+(,121/,1(

Citation: 61 Fed. Reg. 11735 1996 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Tue Dec 8 13:34:29 2009

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 57 / Friday, March 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

State cita- Title/subject Date adopt- Date approved Federal Reg- 52.2070 (45)

tion ed by State by EPA ister citation Comments/unapproved sections

No. 29.3 ... EMISSIONS ........... 4/28/95 March 22, 1996 [Insert FR cita- This rule limits a source's potential to emit, therefore

tion from pub- avoiding RACT, title V operating permits.

lished date].

[ER Doc. 96 6601 Filed 3 21 96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

40 CFR Part 52

[W164-01-7169a; FRL-5437-3]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plan; Wisconsin; Rateof-Progress and Contingency Plans

AGENCY: United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: In this action, USEPA is

approving a revision to the Wisconsin

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the

purpose of satisfying the rate-of-progress

and contingency plan requirements of

the Clean Air Act (Act) which will aid

in ensuring the attainment of the

national ambient air quality (NAAQS)

for ozone.

DATES: This "direct final" rule will be

effective May 21, 1996, unless USEPA

receives adverse or critical comments by

April 22, 1996. If the effective date is

delayed, timely notice will be published

in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Carlton T. Nash, United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,

Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois,

60604.

Copies of the documents relevant to

this action are available at the above

address for public inspection during

normal business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad

J. Beeson at (312) 353-4779.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On November 15, 1990, Congress

enacted amendments to the 1977 Clean

Air Act (CAA); Public Law 101-549, 104

Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-

7671q. Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA

requires all ozone nonattainment areas

classified as moderate and above to

submit a SIP revision by November 15,

1993, which describes, in part, how

these areas will achieve an actual

emissions reduction of at least 15

percent during the first 6 years after

enactment of the CAA (November 15,

1996). Emissions and emissions

reductions shall be calculated on a

typical weekday basis for the "peak" 3-

month ozone period (generally June

through August).

The 15 percent VOC emissions

reduction required by November 15,

1996 is defined within this document as "rate-of-progress." Furthermore, the

portion of the SIP revision that

illustrates the plan for the achievement

of the emissions reduction is

subsequently defined in this document

as the "rate-of-progress plan."

In addition, section 172(c)(9) requires

moderate and above areas to adopt

contingency measures by November 15,

1993. The General Preamble states that

the contingency measures generally

must provide reductions of 3 percent of

the emissions from the adjusted base

year inventory. While all contingency

measures must be fully adopted rules or

measures, the State can use these

measures in 2 different ways. The State

can use its discretion to implement any

contingency measures it wants before

1996. Alternatively, the State may

decide not to implement a measure until

the area has failed to either make rateof-progress or attain the national

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).

In that situation, the reductions must be

achieved in the year following that in

which the failure has been identified.

II. Wisconsin's SIP Submittal

The Act requires States to observe

certain procedural requirements in

developing implementation plans and

plan revisions for submission to USEPA.

Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides

that each implementation plan

submitted by a State must be adopted

after reasonable notice and public

hearing. Section 110(1) of the Act

similarly provides that each revision to

an implementation plan submitted by a

State under the Act must be adopted by

such State after reasonable notice and

public hearing.

The State of Wisconsin held a public

hearing on October 14, 1993, to receive

public comment on the implementation

plan for their moderate and above ozone

nonattainment areas. Following the

public hearing the plan was adopted by

the State Natural Resources Board and

signed by the Governor's designee,

George Meyer on September 9, 1993,

and submitted to USEPA on November

15, 1993 as a proposed revision to the

SIP.

The SIP revision was reviewed by

USEPA to determine completeness

shortly after its submittal, in accordance

with the completeness criteria set out at

40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V (1991), as

amended by 57 FR 42216 (August 26,

1991). Because neither plan included

fully adopted rules for all the measures

listed in the plans, these submittals

were deemed incomplete.

On July 13, 1995, the State made a

supplemental submittal which included

fully adopted rules for both the rate-ofprogress and contingency plan. On July

18, the State's SIP submittal was

deemed complete.

III. The USEPA's Analysis of

Wisconsin's Rate-of-Progress and

Contingency Plans

The USEPA has reviewed the State's

submittal for consistency with the

requirements of USEPA regulations. A

summary of USEPA's analysis is

provided below. More detailed support

for approval of the State's submittal is

contained in a Technical Support

Document (TSD), dated January 10,

1996, which is available from the

Region 5 Office, listed above.

A. Accurate Emission Inventory

Sections 172(c)(3) and 182(b)(1) of the

Act require that nonattainment plan

provisions include a comprehensive,

accurate, current inventory of actual

emissions from all sources of relevant

pollutants in the nonattainment area.

Because the approval of such

inventories is necessary to an area's

rate-of-progress plan and attainment

demonstration, the emission inventory

must be approved prior to or with the

rate-of-progress plan submission.

On June 15, 1994, USEPA approved

Wisconsin's base year inventory.

Therefore, Wisconsin has a

comprehensive, accurate, current

inventory of actual emissions from all

sources of relevant pollutants in the

nonattainment area.

11735

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 11735 1996
61, No. 57 / Friday, March 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

B. Calculation of the Adjusted Base

Year Inventory

The Act specifies the emission

baseline from which the 15 percent

reduction is calculated. This baseline

value is termed the 1990 adjusted base

year inventory. Section 182(b)(1)(D)

excludes from the baseline the

emissions that would be eliminated by

Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program

(FMVCP) regulations promulgated by

January 1, 1990, and Reid vapor

pressure (RVP) regulations (55 FR

23666, June 11, 1990), which require

maximum RVP limits in nonattainment

areas during the peak ozone season.

The adjusted base year inventory is

determined by starting with the

emission inventory, and then removing

all biogenic emissions as well as

emissions from sources located outside

of the designated nonattainment

boundary. The resulting inventory is

termed the rate-of-progress base year

inventory. The rate-of-progress base year

inventory is then adjusted by removing

the expected FMVCP and RVP

reductions in order to derive the

adjusted base year inventory.

Wisconsin used USEPA's MOBILEha

emission factor model to correctly

calculate its adjusted base year

inventory. Wisconsin's documentation

includes the actual 1990 motor vehicle

emissions using 1990 vehicle miles

traveled (VMT) and MOBILEha emission

factors, and the adjusted emissions

using 1990 VMT and the MOBILE

emission factors in calendar year 1996

with the appropriate RVP for the

nonattainment area as mandated by

USEPA. The plan includes adequate

information on how the MOBILEha

model was run to calculate the expected

emission reductions from FMVCP and

RVP.

As specified by the Act, section

182(b)(1)(B), preenactment banked

emission credits were not included in

any of Wisconsin's inventories.

Provided below is a tabular summary

of the emission inventories calculated

above.

Tons

Emissions inventory per

day

A. 1990 Base Year Emission Invento ry ................................................ 5 5 9 .9

B. 1990 Rate-of-Progress Inventory. 409.5

C. Emission Reductions from the

pre-1990 FMVCP and Phase II

RVP expected by 1996 ................. 70.2

D. 1990 Adjusted Base Year Inventory (B- C ) ...................................... 339.3

C. Required Reductions

The adjusted base year inventory is

multiplied by 0.15 to calculate the

amount of the required rate-of-progress

emission reduction. The amount of

reductions necessary to meet the

contingency plan requirement is 3

percent of the adjusted base year

inventory. Therefore the adjusted base

year inventory is multiplied by 0.03 to

calculate the amount of required

reductions for the contingency plan

requirement.

Shown below is a table summarizing

the amount of required reductions for

the rate-of-progress and contingency

plans.

Tons

Inventory per

day

1990 Adjusted Base Year Inventory 339.3

Reduction for Rate-of-Progress Req uirem e nt ...................................... 50 .9

Reduction for Contingency Requirem e n t .............................................. 1 0 .2

Therefore, to meet the rate-of-progress

requirement, Wisconsin's plan must

provide for at least a 50.9 tons per day

(tpd) reduction, net of growth, in VOC

emissions. In addition, to meet the

contingency requirement, the State's

plan must provide for at least a 10.2 tpd

reduction, net of growth, in VOC

emissions.

Under section 182(b)(1)(D) of the Act,

the following reductions are not

creditable towards the rate-of-progress

reductions: (1) FMVCP regulations

promulgated by January 1, 1990; (2) RVP

regulations; (3) RACT corrections; and

(4) inspection and maintenance (I/M)

corrections. Thus, the total expected

reductions comprise the amount of

reductions necessary to meet the rate-ofprogress requirement and the expected

reductions from the four noncreditable

programs just described.

Wisconsin has documented the

correct amount for the total expected

reductions in the nonattainment area by

showing each step, discussing any

assumptions made, and stating the

origin of the number used in the

calculations.

D. Projected Emission Inventory

Emission projections for sources

within an air basin are needed to

determine if the rate-of-progress

requirements in the Act are met and to

determine if the area will attain the

NAAQS by the applicable attainment

date. The purpose of projecting the

emission inventories into the future is

not solely to predict what is likely to

happen, but also to test the ability of the

regulations in the control strategy to

meet the rate-of-progress goals and

attain the ozone NAAQS.

Growth factors are not included in the

calculations of the 1990 adjusted base

year inventory or the 1996 target.

Growth factors are needed, however, to

project emissions to 1996 for the rate-ofprogress demonstration as part of the

rate-of-progress plan.

Wisconsin has included growth

factors documenting assumptions made.

The State's calculations for growth in

the on-road mobile, industrial, and area

source sectors is 11.6, 0.5, and 2.1 tpd

respectively. These growth estimations

were calculated in a manner consistent

with USEPA's guidance.

E. Control Measures

The revision submitted by the State

lists a series of control measures

projected to achieve a 63.8 tpd

reduction in VOC emissions. See the

table below for list of the measures and

their associated reductions.

Expected Imple- Control measure reductions mented by

Nov. 1996

On road mobile sector:

9 4 - 9 6 ta ilp ip e a n d e v a p o ra tive ....................................................................................................................................

I/M a n d R F G (s e v e re c o u ntie s ) ...................................................................................................................................

I/M (S h e b o y g a n C o u n ty ) ..................................................................................................................................................

E C O ..................................................................................................................

F e d e ra l d e te rg e n t a d d itiv e ru le ........................................................................................................................................

RFG- Class C (moderate counties) ................................................................................................................................

R F G - C la ss B (se ve re co u ntie s ) ....................................................................................................................................

Industrial Sector

W o o d fu rn itu re c o a tin g ....................................................................................................................................................

M is c . w o o d p ro d u ct c o a tin g .............................................................................................................................................

0.72

34.06

0.98

1.57

0.57

1.50

5.66

2.38

0.91

11736 Federal Register / Vol.

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 11736 1996
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 57 / Friday, March 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Expected Imple- Control measure reductions mented by Nov. 1996

Y e a s t m a n u fa c tu rin g ........................................................................................................................................................ 0 .7 3

S c re e n p rin tin g c o n tro ls ................................................................................................................................................... 0 .1 2

F o u n d rie s- g ra y iro n a nd ste e l ....................................................................................................................................... 0 .0 6

In d u s tria l a d h e s iv e s ......................................................................................................................................................... 0 .2 1

L ith o g ra p h y ...................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .5 8

D e g re a s in g ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 .0 1

Area Sources

A IM c o a tin g s .................................................................................................................................................................... 3 .7 7

A u to b o d y re fin is h in g ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 .9 1

R F G (o ff-ro a d ) ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 .5 6

Federal non-road engine standards ................................................................................................................................ 0.87

S ta g e II v a p o r re c o v e ry ................................................................................................................................................... 7 .7 0

T ra ffic m a rk in g s ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 .6 2

G a s s ta tio n ta n k b re a th in g .............................................................................................................................................. 0 .9 1

Consumer and commercial products ............................................................................................................................... 2.80

F. Rate -of-Progress and Contingency

Plan Demonstrations

Overall, a State's rate-of-progress and

contingency plans must provide for an

18 percent reduction in VOC emissions,

of which rules for 15 percent must be

implemented by November 15, 1996.

For Wisconsin this means that at a

minimum the State's plan must provide

for a 61.1 tpd reduction in VOCs, of

which at least 50.9 tpd of these

reductions must be achieved by

November 15, 1996.

The State's plan provides for a 62.0

tpd reduction, net of growth, in VOCs of

which 54.8 tpd will be accomplished by

November 15, 1996. For measures not

implemented by 1996, Wisconsin's SIP

clearly states the trigger mechanisms, a

schedule of the implementation of the

measures, and an indication that the

measures will be implemented with no

further action by the State or USEPA

(e.g., additional rulemaking actions such

as public hearings or legislative review).

Therefore the State's plan meets the

minimum program requirements.

G. Enforceability Issues

All measures and other elements in

the SIP must be enforceable by the State

and USEPA (see sections 172(c)(6),

1 10(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and 57 FR

13556). The USEPA criteria addressing

the enforceability of SIP's and SIP

revisions were stated in a September 23,

1987 memorandum (with attachments)

from J. Craig Potter, Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation (see

57 FR 13541). Nonattainment area plan

provisions must also contain a program

that provides for enforcement of the

control measures and other elements in

the SIP [see section 1 10(a)(2)(C) of the

Act].

Each rule has been or will be

independently reviewed and approved

by USEPA as part of the State's SIP. Part

of this review process includes a review

of the enforceability of the rule. Rules

that are not enforceable will not be

approved by USEPA.

H. Concluding Statem ent

The USEPA has reviewed Wisconsin's

rate-of-progress and contingency plan

SIP revisions submitted to USEPA as

described above. The materials

contained in these SIP revisions

represent an acceptable approach to the

rate-of-progress and contingency plan

requirements and meet all the criteria

required for approvability.

IV. Action

The USEPA approves Wisconsin's

rate-of-progress and contingency plan

SIP submittals. With this action, USEPA

incorporates Wisconsin's rate-ofprogress and contingency plan SIP

revision into the SIP, making them

federally enforceable.

