[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 208 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64142-64145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27399]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[WI99-01-733a, FRL-6891-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Maintenance Plan Revisions; 
Wisconsin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a 
September 8, 2000, request from Wisconsin for a State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) revision of the Walworth County ozone maintenance plan. The 
maintenance plan revision establishes a new transportation conformity 
Mobile Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB) for the year 2007. EPA is 
approving the allocation of a portion of the safety margin for Volatile 
Organic Compounds (VOC) to the area's 2007 MVEB for transportation 
conformity purposes. This allocation will still maintain the total 
emissions for the area at or below the attainment level required by the 
transportation conformity regulations. The transportation conformity 
budget for oxides of nitrogen (NO<INF>x</INF>) will remain the same as 
previously approved in the maintenance plan.

DATES: This rule is effective on December 26, 2000, unless EPA receives 
adverse written comments by November 27, 2000. If EPA receives adverse 
comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the 
Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take 
effect.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments 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.
    You may inspect copies of the documents relevant to this action 
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 Michael Leslie at (312) 353-6680 before 
visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael G. Leslie, Environmental 
Engineer, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-6680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Supplementary Information section is 
organized as follows:

What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
Who Is Affected by This Action?
How Did the State Support This Request?
What Is Transportation Conformity?
What Is an Emissions Budget?
What Is a Safety Margin?
How Does This Action Change the Walworth County Ozone Maintenance 
Plan?
Why Is the Request Approvable?
EPA Action
Administrative Requirements

What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    EPA is approving a revision to the ozone maintenance plan for 
Walworth

[[Page 64143]]

County, Wisconsin. The revision will change the MVEB for VOC that is 
used for transportation conformity purposes. The revision will keep the 
total emissions for the area at or below the attainment level required 
by law. This action will allow State or local agencies to maintain air 
quality while providing for transportation growth.

Who Is Affected by This Action?

    Primarily, this revision will affect the transportation sector 
represented by Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, the 
Wisconsin Department of Transportation and persons needing to travel 
through Walworth County. The conformity rule, provides that if a 
``safety margin'' exists in the maintenance plan, then the safety 
margin can be allocated to the transportation sector via the mobile 
source budget.

How Did the State Support This Request?

    On September 8, 2000, Wisconsin submitted to EPA a SIP revision 
request for the Walworth County ozone maintenance area. The Wisconsin 
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) held a public hearing on this 
proposal on August 15, 2000. No one from the public commented on the 
proposed revisions.
    In the submittal, Wisconsin requested to establish a new 2007 MVEB 
for VOC for the Walworth County, Wisconsin, ozone maintenance area. The 
State requested that 0.5 tons per day of VOC be allocated from the 
maintenance plan's safety margin. The MVEB are used for transportation 
conformity purposes.

What Is Transportation Conformity?

    Transportation conformity means that the level of emissions from 
the transportation sector (cars, trucks and buses) must be consistent 
with the requirements in the SIP to attain and maintain the air quality 
standards. The Clean Air Act, in section 176(c), requires conformity of 
transportation plans, programs and projects to an implementation plan's 
purpose of attaining and maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards. On November 24, 1993, EPA published a final rule 
establishing criteria and procedures for determining whether 
transportation plans, programs and projects funded or approved under 
Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act conform to the SIP.
    The transportation conformity rules require an ozone maintenance 
area, such as Walworth County, to compare the actual projected 
emissions from cars, trucks and buses on the highway network, to the 
MVEB established by a maintenance plan. The Walworth County area has an 
approved ozone maintenance plan. Our approval of the maintenance plan 
established the MVEB for transportation conformity purposes.

What Is an Emissions Budget?

    An emissions budget is the projected level of controlled emissions 
from the transportation sector (mobile sources) that is estimated in 
the SIP. The SIP controls emissions through regulations, for example, 
on fuels and exhaust levels for cars. The emissions budget concept is 
further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, 
transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also 
describes how to establish the MVEB in the SIP and how to revise the 
emissions budget. The transportation conformity rule allows changing 
the MVEB as long as the total level of emissions from all sources 
remains below the attainment level.

What Is a Safety Margin?

    A ``safety margin'' is the difference between the attainment level 
of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions 
(from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of 
emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which 
the area met the air quality health standard. For example: Walworth 
County was monitoring attainment of the one hour ozone standard during 
the 1992-1994 time period. The State used 1993 as the attainment level 
of emissions for Walworth County. The emissions from point, area and 
mobile sources in 1993 equaled 18.77 tons per day of VOC and 12.88 tons 
per day of NO<INF>X</INF>. The Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resources (WDNR) projected emissions out to the year 2007 and projected 
a total of 17.16 tons per day of VOC and 11.49 tons per day of 
NO<INF>X</INF> from all sources in Walworth County. The safety margin 
for Walworth County is the difference between these amounts, or 1.61 
tons per day of VOC and 1.39 tons per day of NO<INF>X</INF>. Tables 1 
and 2 give detailed information on the estimated emissions from each 
source category and the safety margin calculation.
    The 2007 emission projections reflect the point, area and mobile 
source reductions and are illustrated in Tables 1 and 2.

             Table 1.--Walworth County VOC Emissions Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Source category                     1993        2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................        1.55        1.79
Area............................................        7.63        7.37
On-Road Mobile..................................        5.53        4.89
Non-Road Mobile.................................        4.06        3.11
                                                 -----------------------
    Total.......................................       18.77       17.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Safety Margin = 1993 total emissions -2007 total emissions = 1.61 tons/
day VOC

             Table 2.--Walworth County NO<INF>X</INF> Emissions Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Source category                     1993        2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................        0.55        0.64
Area............................................        0.73        0.66
On-Road Mobile..................................        7.86        7.20
Non-Road Mobile.................................        3.74        2.99
                                                 -----------------------
    Total.......................................       12.88       11.49
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Safety Margin = 1990 total emissions -2007 total emissions = 1.39 tons/
day NO<INF>x</INF>

    The emissions are projected to maintain the area's air quality 
consistent with the air quality health standard. Wisconsin requests 
that only a portion of the safety margin credit be allocated to the 
transportation sector. The total emission level, even with this 
allocation will be below the attainment level or safety level and thus 
is acceptable.

How Does This Action Change the Walworth County Ozone Maintenance 
Plan?

    It raises the VOC emissions for the MVEB. The maintenance plan is 
designed to provide for future growth while still maintaining the ozone 
air quality standard. Growth in industries, population, and traffic is 
offset with reductions from cleaner cars and other emission reduction 
programs. Through the maintenance plan the State and local agencies can 
manage and maintain air quality while providing for growth.
    In the submittal, Wisconsin requested to allocate part of the 
area's safety margin to the MVEB. The Walworth County area's safety 
margin is the difference between the 1993 attainment inventory year and 
the 2007 projected emissions inventory (1.61 tons/day VOC safety 
margin, and 1.39 tons/day NO<INF>X</INF> safety margin) as shown in 
Tables 1 and 2. The SIP revision requests the allocation of 0.5 tons/
day VOC into the area's MVEB from the safety margin. The 2007 VOC MVEB 
budget showing the safety margin allocations that will be

[[Page 64144]]

used for transportation conformity purposes is outlined in Table 3.
    Table 3 below illustrates that the requested portion of the safety 
margin can be allocated to the 2007 mobile source budget and that total 
emissions will still remain at or below the 1993 attainment level of 
total emissions for the Walworth County maintenance area. Since the 
area would still be at or below the 1993 attainment level for the total 
emissions, the conformity rule allows this allocation. The 
NO<INF>X</INF> budget and safety margin will remain the same.

 Table 3.--Allocation of Safety Margin to the 2007 MVEB, Walworth County
                              VOC Emissions
                               [tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Source category                           2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................................................        1.79
Area........................................................        7.37
On-Road Mobile..............................................        5.39
Non-Road Mobile.............................................        3.11
                                                             -----------
    Total...................................................       17.66
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remaining Safety Margin =1990 total emissions-2007 total emissions = 
1.11 tons/day VOC

Why Is the Request Approvable?

    The requested allocation of the safety margin for the Walworth 
County area is approvable because the new MVEB for VOC maintains the 
total emissions for the area at or below the attainment year inventory 
level as required by the transportation conformity regulations. The 
conformity rule allows this allocation because the area would still be 
at or below the 1993 attainment level for the total emissions.

EPA Action

    EPA is approving the requested allocation of the safety margin to 
the VOC MVEB for the Walworth County ozone maintenance area.
    EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal, because EPA 
views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse 
comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal Register 
publication, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision should 
adverse written comments be filed. This action will be effective 
without further notice unless EPA receives relevant adverse written 
comments by November 27, 2000. Should the Agency receive such comment, 
we will publish a final rule informing the public that this action will 
not take effect. Any parties interested in commenting on this action 
should do so at this time. If we do not receive comments, this action 
will be effective on December 26, 2000.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Orders on Federalism

    Under Executive Order 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 Office 
of Management and Budget 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 written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation.
    In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elected 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.'' Today's 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 Executive Order 12875 do not apply to 
this rule.
    On August 4, 1999, President Clinton issued a new executive order 
on federalism, Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999)), 
which will take effect on November 2, 1999. In the interim, the current 
Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685 (October 30, 1987) on federalism 
still applies. This rule will not have a substantial direct effect on 
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 12612. 
The rule affects only one State, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act.

C. 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 
Executive Order 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 Executive Order 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects 
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on those 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 Office of Management and Budget, 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, Executive Order 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.'' Today's rule does not 
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal 
governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive 
Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 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.

[[Page 64145]]

Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new 
requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already 
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP 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 Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs 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 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, 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.
    EPA has determined that the approval action 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.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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 rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 December 26, 2000. 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, 
Ozone, Volatile Organic Compound, Transportation conformity.

    Dated: October 11, 2000.
Norman Niedergang,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.


    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 et seq.

Subpart YY--Wisconsin

    2. Section 52.2585 is amended by adding paragraph (n) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.2585  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (n) Approval--On September 8, 2000, Wisconsin submitted a revision 
to the ozone maintenance plan for the Walworth County area. The 
revision consists of allocating a portion of the Walworth County area's 
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) safety margin to the transportation 
conformity Motor Vehicle Emission Budget (MVEB). The MVEB for 
transportation conformity purposes for the Walworth County area are 
now: 5.39 tons per day of VOC emissions and 7.20 tons per day of oxides 
of nitrogen emissions for the year 2007. This approval only changes the 
VOC transportation conformity MVEB for Walworth County.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00-27399 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P