(10) Transportation controls under section 

182(c)(5) of the CAA. 

(11) Vehicle miles travelled provisions of 

section 182(d)(1) of the CAA. 

(12) NOX requirements under section 182(f) 

of the CAA. 

(13) Attainment demonstration or an 

alternative as provided under 40 CFR 

51.905(a)(1)(ii). 

In addition to applicable requirements 

listed under 40 CFR 51.900(f) and as 

discussed above, the state must also 

comply with the 1-hour anti-backsliding 

requirements discussed in the DC 

Circuit’s decisions in South Coast Air 

Quality Management Dist. v. EPA. See 

III.B.i, above. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.905(c), the 

Milwaukee-Racine area is subject to the 

obligations set forth in 40 CFR 51.905(a) 

and 40 CFR 51.900(f). The following 

paragraphs address the 1-hour ozone 

SIP requirements applicable to the 

Milwaukee-Racine area pursuant to all 

the anti-backsliding requirements 

described above. 

Prior to the revocation of the 1-hour 

ozone standard on June 15, 2005, the 

Milwaukee-Racine area was classified as 

a severe nonattainment area for the 

1-hour ozone standard with an 

attainment deadline of November 15, 

2007, and was therefore subject to the 

ozone SIP requirements for severe 

1-hour ozone nonattainment areas 

contained in sections 182(a) through 

182(d) of the CAA. In reviewing 

Wisconsin’s ozone redesignation request 

for the Milwaukee-Racine area, we 

assessed whether the area satisfied the 

CAA requirements under the 1-hour 

ozone standard. We conclude that this 

area and the state of Wisconsin have 

satisfied all anti-backsliding CAA 

requirements applicable to a severe 

ozone nonattainment area by complying 

with all applicable 1-hour ozone SIP 

requirements. The following discusses 

how the applicable CAA requirements 

have been met in the Milwaukee-Racine 

area. 

40 CFR 51.900(f)(1) and (3) RACT 

Section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA 

requires RACT corrections. Section 

182(b)(2) requires RACT for each 

category of VOC sources covered by a 

CTG and for all other major sources of 

VOC within an ozone nonattainment 

area. Section 182(d) specifies 

requirements for severe ozone 

nonattainment areas, including a major 

source emissions cut-off of 25 tons per 

year. 

Under the 1-hour ozone standard, 

EPA fully approved Wisconsin’s VOC 

RACT regulations as SIP revisions for 

CTG sources and for major non-CTG 

sources through rulemakings on the 

following dates: August 15, 1994 (59 FR 

41709), April 27, 1995 (60 FR 20643), 

June 30, 1995 (60 FR 34170), July 28, 

1995 (60 FR 38722), February 12, 1996 

(61 FR 5307), February 13, 1996 (61 FR 

5514), April 4, 1996 (61 FR 14972), 

April 9, 1996 (61 FR 15706), April 25, 

1996 (61 FR 18257), July 17, 1996 (61 

FR 37216), August 29, 1996 (61 FR 

45327), June 8, 2000 (65 FR 36351), 

November 13, 2001 (66 FR 56931), and 

September 22, 2006 (71 FR 55287). 

These RACT SIP revisions include rules 

covering all non-CTG sources in the 

Milwaukee-Racine area with the 

potential to emit VOCs at or in excess 

of 25 tons per year. 

EPA issued CTGs for five source 

categories in September 2006 and three 

additional source categories in 

September 2007. Areas classified as 

moderate and above for the 1997 8-hour 

standard were required to submit VOC 

RACT for the source categories covered 

by these CTGs by September 2007 and 

September 2008, respectively. 

Wisconsin submitted SIP revisions to 

address these CTGs on September 1, 

2009, and November 16, 2011. EPA is 

taking action on these revisions in a 

separate rulemaking action. Full 

approval of Wisconsin’s RACT 

submittals is a prerequisite for approval 

of the redesignation of the MilwaukeeRacine and Sheboygan areas to 

attainment. 

40 CFR 51.900(f)(2) Vehicle I/M 

EPA approved Wisconsin’s enhanced 

I/M program on January 12, 1995 (60 FR 

2881), and August 16, 2001 (66 FR 

42949). 

40 CFR 51.900(f)(4) ROP 

Sections 182(b)(1)(A) and 182(c)(2)(B) 

of the CAA establish the ROP 

requirements for ozone nonattainment 

areas. EPA has fully approved 

Wisconsin’s SIP revisions that 

demonstrate that Wisconsin achieved 

ROP in the Milwaukee-Racine area. On 

March 22, 1996 (61 FR 11735), EPA 

approved Wisconsin’s plan to achieve a 

15 percent reduction in VOC emissions 

in the Milwaukee-Racine area, as 

required in section 182(b) of the CAA. 

On October 10, 2001 (66 FR 51572), EPA 

approved Wisconsin’s plan to achieve 

ROP between 1996 and 1999 in this 

area, meeting the ROP requirements of 

section 182(c) of the CAA. Finally, on 

November 13, 2001 (66 FR 56931), EPA 

approved Wisconsin’s plan to achieve 

ROP emission reductions for the period 

of 1999 through 2007. 

40 CFR 51.900(f)(5) Stage II Gasoline 

Vapor Recovery 

EPA approved Wisconsin’s Stage II 

rule on August 13, 1993 (58 FR 43080), 

August 15, 1994 (59 FR 41709), and 

April 27, 1995 (60 FR 206423). 

40 CFR 51.900(f)(6) Clean Fuel Fleet 

Program 

EPA approved Wisconsin’s clean fuel 

fleet program rules as required by 

section 182(c)(4) of the CAA on March 

11, 1996 (61 FR 9639). 

40 CFR 51.900(f)(7) Clean Fuels for 

Boilers 

Section 182(e)(3) of the CAA, which 

requires clean fuels for boilers, does not 

apply to the Milwaukee-Racine area. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6736 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

This CAA requirement only applies to 

extreme ozone nonattainment areas. 

40 CFR 51.900(f)(8) Traffic Control 

Measures During Heavy Traffic Hours 

This requirement applies to areas 

subject to section 182(e)(4) of the CAA, 

which covers extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas, and, therefore, 

does not apply to the Milwaukee-Racine 

area. 

