Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40715 

annual performance reports or, given 

the long-term nature of many AFFH 

goals, should the reporting period be 

longer? Should planning and/or results 

be integrated into existing report 

structures, such as Consolidated Plans 

and Consolidated Annual Performance 

and Evaluation Reports (CAPERs), or 

utilize an alternative structure? 

4. Should the proposed rule specify 

the types of obstacles to fair housing 

that program participants must address 

as part of their AFFH efforts, or should 

program participants be able to 

determine the number and types of 

obstacles to address? Should HUD 

incentivize program participants to 

collaborate regionally to identify and 

address obstacles to affirmatively 

furthering fair housing, without holding 

localities accountable for areas outside 

of their control? Should HUD 

incentivize grantees and PHAs to 

collaborate in the jurisdiction and the 

region to remove fair housing obstacles? 

What are examples of obstacles that the 

AFFH regulations should seek to 

address? How might a jurisdiction 

accurately determine itself to be free of 

material obstacles? 

5. How much deference should 

jurisdictions be provided in establishing 

objectives to address obstacles to 

identified fair housing goals, and 

associated metrics and milestones for 

measuring progress? 

6. How should HUD evaluate the 

AFFH efforts of program participants? 

What types of elements should 

distinguish acceptable efforts from those 

that should be deemed unacceptable? 

What should be required of, or imposed 

upon, jurisdictions with unacceptable 

efforts (other than potential statutory 

loss of Community Development Block 

Grant, HOME, or similar funding 

sources)? How should HUD address 

PHAs whose efforts to AFFH are 

unacceptable? 

7. Should the rule specify certain 

levels of effort on specific actions that 

will be deemed to be in compliance 

with the obligation to affirmatively 

further the purposes and policies of the 

Fair Housing Act (i.e., ‘‘safe harbors’’), 

and if so, what should they be? 

8. Are there any other revisions to the 

current AFFH regulations that could 

help further the policies of the Fair 

Housing Act, add clarity, reduce 

uncertainty, decrease regulatory burden, 

or otherwise assist program participants 

in meeting their AFFH obligations? 

III. Findings and Certifications 

Environmental Impact 

This ANPR is exclusively concerned 

with nondiscrimination standards. 

Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(3), 

it is categorically excluded from 

environmental review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4347). 

Regulatory Review—Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Per Executive Order 12866 

(Regulatory Planning and Review), a 

determination must be made whether a 

regulatory action is significant and 

therefore, subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

order. Executive Order 13563 

(Improving Regulations and Regulatory 

Review) directs executive agencies to 

analyze regulations that are ‘‘outmoded, 

ineffective, insufficient, or excessively 

burdensome, and to modify, streamline, 

expand, or repeal them in accordance 

with what has been learned.’’ Executive 

Order 13563 also directs that, where 

relevant, feasible, and consistent with 

regulatory objectives, and to the extent 

permitted by law, agencies are to 

identify and consider regulatory 

approaches that reduce burdens and 

maintain flexibility and freedom of 

choice for the public. This ANPR was 

reviewed by OMB and determined to 

likely result in a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action,’’ as defined in section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

Dated: August 9, 2018. 

Anna Maria Farı ́as, 

Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and 

Equal Opportunity. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17671 Filed 8–15–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0212; FRL–9982– 

29—Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; 

Reasonable Further Progress Plan and 

Other Plan Elements for the Moderate 

Nonattainment Chicago Area for the 

2008 Ozone Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Wisconsin State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet the 

base year emissions inventory, 

reasonable further progress (RFP), RFP 

contingency measure, nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) reasonably available control 

technology (RACT), and motor vehicle 

inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

for the Wisconsin portion of the 

Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-IndianaWisconsin nonattainment area (Chicago 

area) for the 2008 ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS or standards). EPA is also 

proposing to approve the 2017 and 2018 

transportation conformity motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the 

Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is 

proposing to approve this SIP revision 

pursuant to section 110 and part D of 

the CAA and EPA’s regulations because 

it satisfies the emission inventory, RFP, 

RFP contingency measure, NOX RACT, 

I/M, and transportation conformity 

requirements for the Wisconsin portion 

of the Chicago area, which is classified 

as moderate nonattainment for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 17, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2017–0212, at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
40716 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1 73 FR 16436. 

2CAA sections 107(d)(1) and 181(a)(1). 

3CAA section 181(a)(1). 

4CAA section 182(a). 

5CAA section 182(b). 

6 77 FR 34221, effective July 20, 2012. 

7 81 FR 26697. 

8 78 FR 34178 at 34190. 

9 81 FR 11673. 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6832, 

Liljegren.Jennifer@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 is the background for this action? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation of Wisconsin’s SIP 

Submission 

III. What action is EPA proposing? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

A. Background on the 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS 

On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated 

a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 

parts per million (ppm).1 Promulgation 

of a revised NAAQS triggers a 

requirement for EPA to designate areas 

of the country as nonattainment, 

attainment, or unclassifiable for the 

standards. For the ozone NAAQS, this 

also involves classifying any 

nonattainment areas at the time of 

designation.2 Ozone nonattainment 

areas are classified based on the severity 

of their ozone levels (as determined 

based on the area’s ‘‘design value,’’ 

which represents air quality in the area 

for the most recent 3 years). The 

classifications for ozone nonattainment 

areas are marginal, moderate, serious, 

severe, and extreme.3

Areas that EPA designates 

nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS are 

subject to certain requirements, 

including the general nonattainment 

area planning requirements of CAA 

section 172 and the ozone-specific 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

