[Federal Register: April 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 80)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 22047-22063]
[DOCID:fr27ap10-21]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR PARTS 52 AND 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0730; FRL-9142-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Wisconsin; Redesignation of
the Manitowoc County and Door County Areas to Attainment for Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve Wisconsin's requests to
redesignate the Manitowoc County and Door County, Wisconsin
nonattainment areas, to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard,
because the requests meet the statutory requirements for redesignation
under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) submitted these requests on September 11, 2009.

    These proposed approvals involve several related actions. EPA is
proposing to determine that the Manitowoc County and Door County areas
have attained the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). These determinations are based on three years of complete,
quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for
the 2006-2008 ozone seasons that demonstrate that the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS has been attained in the areas. Complete, quality-assured air
quality data for the 2009 ozone season have been recorded in the EPA's
Air Quality System (AQS) and show that the areas continue to attain the
8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also proposing to approve, as revisions
to the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP), the State's plans for
maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2020 in the areas.
    EPA is proposing to approve the 2005 base year emissions
inventories for the Manitowoc County and Door County areas as meeting
the base year emissions inventory requirement of the CAA. WDNR
submitted these base year emissions inventories on June 12, 2007.
Finally, EPA finds adequate and is proposing to approve the State's
2012 and 2020 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the Manitowoc
County and Door County areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 27, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2009-0730, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand delivery: Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th
Floor, 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-
2009-0730. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://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 http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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 this document, ``What Should I Consider as
I Prepare My Comments for EPA?''
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
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 http://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 Kathleen D'Agostino,
Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What actions is EPA proposing to take?
III. What is the background for these actions?
    A. What is the general background information?
    B. What are the impacts of the December 22, 2006, and June 8,
2007, United States Court of Appeals decisions regarding EPA's Phase
1 implementation rule?
IV. What are the criteria for redesignation?
V. What is the effect of these actions?
VI. What is EPA's analysis of the requests?
    A. Attainment Determinations and Redesignations
    B. Adequacy of Wisconsin's MVEBs
    C. 2005 Base Year Emissions Inventories
VII. What actions is EPA taking?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

II. What actions is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to take several related actions. EPA is proposing
to determine that the Manitowoc County and Door County nonattainment
areas have attained the 1997 8-hour ozone

standard and that the areas have met the requirements for redesignation
under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus proposing to approve
the requests from WDNR to change the legal designation of the Manitowoc
County and Door County areas from nonattainment to attainment for the
8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve, as revisions to
the Wisconsin SIP, the State's maintenance plans (such approval being
one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The
maintenance plans are designed to keep the Manitowoc County and Door
County areas in attainment of the ozone NAAQS through 2020. EPA is
proposing to approve the 2005 base year emissions inventories for the
Manitowoc County and Door County areas as meeting the requirements of
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. If EPA's determination of attainment is
finalized, under the provisions of 40 CFR 51.918, the requirement to
submit certain planning SIPs related to attainment (the Reasonably
Available Control Measure (RACM) requirement of section 172(c)(1) of
the CAA, the Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and attainment
demonstration requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and (6) of the CAA,
and the requirement for contingency measures of section 172(c)(9) of
the CAA) are not applicable to the area as long as it continues to
attain the NAAQS and would cease to be applicable upon redesignation.
In addition, as set forth in more detail below, in the context of
redesignations, EPA has interpreted requirements related to attainment
as not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Finally, EPA finds
adequate and is proposing to approve the newly-established 2012 and
2020 MVEBs for the Manitowoc County and Door County areas. The adequacy
comment period for the MVEBs began on February 24, 2010, with EPA's
posting of the availability of the submittal on EPA's Adequacy Web site
(at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm). The
adequacy comment period for these MVEBs ended on March 26, 2010. EPA
did not receive any requests for this submittal, or adverse comments on
this submittal during the adequacy comment period. In a letter dated
April 7, 2010, EPA informed WDNR that we had found the 2012 and 2020
MVEBs to be adequate for use in transportation conformity analyses.
Please see section VI.B. of this rulemaking, ``Adequacy of Wisconsin's
MVEBs,'' for further explanation of this process. Therefore, we find
adequate, and are proposing to approve, the State's 2012 and 2020 MVEBs
for transportation conformity purposes.

III. What is the background for these actions?

A. What is the general background information?

    Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level
ozone. NOX and VOCs are referred to as precursors of ozone.
    The CAA establishes a process for air quality management through
the NAAQS. Before promulgation of the 8-hour standard, the ozone NAAQS
was based on a 1-hour standard. On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56693 and
56852), the Manitowoc County and Door County areas were designated as
moderate and rural transport nonattainment areas, respectively, under
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The Manitowoc County and Door County areas were
subsequently redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour standard on April
17, 2003 (68 FR 18883). At the time EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
on June 15, 2005, the Manitowoc County and Door County areas were
designated as attainment under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone
standard of 0.08 parts per million parts (ppm). On April 30, 2004 (69
FR 23857), EPA published a final rule designating and classifying areas
under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These designations and classifications
became effective June 15, 2004. EPA designated as nonattainment any
area that was violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most
recent years of air quality data, 2001-2003.
    The CAA contains two sets of provisions, subpart 1 and subpart 2,
that address planning and control requirements for nonattainment areas.
(Both are found in Title I, part D, of the CAA; 42 U.S.C. 7501-7509a
and 7511-7511f, respectively.) Subpart 1 contains general requirements
for nonattainment areas for any pollutant, including ozone, governed by
a NAAQS. Subpart 2 provides additional and more specific requirements
for ozone nonattainment areas.
    Under EPA's implementation rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard,
(69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004)), an area was classified under subpart 2
based on its 8-hour ozone design value (i.e. the three-year average
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration), if it had a 1-hour design value at the time of
designation at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in
Table 1 of subpart 2) (69 FR 23954). All other areas were covered under
subpart 1, based upon their 8-hour design values (69 FR 23958). The
Manitowoc County and Door County areas were designated as a subpart 1,
8-hour ozone nonattainment area by EPA on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857,
23947), based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003 (69 FR
23860).
    40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, provide that the 8-
hour ozone standard is attained when the three-year average of the
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration
is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm, when rounded. The data completeness
requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient
monitoring data is greater than 90%, and no single year has less than
75% data completeness. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, 2.3(d).
    The WDNR submitted requests to redesignate the Manitowoc County and
Door County areas to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard on
September 11, 2009. The redesignation requests included three years of
complete, quality-assured data for the period of 2006 through 2008,
indicating the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone, as promulgated in 1997, had been
attained for the Manitowoc County and Door County areas. Complete,
quality-assured monitoring data in AQS but not yet certified for the
2009 ozone season show that the areas continue to attain the 8-hour
ozone standard. Under the CAA, nonattainment areas may be redesignated
to attainment if sufficient complete, quality-assured data are
available for the Administrator to determine that the area has attained
the standard, and the area meets the other CAA redesignation
requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E).
    On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour
ozone standard of 0.075 ppm. In May 2008, States, environmental groups
and industry groups filed petitions with the DC Circuit Court of
Appeals for review of the 2008 ozone standards. In March 2009, the
court granted EPA's request to stay the litigation so EPA could review
the standards and determine whether they should be reconsidered. On
September 16, 2009, we announced that we are reconsidering our 2008
decision setting national standards for ground-level ozone. The
designation process for that standard has been stayed. On January 19,
2010, EPA proposed to set the level of the primary 8-hour ozone
standard within the range of 0.060 to

0.070 ppm, rather than at 0.075 ppm (75 FR 2938). We expect by August
2010 to have completed our reconsideration of the standard and also
expect that thereafter we will proceed with designations. The actions
addressed in today's proposed rulemaking relate only to the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard.