40 CFR 51.900(f)(9) Enhanced 

Ambient Monitoring 

On March 18, 1994 (59 FR 1251), EPA 

approved Wisconsin’s SIP revision 

establishing an enhanced monitoring 

program for ozone in the MilwaukeeRacine area, as required by section 

182(c)(1) of the CAA. 

40 CFR 51.900(f)(10) Transportation 

Control Measures 

Within six months of November 15, 

1990, and every three years thereafter, 

section 182(c)(5) of the CAA requires 

states to submit a demonstration that 

current aggregate vehicle mileage, 

aggregate vehicle emissions, congestion 

levels, and other relevant traffic-related 

and vehicle emissions-related factors are 

consistent with those used for the area’s 

ozone attainment demonstration for 

serious and above 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas. If the levels of 

relevant parameters that are projected in 

the attainment demonstration are 

exceeded, a state has 18 months to 

develop and submit a revision to the SIP 

to include TCMs to reduce mobile 

source emissions to levels consistent 

with the emission levels in the 

attainment demonstration. 

The section 182(c)(5) requirements are 

included in those measures subject to 

EPA’s interpretation under EPA’s May 

10, 1995, Clean Data Policy 

memorandum. As provided by the clean 

data policy, since the Milwaukee-Racine 

area is attaining the 1-hour ozone 

standard, any requirement for 

submitting the section 182(c)(5) 

measures for the Milwaukee-Racine area 

is suspended. See also 40 CFR 51.918. 

40 CFR 51.900(f)(11) Vehicle Miles 

Travelled 

Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the CAA 

requires severe ozone nonattainment 

areas to offset the growth in emissions 

attributed to growth in VMT; to select 

and implement TCMs necessary to 

comply with the periodic emission 

reduction requirements of sections 

182(b) and (c); and, to consider TCMs 

specified in section 108(f) of the CAA, 

and implement TCMs as necessary to 

demonstrate attainment with the ozone 

standard. EPA approved Wisconsin’s 

section 182(d)(1)(A) VMT SIP on May 5, 

1995 (60 FR 22284), and September 11, 

1995 (60 FR 47088). 

40 CFR 51.900(f)(12) NOX

Requirements Under Section 182(f) 

Section 182(f) requires major sources 

of NOX in an ozone nonattainment area 

to be covered by emission control 

requirements equivalent to those 

required for major sources of VOC, 

unless EPA waives the NOX emission 

control requirements as provided in 

section 182(f). The section 182(f) NOX

emission control requirements include 

NOX RACT in ozone nonattainment 

areas required to implement VOC RACT 

for 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as moderate or above. On 

February 3, 1998 (63 FR 5460), EPA 

approved a NOX emissions control 

waiver for the Milwaukee-Racine area 

for the 1-hour ozone standard. 

40 CFR 51.900(f)(13) Ozone 

Attainment Demonstration 

On November 13, 2001 (66 FR 56931), 

EPA approved Wisconsin’s 1-hour 

ozone attainment demonstration SIP 

revision for the Milwaukee-Racine area. 

New Source Review 

EPA has determined that an area 

being redesignated need not have an 

approved nonattainment NSR program, 

provided that the state demonstrates 

maintenance of the standard in the area 

without part D NSR in effect. The 

rationale for this view is described in a 

memorandum from Mary Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas See III.3.a., 

above 

Transportation Conformity 

The conformity portion of the court’s 

ruling does not impact the redesignation 

request for the Milwaukee-Racine area 

except to the extent that the court, in its 

June 8, 2007, decision clarified that, for 

those areas with MVEBs for the 1-hour 

ozone standard, anti-backsliding 

requires that these MVEBs be used for 

8-hour conformity determinations until 

replaced by MVEBs for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. To meet this requirement, 

conformity determinations in such areas 

must comply with the applicable 

requirements of EPA’s conformity 

regulations at 40 CFR part 93. Note 

below that EPA is proposing to find 

adequate and approve 8-hour MVEBs 

established by Wisconsin’s 8-hour 

ozone maintenance plans for the 

Milwaukee and Sheboygan areas. 

Contingency Measures 

The contingency measure 

requirements under sections 172(c)(9) 

and 182(c)(9) of the CAA must be 

addressed in state ozone RFP and 

attainment demonstration plans. 

Wisconsin addressed these 

requirements in the 1-hour ozone RFP 

and attainment demonstration plans for 

the Milwaukee-Racine area by adopting 

and implementing extra VOC and NOX

emission controls that go beyond the 

emission reductions needed for RFP and 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

standard. EPA approved these ozone 

control plans, including their 

contingency elements as follows: VOC 

15 percent RFP plan, March 22, 1996 

(61 FR 11735); post-1996 RFP plan, 

November 10, 2001 (66 FR 51572); and 

1-hour ozone attainment demonstration 

and post-1999 RFP plan, November 13, 

2001 (66 FR 56931). Therefore, 

Wisconsin has met the contingency 

requirements of sections 172(c)(9) and 

182(c)(9) of the CAA for the 1-hour 

ozone standard. 

Section 185 Source Emission Penalty 

Fees 

EPA approved an excess VOC 

emissions fee rule for the MilwaukeeRacine area on June 25, 2002 (67 FR 

42729). On April 24, 2009 (74 FR 

18641), EPA published a final rule 

making a determination that the 

Milwaukee-Racine area had attained the 

1-hour ozone standard and confirming 

that this finding of attainment relieved 

Wisconsin of the obligation to adopt 

section 185 source penalty fee 

regulations for this area. 

Conclusion 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA 

concludes that Wisconsin has met all 

part D SIP requirements for the 1-hour 

ozone standard applicable to the 

Milwaukee-Racine area for purposes of 

redesignation, as addressed in the DC 

Circuit’s and EPA’s anti-backsliding 

requirements. 

3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is 

Due to Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions Resulting From 

Implementation of the SIP and 

Applicable Federal Air Pollution 

Control Regulations and Other 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions. 

(Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)) 

EPA finds that Wisconsin has 

demonstrated that the observed air 

quality improvement in the MilwaukeeRacine and Sheboygan areas is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP, Federal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6737 

measures, and other state-adopted 

measures. 

