Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0465-0002
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Proposed Approval of the Southeast Wisconsin I/M Program
Posted Date: 2013-04-25T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 80 (Thursday, April 25, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24373-24378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09536]

[[Page 24373]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0465; FRL-9805-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Wisconsin; Amendments to Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program for 
Wisconsin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 
(WDNR) on June 7, 2012, concerning the State's vehicle inspection and 
maintenance (I/M) program in southeast Wisconsin. The revision amends 
I/M program requirements in the active control measures portion of the 
ozone SIP to reflect changes that have been implemented at the state 
level since EPA fully approved the I/M program on August 16, 2001. The 
submittal also includes a demonstration under section 110(l) of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA) addressing lost emission reductions associated with 
the program changes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2012-0465, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (312) 692-2450.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies 
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are 
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal 
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2012-0465. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
instructions on submitting comments, go to section I of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. 
We recommend that you telephone Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental 
Protection Specialist, at (312) 886-6061 before visiting the Region 5 
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental 
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch 
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6061, 
acevedo.francisco@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
section is arranged as follows:

    I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
    II. Background
    III. What changes have been made to the Wisconsin I/M program?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the state's submittal?
    a. Substantive I/M Requirements
    b. Performance Evaluation
    c. Demonstrating Noninterference With Attainment and Maintenance 
Under CAA Section 110(l)
V. What action is EPA proposing to take?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific 
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period.

II. Background

    The general purpose of motor vehicle I/M programs is to reduce 
emissions from in-use motor vehicles in need of repairs and thereby 
contribute to state and local efforts to improve air quality and to 
attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
    Wisconsin has operated an I/M program in southeastern Wisconsin 
since 1984. The program is presently operating in Kenosha, Milwaukee, 
Ozaukee, Racine, Sheboygan, Washington and Waukesha Counties. 
Initially, all vehicles were inspected by

[[Page 24374]]

measuring tailpipe emission levels. Since July of 2001, all model year 
(MY) 1996 and later cars and light trucks have been inspected by 
scanning the vehicle's computerized second generation on-board 
diagnostic (OBDII) systems. EPA fully approved Wisconsin's I/M program 
on August 16, 2001, (66 FR 42949) including the program's legal 
authority and administrative requirements found in sections 100.20 and 
285.30 of the Wisconsin Statutes and Chapters NR 485 and Trans 131 of 
the Wisconsin Administrative Code. As of July 2008, the program dropped 
tailpipe testing entirely and inspected all vehicles by scanning the 
OBDII systems. This change was the result of statutory changes in the 
State's 2007-2009 biennial budget which exempted model years of 
vehicles not Federally required to be equipped with the OBDII 
technology (MY 1995 and earlier cars and light trucks and MY 2006 and 
earlier heavy trucks).