B. What are the impacts of the December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007,
United States Court of Appeals decisions regarding EPA's Phase 1
implementation rule?

1. Summary of Court Decision
    On December 22, 2006, in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.
v. EPA (South Coast), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-
hour Ozone Standard (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). 472 F.3d 882 (DC
Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in response to several petitions for
rehearing, the DC Circuit Court clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was
vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule that had been
successfully challenged. Id., Docket No. 04 1201. Therefore, several
provisions of the Phase 1 Rule remain effective: provisions related to
classifications for areas currently classified under subpart 2 of Title
I, part D, of the CAA as 8-hour nonattainment areas; the 8-hour
attainment dates; and the timing for emissions reductions needed for
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The June 8, 2007, decision also
left intact the court's rejection of EPA's reasons for implementing the
8-hour standard in certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu
of subpart 2. By limiting the vacatur, the court let stand EPA's
revocation of the 1-hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions
of the Phase 1 Rule that had not been successfully challenged. The June
8, 2007, decision reaffirmed the December 22, 2006, decision that EPA
had improperly failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour
nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of the
regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR)
requirements based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment classification;
(2) section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment
areas; (3) measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or
182(c)(9) of the CAA, on the contingency of an area not making
reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or
for failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) certain transportation
conformity requirements for certain types of Federal actions. The June
8, 2007, decision clarified that the court's reference to conformity
requirements was limited to requiring the continued use of 1-hour motor
vehicle emissions budgets until 8-hour budgets were available for 8-
hour conformity determinations.
    This section sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the
court's rulings on these proposed redesignation actions. For the
reasons set forth below, EPA does not believe that the court's rulings
alter any requirements relevant to these redesignation actions so as to
preclude redesignation or prevent EPA from proposing or ultimately
finalizing these redesignations. EPA believes that the court's December
22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, decisions impose no impediment to moving
forward with redesignation of these areas to attainment, because even
in light of the court's decisions, redesignation is appropriate under
the relevant redesignation provisions of the CAA and longstanding
policies regarding redesignation requests.
2. Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard
    With respect to the 8-hour standard, the court's ruling rejected
EPA's reasons for classifying areas under subpart 1 for the 8-hour
standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency. In its January 16,
2009, proposed rulemaking in response to the South Coast decision, EPA
has proposed to classify Door County and Manitowoc County under subpart
2 as moderate and marginal areas, respectively (74 FR 2936, 2944). If
EPA finalizes this rulemaking, the requirements under subpart 2 will
become applicable when they are due, a deadline that EPA has proposed
to be one year after the effective date of a final rulemaking
classifying areas as moderate or marginal (74 FR 2940-2941). Although a
future final decision by EPA to classify these areas under subpart 2
would trigger additional future requirements for the areas, EPA
believes that this does not mean that redesignations cannot now go
forward. This belief is based upon: (1) EPA's longstanding policy of
evaluating requirements in accordance with the requirements due at the
time the request is submitted; and, (2) consideration of the inequity
of applying retroactively any requirements that might be applied in the
future.
    First, at the time the redesignation requests were submitted, the
Manitowoc County and Door County areas were not classified under
subpart 2, nor were there any subpart 2 requirements yet due for these
areas. Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E)
of the CAA, to qualify for redesignation, States requesting
redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant SIP
requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete
redesignation request. See September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum
(``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division). See also Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-12466 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation
of Detroit-Ann Arbor). See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004), which upheld EPA's redesignation rulemaking applying this
interpretation. See, e.g. also 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003)
(Redesignation of St. Louis).
    Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new
SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was
submitted. The DC Circuit has recognized the inequity in such
retroactive rulemaking. In Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (DC Cir.
2002), the DC Circuit upheld a district court's ruling refusing to make
retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that was past the
statutory due date. Such a determination would have resulted in the
imposition of additional requirements on the area. The court stated:
``Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment determination within
the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed solution only makes
the situation worse. Retroactive relief would likely impose large costs
on the States, which would face fines and suits for not implementing
air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even though they were not on
notice at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly here it would be unfair to
penalize the areas by applying to them, for purposes of redesignation,
additional SIP requirements under subpart 2 that were not in effect or
yet due at the time WDNR submitted its redesignation requests.
3. Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard
    With respect to the 1-hour standard requirements, the Manitowoc
County and Door County areas were attainment areas subject to CAA
section 175A maintenance plans under the 1-hour standard at the time
that the 1-hour standard was revoked. Therefore, the DC Circuit's
decisions with respect to 1-hour nonattainment anti-backsliding
requirements do not impact redesignation requests for these types of
areas, except to the extent that the court

in its June 8, 2007, decision clarified that for those areas with 1-
hour motor vehicle emissions budgets in their maintenance plans, anti-
backsliding requires that those 1-hour budgets must be used for 8-hour
conformity determinations until replaced by 8-hour budgets. To meet
this requirement, conformity determinations in such areas must comply
with the applicable requirements of EPA's conformity regulations at 40
CFR part 93.
    With respect to the three other anti-backsliding provisions for the
1-hour standard that the court found were not properly retained, the
Manitowoc County and Door County areas are attainment areas subject to
maintenance plans for the 1-hour standard, and the NSR, contingency
measures (pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)), and fee
provision requirements no longer apply to areas that have been
redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour standard.
    Thus, the South Coast decision in South Coast Air Quality
Management Dist. does not preclude EPA from finalizing the
redesignation of these areas.

IV. What are the criteria for redesignation?

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for
redesignation provided that: (1) The Administrator determines that the
area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully
approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section
110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable
Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and
enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section
175A; and, (5) the State containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
    EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents:
    ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,'' Memorandum
from William G. Laxton, Director Technical Support Division, June 18,
1990;
    ``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
    ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
    ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
    ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to
Clean Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
    ``Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for Redesignation Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G. T.
Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
    ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or
After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993;
    ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting
Director, Air Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors,
Regions 1-10, November 30, 1993.
    ``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
    ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.

V. What is the effect of these actions?

    Approval of the redesignation requests would change the official
designations of the Manitowoc County and Door County areas for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate
into the Wisconsin SIP plans for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
through 2020. The maintenance plans include contingency measures as
required under CAA section 175A to remedy future violations of the 8-
hour NAAQS. They also establish MVEBs for the Manitowoc County area of
1.76 and 1.25 tons per day (tpd) for VOC and 3.76 and 1.86 tpd for
NOX for the years 2012 and 2020, respectively, and MVEBs for
the Door County area of 0.78 and 0.53 tpd for VOC and 1.55 and 0.74 tpd
for NOX for the years 2012 and 2020, respectively.

VI. What is EPA's analysis of the request?

A. Attainment Determinations and Redesignations

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Manitowoc County and Door
County areas have attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and that the
areas have met all other applicable redesignation criteria under CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E). The basis for EPA's proposed approvals of the
redesignation requests is as follows:
1. The Areas Have Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Section
107(d)(3)(E)(i))
    EPA is proposing to make determinations that the Manitowoc County
and Door County areas have attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. An
area may be considered to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there
are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and
part 50, Appendix I, based on three complete, consecutive calendar
years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To attain this
standard, the three-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an
area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding
convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard is
attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be
collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and
recorded in AQS. The monitors generally should have remained at the
same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for
demonstrating attainment.
    Wisconsin included in its redesignation requests ozone monitoring
data for the 2006 to 2008 ozone seasons and has subsequently provided
monitoring data for 2009. Monitoring data for 2006 through 2008 have
been certified by the State; 2009 data have

not yet been certified. However, Wisconsin has quality-assured all of
the ambient monitoring data in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10, and has
recorded it in the AQS database. The data meet the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR 50, Appendix I, which require a minimum completeness
of 75 percent annually and 90 percent over each three-year period.
Monitoring data are presented in Table 1 below.

   Table 1--Annual 4th High Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentration and Three Year Averages of 4th High Daily
                                       Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2006-2008    2007-2009
              Monitor                 2006 4th     2007 4th     2008 4th     2009 4th     average      average
                                     high (ppm)   high (ppm)   high (ppm)   high (ppm)     (ppm)        (ppm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Door 55-029-0004..................        0.079        0.092        0.069        0.075        0.080        0.078
Manitowoc 55-071-0007.............        0.078        0.085        0.064        0.078        0.075        0.075
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance
plans, WDNR has committed to continue to operate an EPA-approved
monitoring network in the areas. WDNR will continue to quality assure
monitoring data in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and enter all data
into AQS in accordance with Federal guidelines. In summary, EPA
believes that the data show that the Manitowoc County and Door County
areas have attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
2. The Areas Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D; and the Areas Have Fully Approved SIPs Under Section 110(k)
(Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 107(d)(3)(E)(ii))
    We have determined that Wisconsin has met all currently applicable
SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation for the Manitowoc County
and Door County areas under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP
requirements). We are also proposing to determine that the Wisconsin
SIP meets all SIP requirements for these areas currently applicable for
purposes of redesignation under part D of Title I of the CAA
(requirements specific to subpart 1 nonattainment areas), in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, with the exception of the
base year emissions inventories, we have approved all applicable
requirements of the Wisconsin SIP for purposes of redesignation, in
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As discussed below, in this
action EPA is proposing to approve Wisconsin's 2005 base year emissions
inventories as meeting the section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory
requirement for the areas.
    In proposing these determinations, we have ascertained which SIP
requirements are applicable to the areas for purposes of redesignation,
and have determined that there are SIP measures meeting those
requirements and that they are, or upon final approval of the emissions
inventories, will be fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. As
discussed more fully below, for purposes of evaluating a redesignation
request, SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to requirements
that became due prior to the submission of the redesignation request.
    The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum (see ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Under this interpretation, a State and the
area it wishes to redesignate must meet the relevant CAA requirements
that are due prior to the State's submittal of a complete redesignation
request for the area. See also the September 17, 1993, Michael Shapiro
memorandum and 60 FR 12459, 12465-12466 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation
of Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to
the State's submittal of a complete request remain applicable until a
redesignation to attainment is approved, but are not required as a
prerequisite to redesignation. See section 175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra
Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 25424, 25427
(May 12, 2003) (Redesignation of the St. Louis/East St. Louis area to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
    Since EPA is proposing here to determine that the areas have
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, under 40 CFR 51.918, if these
determinations are finalized, the requirements to submit certain
planning SIPs related to attainment, including attainment demonstration
requirements (the RACM requirement of section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, the
RFP and attainment demonstration requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and
(c)(6) of the CAA, and the requirement for contingency measures of
section 172(c)(9) of the CAA), would not be applicable to the areas as
long as they continue to attain the NAAQS and would cease to apply upon
redesignation. In addition, in the context of redesignations, EPA has
interpreted requirements related to attainment as not applicable for
purposes of redesignation. For example, in the General Preamble EPA
stated that:

    [t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are directed at ensuring
RFP and attainment by the applicable date. These requirements no
longer apply when an area has attained the standard and is eligible
for redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance plans *
* * provides specific requirements for contingency measures that
effectively supersede the requirements of section 172(c)(9) for
these areas. ``General Preamble for the Interpretation of Title I of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' (General Preamble) 57 FR
13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992).

See also Calcagni memorandum at 6 (``The requirements for reasonable
further progress and other measures needed for attainment will not
apply for redesignations because they only have meaning for areas not
attaining the standard.'').
a. The Manitowoc County and Door County Areas Have Met All Applicable
Requirements for Purposes of Redesignation Under Section 110 and Part D
of the CAA
i. Section 110 General SIP requirements
    Section 110(a) of Title I of the CAA contains the general
requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the
implementation plan submitted by a State must have been adopted by the
State after reasonable public notice and hearing, and, among other
things, must: Include enforceable emission limitations and other
control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the
requirements of the CAA; provide for establishment and operation of
appropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures necessary to
monitor ambient air quality; provide for implementation of a source
permit

program to regulate the modification and construction of any stationary
source within the areas covered by the plan; include provisions for the
implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
and part D, NSR permit programs; include criteria for stationary source
emission control measures, monitoring, and reporting; include
provisions for air quality modeling; and provide for public and local
agency participation in planning and emission control rule development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain measures
to prevent sources in a State from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another State. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain States to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants (NOX SIP Call \1\ and Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005)). However, the section
110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are not linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classification. EPA believes that
the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's
designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal
requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a State regardless
of the designation of any one particular area in the State. Thus, we
believe that these requirements should not be construed to be
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a
NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia and 22
States to reduce emissions of NOX in order to reduce the
transport of ozone and ozone precursors. Wisconsin was not included
in EPA's NOX SIP Call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, we believe that the other section 110 elements described
above that are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and
not linked with an area's attainment status are also not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. A State remains subject to
these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We
conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements that are
linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the
relevant measures that we may consider in evaluating a redesignation
request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on
applicability of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for
redesignation purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport
requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings
(61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7,
1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio 1-
hour ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1-hour ozone redesignation (66 FR 50399,
October 19, 2001).
    We have reviewed Wisconsin's SIP and have concluded that it meets
the general SIP requirements under section 110 of the CAA to the extent
they are applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA has previously
approved provisions of the Wisconsin SIP addressing section 110
elements under the 1-hour ozone standard (40 CFR 52.2570). Further, in
a submittal dated December 12, 2007, Wisconsin confirmed that the State
continues to meet the section 110 requirements for the 8-hour ozone
standard. EPA has not yet taken rulemaking action on this submittal;
however, such approval is not necessary for redesignation.
ii. Part D Requirements
    EPA has determined that, if EPA finalizes the approval of the base
year emissions inventories discussed in section VI.C. of this
rulemaking, the Wisconsin SIP will meet the applicable SIP requirements
for the Manitowoc County and Door County areas applicable for purposes
of redesignation under part D of the CAA. Subpart 1 of part D, found in
sections 172-176 of the CAA, sets forth the basic nonattainment
requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of part
D, which includes section 182 of the CAA, establishes additional
specific requirements depending on the area's nonattainment
classification.
    Since the Manitowoc County and Door County areas were not
classified under subpart 2, of Part D at the time the redesignation
requests were submitted, the subpart 2 requirements do not apply for
purposes of evaluating the State's redesignation requests. The
applicable subpart 1 requirements are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-
(9) and in section 176.

Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements

    For purposes of evaluating these redesignation requests, the
applicable section 172 SIP requirements for the Manitowoc County and
Door County areas are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9). A thorough
discussion of the requirements contained in section 172 can be found in
the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, April
16, 1992).
    Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans for all nonattainment areas to
provide for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as
practicable and to provide for attainment of the primary NAAQS. EPA
interprets this requirement to impose a duty on all nonattainment areas
to consider all available control measures and to adopt and implement
such measures as are reasonably available for implementation in each
area as components of the area's attainment demonstration. Because
attainment has been reached, no additional measures are needed to
provide for attainment, and section 172(c)(1) requirements are no
longer considered to be applicable as long as the area continues to
attain the standard until redesignation. (40 CFR 51.918).
    The RFP requirement under section 172(c)(2) is defined as progress
that must be made toward attainment. This requirement is not relevant
for purposes of redesignation because the Manitowoc County and Door
County areas have monitored attainment of the ozone NAAQS. (General
Preamble, 57 FR 13564). See also 40 CFR 51.918. In addition, because
the Manitowoc County and Door County areas have attained the ozone
NAAQS and are no longer subject to an RFP requirement, the requirement
to submit the section 172(c)(9) contingency measures is not applicable
for purposes of redesignation. Id.
    Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a
comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions.
Wisconsin submitted 2005 base year emissions inventories on June 12,
2007. As discussed below in section VI.C., EPA is proposing to approve
the 2005 base year inventories as meeting the section 172(c)(3)
emissions inventory requirement for the Manitowoc County and Door
County areas.
    Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources in an
area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the
construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources
anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA approved Wisconsin's current
NSR program on December 17, 2008 (73 FR 76558 and 76560). Nonetheless,
EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements will apply after
redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the
requirement that a nonattainment NSR program be

approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates
maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale
for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled,
``Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.'' Wisconsin has demonstrated that the
Manitowoc County and Door County areas will be able to maintain the
standard without part D NSR in effect; therefore, the State need not
have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the
redesignation request. The State's PSD program will become effective in
the Manitowoc County and Door County areas upon redesignation to
attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468,
March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470,
May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and
Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).
    Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain control measures
necessary to provide for attainment of the standard. Because attainment
has been reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for
attainment.
    Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we believe the
Wisconsin SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable
for purposes of redesignation.

Subpart 1 Section 176 Conformity Requirements

    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires States to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that Federally-supported or funded activities,
including highway projects, conform to the air quality planning goals
in the applicable SIPs. The requirement to determine conformity applies
to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or
approved under Title 23 of the U.S. Code and the Federal Transit Act
(transportation conformity) as well as to all other Federally-supported
or funded projects (general conformity). State conformity revisions
must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to
consultation, enforcement, and enforceability, which EPA promulgated
pursuant to CAA requirements.
    EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request under section 107(d) for two reasons. First, the
requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with the conformity
provisions of the CAA continues to apply to areas after redesignation
to attainment since such areas would be subject to a section 175A
maintenance plan. Second, EPA's Federal conformity rules require the
performance of conformity analyses in the absence of Federally-approved
State rules. Therefore, because areas are subject to the conformity
requirements regardless of whether they are redesignated to attainment
and, because they must implement conformity under Federal rules if
State rules are not yet approved, EPA believes it is reasonable to view
these requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001),
upholding this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748, 62749-62750 (Dec.
7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida).
    EPA approved Wisconsin's general and transportation conformity SIPs
on July 29, 1996 (61 FR 39329), and August 27, 1996 (61 FR 43970),
respectively. Section 176(c) of the CAA was amended by provisions
contained in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU), which was signed into law
on August 10, 2005 (Pub. L. 109-59). Among the changes Congress made to
this section of the CAA were streamlined requirements for State
conformity SIPs. Wisconsin is in the process of updating its
transportation conformity SIP to meet these new requirements. Wisconsin
has submitted onroad MVEBs for the Manitowoc County area of 1.76 and
1.25 tpd VOC and 3.76 and 1.86 tpd NOX for the years 2012
and 2020, respectively and MVEBs for the Door County area of 0.78 and
0.53 tpd VOC and 1.55 and 0.74 tpd NOX for the years 2012
and 2020, respectively. The areas must use the MVEBs from the
maintenance plans in any conformity determination that is effective on
or after the effective date of the adequacy finding and/or the
maintenance plans' approval.
b. The Manitowoc County and Door County Areas Have Fully Approved
Applicable SIPs under Section 110(k) of the CAA
    If EPA issues a final approval of the base year emissions
inventories, EPA will have fully approved the Wisconsin SIP for the
Manitowoc County and Door County areas under section 110(k) of the CAA
for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA may
rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request (See
page 3 of the September 4, 1992, John Calcagni memorandum; Southwestern
Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th
Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001)) plus any
additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation
action. See 68 FR 25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the passage of the
CAA of 1970, Wisconsin has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully
approved, provisions addressing various required SIP elements under the
1-hour ozone standard. In this action, EPA is proposing to approve
Wisconsin's 2005 base year emissions inventories for the Manitowoc
County and Door County areas as meeting the requirement of section
172(c)(3) of the CAA. No Manitowoc County or Door County area SIP
provisions are currently disapproved, conditionally approved, or
partially approved.
3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable
Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of the SIP and
Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii))
    EPA finds that Wisconsin has demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the Manitowoc County and Door County areas is
due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIPs, Federal measures, and other State-adopted
measures.
    In making this demonstration, WDNR has calculated the change in
emissions between 2002 and 2007. Wisconsin developed an emissions
inventory for 2002, one of the years used to designate the areas as
nonattainment. The State developed an attainment inventory for 2007,
one of the years the Manitowoc County and Door County areas monitored
attainment. The reduction in emissions and the corresponding
improvement in air quality over this time period can be attributed to a
number of regulatory control measures that Manitowoc and Door Counties
and upwind areas have implemented in recent years.
a. Permanent and Enforceable Controls Implemented
    The following is a discussion of permanent and enforceable measures
that have been implemented in the areas:

i. Federal Emission Control Measures
    Reductions in VOC and NOX emissions have occurred
statewide and in upwind areas as a result of Federal emission control
measures, with additional emission reductions expected to occur in the
future. Federal emission control measures include the following.
    Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur
Standards. These emission control requirements result in lower VOC and
NOX emissions from new cars and light duty trucks, including
sport utility vehicles. The Federal rules were phased in between 2004
and 2009. The EPA has estimated that, by the end of the phase-in
period, the following vehicle NOX emission reductions will
occur nationwide: Passenger cars (light duty vehicles) (77 percent);
light duty trucks, minivans, and sports utility vehicles (86 percent);
and, larger sports utility vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks (69 to 95
percent). VOC emission reductions are expected to range from 12 to 18
percent, depending on vehicle class, over the same period. Some of
these emission reductions occurred by the 2007-2009 period used to
demonstrate attainment, and additional emission reductions will occur
during the maintenance period.
    Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule. EPA issued this rule in July 2000.
This rule includes standards limiting the sulfur content of diesel
fuel, which went into effect in 2004. A second phase took effect in
2007 which further reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 15
ppm, leading to additional reductions in combustion NOX and
VOC emissions. This rule is expected to achieve a 95 percent reduction
in NOX emissions from diesel trucks and busses.
    Non-Road Diesel Rule. EPA issued this rule in 2004. This rule
applies to diesel engines used in industries, such as construction,
agriculture, and mining. It is estimated that compliance with this rule
will cut NOX emissions from non-road diesel engines by up to
90 percent. This rule is currently achieving emission reductions, but
will not be fully implemented until 2010.
    Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Rules. EPA has
promulgated numerous MACT standards, many of which limit VOC emissions.
Compliance began for many of the MACT rules from late 2005 through
2007.
ii. Control Measures in Upwind Areas
    NOX Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT). Wisconsin
adopted NOX RACT regulations for the upwind Milwaukee-Racine
area. The emission requirements apply to stationary combustion units at
major sources, with compliance required by May 1, 2009. The RACT rule
is estimated to achieve reductions of over 29,000 tpy of NOX
emissions from 2002 levels.
    NOX SIP Call. On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a
NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia and 22
States to reduce emissions of NOX. Affected States were
required to comply with Phase I of the SIP Call beginning in 2004, and
Phase II beginning in 2007. The reduction in NOX emissions
has resulted in lower concentrations of transported ozone entering the
Manitowoc County and Door County areas. Emission reductions resulting
from regulations developed in response to the NOX SIP Call
are permanent and enforceable.
b. Emission Reductions
    States are required to develop periodic emissions inventories every
three years. (40 CFR part 51, subpart A). Wisconsin is using the
periodic emissions inventory from 2002 as the nonattainment inventory.
Point source sector emissions inventories were developed using reported
point source emissions, EPA's Clean Air Markets database and approved
EPA techniques for emissions calculations. Emissions were estimated by
collecting process-level information from each facility that qualifies
for inclusion into WDNR's point source database. Process, boiler,
fugitive and tank emissions were typically calculated using throughput
information multiplied by an emission factor for the process. Emission
factor sources included mass balance, stack testing, continuous
emissions monitors, engineering judgment and EPA's Factor Information
Retrieval database.
    Area source emissions were generated by backcasting from the 2005
periodic emissions inventory to minimize differences between the
nonattainment and attainment inventories due to changes in methodology.
The backcasting factors were based on 2002-2008 growth factors
including the Census Bureau's County Business Pattern employment data,
growth factors developed for the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium
(LADCO) by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. (Pechan); and the Economic
Growth Analysis System (EGAS6.0). Area source emissions estimates for
the 2005 periodic inventory were calculated using population, gasoline
consumption, employment, crop acreages, and other activity surrogates.
The results of an EPA Solvent Mass Balance study were used to estimate
emissions for some categories. Emission factors were derived from local
data, local or national surveys and EPA guidance for the development of
emissions inventories. Point source emissions were subtracted from
total category specific area source emissions to prevent double
counting.
    Nonroad mobile source emissions were calculated using EPA's
National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) and emissions estimates
developed for commercial marine vessels, aircraft, and railroads (MAR),
three nonroad categories not included in NMIM. Before NMIM was run, the
following modifications and additions were made to the NMIM input data:
(1) Revised activity data for construction equipment using updates
provided by Pechan; (2) revised allocation data for recreational marine
equipment using updates provided by ENVIRON International Corporation
(ENVIRON); (3) added emission factors for diesel tampers/rammers
provided by Pechan; (4) revised population data for construction and
recreational marine equipment using updates provided by Pechan and
ENVIRON, respectively; (5) revised growth rates using updates provided
by Pechan; and (6) revised gasoline parameters, including Reid Vapor
Pressure, oxygenate content and sulfur content, using updates provided
by the States and Pechan. Onroad mobile source emissions were
calculated using the MOBILE6.2 emissions model.
    Wisconsin developed a 2007 attainment year inventory using the
methodologies described above to estimate point, nonroad mobile and
onroad mobile sector emissions. Area source emissions were generated by
applying growth factors and applicable emission controls to the 2005
area source sector inventory. Growth factors include the Census
Bureau's County Business Pattern employment data, growth factors
developed for LADCO by Pechan; and EGAS6.0.
    Using the inventories described above, Wisconsin's submittal
documents changes in VOC and NOX emissions from 2002 to 2007
for the Manitowoc County and Door County areas. Because Manitowoc and
Door Counties are impacted by transport, WDNR also documented emissions
reductions for the upwind Wisconsin areas of Sheboygan and Milwaukee-
Racine. Emissions data are shown in Tables 2 through 6 below.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27AP10.002

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27AP10.003

    Table 4 shows that the Manitowoc County area reduced VOC emissions
by 1.85 tpd and NOX emissions by 2.32 tpd between 2002 and
2007. Table 5 shows that the Door County area reduced VOC emissions by
1.23 tpd and NOX emissions by 2.17 tpd between 2002 and
2007. In addition, as shown in Table 6, the upwind areas of Sheboygan
and Milwaukee-Racine reduced VOC emissions by 39.90 tpd and
NOX emissions by 125.08 tpd between 2002 and 2007. Based on
the information summarized above, Wisconsin has adequately demonstrated
that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
emissions reductions.
4. The Area Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section
175A of the CAA (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv))
    In conjunction with its requests to redesignate the Manitowoc
County and Door County nonattainment areas to attainment status,
Wisconsin submitted SIP revisions to provide for the maintenance of the
8-hour ozone NAAQS in the areas through 2020.
a. What is required in a maintenance plan?
    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the required elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued
attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the
Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after
the redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan
which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for
ten years following the initial ten-year maintenance period. To address
the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must
contain contingency measures with a schedule for implementation as EPA
deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone
violations.
    The September 4, 1992, John Calcagni memorandum provides additional
guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. The memorandum clarifies
that an ozone maintenance plan should address the following items: the
attainment VOC and NOX emissions inventories, a maintenance
demonstration showing maintenance for the ten years of the maintenance
period, a commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network,
factors and procedures to be used for verification of continued
attainment of the NAAQS, and a contingency plan to prevent or correct
future violations of the NAAQS.
b. Attainment Inventory
    The WDNR developed emissions inventories for 2007, one of the years
used to demonstrate monitored attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS, as
described above. The attainment level of emissions is summarized in
Table 3, above.
c. Demonstration of Maintenance
    Along with the redesignation requests, WDNR submitted revisions to
the Wisconsin 8-hour ozone SIP to include maintenance plans for the
Manitowoc County and Door County areas, as required by section 175A of
the CAA. These demonstrations show maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
standard through 2020 by showing that current and future emissions of
VOC and NOX for the areas remain at or below attainment year
emission levels. A maintenance demonstration need not be based on
modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club v.
EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 53099-53100
(October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25413, 25430-25432 (May 12, 2003).
    Wisconsin is using emissions inventory projections for the years
2012 and 2020 to demonstrate maintenance. Emissions estimates were
generated for point sources, area sources, and the MAR portion of the
nonroad mobile sector by applying growth factors and applicable
emission controls to the 2005 emissions inventory. The 2005 emissions
inventory was developed following the same methodologies described for
the 2002 inventory, in section VI.A.3.b., above. Growth factors include
the Census Bureau's County Business Pattern employment data, growth
factors developed for LADCO by Pechan; and EGAS6.0. Growth factors were
only available for emission projections to 2018. Emissions for 2020
were estimated using linear interpolation from 2018. For Electric
Generating Unit (EGU) point sources, projections were performed on a
facility by facility basis. The growth in generation emissions
considers corporate utility growth in electricity demand and the
potential dispatch by the regional Midwest Independent Transmission
System Operator to meet broader demand. The growth in electricity
consumption by load type is based on growth rate projections by the
Wisconsin Public Service Commission and historic growth rates. Nonroad
mobile emissions, excluding MAR, were calculated using NMIM with the
modifications and additions to the input data described in section
VI.A.3.b., above. Onroad mobile source emissions were calculated using
the MOBILE6.2 emissions model. Emissions data are shown in Tables 7
through 11, below.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27AP10.004

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27AP10.005

    The emission projections show that Wisconsin does not expect
emissions in the Manitowoc County and Door County areas to exceed the
level of the 2007 attainment year inventory during the maintenance
period, even without implementation of CAIR. (See also discussion
below.) As shown in Table 9, VOC and NOX emissions in the
Manitowoc County area are projected to decrease by 0.99 tpd and 3.88
tpd, respectively, between 2007 and 2020. As shown in Table 10, VOC and
NOX emissions in the Door County area are projected to
decrease by 2.96 tpd and 1.27 tpd, respectively, between 2007 and 2020.
In addition, as shown in Table 11, VOC and NOX emissions in
the upwind areas of Sheboygan and Milwaukee-Racine are projected to
decrease by 16.20 tpd and 66.63 tpd, respectively, between 2007 and
2020.
    In addition, LADCO performed a regional modeling analysis to
address the effect of the recent court decision vacating CAIR. This
analysis is documented in LADCO's ``Regional Air Quality Analyses for
Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze: Final Technical Support Document
(Supplement), September 12, 2008.'' LADCO produced a base year
inventory for 2005 and future year inventories for 2009, 2012, and
2018. To estimate future EGU NOX emissions without
implementation of CAIR, LADCO projected 2007 EGU NOX
emissions for all States in the modeling domain based on Energy
Information Administration growth rates by State (North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) region) and fuel type for the
years 2009, 2012 and 2018. The assumed 2007-2018 growth rates were 8.8%
for Illinois, Iowa, Missouri and Wisconsin; 13.5% for Indiana,
Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio; and 15.1% for Minnesota. Emissions were
adjusted by applying legally enforceable controls, e.g., consent decree
or rule. EGU NOX emissions projections for the States of
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin are shown below in
Table 12. The emission projections used for the modeling analysis do
not account for certain relevant factors such as allowance trading and
potential changes in operation of existing control devices. The
NOX projections indicate that, due to the NOX SIP
Call, certain State rules, consent decrees resulting from enforcement
cases, and ongoing implementation of a number of mobile source rules,
EGU NOX is not expected to increase in Wisconsin, or any of
the States in the immediate region, and overall NOX
emissions in Wisconsin, and the nearby region are expected to decrease
substantially between 2005 and 2020.\2\ Total NOX emissions
projections are shown in Table 13, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ There is more uncertainty about the use of SO2
allowances and future projections for SO2 emissions;
thus, further review and discussion will be needed regarding the
appropriateness of using these emission projections for future
PM2.5 SIP approvals and redesignation requests.

