Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0704-0010
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Final Approval/Disapproval of the Wisconsin Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
Posted Date: 2016-08-12T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53309-53311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19025]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0704; FRL-9950-54-Region 5]

Wisconsin; Approval/Disapproval of Interstate Transport 
Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is partially 
approving and partially disapproving elements of State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) submission from Wisconsin regarding the infrastructure 
requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The 
infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural 
components of each state's air quality management program are adequate 
to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. This action 
pertains specifically to infrastructure requirements concerning 
interstate transport provisions for which Wisconsin made a SIP 
submission that, among other things, certified that the existing SIP 
was sufficient to meet the interstate transport requirements for the 
2008 ozone NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 12, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0704. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
through www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in 
the ``For Further Information Contact'' section for additional 
availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Arra, 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) 886-9401, arra.sarah@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever

[[Page 53310]]

``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary 
information section is arranged as follows:

    I. What is the background of this SIP submission?
    II. What action did EPA propose on the SIP submission?
    III. What is our response to comments received on the proposed 
rulemaking?
    IV. What action is EPA taking?
    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?

    This rulemaking addresses CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements 
in an infrastructure SIP submission addressing the applicable 
infrastructure requirements with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 
submitted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) on 
June 20, 2013, and clarified in a letter dated January 28, 2015.
    The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type 
arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), 
states must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter 
period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a 
national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision 
thereof),'' and these SIP submissions are to provide for the 
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The 
statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP 
submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not 
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new 
or revised NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that 
``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address. EPA commonly refers to 
such state plans as ``infrastructure SIPs.''
    This rulemaking takes action on two CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 
requirements which apply to these submissions. In particular, section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any 
source or other type of emissions activity in one state from 
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS (``prong 
one''), or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS (``prong two''), 
by any another state. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that 
infrastructure SIPs include provisions prohibiting any source or other 
type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures 
required to prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality 
(``prong three'') and to protect visibility (``prong four'') in another 
state. This rulemaking addresses prongs one and two of this CAA 
section. The majority of the other infrastructure elements were 
approved in rulemakings on September 11, 2015 (80 FR 54725).

II. What action did EPA propose on the SIP submission?

    The proposed rulemaking associated with today's final action was 
published on March 16, 2016 (81 FR 14025). In that action, EPA proposed 
to disapprove the Wisconsin SIP for the prong two requirement because 
the WDNR SIP submission did not provide an adequate technical analysis 
demonstrating that the state's SIP contained adequate provisions 
prohibiting emissions that will significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state 
and because EPA's most recent modeling indicated that emissions from 
Wisconsin were projected to contribute to projected downwind 
maintenance receptors in another state. EPA also proposed to approve 
the Wisconsin SIP for the prong one requirement because, although WDNR 
did not provide information or analyses explaining why existing SIP 
provisions are adequate to prevent significant contribution to 
nonattainment in downwind states, EPA's independent modeling presented 
in the Notice of Data Availability and the Cross-State Air Pollution 
Update Rule indicated that Wisconsin emissions were not linked to any 
projected downwind nonattainment receptors. Therefore, EPA proposed to 
find that the Wisconsin SIP had adequate provisions to prevent such 
significant contribution to nonattainment for the 2008 ozone standard.

III. What is our response to comments received on the proposed 
rulemaking?

    During the comment period, which ended on April 15, 2016, EPA did 
not receive any comments on the Wisconsin portion of the proposed 
notice. Comments pertaining to Ohio and Indiana are addressed in a June 
15, 2016 rulemaking (81 FR 38957).

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA, as proposed, is approving prong one and disapproving prong two 
of a required infrastructure element with respect to CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i), interstate transport, for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The 
approval is based on the June 20, 2013 SIP submission in which 
Wisconsin certified that the current SIP is sufficient to meet the CAA 
requirements. The disapproval portion of this action triggers an 
obligation under CAA section 110(c) for EPA to promulgate a Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than two years from the effective 
date of this disapproval, if EPA has not approved a SIP revision or 
revisions addressing the deficiencies identified in this action. The 
disapproval in this action is not tied to attainment planning 
requirements and therefore does not start any sanction clocks.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was 
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the PRA.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is 
any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency 
may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory 
burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect 
on the small entities subject to the rule. This action merely proposes 
to disapprove state law as not meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, 
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

[[Page 53311]]

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 
rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks 
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children 
because it proposes to disapprove a state rule.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by 
this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or 
indigenous populations.
Congressional Review Act
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by October 11, 2016. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.

    Dated: August 1, 2016.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 52.2591 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.2591  Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

* * * * *
    (g) Approval--In a June 20, 2013, submission with a January 28, 
2015, clarification, Wisconsin certified that the state has satisfied 
the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through 
(H), and (J) through (M) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. For 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), we are approving prong one and disapproving prong 
two. We are not taking action on the prevention of significant 
deterioration requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), 
and (J) and the state board requirements of (E)(ii). We will address 
these requirements in a separate action.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-19025 Filed 8-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P