9134 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202– 

2733, telephone 214–665–7430; fax 

number 214–665–7263; email address 

peace.michelle@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Why is EPA issuing this proposed rule? 

This document proposes to take 

action on SIP revisions submitted by the 

Governor of New Mexico on behalf of 

the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Air 

Quality, Environmental Health 

Department on November 18, 2010, May 

24, 2011, and October 11, 2012. We 

have published a direct final rule 

approving the State’s SIP revisions in 

the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

this Federal Register because we view 

this as a noncontroversial action and 

anticipate no adverse comment. We 

have explained our reasons for this 

action in the preamble to the direct final 

rule. 

If we receive no adverse comment, we 

will not take further action on this 

proposed rule. If we receive adverse 

comment, we will withdraw the direct 

final rule and it will not take effect. We 

would address all public comments in 

any subsequent final rule based upon 

this proposed rule. 

We do not intend to institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. For further 

information, please see the information 

provided in the ADDRESSES section of 

this document. 

Dated: January 28, 2014. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2014–03439 Filed 2–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0464; FRL–9906–41– 

Region–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Wisconsin; Redesignation of the 

Milwaukee-Racine 2006 24-Hour Fine 

Particle Nonattainment Area to 

Attainment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On June 8, 2012, the State of 

Wisconsin, through the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR) submitted a request for the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

to redesignate the Milwaukee-Racine 

fine particle (PM2.5) nonattainment area 

(‘‘Milwaukee-Racine Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’) 

to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS), and to approve a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

containing a maintenance plan for the 

Area. The Milwaukee-Racine Area is 

comprised of Milwaukee, Racine and 

Waukesha Counties. EPA is proposing 

to grant the state’s request to redesignate 

the Area to attainment for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA’s proposed 

approval involves several additional 

related actions. EPA is proposing to 

approve the state’s plan for maintaining 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS through 

2025. EPA is proposing to approve the 

ammonia, volatile organic compounds 

(VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), direct 

PM2.5, and sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

inventories submitted by the state as 

meeting the comprehensive emissions 

inventory requirement of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). Finally, EPA finds adequate 

and is proposing to approve Wisconsin’s 

NOX, direct PM2.5, SO2, and VOC motor 

vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for 

2020 and 2025 for the Milwaukee Area. 

EPA is also addressing a number of 

additional issues, including the effects 

of two decisions of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia (D.C. Circuit or Court): The 

Court’s August 21, 2012, decision to 

vacate and remand to EPA the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR); and 

the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision to 

remand two final rules implementing 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 20, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0464, 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: Douglas 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: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

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

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012– 

0464. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Gilberto 

Alvarez, Environmental Scientist, at 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9135 

(312) 886–6143 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gilberto Alvarez, 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) 886–6143, 

alvarez.gilberto@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background for the proposal? 

III. What are the criteria for redesignation to 

attainment? 

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

request? 

A. Attainment Determination and 

Redesignation 

1. The Area Has Attained the 2006 24 PM2.5

NAAQS. (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)) 

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) of 

the CAA. (Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 

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

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)) 

4. The Area Has a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 

175A of the CAA. (Section 

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

B. Ammonia and VOC Comprehensive 

Emissions Inventories 

C. Wisconsin’s MVEBs 

1. How are MVEBs Developed? 

2. What are the MVEBs for the MilwaukeeRacine area? 

V. Summary of Proposed Actions 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is the background for the 

proposal? 

Fine particulate pollution can be 

emitted directly from a source (direct 

PM2.5) or formed secondarily through 

chemical reactions in the atmosphere 

involving precursor pollutants emitted 

from a variety of sources. Sulfates are a 

type of secondary particulate formed 

from SO2 emissions from power plants 

and industrial facilities. Nitrates, 

another common type of secondary 

particulate, are formed from combustion 

emissions of NOX from power plants, 

mobile sources and other combustion 

sources. 

The first air quality standards for 

PM2.5 were promulgated on July 18, 

1997, at 62 FR 38652. EPA promulgated 

an annual standard at a level of 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) of 

ambient air, based on a three-year 

average of annual mean PM2.5

concentrations at each monitoring site. 

In the same rulemaking, EPA 

promulgated a 24-hour PM2.5 standard at 

65 mg/m3, based on a three-year average 

of the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations at each monitoring site. 

On October 17, 2006, at 71 FR 61144, 

EPA retained the annual PM2.5 standard 

at 15 mg/m3 (2006 annual PM2.5

standard), but revised the 24-hour 

standard to 35 mg/m3, based again on the 

three-year average of the 98th percentile 

of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at each 

monitor. 

On November 13, 2009, at 74 FR 

58688, EPA published air quality area 

designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard. In that rulemaking, EPA 

designated the Milwaukee-Racine Area 

as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard and defined the area to 

include Milwaukee, Racine and 

Kenosha Counties. 

In response to legal challenges of the 

2006 annual PM2.5 standard, the D.C. 

Circuit remanded this standard to EPA 

for further consideration. See American 

Farm Bureau Federation and National 

Pork Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 

559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009). On 

December 14, 2012, EPA finalized a rule 

revising the PM2.5 annual standard to 12 

mg/m3 based on current scientific 

evidence regarding the protection of 

public health. EPA is not addressing the 

2012 annual PM2.5 standard in this 

proposal. 

On April 24, 2012, and December 28, 

2012, EPA proposed and reproposed, 

respectively, to determine that the Area 

was in attainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 24436 and 77 FR 

76427), based on certified ambient 

monitoring data for the 2008–2010 

monitoring period. 

On June 8, 2012, the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR), submitted a request for EPA to 

redesignate the Milwaukee-Racine Area 

to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, and for EPA approval of the 

SIP revision containing an emissions 

inventory and a maintenance plan for 

the area. 

On May 30, 2013, WDNR submitted 

ammonia and VOC emissions 

inventories to supplement previously 

submitted emissions inventories. 

In this proposed redesignation, EPA 

takes into account two decisions of the 

D.C. Circuit. In the first of the two Court 

decisions, the D.C. Circuit, on August 

21, 2012, in EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. 

Cir. 2012), vacated and remanded 

CSAPR and ordered EPA to continue 

administering the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) ‘‘pending . . . development 

of a valid replacement.’’ EME Homer 

City at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all 

petitions for rehearing on January 24, 

2013. In the second decision, on January 

4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit 

remanded to EPA the ‘‘Final Clean Air 

Fine Particle Implementation Rule’’ (72 

FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008), 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

III. What are the criteria for 

redesignation to attainment? 

The CAA sets forth the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for 

redesignation provided that: (1) The 

Administrator determines that the area 

has attained the applicable NAAQS 

based on current air quality data; (2) the 

Administrator has fully approved an 

applicable SIP for the area under section 

110(k) of the CAA; (3) the Administrator 

determines that the improvement in air 

quality is due to permanent and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9136 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

enforceable emission reductions 

resulting from implementation of the 

applicable SIP, Federal air pollution 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions; (4) 

the Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area meeting 

the requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA; and (5) the state containing the 

area has met all requirements applicable 

to the area for purposes of redesignation 

under section 110 and part D of the 

CAA. 

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

request? 

A. Attainment Determination and 

Redesignation 

As noted above, on April 24, 2012, at 

77 FR 24436, EPA proposed to 

determine that the Milwaukee-Racine 

Area attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard by the applicable attainment 

date. EPA is here updating and 

elaborating upon that proposal. We 

received comments and we are updating 

the information, based on those 

comments, within this proposed 

redesignation. EPA is proposing to 

determine that the area continues to 

attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard 

with certified 2010–2012 monitoring 

data. EPA is also proposing to approve 

Wisconsin’s maintenance plan for the 

area and to determine that the area has 

met all other applicable redesignation 

criteria under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). 

The basis for EPA’s proposed approval 

of the redesignation request is as 

follows: 

1. The Area Has Attained the 2006 24- 

Hour PM2.5 NAAQS. (Section 

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

In this action EPA is proposing to 

redesignate the Milwaukee-Racine Area 

as having attained the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS based on quality-assured, 

certified data for the 2010–2012 

monitoring period. Data available for 

2013 indicate that the area continues to 

attain the standard. EPA’s determination 

that an area has attained the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS is made in 

accordance with 40 CFR 50.13 and part 

50, appendix N, based on three 

consecutive calendar years of complete 

quality-assured air quality monitoring 

data. For an area to attain the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard, the three-year 

average of the 98th percentile 24-hour 

concentrations must not exceed 35 mg/ 

m3 at all relevant monitoring sites in the 

subject area. Under 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix N 4.2(a), a year of 24-Hour 

PM2.5 data meets completeness 

requirements when at least 75 percent of 

the scheduled sampling days for each 

quarter have valid data. Section 4.2(b) 

provides further that ‘‘The use of less 

than complete data is subject to the 

approval of EPA which may consider 

factors such as monitoring site closures/ 

moves, monitoring diligence, and 

nearby concentrations in determining 

whether to use such data for 

comparisons to the NAAQS.’’ 

The state’s redesignation request for 

the Milwaukee-Racine area includes 

monitoring data for the 2008–2010 time 

period. In addition, certified monitoring 

data are also now available for the 

2009–2011, 2010–2012 and 2013 time 

periods. In addition, on January 23, 

2013, WDNR submitted draft 2013 data 

for the area. Table 1, below, provides a 

summary of the PM2.5 24-hour air 

quality monitoring data for the years 

2008–2012. Table 2, below, provides the 

design values for the 2008–2010, 2009– 

2011 and 2010–2012 (through midNovember) time periods. Exceedances 

in the Milwaukee area generally occur 

in the first quarter of the year, so that 

the data that are available for 2013 are 

likely to be a good indication of air 

quality for the full year. 

TABLE 1—98TH PERCENTILE 24-HOUR PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE MILWAUKEE-RACINE AREA (μg/m3) 

Site name Monitor 

98th Percentile 24-hour concentrations 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

Milw-DNR SERHQ ....................................................... 550790026 27.5 39.0 32.6 21.3 24.6 19.0 

Waukesha .................................................................... 551330027 29.9 32.0 35.9 25.3 20.9 23.6 

Milw-16th CHC ............................................................. 550790010 27.3 39.1 30.9 27.0 30.4 23.7 

Milw-FAA/College Ave. ................................................ 550790058 ** *26.5 *35.3 *25.4 27.3 19.2 

Virginia Street .............................................................. 550790043 27.4 41.7 **   **  

Wells Street .................................................................. 550790099 29.0 40.3 ** ** 30.2 19.7 

2013 data are complete through mid-November. 

* Indicates incomplete data. 

** Indicates no data due to monitor not operating. 

TABLE 2—2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 STANDARD DESIGN VALUES FOR THE MILWAUKEE-RACINE AREA (μg/m3) 

Site name Monitor 2008–2010 2009–2011 2010–2012 

Milw-DNR SERHQ ........................................................................................... 550790026 33 31 26 

Waukesha ........................................................................................................ 551330027 33 31 27 

Milw-16th CHC ................................................................................................. 550790010 32 32 29 

Milw-FAA/College Ave. .................................................................................... 550790058 *31 *29 *29 

Virginia Street .................................................................................................. 550790043 **35/34 *** *** 

Wells Street ..................................................................................................... 550790099 **35/34 *** *** 

* Indicates invalid three-year averages due to missing data. 