In making this demonstration, the 

state has calculated the change in 

emissions between 2005 and 2008. For 

the nonattainment inventory, Wisconsin 

used the 2005 emissions inventory 

developed to meet the comprehensive 

emissions inventory requirement of 

section 182(a)(1) of the CAA. The state 

developed an attainment inventory for 

2008, one of the years the MilwaukeeRacine and Sheboygan areas monitored 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. The reduction in emissions 

and the corresponding improvement in 

air quality over this time period can be 

attributed to a number of regulatory 

control measures that the MilwaukeeRacine and Sheboygan areas and 

upwind areas have implemented in 

recent years. 

a. Permanent and Enforceable Controls 

Implemented 

The following is a discussion of 

permanent and enforceable measures 

that have been implemented in the 

areas: 

i. Automobile Inspection and 

Maintenance (I/M) program. Wisconsin 

operates an enhanced automobile 

inspection and maintenance program in 

the Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan 

areas. 

ii. Stationary Source NOX Rules. As 

part of the state’s ROP plan under the 

1-hour ozone standard, Wisconsin 

adopted regulations that control NOX

emissions at electric utilities and large 

industrial combustion sources and 

establish NOX emissions standards for 

new sources. The regulation of existing 

sources was estimated to achieve a 55 

ton per day reduction by 2007. 

iii. Federal Mobile Source Emission 

Control Measures. Reductions in VOC 

and NOX emissions have occurred 

statewide and in upwind areas as a 

result of Federal emission control 

measures, with additional emission 

reductions expected to occur in the 

future. Federal emission control 

measures include the following. 

Tier 2 Emission Standards for 

Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards. 

These emission control requirements 

result in lower VOC and NOX emissions 

from new cars and light duty trucks, 

including sport utility vehicles. The 

Federal rules were phased in between 

2004 and 2009. The EPA has estimated 

that, by the end of the phase-in period, 

the following vehicle NOX emission 

reductions will occur nationwide: 

passenger cars (light duty vehicles) (77 

percent); light duty trucks, minivans, 

and sports utility vehicles (86 percent); 

and, larger sports utility vehicles, vans, 

and heavier trucks (69 to 95 percent). 

VOC emission reductions are expected 

to range from 12 to 18 percent, 

depending on vehicle class, over the 

same period. Some of these emission 

reductions occurred by the attainment 

years and additional emission 

reductions will occur throughout the 

maintenance period. 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule. In 

July 2000, EPA issued a rule, effective 

in 2004, that includes standards limiting 

the sulfur content of diesel fuel. A 

second phase took effect in 2007 which 

further reduced the highway diesel fuel 

sulfur content to 15 parts per million, 

leading to additional reductions in 

combustion NOX and VOC emissions. 

This rule is expected to achieve a 95 

percent reduction in NOX emissions 

from diesel trucks and busses. 

Nonroad Diesel Rule. EPA issued this 

rule in 2004. This rule applies to diesel 

engines used in industries, such as 

construction, agriculture, and mining. It 

is estimated that compliance with this 

rule will cut NOX emissions from 

nonroad diesel engines by up to 90 

percent. Some of these emission 

reductions occurred by the attainment 

years and additional emission 

reductions will occur throughout the 

maintenance period. 

iv. New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS), National Emissions 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAPS) and Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology Standards (MACT). 

A broad range of emission sectors are 

subject to Federal NSPS, NESHAP, and 

MACT standards with compliance 

requirements which take effect over the 

attainment period. 

v. Control Measures in Upwind Areas. 

On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA 

issued a NOX SIP Call requiring the 

District of Columbia and 22 states to 

reduce emissions of NOX. Affected 

states were required to comply with 

Phase I of the SIP Call beginning in 

2004, and Phase II beginning in 2007. 

The reduction in NOX emissions has 

resulted in lower concentrations of 

transported ozone entering the 

Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan 

areas. Emission reductions resulting 

from regulations developed in response 

to the NOX SIP Call are permanent and 

enforceable. 

b. Emission Reductions 

Wisconsin is using the 2005 

emissions inventory developed 

pursuant to section 182(a)(1) of the CAA 

as the nonattainment inventory. This 

inventory is discussed in more detail in 

section V.C., below. In summary, WDNR 

developed the point source inventory 

using actual reported emissions, EPA’s 

Clean Air Markets Database and EPA 

techniques for emissions calculation. 

The area source inventory was created 

by backcasting Wisconsin’s 2008 

emissions inventory that was submitted 

to EPA for the National Emissions 

Inventory. The nonroad mobile 

inventory was created using EPA’s 

National Mobile Inventory Model 

(NMIM) (2009/05/04 version). In 

addition, emissions estimates were 

developed for commercial marine 

vessels, aircraft, and railroads, three 

nonroad categories not included in the 

model. The onroad mobile source 

inventory was developed using EPA’s 

MOVES2010a model. Wisconsin is 

using the 2008 emissions inventory for 

the attainment inventory. The point 

source sector of the emissions inventory 

was created using annually reported 

point source emissions, EPA’s Clean Air 

Markets Database, and EPA techniques 

for emissions calculation. Emissions 

were estimated by collecting processlevel information from each facility that 

qualifies for inclusion in the state’s 

point source database. Area source 

emissions estimates were taken from the 

2008 emissions inventory developed by 

WDNR to meet the periodic emissions 

inventory requirement of 40 CFR part 

51, subpart A. 

In general, area source emissions 

estimates were calculated using 

population, gasoline consumption, 

employment, crop acreages, and other 

activity surrogates along with emission 

factors. Emission factors were derived 

from local data, local or national 

surveys and EPA guidance for the 

development of emissions inventories. 

Nonroad emissions estimates were 

developed using EPA’s NMIM (2009/05/ 

04 version). In addition, emissions 

estimates were developed for 

commercial marine vessels, aircraft, and 

railroads, three nonroad categories not 

included in the model. The onroad 

mobile source inventory was developed 

using EPA’s MOVES2010a model. 

Using the inventories described 

above, Wisconsin’s submittal 

documents changes in VOC and NOX

emissions from 2005 to 2008 for the 

Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan 

areas. Emissions data are shown in 

Tables 2 through 4. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6738 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—MILWAUKEE-RACINE AND SHEBOYGAN AREA VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT YEAR 2005 

[tpd] 

County 

Point Area Nonroad Onroad Total 

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

Milwaukee-Racine Area ........ 13 .04 64 .24 55 .38 14 .48 60 .30 50 .30 46 .89 117 .20 175 .61 246 .22 

Kenosha County ............ 0 .73 32 .75 3 .28 0 .73 5 .41 4 .32 3 .98 9 .58 13 .40 47 .38 

Milwaukee County .......... 6 .88 28 .13 20 .65 6 .77 15 .71 17 .94 20 .79 53 .12 64 .03 105 .96 

Ozaukee County ............ 0 .42 0 .52 3 .79 0 .87 2 .70 5 .44 2 .72 6 .84 9 .63 13 .67 

Racine County ............... 1 .17 0 .77 5 .88 1 .25 7 .42 5 .70 4 .38 10 .65 18 .85 18 .37 

Washington County ........ 0 .47 0 .88 9 .71 1 .19 6 .45 4 .08 3 .91 9 .78 20 .54 15 .93 

Waukesha County .......... 3 .37 1 .19 12 .07 3 .67 22 .61 12 .82 11 .11 27 .23 49 .16 44 .91 

Sheboygan Area (Sheboygan 

County) .............................. 2 .307 17 .338 6 .879 1 .114 6 .245 4 .389 3 .340 8 .489 18 .771 31 .330 

TABLE 3—MILWAUKEE-RACINE AND SHEBOYGAN AREA VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR ATTAINMENT YEAR 2008 

[tpd] 

County 

Point Area Nonroad Onroad Total 

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

Milwaukee-Racine Area ........ 12 .17 39 .16 57 .22 14 .76 50 .02 45 .34 36 .35 92 .74 155 .76 192 .00 

Kenosha County ............ 1 .33 8 .56 3 .39 0 .76 4 .57 3 .94 3 .05 7 .52 12 .34 20 .78 

Milwaukee County .......... 5 .52 26 .91 21 .19 6 .85 12 .90 15 .83 16 .05 41 .68 55 .66 91 .27 

Ozaukee County ............ 0 .42 0 .73 3 .99 0 .89 2 .17 4 .66 2 .13 5 .47 8 .71 11 .75 

Racine County ............... 1 .41 1 .13 6 .17 1 .27 6 .23 4 .99 3 .51 8 .79 17 .32 16 .18 

Washington County ........ 0 .49 0 .26 9 .97 1 .23 5 .39 4 .10 2 .97 7 .62 18 .82 13 .21 

Waukesha County .......... 3 .00 1 .57 12 .51 3 .76 18 .76 11 .82 8 .64 21 .66 42 .91 38 .81 

Sheboygan Area (Sheboygan 

County) .............................. 2 .113 12 .972 7 .064 1 .139 5 .329 3 .689 2 .665 6 .322 17 .171 24 .122 

TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF MILWAUKEE-RACINE AND SHEBOYGAN AREA 2005 AND 2008 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS

[tpd] 

County 

VOC NOX

2005 2008 Net change 

(2005–2008) 2005 2008 Net change (2005–2008) 

Milwaukee-Racine Area ....................................... 175 .61 155 .76 ¥19 .85 246 .22 192 .00 ¥54 .22 

Point .............................................................. 13 .04 12 .17 ¥0 .87 64 .24 39 .16 ¥25 .08 

Area ............................................................... 55 .38 57 .22 1 .84 14 .48 14 .76 0 .28 

Nonroad ........................................................ 60 .30 50 .02 ¥10 .28 50 .30 45 .34 ¥4 .96 

Onroad .......................................................... 46 .89 36 .35 ¥10 .54 117 .20 92 .74 ¥24 .46 

Sheboygan Area .................................................. 18 .771 17 .171 ¥1 .600 31 .330 24 .122 ¥7 .208 

Point .............................................................. 2 .307 2 .113 ¥0 .194 17 .338 12 .972 ¥4 .366 

Area ............................................................... 6 .879 7 .064 0 .185 1 .114 1 .139 0 .025 

Nonroad ........................................................ 6 .245 5 .329 ¥0 .916 4 .389 3 .689 ¥0 .700 

Onroad .......................................................... 3 .340 2 .665 ¥0 .675 8 .489 6 .322 ¥2 .167 

Table 4 shows that the MilwaukeeRacine area reduced VOC emissions by 

19.85 tpd and NOX emissions by 54.22 

tpd between 2005 and 2008, and the 

Sheboygan area reduced VOC emissions 

by 1.600 tpd and NOX emissions by 

7.208 tpd between 2005 and 2008. 

Based on the information summarized 

above, Wisconsin has adequately 

demonstrated that the improvement in 

air quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions. 

4. The Area Has a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 

175a of the CAA. (Section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iv)) 

In conjunction with its requests to 

redesignate the Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan nonattainment areas to 

attainment status, WDNR submitted SIP 

revisions to provide for the maintenance 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

areas through 2022. 

a. What is required in a maintenance 

plan? 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the required elements of a maintenance 

plan for areas seeking redesignation 

from nonattainment to attainment. 

Under section 175A, the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least ten 

years after the Administrator approves a 

redesignation to attainment. Eight years 

after the redesignation, the state must 

submit a revised maintenance plan 

which demonstrates that attainment will 

continue to be maintained for ten years 

following the initial ten-year 

maintenance period. To address the 

possibility of future NAAQS violations, 

the maintenance plan must contain 

contingency measures with a schedule 

for implementation as EPA deems 

necessary to assure prompt correction of 

any future violations of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

The September 4, 1992, John Calcagni 

memorandum provides additional 

guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan. The memorandum 

clarifies that an ozone maintenance plan 

should address the following items: The 

attainment VOC and NOX emissions 

inventories, a maintenance 

demonstration showing maintenance for 

ten years of the maintenance period, a 

commitment to maintain the existing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6739 

monitoring network, factors and 

procedures to be used for verification of 

continued attainment of the NAAQS, 

and a contingency plan to prevent or 

correct future violations of the NAAQS. 

b. Attainment Inventory 

WDNR developed an emissions 

inventory for 2008, one of the years 

Wisconsin used to demonstrate 

monitored attainment of the 1997 

8-hour NAAQS, as described above. The 

attainment level of emissions is 

summarized in Table 3, above. 

c. Demonstration of Maintenance 

Along with the redesignation 

requests, WDNR submitted revisions to 

the 8-hour ozone SIP to include 

maintenance plans for the MilwaukeeRacine and Sheboygan areas, in 

compliance with section 175A of the 

CAA. These demonstrations show 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard through 2022 by assuring that 

current and future emissions of VOC 

and NOX for the Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan areas remain at or below 

attainment year emission levels. A 

maintenance demonstration need not be 

based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 

265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club 

v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). 

