[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