[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 133 (Friday, July 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41400-41405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13468]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2019-0557; FRL-10011-17-Region 5]


Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Redesignation of the Inland 
Sheboygan, WI Area to Attainment of the 2008 Ozone Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finds that the 
Inland Sheboygan County, Wisconsin area is attaining the 2008 primary 
and secondary ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and 
is approving a request from the Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resources (WDNR) to redesignate the area to attainment for the 2008 
ozone NAAQS because the request meets the statutory requirements for 
redesignation under

[[Page 41401]]

the Clean Air Act (CAA). WDNR submitted this request on October 9, 
2019. EPA is approving, as a revision to the Wisconsin State 
Implementation Plan (SIP), the State's plan for maintaining the 2008 
ozone NAAQS through 2030 in the Inland Sheboygan area. EPA finds 
adequate and is approving Wisconsin's 2020 and 2030 volatile organic 
compound (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) Motor Vehicle 
Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the Inland Sheboygan. Finally, EPA is 
approving the Wisconsin SIP submission as meeting the applicable base 
year inventory requirement, emission statement requirements, VOC 
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements, motor 
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program requirements, and 
NOX RACT requirements.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 10, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2019-0557. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the www.regulations.gov website. 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 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 and facility 
closures due to COVID 19. We recommend that you telephone Eric Svingen, 
Environmental Engineer, at (312) 353-4489 before visiting the Region 5 
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Svingen, Environmental Engineer, 
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-4489, 
svingen.eric@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    This rule approves the October 9, 2019 submission from Wisconsin 
requesting redesignation of the Inland Sheboygan area to attainment for 
the 2008 ozone standard. The background for this action is discussed in 
detail in EPA's proposal, dated April 27, 2020 (85 FR 23274). In that 
rulemaking, we noted that, under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 
2008 ozone NAAQS is attained in an area when the 3-year average of the 
annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration is 
equal to or less than 0.075 ppm, when truncated after the thousandth 
decimal place, at all ozone monitoring sites in the area. (See 40 CFR 
50.15 and appendix P to 40 CFR part 50.) Under the CAA, EPA may 
redesignate nonattainment areas to attainment if complete, quality-
assured data are available to determine that the area has attained the 
standard and meets the other CAA redesignation requirements in section 
107(d)(3)(E). The proposed rule provides a detailed discussion of how 
Wisconsin has met these CAA requirements, and EPA's rationale for 
approving the redesignation request and related SIP submissions.
    As discussed in the proposed rule, quality-assured and certified 
monitoring data for 2017-2019 show that the area has attained the 2008 
ozone standard, and EPA has determined that the attainment is due to 
permanent and enforceable measures. Preliminary data for 2020 show that 
the area continues to attain the standard. In the maintenance plan 
submitted for the area, Wisconsin has demonstrated that the ozone 
standard will be maintained in the area through 2030. Wisconsin has 
adopted 2020 and 2030 VOC and NOX MVEBs for the area that 
are supported by Wisconsin's maintenance demonstration. With these 
approvals of Wisconsin's SIP submissions, EPA finds that the applicable 
requirements of the SIP are fully approved.

II. What comments did we receive on the proposed rule?

    Public comments on the April 27, 2020 proposed rule were due by May 
27, 2020. During the comment period EPA received three comments in 
support of our action, as well as one adverse comment. EPA received an 
additional supportive comment from Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce; 
however, this comment was submitted on May 29, 2020, after the comment 
period had ended. Because EPA is obligated to respond only to comments 
that are both adverse and timely, the supportive comment submitted 
after the close of the comment period is not relevant to this action. A 
summary of the adverse comment and EPA's response is provided below.
    Comment: Sheboygan Ozone Reduction Alliance (SORA), a citizen group 
focused on reducing air pollution and advocating for public health, 
provided three reasons for opposing this action.
    First, SORA contends that the Inland Sheboygan area was created 
retroactively in 2019 without adequate scientific basis. The commenter 
writes that the boundary of the Inland Sheboygan area for the 2008 
ozone NAAQS was based on the boundary for the Sheboygan County 
nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\1\ The commenter contends 
that the boundary for the Sheboygan County nonattainment area for the 
2015 ozone NAAQS was created without adequate basis, that the 
nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS excludes several major 
point sources, and that EPA must resolve litigation regarding 
designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS before EPA can make a 
determination of attainment for areas created as a result of, or based 
on, designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We note that the commenter also cited the revised boundary 
for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS, but that standard is not at issue 
in this redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, SORA contends that the Sheboygan Haven monitor may not be 
properly sited to capture maximum ozone concentrations. The commenter 
contends that neither WDNR nor EPA have demonstrated that the Sheboygan 
Haven monitor is capable of capturing maximum ozone concentrations in 
the nonattainment area, and that such a capability was never 
scrutinized because the Sheboygan Haven monitor was originally sited as 
a secondary monitor for the original full-county nonattainment area. 
The commenter states that on six days during the 1991 Lake Michigan 
Ozone Study (LMOS), a monitor 8.6 miles inland from the shoreline 
recorded ozone values greater than or equal to the values recorded at 
the shoreline monitor. Similarly, from 1999 to 2003, a monitor 5.3 
miles from the shoreline also recorded numerous ozone values greater 
than or equal to the values recorded at the shoreline monitor. The 
commenter acknowledges that ozone chemistry may have changed over the 
last three decades but contends that the burden of proof should rest on 
EPA and WDNR to demonstrate that values recorded at the Sheboygan Haven

[[Page 41402]]

monitor are representative of maximum ozone concentrations in the 
Inland Sheboygan area.
    Third, SORA contends that emissions from the Inland Sheboygan area 
contribute to the nonattainment of downwind areas. The commenter states 
that a redesignation to attainment would reduce permitting 
requirements, which could exacerbate the effects of emissions from the 
Inland Sheboygan area on downwind nonattainment areas. The commenter 
believes that the existence of two separate nonattainment areas in 
Sheboygan County makes it more difficult to effectively manage air 
quality issues.
    Response: EPA thanks SORA for its comments. As discussed below, EPA 
finds that approval of Wisconsin's request to redesignate the Inland 
Sheboygan area is consistent with the requirements of CAA section 
107(d)(3)(E).
    First, EPA disagrees that the Inland Sheboygan area was created 
retroactively without adequate scientific basis. On July 15, 2019, EPA 
revised the 2008 ozone NAAQS designation for the original full-county 
Sheboygan nonattainment area, by splitting the original area into two 
distinct nonattainment areas that together cover the identical 
geographic area of the original nonattainment area (84 FR 33699). In 
determining whether to take this action under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), 
EPA considered the same factors Congress directed EPA to consider under 
CAA section 107(d)(3)(A), including ``air quality data, planning and 
control considerations, or any other air quality-related considerations 
the Administrator deems appropriate.'' In a 22-page Technical Support 
Document (TSD) contained in the docket for that rulemaking, EPA 
provided the technical basis for its revision, which was based on an 
analysis of factors including air quality data, emissions and 
emissions-related data, meteorology, geography/topography, and 
jurisdictional boundaries.
    In defining the boundaries of the Inland Sheboygan area and 
Shoreline Sheboygan area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA considered 
existing jurisdictional boundaries, which can provide easily 
identifiable and recognized boundaries for purposes of implementing the 
NAAQS. After considering all relevant factors, EPA chose to adopt a 
boundary for the two separate areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that 
aligned with the jurisdictional boundary established by the partial-
county Sheboygan County area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. However, the 
July 15, 2019 action was based on EPA's technical analysis specific to 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as provided in the TSD. During the public comment 
period on that rulemaking, EPA received no adverse comments, and EPA's 
final action was not challenged in court.
    We therefore disagree that the current litigation in the D.C. 
Circuit regarding the 2015 ozone designations (Clean Wisconsin et al. 
v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency et al., Case No. 18-1203 (D.C. 
Cir.)) has any bearing on this redesignation. One of the claims at 
issue in the litigation is whether EPA's partial-county designation of 
the Sheboygan area under the 2015 ozone NAAQS was supported by law. But 
even if the court were to grant challenges to the designation for the 
2015 ozone NAAQS, that finding would not impact the existing boundaries 
of the Inland Sheboygan nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 
The claims raised regarding EPA's technical analysis associated with 
designations for the 2015 standard are irrelevant to this redesignation 
action, which is focused on whether the Inland Sheboygan area has met 
the statutory criteria of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E).
    Second, EPA disagrees that it may not rely on quality-assured, 
certified air quality monitoring data from the Sheboygan Haven monitor 
to determine whether the Inland Sheboygan area is attaining. The 
Sheboygan Haven monitor began operation in 2014, has been in continuous 
operation since, and in the many opportunities for public comment 
regarding this monitor, nobody has raised any concerns about the 
monitor site.
    Each year the state submits to EPA an Air Monitoring Network Plan, 
which is subject to public comment (see 40 CFR 58.10 \2\), and in none 
of five plan reviews conducted since the monitor was sited did any 
member of the public raise concerns regarding the representativeness or 
location of the Sheboygan Haven monitor. In 2019 SORA commented on 
Wisconsin's most recent Air Monitoring Network Plan, but only raised 
concerns regarding the proposed discontinuation of the Sheboygan Kohler 
Andrae monitor along the Lake Michigan shoreline. Their comment did not 
indicate any concerns about the Sheboygan Haven monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``The annual monitoring network plan must be made available 
for public inspection and comment for at least 30 days prior to 
submission to the EPA and the submitted plan shall include and 
address, as appropriate, any received comments.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also stated in its proposal to split Sheboygan County into two 
nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that only one air quality 
monitor would be in each of the two new nonattainment areas (84 FR 
4422, 4424 and 4425 \3\), and received no comments. In that action, EPA 
also relied on the Sheboygan Haven monitor to propose a clean data 
determination for the Inland Sheboygan area, based on the monitor's 
attaining 2015-2017 design value, which we later finalized based on the 
area's 2016-2018 attaining design value. EPA received no comments on 
its proposed determination that the area was attaining based on air 
quality monitoring data from the Sheboygan Haven monitor. We therefore 
do not agree that it is unreasonable for EPA to rely on data from the 
Sheboygan Haven monitor as representative of air quality in the Inland 
Sheboygan area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 84 FR at 4424 and 4425 (``The Sheboygan Haven monitor with 
site ID 55-117-009 is the only FRM ozone monitor within the proposed 
separate Inland Sheboygan area.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also do not agree that the Sheboygan Haven monitor's original 
siting as a secondary monitor in the full-county 2008 ozone NAAQS area 
is dispositive of whether it can be relied upon now as the Inland 
Sheboygan area's sole monitor. As provided in the 2015 Air Monitoring 
Network Plan, the Sheboygan Haven site's objective was population 
exposure, and its area of representativeness was ``exposure on a 
neighborhood scale for ozone.'' The representativeness ``neighborhood 
scale'' is defined in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58 as representative of 
``conditions throughout some reasonably homogenous urban sub-region'' 
and the definition further provides that ``a site located in the 
neighborhood scale may also experience peak concentration levels within 
a metropolitan area.''
    We do not agree that the two nonextant Sheboygan County monitors 
raised by the commenter indicate that the Sheboygan Haven monitor is an 
unreliable indicator of ozone concentrations in the Inland Sheboygan 
area. The first, from the 1991 LMOS study, was located 8.6 miles inland 
from the shoreline; the second, which operated from 1999 to 2003, was 
located 5.3 miles from the shoreline. During the time that these 
monitors were active, they observed ozone concentrations that would 
have been exceedances of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On several days these 
monitors recorded ozone values greater than or equal to the values 
recorded at the shoreline monitor. However, we do not think these 
isolated, outdated readings at monitors

[[Page 41403]]

that are no longer operational are more representative or should 
overrule the Sheboygan Haven monitor, which is part of the state's 
approved Air Monitoring Network. Ozone values in Sheboygan County have 
decreased significantly over the past three decades. EPA's April 27, 
2020 proposed rule includes a discussion of the permanent and 
enforceable regulatory control measures, including reductions from 
vehicle emissions standards and stationary source NOX 
trading programs implemented since 2000, which caused the improvement 
in air quality. Given those major changes in emissions, and without a 
technical basis to do so, we do not think it is reasonable to assume 
that ozone chemistry in this region necessarily behaves in the same way 
it may have in the 1990s and early 2000s. Nor do we think it advisable 
to rely on inferences from old data over newer monitored air quality 
data.
    Importantly, EPA notes that the commenter does not allege that any 
part of the area is not currently meeting the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 
Consistent with the requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), EPA finds 
that the Inland Sheboygan area is attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Third, although the commenter did not specify, we assume the 
``reduced permitting requirements'' cited by SORA that would result 
from the area's redesignation is the change from the nonattainment new 
source review (NNSR) program to the prevention of significant 
deterioration (PSD) program for new or modified major stationary 
sources. An area's designation status dictates which of these programs 
apply (NNSR for nonattainment areas and PSD for attainment areas), and 
nothing in the CAA allows EPA to continue to impose NNSR in an area 
where all five statutory criteria for redesignation of that area to 
attainment have been met. Nor does the CAA suggest that a potential 
impact from the change in an area's permitting regime after that area 
is redesignated, on other in-state, downwind nonattainment areas is a 
valid basis for disapproving that area's request for redesignation. 
Finally, we note that while EPA's technical analysis for the 2015 ozone 
NAAQS did indicate some contribution from the Inland Sheboygan area to 
the Door County, WI area, the Manitowoc County, WI area, as well as the 
Sheboygan County, WI area (which covers the identical geographic area 
as the Shoreline Sheboygan area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS), that 
analysis was performed for a more stringent standard, and with respect 
to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, all three of those areas have attaining design 
values for the 2017-2019 period.
    Finally, as stated in our April 27, 2020 proposed rule, EPA did not 
reopen our final July 15, 2019 action to split the original Sheboygan 
nonattainment area into two distinct nonattainment areas, so comments 
to that effect are beyond the scope of this action. In this action, EPA 
is only evaluating the State's redesignation request under the criteria 
at CAA section 107(d)(3)(E).

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is determining that the Inland Sheboygan nonattainment area is 
attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS, based on quality-assured and certified 
monitoring data for 2017-2019. EPA is approving Wisconsin's 2011 base 
year emissions inventory, emission statement certification SIP, VOC 
RACT SIP, I/M certification SIP, and NOX RACT certification 
SIP, and is determining that the area meets the requirements for 
redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus 
changing the legal designation of the Inland Sheboygan area from 
nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is also 
approving, as a revision to the Wisconsin SIP, the State's maintenance 
plan for the area. The maintenance plan is designed to keep the Inland 
Sheboygan area in attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS through 2030. EPA 
finds adequate and is approving the newly-established 2020 and 2030 
MVEBs for the Inland Sheboygan area.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure 
Act (APA), EPA finds there is good cause for these actions to become 
effective immediately upon publication. The immediate effective date 
for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and section 
553(d)(3).
    Section 553(d)(1) of the APA provides that final rules shall not 
become effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal 
Register ``except . . . a substantive rule which grants or recognizes 
an exemption or relieves a restriction.'' The purpose of this provision 
is to ``give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their 
behavior before the final rule takes effect.'' Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed. 
Commc'n Comm'n, 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United 
States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting 
legislative history). However, when the agency grants or recognizes an 
exemption or relieves a restriction, affected parties do not need a 
reasonable time to adjust because the effect is not adverse. EPA has 
determined that this rule relieves a restriction because this rule 
relieves sources in the area of NNSR permitting requirements; instead, 
upon the effective date of this action, sources will be subject to less 
restrictive PSD permitting requirements.
    Section 553(d)(3) of the APA provides that final rules shall not 
become effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal 
Register ``except . . . as otherwise provided by the agency for good 
cause.'' The purpose of this provision is to ``give affected parties a 
reasonable time to adjust their behavior before the final rule takes 
effect.'' Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed. Commc'n Comm'n, 78 F.3d 620, 630 
(D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 
1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting legislative history). Thus, in 
determining whether good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay, an 
agency should ``balance the necessity for immediate implementation 
against principles of fundamental fairness which require that all 
affected persons be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare for 
the effective date of its ruling.'' Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d at 1105. EPA 
has determined that there is good cause for making this final rule 
effective immediately because this rule does not create any new 
regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to 
prepare before the rule takes effect. On balance, EPA finds affected 
parties would benefit from the immediate ability to comply with PSD 
requirements, instead of delaying by 30 days the transition from NNSR 
to PSD.
    For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under both 5 U.S.C. 
553(d)(1) and U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for these actions to become effective on 
the date of publication of these actions.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the 
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) 
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not 
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those 
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of 
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the 
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have 
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is 
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions 
of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to 
approve state choices,

[[Page 41404]]

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 it is not a significant regulatory 
action 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 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because redesignation is an action that affects the status of a 
geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements 
on tribes, impact any existing sources of air pollution on tribal 
lands, nor impair the maintenance of ozone national ambient air quality 
standards in tribal lands.
    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 action 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 September 8, 2020. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action 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

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: June 15, 2020.
Cheryl Newton,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends Title 40 CFR 
parts 52 and 81 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 52.2585 is amended by adding paragraph (ll) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.2585  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (ll) Redesignation. Approval--On October 9, 2019, Wisconsin 
submitted a request to redesignate the Inland Sheboygan County area to 
attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. As part of the 
redesignation request, the State submitted a maintenance plan as 
required by section 175A of the Clean Air Act. Elements of the section 
175 maintenance plan include a contingency plan and an obligation to 
submit a subsequent maintenance plan revision in eight years as 
required by the Clean Air Act. The ozone maintenance plan also 
establishes 2020 and 2030 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for 
the area. The 2020 MVEBs for the Inland Sheboygan County area are 0.65 
tons per hot summer day for VOC and 1.16 tons per hot summer day for 
NOX. The 2030 MVEBs for the Inland Sheboygan County area are 
0.34 tons per hot summer day for VOC and 0.54 tons per hot summer day 
for NOX.

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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


0
4. In Section 81.350, amend the table ``Wisconsin--2008 8-Hour Ozone 
NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' by revising the entry for ``Inland 
Sheboygan County, WI'' to read as follows:


Sec.  81.350  Wisconsin.

* * * * *

[[Page 41405]]



                                       Wisconsin--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Designation                           Classification
         Designated area         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Date \1\              Type                Date \1\              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Inland Sheboygan County, WI \25\       7/10/2020  Attainment............
    Sheboygan County (part):
        Exclusive and west of
         the following roadways
         going from the northern
         county boundary to the
         southern county
         boundary: Highway 43,
         Wilson Lima Road,
         Minderhaud Road, County
         Road KK/Town Line Road,
         N 10th Street, County
         Road A S/Center Avenue,
         Gibbons Road, Hoftiezer
         Road, Highway 32,
         Palmer Road/Smies Road/
         Palmer Road, Amsterdam
         Road/County Road RR,
         Termaat Road.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
\5\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2019 for both Inland Sheboygan County, WI, and Shoreline Sheboygan
  County, WI, nonattainment areas.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-13468 Filed 7-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