    Table 12--EGU NOX Emissions for the States of Illinois, Indiana,
    Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin (TPD) for 2007, 2009, 2012, and 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 2007       2009       2012       2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU.........................      1,582      1,552      1,516      1,524
------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Table 13--Total NOX Emissions for the States of Illinois, Indiana,
 Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin (TPD) for the years 2005, 2009, 2012, and
                                  2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 2005       2009       2012       2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total NOX...................      8,260      6,778      6,076      4,759
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that 2007 is one of the years Wisconsin used to demonstrate
monitored attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS, Table 12 shows that EGU
NOX emissions will remain below attainment levels through
2018. If the rate of emissions increase between 2012 and 2018 continues
through 2020, EGU NOX emissions would still remain below
attainment levels in 2020. Furthermore, as shown in Table 13, total
NOX emissions clearly continue to decrease substantially
throughout the maintenance period.
    Ozone modeling performed by LADCO supports the conclusion that the
Manitowoc County and Door County areas will maintain the standard
throughout the maintenance period. Peak modeled ozone levels in the
Manitowoc County area for 2009, 2012 and 2018 are 0.081 ppm, 0.079 ppm,
and 0.073 ppm, respectively. Peak modeled ozone levels in the Door
County area for 2009, 2012 and 2018 are 0.084 ppm, 0.081 ppm, and 0.076
ppm, respectively. These projected ozone levels were modeled applying
only legally enforceable controls; e.g., consent decrees, rules, the
NOX SIP Call, Federal motor vehicle control programs, etc.
Because these programs will remain in place, emission levels, and
therefore ozone levels, would not be expected to increase significantly
between 2018 and 2020. Given that projected emissions and modeled ozone
levels continue to decrease substantially through 2018, it is
reasonable to infer that a 2020 modeling run would also show levels
well below the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
    EPA has considered the relationship of the maintenance plans to the
reductions required pursuant to CAIR. This rule was remanded to EPA,
and the process of developing a replacement rule is ongoing. However,
the remand of CAIR does not alter the requirements of the
NOX SIP Call, and Wisconsin has demonstrated maintenance
without any additional CAIR requirements (beyond those required by the
NOX SIP Call). Therefore, EPA believes that Wisconsin's
demonstration of maintenance under sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E) is
valid.
    The NOX SIP Call requires States to make significant,
specific emissions reductions. It also provided a mechanism, the
NOX Budget Trading Program, which States could use to
achieve those reductions. When EPA promulgated CAIR, it discontinued
(starting in 2009) the NOX Budget Trading Program, 40 CFR
51.121(r), but created another mechanism, the CAIR ozone season trading
program, which States could use to meet their SIP Call obligations (70
FR 25289-25290). EPA notes that a number of States, when submitting SIP
revisions to require sources to participate in the CAIR ozone season
trading program, removed the SIP provisions that required sources to
participate in the NOX Budget Trading Program. In addition,
because the provisions of CAIR, including the ozone season
NOX trading program, remain in place during the remand, EPA
is not currently administering the NOX Budget Trading
Program. Nonetheless, all States, regardless of the current status of
their regulations that previously required participation in the
NOX Budget Trading Program, will remain subject to all of
the requirements in the NOX SIP Call even if the existing
CAIR ozone season trading program is withdrawn or altered. In addition,
the anti-backsliding provisions of 40 CFR 51.905(f) specifically
provide that the provisions of the NOX SIP Call, including
the statewide NOX emission budgets, continue to apply after
revocation of the 1-hour standard.
    All NOX SIP Call States have SIPs that currently satisfy
their obligations under the SIP Call, the SIP Call reduction
requirements are being met, and EPA will continue to enforce the
requirements of the NOX SIP Call even after any response to
the CAIR remand. For these reasons, EPA believes that regardless of the
status of the CAIR program, the NOX SIP Call requirements
can be relied upon in demonstrating maintenance.
d. Monitoring Network
    Wisconsin currently operates one ozone monitor in Manitowoc County
and one ozone monitor in Door County. Wisconsin has committed to
continue to operate and maintain an approved ozone monitoring network
in the Manitowoc County and Door County areas. WDNR has also committed
to consult with EPA regarding any changes in siting that may become
necessary in the future. Wisconsin remains obligated to continue to
quality assure monitoring data in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and
enter all data into the AQS in accordance with Federal guidelines.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
    Continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the Manitowoc County and
Door County areas depends, in part, on the State's efforts toward
tracking indicators of continued attainment during the maintenance
period. Wisconsin's plan for verifying continued attainment of the 8-
hour standard in the Manitowoc County and Door County areas consists of
continued ambient ozone monitoring in accordance with the requirements
of 40 CFR part 58. WDNR will also continue to develop and submit
periodic emission inventories as required by the Federal Consolidated
Emissions Reporting Rule (67 FR 39602, June 10, 2002), and will
evaluate future VOC and NOX emissions inventories for
increases over the 2007 emission inventory levels.
f. Contingency Plan
    The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or
prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation
of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a
maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to assure that the State will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after

redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency
measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and
implementation of the contingency measures, and a time limit for action
by the State. The State should also identify specific indicators to be
used to determine when the contingency measures need to be adopted and
implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that the
State will implement all measures with respect to control of the
pollutant(s) that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the
area to attainment. See section 175A(d) of the CAA.
    As required by section 175A of the CAA, Wisconsin has adopted
contingency plans for the Manitowoc County and Door County areas to
address possible future ozone air quality problems. A contingency plan
response will be triggered whenever a three-year average fourth-high
monitored value of 0.085 ppm or greater is monitored within the
maintenance area. When a response is triggered, WDNR will evaluate
existing but not fully implemented, on-the way, and, if necessary, new
control measures to correct the violation of the standard within 18
months. The State has confirmed EPA's interpretation that this
commitment means that the measure will be adopted and implemented
within 18 months of the triggering event. In addition, it is EPA's
understanding that to acceptably address a violation of the standard,
existing and on-the way control measures must be in excess of emissions
reductions included in the projected maintenance inventories.
    WDNR included the following list of potential contingency measures
in its maintenance plans:
    i. Broaden the application of the NOX RACT program by
including a larger geographic area, and/or including sources with
potential emissions of 50 tons per year, and/or increasing the cost-
effectiveness thresholds utilized as a basis for Wisconsin's
NOX RACT Program;
    ii. Develop an anti-idling control program for mobile sources
targeting diesel vehicles;
    iii. Adopt a rule reducing VOC content in architectural, industrial
and maintenance coatings; and
    iv. Adopt a rule reducing VOC content in commercial and consumer
products.
g. Provisions for Future Updates of the Ozone Maintenance Plan
    As required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, WDNR commits to submit
to the EPA updated ozone maintenance plans eight years after
redesignation of the Manitowoc County and Door County areas to cover an
additional ten-year period beyond the initial ten-year maintenance
period. As required by section 175A of the CAA, Wisconsin has committed
to retain the VOC and NOX control measures contained in the
SIP prior to redesignation.
    EPA has concluded that the maintenance plans adequately address the
five basic components of a maintenance plan: Attainment inventory,
maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of
continued attainment, and a contingency plan. Thus EPA proposes to find
that the maintenance plan SIP revisions submitted by Wisconsin for the
Manitowoc County and Door County areas meet the requirements of section
175A of the CAA.

B. Adequacy of Wisconsin's MVEBs

1. How are MVEBs developed and what are the MVEBs for the Manitowoc
County and Door County areas?
    Under the CAA, States are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIP revisions and ozone maintenance plans for ozone
nonattainment areas and for areas seeking redesignations to attainment
of the ozone standard. These emission control strategy SIP revisions
(e.g., RFP and attainment demonstration SIP revisions) and ozone
maintenance plans create MVEBs based on onroad mobile source emissions
for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution
from onroad transportation sources. The MVEBs are the portions of the
total allowable emissions that are allocated to highway and transit
vehicle use that, together with emissions from other sources in the
area, will provide for attainment or maintenance.
    Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an area seeking a redesignation to
attainment is established for the last year of the maintenance plan.
The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned
transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in the
preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58
FR 62188).
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation 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 the SIP means that transportation activities will not
cause new air quality violations, worsen existing air quality
violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a
transportation plan does not conform, most new transportation projects
that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and
procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such
transportation activities to a SIP.
    When reviewing SIP revisions containing MVEBs, including attainment
strategies, rate-of-progress plans, and maintenance plans, EPA must
affirmatively approve or find that the MVEBs are ``adequate'' for use
in determining transportation conformity before the MVEBs can be used.
Once EPA affirmatively approves or finds the submitted MVEBs to be
adequate for transportation conformity purposes, the MVEBs must be used
by State and 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 the
adequacy of MVEBs are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
    EPA's process for determining adequacy of a MVEB consists of three
basic steps: (1) Providing public notification of a SIP submission; (2)
providing the public the opportunity to comment on the MVEB during a
public comment period; and, (3) EPA taking action on the MVEB. The
process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs is codified
at 40 CFR 93.118.
    The maintenance plans submitted by Wisconsin for the Manitowoc
County and Door County areas contain new VOC and NOX MVEBs
for the areas for the years 2012 and 2020. The availability of the SIP
submission with these 2012 and 2020 MVEBs was announced for public
comment on EPA's Adequacy Web site on February 24, 2010, at: http://
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public
comment period on adequacy of the 2012 and 2020 MVEBs for the Manitowoc
County and Door County areas closed on March 26, 2010. No adverse
comments on the submittal were received during the adequacy comment
period.
    EPA, through this rulemaking, has found adequate and is proposing
to approve the MVEBs for use to determine transportation conformity in
the Manitowoc County and Door County areas, because EPA has determined
that the areas can maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for
the relevant maintenance period with mobile source emissions at the
levels of the MVEBs. WDNR has determined the 2012 MVEBs for the
Manitowoc County and Door County areas to be 1.76 tpd for VOC and 3.76
tpd for NOX, and 0.78 tpd for VOC

and 1.55 tpd for NOX, respectively. WDNR has determined the
2020 MVEBs for the Manitowoc County and Door County areas to be 1.25
tpd for VOC and 1.86 tpd for NOX, and 0.53 tpd for VOC and
0.74 tpd for NOX, respectively. These MVEBs are consistent
with the onroad mobile source VOC and NOX emissions
projected by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation for 2012 and
2020, as summarized in Tables 9 and 10 above. Wisconsin has
demonstrated that the Manitowoc County area can maintain the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS with mobile source emissions of 1.76 tpd and 1.25 tpd of
VOC and 3.76 tpd and 1.86 tpd of NOX in 2012 and 2020,
respectively, since emissions will remain under attainment year
emission levels. Wisconsin has demonstrated that the Door County area
can maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile source emissions of
0.78 tpd and 0.53 tpd of VOC and 1.55 tpd and 0.74 tpd of
NOX in 2012 and 2020, respectively, since emissions will
remain under attainment year emission levels.

C. 2005 Base Year Emissions Inventories

    As discussed above, section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires areas to
submit a base year emissions inventory. On June 12, 2007, WDNR
submitted a 2005 base year emissions inventory to meet this
requirement. Emissions contained in the submittal cover the general
source categories of point sources, area sources, on-road mobile
sources, and non-road mobile sources. All emission summaries were
accompanied by descriptions of emission calculation procedures and
sources of input data.
    Point source sector emissions inventories were developed using
reported point source emissions, EPA's Clean Air Markets database and
approved EPA techniques for emissions calculations. Emissions were
estimated by collecting process-level information from each facility
that qualifies for inclusion into WDNR's point source database.
Process, boiler, fugitive and tank emissions were typically calculated
using throughput information multiplied by an emission factor for the
process. Emission factor sources included mass balance, stack testing,
continuous emissions monitors, engineering judgment and EPA's Factor
Information Retrieval database.
    Area source emissions were calculated using population, gasoline
consumption, employment, crop acreages, and other activity surrogates.
The results of an EPA Solvent Mass Balance study were used to estimate
emissions for some categories. Emission factors were derived from local
data, local or national surveys and EPA guidance for the development of
emissions inventories. Point source emissions were subtracted from
total category specific area source emissions to prevent double
counting.
    Nonroad mobile source emissions were calculated using EPA's NMIM
and emissions estimates developed for commercial marine vessels,
aircraft, and railroads (MAR), three nonroad categories not included in
NMIM. Before NMIM was run, the following modifications and additions
were made to the NMIM input data: (1) Revised activity data for
construction equipment using updates provided by Pechan; (2) revised
allocation data for recreational marine equipment using updates
provided by ENVIRON International Corporation (ENVIRON); (3) added
emission factors for diesel tampers/rammers provided by Pechan; (4)
revised population data for construction and recreational marine
equipment using updates provided by Pechan and ENVIRON, respectively;
(5) revised growth rates using updates provided by Pechan; and (6)
revised gasoline parameters, including Reid Vapor Pressure, oxygenate
content and sulfur content, using updates provided by the States and
Pechan. Onroad mobile source emissions were calculated using the
MOBILE6.2 emissions model.
    The 2005 summer day emissions of VOC and NOX for the
Manitowoc County and Door County areas are summarized in Table 14,
below. EPA is proposing to approve these 2005 base year inventories as
meeting the section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory requirement.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27AP10.006

VII. What actions is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Manitowoc County and Door
County areas have attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is
proposing to approve the redesignations of the Manitowoc County and
Door County areas from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. After evaluating the redesignation requests submitted by
Wisconsin, EPA believes that the requests meet the redesignation
criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The final
approval of these redesignation requests would change the official
designations for the Manitowoc County and Door County areas from
nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is
also proposing to approve the maintenance plan SIP revisions for the
Manitowoc County and Door County areas. EPA's proposed approvals of the
maintenance plans is based on the State's demonstration that the plans
meet the requirements of section 175A of the CAA, as described more
fully above. EPA is proposing to approve WDNR's 2005 base year
emissions inventories for the Manitowoc County and Door County areas as
meeting the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. Finally, EPA
finds adequate and is proposing to approve Wisconsin's 2012 and 2020
MVEBs for the Manitowoc County and Door County areas.

VIII. 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

Act 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 Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, these actions merely do not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law and the Clean Air Act.
For that reason, these actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not 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);
     Are not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this 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

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxides, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

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

    Dated: April 14, 2010.
Walter W. Kovalick Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2010-9753 Filed 4-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6852-6853]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02496]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-759-000]

Innovative Solar 43, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Innovative Solar 43, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is February 23, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies

of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 3, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-02496 Filed 2-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P