See also 66 FR 53094, 53099–53100 

(October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25413, 25430– 

25432 (May 12, 2003). 

Wisconsin is using emissions 

inventories for the years 2015 and 2022 

to demonstrate maintenance. The 

emissions inventories were developed 

as described below. 

Electric Generating Unit (EGU) point 

source emissions for 2018 were 

estimated using IPM3.0. Non-EGU point 

source emissions for 2018 were derived 

by applying growth and control factors, 

developed by Pechan for the Lake 

Michigan Air Directors Consortium 

(LADCO), to the 2005 inventory. Growth 

factors were initially based on the 

Economic Growth and Analysis System 

(EGAS) model and were modified for 

select priority categories by examining 

emissions activity data. Projected 

emissions for 2015 and 2022 were 

estimated using linear interpolation and 

extrapolation from 2008 and 2018 

emissions estimates. 

Area source emissions inventories 

were created by projecting the 2008 

emissions inventory. The emission 

projections were primarily based on 

growth factors from the EGAS model. If 

EGAS growth factors were not available, 

population based growth factors were 

used. 

Nonroad emissions estimates were 

developed using EPA’s NMIM model 

(2009/05/04 version). In addition, 

emissions estimates were developed for 

commercial marine vessels, aircraft, and 

railroads, three nonroad categories not 

included in the model. Onroad 

emissions estimates were generated 

using the MOVES2010a model. 

Emissions data are shown in Tables 5 

through 7 below. 

TABLE 5—MILWAUKEE-RACINE AND SHEBOYGAN AREA VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR MAINTENANCE YEAR 2015 

[tpd] 

County 

Point Area Nonroad Onroad Total 

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

Milwaukee-Racine Area ........ 15 .89 45 .35 53 .53 13 .63 30 .58 29 .60 21 .08 51 .22 121 .08 139 .80 

Kenosha County ............ 0 .99 13 .12 3 .17 0 .71 2 .71 2 .73 1 .82 4 .18 8 .69 20 .74 

Milwaukee County .......... 8 .37 29 .42 19 .64 6 .20 8 .37 10 .40 9 .10 23 .08 45 .48 69 .10 

Ozaukee County ............ 0 .52 0 .74 3 .81 0 .84 1 .37 2 .89 1 .24 2 .98 6 .94 7 .45 

Racine County ............... 1 .47 0 .76 5 .85 1 .18 3 .63 3 .46 2 .05 4 .76 13 .00 10 .16 

Washington County ........ 0 .51 0 .15 9 .34 1 .17 3 .32 2 .51 1 .77 4 .24 14 .94 8 .07 

Waukesha County .......... 4 .03 1 .16 11 .72 3 .53 11 .18 7 .61 5 .10 11 .98 32 .03 24 .28 

Sheboygan Area (Sheboygan 

County) .............................. 2 .895 11 .486 6 .568 1 .067 3 .263 2 .432 2 .024 4 .321 14 .750 19 .306 

TABLE 6—MILWAUKEE-RACINE AND SHEBOYGAN AREA VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR MAINTENANCE YEAR 2022 

[tpd] 

County 

Point Area Nonroad Onroad Total 

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

Milwaukee-Racine Area ........ 19 .61 51 .57 59 .83 13 .51 23 .55 21 .13 15 .98 31 .91 118 .97 118 .12 

Kenosha County ............ 0 .65 17 .68 3 .50 0 .72 1 .84 1 .94 1 .41 2 .64 7 .40 22 .98 

Milwaukee County .......... 11 .22 31 .93 21 .88 6 .03 7 .48 7 .76 6 .78 14 .18 47 .36 59 .90 

Ozaukee County ............ 0 .63 0 .76 4 .33 0 .85 1 .19 1 .83 0 .95 1 .88 7 .10 5 .32 

Racine County ............... 1 .52 0 .39 6 .63 1 .17 2 .44 2 .57 1 .58 3 .00 12 .17 7 .13 

Washington County ........ 0 .53 0 .05 10 .43 1 .20 2 .52 1 .59 1 .36 2 .69 14 .84 5 .53 

Waukesha County .......... 5 .06 0 .76 13 .06 3 .54 8 .08 5 .44 3 .90 7 .52 30 .10 17 .26 

Sheboygan Area (Sheboygan County) .......... 3 .677 10 .000 7 .256 1 .074 2 .189 1 .876 1 .615 2 .778 14 .737 15 .728 

TABLE 7—COMPARISON OF MILWAUKEE-RACINE AND SHEBOYGAN AREA 2008, 2015 AND 2022 VOC AND NOX

EMISSIONS

[tpd] 

County 

VOC NOX

2008 2015 2022 

Net 

change 

(2008– 

2022) 

2008 2015 2022 

Net 

change 

(2008– 

2022) 

Milwaukee-Racine Area .................................................... 155 .76 121 .08 118 .97 ¥36 .79 192 .00 139 .80 118 .12 ¥73 .88 

Point ........................................................................... 12 .17 15 .89 19 .61 7 .44 39 .16 45 .35 51 .57 12 .41 

Area ............................................................................ 57 .22 53 .53 59 .83 2 .61 14 .76 13 .63 13 .51 ¥1 .25 

Nonroad ..................................................................... 50 .02 30 .58 23 .55 ¥26 .47 45 .34 29 .60 21 .13 ¥24 .21 

Onroad ....................................................................... 36 .35 21 .08 15 .98 ¥20 .37 92 .74 51 .22 31 .91 ¥60 .83 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6740 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 7—COMPARISON OF MILWAUKEE-RACINE AND SHEBOYGAN AREA 2008, 2015 AND 2022 VOC AND NOX

EMISSIONS—Continued 

[tpd] 

County 

VOC NOX

2008 2015 2022 

Net 

change 

(2008– 

2022) 

2008 2015 2022 

Net 

change 

(2008– 

2022) 

Sheboygan Area ............................................................... 17 .171 14 .750 14 .737 ¥2 .434 24 .122 19 .306 15 .728 ¥8 .394 