CAA section 182. Ozone nonattainment 

areas in the lower classification levels 

have fewer and/or less stringent 

mandatory air quality planning and 

control requirements than those in 

higher classifications. For marginal 

areas, a state is required to submit a 

baseline emissions inventory, adopt 

provisions into the SIP requiring 

emissions statements from stationary 

sources in the area, and implement a 

nonattainment new source review (NSR) 

program for the relevant ozone 

NAAQS.4 For moderate areas, a state 

needs to comply with the marginal area 

requirements, plus additional moderate 

area requirements, including the 

requirement to submit a modeled 

demonstration that the area will attain 

the NAAQS as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than 6 years 

after designation, the requirement to 

submit an RFP plan, the requirement to 

adopt and implement certain emissions 

controls, such as RACT and I/M, and the 

requirement for greater emissions offsets 

for new or modified major stationary 

sources under the state’s nonattainment 

NSR program.5

B. Background on the Chicago 2008 

Ozone Nonattainment Area 

On June 11, 2012,6 EPA designated 

the Chicago area as a marginal 

nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. The Chicago area includes 

Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, 

and Will Counties and part of Grundy 

and Kendall Counties in Illinois; Lake 

and Porter Counties in Indiana; and the 

eastern portion of Kenosha County in 

Wisconsin. On May 4, 2016,7 pursuant 

to section 181(b)(2) of the CAA, EPA 

determined that the Chicago area failed 

to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the 

July 20, 2015, marginal area attainment 

deadline and thus reclassified the area 

from marginal to moderate 

nonattainment. In that action, EPA 

established January 1, 2017, as the due 

date for all moderate area nonattainment 

plan SIP requirements applicable to 

newly reclassified areas. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation of Wisconsin’s SIP 

Submission 

Wisconsin submitted a SIP revision 

on April 17, 2017, and supplemental 

information on January 23, 2018, to 

address the moderate nonattainment 

area requirements for the Wisconsin 

portion of the Chicago area for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. The submission 

contained several nonattainment plan 

elements, including a revised 2011 base 

year emissions inventory for the two 

ozone-forming precursor pollutants, 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 

NOX, a 15% RFP plan, a 3% RFP 

contingency measure plan, 2017 and 

2018 VOC and NOX MVEBs, and an 

enhanced I/M program certification. The 

submission also included an attainment 

demonstration, a nonattainment NSR 

certification, and a VOC RACT 

certification, which will be addressed in 

a separate action(s). 

A. Revised 2011 Base Year Emissions 

Inventory 

CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1), 

42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3) and 7511a(a)(1), 

require states to develop and submit, as 

SIP revisions, comprehensive, accurate, 

and complete emissions inventories for 

all areas designated as nonattainment 

for the ozone NAAQS. An emissions 

inventory for ozone is an estimation of 

actual emissions of VOC and NOX from 

all sources located in the relevant 

designated nonattainment area. For the 

2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA has 

recommended that states use 2011 as a 

base year for the emissions estimates.8

EPA approved on March 7, 2016,9 the 

2011 base year emissions inventory, 

which Wisconsin submitted on 

November 14, 2014, for the Wisconsin 

portion of the Chicago area. In its April 

17, 2017, submission, supplemented on 

January 23, 2018, Wisconsin included a 

revised 2011 base year emissions 

inventory submission. Relative to its 

original inventory, Wisconsin’s revised 

2011 base year emissions inventory 

modifies the emissions estimates for the 

point, on-road mobile, and non-road 

mobile sector, with emissions estimates 

for the area source sector remaining 

unchanged. 

The methodology differences between 

Wisconsin’s modified inventory and 

original inventory are summarized in 

Table 1 and the emissions difference are 

shown in Table 2. Relative to the 

original inventory, the modified 

inventory includes a more conservative 

(worst-case) emissions estimate from the 

one electric generating unit (EGU) in the 

Wisconsin portion of the area. 

Wisconsin estimated the modified 

inventory on-road emissions using the 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator 

(MOVES) model version 2014a, whereas 

it estimated the original inventory onroad mobile sector emissions with an 

older version of the model—MOVES 

version 2010b. Finally, Wisconsin 

estimated the modified inventory nonroad mobile sector ‘‘MAR’’ emissions, 

which include commercial marine, 

aircraft, and rail locomotive, using 

EPA’s 2014 National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI) version 2 and it 

estimated the ‘‘non-MAR’’ emissions, 

which are the non-road mobile 

emissions sources excluding 

commercial marine, aircraft, and rail 

locomotive, using MOVES 2014a, 

whereas the original inventory relied on 

the older NEI version 1 and National 

Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM), 

respectively. Because the modifications 

to the original EPA-approved inventory 

are based on updated resources and 

information as summarized above, EPA 

finds the updated inventory approvable 

and is proposing to approve the revised 

2011 base year emissions inventory as a 

revision to the Wisconsin SIP. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40717 

10 80 FR 12264. 

11 80 FR 12264 at 12271 and 40 CFR 51.1110. 

12For both the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 ozone NAAQS, the entirety of Kenosha 

County was part of the 6-county Milwaukee 

nonattainment area. For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

Kenosha County (partial) is part of the Chicago 

nonattainment area, since the statistical area 

delineated based on U.S. Census Bureau data was 

updated to include Kenosha County as part of the 

Chicago statistical area. Wisconsin met the 15% 

VOC reduction requirement for the Milwaukee area 

for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, which included the 

entirety of Kenosha County, therefore, the 

Wisconsin portion of the 2008 Chicago 

nonattainment area (Kenosha County inclusive and 

east of I–94) has already met the 15% VOC 

reduction requirement. 

13 In South Coast Air Quality Management 

District v. EPA, No. 15–1115, decided February 16, 

2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the 

D.C. Circuit ruled to reverse the portion of the rule 

that allowed for alternate years. However, since all 

3 states for this multi-state area chose the default 

of 2011 as the base year, the decision has no impact 

here. 

TABLE 1—METHODOLOGY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WISCONSIN’S MODIFIED INVENTORY AND WISCONSIN’S ORIGINAL EPAAPPROVED INVENTORY

Sector Original inventory Modified inventory 

Point ................... EGUs & non-EGUs: WI AEI for an average day in the third 

quarter.

EGUs: CAMD for a maximum day; non-EGU: WI AEI for an 

average day in the year. 

Area .................... NEI v2 ...................................................................................... NEI v2. 

Onroad ............... MOVES 2010b (Min/Max Temps: 70/94 °F) ............................ MOVES 2014a (Min/Max Temps: 70/94 °F). 

Nonroad ............. air & rail: NEI v1; com.mar.: LADCO/NEI v1; non-MAR: 

NMIM model.

MAR: NEI v2; non-MAR: MOVES 2014a. 

CAMD = EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division database, com.mar. = commercial marine, EGU = electric generating unit, MAR = commercial marine, aircraft and rail locomotive, MOVES = Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator, NEI = National Emissions Inventory, NMIM = National Mobile Inventory Model, WI AEI = Wisconsin’s Air Emissions Inventory (which is used to develop NEI emissions). 

TABLE 2—EMISSIONS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WISCONSIN’S MODIFIED INVENTORY AND WISCONSIN’S ORIGINAL EPAAPPROVED INVENTORY

Sector 

VOC NOX

Approved 

inventory RFP inventory Approved inventory RFP inventory 

Point ................................................................................................................. 0.70 0.72 8.80 11.16 

Area ................................................................................................................. 4.78 4.78 1.09 1.09 

On-road ............................................................................................................ 2.14 2.42 4.67 5.15 

Non-road .......................................................................................................... 2.42 1.51 2.33 2.07 

Total .......................................................................................................... 10.04 9.43 16.89 19.47 

B. 15% RFP Plan and 3% Contingency 

Plan 

The CAA requires that states with 

areas designated as nonattainment for 

ozone achieve RFP toward attainment of 

the ozone NAAQS. CAA section 

172(c)(2) contains a general requirement 

that nonattainment plans must provide 

for emission reductions that meet RFP. 

For areas classified moderate and above, 

section 182(b)(1) imposes a more 

specific RFP requirement that a state 

had to meet through a 15% reduction in 

VOC emissions from the baseline 

anthropogenic emissions within 6 years 

after November 15, 1990. The state must 

meet the 15% requirement by the end of 

the 6-year period, regardless of when 

the nonattainment area attains the 

NAAQS. As with other nonattainment 

plan requirements for more recent 

iterations of the ozone NAAQS, EPA has 

promulgated regulations and guidance 

to interpret the statutory requirements 

of the CAA. 

EPA’s final rule to implement the 

2008 ozone NAAQS (SIP Requirements 

Rule),10 addressed, among other things, 

the RFP requirements as they apply to 

areas designated nonattainment and 

classified as moderate for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS.11 EPA interprets the 

15% VOC emission reduction 

requirement in CAA section 182(b)(1) 

such that a state that has already met the 

15% requirement for VOC for an area 

under either the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

or the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

would not have to fulfill that 

requirement through reductions of VOC 

again. Instead, EPA is interpreting CAA 

section 172(c)(2) to require states with 

such areas to obtain 15% ozone 

precursor emission reductions (VOC 

and/or NOX) over the first 6 years after 

the baseline year for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. Wisconsin previously met the 

15% VOC reduction requirement of 

CAA section 182(b)(1) for Kenosha 

County for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.12

Therefore, the state may rely upon NOX

and/or VOC emissions reductions to 

meet the RFP requirement for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

EPA’s SIP Requirements Rule 

indicates the base year for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS, for which areas were 

designated nonattainment effective July 

20, 2012, can be 2011 or a different year 

of the states’ choosing.13 However, EPA 

required that states selecting a pre-2011 

alternate baseline year must achieve 3% 

emission reductions each year after the 

initial 6-year period has concluded up 

to the beginning of the attainment year. 

For a multi-state area, states must agree 

on the same base year. Wisconsin, 

Illinois, and Indiana have all selected 

the EPA-recommended base year of 

2011. 

States may not take credit for VOC or 

NOX reductions occurring from sources 

outside the nonattainment area for 

purposes of meeting the 15% RFP and 

3% RFP requirements of CAA sections 

172(c)(2), 182(b)(1) and (c)(2)(B). 

Wisconsin’s 15% RFP represents 

emissions reductions which occurred in 

Wisconsin’s portion of the 

nonattainment area in the time period 

from 2011 to 2017 thereby satisfying 

this requirement. 

Except as specifically provided in 

CAA section 182(b)(1)(D) of the CAA, all 

state control measures approved into the 

SIP or Federal measures that provide 

emissions reductions that occur after the 

baseline emissions inventory year are 

creditable for purposes of the RFP 

requirements, provided that the 

reductions meet the standard 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
40718 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

14 80 FR 12264 at 12285. 15 80 FR 12264 at 12285. 16Net the increase in emissions from the point 

source sector from 2011–2017 (see Table 3). 

requirements for creditability which 

include being enforceable, quantifiable, 

permanent, and surplus in terms of not 

having previously been counted toward 

RFP. 

States must also include contingency 

measures in their nonattainment plans. 

The contingency measures required for 

areas classified as moderate and above 

under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 

182(c)(9) must provide for the 

implementation of specific measures if 

the area fails to attain or to meet any 

applicable RFP milestone. The state 

must submit these measures for 

approval by EPA into the SIP as adopted 

measures that would take effect without 

further rulemaking action by the state or 

EPA upon a determination that an area 

failed to attain or to meet the applicable 

milestone. Per EPA guidance for 

purposes of the ozone NAAQS, 

contingency measures should represent 

one year’s worth of RFP progress, 

amounting to reductions of at least 3% 

of the baseline emissions inventory for 

the nonattainment area. The purpose of 

the contingency measures is to provide 

additional emission reductions in the 

event of a failure to attain or meet any 

applicable milestone, which would 

occur while the state is revising its SIP 

for the area.14

Regarding the contingency measures, 

EPA’s prior guidance for purposes of the 

ozone NAAQS specifies that some 

portion of the contingency measures 

must include VOC reductions. This 

previous limitation is no longer 

necessary in all areas. In particular, EPA 

has concluded that states with 

nonattainment areas classified moderate 

and above that have already completed 

the initial 15% VOC reduction required 

by CAA section 182(b)(1)(A)(i), can meet 

the contingency measures requirement 

based entirely on NOX controls if that is 

what the state’s analyses have 

demonstrated would be most effective 

in bringing the area into attainment. 

There is no minimum VOC requirement. 

Also, EPA is continuing its longstanding policy that allows promulgated 

Federal measures to be used as 

contingency measures as long as they 

provide emission reductions in the 

relevant years in excess of those needed 

for attainment or RFP.15

Wisconsin submitted documentation 

showing that emission reductions in the 

Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area 

met the 15% RFP and 3% contingency 

requirements. Table 3 shows 

Wisconsin’s estimated reductions from 

all sectors. Table 3 shows that the area’s 

total VOC emissions decreased by 

13.04% from 2011 to 2017 and 2.20% 

from 2017 to 2018. Table 3 shows the 

area’s total NOX emissions decreased by 

15.41% from 2011 to 2017 and 2.25% 

from 2017 to 2018. 

TABLE 3—WISCONSIN’S SOURCE SECTOR EMISSIONS IN TONS PER SUMMER DAY (tpsd) FOR EASTERN KENOSHA COUNTY

Sector 

VOC NOX

2011 2017 2018 2011 2017 2018 

Point ......................................................... 0.72 0.87 0.87 11.16 10.87 10.87 

Area .......................................................... 4.78 4.77 4.74 1.09 1.08 1.08 

Onroad ..................................................... 2.42 1.56 1.44 5.15 3.05 2.75 

Nonroad ................................................... 1.51 1.00 0.96 2.07 1.47 1.40 

Total (% decrease from 2011–2017 

and 2017–2018) ............................ 9.43 8.20 8.02 19.47 16.47 16.10 

........................ (13.04%) (2.20%) ........................ (15.41%) (2.25%) 

Wisconsin is able to meet the RFP and 

RFP contingency requirements entirely 

through Federal permanent and 

enforceable control measures within the 

mobile source sectors. Table 4 

specifically contains the calculations 

showing Wisconsin’s mobile source 

emissions reductions meet the RFP and 

RFP contingency requirements. The 

MOVES model for the on-road and nonroad sectors assumed increases of 11– 

13% in vehicle or equipment 

population and usage while projecting a 

34–41% reduction in ozone precursor 

emissions from 2011 to 2017. The 

estimated emissions reductions, 

therefore, cannot be attributed to 

reductions in source activity. Table 4 

shows that of the 14.95% total VOC 

reductions from 2011–2018, 14.63%16

came from the mobile sector. Table 4 

also shows that of the 17.31% total NOX

reductions from 2011–2018, 15.77% 

came from the mobile sector. Wisconsin 

is choosing to count 5% VOC reductions 

and 10% NOX reductions from 2011– 

2017 to meet the 15% RFP requirement, 

and 1% VOC reductions and 2% NOX

reductions from 2011–2018 to meet the 

3% RFP contingency requirement. In 

other words, 6% VOC reductions and 

12% NOX reductions for a total of 18% 

to satisfy the 15% RFP and 3% RFP 

contingency requirements. 

TABLE 4—WISCONSIN’S MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM 2011–2017 ARE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE 15% 

RFP REQUIREMENT AND WISCONSIN’S MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM 2017–2018 ARE SUFFICIENT

TO MEET THE 3% RFP CONTINGENCY REQUIREMENT FOR WISCONSIN’S PORTION OF THE CHICAGO AREA

VOC NOX

2011 2017 2018 2011 2017 2018 

Total emissions (tpsd) .............................. 9.43 8.20 8.02 19.47 16.47 16.10 

% Reduction from base year emissions 

from 2011–2017 and 2017–2018, respectively .............................................. ........................ 13.04% 1.91% ........................ 15.41% 1.90% 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40719 

17Net the increase in emissions from the point 

source sector from 2011–2017 (see Table 3). 

TABLE 4—WISCONSIN’S MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM 2011–2017 ARE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE 15% 

RFP REQUIREMENT AND WISCONSIN’S MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM 2017–2018 ARE SUFFICIENT

TO MEET THE 3% RFP CONTINGENCY REQUIREMENT FOR WISCONSIN’S PORTION OF THE CHICAGO AREA—Continued 

VOC NOX

2011 2017 2018 2011 2017 2018 

Total .................................................. ........................ 14.95% ........................ 17.31% 

Mobile sector (onroad + nonroad) emissions (tpsd) ........................................... 3.93 2.56 2.40 7.22 4.52 4.15 

% Reductions attributable to the mobile 

sector from base year emissions from 

2011–2017 17 and 2017–2018, respectively ..................................................... ........................ 12.94% 1.70% ........................ 13.87% 1.90% 

Total .................................................. ........................ 14.63% ........................ 15.77% 

Wisconsin’s choice for 15% RFP requirement and 3% RFP contingency requirement, respectively ........................ ........................ 5% 1% ........................ 10% 2% 

Total .................................................. ........................ 6% ........................ 12% 

The MOVES model incorporates a 

number of Federal emissions control 

programs into its projections. These 

emissions reduction measures are 

permanent and enforceable and are 

implemented everywhere, including in 

the nonattainment area. Tables 5 and 6 

list the Federal permanent and 

enforceable control programs modeled 

by the MOVES model for the on-road 

sector and the non-road sector, 

respectively. 

TABLE 5—PERMANENT AND ENFORCEABLE CONTROL PROGRAMS MODELED BY THE MOVES MODEL FOR THE ONROAD

SECTOR

On-road control program Pollutants Model year * Regulation 

Passenger vehicles, SUVs, and light duty trucks—emissions and fuel standards.VOC & NOX ....................... 2004–09+ (Tier 2) 2017+ 

(Tier 3).

40 CFR Part 85 & 86. 

Light-duty trucks and medium duty passenger vehicle— 

evaporative standards.

VOC ................................... 2004–10 ............................. 40 CFR Part 86. 

Heavy-duty highway compression engines ..................... VOC & NOX ....................... 2007+ ................................ 40 CFR Part 86. 

Heavy-duty spark ignition engines .................................. VOC & NOX ....................... 2005–08+ .......................... 40 CFR Part 86. 

Motorcycles ...................................................................... VOC & NOX ....................... 2006–10 (Tier 1 & 2) ......... 40 CFR Part 86. 

Mobile Source Air Toxics—fuel formulation, passenger 

vehicle emissions, and portable container emissions.

Organic Toxics & VOC ...... 2009–15 ** ......................... 40 CFR Part 59, 80, 85, & 

86. 

Light duty vehicle corporate average fuel economy 

standards.

Fuel efficiency (VOC & 

NOX).

2012–16 & 2017–25 .......... 40 CFR Part 600. 

* The range in model years affected can reflect phasing of requirements based on engine size or initial years for replacing earlier tier requirements. 

** The range in model years reflects phased implementation of fuel, passenger vehicle, and portable container emission requirements as well 

as the phasing by vehicle size and type. 

TABLE 6—PERMANENT AND ENFORCEABLE CONTROL PROGRAMS MODELED BY THE MOVES MODEL OR CONSIDERED IN

DEVELOPMENT OF THE MAR INVENTORY FOR THE NONROAD SECTOR

Nonroad control program * Pollutants Model year ** Regulation 

Aircraft ............................................................................. VOC & NOX ....................... 2000–2005+ ...................... 40 CFR Part 87. 

Compression Ignition ....................................................... VOC & NOX ....................... 2000–2015+ (Tier 4) ......... 40 CFR Part 89 & 1039. 

Large Spark Ignition ........................................................ VOC & NOX ....................... 2007+ ................................ 40 CFR Part 1048. 

Locomotive Engines ........................................................ VOC & NOX ....................... 2012–2014 (Tier 3) 2015+ 

(Tier 4).

40 CFR Part 1033. 

Marine Compression Ignition ........................................... VOC & NOX ....................... 2012–2018 ......................... 40 CFR Part 1042. 

Marine Spark Ignition ...................................................... VOC & NOX ....................... 2010+ ................................ 40 CFR Part 1045. 

Recreational Vehicle ........................................................ VOC & NOX ....................... 2006–2012 (Tier 1–3) ........ 40 CFR Part 1051. 

Small Spark Ignition Engine <19 Kw—emission standards.VOC & NOX ....................... 2005–2012 (Tier 2 & 3) ..... 40 CFR Part 90 & 1054. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
40720 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

18See the SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone 

standards in EPA’s March 6, 2015 implementation 

rule (80 FR 12264). 

19 40 CFR 93.101. 

TABLE 6—PERMANENT AND ENFORCEABLE CONTROL PROGRAMS MODELED BY THE MOVES MODEL OR CONSIDERED IN

DEVELOPMENT OF THE MAR INVENTORY FOR THE NONROAD SECTOR—Continued 

Nonroad control program * Pollutants Model year ** Regulation 

Small Spark Ignition Engine <19 Kw—evaporative 

standards.

VOC ................................... 2008–2016 ......................... 40 CFR Part 1045, 54, & 

60. 

* Compression ignition applies to diesel non-road compression engines including engines operated in construction, agricultural, and mining 

equipment. Recreational vehicles include snowmobiles, off-road motorcycles, and all-terrain vehicles. Small spark ignition engines include engines operated in lawn and hand-held equipment. 

** The range in model years affected can reflect phasing of requirements based on engine size or initial years for replacing earlier tier 

requirements. 

These emissions reductions are 

surplus, meaning that Wisconsin has 

not previously claimed them for the 

purposes of other ozone NAAQS 

requirements. These emission 

reductions are also permanent, 

enforceable, and occurred during the 6- 

year attainment planning time period, 

which started with the 2011 base year. 

Wisconsin has demonstrated that these 

emissions reductions result in at least 

an 18% reduction (15% for RFP and 3% 

for the RFP contingency measure 

requirements, respectively) from the 

2011 base year inventory emissions net 

of growth (and including a MVEB safety 

margin of 7.5% which will be discussed 

in more detail below). Thus, EPA is 

proposing to approve these emissions 

reductions as satisfying the 15% RFP 

and 3% RFP contingency measure 

requirements for the moderate 

nonattainment plan for the Wisconsin 

portion of the Chicago area for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

EPA notes that the measures 

Wisconsin is relying upon to meet the 

contingency measures requirement are 

already implemented. Contingency 

measures may include Federal measures 

and local measures already scheduled 

for implementation, as long as the 

resulting emission reductions are in 

excess of those needed for attainment or 

to meet RFP in the nonattainment plan. 

EPA interprets the CAA not to preclude 

a state from implementing such 

measures before they are triggered by a 

failure to meet RFP or failure to attain. 

For more information on contingency 

measures, see the General Preamble for 

the Implementation of Title I of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990 (April 16, 1992, 

57 FR 13498, 13510) and the 2008 

Ozone Implementation Rule (March 6, 

2015, 80 FR 12264, 12285). 

The appropriateness of relying on 

already-implemented reductions to meet 

the contingency measures requirement 

has been addressed in two Federal 

circuit court decisions. See Louisiana 

Environmental Action Network (LEAN) 

v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575, 586 (5th Cir. 

2004), Bahr v. United States EPA, 836 

F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 

199 L. Ed. 2d 525, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 58 

(Jan. 8, 2018). EPA believes that the 

language of section 172(c)(9) and 

182(c)(9) is ambiguous with respect to 

this issue, and that it is reasonable for 

the agency to interpret the statutory 

language to allow approval of already 

implemented measures as contingency 

measures, so long as they meet other 

parameters such as providing excess 

emissions reductions that the state has 

not relied upon to meet RFP or for 

attainment in the nonattainment plan 

for the NAAQS at issue. Until the Bahr 

decision, under EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation of CAA section 172(c)(9) 

and 182(c)(9), states could rely on 

control measures that were already 

implemented (so called ‘‘early 

triggered’’ contingency measures) as a 

valid means to meet the Act’s 

contingency measures requirement. The 

Ninth Circuit decision in Bahr leaves a 

split among the Federal circuit courts, 

with the Fifth Circuit upholding the 

Agency’s interpretation of section 

172(c)(9) to allow early triggered 

contingency measures and the Ninth 

Circuit rejecting that interpretation. The 

Seventh Circuit in which Wisconsin is 

located has not addressed the issue, nor 

has the Supreme Court or any other 

circuit court other than the Fifth and 

Ninth. 

Because there is a split in the Federal 

circuits on this issue, EPA expects that 

states located in circuits other than the 

Ninth may elect to rely on EPA’s 

longstanding interpretation of section 

172(c)(9) allowing early triggered 

measures to be approved as contingency 

measures, in appropriate circumstances. 

EPA’s revised Regional Consistency 

regulations pertaining to SIP provisions 

authorize the Agency to follow this 

interpretation of section 172(c)(9) in 

circuits other than the Ninth. See 40 

CFR part 56. To ensure that early 

triggered contingency measures 

appropriately satisfy all other relevant 

CAA requirements, the EPA will 

carefully review each such measure, and 

intends to consult with states 

considering such measures early in the 

attainment plan development process. 

As shown above, the emissions 

reductions projected through 2018 are 

sufficient to meet the requirements for 

contingency measures, consistent with 

EPA’s interpretation of the CAA to 

allow approval of already implemented 

control measures as contingency 

measures in states outside the Ninth 

Circuit. Therefore, we propose approval 

of the contingency measures submitted 

by the state in the nonattainment plan 

for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago 

area. 

C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation plans, programs, or 

projects that receive Federal funding or 

support, such as the construction of new 

highways, must ‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be 

consistent with) the SIP. Conformity to 

a SIP means that transportation 

activities will not produce new air 

quality violations, worsen existing 

violations, or delay timely attainment of 

the NAAQS. Under the CAA, states are 

required to submit, at various times, 

control strategy plans for nonattainment 

areas and maintenance plans for areas 

that qualify for redesignation to 

attainment of the ozone standards 

(maintenance areas).18 These control 

strategy plans (including reasonable 

further progress plans and attainment 

plans for purposes of the ozone 

NAAQS) and maintenance plans must 

include MVEBs for the relevant criteria 

pollutant or its precursor pollutants 

(VOC and NOX for ozone) to address 

pollution from on-road transportation 

sources. The MVEBs are the portion 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 meet an 

RFP milestone or provide for attainment 

or maintenance of the NAAQS.19 The 

MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40721 

20The MVEB concept is further explained in the 

preamble to the November 24, 1993, Transportation 

Conformity Rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also 

describes how to establish the MVEB in the SIP and 

how to revise the MVEB, if needed, subsequent to 

initially establishing a MVEB in the SIP. 

21 69 FR 40004. 

22 68 FR 38974, 38984. 

23 80 FR 17428. 

24 66 FR 42949. 

25 78 FR 57501. 

26 44 FR 53762. 

27 75 FR 64155. 

from an area’s planned transportation 

system.20

When reviewing submitted control 

strategy or maintenance plan 

submissions, EPA must affirmatively 

find that the MVEBs contained therein 

are adequate for use in determining 

transportation conformity. Once EPA 

affirmatively finds that the submitted 

MVEBs are adequate for transportation 

purposes, then the MVEBs must be used 

by state and Federal agencies in 

determining whether proposed 

transportation projects conform to the 

SIP as required by section 176(c) of the 

CAA. 

EPA’s substantive criteria for 

determining adequacy of a MVEB are set 

out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process 

for determining adequacy consists of 

three basic steps: public notification of 

a SIP submission; provision for a public 

comment period; and EPA’s adequacy 

determination. This process for 

determining the adequacy of submitted 

MVEBs for transportation conformity 

purposes was initially outlined in EPA’s 

May 14, 1999 guidance, ‘‘Conformity 

Guidance on Implementation of March 

2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.’’ 

EPA adopted regulations to codify the 

adequacy process in the Transportation 

Conformity Rule Amendments for the 

‘‘New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards and 

Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing 

Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments—Response to Court 

Decision and Additional Rule Change,’’ 

on July 1, 2004.21 Additional 

information on the adequacy process for 

transportation conformity purposes is 

available in a June 30, 2003, proposed 

rule titled, ‘‘Transportation Conformity 

Rule Amendments: Response to Court 

Decision and Additional Rule 

Changes.’’ 22

On January 16, 2015, Wisconsin 

submitted an early progress SIP 

submission with MVEBs for its portion 

of the Chicago 2008 ozone 

nonattainment area. On April 1, 2015, 

EPA found Wisconsin’s MVEBs 

adequate for use in transportation 

conformity determinations.23 As part of 

its nonattainment plan submitted on 

April 17, 2017, and supplemented on 

January 23, 2018, Wisconsin submitted 

new 2017 and 2018 NOX and VOC 

MVEBs, which are lower than 

Wisconsin’s previous MVEBs found 

adequate by EPA. Wisconsin’s 2017 and 

2018 MVEBs include a safety margin 

that Wisconsin applied in the form of a 

7.5% greater mobile source activity than 

actually projected for 2017 and 2018, 

respectively. By applying this additional 

7.5% on the front end of the analysis, 

Wisconsin’s MOVES model output 

estimates of NOX and VOC emissions for 

2017 and 2018 include a built-in safety 

margin. States typically do this in an 

effort to accommodate future variations 

in travel demand models and vehicle 

miles traveled forecast. As shown in 

Table 4 above, Wisconsin has 

demonstrated that the Wisconsin 

portion of the Chicago area can meet the 

15% RFP and 3% RFP contingency 

measure emission reduction 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS with mobile source (onroad + 

nonroad) emissions, which include an 

onroad budget of 1.56 tpsd VOC and 

3.05 tpsd NOX in 2017 and 1.44 tpsd 

VOC and 2.75 tpsd NOX in 2018 (Table 

7 below), and these emissions will 

remain under 2017 and 2018 RFP plus 

contingency measure target levels, even 

with the inclusion of the added 7.5% 

safety margin. 

Wisconsin’s 2017 and 2018 MVEBS 

were developed as part of an 

interagency consultation process which 

includes Federal, state, and local 

agencies. The MVEBS were clearly 

identified and precisely quantified. 

These MVEBs, when considered 

together with all other emissions 

sources, are consistent with the 15% 

RFP and 3% contingency measure 

emission reduction requirements for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for this area. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve 

Wisconsin’s revised 2017 and 2018 

MVEBs into the Wisconsin SIP. If EPA 

finalizes this approval, these MVEBs 

will replace the MVEBs previously 

established for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

early progress plan and Wisconsin must 

use these updated MVEBs for future 

transportation conformity 

determinations for the Wisconsin 

portion of the Chicago nonattainment 

area. The 2017 and 2018 MVEBs are 

listed in Table 7. 

TABLE 7—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS

BUDGETS (MVEBS) FOR EASTERN

KENOSHA COUNTY FOR 2017 AND

2018 

Year 

Emissions 

(tons per summer day) 

VOC NOX

2017 .......... 1.56 3.05 

2018 .......... 1.44 2.75 

D. Motor Vehicle I/M Program 

Certification 

The requirement to adopt a motor 

vehicle I/M program for moderate ozone 

nonattainment areas is described in 

CAA section 182(b)(4) and the 

regulations for basic and enhanced I/M 

programs are found at 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart S. Under these cumulative 

requirements, states with areas 

classified as moderate nonattainment for 

ozone with 1990 Census-defined 

urbanized populations of 200,000 or 

more are required to adopt basic I/M 

programs, while serious and higher 

classified ozone nonattainment areas 

outside of the northeast ozone transport 

region with 1980 Census-defined 

urbanized populations of 200,000 or 

more are required to adopt enhanced I/ 

M programs. The Chicago area meets the 

criteria for mandatory I/M under the 

2008 ozone NAAQS and the Wisconsin 

portion of the Chicago area is already 

operating an enhanced I/M program due 

to being designated nonattainment and 

classified as serious or above under an 

earlier ozone NAAQS. EPA initially 

approved on August 16, 2001,24

Wisconsin’s I/M program and later 

approved on September 19, 2013,25

revisions to Wisconsin’s I/M program. 

Wisconsin’s approved enhanced I/M 

program in the SIP is consistent with 

the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart S for the alternate low enhanced 

performance standards. In its April 17, 

2017, submission, Wisconsin certified 

that it still meets the Federal enhanced 

I/M performance requirement. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to find that 

Wisconsin has met the I/M requirement 

for its portion of the Chicago area for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. 

E. NOX RACT Certification 

Section 182(f) of the CAA requires 

RACT level controls for major stationary 

sources of NOX located in moderate 

ozone nonattainment areas. ‘‘RACT’’ is 

defined as the lowest emission 

limitation that a particular source is 

capable of meeting by the application of 

control technology that is reasonably 

available considering technological and 

economic feasibility.26 Section 302 of 

the CAA defines a major stationary 

source as any facility which has the 

potential to emit 100 tons per year of 

any air pollutant. EPA approved 

Wisconsin’s NOX RACT program into 

the SIP on October 19, 2010,27 for 

purposes of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

Wisconsin’s NOX RACT requirements 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
40722 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

28CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(i). 

29CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii). 

30 58 FR 64155. 31 80 FR 12264 at 12291. 

are codified at NR 428.20 to 428.26 of 

the Wisconsin Administrative Code. 

Wisconsin’s NOX RACT rules are 

applicable to major stationary sources of 

NOX located in Wisconsin’s moderate 

ozone nonattainment areas, including 

Kenosha County. The only major source 

of NOX in the portion of Kenosha 

County that is designated nonattainment 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is Wisconsin 

Electric Power Company, D/B/A We 

Energies-Pleasant Prairie Power Plant. 

This source has selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) technology for 

controlling NOX emissions from each of 

its two coal-fired boilers and has been 

subject to an emission limit of 0.10 

pounds of NOX per Million British 

Thermal Unit (MMBTU) since May 1, 

2009. Because Wisconsin has EPAapproved NOX RACT rules applicable to 

Kenosha County sources in its SIP, and 

EPA considers the current control 

technology and limit at the major 

stationary source in the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS nonattainment portion of 

Kenosha County to be RACT for NOX, 

EPA is proposing to find that Wisconsin 

has satisfied the NOX RACT 

requirements for its moderate 

nonattainment plan for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS for the Wisconsin portion of the 

Chicago nonattainment area, which is 

the portion of Kenosha County inclusive 

and east of Highway 94. 

F. Emissions Statement Certification 

For marginal ozone nonattainment 

areas, states must adopt SIP provisions 

requiring emissions statements from 

stationary sources of VOC and NOX.28

States may waive this requirement for 

sources emitting less than 25 tons per 

year of VOC and less than 25 tons per 

year of NOX.29 Under NR 438 of the 

Wisconsin Administrative Code, 

Wisconsin requires annual NOX and 

VOC emission reporting from any 

facility in the state that emits NOX

above 10,000 pounds (5 tons) per year 

and VOC above 6,000 pounds (3 tons) 

per year. This includes facilities in 

nonattainment areas such as the 

Wisconsin portion of the Chicago 

nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. EPA previously approved NR 

438 into the Wisconsin SIP on 

December 6, 1993.30

As part of a moderate ozone 

nonattainment plan, states should 

certify that the proper emissions 

statement reporting requirements are in 

place. If an area has a previously 

approved emission statement provision 

in the SIP in force for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS or the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

that covers all portions of the 

nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, then such rule should be 

sufficient for purposes of the emissions 

statement requirement for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. The state should review 

the existing rule to ensure it is adequate 

and, if it is, may rely on it to meet the 

emission statement requirement for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. In cases when an 

existing emission statement requirement 

is still adequate to meet the 

requirements of the implementation rule 

for the 2008 ozone standard, states can 

provide the rationale for that 

determination to EPA in a written 

statement in its SIP submission to meet 

this requirement.31

In a separate submission to EPA on 

August 15, 2016, Wisconsin included a 

certification that its emissions statement 

provision in the SIP is still adequate to 

meet the requirements for the Wisconsin 

portion of the Chicago 2008 ozone 

nonattainment area. In Wisconsin’s 

January 23, 2018, supplemental 

submission to EPA regarding 

Wisconsin’s moderate area ozone 

nonattainment plan for the Chicago 

area, Wisconsin requested that EPA act 

on its August 15, 2016, emission 

statement certification as part of the 

action on Wisconsin’s nonattainment 

plan elements included in this proposal. 

Because Wisconsin has an EPA 

approved SIP provision requiring 

stationary sources to report annually 

their NOX and VOC emissions at least as 

high as 25 tons per year for each 

precursor, EPA proposes that Wisconsin 

has satisfied the emissions statement 

requirement for its nonattainment plan 

for the Chicago area for the purposes of 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

III. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to approve revisions 

to Wisconsin’s SIP pursuant to section 

110 and part D of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations because Wisconsin’s April 

17, 2017, nonattainment plan 

submissions and January 23, 2018, 

supplement along with a prior 

submission on August 15, 2016, satisfy 

the emission inventory, RFP, RFP 

contingency measure, NOX RACT, 

emissions statement, I/M, and 

transportation conformity requirements 

for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago 

area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40723 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: August 1, 2018. 

James Payne, 

Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, 

Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17590 Filed 8–15–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0165; FRL–9982– 

30—Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Approval of 

Sulfur Dioxide Regulations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, 

under the Clean Air Act, Ohio’s revised 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) regulations, which 

Ohio submitted to EPA on March 13, 

2017. Ohio updated its regulations to 

correct facility information which has 

changed and to add new emission limits 

for selected sources in Lake and 

Jefferson Counties. The revised 

regulations do not impose substantive 

changes or additional emission 

restrictions upon the Ohio State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) except for 

the site-specific provisions which have 

been revised in response to Ohio’s 

nonattainment area designations of 

August 5, 2013. EPA is proposing to 

approve the majority of the revised 

regulations which the state submitted. 

EPA proposes to take no action on a 

portion of one submitted rule, which 

has never been federally approved. EPA 

also proposes to remove one rule from 

the SIP, which Ohio rescinded and 

replaced in 2009. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 17, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2017–0165 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Portanova, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)353–5954, 

portanova.mary@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. Introduction 

II. Review of Rules 

A. Overview 

B. Revisions to General Rules 

C. Rules Addressing Nonattainment Areas 

1. Lake County Area 

2. Muskingum River Area (Morgan and 

Washington Counties) 

3. Steubenville Area (Jefferson County) 

D. County-Specific Issues 

1. Cuyahoga County 

2. Lorain County 

3. Ross County 

4. Wayne County 

E. Removal of Rescinded Rule 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Introduction 

On March 13, 2017, Ohio submitted 

revisions to the Ohio Administrative 

Code Chapter 3745–18 (OAC 3745–18), 

effective on February 16, 2017, for 

incorporation by EPA into the Ohio SO2

SIP. OAC 3745–18 contains Ohio’s air 

emission regulations for SO2, which 

include both statewide requirements 

and emission limits for each Ohio 

county. This submittal was the product 

of a comprehensive examination of the 

state’s SO2 rules which Ohio undertook 

in accordance with its routine five-year 

rule review process. The state made a 

number of revisions to OAC 3745–18, 

updating facility data to match the 

current information in its operating 

permits database and removing 

requirements which only applied to 

facilities which have closed or units 

which have been removed from existing 

facilities. For several sources, Ohio 

retained the existing limits in OAC 

3745–18, but separately issued federally 

enforceable permits containing tighter 

limits than those in the rule, or new 

provisions reflecting physical changes at 

the facility. Generally, these permits 

addressed changes which had occurred 

too late to include in the state’s 

rulemaking action. The effect of EPA’s 

approval of the revised OAC 3745–18 

SIP rules submitted on March 13, 2017, 

would be to retain federal enforceability 

of both sets of limits for each source. 

Ohio’s March 13, 2017 submittal also 

included rules which Ohio had 

developed to address Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requirements for three 1-hour 

SO2 nonattainment areas. Ohio first 

adopted these new rules, which are 

found in OAC 3745–18–03, OAC 3745– 

18–04, OAC 3745–18–47, and OAC 

3745–18–49, on October 13, 2015, and 

submitted the rules to EPA as part of the 

state’s October 13, 2015, nonattainment 

SIP submittal. Later, Ohio made 

significant revisions and corrections to 

some of the nonattainment area rules. 

The state adopted the revised 

nonattainment area rules on February 6, 

2017, and submitted them to EPA on 

March 13, 2017, within Ohio’s larger 

five-year rule review package. EPA is 

proposing action on Ohio’s entire March 

13, 2017 submittal of revisions to OAC 

3745–18, regarding their incorporation 

into the state’s SO2 SIP. Separate action 

will address whether Ohio’s revisions to 

OAC 3745–18–03, OAC 3745–18–04, 

OAC 3745–18–47, and OAC 3745–18–49 

satisfy EPA’s nonattainment planning 

requirements. 

II. Review of Rules 

A. Overview 

Ohio’s federally approved SO2 SIP 

contains six generally applicable 

chapters of OAC 3745–18 and 88 

county-specific chapters. The six 

generally applicable chapters are OAC 

3745–18–01, ‘‘Definitions and 

incorporation by reference,’’ OAC 3745– 

18–02, ‘‘Ambient air quality standards; 

sulfur dioxide,’’ OAC 3745–18–03, 

‘‘Attainment dates and compliance time 

schedules,’’ OAC 3745–18–04, 

‘‘Measurement methods and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS