[Federal Register: August 29, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 168)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51906-51911]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29au03-8]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[WI-113-3; FRL-7528-7]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a revision to Wisconsin's State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the attainment of the one-hour ozone
standard for the Milwaukee-Racine area. This SIP revision, submitted to
EPA on December 16, 2002, allows emissions averaging for sources
subject to the state's rules limiting emissions of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) from large electricity generating units in southeast
Wisconsin. In addition, the revision creates a new categorical
emissions limit for new integrated gasification combined cycle units.
On April 10, 2003, the EPA proposed approval of this SIP revision and
published a direct final approval as well. EPA received adverse
comments on the proposed rulemaking, and therefore withdrew the direct
final rulemaking on June 6, 2003.
DATES: This final rule is effective September 29, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air
and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604. We recommend that you telephone Alexis Cain at (312) 886-7018
before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexis Cain, Environmental Scientist,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), USEPA,
[[Page 51907]]
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)
886-7018.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The supplemental information is organized in the following order:
I. What action is EPA taking today?
II. What is EPA's response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
EPA is approving, as part of the Wisconsin ozone SIP, rules that
would allow sources to use emissions averaging and an emissions cap as
a option for complying with ozone season limits on emissions of
NOX. These limits apply to large electricity generating
units in Southeast Wisconsin. EPA approved the rules setting the
NOX emissions limits into Wisconsin's SIP on November 13,
2001 (66 FR 56931). The limits are expressed in mass of allowable
emissions per unit of heat input (pounds per million Btu).
Emissions averaging will allow units subject to the NOX
emissions limits of NR 428 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code to
create emissions averaging plans in which the compliance of multiple
sources would be assessed collectively. Participating sources would
need to submit such plans to the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) at least 90 days prior to the start of the ozone
season, and would need to identify the participating units, their
owners or operators, applicable emissions limitations, projected heat
input and emissions rate, and projected mass emissions for the ozone
season. The plan would establish an aggregate ozone season emissions
rate limit for participating units through a formula that sums
allowable emissions for each unit (based on projected heat input and
each source's individual emissions rate), and divides it by the total
projected heat input. To provide an environmental benefit from
averaging, the formula subtracts 0.01 pounds/mmbtu from each unit's
allowable emissions.
As a result, total emissions under an averaging plan would be lower
than they would be if each unit demonstrated compliance on an
individual basis. However, individual units would be allowed to exceed
emissions rates specified in the NOX reduction rules, while
other units would emit less than allowed under the rules. Thus,
averaging allows companies to minimize the cost of emissions reductions
by allocating reductions at the units that can achieve them most
inexpensively.
In addition, units participating in an averaging plan are subject
to a mass emission limitation, beginning with the 2008 ozone season.
This feature of the program ``caps'' the aggregate ozone season
NOX emissions of participating sources at a level that could
not be exceeded regardless of heat input. This level is determined by
the participating units' share of actual heat input during the 1995,
1996 and 1997 ozone seasons, multiplied by 15,912 tons, an amount
consistent with the state's one-hour ozone attainment demonstration.
Within 60 days of the end of each ozone season, owners or operators
of the participating units must submit compliance reports demonstrating
compliance with the plan's emission rate and mass emission limit.
II. What Is EPA's Response to Comments Received on the Proposed
Rulemaking?
The Midwest Environmental Advocates provided adverse comments on
EPA's proposed approval of Wisconsin's averaging program. The Natural
Resources Defense Council requested clarification of an issue related
to the proposed approval of the new categorical emissions limit for new
integrated gasification combined cycled units. In addition, EPA
received two positive comments on the proposed rulemaking from
citizens. This section responds to the adverse comments and to the
request for clarification.
The Midwest Environmental Advocates noted areas where Wisconsin's
averaging program may differ from the EPA's guidance on Improving Air
Quality with Economic Incentive Programs, EPA-452/R-01-001, January
2001 (EIP Guidance). The comments by Midwest Environmental Advocates
are addressed in detail below, and in many cases EPA disagrees that
Wisconsin's averaging program is inconsistent with the EIP. In general,
EPA notes that the EIP Guidance is neither a law nor a regulation.
