[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 169 (Friday, August 30, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70500-70505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-19548]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0664; FRL-12010-01-R5]


Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 
the 2015 Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving 
elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from Wisconsin 
regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA) for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that 
the structural components of each state's air quality management 
program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the 
CAA.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 30, 2024.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0664. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, 
some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI), Proprietary Business Information (PBI), 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 https://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. 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, Air and Radiation 
Division (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-4489, 
[email protected].

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

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?

    Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section 
110(a)(1) requires states to make SIP submissions to provide for the 
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This type of 
SIP submission is commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP.'' 
These submissions must meet the various requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2), as applicable.
    On September 30, 2020 (85 FR 61673), EPA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking proposing to approve most elements of a September 
14, 2018, submission from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 
(WDNR) intended to address all

[[Page 70501]]

applicable infrastructure requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA's 
proposed rulemaking contained a detailed analysis of Wisconsin's 
submission. Public comments on the September 30, 2020, proposed rule 
were due by October 30, 2020.
    EPA's September 30, 2020, proposed rulemaking did not address 
Wisconsin's infrastructure requirements under section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and section 110(a)(2)(F). In separate rulemakings, 
EPA has since taken action on these elements. In a February 13, 2023 
(88 FR 9384), rulemaking addressing the interstate transport elements 
under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA approved Wisconsin's September 
14, 2018, submission as to the requirements of prong 1 and disapproved 
the submission as to the requirements of prong 2. On July 24, 2023 (88 
FR 47375), EPA approved an August 3, 2022, submission from Wisconsin 
certifying that its SIP is sufficient to meet the stationary source 
monitoring and reporting element under section 110(a)(2)(F). In this 
action, which finalizes EPA's September 30, 2020, proposed rulemaking, 
EPA is taking final action on all remaining elements of Wisconsin's 
infrastructure requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