** First value is computed from an incomplete set of monitoring data; second value also considers imputed values. 

*** No averages calculated because data were missing from one or more years. 

The data in Tables 1 and 2 show that 

all relevant PM2.5 monitors in the 

Milwaukee-Racine Area have recorded 

PM2.5 concentrations attaining the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during the 2008– 

2010, 2009–2011, 2010–2012 and 2013 

time periods (no violation of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS has been 

recorded at any monitoring site). As 

demonstrated in Table 1, the data for 

2013 through mid-November continue 

to support a final determination of 

attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

for the Milwaukee area. However, 

because the area experienced data 

completeness issues due to the 

shutdown of two monitors (Virginia 

Street, 550790043 and Wells Street, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9137 

5507900099, respectively) in 2010, EPA 

has evaluated whether the data may still 

be used, pursuant to the provisions of 

50 CFR Appendix N section 4.2(b). EPA 

conducted an analysis of the data, 

deriving the concentrations that might 

have been expected at the shutdown 

monitoring sites during the shutdown 

period, based on observed 

concentrations at nearby sites, as 

explained below. 

Aside from Virginia and Wells 

monitors, EPA notes that the design 

value for the College Avenue monitor in 

table 2 is based on incomplete data. 

However, this is not the design value 

monitor (i.e., it is not the monitor that 

had the highest value at the time of 

designation) for the area and a 

comparison of the values from the 

remaining monitors within the 

nonattainment area indicate that those 

values are reflective of values that one 

would expect at College Avenue, which 

are all below the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. As shown in Table 1, the data 

continue to show a decline in 

concentrations. 

On April 24, 2012, and December 28, 

2012, EPA proposed and reproposed, 

respectively, to determine that the area 

was in attainment (77 FR 24436 and 77 

FR 76427), based on certified ambient 

monitoring data for the 2008–2010 

monitoring period. EPA is here updating 

and elaborating upon that proposal. We 

received comments and we are updating 

the information, based on those 

comments, within this proposed 

redesignation. 

EPA received two comments from one 

commenter, Midwest Environmental 

Defense Center, on our April 24, 2012, 

proposed rule. The first comment 

objected to the EPA’s use of a statistical 

analysis to impute a design value for the 

Wells Street monitor (Site Number 

550790099), which did not record data 

during 2010 and 2011, and which had 

previously recorded data showing 

nonattainment. The commenter 

contended that EPA erred in 

substituting a design value for this 

monitor and that EPA’s analysis does 

not establish a direct correlation 

between the shut down monitors and a 

nearby operating monitor. On December 

14, 2011, EPA requested the restart of 

the Wells Street monitor (Site Number 

55079099). The monitor restarted 

operation on January 1, 2012, and it has 

been recording data since that time. The 

state was diligent in restarting the 

monitor in consultation with EPA. Data 

available to date for this monitor site 

through 2013 are consistent with 

continued attainment. Data for all four 

quarters of 2012 is complete and 2013 

data has 3 complete quarters. 

EPA relied on the data imputation 

technique because two of the monitors 

were shut down (Site Numbers 

550790043 and 550790099) and did not 

record data during 2010. As discussed 

in the proposal, EPA relied on this 

statistical analysis technique because 

* * * ‘‘In situations like those in 

Milwaukee, where there are missing or 

incomplete data due to monitor 

shutdown or other factors, EPA believes 

that it is often appropriate to use 

historical data along with statistical 

techniques to impute missing data, use 

those imputed data to estimate the 

three-year design value that would 

likely have occurred if complete data 

had been obtained, and thereby 

determine if the monitor in question 

would likely have met the NAAQS.’’ (77 

FR 24436) 

The commenter stated that we 

incorrectly implied ‘‘. . . that the 

compared monitors recorded similar 

data, when in truth, there is not a direct 

correlation between the data.’’ EPA 

disagrees that there is not enough 

correlation between the shut down 

monitor site and the comparison 

monitor site. In fact, all four monitoring 

sites in the nonattainment area correlate 

very well with the replaced monitor. 

Wisconsin has provided EPA with an 

analysis comparing the correlations 

between the shut down monitor to the 

other four monitors within the 

nonattainment area, using data from 

January 1, 2012, through April 9, 2012, 

when all monitors collected data. The 

correlations from that analysis are 

summarized in Table 3. 

EPA understands that the publicly 

available data we relied upon for our 

imputation is technically listed as 

‘‘invalid’’, due to the shutdown of 

several monitors, resulting in 

incomplete data. However, section 

4.2(b) provides that ‘‘The use of less 

than complete data is subject to the 

approval of EPA which may consider 

factors such as monitoring site closures/ 

moves, monitoring diligence, and 

nearby concentrations in determining 

whether to use such data for 

comparisons to the NAAQS. 

Therefore, based upon our statistical 

analysis, for the purposes of this 

redesignation, we believe all the 

monitors are meeting the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, Wisconsin 

restarted one of the shutdown monitors, 

and data from 2012 and the available 

data from 2013 for this site show 

concentrations well below the standard, 

and these data show that concentrations 

at the site continue to be well correlated 

with concentrations at the other 

monitoring site from which EPA 

estimated imputed values for 2010. 

Other data available to date from 2013 

and included in Table 1 are also 

consistent with continued attainment. 

TABLE 3—CORRELATIONS ANALYSIS

Site name Site number 

Correlation 

factor 

Milw-DNR 

SERHQ ......... 550790026 0.997 

Waukesha ......... 551330027 0.919 

Milw-16th CHC 550790010 0.992 

Milw-FAA/College Ave. ....... 550790058 0.997 

Moreover, in order to account for the 

uncertainty inherent within the 

analysis, EPA used another statistical 

technique to account for the variability 

in the data from the original site as well 

as the data from the correlated 

comparison monitors. The statistical 

analysis, known as ‘‘bootstrapping’’ was 

developed by the Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards to aid in 

predicting annual PM2.5 design values in 

areas which did not meet specific data 

completeness requirements. A more 

detailed description of the 

bootstrapping analysis can be found 

within the technical support document 

to our April 24, 2012, notice proposing 

approval of a determination of 

attainment (77 FR 24436). In summary, 

a series of mathematical equations using 

observations yields linear regression to 

relate the concentrations from the 

shutdown sites to a base site containing 

2010 data. 

The results of that analysis provided 

EPA with further evidence to support a 

final determination of attainment of the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

Milwaukee area. 

EPA’s use of these data analysis 

techniques to address incomplete data 

in making attainment determinations for 

the PM2.5 NAAQS is well established. 

See 75 FR 45076 (August 2, 2010) (New 

York-NJ–CT 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS) 

and 76 FR 27290 (May 11, 2011) 

Huntington-Ashland (OH, WV, KY) 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Therefore, pursuant to 50 CFR 

Appendix N, section 4.2(b), EPA is 

expressly approving the use of less than 

complete data after considering relevant 

factors. These include site closures and 

moves, monitoring diligence, nearby 

concentrations and monitor 

correlations, as well as additional 

complete data acquired in 2012 and 

2013 that show continued attainment in 

the area. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9138 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 have determined that Wisconsin’s 

SIP meets all applicable SIP 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation for the Milwaukee-Racine 

Area under section 110 of the CAA 

(general SIP requirements) and all SIP 

requirements currently applicable for 

purposes of redesignation under part D 

of title I of the CAA, in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, with 

the exception of the emissions inventory 

under section 172(c)(3), we have 

approved all applicable requirements of 

the Wisconsin SIP for purposes of 

redesignation, in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As discussed 

below, in this action EPA is proposing 

to approve Wisconsin’s 2006 and 2010 

emissions inventories as meeting the 

section 172(c)(3) comprehensive 

emissions inventory requirement. 

In making these determinations, we 

have ascertained which SIP 

requirements are applicable to the area 

for purposes of redesignation, and have 

determined that there are SIP measures 

meeting those requirements and that 

they are fully approved under section 

110(k) of the CAA. 

a. The Milwaukee-Racine Area Has Met 

All Applicable Requirements for 

Purposes of Redesignation Under 

Section 110 and Part D of the CAA 

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, among other things, must: 

(1) Include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means or techniques necessary to meet 

the requirements of the CAA; (2) 

provide for establishment and operation 

of appropriate devices, methods, 

systems, and procedures necessary to 

monitor ambient air quality; (3) provide 

for implementation of a source permit 

program to regulate the modification 

and construction of any stationary 

source within the areas covered by the 

plan; (4) include provisions for the 

implementation of part C, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part 

D, New Source Review (NSR) permit 

programs; (5) include criteria for 

stationary source emission control 

measures, monitoring, and reporting; (6) 

include provisions for air quality 

modeling; and (7) provide 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. EPA holds 

that the requirements linked with a 

particular nonattainment area’s 

designation 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 conclude that 

these requirements should not be 

construed to be applicable requirements 

for purposes of redesignation. 

Further, 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. Only the 

section 110 and part D requirements 

that are linked with a particular area’s 

designation are the relevant measures 

that 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) and (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 the Wisconsin SIP 

and have concluded that it meets the 

general SIP requirements under section 

110 of the CAA to the extent these 

requirements are applicable for 

purposes of redesignation. EPA has 

previously approved provisions of 

Wisconsin’s SIP addressing section 110 

requirements, including provisions 

addressing particulate matter, at 40 CFR 

52.1870. On January 24, 2011, and June 

29, 2012, Wisconsin submitted 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ elements required 

by section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. EPA 

approved elements of Wisconsin’s 

submittals on October 29, 2012, at 77 FR 

65478. The requirements of section 

110(a)(2), however, are statewide 

requirements that are not linked to the 

PM2.5 nonattainment status of the 

Milwaukee-Racine Area. Therefore, EPA 

believes that these SIP requirements are 

not applicable for purposes of review of 

the state’s PM2.5 redesignation requests. 

ii. Part D Requirements 

EPA is proposing to determine that, 

upon approval of the comprehensive 

emissions inventories discussed in 

section IV.B. of this rulemaking, the 

Wisconsin SIP will meet the applicable 

SIP requirements for the MilwaukeeRacine Area applicable for purposes of 

redesignation under part D of the CAA. 

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 4 of 

part D, found in sections 185–190 of the 

CAA, provides more specific 

requirements for particulate matter 

nonattainment areas. 

(1) Subpart 1 

(a) Section 172 Requirements 

For purposes of evaluating these 

redesignation requests, the applicable 

section 172 SIP requirements for the 

Milwaukee-Racine Area are contained 

in sections 172(c)(1)–(9) of the CAA. 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 

Reasonably Available Control Measures 

(RACM) as expeditiously as practicable 

and to provide for attainment of the 

primary NAAQS (health-based 

NAAQS). EPA interprets this 

requirement to impose a duty on all 

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 Area, 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 is finalized. See 40 CFR 

51.1004(c). 

The Reasonable Further Progress 

(RFP) requirement under section 

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


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9139 

1Wisconsin’s nonattainment violations occurred 

for 24-hour average time periods. Therefore, it was 

necessary to construct emissions inventories for a 

time period that is most associated with elevated 

levels of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations. A 

Wisconsin-specific study identified the 

meteorological winter months of December, 

January, January and February as having both the 

highest monthly average PM2.5 concentrations and 

the highest monthly percentage of site-days with 

24-hour concentrations greater than 30 mg/m3. 

Accordingly, Wisconsin designed and constructed 

emission inventories for this PM2.5 redesignation 

request to focus on pollution-related activity levels 

during the winter months (more specifically—for an 

average January weekday). Thus, emissions 

inventory values are referenced as tons per winter 

day (tpwd). 

must be made toward attainment. This 

requirement is not relevant for purposes 

of redesignation because the 

Milwaukee-Racine Area is monitoring 

attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. Id. The requirement to submit 

the section 172(c)(9) contingency 

measures is similarly 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. Wisconsin submitted 2006 

emissions inventories for direct PM2.5, 

NOX, SO2 and VOC along with its 

redesignation request and supplemented 

the inventories with 2007 ammonia 

emissions on May 30, 2013. As 

discussed below in section IV.B., EPA is 

proposing to approve the emission 

inventories submitted by Wisconsin as 

meeting the section 172(c)(3) emissions 

inventory requirement for the 

Milwaukee-Racine Area. 

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 

January 18, 1995 (60 FR 3538). 

Nonetheless, since PSD requirements 

will apply after redesignation, the area 

need not have a fully-approved NSR 

program for purposes of redesignation, 

provided that the area demonstrates 

maintenance of the NAAQS without 

part D NSR. A 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’’ (Nichols memorandum). 

Wisconsin has demonstrated that the 

Milwaukee-Racine Area will be able to 

maintain the standard without part D 

NSR in effect; therefore, 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 Area 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 

find that the Wisconsin SIP meets the 

section 110(a)(2) requirements 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

(b) Section 176 Conformity 

Requirements 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

states to establish criteria and 

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). 

Section 176(c) of the CAA was 

amended by provisions contained in the 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA–LU), which was 

signed into law on August 10, 2005, 

(Public Law 109–59). Among the 

changes Congress made to this section 

of the CAA were streamlined 

requirements for state transportation 

conformity SIPs. State transportation 

conformity regulations must be 

consistent with Federal conformity 

regulations and address three specific 

requirements related to consultation, 

enforcement and enforceability. 

EPA interprets the conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request under section 107(d) because 

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. Therefore, because areas are 

subject to the conformity requirements 

regardless of whether they are 

redesignated to attainment, 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 is in the 

process of updating its approved 

transportation conformity SIP, and EPA 

will review its provisions when they are 

submitted. 

Wisconsin has submitted onroad 

MVEBs for the Milwaukee-Racine Area 

of 2.33 tons per winter day 1 (tpwd) and 

2.16 tpwd direct PM2.5 and 32.62 tpwd 

and 28.69 tpwd NOX for the years 2020 

and 2025, respectively. The area must 

use the MVEBs from the maintenance 

plan in any conformity determination 

that is made on or after the effective 

date of the adequacy finding and 

maintenance plan approval. 

(2) Effect of the January 4, 2013, D.C. 

Circuit Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 

(a) Background 

As discussed above, on January 4, 

2013, in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit 

remanded to EPA the ‘‘Final Clean Air 

Fine Particle Implementation Rule’’ (72 

FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008) (collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule’’). 706 F.3d 428 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). The Court found that 

EPA erred in implementing the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the 

general implementation provisions of 

subpart 1 of part D of title I of the CAA, 

rather than the particulate-matterspecific provisions of subpart 4 of part 

D of title I. 

Although the Court’s ruling did not 

directly address the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard, EPA is taking into account the 

Court’s position on subpart 4 and the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard in 

evaluating redesignations for the 2006 

standard. 

(b) Proposal on This Issue 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision 

does not prevent EPA from 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9140 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2Applicable requirements of the CAA that come 

due subsequent to the area’s submittal of a complete 

redesignation request remain applicable until a 

redesignation is approved, but are not required as 

a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of 

the CAA. 

redesignating the Milwaukee-Racine 

Area to attainment. Even in light of the 

Court’s decision, redesignation for this 

area is appropriate under the CAA and 

EPA’s longstanding interpretations of 

the CAA’s provisions regarding 

redesignation. EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation of the redesignation 

provisions of the CAA hold that 

requirements that are imposed, or that 

become due, after a complete 

redesignation request is submitted for 

an area that is attaining the standard, are 

not applicable for purposes of 

evaluating a redesignation request. Even 

if EPA applies the subpart 4 

requirements to the Milwaukee-Racine 

redesignation request and disregards the 

provisions of its 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule recently remanded 

by the Court, the state’s request for 

redesignation of this area still qualifies 

for approval. EPA’s discussion takes 

into account the effect of the Court’s 

ruling on the area’s maintenance plan, 

which EPA views as approvable when 

subpart 4 requirements are considered. 

(i) Applicable Requirements for 

Purposes of Evaluating the 

Redesignation Request 

With respect to the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule and the voluntary 

remand of the 2006 PM2.5

implementation rule, the Court’s 

January 4, 2013, ruling rejected EPA’s 

reasons for implementing the PM2.5

NAAQS solely in accordance with the 

provisions of subpart 1, and remanded 

that matter to EPA, so that it could 

address implementation of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

under subpart 4 of part D of the CAA, 

in addition to subpart 1. For the 

purposes of evaluating Wisconsin’s 

redesignation request for the area, to the 

extent that implementation under 

subpart 4 would impose additional 

requirements for areas designated 

nonattainment, EPA believes that those 

requirements are not ‘‘applicable’’ for 

the purposes of CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E), and, thus, EPA is not 

required to consider subpart 4 

requirements with respect to the 

Milwaukee-Racine redesignation. Under 

its longstanding interpretation of the 

CAA, EPA has interpreted section 

107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a threshold 

matter, that the part D provisions which 

are ‘‘applicable’’ and which must be 

approved in order for EPA to 

redesignate an area include only those 

which came due prior to a state’s 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request. See ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 

1992, (Calcagni memorandum). See also 

‘‘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 Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator, Air and Radiation, 

September 17, 1993, (Shapiro 

memorandum); Final Redesignation of 

Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 

12465–66, March 7, 1995); Final 

Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 

FR 25418, 25424–27, May 12, 2003); 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 

(7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA’s 

redesignation rulemaking applying this 

interpretation and expressly rejecting 

Sierra Club’s view that the meaning of 

‘‘applicable’’ under the statute is 

‘‘whatever should have been in the plan 

at the time of attainment rather than 

whatever actually was in the plan and 

already implemented or due at the time 

of attainment’’).2 In this case, at the time 

that Wisconsin submitted its 

redesignation request, requirements 

under subpart 4 were not due, and 

indeed, were not yet known to apply, as 

the state’s submittal was prior to the 

D.C. Circuit’s decision. 

EPA’s view that, for purposes of 

evaluating the Milwaukee-Racine 

redesignation, the subpart 4 

requirements were not due at the time 

the state submitted the redesignation 

request is in keeping with the EPA’s 

interpretation of subpart 2 requirements 

for subpart 1 ozone areas redesignated 

subsequent to the D.C. Circuit’s decision 

in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. 

v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 

In South Coast, the Court found that 

EPA was not permitted to implement 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard solely 

under subpart 1, and held that EPA was 

required under the statute to implement 

the standard under the ozone-specific 

requirements of subpart 2 as well. 

Subsequent to the South Coast decision, 

in evaluating and acting upon 

redesignation requests for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard that were 

submitted to EPA for areas under 

subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA that 

‘‘applicable requirements’’, for purposes 

of evaluating a redesignation, are those 

that had been due at the time the 

redesignation request was submitted. 

See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of 

Manitowoc County and Door County 

Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 

22050, April 27, 2010). In those actions, 

EPA therefore did not consider subpart 

2 requirements to be ‘‘applicable’’ for 

the purposes of evaluating whether the 

area should be redesignated under 

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

EPA’s interpretation derives from the 

provisions of CAA Section 107(d)(3). 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an 

area to be redesignated, a state must 

meet ‘‘all requirements ‘applicable’ to 

the area under section 110 and part D’’. 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides that the 

EPA must have fully approved the 

‘‘applicable’’ SIP for the area seeking 

redesignation. These two sections read 

together support EPA’s interpretation of 

‘‘applicable’’ as only those requirements 

that came due prior to submission of a 

complete redesignation request. First, 

holding states to an ongoing obligation 

to adopt new CAA requirements that 

arose after the state submitted its 

redesignation request, in order to be 

redesignated, would make it 

problematic or impossible for EPA to act 

on redesignation requests in accordance 

with the 18 month deadline Congress 

set for EPA action in section 

107(d)(3)(D). If ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ were interpreted to be a 

continuing flow of requirements with no 

reasonable limitation, states, after 

submitting a redesignation request, 

would be forced continuously to make 

additional SIP submissions that in turn 

would require EPA to undertake further 

notice-and-comment rulemaking actions 

to act on those submissions. This would 

create a regime of unceasing rulemaking 

that would delay action on the 

redesignation request beyond the 18 

month timeframe provided by the CAA 

for this purpose. 

Second, a fundamental premise for 

redesignating a nonattainment area to 

attainment is that the area has attained 

the relevant NAAQS due to emission 

reductions from existing controls. Thus, 

an area for which a redesignation 

request has been submitted would have 

already attained the NAAQS as a result 

of satisfying statutory requirements that 

came due prior to the submission of the 

request. Absent a showing that 

unadopted and unimplemented 

requirements are necessary for future 

maintenance, it is reasonable to view 

the requirements applicable for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request as including only those SIP 

requirements that have already come 

due. These are the requirements that led 

to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, 

for redesignation approval, that a state 

also satisfy additional SIP requirements 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9141 

3Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and 

distinguished in a recent D.C. Circuit decision that 

addressed retroactivity in a quite different context, 

where, unlike the situation here, EPA sought to give 

its regulations retroactive effect. National 

Petrochemical and Refiners Ass’n v. EPA. 630 F.3d 

145, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2010), rehearing denied 643 F.3d 

958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S. Ct. 571 

(2011). 

4PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10 

micrometers in diameter or smaller. 

5The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 

189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation is discussed below. 

6 I.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, 

milestone requirements, contingency measures. 

coming due after the state submits its 

complete redesignation request, and 

while EPA is reviewing it, would 

compel the state to do more than is 

necessary to attain the NAAQS, without 

a showing that the additional 

requirements are necessary for 

maintenance. 

In the context of this redesignation, 

the timing and nature of the Court’s 

January 4, 2013, decision in NRDC v. 

EPA compound the consequences of 

imposing requirements that come due 

after the redesignation request is 

submitted. The state submitted its 

redesignation request on June 8, 2012, 

but the Court did not issue its decision 

remanding EPA’s 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule and the voluntary 

remand of the 2006 PM2.5

implementation rule concerning the 

applicability of the provisions of 

subpart 4 until January 2013. 

To require the state’s fully-completed 

and pending redesignation request to 

comply now with requirements of 

subpart 4 that the Court announced only 

in its January, 2013, decision on the 

1997 PM2.5 Implementation rule, would 

be to give retroactive effect to such 

requirements when the state had no 

notice that it was required to meet them. 

The D.C. Circuit recognized the inequity 

of this type of retroactive impact in 

Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 

(D.C. Cir. 2002),3 where it upheld the 

District Court’s ruling refusing to make 

retroactive EPA’s determination that the 

St. Louis area did not meet its 

attainment deadline. In that case, 

petitioners urged the Court to make 

EPA’s nonattainment determination 

effective as of the date that the statute 

required, rather than the later date on 

which EPA actually made the 

determination. The Court rejected this 

view, stating that applying it ‘‘would 

likely impose large costs on states, 

which would face fines and suits for not 

implementing air pollution prevention 

plans . . . even though they were not on 

notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68. Similarly, 

it would be unreasonable to penalize 

Wisconsin by rejecting its redesignation 

request for an area that is already 

attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard and that met all applicable 

requirements known to be in effect at 

the time of the request. For EPA now to 

reject the redesignation request solely 

because the state did not expressly 

address subpart 4 requirements of 

which it had no notice, would inflict the 

same unfairness condemned by the 

Court in Sierra Club v. Whitman. 

(ii) Subpart 4 Requirements and 

Wisconsin’s Redesignation Request 

Even if EPA were to take the view that 

the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision 

requires that, in the context of a pending 

redesignation for the 2006 PM2.5

standard, subpart 4 requirements were 

due and in effect at the time the state 

submitted its redesignation request, EPA 

finds that the Milwaukee-Racine Area 

still qualifies for redesignation to 

attainment. As explained below, EPA 

believes that the redesignation request 

for the Milwaukee-Racine Area, though 

not expressed in terms of subpart 4 

requirements, substantively meets the 

requirements of that subpart for 

purposes of redesignating the area to 

attainment. 

With respect to evaluating the 

relevant substantive requirements of 

subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating 

the Milwaukee-Racine Area, EPA notes 

that subpart 4 incorporates components 

of subpart 1 of part D, which contains 

general air quality planning 

requirements for areas designated as 

nonattainment. See Section 172(c). 

Subpart 4 itself contains specific 

planning and scheduling requirements 

for PM10 4 nonattainment areas, and, 

under the Court’s January 4, 2013, 

decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same 

statutory requirements also apply for 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has 

longstanding general guidance that 

interprets the 1990 amendments to the 

CAA, making recommendations to states 

for meeting the statutory requirements 

for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See, 

‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of title 

I of the Clear Air Act Amendments of 

1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (the 

‘‘General Preamble’’). In the General 

Preamble, EPA discussed the 

relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 

SIP requirements, and pointed out that 

subpart 1 requirements were to an 

extent ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally 

related to, the more specific PM–10 

requirements.’’ 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 

1992). The subpart 1 requirements 

include, among other things, provisions 

for attainment demonstrations, RACM, 

RFP, emissions inventories, and 

contingency measures. 

For the purposes of this redesignation, 

in order to identify any additional 

requirements that would apply under 

subpart 4, we are considering the 

Milwaukee-Racine Area to be a 

‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

Under section 188 of the CAA, all areas 

designated nonattainment under subpart 

4 would initially be classified by 

operation of law as ‘‘moderate’’ 

nonattainment areas, and would remain 

moderate nonattainment areas unless 

and until EPA reclassifies the areas as 

‘‘serious’’ nonattainment areas. 

Accordingly, EPA believes that it is 

appropriate to limit the evaluation of 

the potential impact of subpart 4 

requirements to those that would be 

applicable to moderate nonattainment 

areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 

4 apply to moderate nonattainment 

areas and include the following: (1) An 

approved permit program for 

construction of new and modified major 

stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); 

(2) an attainment demonstration (section 

189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM 

(section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4) 

quantitative milestones demonstrating 

RFP toward attainment by the 

applicable attainment date (section 

189(c)). 

The permit requirements of subpart 4, 

as contained in section 189(a)(1)(A), 

refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit 

provisions requirements of sections 172 

and 173 to PM10, without adding to 

them. Consequently, EPA believes that 

section 189(a)(1)(A) does not itself 

impose for redesignation purposes any 

additional requirements for moderate 

areas beyond those contained in subpart 

1.5 In any event, in the context of 

redesignation, EPA has long relied on 

the interpretation that a fully approved 

nonattainment new source review 

program is not considered an applicable 

requirement for redesignation, provided 

the area can maintain the standard with 

a PSD program after redesignation. A 

detailed rationale for this view is 

described in the Nichols memorandum. 

See also 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). 

With respect to the specific 

attainment planning requirements under 

subpart 4,6 when EPA evaluates a 

redesignation request under either 

subpart 1 and/or 4, any area that is 

attaining the PM2.5 standard is viewed 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9142 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

7As EPA has explained above, we do not believe 

that the Court’s January 4, 2013 decision should be 

interpreted so as to impose these requirements on 

the states retroactively. Sierra Club v. Whitman, 

supra. 

as having satisfied the attainment 

planning requirements for these 

subparts. For redesignations, EPA has 

consistently interpreted attainmentlinked requirements as not applicable 

for areas attaining the standard. In the 

General Preamble, EPA stated that: 

The requirements for RFP will not apply in 

evaluating a request for redesignation to 

attainment since, at a minimum, the air 

quality data for the area must show that the 

area has already attained. Showing that the 

state will make RFP towards attainment will, 

therefore, have no meaning at that point. 

‘‘General Preamble for the Interpretation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990’’; (57 FR 13498, 13564, April 16, 1992). 

The General Preamble also explained 

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. 

Id. 

EPA similarly stated in its 1992 

Calcagni memorandum that, ‘‘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.’’ 

It is evident that even if we were to 

consider the Court’s January 4, 2013, 

decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that 

attainment-related requirements specific 

to subpart 4 should be imposed 

retroactively 7 and thus are now past 

due, those requirements do not apply to 

an area that is attaining the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard, for the purpose of 

evaluating a pending request to 

redesignate the area to attainment. EPA 

has consistently enunciated this 

interpretation of applicable 

requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E) 

since the General Preamble was 

published more than twenty years ago. 

Courts have recognized the scope of 

EPA’s authority to interpret ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ in the redesignation 

context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). 

Moreover, even outside the context of 

redesignations, EPA has viewed the 

obligation to submit attainment-related 

SIP planning requirements of subpart 4 

as inapplicable for areas that EPA 

determines are attaining the standard. 

EPA’s prior ‘‘Clean Data Policy’’ 

rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also 

governed by the requirements of subpart 

4, explain EPA’s reasoning. They 

describe the effects of a determination of 

attainment on the attainment-related SIP 

planning requirements of subpart 4. See 

‘‘Determination of Attainment for Coso 

Junction Nonattainment Area,’’ (75 FR 

27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso 

Junction proposed PM10 redesignation, 

(75 FR 36023, 36027, June 24, 2010); 

Proposed and Final Determinations of 

Attainment for San Joaquin 

Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 

40954–55, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR 

63641, 63643–47 October 30, 2006). In 

short, EPA in this context has also long 

concluded that to require states to meet 

superfluous SIP planning requirements 

is not necessary and not required by the 

CAA, so long as those areas continue to 

attain the relevant NAAQS. 

Elsewhere in this notice, EPA 

proposes to determine that the area has 

attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard, because that the area meets 

the attainment-related plan 

requirements of subparts 1 and 4. 

Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude 

that the requirements to submit an 

attainment demonstration under 

189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination 

under section 172(c)(1) and section 

189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration under 

189(c)(1), and contingency measure 

requirements under section 172(c)(9) are 

satisfied for purposes of evaluating the 

redesignation request. 

(iii) Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

The D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. EPA 

remanded to EPA the two rules at issue 

in the case with instructions to EPA to 

re-promulgate them consistent with the 

requirements of subpart 4. EPA, in this 

section addresses the Court’s opinion 

with respect to PM2.5 precursors. While 

past implementation of subpart 4 for 

PM10 has allowed for control of PM10

precursors such as NOX from major 

stationary, mobile, and area sources in 

order to attain the standard as 

expeditiously as practicable, CAA 

section 189(e) specifically provides that 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of direct PM10 shall 

also apply to PM10 precursors from 

those sources, except where EPA 

determines that major stationary sources 

of such precursors ‘‘do not contribute 

significantly to PM10 levels which 

exceed the standard in the area.’’ 

EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 implementation 

rule, remanded by the D.C. Circuit, 

contained rebuttable presumptions 

concerning certain PM2.5 precursors 

applicable to attainment plans and 

control measures related to those plans. 

Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002, EPA 

provided, among other things, that a 

state was ‘‘not required to address VOC 

[and ammonia] as . . . PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursor[s] and to evaluate 

sources of VOC [and ammonia] 

emissions in the state for control 

measures.’’ EPA intended these to be 

rebuttable presumptions. EPA 

established these presumptions at the 

time because of uncertainties regarding 

the emission inventories for these 

pollutants and the effectiveness of 

specific control measures in various 

regions of the country in reducing PM2.5

concentrations. EPA also left open the 

possibility for such regulation of VOC 

and ammonia in specific areas where 

that was necessary. 

The Court in its January 4, 2013, 

decision made reference to both section 

189(e) and 40 CFR 51.1002, and stated 

that, ‘‘In light of our disposition, we 

need not address the petitioners’ 

challenge to the presumptions in [40 

CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic 

compounds and ammonia are not PM2.5

precursors, as subpart 4 expressly 

governs precursor presumptions.’’ 

NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10. 

Elsewhere in its opinion, however, 

the Court observed: 

Ammonia is a precursor to fine particulate 

matter, making it a precursor to both PM2.5

and PM10. For a PM10 nonattainment area 

governed by subpart 4, a precursor is 

presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7513a(e) [section 189(e)]. 

Id. at 21, n.7. For a number of reasons, 

EPA believes that its proposed 

redesignation of the Milwaukee-Racine 

Area is consistent with the Court’s 

decision on this aspect of subpart 4. 

First, while the Court, citing section 

189(e), stated that ‘‘for a PM10 area 

governed by subpart 4, a precursor is 

‘presumptively regulated,’ ’’ the Court 

expressly declined to decide the specific 

challenge to EPA’s 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule provisions 

regarding ammonia and VOC as 

precursors. The Court had no occasion 

to reach whether and how it was 

substantively necessary to regulate any 

specific precursor in a particular PM2.5

nonattainment area, and did not address 

what might be necessary for purposes of 

acting upon a redesignation request. 

However, even if EPA takes the view 

that the requirements of subpart 4 were 

deemed applicable at the time the state 

submitted the redesignation request, 

and disregards the implementation 

rule’s rebuttable presumptions regarding 

ammonia and VOC as PM2.5 precursors 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9143 

8Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for 

purposes of demonstrating attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable, a state is required to 

evaluate all economically and technologically 

feasible control measures for direct PM emissions 

and precursor emissions, and adopt those measures 

that are deemed reasonably available. 

9The Milwaukee-Racine Area has reduced VOC 

emissions through the implementation of various 

control programs including VOC Reasonably 

Available Control Technology regulations and 

various onroad and nonroad motor vehicle control 

programs. 

10See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans for California—San Joaquin 

Valley PM–10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area 

Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual 

PM–10 Standards,’’ 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004) 

(approving a PM10 attainment plan that impose 

controls on direct PM10 and NOX emissions and did 

not impose controls on SO2, VOC, or ammonia 

emissions). 

11See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA 

et al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005). 

(and any similar provisions reflected in 

the guidance for the 2006 PM2.5

standard), the regulatory consequence 

would be to consider the need for 

regulation of all precursors from any 

sources in the area to demonstrate 

attainment and to apply the section 

189(e) provisions to major stationary 

sources of precursors. In the case of the 

Milwaukee-Racine Area, EPA believes 

that proposing redesignation of the 

Milwaukee-Racine area for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard is consistent with 

section 189(e) of the CAA. The 

Milwaukee-Racine Area has attained the 

standard without any specific additional 

controls of ammonia emissions from any 

sources in the area. 

Precursors in subpart 4 are 

specifically regulated under the 

provisions of section 189(e), which 

require, with important exceptions, 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of PM10 precursors.8

Under subpart 1 and EPA’s prior 

implementation rule, all major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors 

were subject to regulation, with the 

exception of ammonia and VOC. Thus 

we must address here whether 

additional controls of ammonia and 

VOC from major stationary sources are 

required under section 189(e) of subpart 

4 in order to redesignate the area for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. As 

explained below, we do not believe that 

any additional controls of ammonia and 

VOC are required in the context of this 

redesignation. 

In the General Preamble, EPA 

discusses its approach to implementing 

section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538–13542. 

With regard to precursor regulation 

under section 189(e), the General 

Preamble explicitly stated that control 

of VOC under other CAA requirements 

may suffice to relieve a state from the 

need to adopt precursor controls under 

section 189(e). 57 FR 13542. EPA 

proposes to determine that the SIP has 

met the provisions of section 189(e) 

with respect to ammonia and VOCs as 

precursors. This proposed 

determination is based on our findings 

that: (1) The Milwaukee-Racine Area 

contains no major stationary sources of 

ammonia, and (2) existing major 

stationary sources of VOC are 

adequately controlled under other 

provisions of the CAA regulating the 

ozone NAAQS.9 In the alternative, EPA 

proposes to determine that, under the 

express exception provisions of section 

189(e), and in the context of the 

redesignation of the area, which is 

attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard, at present ammonia and VOC 

precursors from major stationary 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM2.5 levels exceeding the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard in the MilwaukeeRacine Area. See 57 FR 13539–42. 

EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 implementation 

rule provisions in 40 CFR 51.1002 were 

not directed at evaluation of PM2.5

precursors in the context of 

redesignation, but at SIP plans and 

control measures required to bring a 

nonattainment area into attainment of 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. By 

contrast, redesignation to attainment 

primarily requires the area to have 

already attained due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions, and to 

demonstrate that controls in place can 

continue to maintain the standard. 

Thus, even if we regard the Court’s 

January 4, 2013, decision as calling for 

‘‘presumptive regulation’’ of ammonia 

and VOC for PM2.5 under the attainment 

planning provisions of subpart 4, those 

provisions in and of themselves do not 

require additional controls of these 

precursors for an area that already 

qualifies for redesignation. Nor does 

EPA believe that requiring Wisconsin to 

address precursors differently than they 

have already would result in a 

substantively different outcome. 

Although, as EPA has emphasized, its 

consideration here of precursor 

requirements under subpart 4 is in the 

context of a redesignation to attainment, 

EPA’s existing interpretation of subpart 

4 requirements with respect to 

precursors in attainment plans for PM10

contemplates that states may develop 

attainment plans that regulate only 

those precursors that are necessary for 

purposes of attainment in the area in 

question, i.e., states may determine that 

only certain precursors need be 

regulated for attainment and control 

purposes.10 Courts have upheld this 

approach to the requirements of subpart 

4 for PM10.11 EPA believes that 

application of this approach to PM2.5

precursors under subpart 4 is 

reasonable. Because the MilwaukeeRacine Area has already attained the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with its 

current approach to regulation of PM2.5

precursors, EPA believes that it is 

reasonable to conclude in the context of 

this redesignation that there is no need 

to revisit the attainment control strategy 

with respect to the treatment of 

precursors. Even if the Court’s decision 

is construed to impose an obligation, in 

evaluating this redesignation request, to 

consider additional precursors under 

subpart 4, it would not affect EPA’s 

approval here of Wisconsin’s request for 

redesignation of the Milwaukee-Racine 

Area. In the context of a redesignation, 

the area has shown that it has attained 

the standard. Moreover, the state has 

shown and EPA has proposed to 

determine that attainment in this area is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

emissions reductions on all precursors 

necessary to provide for continued 

attainment. It follows logically that no 

further control of additional precursors 

is necessary. Accordingly, EPA does not 

view the January 4, 2013, decision of the 

Court as precluding redesignation of the 

Milwaukee-Racine Area to attainment 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at 

this time. 

In sum, even if Wisconsin was 

required to address precursors for the 

Milwaukee-Racine Area under subpart 4 

rather than under subpart 1, as 

interpreted in EPA’s remanded PM2.5

implementation rule, EPA would still 

conclude that the area had met all 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v). 

(iv) Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of 

Precursors 

A discussion of the impact of the 

Court’s decision on the maintenance 

plan required under sections 175A and 

107(d)(3)(E)(iv) can be found in section 

IV.A.5.d., below. 

b. The Milwaukee-Racine Area Has a 

Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under 

Section 110(k) of the CAA 

Upon final approval of Wisconsin’s 

comprehensive emissions inventory, 

EPA will have fully approved the 

Wisconsin SIP for the MilwaukeeRacine Area 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 3 of the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9144 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

12See Regulatory Impact Analysis—Control of Air 

Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Tier 2 Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur 

Control Requirements, December 1999, EPA420–R– 

99–023, p. IV–42. 

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 various required SIP 

elements under particulate matter 

standards. In this action, EPA is 

proposing to approve Wisconsin’s 2006 

comprehensive emissions inventory for 

VOC, SO2, NOX and PM2.5 as well as the 

2007 supplemental inventory for 

ammonia for the Milwaukee-Racine 

Area as meeting the requirement of 

section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. No 

Milwaukee-Racine Area SIP provisions 

are currently disapproved, conditionally 

approved, or partially approved. 

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 Area is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the 

SIP, Federal measures, and other stateadopted measures. 

In making this showing, Wisconsin 

has calculated the change in emissions 

between 2006, one of the years in the 

period during which the MilwaukeeRacine Area monitored nonattainment, 

and 2010, one of the years in the period 

during which the Milwaukee-Racine 

Area monitored attainment. 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 Area 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 area: 

i. Consent Decrees 

A May 7, 2010, consent decree with 

Saint-Gobain Containers required the 

Burlington Plant, located in Burlington, 

Wisconsin, to install oxy-fuel 

technology and to be subjected to a NOX

emission limit of 1.3 pounds per ton of 

glass produced. The facility is also 

subjected to an SO2 emissions limit of 

0.8 pounds per ton of glass produced. 

An August 2, 2010, consent decree 

requires Silgan Containers 

Manufacturing Plants in Menomonee 

Falls and Oconomowoc to reduce VOC 

emissions by approximately 10 tons per 

year (tpy) in Oconomowoc and to 

eliminate another 86.3 tpy of VOC 

emissions from their Menomonee Falls 

facility. 

ii. Federal Emission Control Measures 

Reductions in fine particle precursor 

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, NOX, and SO2

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 time post-2009 

vehicles have entirely replaced pre-2009 

vehicles, the following vehicle NOX

emission reductions will have occurred 

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). Some of the emissions 

reductions resulting from new vehicle 

standards occurred during the 2008– 

2010 attainment period; however, 

additional reductions will continue to 

occur throughout the maintenance 

period as new vehicles replace older 

vehicles. The Tier 2 standards also 

reduced the sulfur content of gasoline to 

30 parts per million (ppm) beginning in 

January 2006. Gasoline sold in the 

region including Wisconsin prior to 

implementation of the Tier 2 sulfur 

content limits had an average sulfur 

content of 276 ppm.12

Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule. This 

rule, which EPA issued in July 2000, 

limited the sulfur content of diesel fuel 

beginning in 2004. A second phase took 

effect in 2007 which reduced fine 

particle emissions from heavy-duty 

highway engines and further reduced 

the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 

15 ppm. The total program is estimated 

to achieve a 90 percent reduction in 

direct PM2.5 emissions and a 95 percent 

reduction in NOX emissions for these 

new engines using low sulfur diesel, 

compared to existing engines using 

higher sulfur content diesel. The 

reductions in fuel sulfur content 

occurred by the 2008–2010 attainment 

period. Some of the emissions 

reductions resulting from new vehicle 

standards occurred during the 2008– 

2010 attainment period, however 

additional reductions will continue to 

occur throughout the maintenance 

period as the fleet of older heavy duty 

diesel engines turns over. The reduction 

in fuel sulfur content also yielded an 

immediate reduction in sulfate particle 

emissions from all diesel vehicles. 

Nonroad Diesel Rule. In May 2004, 

EPA promulgated a new rule for large 

nonroad diesel engines, such as those 

used in construction, agriculture, and 

mining equipment, which established 

engine emission standards to be phased 

in between 2008 and 2014. The rule also 

required reductions to the sulfur content 

in nonroad diesel fuel by over 99 

percent. Prior to 2006, nonroad diesel 

fuel averaged approximately 3,400 ppm 

sulfur. This rule limited nonroad diesel 

sulfur content to 500 ppm by 2006, with 

a further reduction to 15 ppm, by 2010. 

The combined engine and fuel rules will 

reduce NOX and PM emissions from 

large nonroad diesel engines by over 90 

percent, compared to current nonroad 

engines using higher sulfur content 

diesel. The reduction in fuel sulfur 

content yielded an immediate reduction 

in sulfate particle emissions from all 

diesel vehicles. In addition, some 

emissions reductions from the new 

engine emission standards were realized 

over the 2008–2010 time period, 

although most of the reductions will 

occur over the maintenance period as 

the fleet of older nonroad diesel engines 

turns over. 

Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engine 

and Recreational Engine Standards. In 

November 2002, EPA promulgated 

emission standards for groups of 

previously unregulated nonroad 

engines. These engines include large 

spark-ignition engines such as those 

used in forklifts and airport groundservice equipment; recreational vehicles 

using spark-ignition engines such as offhighway motorcycles, all-terrain 

vehicles, and snowmobiles; and 

recreational marine diesel engines. 

Emission standards from large sparkignition engines were implemented in 

two tiers, with Tier 1 starting in 2004 

and Tier 2 in 2007. Recreational vehicle 

emission standards are being phased in 

from 2006 through 2012. Marine Diesel 

engine standards were phased in from 

2006 through 2009. With full 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9145 

implementation of all of the nonroad 

spark-ignition engine and recreational 

engine standards, an overall 72 percent 

reduction in VOC, 80 percent reduction 

in NOX and 56 percent reduction in 

carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are 

expected by 2020. Some of these 

emission reductions occurred by the 

2008–2010 attainment period and 

additional emission reductions will 

occur during the maintenance period as 

the fleet turns over. 

iii. Control Measures Implemented in 

Wisconsin and in Upwind Areas 

CAIR and CSAPR. EPA promulgated 

CSAPR (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011), 

to replace CAIR, which has been in 

place since 2005. See 76 FR 59517. 

CAIR requires significant reductions in 

emissions of SO2 and NOX from electric 

generating units to limit the interstate 

transport of these pollutants and the 

ozone and fine particulate matter they 

form in the atmosphere. See 76 FR 

70093. The D.C. Circuit initially vacated 

CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 

896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately 

remanded the rule to EPA without 

vacatur to preserve the environmental 

benefits provided by CAIR, North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). 

On December 30, 2011, the D.C. 

Circuit issued an order addressing the 

status of CSAPR and CAIR in response 

to motions filed by numerous parties 

seeking a stay of CSAPR pending 

judicial review. In that order, the Court 

stayed CSAPR pending resolution of the 

petitions for review of that rule in EME 

Homer City (No. 11–1302 and 

consolidated cases). The Court also 

indicated that EPA was expected to 

continue to administer CAIR in the 

interim until judicial review of CSAPR 

was completed. 

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit 

issued a decision to vacate CSAPR. In 

that decision, it also ordered EPA to 

continue administering CAIR ‘‘pending 

the promulgation of a valid 

replacement.’’ EME Homer City, 696 

F.3d at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all 

petitions for rehearing on January 24, 

2013. EPA and other parties filed 

petitions for certiorari to the U.S. 

Supreme Court. On June 24, 2013, the 

Supreme Court granted certiorari and 

agreed to review the D.C. Circuit’s 

decision in EME Homer City. The 

Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari, by 

itself, does not alter the status of CAIR 

or CSAPR. At this time, CAIR remains 

in place. 

In light of these unique circumstances 

and for the reasons explained below, to 

the extent that attainment is due to 

emission reductions associated with 

CAIR, EPA is here proposing to 

determine that those reductions are 

sufficiently permanent and enforceable 

for purposes of CAA sections 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and 175A. EPA 

therefore proposes to approve the 

redesignation requests and the related 

SIP revisions for the Milwaukee-Racine 

Area, including Wisconsin’s plan for 

maintaining attainment of the PM2.5

standard. 

As directed by the D.C. Circuit, CAIR 

remains in place and enforceable until 

substituted by a valid replacement rule. 

Wisconsin submitted a CAIR SIP which 

was approved by EPA on October 16, 

2007 (72 FR 58542). In its redesignation 

request, Wisconsin notes that all 

potential emission reductions resulting 

from CAIR and CSAPR have been left 

out of the maintenance emission 

inventory projections. 

Although Wisconsin is not relying on 

CAIR in its maintenance plan, the 

directive from the D.C. Circuit in EME 

Homer City ensures that the reductions 

associated with CAIR will be permanent 

and enforceable for the necessary time 

period. EPA has been ordered by the 

Court to develop a new rule to address 

interstate transport to replace CSAPR, 

and the opinion makes clear that after 

promulgating that new rule EPA must 

provide states an opportunity to draft 

and submit SIPs to implement that rule. 

Thus, CAIR will remain in place until 

EPA has promulgated a final rule 

through a notice-and-comment 

rulemaking process, states have had an 

opportunity to draft and submit SIPs, 

EPA has reviewed the SIPs to determine 

if they can be approved, and EPA has 

taken action on the SIPs, including 

promulgating a FIP if appropriate. The 

Court’s clear instruction to EPA that it 

must continue to administer CAIR until 

a valid replacement exists provides an 

additional backstop: By definition, any 

rule that replaces CAIR and meets the 

Court’s direction would require upwind 

states to have SIPs that eliminate 

significant contributions to downwind 

nonattainment and prevent interference 

with maintenance in downwind areas. 

Further, in vacating CSAPR and 

requiring EPA to continue administering 

CAIR, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that 

the consequences of vacating CAIR 

‘‘might be more severe now in light of 

the reliance interests accumulated over 

the intervening four years.’’ EME Homer 

City, 696 F.3d at 38. The accumulated 

reliance interests include the interests of 

states who reasonably assumed they 

could rely on reductions associated with 

CAIR, which brought certain 

nonattainment areas into attainment 

with the NAAQS. If EPA were 

prevented from relying on reductions 

associated with CAIR in redesignation 

actions, states would be forced to 

impose additional, redundant 

reductions on top of those achieved by 

CAIR. EPA believes this is precisely the 

type of irrational result the Court sought 

to avoid by ordering EPA to continue 

administering CAIR. For these reasons 

also, EPA believes it is appropriate to 

allow states to rely on CAIR, and the 

existing emissions reductions achieved 

by CAIR, as sufficiently permanent and 

enforceable for purposes such as 

redesignation. Following promulgation 

of the replacement rule, EPA will 

review SIPs as appropriate to identify 

whether there are any issues that need 

to be addressed. 

b. Emission Reductions 

Wisconsin developed annual 

emissions inventories for VOC, NOX, 

direct PM2.5, and SO2 for 2006, one of 

the years the Milwaukee-Racine Area 

monitored nonattainment 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard, and 2010, one of the 

years the area monitored attainment of 

the standard. In some circumstances, 

seasonal inventories may be useful for 

the 24-hour standard. For example, in 

some nonattainment areas, all of the 

highest PM2.5 concentrations occur in 

one season. In the case of the 

Milwaukee-Racine Area, Wisconsin 

analyzed the PM2.5 monitoring data and 

found that violations occurred for 24- 

hour average time periods during the 

Winter. 

Therefore, it was necessary to 

construct emission inventories for a 

time period that is most associated with 

elevated levels of 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations. Within Wisconsin’s 

redesignation request package, the state 

references a 2011 PM2.5 study that 

evaluated the collective month-of-year 

profiles of average 24-hour FRM PM2.5

levels during 1999–2010. This 

assessment identified the meteorological 

winter months of December, January, 

and February as having both the highest 

monthly average PM2.5 concentrations 

and the highest monthly percentage of 

site-days with 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations greater than 30 mg/m3. 

Accordingly, the state designed and 

constructed emission inventories for 

their PM2.5 redesignation request to 

focus on pollution-related activity levels 

during the winter months (more 

specifically—for an average January 

weekday). 

The emission inventories submitted 

by Wisconsin were developed with the 

assistance of the Lake Michigan Air 

Directors Consortium (LADCO). The 

main purpose of LADCO is to provide 

technical assessments for and assistance 

to its member states on problems of air 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9146 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

quality. LADCO’s primary geographic 

focus is the area encompassed by its 

member states (Illinois, Indiana, 

Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota and 

Wisconsin) and any areas which affect 

air quality in its member states. 

The 2006 nonattainment inventory 

was developed as described below. 

Point source emissions for 2006 were 

estimated using linear interpolations 

from 2005 to 2008 emissions 

inventories. The 2005 and 2008 

emissions inventories were created 

using annually reported point source 

emissions, EPA’s Clean Air Markets 

Database and approved U.S. EPA 

techniques for emissions calculation 

(e.g., emission factors). Whenever 

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 into the state’s point source 

database. 

Area source sector emissions were 

created by backcasting the Wisconsin 

2008 base year emissions inventory 

submitted to EPA in 2010 for the 

National Emissions Inventory. The 

backcasting factors were primarily based 

on growth factors from the Economic 

Growth and Analysis System model. 

The 2006 nonroad mobile emission 

estimates were created by using EPA’s 

National Mobile Inventory (NMIM) 

model (2009/05/04 Version). The 2006 

aircraft, marine and rail emissions were 

estimated using linear interpolation 

from the 2005 and 2008 emissions 

inventories. Pechan provided marine 

and rail emission estimates via LADCO 

for Wisconsin. Pechan is an 

independent contractor, which, through 

contracts with LADCO, has developed 

state-specific emission inventory data, 

including growth factors, for the entire 

LADCO region. Aircraft emissions were 

calculated using the Federal Aviation 

Administration’s Emissions and 

Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS). 

The 2006 onroad mobile emission 

estimates were created by using the 

EPA’s MOVES2010a model. 

The 2010 attainment year inventories 

were developed using the same 

techniques as those used to develop the 

nonattainment year inventories. 

NOX, direct PM2.5, SO2, and VOC 

emissions data are shown in Table 4 

below. 

TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF 2006 AND 2010 NOX, DIRECT PM2.5, SO2, AND VOC EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR

IN TONS PER WINTER DAY (TPWD) 

Sector 

2006 2010 Net change 2006–2010 

PM2.5 NOX SO2 VOC PM2.5 NOX SO2 VOC PM2.5 NOX SO2 VOC 

Point ......... 1.05 29.44 61.43 11.36 0.02 29.98 61.82 8.12 ¥1.03 0.54 0.39 ¥3.24 

Area .......... 18.62 20.05 4.56 70.58 18.89 20.40 4.53 72.27 0.27 0.35 ¥0.03 1.69 

Nonroad .... 1.24 21.66 1.98 12.13 1.23 18.02 0.50 9.77 ¥0.01 ¥3.64 ¥1.48 ¥2.36 

Onroad ..... 4.62 93.10 1.49 47.56 3.45 65.71 0.47 37.24 ¥1.17 ¥27.39 ¥1.02 ¥10.32 

Total .. 25.53 164.25 69.46 141.63 23.59 134.11 67.32 127.4 ¥1.94 ¥30.14 ¥2.14 ¥14.23 

Table 4 shows that the MilwaukeeRacine Area reduced direct PM2.5, NOX, 

SO2, and VOC emissions by 1.94 tpwd, 

30.14 tpwd, 2.14 tpwd, and 14.23 tpwd, 

respectively, between 2006 and 2010. 

Based on the information summarized 

above, Wisconsin has adequately 

demonstrated that the improvement in 

air quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions. On 

May 30, 2013, Wisconsin submitted 

supplemental information regarding 

emissions of ammonia. This information 

is reviewed below. Ammonia levels 

remain constant from the nonattainment 

year to the attainment year and we do 

not expect that to change during the 

maintenance period. However, EPA 

believes that the improvement in air 

quality is attributable to the PM2.5, NOX, 

SO2, and VOC emission reductions 

described above and is not significantly 

affected by any changes in ammonia 

emissions. 

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 Wisconsin’s 

requests to redesignate the MilwaukeeRacine Area to attainment status, 

Wisconsin submitted SIP revisions to 

provide for maintenance of 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the area through 

2025. 

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 EPA approves a 

redesignation to attainment. Eight years 

after 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 PM2.5 violations. 

The September 4, 1992, John Calcagni 

memorandum provides additional 

guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan. The memorandum 

states that a maintenance plan should 

address the following items: the 

attainment emissions inventories, a 

maintenance demonstration showing 

maintenance for the ten years of the 

maintenance period, a commitment to 

maintain the existing 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 

The Wisconsin DNR developed 

annual emissions inventories for NOX, 

direct PM2.5, and SO2 for 2010, one of 

the years the area monitored attainment 

of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, as 

described in section IV.A.3.b.. The 

attainment level of emissions is 

summarized in Table 4, above. 

c. Demonstration of Maintenance 

Along with the redesignation 

requests, Wisconsin submitted revisions 

to the Wisconsin PM2.5 SIP to include 

maintenance plans for the MilwaukeeRacine Area, as required by section 

175A of the CAA. Section 175A requires 

a state seeking redesignation to 

attainment to submit a SIP revision to 

provide for the maintenance of the 

NAAQS in the area ‘‘for at least 10 years 

after the redesignation.’’ EPA has 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9147 

13 Includes Electric generating units. 14Emissions projections for the onroad sector 

were generated using the MOVES model. Wisconsin 

submitted the MOVES based NOX and direct PM2.5

emissions projections and MVEBs for the onroad 

sector on January 17, 2013, to replace the 

MOBILE6.2 based onroad emissions projections and 

MVEBs submitted as part of the maintenance plan. 

interpreted this as a showing of 

maintenance ‘‘for a period of ten years 

following redesignation.’’ Calcagni 

Memorandum, p. 9. Where the 

emissions inventory method of showing 

maintenance is used, its purpose is to 

show that emissions during the 

maintenance period will not increase 

over the attainment year inventory. 

Calcagni Memorandum, pp. 9–10. 

As discussed in detail in the section 

below, Wisconsin’s maintenance plan 

submissions expressly document that 

the area’s emissions inventories will 

remain below the attainment year 

inventories through 2025. In addition, 

for the reasons set forth below, EPA 

believes that the state’s submissions, in 

conjunction with additional supporting 

information, further demonstrate that 

the area will continue to maintain the 

PM2.5 standard at least through 2025. 

Thus, if EPA finalizes its proposed 

approval of the redesignation requests 

and maintenance plan in 2013, it is 

based on a showing, in accordance with 

section 175A, that the state’s 

maintenance plan provides for 

maintenance for at least ten years after 

redesignation. 

Wisconsin’s plan demonstrates 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS through 2025 by showing that 

current and future emissions of NOX, 

directly emitted PM2.5, SO2, and VOC 

for the area 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). As discussed 

below, a comparison of current and 

future emissions inventories for 

ammonia show relatively constant 

emissions, which further support a 

finding that the area will continue to 

maintain the standard. 

For NOX, directly emitted PM2.5, SO2, 

and VOC, Wisconsin is using emissions 

inventory projections for the years 2020 

and 2025 to demonstrate maintenance. 

The projected emissions were estimated 

by the WDNR, with assistance from 

LADCO. As discussed in section 

IV.A.4.a., above, many of the control 

programs that helped to bring the area 

into attainment of the standard will 

continue to achieve additional emission 

reductions over the maintenance period. 

These control programs include Tier 2 

emission standards for vehicles and 

gasoline sulfur standards, the heavyduty diesel engine rule, the nonroad 

diesel rule, and the nonroad large sparkignition engine and recreation engine 

standards. Emissions data for all sources 

by source sector are shown in Tables 5 

through 7, below. 

TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF 2006, 2010, 2020, AND 2025 NOX EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPWD) FOR THE

MILWAUKEE-RACINE AREA

Sector 

NOX

2006 2010 2020 2025 Net change 

2010–2025 

Point ..................................................................................... 29.44 29.98 23.94 19.97 ¥10 .017 

Area ...................................................................................... 20.05 20.40 18.20 17.87 ¥2 .53 

Nonroad ............................................................................... 21.66 18.02 7.57 5.65 ¥12 .37 

Onroad 14 ............................................................................. 93.10 65.71 32.62 28.69 ¥37 .02 

Total .............................................................................. 164.25 134.11 82.33 72.18 ¥61 .93 

TABLE 6—COMPARISON OF 2006, 2010, 2020, AND 2025 DIRECT PM2.5 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPWD) 

FOR THE MILWAUKEE-RACINE AREA

Sector 

Direct PM2.5

2006 2010 2020 2025 Net change 

2010–2025 

Point 13 ........................................................................... 1.05 0.02 0.32 0.44 0.42 

Area ................................................................................ 18.62 18.89 17.39 17.20 ¥1.69 

Nonroad ......................................................................... 1.24 1.23 0.64 0.50 ¥0.73 

Onroad 14 ....................................................................... 4.62 3.45 2.33 2.16 ¥1.29 

Total ........................................................................ 25.53 23.59 20.68 20.30 ¥3.29 

TABLE 7—COMPARISON OF 2006, 2010, 2020, AND 2025 SO2 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPWD) FOR THE

MILWAUKEE-RACINE AREA

Sector 

SO2

2006 2010 2020 2025 Net change 

2010–2025 

Point ..................................................................................... 61.43 61.82 27.84 10.45 ¥51.37 

Area ...................................................................................... 4.56 4.53 3.88 3.68 ¥0.85 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9148 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

15Onroad sector emissions were projected using 

the MOBILE6.2 emissions model. 

TABLE 7—COMPARISON OF 2006, 2010, 2020, AND 2025 SO2 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPWD) FOR THE

MILWAUKEE-RACINE AREA—Continued 

Sector 

SO2

2006 2010 2020 2025 Net change 

2010–2025 

Nonroad ............................................................................... 1.98 0.50 0.39 0.37 ¥0.13 

Onroad 15 ............................................................................. 1.49 0.47 0.39 0.38 ¥0.09 

Total .............................................................................. 69.46 67.32 32.50 14.88 ¥52.44 

TABLE 8—COMPARISON OF 2006, 2010, 2020, AND 2025 VOC EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPWD) FOR THE

MILWAUKEE-RACINE AREA

Sector 

NOX

2006 2010 2020 2025 Net change 

2010–2025 

Point ..................................................................................... 11.36 8.12 10.31 11.40 3.28 

Area ...................................................................................... 70.58 72.27 71.70 75.05 2.78 

Nonroad ............................................................................... 12.13 9.77 7.91 8.27 ¥1.50 

Onroad 14 ............................................................................. 47.56 37.24 15.89 11.98 ¥25.26 

Total .............................................................................. 141.63 127.40 105.81 106.70 ¥20.70 

Tables 5–8 show that emissions of 

NOX, direct PM2.5, SO2, and VOC, are 

projected to decrease by 92.07 tpwd, 

2.46 tpwd, 54.58 tpwd, and 20.70 tpwd 

respectively, between 2010 and 2025. 

Furthermore, fleet turnover in onroad 

and nonroad vehicles that will continue 

to occur after 2025 will continue to 

provide additional significant emission 

reductions. 

In addition, as Tables 1 and 2 

demonstrate, monitored PM2.5 design 

value concentrations in the MilwaukeeRacine Area are well below the NAAQS 

in the years beyond 2010, an attainment 

year for the area. Further, those values 

are trending downward as time 

progresses. Based on the future 

projections of emissions in 2015 and 

2025 showing significant emissions 

reductions in direct PM2.5, NOX, SO2, 

and VOC, it is very unlikely that 

monitored PM2.5 values in 2025 and 

beyond will show violations of the 

NAAQS. Additionally, the 2010–2012 

design value of 29 mg/m3 for 24-hour 

standard provides a sufficient margin in 

the unlikely event emissions rise 

slightly in the future. 

Based on the information summarized 

above, Wisconsin has adequately 

demonstrated maintenance of the PM2.5

standard for a period extending ten 

years from the date that EPA may be 

expected to complete rulemaking on the 

state’s redesignation request. 

d. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of 

Precursors 

With regard to the redesignation of 

the Milwaukee-Racine nonattainment 

Area, in evaluating the effect of the 

Court’s remand of EPA’s 

implementation rule, which included 

presumptions against consideration of 

VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors, 

EPA in this proposal is also considering 

the impact of the decision on the 

maintenance plan required under 

sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To 

begin with, EPA notes that the area has 

attained the 2006 PM2.5 standard and 

that the state has shown that attainment 

of that standard is due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions. 

EPA finds that the state’s maintenance 

plan shows continued maintenance of 

the standard by tracking the levels of the 

precursors whose control brought about 

attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard in the Milwaukee-Racine Area, 

NOX, direct PM2.5, SO2, and VOC. EPA 

therefore believes that the only 

additional consideration related to the 

maintenance plan requirements that 

results from the Court’s January 4, 2013, 

decision is that of assessing the 

potential role of ammonia in 

demonstrating continued maintenance 

in this area. As explained below, based 

upon documentation provided by the 

state and supporting information, EPA 

believes that the maintenance plan for 

the Milwaukee-Racine Area need not 

include any additional emission 

reductions of ammonia in order to 

provide for continued maintenance of 

the standard. 

Total ammonia emissions throughout 

the Milwaukee-Racine Area are very 

low, estimated to be less than 2,400 tons 

per year. See Table 9 below. This 

amount of ammonia emissions is small 

in comparison to the total amounts of 

SO2, NOX, VOC, and even direct PM2.5

emissions from sources in the area. 

Moreover, as described below, available 

information shows that no precursor, 

including ammonia, is expected to 

increase over the maintenance period so 

as to interfere with or undermine the 

state’s maintenance demonstration. 

Wisconsin’s maintenance plan shows 

that emissions of direct PM2.5, SO2, 

NOX, and VOC are projected to decrease 

by 5.23 tpwd, 54.58 tpwd, 92.07 tpwd, 

and 20.70 tpwd, respectively, over the 

maintenance period. See Tables 5–8 

above. In addition, emissions 

inventories used in the regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS show that ammonia emissions 

are projected to decrease by 65 tpy 

between 2007 and 2020. See Table 9 

below. While the RIA emissions 

inventories are only projected out to 

2020, there is no reason to believe that 

this downward trend would not 

continue through 2025. Given that the 

Milwaukee-Racine Area is already 

attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS even with the current level of 

emissions from sources in the area, the 

downward trend of emissions 

inventories would be consistent with 

continued attainment. Indeed, projected 

emissions reductions for the precursors 

that the state is addressing for purposes 

of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9149 

16These emissions estimates were taken from the 

emissions inventories developed for the RIA for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

indicate that the area should continue to 

attain the NAAQS following the 

precursor control strategy that the state 

has already elected to pursue. Even if 

ammonia emissions were to increase 

unexpectedly between 2020 and 2025, 

the overall emissions reductions 

projected in direct PM2.5, SO2, NOX, and 

VOC would be sufficient to offset any 

increases. For these reasons, EPA 

believes that local emissions of all of the 

potential PM2.5 precursors will not 

increase to the extent that they will 

cause monitored PM2.5 levels to violate 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS during the 

maintenance period. 

TABLE 9—COMPARISON OF 2007 AND 2020 AMMONIA EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPWD) FOR THE

MILWAUKEE-RACINE AREA 16

Sector 2007 2020 Net change 

2007–2020 

Point ............................................................................................................................................. 33 149 116 

Area ............................................................................................................................................. 1,848 1,885 37 

Nonroad ....................................................................................................................................... 8 10 1 

Onroad ......................................................................................................................................... 529 309 ¥219 

Fires ............................................................................................................................................. 5 5 0 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 2,423 2,358 ¥65 

In addition, available air quality 

modeling analyses show continued 

maintenance of the standard during the 

maintenance period. 

Wisconsin modeling using Round 5 

emission files from LADCO updated 

‘‘Modeled Attainment Test Software 

(MATS—October 2012)’’ from EPA, was 

completed in March, 2013. The 

predicted 2018 design value is 33 mg/

m3, below the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. Future utility fuel projections 

could be updated, likely resulting in 

even lower PM2.5 design values. 

Thus, EPA believes that there is 

ample justification to conclude that the 

Milwaukee-Racine Area should be 

redesignated, even taking into 

consideration the emissions of other 

precursors potentially relevant to PM2.5. 

After consideration of the D.C. Circuit’s 

January 4, 2013, decision, and for the 

reasons set forth in this notice, EPA 

proposes to approve the state’s 

maintenance plan and its request to 

redesignate the Milwaukee-Racine Area 

to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard. 

e. Monitoring Network 

Wisconsin currently operates five 

monitors for purposes of determining 

attainment with the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard in the Milwaukee-Racine Area. 

Wisconsin has committed to continue to 

operate and maintain these monitors 

and will consult with EPA prior to 

making any changes to the existing 

monitoring network. WDNR remains 

obligated to 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. 

f. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Continued attainment of the PM2.5

NAAQS in the Milwaukee-Racine Area 

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 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard in the Milwaukee-Racine 

Area consists of continued ambient 

PM2.5 monitoring in accordance with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 58. 

Wisconsin DNR will also continue to 

develop and submit periodic emission 

inventories as required by the Federal 

Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule 

(codified at 40 CFR part 51 subpart A) 

to track future levels of emissions. 

g. 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 a 

contingency plan for the MilwaukeeRacine Area to address possible future 

24-hour PM2.5 air quality problems. 

Under Wisconsin’s plan, if a violation of 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard occurs, 

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 

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. Wisconsin’s 

potential candidate contingency 

measures include the following: 

i. Broaden the application of the NOX

RACT program to include a larger 

geographic area, and/or include sources 

with potential emissions of 50 tpy, and/ 

or increase the cost effectiveness 

thresholds utilized as a basis for 

Wisconsin’s NOX RACT Program; 

ii. Consideration of PM2.5 and SO2

RACT; 

iii. Diesel reduction emissions 

strategies; 

iv. Ammonia emission reduction 

strategies. 

EPA believes that Wisconsin’s 

contingency plan satisfies the pertinent 

requirements of section 175A(d). 

h. Provisions for Future Updates of the 

24-Hour PM2.5 Maintenance Plan 

As required by section 175A(b) of the 

CAA, Wisconsin commits to submit to 

EPA an updated maintenance plan eight 

years after redesignation of the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9150 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Milwaukee-Racine Area to attainment of 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard 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 control measures contained in 

the SIP prior to redesignation, and to 

submit to EPA for approval as a SIP 

revision, any changes to its rules or 

emission limits applicable to SO2, NOX,

or direct PM2.5 sources as required for 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard in the Milwaukee-Racine Area. 

EPA has concluded that the 

maintenance plan adequately addresses 

the five basic components of a 

maintenance plan: attainment 

inventory, maintenance demonstration, 

monitoring network, verification of 

continued attainment, and a 

contingency plan. 

B. Comprehensive Emissions Inventories 

As discussed above in section 

IV.A.2.a.ii., section 173(c)(3) of the CAA 

requires areas to submit a 

comprehensive, accurate and current 

emissions inventory. As part of the 

redesignation request, Wisconsin 

submitted 2006 and 2010 emissions 

inventories for NOX, direct PM2.5 and 

SO2, and VOC. These emissions 

inventories are discussed in section 

IV.A.3.b., above, and the data are shown 

in Table 4. 

On May 30, 2013, WDNR 

supplemented its submittal with a 2007/ 

2008 emissions inventory for ammonia. 

The additional emissions inventory 

information provided by the state 

addresses emissions of ammonia from 

the general source categories of point 

sources, area sources, onroad mobile 

sources, and nonroad mobile sources. 