Point ........................................................................... 2 .113 2 .895 3 .677 1 .564 12 .972 11 .486 10 .000 ¥2 .972 

Area ............................................................................ 7 .064 6 .568 7 .256 0 .192 1 .139 1 .067 1 .074 ¥0 .065 

Nonroad ..................................................................... 5 .329 3 .263 2 .189 ¥3 .140 3 .689 2 .432 1 .876 ¥1 .813 

Onroad ....................................................................... 2 .665 2 .024 1 .615 ¥1 .050 6 .322 4 .321 2 .778 ¥3 .544 

The emission projections show that 

WDNR does not expect emissions in the 

Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan areas 

to exceed the level of the 2008 

attainment year inventory during the 

maintenance period. In the MilwaukeeRacine area, WDNR projects VOC 

emissions to decrease by 36.79 tpd and 

NOX emissions to decrease by 73.88 tpd 

between 2008 and 2022. In the 

Sheboygan area, WDNR projects VOC 

emissions to decrease by 2.434 tpd and 

NOX emissions to decrease by 8.394 tpd 

between 2008 and 2022. 

Further, ozone modeling performed 

by the Lake Michigan Air Directors 

Consortium supports the conclusion 

that the Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan areas will maintain the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard throughout the 

maintenance period. Peak modeled 

ozone levels in the Milwaukee-Racine 

area for 2012 and 2018 are 0.080 ppm, 

and 0.077 ppm, respectively. Peak 

modeled ozone levels in the Sheboygan 

area for 2012 and 2018 are 0.081 ppm, 

and 0.076 ppm, respectively. These 

projected ozone levels were modeled 

applying only legally enforceable 

controls; e.g., consent decrees, rules, the 

NOX SIP Call, Federal motor vehicle 

control programs, etc. 

As part of its maintenance plans, the 

state elected to include ‘‘safety margins’’ 

for the areas. A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the 

difference between the attainment level 

of emissions (from all sources) and the 

projected level of emissions (from all 

sources) in the maintenance plan, which 

continues to demonstrate attainment of 

the standard. The attainment level of 

emissions is the level of emissions 

during one of the years in which the 

area met the NAAQS. The MilwaukeeRacine and Sheboygan areas attained 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 

2006–2008, 2007–2009, and 2008–2010 

time periods. Wisconsin used 2008 as 

the attainment level of emissions for the 

areas. In the maintenance plans, WDNR 

projected emission levels for 2022. For 

the Milwaukee-Racine area, the 

emissions from point, area, nonroad, 

and onroad mobile sources in 2008 

equaled 155.76 tpd of VOC. WDNR 

projected VOC emissions for the year 

2022 to be 118.97 tpd of VOC. The SIP 

submission demonstrates that the 

Milwaukee-Racine area will continue to 

maintain the standard with emissions at 

this level. The safety margin for VOC is 

calculated to be the difference between 

these amounts or, in this case, 36.79 tpd 

of VOC for 2022. By this same method, 

for the Milwaukee-Racine area, 73.88 

tpd (i.e., 192.00 tpd less 118.12 tpd) is 

the safety margin for NOX for 2022. For 

the Sheboygan area, the safety margin 

for 2022 is 2.434 tpd of VOC and 8.394 

tpd of NOX. The safety margin, or a 

portion thereof, can be allocated to any 

of the source categories, as long as the 

total attainment level of emissions is 

maintained. 

d. Monitoring Network 

Wisconsin currently operates ten 

ozone monitors in the MilwaukeeRacine area and one monitor in the 

Sheboygan area. WDNR has committed 

to continue to monitor ozone levels in 

the areas. WDNR will work with EPA 

should changes in siting become 

necessary. Wisconsin remains obligated 

to meet monitoring requirements and 

continue to quality assure monitoring 

data in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, 

and to enter all data into the AQS in 

accordance with Federal guidelines. 

e. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Continued attainment of the ozone 

NAAQS in the Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan areas depends, in part, on 

the state’s efforts toward tracking 

indicators of continued attainment 

during the maintenance period. 

Wisconsin’s plan for verifying 

continued attainment of the 8-hour 

standard in the Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan consists of plans to continue 

ambient ozone monitoring in 

accordance with the requirements of 40 

CFR part 58. WDNR will also continue 

to develop and submit periodic 

emission inventories as required by the 

Federal Consolidated Emissions 

Reporting Rule (67 FR 39602, June 10, 

2002) to track future levels of emissions. 

f. Contingency Plan 

The contingency plan provisions are 

designed to promptly correct or prevent 

a violation of the NAAQS that might 

occur after redesignation of an area to 

attainment. Section 175A of the CAA 

requires that a maintenance plan 

include such contingency measures as 

EPA deems necessary to assure that the 

state will promptly correct a violation of 

the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. The maintenance plan 

should identify the contingency 

measures to be adopted, a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation of the contingency 

measures, and a time limit for action by 

the state. The state should also identify 

specific indicators to be used to 

determine when the contingency 

measures need to be adopted and 

implemented. The maintenance plan 

must include a requirement that the 

state will implement all measures with 

respect to control of the pollutant(s) that 

were contained in the SIP before 

redesignation of the area to attainment. 

See section 175A(d) of the CAA. 

As required by section 175A of the 

CAA, Wisconsin has adopted 

contingency plans for the MilwaukeeRacine and Sheboygan areas to address 

possible future ozone air quality 

problems. A contingency plan response 

will be triggered whenever a three-year 

average fourth-high monitored value of 

0.085 ppm or greater is monitored 

within the maintenance area. When a 

response is triggered, WDNR will 

evaluate existing but not fully 

implemented, forthcoming, and, if 

necessary, new control measures to 

correct the violation of the standard 

within 18 months. Wisconsin has 

confirmed EPA’s interpretation that this 

commitment means that the measure 

will be adopted and implemented 

within 18 months of the triggering 

event. In addition, it is EPA’s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6741 

understanding that to acceptably 

address a violation of the standard, 

existing and forthcoming control 

measures must be in excess of emissions 

reductions included in the projected 

maintenance inventories. 

WDNR included the following list of 

potential contingency measures in its 

maintenance plans: 

i. Broaden the application of the NOX

RACT program by including a larger 

geographic area, and/or including 

sources with potential emissions of 50 

tons per year, and/or increasing the 

cost-effectiveness thresholds utilized as 

a basis for Wisconsin’s NOx RACT 

Program; 

ii. Develop an anti-idling control 

program for mobile sources targeting 

diesel vehicles; 

iii. Adopt a rule reducing VOC 

content in architectural, industrial and 

maintenance coatings; and 

iv. Adopt a rule reducing VOC 

content in commercial and consumer 

products. 

g. Provisions for Future Updates of the 

Ozone Maintenance Plan 

As required by section 175A(b) of the 

CAA, WDNR commits to submit to the 

EPA updated ozone maintenance plans 

eight years after redesignation of the 

Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan areas 

to cover an additional ten-year period 

beyond the initial ten-year maintenance 

period. As required by section 175A of 

the CAA, Wisconsin has committed to 

retain the VOC and NOX control 

measures contained in the SIP prior to 

redesignation. 

EPA has concluded that the 

maintenance plans adequately address 

the five basic components of a 

maintenance plan: Attainment 

inventory, maintenance demonstration, 

monitoring network, verification of 

continued attainment, and a 

contingency plan. Thus EPA proposes to 

find that the maintenance plan SIP 

revisions submitted by Wisconsin for 

the Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan 

areas meet the requirements of section 

175A of the CAA. 

B. Adequacy of Wisconsin’s MVEBs 

1. How are MVEBs developed and what 

are the MVEBs for the MilwaukeeRacine and Sheboygan areas? 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIP revisions and ozone maintenance 

plans for ozone nonattainment areas and 

for areas seeking redesignations to 

attainment of the ozone standard. These 

emission control strategy SIP revisions 

(e.g., RFP and attainment demonstration 

SIP revisions) and ozone maintenance 

plans create MVEBs based on onroad 

mobile source emissions for criteria 

pollutants and/or their precursors to 

address pollution from onroad 

transportation sources. The MVEBs are 

the portions of the total allowable 

emissions that are allocated to highway 

and transit vehicle use that, together 

with emissions from other sources in 

the area, will provide for attainment or 

maintenance. 

Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an 

area seeking a redesignation to 

attainment is established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan. The 

MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions 

from an area’s planned transportation 

system. The MVEB concept is further 

explained in the preamble to the 

November 24, 1993, transportation 

conformity rule (58 FR 62188). 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation projects that receive 

Federal funding or support, such as the 

construction of new highways, must 

‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with) 

the SIP. Conformity to the SIP means 

that transportation activities will not 

cause new air quality violations, worsen 

existing air quality violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a 

transportation plan does not conform, 

most new transportation projects that 

would expand the capacity of roadways 

cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 

CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, 

criteria, and procedures for 

demonstrating and assuring conformity 

of such transportation activities to a SIP. 

When reviewing SIP revisions 

containing MVEBs, including 

attainment strategies, rate-of-progress 

plans, and maintenance plans, EPA 

must affirmatively approve or find that 

the MVEBs are ‘‘adequate’’ for use in 

determining transportation conformity 

before the MVEBs can be used. Once 

EPA affirmatively approves or finds the 

submitted MVEBs to be adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes, the 

MVEBs must be used by state and 

Federal agencies in determining 

whether proposed transportation 

projects conform to the SIP as required 

by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA’s 

substantive criteria for determining the 

adequacy of MVEBs are set out in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4). 

EPA’s process for determining 

adequacy of a MVEB consists of three 

basic steps: (1) Providing public 

notification of a SIP submission; (2) 

providing the public the opportunity to 

comment on the MVEB during a public 

comment period; and, (3) EPA taking 

action on the MVEB. The process for 

determining the adequacy of submitted 

SIP MVEBs is codified at 40 CFR 93.118. 

The maintenance plans submitted by 

Wisconsin for the Milwaukee-Racine 

and Sheboygan areas contain new VOC 

and NOX MVEBs for the areas for the 

years 2015 and 2022. The availability of 

the SIP submission with these 2015 and 

2022 MVEBs was announced for public 

comment on EPA’s Adequacy Web site 

on December 6, 2011, at: http://www.

epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/

currsips.htm. The EPA public comment 

period on adequacy of the 2015 and 

2022 MVEBs for the Milwaukee-Racine 

and Sheboygan areas closed on January 

5, 2012. No adverse comments on the 

submittal were received during the 

adequacy comment period. The 

submitted maintenance plan, which 

included the MVEBs, was endorsed by 

the Governor (or his or her designee) 

and was subject to a state public 

hearing. The MVEBS were developed as 

part of an interagency consultation 

process which includes Federal, state, 

and local agencies. The MVEBS were 

clearly identified and precisely 

quantified. These MVEBs, when 

considered together with all other 

emissions sources, are consistent with 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

EPA, through this rulemaking, has 

found adequate and is proposing to 

approve the MVEBs for use to determine 

transportation conformity in the 

Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan 

areas, because EPA has determined that 

the areas can maintain attainment of the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS for the relevant 

maintenance period with mobile source 

emissions at the levels of the MVEBs. 

WDNR has determined the 2015 MVEBs 

for the Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan areas to be 21.08 tpd for 

VOC and 51.22 tpd for NOX, and 2.024 

tpd for VOC and 4.321 tpd for NOX, 

respectively. WDNR has determined the 

2022 MVEBs for the Milwaukee-Racine 

and Sheboygan areas to be 15.98 tpd for 

VOC and 31.91 tpd for NOX, and 1.615 

tpd for VOC and 2.778 tpd for NOX, 

respectively. These MVEBs are 

consistent with the onroad mobile 

source VOC and NOX emissions 

projected by the Wisconsin Department 

of Transportation for 2015 and 2022, as 

summarized in Table 7 above. 

Wisconsin has demonstrated that the 

Milwaukee-Racine area can maintain 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile 

source emissions of 21.08 tpd and 15.98 

tpd of VOC and 51.22 tpd and 31.91 tpd 

of NOX in 2015 and 2022, respectively, 

since emissions will remain under 

attainment year emission levels. 

Wisconsin has demonstrated that the 

Sheboygan area can maintain the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS with mobile source 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6742 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

4U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, 

August 2010, EPA–420–B–10–036. 

5U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs 

Division, April 2010, EPA–420–B–10–023. 

emissions of 2.024 tpd and 1.615 tpd of 

VOC and 4.321 tpd and 2.778 tpd of 

NOX in 2015 and 2022, respectively, 

since emissions will remain under 

attainment year emission levels. 