III. What changes have been made to the Wisconsin I/M program?

    The Wisconsin I/M SIP revision submitted on June 7, 2012, reflects 
several changes to the approved program. The most significant changes 
to the Wisconsin I/M program took effect beginning on July 2008 and 
include:
     The elimination of I/M program testing requirements for 
non-OBDII equipped vehicles. This change impacted MY 1968 through 1995 
vehicles. These vehicles were previously subject to tailpipe testing.
     The elimination of I/M program testing requirements for 
gasoline vehicles with gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) between 8,500 
to 10,000 pounds (lbs). This change impacted MY 1996 through 2006 
vehicles. Previously, all vehicles up to 10,000 lbs. were subject to 
testing.
     The addition of I/M program testing requirements for 
gasoline vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 to 14,000 lbs. This change 
impacted MY 2007 and later vehicles.
     The addition of I/M program testing requirements for 
diesel vehicles with a GVWR up to 14,000 lbs. This change impacted MY 
2007 and later vehicles.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The purpose of adding I/M testing requirements for heavier 
gasoline and diesel vehicles was to offset any lost emission 
reductions from the elimination of tailpipe testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the changes discussed above, the June 7, 2012, 
submittal included a number of minor revisions to the program that do 
not have a significant impact on overall program operations or the 
emissions reductions associated with it. A full list of the changes 
submitted by Wisconsin for EPA approval include: Revisions to Section 
100.20, Wisconsin Statutes (2001 Wisconsin Act 16, published August 31, 
2001; 2003 Wisconsin Act 220, published April 22, 2003; 2005 Wisconsin 
Act 49, published October 27, 2005; 2007 Wisconsin Act 20, published 
October 26, 2007; 2009 Wisconsin Act 228, published May 19, 2010). 
Revisions to Section 285.30, Wisconsin Statutes (2003 Wisconsin Act 
192, published April 21, 2004; 2007 Wisconsin Act 20, published October 
26, 2007; 2007 Wisconsin Act 33, published December 3, 2007; 2009 
Wisconsin Act 157, published March 24, 2010; 2009 Wisconsin Act 311, 
published May 26, 2010). Revisions to Wisconsin Administrative Code, 
Chapter NR 485 (Clearinghouse Rule CR 05-072 effective April 1, 2006; 
Clearinghouse Rule CR 10-049 effective December 1, 2010). Revisions to 
Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter Trans 131 (Clearinghouse Rule CR 
01-121 effective April 1, 2002; Clearinghouse Rule CR 07-114 effective 
July 1, 2008; Clearinghouse Rule CR 10-088 effective January 1, 2011).
    To support the changes outlined above, the revision also included a 
summary of the MOVES2010a modeling inputs used to calculate program 
benefits; a demonstration for meeting the modeling requirements for 
EPA's alternate low enhanced I/M performance standard; a section 110(l) 
demonstration that includes offset emission credits; and an emissions 
inventory evaluation by Sonoma Technology, Inc. WDNR held a public 
hearing on the Wisconsin I/M SIP revision on May 7, 2012, in Milwaukee, 
Wisconsin and allowed for written public comments until May 11, 2012. 
Full copies of the SIP revision are located in EPA's docket.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of the state's submittal?

a. Substantive I/M Requirements

    EPA's requirements for basic and enhanced I/M programs are found in 
40 CFR part 51, subpart S. The I/M SIP revision submitted by Wisconsin 
must be consistent with these requirements and must meet EPA's 
requirements for enforceability and section 110(l) requirements of the 
CAA. The specific aspects of I/M affected by the submitted revisions to 
the Wisconsin I/M program include vehicle coverage and exemptions, test 
procedures and standards, test equipment, waivers and compliance, 
enforcement against contractors, inspector training and licensing or 
certification, and the performance standard evaluation.
1. Vehicle Coverage--40 CFR 51.356
    Under 40 CFR 51.356, the performance standard for enhanced I/M 
programs (including alternate low enhanced programs) assumes coverage 
of all MY 1968 and later light duty vehicles and trucks up to 8,500 
pounds GVWR, and includes vehicles operating on all fuel types. 
Vehicles registered or required to be registered within the I/M program 
area boundaries, and fleets primarily operated within the I/M program 
area boundaries and belonging to the covered model years and vehicle 
classes comprise the subject vehicles. Under EPA regulations, other 
levels of coverage may be approved if the necessary emission reductions 
are achieved. The Wisconsin I/M program originally approved in the SIP 
by EPA, required testing of MY 1968 and later gasoline vehicles with a 
GVWR up to 10,000 lbs. Vehicles were first subject to the requirements 
when the vehicles were two model years old and every two years 
thereafter. The I/M SIP revision amends these provisions to eliminate 
emission inspection of vehicles MY 1995 and earlier, and exempts from 
testing off-road utility vehicles, lightweight utility vehicles, and 
low-speed vehicles. The I/M SIP revision adds emission inspection 
requirements for vehicles MY 2007 and later with a GVWR up to 14,000 
lbs., while limiting emission inspection of vehicles MY 2006 and 
earlier to only those with a GVWR up to 8,500 lbs. Finally, the I/M SIP 
revision adds emission inspection of vehicles MY 2007 and later that 
are powered by diesel fuel. Under the revised requirements, vehicles 
are first subject to the requirements when vehicles are four model 
years old and every two years thereafter. However, as described in 
section IV.b below, EPA concludes that the state has demonstrated that 
it meets the alternate low enhanced performance standards with the 
revised program changes. Thus, the changes in vehicle coverage under 
the revised requirements are acceptable under 40 CFR 51.356.
2. Test Procedures-Standards--40 CFR 51.357
    Under 40 CFR 51.357, I/M programs must establish and implement 
written test procedures and pass/fail standards for each model year and 
vehicle type. The Wisconsin I/M program originally approved in the SIP 
by EPA already contains detailed procedures for connecting to the OBDII 
system in 1996 and newer vehicles, information on