II. What are EPA's responses to comments?

    During the public comment period on EPA's September 30, 2020, 
proposed rulemaking, EPA received one comment in support of our action, 
as well as one adverse comment, which addressed three aspects of 
Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP submission. For each aspect, summaries 
of the adverse comment and EPA's responses are provided below.
    Comment: A commenter alleges that EPA cannot finalize approval of 
Wisconsin's submission as meeting the infrastructure SIP requirements 
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B). The commenter notes that EPA's proposed 
rule refers to our October 2, 2019, approval of Wisconsin's 2020 Annual 
Monitoring Network Plan (AMNP), but the commenter suggests that 
Wisconsin would have submitted a more recent AMNP in July 2020. The 
commenter asserts that EPA should have based its proposal on the most 
recent AMNP. The commenter notes that neither AMNP was in the docket 
folder for the proposed rulemaking, and requests that EPA add both 
AMNPs to the docket and open a new 30-day public comment period.
    Response: EPA disagrees that EPA must propose approval only on the 
most recently submitted AMNP. Wisconsin submitted its 2021 AMNP on June 
29, 2020, and EPA approved the 2021 AMNP on September 15, 2020. On 
September 10, 2020, when the Deputy Regional Administrator signed EPA's 
rulemaking proposing approval of the state's infrastructure SIP 
submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS with respect to section 
110(a)(2)(B), EPA's approval of the 2020 AMNP was the most current 
approval, and therefore EPA could not have cited approval of the 2021 
AMNP. Further, a state's 2021 AMNP describes changes it intended to 
make no earlier than January 1, 2021. On the date EPA published the 
proposed approval, Wisconsin was implementing its monitoring network 
according to the 2020 AMNP.
    Additionally, in its 2021 AMNP, Wisconsin outlined changes to its 
monitoring network that had no adverse impact on its ability to monitor 
ozone. In Table 14 of its 2021 AMNP, Wisconsin listed proposed changes 
at only four monitoring sites. At its Milwaukee SER DNR Headquarters 
site, the state proposed to terminate monitoring of eight pollutants 
including ozone, because of the scheduled demolition of the facility 
adjacent to that site. At the other three sites, the state proposed new 
monitoring or increased monitoring of pollutants that had earlier been 
monitored at the Milwaukee SER DNR Headquarters site. The state 
proposed to start monitoring of five of those pollutants, including 
ozone, nearby at a new Milwaukee UWM Park & Ride site. At its Milwaukee 
Sixteenth St. Health Center site, the state proposed increasing the 
frequency of sampling of particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less 
than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). The state also 
proposed to start monitoring oxides of nitrogen (NOX) at its 
Chiwaukee site. Importantly, the 2021 AMNP was not Wisconsin's first 
mention of the proposed termination of the Milwaukee SER DNR 
Headquarters site. The state had already proposed this termination in 
its 2020 AMNP, and EPA's September 30, 2020, rulemaking references 
EPA's October 2, 2019, approval of that plan. EPA accordingly concludes 
that referencing the most recently approved 2020 AMNP at the time of 
signature of the proposed rulemaking, as opposed to the most recently 
submitted 2021 AMNP, did not deprive commenters of an ability to raise 
concerns about adverse changes to the state's ozone monitoring network. 
EPA is now adding the 2020 AMNP and 2021 AMNP to the docket folder for 
this action.
    EPA further disagrees that any AMNP must have been included in the 
docket at the time of the comment period for this action. Prior to 
submitting an AMNP to EPA, WDNR makes each AMNP broadly available 
through a public comment process (see 40 CFR 58.10). Both the 2020 AMNP 
and 2021 AMNP are available at the WDNR website. WDNR's September 14, 
2018, submittal contains a link to a subpage of this website, and EPA 
provided the same link in the proposed rule. Accordingly, EPA concludes 
that commenters had knowledge of, and access to, both the 2020 and 2021 
AMNPs during the comment period and thus there was no need for EPA to 
provide an additional comment period for this purpose.
    Comment: A commenter alleges that EPA cannot finalize approval of 
Wisconsin's submission as meeting the infrastructure SIP requirements 
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E). The commenter asserts that Wisconsin's 
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS fails to provide 
any documentation, budgetary details, or personnel numbers to support 
its conclusions that Wisconsin meets the infrastructure SIP 
requirements relating to adequate resources to carry out the SIP. The 
commenter notes that WDNR's submission identifies its section 105 
grants and Environmental Performance Partnership Agreement (EnPPA), but 
states that these sources were neither described in detail in the 
submission nor included in the docket for EPA's proposed rulemaking. 
The commenter refers to requirements at 40 CFR 51.280 and asserts that 
1-, 3-, and 5-year resource projections are required but not included 
in Wisconsin's submission. The commenter also cites to a report which 
states that environmental agency funding in Wisconsin has been cut by 
36 percent from 2008 to 2018. The commenter alleges that Wisconsin 
``must provide concrete assurances that it has adequate funding and 
personnel both now and for the next 5 years.''
    Response: EPA agrees that CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires each 
state to provide necessary assurances that the state will have adequate 
personnel, funding, and authority under state law necessary to carry 
out the SIP during the five years following the SIP submission.\1\ 
However, CAA section 110

[[Page 70502]]

does not mandate a specific methodology for EPA to evaluate the 
adequacy of state resources available to implement the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA guidance identifies a five-year period following the SIP 
submission as the relevant timeframe for this evaluation. See 
Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards. ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2).'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions 1 
through 10, September 13, 2013, at page 40 (2013 Guidance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter expresses concern that that Wisconsin's funding to 
implement the SIP may be inadequate based on potential budget cuts. 
Specifically, the commenter asserts that ``Wisconsin ranks first in 
environmental protection funding cuts across the country,'' and to 
support this contention cites to a report by the Environmental 
Integrity Project, as well as a public radio news story referencing 
that report, which both allege that Wisconsin cut its environmental 
agency funding by 36 percent between 2008 and 2018. As discussed on 
page 8 of the report, the alleged 36% cut is expressed in inflation-
adjusted dollars. As shown in Table 1 of the report, this was a 
decrease from a budget of $91.4 million in 2008 to a budget of $68.9 
million in 2018, which is a 25 percent cut without adjusting for 
inflation.
    To evaluate the commenter's concern that Wisconsin budgets are 
declining in a way that would make the state unable to continue to 
implement its SIP, EPA reviewed the state's enacted budgets, which are 
posted online by the Wisconsin Department of Administration.\2\ 
Wisconsin's budgets are passed by the Wisconsin legislature and signed 
by the governor on a biennial cycle, covering periods from July 1 of 
one odd-numbered year through June 30 of the next odd-numbered year. To 
evaluate the commenter's claims regarding Wisconsin's 2008 budget, EPA 
reviewed Wisconsin's enacted biennial budget for 2007-2009. EPA also 
reviewed Wisconsin's four most recent enacted biennial budgets, for the 
periods 2017-2019, 2019-2021, 2021-2023, and 2023-2025, which cover a 
total of eight years, including the 2018 year referenced by the 
commenter, and spanning the complete five-year period following 
Wisconsin's September 14, 2018, submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Wisconsin's current enacted budget is available at https://doa.wi.gov/Pages/StateFinances/CurrentBiennialBudget.aspx. Previous 
enacted budgets are available at https://doa.wi.gov/Pages/StateFinances/PastBudgets.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted by the Environmental Integrity Project, Wisconsin's 
pollution control and cleanup programs are housed within WDNR, which 
also manages state parks, recreational areas, wildlife programs, and 
fisheries programs. This structure is distinct from the organization of 
most states, which consolidate pollution control and cleanup programs 
in a single agency, like Indiana's Department of Environmental 
Management. In the case of Wisconsin, the Environmental Integrity 
Project has ``attempted to identify and distinguish spending for those 
functions from the department's overall budget,'' and the 25 percent 
nominal budget cut is meant to quantify cuts to the portion of WDNR's 
funding allocated to pollution control and cleanup programs, which the 
Environmental Integrity Project describes as ``environmental agency 
funding.'' The Environmental Integrity Project report does not explain 
its methodology for separating WDNR's ``environmental agency funding'' 
from other funding.
    In reviewing biennial budgets, EPA first reviewed data for WDNR's 
department-wide budget. WDNR's budget did decline between 2008 and 
2018, but by an amount much smaller than the 25 percent nominal cut 
described in the Environmental Integrity Project report. WDNR's total 
budget was $573 million for 2007-2008 and $580 million for 2008-2009, 
compared to $549 million for 2017-2018 and $547 million for 2018-2019, 
which is a cut of less than 6 percent. In the six years preceding the 
current biennial budget, starting in 2017-2018 and ending in 2022-2023, 
WNDR's total budget was between $549 million and $575 million, which is 
a range of less than 5 percent, with no clear trends of increases or 
decreases within this period. In the current biennial budget, WDNR's 
total budget has been increased relative to the level of previous 
years, at $640 million for 2023-2024 and $581 million for 2024-2025.
    Given that the Environmental Integrity Project analyzed only a 
portion of WDNR's budget, EPA also reviewed previous and current 
biennial budget allocations for the nine programs that together 
comprise the total WDNR budget. One of these programs, titled 
``environmental management'', contains pollution control and cleanup 
programs including air management, water quality, wastewater 
management, and remediation. The environmental management program 
budget was $70.8 million for 2017-2018 and $70.0 million for 2018-2019, 
which differs by less than 3 percent from the Environmental Integrity 
Project's calculation of $68.9 million in ``environmental agency 
funding'' for 2018. Because the Environmental Integrity Project did not 
provide its methodology in the report, EPA cannot verify whether WDNR's 
environmental management program was the budget used by the 
Environmental Integrity Project in calculating 2018 ``environmental 
agency funding.'' For 2008, WDNR's nine programs were organized and 
labeled differently, and EPA does not see any program or combination of 
programs from 2008 that is similar to the $91.4 million funding level 
in the report, such that the Environmental Integrity Project might be 
able to draw comparisons to 2018 funding levels for WDNR's 
environmental management program.
    During EPA's evaluation of state assurances of adequate resources 
under section 110(a)(2)(E), it is not necessary for EPA to determine 
the exact amount of resources a state needs to carry out its SIP. In 
this case, EPA's evaluation of the facts indicates that the WDNR budget 
has not changed to the degree that it would preclude the state from 
implementing its SIP, given that the overall budget did not decrease by 
more than 6 percent between 2008 and 2018. Further, as shown below in 
Table 1, funding for WDNR and for its environmental management program 
has not decreased over the eight-year period starting in 2017-2018 and 
ending in 2024-2025. As noted above, WNDR's total budget in this period 
was between $549 million and $640 million, with no clear trends of 
increases or decreases over the first six years followed by an increase 
in the current 2023-2025 biennial budget. The environmental management 
program budget in this period was between $70.0 million and $102 
million, with an overall trend of increased funding during this period, 
particularly in the current 2023-2025 biennial budget. Considered 
together, the biennial budgets show a trajectory of stable or 
increasing resources for WNDR and its environmental management program 
over the five-year period beginning with Wisconsin's September 14, 
2018, submission.

[[Page 70503]]



                   Table 1--Enacted Budgets for WDNR and Its Environmental Management Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Environmental management
                        Budget period                            Total WDNR budget          program budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017-2018....................................................          $549,243,200                  $70,843,300
2018-2019....................................................           549,243,200                   70,002,900
2019-2020....................................................           574,682,800                   75,134,000
2020-2021....................................................           548,896,600                   74,975,000
2021-2022....................................................           566,301,400                   83,014,200
2022-2023....................................................           558,779,900                   77,963,500
2023-2024....................................................           640,434,900                  101,630,600
2024-2025....................................................           580,922,900                   81,381,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wisconsin's submission additionally identified the section 105 Air 
Pollution Control Grant as a source of resources applied towards 
implementing its air program, and Wisconsin explains that ``EPA and 
WDNR negotiate priorities and grant commitments under the EnPPA, which 
is a two-year agreement itemizing performance measures and outcomes 
across various funding sources and grants.'' To further assess the 
adequacy of Wisconsin's resources towards carrying out the SIP, EPA 
reviewed EnPPA documents from the five-year period beginning with 
Wisconsin's September 14, 2018, submission. EPA is placing the EnPPA 
materials in the docket for this action. The EnPPA documents provide 
further support to EPA's finding that Wisconsin has had adequate 
resources to carry out its SIP. In these materials, EPA and WDNR staff 
review objectives and activities relating to the SIP, across categories 
including mobile source programs, ambient air monitoring, NAAQS 
implementation, and regional haze. Within each category, EPA and WDNR 
staff discuss progress towards specific commitments, such as conducting 
vehicle emissions testing in ozone nonattainment areas, operating ozone 
monitors, implementing maintenance plans in areas that have been 
redesignated to attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and issuing air 
quality forecasts for criteria pollutants including ozone. The EnPPA 
process does not require documentation of every commitment in every 
year, however when progress within each commitment is discussed, EPA 
and WDNR consistently agree that Wisconsin's progress is ongoing or 
satisfactory.
    Comment: A commenter alleges that EPA cannot finalize approval of 
Wisconsin's submission as meeting the infrastructure SIP requirements 
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) relating to 
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), or section 
110(a)(2)(J). The commenter notes EPA's January 17, 2017 (82 FR 5182), 
rulemaking promulgating revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality 
Models at appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 (``Guideline''), which required 
states to integrate the revisions no later than January 17, 2018. The 
commenter cites EPA's July 6, 2020 (85 FR 40165), rulemaking proposing 
approval of elements of an infrastructure SIP submission from Kentucky, 
which expressed EPA's view that applications of the Guideline include 
the infrastructure requirements relating to PSD, which means the 
requirements at CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 
relating to PSD, and section 110(a)(2)(J). The commenter notes that the 
Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter Natural Resources (NR) 405.10 
specifies that modeling required under the state's PSD rules shall be 
based on the Guideline, but NR 484.04 incorporates by reference the 
version of the Guideline that was in effect on August 1, 2016. The 
commenter acknowledges that states with references to earlier versions 
of the Guideline may be able to rely on their authority to use 
alternative models to satisfy these infrastructure requirements but 
suggests that neither Wisconsin nor EPA has confirmed the state's 
ability to implement the current version of the Guideline.
    Response: The air quality modeling procedures at NR 405.10 were 
approved into the Wisconsin SIP on May 27, 1999 (64 FR 28745), as part 
of the state's PSD program. EPA agrees with the commenter that NR 
405.10 incorporates by reference the version of the Guideline that was 
effective on August 1, 2016, which is not the current version of the 
Guideline. However, as the commenter suggests, Wisconsin has the 
authority to conduct modeling according to the current Guideline under 
substitution procedures provided within NR 405.10. Specifically, where 
it is inappropriate to use the modeling procedures provided in the 
earlier Guideline that is incorporated by reference, then NR 405.10 
provides that another model may be substituted. NR 405.10 further 
provides that a substitution shall be subject to public comment 
procedures and that approval of the EPA Administrator shall be obtained 
for any substitution.
    In EPA's January 17, 2017, rulemaking promulgating revisions to the 
Guideline, EPA explained to states that the new revisions to the 
Guideline ``must be integrated into the regulatory processes of 
respective reviewing authorities and followed by applicants'' by 
January 17, 2018. In EPA's view, by issuing this direction to states to 
begin using the revised Guideline, the Agency has in effect provided 
its approval for the state to substitute the current Guideline in place 
of an earlier Guideline, which thus functionally satisfies the 
requirement for administrator approval at NR 405.10. Were the state 
seeking to use some alternative approach that EPA had not already 
determined to be appropriate by updating the Guideline and instructing 
states to integrate it into their programs, then the EPA approval 
process required in NR 405.10 would still apply. Further, any PSD 
application is already subject to the public participation requirements 
at NR 405.15, which satisfies the requirement at NR 405.10 for public 
comment on air quality modeling. EPA therefore concludes that the SIP-
approved modeling procedures at NR 405.10 are adequate to authorize and 
allow the state to conduct modeling according to the current Guideline, 
and thus adequate to meet the infrastructure requirements relating to 
PSD at CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 
section 110(a)(2)(J).

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving most elements of a submission from Wisconsin 
certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to meet the required 
infrastructure elements under section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2015 
ozone NAAQS.
    EPA's actions for the state's satisfaction of infrastructure SIP 
requirements pursuant to section

[[Page 70504]]

110(a)(2) and NAAQS are contained in the table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Element                             2015 Ozone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A)--Emission limits and other control measures........               A
(B)--Ambient air quality monitoring/data system........               A
(C)1--Program for enforcement of control measures......               A
(C)2--Minor NSR........................................               A
(C)3--PSD..............................................               A
(D)1--I Prong 1: Interstate transport--significant                   NA
 contribution to nonattainment.........................
(D)2--I Prong 2: Interstate transport--interference                  NA
 with maintenance......................................
(D)3--II Prong 3: Interstate transport--interference                  A
 with PSD..............................................
(D)4--II Prong 4: Interstate transport--interference                  A
 with visibility protection............................
(D)5--Interstate and international pollution abatement.               A
(E)1--Adequate resources...............................               A
(E)2--State board requirements.........................               A
(F)--Stationary source monitoring system...............              NA
(G)--Emergency powers..................................               A
(H)--Future SIP revisions..............................               A
(I)--Nonattainment planning requirements of part D.....               *
(J)1--Consultation with government officials...........               A
(J)2--Public notification..............................               A
(J)3--PSD..............................................               A
(J)4--Visibility protection............................               *
(K)--Air quality modeling/data.........................               A
(L)--Permitting fees...................................               A
(M)--Consultation/participation by affected local                     A
 entities..............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the above table, the key is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A..............................  Approve.
NA.............................  No Action/Separate Rulemaking.
*..............................  Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     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.
    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).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address 
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects'' of their actions on communities with environmental justice 
(EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 
EPA defines EJ as ``the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of 
all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with 
respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of 
environmental laws, regulations, and policies.'' EPA further defines 
the term fair treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a 
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including 
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of 
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and 
policies.''
    WDNR did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP 
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither 
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ 
analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of 
the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral 
to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. 
Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there 
is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of 
E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for communities with EJ concerns.
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA 
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the 
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

[[Page 70505]]

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by October 29, 2024. 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 in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 26, 2024.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40 CFR part 52 is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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


0
2. Section 52.2591 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (i); and
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (l).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  52.2591  Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements.

* * * * *
    (i) Approval--In September 14, 2018, and August 3, 2022, 
submissions, WDNR certified that the state has satisfied the 
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), 
and (J) through (M) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. For section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 is approved and prong 2 is disapproved.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-19548 Filed 8-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P