C. 2005 Comprehensive Emissions 

Inventory 

As discussed above, section 182(a)(1) 

of the CAA requires states containing 

areas classified as marginal and above to 

submit a comprehensive emissions 

inventory. As part of Wisconsin’s 

redesignation request for the 

Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan 

areas, the state submitted a 2005 

comprehensive emissions inventory. 

Emissions contained in the submittal 

cover the general source categories of 

point sources, area sources, nonroad 

mobile sources and onroad mobile 

sources. 

WDNR developed the point source 

inventory using annually reported point 

source emissions, EPA’s Clean Air 

Markets Database and EPA techniques 

for emissions calculation. Where 

feasible, Federal, state and local controls 

were factored into the emission 

calculations. Emissions were estimated 

by collecting process-level information 

from each facility that qualifies for 

inclusion in the Wisconsin’s point 

source database. 

The area source inventory was created 

by backcasting Wisconsin’s 2008 

emissions inventory that WDNR 

submitted to EPA for the National 

Emissions Inventory. The backcasting 

factors were primarily based on growth 

factors from the EGAS model. If growth 

factors were not available for source 

classification code, population based 

growth factors were used. 

The nonroad mobile inventory was 

created using NMIM (2009/05/04 

version). In addition, emissions 

estimates were developed for 

commercial marine vesels, aircraft, and 

railroads, three nonroad categories not 

included in the model. Through 

LADCO, Pechan, an independent 

contractor, provided marine and rail 

emission estimates. Aircraft emissions 

were calculated using the Federal 

Aviation Administration’s Emissions 

and Dispersion Modeling System. 

The Onroad mobile source inventory 

was developed using EPA’s 

MOVES2010a model. Emissions 

estimates were made in accordance with 

the User Guide for MOVES2010a 4 and 

Technical Guidance on the Use of 

MOVES2010 for Emission Inventory 

Preparation in State Implementation 

Plans and Transportation Conformity 5. 

The 2005 emissions estimates are 

summarized in Table 2, above. EPA is 

proposing to approve the 2005 

emissions inventory as meeting the 

section 182(a)(1) comprehensive 

emissions inventory requirement for the 

Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan 

areas. 

VI. Summary of Actions 

After evaluating the redesignation 

requests submitted by Wisconsin, EPA 

concludes that the requests meet the 

redesignation criteria set forth in section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Therefore, EPA 

is proposing to approve the 

redesignation of the Milwaukee-Racine 

and Sheboygan areas from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also 

proposing to approve Wisconsin’s 

maintenance plan SIP revisions for the 

Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan 

areas. EPA’s proposed approval of the 

maintenance plans is based on the 

state’s demonstration that the plans 

meet the requirements of section 175A 

of the CAA, as described more fully 

above. EPA is also proposing to approve 

WDNR’s 2005 comprehensive emissions 

inventories for the Milwaukee-Racine 

and Sheboygan areas as meeting the 

requirements of section 182(a)(1) of the 

CAA. Finally, EPA finds adequate under 

40 CFR 93.118(e) and is proposing to 

approve Wisconsin’s 2015 and 2022 

MVEBs for the Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan areas. 

VII. 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 

redesignation is an action that affects 

the status of a geographical area and 

does not impose any new regulatory 

requirements on tribes, impact any 

existing sources of air pollution on 

tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance 

of ozone national ambient air quality 

standards in tribal lands. However, 

because there are tribal lands located in 

Milwaukee County, we provided the 

affected tribe with the opportunity to 

consult with EPA on the redesignation. 

The affected tribe raised no concerns 

with the proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, National parks, Wilderness 

areas. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6743 

Dated: January 31, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–2989 Filed 2–8–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0666; FRL–9629–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Illinois; Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a request from Illinois to redesignate the 

Illinois portion of the Chicago-GaryLake County, Illinois-Indiana (IL-IN) 

ozone nonattainment area (the Greater 

Chicago area) to attainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard) 

because the request meets the statutory 

requirements for redesignation under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Illinois 

portion of the Greater Chicago area 

includes Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, 

McHenry, and Will Counties and 

portions of Grundy (Aux Sable and 

Goose Lake Townships) and Kendall 

(Oswego Township) Counties. The 

Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency (IEPA) submitted this request on 

July 23, 2009, and supplemented its 

request in a submittal on September 16, 

2011. EPA is proposing to approve, as 

a revision of the Illinois State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), the State’s 

plan for maintaining the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard through 2025 in the 

Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago 

area. EPA is proposing to approve 2002 

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) and 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) emission 

inventories for the Illinois portion of the 

Greater Chicago area as a revision of the 

Illinois SIP because the emission 

inventories meet the requirements of 

section 182(a) of the CAA. Finally, EPA 

proposes to approve the State’s 2008 

and 2025 VOC and NOX Motor Vehicle 

Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the 

Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago 

area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 12, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2009–0666, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

• Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

• Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, 18th Floor, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office’s 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–2009– 

0666. 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 

and 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 U.S. 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 Edward Doty at (312) 

886–6057 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

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

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6057, 

or Doty.Edward@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: 

Table of Contents 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What actions is EPA proposing? 

III. What is the background for these actions? 

A. General Background 

B. What are the impacts of the December 

22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, United States 

Court of Appeals decisions regarding 

EPA’s Phase 1 Ozone Implementation 

Rule? 

1. Summary of Court Decisions 

2. Requirements Under the 8-Hour Ozone 

Standard 

3. Requirements Under the 1-Hour Ozone 

Standard 

IV. What are the criteria for redesignation? 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s ozone 

redesignation request? 

A. Has the Greater Chicago area attained 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS? 

B. Has the State of Illinois met all 

applicable requirements of Section 110 

and Part D of the CAA for the Illinois 

portion of the Greater Chicago area, and 

does the Illinois portion of the Greater 

Chicago area have a fully approved SIP 

under Section 110(k) of the CAA? 

1. The Illinois Portion of the Greater 

Chicago Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements of Section 110 and Part D 

of the CAA for Purposes of 

Redesignation 

2. The Illinois Portion of the Greater 

Chicago Area Has a Fully Approved SIP 

for Purposes of Redesignation Under 

Section 110 of the CAA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS