[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