[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 89 (Monday, May 10, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24989-24990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-11711]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[WI90-01-7321; FRL-6339-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Maintenance Plan Revisions;
Wisconsin
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We propose approval of a February 22, 1999, request from
Wisconsin for State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions to the ozone
maintenance plans for Kewaunee, Sheboygan and Walworth Counties. The
revisions would remove the contingency measures from the contingency
plan portion of the maintenance plans.
DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be received on or before
June 9, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton Nash, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. Copies of the documents relevant to this
action are available for inspection during normal business hours at the
following location:
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Please contact Jacqueline Nwia at (312) 886-6081 before visiting
the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Nwia, Environmental
Scientist, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6081.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplemental information section is
organized as follows:
What action Is USEPA taking?
What is the background?
What information did the State submit?
Why is the request approvable?
What Action Is USEPA Taking?
We propose approval of revisions to the ozone maintenance plans for
Kewaunee, Sheboygan and Walworth Counties, Wisconsin. The revisions
remove the contingency measures from the contingency plan portion of
the ozone maintenance plans.
What Is the Background?
USEPA designated Kewaunee, Sheboygan and Walworth Counties as
nonattainment for the one-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) in 1991. Since then, these Counties attained the one-
hour ozone standard and USEPA redesignated them to attainment on August
26, 1996 (61 FR 43668). As part of the redesignation, Wisconsin
submitted maintenance plans which USEPA approved into the SIP. The
purpose of the maintenance plans is to ensure maintenance of the one-
hour ozone NAAQS through the 10 year maintenance period. The
maintenance plan contains contingency measures. Contingency provisions
should identify and correct any violation of the one-hour ozone NAAQS
in a timely fashion. Triggers are included in the contingency
provisions. These triggers identify the need to implement contingency
measures to correct an air quality problem. Triggering events may be
linked to ozone air quality and/or an emission level of ozone
precursors. The contingency measures would be implemented to correct a
violation of the one-hour ozone standard.
We approved the maintenance plans for Kewaunee, Sheboygan and
Walworth Counties on August 26, 1996 (61 FR 43668).
What Information Did the State Submit?
On February 22, 1999, Wisconsin submitted a request to revise the
Kewaunee, Sheboygan and Walworth County ozone maintenance plans.
Specifically, the State requested removal of the following contingency
measures from the Kewaunee and Sheboygan County maintenance plans:
(1) Lower the major source threshold for industrial sources, and
(2) Implement gasoline standards to lower volatile organic
compound emissions.
For Walworth County, the State requested removal of the
following contingency measures from the maintenance plan:
(1) Implement Stage II vapor recovery, and
(2) Impose non-control technology guideline reasonably available
control technology limits on industrial sources.
The State held a public hearing on October 27, 1998 in Milwaukee. The
State did not receive public comments on the proposed revision.
Why Is the Request Approvable?
We promulgated a new National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
for ozone on July 18, 1998. The new ozone NAAQS is 0.08 parts per
million (ppm), averaged over 8 hours, which replaced the 0.12 ppm, 1-
hour NAAQS.
On July 16, 1997, President Clinton issued a directive to
Administrator Browner (62 FR 38421). The directive describes a plan to
implement the eight-hour ozone and fine particulate matter standards
and continue to implement the one-hour standard. A December 29, 1997,
memorandum entitled ``Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour and Pre-
Existing PM10 NAAQS'' reflected the President's directive. This
document provides guidance for the transition from the one-hour to the
eight-hour standard.
The guidance document explains that maintenance plans remain in
effect for areas where the one-hour standard is revoked. However, those
maintenance plans may be revised to withdraw untriggered or
unimplemented contingency measure provisions linked to the one-hour
ozone standard.
USEPA revoked the one-hour ozone standard in Kewaunee, Sheboygan
and Kewaunee Counties based on 1994-1996 quality assured air monitoring
data on June 5, 1998 (63 FR 31014). The contingency measures proposed
for removal have neither been triggered nor implemented.
We deemed Wisconsin's SIP revision request complete on March 5,
1999.
USEPA Proposed Action
After review of the SIP revision request, we find that the
requested removal of the contingency measures from the maintenance
plans of Kewaunee, Sheboygan, and Walworth Counties is approvable
because the 1-hour standard is no longer applicable in the area as a
result of revocation of the standard and these contingency measures are
untriggered and unimplemented. This request meets our guidance and
policies. Written comments must be received by USEPA on or by June 9,
1999.
Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
[[Page 24990]]
B. Executive Order 12875
Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships. Under E.O. 12875, EPA may
not issue a regulation that is not required by statute and that creates
a mandate upon a State, local or tribal government, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by those governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA
must provide to the OMB a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elective officials and other
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' This rule does not create a
mandate on State, local or tribal governments. The rule does not impose
any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements
of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13084
Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments. Under
E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by
statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of
Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct
compliance costs on these communities, unless the Federal government
provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs
incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA
must provide to the OMB in a separately identified section of the
preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elected and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' This rule
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian
tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of
E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
D. Executive Order 13045
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is does not
involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety
risks.
E. Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., generally
requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the
agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small
governmental jurisdictions. This proposed rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because
plan approvals under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (Act) do not
create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the
State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal approval does
not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship
under the Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of a State action. The
Act forbids EPA to base its actions on such grounds. Union Electric
Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2
U.S.C. 1532, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany
any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may
result in estimated annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments
in the aggregate; or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under
section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is
consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to
establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that
may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
The EPA has determined that the approval action of the revisions to
the ozone maintenance plans for these counties promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves
pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
VI. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen oxides, Implementation
plans.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 21, 1999.
William E. Muno,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 99-11711 Filed 5-7-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