While it provides important guidance on the development of economic
incentive programs, differences between a SIP submittal and the EIP
Guidance are not necessarily sufficient reason to disapprove a SIP
submittal.
Comment: Wisconsin's NOX averaging program should not be
approved because it would not result in clear environmental benefit, as
required under the EIP Guidance.
Response: The averaging program should be considered as an element
of Wisconsin's overall NOX reduction rules. EPA has
determined that these rules will achieve the results that the state
attributed to them in the one-hour ozone attainment plan (proposed
rule, July 2, 2001, 66 FR 34878; final rule November 13, 2001, 66 FR
56931). The averaging portion of the rules provides compliance
provisions that make it possible for sources subject to the rules to
comply with them in a timely way, which otherwise would not be
possible. Therefore, the averaging program is an essential element in
an overall package that will lead to actual emissions decreases, and
conforms with the EIP Guidance provisions on environmental benefit.
Moreover, units that enter into NOX averaging plans must
collectively accept a lower NOX emissions limit than they
would have individually, which will promote further reductions in
actual emissions.
Comment: Wisconsin's NOX averaging program fails to take
source compliance margins into account, contrary to the EIP Guidance.
The averaging program could lead to the disappearance of the margin
between actual and allowable emissions that would occur in the absence
of the averaging program, creating the potential for ``an overall
increase in actual emissions, despite a theoretical decrease in
allowable emissions.''
Response: The EIP Guidance (section 6.5(g)) states that in areas
that have a required attainment demonstration, no provisions for
considering compliance margins are necessary if the relevant attainment
plan ``includes the emissions from compliance margins as actual
emissions'' and ``the relevant emissions inventories include emissions
from the compliance margins for all sources covered under the EIP.''
Since the Milwaukee-Racine attainment and ROP plan and associated
NOX emissions inventories assume that the NOX
sources covered by the averaging program all emit as much as allowed,
the compliance margin is already taken into account, and emissions will
be reduced even if sources emit the maximum allowed. See ``Technical
Support Document for the Post-1999 Rate-of-Progress Plan Revision to
the State Implementation Plan for the Milwaukee-Racine, Wisconsin
Area,'' from Jacqueline Nwia to Randall Robinson, June 7, 2001, p. 27
(Docket WI 108-7338).
Comment: The rules require that excess emissions reductions used in
an averaging plan be ``beyond those required to meet all State and
Federal requirements,'' but they do not require that reductions be in
excess of those that would have occurred in the absence of the EIP, for
instance due to upgrades, replacement or repair. The use of such
reductions in averaging would frustrate
[[Page 51908]]
the goal of achieving additional reductions.
Response: Since it is difficult to determine which emissions-
reducing upgrades, replacements, and repairs are motivated by an
averaging program and which would occur in its absence, it is
reasonable for the state to allow all reductions that are not otherwise
required to be used in emissions averaging. It is sufficient to show
that the overall effect of the program is to create lower emissions
than would occur in the program's absence, even if some of the specific
reductions used in an averaging plan would have occurred in any case.
The EIP guidance requirement that economic incentive programs produce a
clear environmental benefit is met because of the role that the
averaging program plays in making compliance with the NOX
reduction rules possible, by the reduced emissions rate on sources that
participate in averaging, and by the imposition of an emissions cap.
Comment: It is unclear that the imposition of an emissions cap
results in ``any appreciable environmental benefit that would not have
otherwise been achieved by complying with the state's one-hour ozone
attainment plan.''
Response: The one-hour ozone attainment plan is a tool for managing
air quality, through projecting the impacts of regulations and economic
changes on emissions of ozone precursors and on concentrations of ozone
in ambient air. The attainment plan, however, does not impose
requirements on sources. While the attainment plan includes projections
of future emissions, based on projected activity levels and allowable
emissions rates, these future emissions and activity levels are not
regulatory requirements on sources. This SIP revision will create a new
emissions cap, consistent with the attainment demonstration, for
sources that participate in emissions averaging. This emissions cap
provides certainty, which would not otherwise exist, that emissions
from participating sources will be capped despite the potential for
activity level increases beyond those projected.
Comment: The emissions cap does not apply until 2008, by which time
it is likely that other factors will reduce NOX emissions in
the Milwaukee-Racine area.
Response: It may be true that other programs or events will reduce
future emissions beyond what is required under Wisconsin's current
NOX rules. However, for the purpose of this rulemaking, EPA
cannot assume the implementation of these future programs prior to
2008, and therefore counts the 2008 emissions cap as an environmental
benefit.
Comment: The program ``fails to account for the relationship
between NOX averaging plans and Title V permits.'' A unit
operating under a Title V permit might use emissions averaging to
increase its emissions, violating the facility's Title V permit and
constituting a major modification necessitating new source review.
Response: Any unit that increases emissions sufficiently to violate
its permit would be subject to enforcement, and any unit that increases
emissions sufficiently to constitute a major modification would be
subject to new source review, notwithstanding averaging for the purpose
of compliance with the NOX emissions limits contained in NR
428.04(2) and NR 428.05(3). The averaging program cannot be used for
compliance with any other requirement, and it cannot be used to avoid
any requirement. Proper use of the averaging program for compliance
with the NR 428 NOX emissions limits will be consistent the
Title V permit, because when these limits are included in the permits
of sources eligible for averaging, the permits will specify that
averaging is a compliance option.
Comment: ``The proposed SIP revision does not explicitly require
units participating in averaging plans to modify their Title V permit
accordingly.'' Unless the public can determine from a facility's Title
V permit whether a unit is part of an averaging plan, which other units
are included in the plan, and how to determine the applicable emissions
limits among and between those units, public participation in the Title
V permit process will be undermined.'' Moreover, ``the public is
charged with obtaining a copy of an averaging plan from the
participating parties,'' potentially inhibiting the public's ability to
assess a source's compliance status.
Response: While NR 428 does not itself contain a requirement that
units participating in averaging plans modify their Title V permits, NR
407, which is part of Wisconsin's SIP, does require that new
requirements and compliance options be incorporated into permits as
they are issued. Therefore, permits issued for sources that may use
averaging must authorize the use of the averaging program as a
compliance option. The Clean Air Act does not require that the details
of averaging plans be included in Title V permits, but rather that the
Title V permit identify whether a unit may use emissions averaging as a
compliance option. EPA agrees with the commenter that the public should
have access to the averaging plan when viewing a company's Title V
permit, and the public should not have to obtain the averaging plan
from the source. The WDNR has clarified, in a letter dated May 28,
2003, that it will keep any prospective averaging plan, DNR comments on
the plan, the final plan, and all compliance reports, in the Title V
permit file for each participating source. It should also be noted that
participants in an emissions averaging plan must provide public notice
of the plan in a local newspaper at least 60 days prior to the start of
the ozone season.
Comment: The proposed SIP revision fails to include provisions
preventing a unit receiving excess emissions credits from increasing
emissions sufficient to constitute a major modification without
undergoing PSD or NSR review.
Response: The PSD and NSR programs require sources to undergo
review when increasing emissions sufficient to constitute a major
modification. Nothing in Wisconsin's averaging program changes this
requirement.
Comment: EPA's ``justifications for failing to apply agency
guidance [on averaging among sources not under common ownership] are
insufficient because they fail to address the purported purpose behind
the unified owner requirement.'' The unified owner requirement ``is
meant to ensure enforcement and compliance.'' A cap, whatever its
environmental benefits, cannot substitute for lack of enforceability.
Response: A cap provides assurances that if enforcement of average
emission rates proves difficult, the state and EPA can nonetheless
protect the environment by enforcing against any violation of the cap.
Comment: Saying that WDNR staff will be able to review averaging
plants is irrelevant because the guidance prohibits emissions averaging
between facilities owned by different companies to ensure enforcement
and compliance. Given the difficulty of predicting activity levels,
``merely making sure that projected activity levels are reasonable does
not ensure that day to day averaging is achieved.''
Response: The commenter is correct that projecting reasonable
activity levels does not ensure that day to day averaging is achieved.
In looking at the question of whether Wisconsin will be able to check
the reasonableness of projected activity levels, EPA is seeking to
ensure that averaging plan participants will not be able to
[[Page 51909]]
deliberately ``game'' the system by projecting excessive activity by a
unit with a reduced emissions rate. In the situation where non-
compliance occurs because a unit has a lower-than-projected activity
level, emissions will be lower than projected. This situation is of
less concern if the activity levels projected are reasonable and
similar to those of previous years, than if intentionally-erroneous
significant growth in activity levels were projected. In the latter
situation, emissions could increase even if activity levels are lower
than the inflated projections of the averaging plan. It is important to
note that it is a violation of the NOX averaging rules to
exceed the allowable aggregate emissions rate, regardless of whether
total emissions are greater or less than projected.
Comment: ``Wisconsin's air management program is already under-
staffed and under-funded,'' is late in issuing permits, and is having
difficulty ensuring compliance with the Title V program. ``Even if DNR
staff review of averaging plans could adequately address the concerns
in EPA guidance, air management staff are not in a position to
adequately complete this task.''
Response: The staff time required to verify that a small number of
averaging plans contain reasonable projections of activity levels is
minimal. EPA is confident that Wisconsin staff can perform this
function, regardless of staffing and funding problems that may affect
the Title V program.
Comment: A company operating a high-emissions unit cannot ensure
that sufficient reductions exist unless it controls the low emission
unit creating those credits. The fact that eligible facilities operate
close to capacity is irrelevant, since activity levels can change.
Response: The commenter is correct that in averaging plans
involving multiple owners, the ability to comply of all participants in
the averaging plan can be compromised if the owner of the unit with a
reduced emission rate does not maintain sufficient activity level.
Averaging plan participants must take the risk of failing to comply
with the averaging plan as a result of unexpected reductions in
activity level by sources with reduced emissions rates. EPA could bring
enforcement actions for such non-compliance, even though non-compliance
with the emissions rate would be accompanied by lower actual emissions
than projected.
Comment: The proposed SIP fails to indicate that all units
participating in an averaging plan are in violation each and every day
within the plan's averaging period if the aggregate NOX
emissions exceed the averaging plan's emission limits, multiplied by
the number of participating units, as required under the EIP guidance.
Response: NR 428(j) states that ``all emissions units participating
in an ozone season NOX emissions averaging program may be
considered out of compliance'' if the averaging plan aggregate
emissions rate or emissions cap is exceeded. Furthermore, ``each
emissions unit is considered out of compliance for each day of non-
compliance until corrective action is taken to reduce emissions and
achieve compliance.'' In the case of a violation of the averaging
plan's aggregate emission rate or emissions cap, these provisions would
give Wisconsin the ability to bring enforcement actions for violations
for each participating unit, for each day during the ozone season up to
the point when corrective action was taken. These provisions provide
significant deterrence, are consistent with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act and Title V regulations, and are substantially consistent
with the EIP guidance. While the EIP guidance might be interpreted to
indicate that a source may be in violations for each day of the ozone
season even after corrective action is taken, EPA is willing to be
flexible on this point.
Comment: The proposed rules do not indicate that source shutdowns
and production activity curtailments are not eligible as emission
reductions, nor that a source's emissions reductions must be
``permanent,'' as required under the EIP.
Response: Given the structure of Wisconsin's averaging program,
such provisions against counting source shutdowns and curtailments are
unnecessary, and not required under the EIP. In Wisconsin's averaging
program, compliance depends on emissions rates, not total emissions.
Therefore, shutdowns and curtailments intrinsically do not generate
reductions that can be used in averaging programs. Regarding the
permanence of emissions reductions, the EIP states that ``permanent''
means that a source ``commits to actions or achieves reductions for a
future period of time as defined in the EIP'' (EIP Guidance, Section
4.2(a)). In Wisconsin's program, sources must commit to making
reductions during the period defined by the NOX reduction
rules--the ozone season. Thus, averaging plans in Wisconsin must use
reductions that meet the EIP's general definition of permanent. The EIP
also provides an additional definition of permanent specifically for
averaging. In addition to the general definition, in an averaging
program ``the source's emission reduction must last throughout the life
of the program defined in the SIP'' (EIP Guidance, Table 4.3(b)). If
``the life of the program'' is defined as the period of time during
which the program will be in operation, then Wisconsin's program, which
has an indefinite life, would not seem to meet this requirement.