For the purposes of transportation

conformity determinations, final

approval of this rate-of-progress plan

revision would eliminate the need for a

build/no-build test for VOC for the 1996

analysis year. However, for analysis

years later than 1996, conformity

determinations addressing VOC must

demonstrate consistency with this plan

revision's motor vehicle emissions

budget, consistency with the VOC motor

vehicle emissions budget in the

submitted (but not yet approved)

attainment demonstration (if any), and

satisfaction of the build/no-build test

(until the attainment demonstration is

approved). Final approval of this rate-ofprogress plan revision would not

eliminate the need for a build/no-build

test for NOx for the 1996 analysis year.

Because USEPA considers this action

noncontroversial and routine, we are

approving it without prior proposal.

This action will become effective on

May 21, 1996. However, if we receive

significant adverse comments by April

22, 1996, USEPA will publish a notice

that modifies or withdraws this action.

V. Miscellaneous.

A. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. The

USEPA shall consider each request for

revision to the SIP in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

B. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214-2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA must

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603

and 604). Alternatively, USEPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

This approval does not create any

new requirements. Therefore, I certify

that this action does not have a

significant impact on any small entities

11737

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 11737 1996
61, No. 57 / Friday, March 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

affected. Moreover, due to the nature of

the Federal-State relationship under the

Act, preparation of the regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of the State action. The

Act forbids USEPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976).

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, USEPA

must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed

or final rule that includes a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs to state, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate; or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more.

Under Section 205, USEPA 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 USEPA to establish

a plan for informing and advising any

small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by

the rule.

The USEPA has determined that the

approval action promulgated today does

not include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated 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 preexisting requirements under state or

local law, and imposes no new Federal

requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to state, local, or tribal

governments, or the private sector,

result from this action.

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by May 21, 1996. 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, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: January 26, 1996.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional A dm inistrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 767 1q.

Subpart YY-Wisconsin

2. Section 52.2570 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(87) to read as

follows:

§52.2570 Identification of plan.

)* * ***

(c)*

(91) The State of Wisconsin requested

a revision to the Wisconsin State

Implementation Plan (SIP). This

revision is for the purpose of satisfying

the rate-of-progress requirement of

section 182(b) and the contingency

measure requirement of section

172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act (Act)

which will aid in ensuring the

attainment of the national ambient air

quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Wisconsin Statutes, sections

144.31(1)(e) and (f), enacted on April 30,

1992, by Wisconsin Act 302.

[FR Doc. 96 6779 Filed 3 21 96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

40 CFR Part 70

[KY-JEFF-96-01; FRL-5445-7]

Clean Air Act Approval of Operating

Permits Program; Jefferson County,

Kentucky

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final full approval.

SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating full

approval of the Operating Permits

Program submitted by the Jefferson

County, Kentucky Air Pollution Control

District (District) located in the

geographic area of Jefferson County,

Kentucky. The Jefferson County,

Kentucky program was submitted for

the purpose of complying with Federal

requirements which mandate that state

and local agencies develop, and submit

to EPA programs for issuing operating

permits to all major stationary sources,

and to certain other sources.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 22, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the District's

submittal and other supporting

information used in developing the final

full approval are available for inspection

during normal business hours at the

following location: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 4, 345

Courtland Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia

30365, on the 3rd floor of the Tower

Building. Interested persons wanting to

examine these documents, contained in

EPA docket number KY-JEFF-96-01,

should make an appointment at least 24

hours before the visiting day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leonardo Ceron, Title V Program

Development Team, Air Programs

Branch, Air, Pesticides &Toxics

Management Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, 345 Courtland Street, NE.,

Atlanta, GA 30365, (404) 347-3555

extension 4196.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments (Section 501-507 of the

Clean Air Act ("the Act")), and

implementing regulations at 40 Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70

require that states or authorized local

agencies develop and submit operating

permits programs to EPA by November

15, 1993, and that EPA act to approve

or disapprove each program within one

year after receiving the submittal. EPA's

program review occurs pursuant to

section 502 of the Act and the part 70

regulations, which together outline

criteria for approval or disapproval.

Where a program substantially, but not

fully, meets the requirements of part 70,

EPA may grant interim approval for a

period of up to two years. If EPA has not

fully approved a program by November

15, 1995, or by the end of the interim

program, it must establish and

implement a Federal Program.

On November 24, 1995, EPA proposed

full approval, or in the alternative,

interim approval of the operating

permits program for the Jefferson

County, Kentucky, Air Pollution Control

District. See 60 FR 58033. The

November 24, 1995, notice also

proposed approval of the District's

interim mechanism for implementing

section 112(g) and for delegation of

section 112 standards as promulgated.

EPA did not receive any comments on

the proposal. On February 16, 1996, the

District submitted a package containing

revisions to the operating permits

program, which addressed the

11738 Federal Register / Vol.

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 11738 1996