[[Page 24375]]

readiness codes for OBDII tests, and pass/fail standards for OBDII 
equipped vehicles. Under the revised requirements Wisconsin establishes 
OBDII as the primary testing method and eliminates the previously 
established idle and transient tailpipe testing methods. The changes 
repeal references in the requirements relating to these now eliminated 
testing methods including emission equipment specifications and 
inspection requirements. In addition, the revised requirements 
eliminate the evaporative emission test also known as the ``gas cap 
test'', which was previously required but is no longer necessary with 
OBDII technology. This part of the submittal meets the requirements of 
40 CFR 51.357 and 40 CFR 51.358 of the Federal I/M regulation.
3. Test Equipment--40 CFR 51.358
    Computerized test systems are required for performing any 
measurement on subject vehicles. The Federal I/M regulation requires 
that the state SIP submittal include written technical specifications 
for all test equipment used in the program. The specifications must 
describe the analysis process, the necessary test equipment, the 
required features, and written acceptance testing criteria and 
procedures. The Wisconsin I/M program originally approved in the SIP by 
EPA already contains detailed technical specifications for program test 
equipment that mirror EPA's requirements and guidance. As mentioned 
before, the revised changes repeal references in the requirements 
relating to idle and transient tailpipe testing methods, including 
emission equipment specifications and inspection requirements retaining 
the requirements and specifications for OBDII testing. This part of the 
submittal continues to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.358 of the 
Federal I/M regulation.
4. Waivers and Compliance via Diagnostic Inspection--40 CFR 51.360
    The Federal I/M regulation allows for the issuance of a waiver, 
which is a form of compliance with the program requirements that allows 
a motorist to comply without meeting the applicable test standards. An 
expenditure of at least $450 in repairs, adjusted annually to reflect 
the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as compared to the CPI for 
1989, is required in order to qualify for a waiver in enhanced I/M 
areas. An expenditure of at least $75 for pre-1981 vehicles and $200 
for 1981 and newer vehicles is required in order to qualify for a 
waiver in basic I/M areas. Waivers can only be issued after a vehicle 
has failed a retest performed after all qualifying repairs have been 
made. Any available warranty coverage must be used to obtain repairs 
before expenditures can be counted toward the cost limit. Tampering 
related repairs must not be applied toward the cost limit. Repairs must 
be appropriate to the cause of the test failure. Under the I/M program 
approved in the SIP, Wisconsin established waiver limits in section 
110.20(13) of the Wisconsin Statutes and in NR 485.045(1) requiring an 
expenditure of at least $75 for pre-1981 vehicles and $200 for 1981 and 
newer vehicles in order to qualify for a waiver in Sheboygan County and 
an expenditure of at least $450 in repairs, adjusted annually to 
reflect the change in the CPI as compared to the CPI for 1989, as 
established by the EPA, for the remaining I/M counties. Sheboygan 
County had a lower repair cost limits since its nonattainment 
classification established in 1992 was at a lower level than that for 
the other six counties. In the Wisconsin I/M SIP revision, the 
requirements have expanded the coverage of the inflation adjusted 
repair cost limit in NR 485.045 to all counties subject to the I/M 
program and to vehicles with OBDII systems, thereby raising the lower 
limits for Sheboygan County. In addition, the revision clarifies that 
to obtain a waiver of compliance on the basis of statutory repair cost 
limit, a vehicle must pass a waiver emission equipment inspection. This 
part of the submittal continues to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.360.
5. Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors--40 CFR 
51.364 and Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification--40 CFR 
51.367
    The Federal I/M regulation requires all inspectors to be formally 
trained and licensed or certified to perform inspections. In addition, 
the regulation requires the establishment of minimum penalties for 
violations of program rules and procedures that can be imposed against 
stations, contactors and inspectors. The state must include in the SIP 
the legal authority for establishing and imposing penalties, civil 
fines, license suspensions and revocations. The Wisconsin I/M program 
originally approved in the SIP by EPA already includes the legal 
authority that addresses these requirements. However, the Wisconsin I/M 
SIP revision includes amendments to the legal authority that also allow 
the State to establish methods for emission testing and delivery of 
testing services, in addition to the previously established method of a 
single contractor. It establishes as the service delivery method a 
possibility of contractors who perform the test at their own 
facilities, or by subcontracted testing at subcontractors' facilities, 
or at self-service facilities where a vehicle owner may test the 
vehicle. The revisions expands the inspector training and licensing 
requirements to include all employees of any authorized inspection 
facility subcontractor and expands the penalty and audit requirements 
originally approved by EPA to include other authorized testing 
facilities. This part of the submittal meets the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.364 and 51.365.

b. Performance Evaluation

    As part of the June 7, 2012, I/M SIP revision, WDNR provided an 
updated performance evaluation using the EPA's motor vehicle emissions 
simulator model, MOVES2010a.\2\ The updated performance evaluation 
included a summary report outlining the modeling results and paper 
copies of the MOVES2010a modeling input files. The purpose of the 
updated performance evaluation is to demonstrate that Wisconsin's 
vehicle I/M program, as amended, would continue to meet the Federal 
enhanced I/M performance standard in southeast Wisconsin. The results 
of WDNR's analysis are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below, which show 
that the emissions reductions achieved by the Wisconsin I/M program, as 
amended, are higher than those achieved under the performance 
standards. The amended Wisconsin I/M program thus continues to achieve 
greater emissions reductions than the Federal model program because the 
Wisconsin I/M program includes elements that go beyond Federal I/M 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA announced the release of MOVES2010 in March 2010 (75 FR 
9411). EPA subsequently released two minor model revisions: 
MOVES2010a in September 2010 and MOVES2010b in April 2012. Both of 
these minor revisions enhance model performance and do not 
significantly affect the criteria pollutant emissions results from 
MOVES2010.

[[Page 24376]]

  Table 1--Summary of Results of WDNR's Alternative Low Enhanced Performance Modeling for Six County Milwaukee-
        Racine Nonattainment Area (Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Washington and Waukesha Counties)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                2002              2009              2012              2015
                  Year                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          VOC \3\  NOX \4\    VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I/M Performance Standard Benefits (grams/   0.071    0.040    0.039    0.009    0.025    0.004    0.017    0.002
 mile)..................................
Actual I/M Program Benefits (grams/mile)    0.134    0.193    0.060    0.097    0.037    0.063    0.027    0.041
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Volatile organic compound.
\4\ Oxides of nitrogen.

    Table 2--Summary of Results of WDNR's Alternative Low Enhanced Performance Modeling for Sheboygan County
                                               Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                2002              2009              2012              2015
                  Year                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I/M Performance Standard Benefits (grams/   0.080    0.044    0.044    0.009    0.030    0.005    0.020    0.002
 mile)..................................
Actual I/M Program Benefits (grams/mile)    0.113    0.165    0.065    0.095    0.044    0.069    0.032    0.045
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the I/M SIP revision, EPA finds that WDNR's 
performance standard evaluation and use of the alternate low enhanced 
I/M performance standard to be acceptable. EPA also finds that the 
Wisconsin I/M program, as amended, exceeds the alternate low enhanced 
performance standard in both the Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan County 
nonattainment areas as required under 40 CFR 51.351.

c. Demonstrating Noninterference With Attainment and Maintenance Under 
CAA Section 110(l)

    Revisions to SIP-approved control measures must meet the 
requirements of CAA section 110(l) to be approved by EPA. Section 
110(l) states:

``The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the 
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), 
or any other applicable requirement of this Act.''

    EPA interprets section 110(l) to apply to all requirements of the 
CAA and to all areas of the country, whether attainment, nonattainment, 
unclassifiable, or maintenance for one or more of the six criteria 
pollutants. EPA also interprets section 110(l) to require a 
demonstration addressing all pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient 
concentrations may change as a result of the SIP revision. In the 
absence of an attainment demonstration, to demonstrate no interference 
with any applicable NAAQS or requirement of the CAA under section 
110(l), EPA believes it is appropriate to allow states to substitute 
equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for any change to a SIP 
approved program, as long as actual emissions in the air are not 
increased. ``Equivalent'' emissions reductions mean reductions which 
are equal to or greater than those reductions achieved by the control 
measure approved in the active portion of the SIP. In order to show 
that compensating emissions reductions are equivalent, modeling or 
adequate justification must be provided. The compensating, equivalent 
reductions must represent actual, new emissions reductions achieved in 
a contemporaneous time frame to the change of the existing SIP control 
measure, in order to preserve the status quo level of emission in the 
air. In addition to being contemporaneous, the equivalent emissions 
reductions must also be permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, and 
surplus to be approved into the SIP.
    The Wisconsin I/M SIP revision includes a 110(l) demonstration that 
uses equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for emission 
reduction losses resulting from changes to the SIP approved I/M program 
in southeast Wisconsin. The submittal indicates that WDNR used the 
latest version of EPA's motor vehicle emissions model program, 
MOVES2010a, to estimate the emissions effects of the program changes. 
Based on our review of the information provided, EPA finds that WDNR 
used reasonable methods and appropriate models in estimating the 
emissions effects of the program changes. WDNR's MOVES modeling shows 
that the changes to the Wisconsin I/M program result in fewer 
reductions than would have otherwise been obtained from the pre-2008 I/
M program approved in the SIP by EPA. Table 3 below summarizes WDNR's 
emissions calculations comparing the current program to the SIP 
approved I/M program in units of tons per summer weekday (tpswd) and 
highlights the emissions difference that needs to be addressed as part 
of the 110(l) demonstration.

                               Table 3--(SIP I/M Program vs. Current I/M Program)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            SIP I/M  program     Revised I/M        Emissions
                                                           ------------------      program         difference
                           Year                                              -----------------------------------
                                                              VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009......................................................     4.55     6.53     3.47     5.59     1.08     0.94
2012......................................................     3.55     4.92     2.31     3.97     1.24     0.95
2015......................................................     2.59     3.14     1.76     2.66     0.83     0.48
2018......................................................     1.88     2.06     1.46     1.85     0.42     0.21
2022......................................................     1.59     1.49     1.27     1.35     0.32     0.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 24377]]

    The Wisconsin I/M program reduces emissions of VOC and 
NOX. VOC and NOX are contributors to the 
formation of ground-level ozone and fine particular matter. Thus, the 
increase in VOC and NOX needs to be offset with equivalent 
(or greater) emissions reductions from another control measure in order 
to demonstrate non-interference with the 8-hour ozone and particulate 
matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. Although the program also results in 
carbon monoxide (CO) emissions reductions, substitute CO emissions 
reductions are not needed for this demonstration, because southeast 
Wisconsin is attaining the CO NAAQS and CO levels in the area are well 
below the standard. WDNR has estimated that the 10.13 tpswd of CO lost 
from the I/M program changes in 2012, the year where the amended 
changes have the greatest emission impact, represent only 0.98 percent 
of the total CO emissions inventory in the region and it is unlikely 
that the amendments to the Wisconsin I/M program will interfere with 
the area's ability to continue to attain the CO NAAQS.
    To address the projected loss of VOC and NOX emission 
reductions, WDNR reviewed its records of permitted emissions sources in 
southeast Wisconsin and identified those sources that have ceased 
operation since the Wisconsin I/M program changes have taken place. 
WDNR identified eleven facilities (See table 4) in the 6 County 
Milwaukee-Racine (Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Washington and 
Waukesha Counties) and Sheboygan County nonattainment areas that have 
permanently closed and have expired permits that have been revoked. The 
expiration and revocation of these sources' permits allows the State to 
use the emission credits associated with them for other purposes under 
the SIP and makes such reductions permanent and enforceable. WDNR 
accounted for 506.47 tons of VOC per year and 72.71 tons of 
NOX per year based on maximum annual reported emissions from 
2005 through 2009.