However, EPA believes that a more reasonable interpretation is that the
reduction must last through a time period defined by the program--the
ozone season. In this case, Wisconsin's program does require permanent
reductions.
Comment: The proposed SIP revision would allow geographic shifting
of emissions without protecting communities of concern from emissions
increases, as required under the EIP. In addition, EPA should determine
whether the proposed SIP revision satisfies the environmental justice
requirements in Executive Order 12898.
Response: The EIP does not require special protections for
communities of concern in trading or averaging programs that involve
emissions of NOX, because NOX, unlike volatile
organic compounds, is not a pollutant that raises significant concerns
about localized impacts. NOX emissions impact regional
concentrations of ozone, but do not cause elevated ozone concentrations
on a local level. NOX emissions are also associated with
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO2), a criteria pollutant for
which the Clean Air Act provides a variety of protections for local
communities. Wisconsin has no NO2 nonattainment areas, and
any significant increases in NO2 emissions at sources
subject to the averaging plan would be subject to New Source Review.
Since the averaging program creates no adverse local impacts, there is
no potential to create ``disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects * * * on minority populations and low-
income populations,'' as addressed in Executive Order 12898.
Comment: Wisconsin's NOX averaging rule ``may frustrate
the state's new 8-hour attainment needs''. EPA should disapprove this
SIP revision until Wisconsin submits an 8-hour attainment demonstration
plan.
Response: The NOX averaging rule is a necessary
component of Wisconsin's NOX control rules, which will
reduce NOX emissions and contribute to reductions in ambient
ozone concentrations. The rule contributes to Wisconsin's efforts to
meet the 8-hour attainment standard; it does not frustrate them.
[[Page 51910]]
Comment: ``The proposed SIP revision appears to be promulgated for
one company,'' raising ``issues of the appropriateness and legality of
regulation created and implemented for individual companies.''
Response: Several companies are eligible to use the NOX
averaging program, and EPA anticipates that more than one company will
be involved in emissions averaging. In any case, as long as the program
is protective of the environment, it would not be a cause for concern
if only one company chose to use the program.
Comment: ``The direct final rule approves inclusion of a new
categorical emission limit for new integrated gasification combined
cycle (IGCC) units in the Wisconsin SIP. We call upon EPA to clarify
that this emissions limit does not and cannot, pre-ordain, or
substitute for, BACT or LAER analysis required under the NSR and PSD
requirements of the Clean Air Act.''
Response: None of the emissions limits in Wisconsin's
NOX rules, including the categorical emission limit for new
integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) units, do or can
predetermine or substitute for BACT or LAER analysis required under the
NSR and PSD requirements of the Clean Air Act.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action also does not have federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act.
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTA), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, requires Federal agencies to
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. In
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a
prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of
a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean
Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA do
not apply.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
Congressional Review Act
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 rule 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 28, 2003. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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, Oxides of Nitrogen.
Dated: June 30, 2003.
William E. Muno,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
[[Page 51911]]
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart YY--Wisconsin
0
2. Section 52.2570 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(108) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2570 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(108) On December 16, 2002, Lloyd L. Eagan, Director, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, submitted revised rules to allow use
of NOX emissions averaging for sources subject to
NOX emission limits in the Milwaukee-Racine area. The
revised rules also establish a NOX emissions cap for sources
that participate in emissions averaging, consistent with the emissions
modeled in Wisconsin's approved one-hour ozone attainment demonstration
for the Milwaukee-Racine area. The rule revision also creates a new
categorical emissions limit for new integrated gasification combined
cycle units.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) NR 428.02(6m) as published in the (Wisconsin) Register,
November 2002, No. 563 and effective December 2, 2002.
(B) NR 428.04(2)(g)(3) as published in the (Wisconsin) Register,
November 2002, No. 563 and effective December 2, 2002.
(C) NR 428.06 as published in the (Wisconsin) Register, November
2002, No. 563 and effective December 2, 2002.
[FR Doc. 03-22050 Filed 8-28-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P