Approval and Promulgation of Maintenance Plan Revisions; Wisconsin

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