                  Table 4--NOX and VOC Emissions From Closed Facilities in Southeast Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Emission reductions
                      Name                              FID         Date closed  -------------------------------
                                                                                    VOC  (tons)     NOX  (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPRO CORPORATION...............................       268165150        06/30/09           21.33            0.00
PHOENIX COLOR CORPORATION.......................       241227910        08/31/11           07.36            0.08
MIDWEST COMPOSITE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.............       268270750        12/31/10           19.26           01.28
ROCK TENN CONVERTING COMPANY....................       241017920        06/30/11           24.35            0.98
CHARTER WIRE DIVISION COMPANY...................       241041130        12/31/09           37.70            0.00
GREDE FOUNDRIES INC.--MILWAUKEE ALLOY...........       241027600        11/30/07           34.90            1.84
MILWAUKEE GRAY IRON, LLC........................       241006370        12/31/08           53.50           31.29
DELPHI ENERGY & CHASSIS SYSTEMS.................       241045750        06/10/10            0.76           19.73
VIASYSTEMS MILWAUKEE, INC.......................       241116700        01/01/09           19.10            3.44
S.C JOHNSON & SON-WAXDALE/POLYMER...............       252236380        04/01/10           11.40            4.26
MOMENTIVE SPECIALITY CHEMICALS, INC. (LAWTER           230089090        03/27/09          276.81            9.81
 INTERNATIONAL, INC.)...........................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    TOTAL SIP CREDITS FROM SHUTDOWN FACILITIES..  ..............  ..............          506.47           72.71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, EPA policy allows for substitution between VOC and 
NOX emissions in its guidance on reasonable further 
progress. This guidance recommends that states assume, as an 
approximation, that equivalent percent changes in the area's inventory 
for the respective pollutant yield an equivalent change in ozone 
levels. For example, decreasing area NOX emissions by 3 
percent would have the same effect as decreasing area VOC emissions by 
3 percent. Stated another way, if an area has twice as many tons of 
NOX emissions as VOC emissions, then 2 tons of 
NOX emissions would be assumed to have the same effect on 
ozone as 1 ton of VOC emissions. Following this approach WDNR used a 4 
to 1 NOX to VOC conversion ratio based on a top-down 
evaluation performed by Sonoma Technology, Inc. and outlined in a 
report dated May 2011, entitled ``A Top-Down Emissions Inventory 
Evaluation for the Upper Midwest'' using 2005 and 2008 emissions 
inventories provided by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium.
    Table 5 below summarizes WDNR's I/M emissions make-up 
demonstration. The table specifically highlights the annual emissions 
shortfall that has taken place since the Wisconsin I/M program changes 
occurred and outlines the amount of VOC and NOX emission 
credits that are being used to cover the shortfall using the VOC to 
NOX substitution approach discussed above. Based on the use 
of permanent, enforceable, contemporaneous, surplus emissions 
reductions achieved through the shutdown of permitted emissions 
sources, EPA believes that the revisions to the Wisconsin I/M program 
do not interfere with southeast Wisconsin's ability to demonstrate 
compliance with the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.

                                                      Table 5--I/M Emissions Make-Up Demonstration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            MOVES  emissions  SIP credits from     Trading VOC       Revised SIP         Difference
                                                                shortfall         shutdown        emissions for      redits from    (shortfall--Credits)
                                                           ------------------    facilities       NOX emissions       shutdown               \6\
                           Year                                              ------------------        \5\           facilities    ---------------------
                                                              VOC      NOX                     ------------------------------------
                                                             (tons)   tons)     VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX       VOC        NOX
                                                                               (tons)   (tons)   (tons)   (tons)   (tons)   (tons)    (tons)     (tons)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009......................................................   341.18   302.15   455.66    63.60    70.00   280.00   385.66   343.60     -44.47     -41.45
2012......................................................   394.45   306.29   506.47    72.71    70.00   280.00   436.47   352.71     -42.02     -46.42
2015......................................................   262.29   154.04   506.47    72.71    70.00   280.00   436.47   352.71    -174.18    -198.66
2018......................................................   134.04    66.46   506.47    72.71    70.00   280.00   436.47   352.71    -302.43    -286.25

[[Page 24378]]

 
2022......................................................   103.41    45.37   506.47    72.71    70.00   280.00   436.47   352.71    -333.05    -307.34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 4:1 VOC to NOX Ratio (i.e., 1 ton of VOC = 4 tons of NOX).
\6\ Negative numbers indicate that the emissions shortfall has been adequately covered.

    EPA also examined whether the amendments to the approved I/M 
program in southeast Wisconsin have interfered with attainment of other 
air quality standards. Southeast Wisconsin is designated attainment for 
all other standards including sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. EPA 
has no reason to believe that the amendments to the approved I/M 
program in southeast Wisconsin have caused or will cause the area to 
become nonattainment for any of these pollutants. In addition, EPA 
believes that the amendments to the approved I/M program in southeast 
Wisconsin will not interfere with the area's ability to meet any other 
CAA requirement.
    Based on the above discussion and the state's 100(l) demonstration, 
EPA believes that the changes to the Wisconsin I/M program would not 
interfere with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS in both 
the Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan County nonattainment areas and would 
not interfere with any other applicable requirement of the CAA, and 
thus, are approvable under CAA section 110(l).

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to the Wisconsin ozone 
SIP submitted on June 7, 2012, concerning the I/M program in southeast 
Wisconsin. EPA finds that the revisions meet all applicable 
requirements and will not interfere with reasonable further progress or 
attainment of any of the NAAQS.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 12, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013-09536 Filed 4-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P