The state-submitted emissions 

inventories were based upon 

information generated by LADCO in 

conjunction with its member states and 

are presented in Table 10 below. 

LADCO ran the EMS model using data 

provided by the state of Wisconsin to 

generate point source emissions 

estimates. The point source data 

supplied by the state was obtained from 

Wisconsin’s source facility emissions 

reporting. 

For area sources, LADCO ran the EMS 

model using the 2008 National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI) data 

provided by Wisconsin. LADCO 

followed Eastern Regional Technical 

Advisory Committee (ERTAC) 

recommendations on area sources when 

preparing the data. Agricultural 

ammonia emissions were not taken from 

NEI; instead emissions were based on 

Carnegie Mellon University’s Ammonia 

Emission Inventory for the Continental 

United States (CMU). Specifically, the 

CMU 2002 annual emissions were 

grown to reflect 2007 conditions. A 

process-based ammonia emissions 

model developed for LADCO was then 

used to develop temporal factors to 

reflect the impact of average 

meteorology on livestock emissions. 

Nonroad mobile source emissions 

were generated using the NMIM2008 

emissions model. LADCO also 

accounted for three other nonroad 

categories not covered by the NMIM 

model: Commercial marine vessels, 

aircraft, and railroads. Marine emissions 

were based on reports prepared by 

Environ entitled ‘‘LADCO Nonroad 

Emissions Inventory Project for 

Locomotive, Commercial Marine, and 

Recreational Marine Emission Sources, 

Final Report, December 2004’’ and 

‘‘LADCO 2005 Commercial Marine 

Emissions, Draft, March 2, 2007.’’ 

Aircraft emissions were provided by 

Wisconsin and calculated using AP–42 

emission factors and landing and takeoff data provided by the Federal 

Aviation Administration. Rail emissions 

were based on the 2008 inventory 

developed by ERTAC. 

Onroad mobile source emissions were 

generated using EPA’s MOVES2010a 

emissions model. 

EPA notes that the emissions 

inventory developed by LADCO is 

documented in ‘‘Regional Air Quality 

Analyses for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional 

Haze: Base C Emissions Inventory’’ 

(September 12, 2011). 

TABLE 10—MILWAUKEE-RACINE AREA

AMMONIA EMISSIONS (TPWD) FOR

2007/2008 BY SOURCE SECTOR

Sector Ammonia 

Point .............................................. 0.08 

Area .............................................. 4.51 

Nonroad ........................................ 0.01 

Onroad .......................................... 1.78 

Total .......................................... 6.38 

EPA has concluded that the 2007/

2008 ammonia emissions inventory 

provided by the state is complete and as 

accurate as possible given the input data 

available for the relevant source 

categories. EPA also believes that the 

inventory provides information about 

ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor in the 

context of evaluating redesignation of 

the Milwaukee-Racine Area under 

subpart 4. Therefore, we are proposing 

to approve the ammonia emissions 

inventory submitted by the state, in 

conjunction with the NOX, direct PM2.5, 

SO2, and VOC emissions inventories, as 

fully meeting the comprehensive 

inventory requirement of section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA for the MilwaukeeRacine Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard. 

C. Wisconsin’s MVEBs 

1. How are MVEBs developed? 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIP revisions and maintenance plans for 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas and for areas 

seeking redesignations to attainment of 

the PM2.5 standard. These emission 

control strategy SIP revisions (e.g., RFP 

and attainment demonstration SIP 

revisions) and 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, RFP or maintenance, as 

applicable. 

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, 

transportation plans and transportation 

improvement programs (TIPs) must be 

evaluated to determine if they conform 

with the area’s 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 or any required interim 

milestone. If a transportation plan or 

TIP 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 find ‘‘adequate’’ or 

approve 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9151 

Federal agencies in determining 

whether transportation plans and TIPs 

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). Additionally, to 

approve a motor vehicle emissions 

budget EPA must complete a thorough 

review of the SIP, in this case the PM2.5

maintenance plan, and conclude that 

the SIP will achieve its overall purpose, 

in this case providing for maintenance 

of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 

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. 

2. What are the MVEBs for the 

Milwaukee-Racine area? 

The maintenance plan submitted by 

Wisconsin for the Milwaukee-Racine 

Area contains direct PM2.5, SO2, VOC, 

and NOX MVEBs for the area for the 

years 2020 and 2025. The 2020 and 

2025 MVEBs are set forth in Table 11 

below. 

TABLE 11—MVEBS FOR THE MILWAUKEE-RACINE AREA FOR 2020 AND 2025 

NOX PM2.5 SO2 VOC 

2020 ................................................................................................................. 32.62 2.33 0.39 15.89 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 28.69 2.16 0.38 11.98 

Wisconsin did not provide emission 

budgets for ammonia because it 

concluded, consistent with the 

presumptions regarding these 

precursors in the conformity rule at 40 

CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v), which predated 

and was not disturbed by the litigation 

on the PM2.5 implementation rule, that 

emissions of these precursors from 

motor vehicles are not significant 

contributors to the area’s PM2.5 air 

quality problem. 

EPA issued conformity regulations to 

implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

July 2004 and May 2005 (69 FR 40004, 

July 1, 2004, and 70 FR 24280, May 6, 

2005, respectively). Those actions were 

not part of the final rule recently 

remanded to EPA by the D.C. Circuit in 

NRDC v. EPA, No. 08–1250 (Jan. 4, 

2013), in which the Court remanded to 

EPA the implementation rule for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS because it concluded that 

EPA must implement that NAAQS 

pursuant to the PM-specific 

implementation provisions of subpart 4 

of part D of title I of the CAA, rather 

than solely under the general provisions 

of subpart 1. That decision does not 

affect EPA’s proposed approval of the 

Milwaukee-Racine Area MVEBs. 

First, as noted above, EPA’s 

conformity rule implementing the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS was a separate action 

from the overall PM2.5 implementation 

rule addressed by the Court and was not 

considered or disturbed by the decision. 

In addition, the state’s maintenance 

plan shows continued maintenance 

through 2025 by demonstrating that 

NOX, SO2, VOC, and direct PM2.5

emissions will continue to decrease 

through the maintenance period. For 

ammonia, RIA inventories for 2007 and 

2020 show that both onroad and total 

emissions are expected to decrease, 

supporting the state’s conclusion, 

consistent with the presumptions 

regarding this precursor in the 

conformity rule, that emissions of 

ammonia from motor vehicles are not a 

significant contributor to the area’s 

PM2.5 air quality problem and that 

MVEBs for this precursor are 

unnecessary. 

EPA has reviewed the submitted 

budgets for 2015 and 2025, using the 

conformity rule’s adequacy criteria 

found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). EPA finds 

that the area can maintain attainment of 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

relevant maintenance period with 

onroad mobile source emissions at the 

levels of the MVEBs since total 

emissions will still remain under 

attainment year emission levels. EPA 

therefore finds adequate and proposes to 

approve the MVEBs submitted by 

Wisconsin for use in determining 

transportation conformity in the 

Milwaukee-Racine Area. 

V. Summary of Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Milwaukee-Racine Area is attaining 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard and 

that the area has met the requirements 

for redesignation under section 

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

proposing to approve the request from 

WDNR to change the legal designation 

of the Milwaukee-Racine Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. EPA is 

proposing to approve Wisconsin’s PM2.5

maintenance plan for the MilwaukeeRacine Area as a revision to the 

Wisconsin SIP because the plan meets 

the requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA. EPA is proposing to approve 2006 

and 2010 emissions inventories for 

direct PM2.5, NOX, SO2, and VOC, and 

2007/2008 emissions inventory for 

ammonia as satisfying the requirement 

in section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for a 

comprehensive, current emission 

inventory. Finally, EPA finds adequate 

and is proposing to approve the 2020 

and 2025 NOX, direct PM2.5, SO2, and 

VOC MVEBs for the Milwaukee-Racine 

area. These MVEBs will be used in 

future transportation conformity 

analyses for the area. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, 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, these proposed 

actions do not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law and the CAA. For that reason, 

these proposed actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9152 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• do 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); 

• do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• are 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 

• do 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 proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because a 

determination of attainment 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 Fine Particulate national 

ambient air quality standards in tribal 

lands. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: January 30, 2014. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2014–03314 Filed 2–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 21 

[Docket No. FWS–R9–MB–2012–0098; 

FF09M21200–134–FXMB1231099BPP0] 

RIN 1018–AZ19 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Permits; 

Regulations for Managing Harvest of 

Light Goose Populations 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

reduce the information collection 

requirements for participants in the 

light goose conservation order, which 

authorizes methods of take to increase 

harvest of certain populations of light 

geese in the Atlantic, Central, and 

Mississippi Flyways, and to reduce the 

burden on State and tribal wildlife 

agencies that are required to submit 

annual light goose harvest reports to the 

Service. We are taking this action to 

eliminate information collection and 

reporting requirements that we believe 

to be unnecessary. This action would 

relieve requirements on certain 

individuals, States, and tribes. 

DATES: The comment period for this 

proposed rule closes April 21, 2014. 

Comments on the Information 

Collection Aspects of this Proposal: 

Comments on the information collection 

aspects of this proposed rule will be 

considered if received by March 20, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: 

Written Comments on this Proposal: 

You may submit comments only by 

either one of the following two methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on Docket FWS–R9–MB–2012–0098. 

• U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attention: FWS– 

R9–MB–2012–0098; Division of Policy 

and Directives Management; U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service; 4401 North Fairfax 

Drive, MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 

22203–1610. We will post all comments 

on http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Public Comments section below 

for more information). 

We will not accept emailed or faxed 

comments. We will post all comments 

on http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Public Comments section below 

for more information). 

Comments on the Information 

Collection Aspects of this Proposal: 

Send comments specific to the 

information collection aspects of this 

proposed rule to the Desk Officer for the 

Department of the Interior at OMB– 

OIRA at (202) 395–5806 (fax) or OIRA_

Submission@omb.eop.gov (email). 

Please provide a copy of your comments 

to the Service Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS 2042–PDM, 4401 

North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 

22203 (mail) or hope_grey@fws.gov 

(email). Please include ‘‘1018–0103’’ in 

the subject line of your comments. You 

may review the Information Collection 

Request online at http://

www.reginfo.gov. Follow the 

instructions to review Department of the 

Interior collections under review by 

OMB. 

Document Availability: You may 

obtain a copy of the final environmental 

impact statement (EIS) from our Web 

site at: http://www.fws.gov/

migratorybirds/currentbirdissues/

management/snowgse/tblcont.html, or 

by requesting one from the Division of 

Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax 

Drive, MBSP–4107, Arlington, VA 

22203–1610. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Kelley at 612–713–5409. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Greater 

snow geese, lesser snow geese, and 

Ross’s geese are referred to as ‘‘light’’ 

geese due to the light coloration of the 

white-phase plumage morph, as 

opposed to true ‘‘dark’’ geese such as 

the white-fronted or Canada goose. We 

include both plumage variations of 

lesser snow geese (white, or ‘‘snow’’ and 

dark, or ‘‘blue’’) under the designation 

light geese. Dark phase Ross’s geese 

exist but are uncommon. 

Various populations of light geese 

have undergone rapid growth during the 

past 30 years, and have become 

seriously injurious to their habitat, 

habitat important to other migratory 

birds, and agricultural interests. We 

believe that several of these populations 

have exceeded the long-term carrying 

capacity of their breeding and/or 

migration habitats and must be reduced. 

In 1999, we implemented regulations 

that authorized new methods of take 

and created a conservation order to 

increase harvest of certain populations 

of light geese in the Central and 

Mississippi Flyways (64 FR 7507; 

February 16, 1999). In 2008, we 

prepared an environmental impact 

statement and record of decision to 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS