Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 68901

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[WI96–01–7327a; FRL–6901–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Wisconsin

Designation of Areas for Air Quality

Planning Purposes; Wisconsin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: On November 5, 1999, the

Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources (WDNR) submitted a request

to the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) to redesignate a portion of the

City of Rhinelander (Oneida County)

Wisconsin from a primary sulfur

dioxide (SO2) nonattainment area to

attainment. In this action EPA is

approving the State’s request, because it

meets all of the Clean Air Act (Act)

requirements for redesignation.

If EPA receives adverse comments on

this action, we will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the

Federal Register informing the public

that the rule will not take effect.

DATES: This ‘‘direct final’’ rule is

effective January 16, 2001, unless EPA

receives adverse or critical comments by

December 15, 2000. If the rule is

withdrawn, EPA will publish timely

notice in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Carlton Nash, Chief, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), United Environmental

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (We

recommend that you telephone

Madeline Rucker at (312) 886–0661,

before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

A copy of this redesignation is

available for inspection at this Office of

Air and Radiation (OAR) Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260–7548.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christos Panos, Regulation Development

Section (AR–18J), Air Programs Branch,

Air and Radiation Division, United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312) 353–8328.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

This Supplementary Information

section is organized as follows:

A. What action is EPA taking?

B. Why was this SIP revision submitted?

C. Why can we approve this request?

D. What requirements must be met for

approval of a redesignation, and how did the

state meet them?

A. What Action Is EPA Taking?

We are approving the State of

Wisconsin’s request to redesignate a

portion of the City of Rhinelander

(Oneida County) from a primary SO2

nonattainment area to attainment of the

SO2 NAAQS. We are also approving the

maintenance plan for this area into the

Wisconsin SO2 SIP.

B. Why Was This SIP Revision

Submitted?

WDNR believes that the City of

Rhinelander is now eligible for

redesignation because EPA approved

Wisconsin’s SO2 SIP in 1995 and SO2

monitors in Rhinelander have not

recorded exceedances of either the

primary or secondary SO2 air quality

standards since 1986.

C. Why Can We Approve This Request?

Consistent with the Act’s

requirements, EPA developed

procedures for redesignation of

nonattainment areas that are in a

September 4, 1992, memorandum from

John Calcagni, EPA, titled, Procedures

for Processing Requests to Redesignate

Areas to Attainment. This EPA guidance

document contains a number of

conditions that a State must meet before

it can request a change in designation

for a federally designated nonattainment

area. That memorandum and EPA’s

Technical Support Document set forth

the rationale in support of the

redesignation of Rhinelander’s SO2

nonattainment area to an attainment

status.

D. What Requirements Must the State

Meet for Approval of a Redesignation

and How Did the State Meet Them?

1. The State Must Show That the Area

Is Attaining the Applicable NAAQS

There are two components involved

in making this demonstration:

a. Ambient air quality monitoring

representative of the area of highest

concentration must show no more than

one exceedance annually; and

b. EPA approved air quality modeling

must show that the area in question

meets the applicable standard.

The first component relies on ambient

air quality data representative of the

area of highest concentration. The

primary 24-hour concentration limit of

the SO2 NAAQS is 365 micrograms per

cubic meter (μg/m3). The primary

annual concentration limit is 80 μg/m3.

According to 40 CFR 50.4, an area must

show no more than one exceedance

annually. WDNR’s monitoring data

satisfies the first component, indicating

that there has been no exceedance of the

24-hour concentration limit since 1986.

Monitoring data for the annual

concentration limit goes back to 1994

and indicates no exceedance of the

annual limit since that time.

The second component relies on

supplemental EPA approved air quality

modeling. Air quality modeling,

however, could not be used in this case

because the modeling under-predicted

actual ambient air concentrations due to

the unique topography of the area.

Under EPA modeling guidelines,

ambient data (i.e., a rollback analysis)

may be used to determine appropriate

emission limits. A rollback analysis

takes a monitored ambient exceedance

recorded during a specific set of facility

operating conditions and determines the

amount of the exceedance due to each

of the source’s SO2-emitting operations

in use at that time. These estimates are

then linearly ‘‘rolled back’’ to acceptable

SO2 emission limits that provide for

attainment of the NAAQS under that set

of operating conditions. The State

submitted emission limits determined

by using the rollback analysis in an

October 21, 1994 SIP revision. EPA

approved these limits into the

Wisconsin SO2 SIP by EPA on December

7, 1994 at 59 FR 63046.

Therefore, WDNR satisfied the second

component by supplying monitoring

information as a substitute for the

modeling demonstration requirement,

showing that the area has been in

attainment of the SO2 NAAQS since

1987.

2. The SIP for the Area Must Be Fully

Approved Under Section 110(k) of the

Act and Must Satisfy all Requirements

That Apply to the Area

WDNR submitted the Rhinelander

SO2 SIP revision to EPA on October 21,

1994 to fulfill the requirements of

section 110 and part D of the Act. The

state’s submittal consisted primarily of

an August 22, 1994 Consent Order (AM–

94–38) between the state and the

Rhinelander Paper Company (RPC). EPA

approved the permanent requirements

of the consent order for RPC into the

federally enforceable SO2 SIP on

December 7, 1994 at 59 FR 63046.

68902 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

3. EPA Has Determined That the

Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions

in Emissions

Pursuant to the August 22, 1994

Consent Order, RPC must meet certain

emissions limits. EPA approved these

permanent requirements into the

federally enforceable SIP on December

7, 1994. In addition, if RPC exceeds the

emission limits contained in the order,

WDNR can enforce those conditions

under Chapter NR 494, Wisconsin

Administrative Code, and section

144.423 (now 285.83) and 144.426 (now

285.87), Wis. Stats.

4. The State Has Met All Applicable

Requirements Under Section 110 and

Part D of the Act That Were Applicable

Prior to Submittal of the Complete

Redesignation Request

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

the general requirements for

nonattainment plans. Part D contains

the general requirements applicable to

all areas that are designated

nonattainment based on a violation of

the NAAQS. These requirements are

satisfied by EPA’s December 7, 1994

approval of the nonattainment plan that

Wisconsin submitted on October 21,

1994 for the control of SO2 emissions in

the Rhinelander area.

A PSD program will replace the

requirements of the part D new source

review program after redesignation of

the area. To ensure that the PSD

program will become fully effective

immediately upon redesignation, either

EPA must delegate the Federal PSD

program to the State or the State must

make any needed modifications to its

rules to have the approved PSD program

apply to the affected area upon

redesignation. EPA fully approved

Wisconsin’s PSD program, effective June

28, 1999.

5. EPA Has Fully Approved a

Maintenance Plan, Including a

Contingency Plan, for the Area Under

Section 175A of the Act

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act states

that, for an area to be redesignated, EPA

must fully approve a maintenance plan

that meets the requirements of section

175A. Section 175A of the Act requires

states to submit a SIP revision that

provides for the maintenance of the

NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years

after approval of the redesignation. The

basic components needed to ensure

proper maintenance of the NAAQS are:

attainment inventory, maintenance

demonstration, verification of continued

attainment, ambient air monitoring

network, and a contingency plan. EPA

is approving the maintenance plan in

today’s action as discussed below.

a. Attainment Inventory. RPC is the

only significant source of SO2 emissions

in the area.

b. Maintenance Demonstration and

Verification of Continued Attainment.

As discussed earlier, air quality

modeling is not applicable in this case

because the model under-predicted the

SO2 impacts for Rhinelander. The SIP

approved by EPA on December 7, 1994

contained Consent Order AM–94–38.

Conditions cited in this consent order

do not expire and therefore provide for

maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS for at

least 10 years.

WDNR will monitor growth in the

area through the annual submittal of

RPC’s air emission inventory. The plant

wide emissions cap established in the

consent order limits future SO2

emissions at RPC. Further, WDNR staff

believe the area will remain in

attainment of the SO2 NAAQS as long

as the company does not expand and

emit SO2 above the consent order limits.

c. Monitoring Network. The WDNR

has committed to operating an SO2

monitor in the Rhinelander area until

EPA and the WDNR both agree that the

monitor is no longer necessary.

d. Contingency Plan. Section 175A of

the Act requires that the maintenance

plan include contingency provisions to

promptly correct any violation of the

NAAQS that occurs after redesignation

of the area. Upon verification of two

exceedances (a violation) of either the

24-hour or 3-hour SO2 NAAQS, WDNR

will investigate the causes of the

violation. If the analysis of the violation

identifies RPC as responsible for the

violation, WDNR will work with the

company to ensure that the violation

will not occur again. WDNR will

involve EPA, Region 5, in the

discussions with the company. Once

WDNR identifies the problem and sets

a strategy to fix the problem, it will

either (1) take an enforcement action

against the company, (2) revise Consent

Order AM–94–38 for greater stringency,

or (3) write rules to control the

emissions of SO2 at the company.

WDNR has committed to the following

schedule: (1) To identify the responsible

source within 30 days after a monitored

violation; (2) to take action against the

responsible source within 90 days of the

violation; and, if EPA determines it

necessary, (3) to submit a SIP revision

to EPA with 360 days after the violation.

II. Final Action

We have evaluated the state’s

submittal and have determined that it

meets the applicable requirements of the

Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy.

Therefore, we are approving the State of

Wisconsin’s request to redesignate a

portion of the City of Rhinelander

(Oneida County) from a primary SO2

nonattainment area to attainment of the

SO2 NAAQS. We are also approving the

maintenance plan for this area into the

Wisconsin SO2 SIP.

EPA is publishing this action without

prior proposal because we view this as

a noncontroversial amendment and

anticipate no adverse comments.

However, in the proposed rules section

of this Federal Register publication, we

are publishing a separate document that

will serve as the proposal to approve the

state plan should relevant adverse

comments be filed.

This action will be effective January

16, 2001 without further notice unless

relevant adverse comments are received

by December 15, 2000. If EPA receives

such comments, we will withdraw this

action before the effective date by

publishing a subsequent document that

will withdraw the final action. We will

then address all public comments

received in a subsequent final rule

based on the proposed action. We will

not institute a second comment period.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

If we do not receive such comments,

this action will be effective January 16,

2001.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

implementation plan. We will consider

each request for revision to the SIP

separately in light of specific technical,

economic, and environmental factors

and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

III. 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 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 68903

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.

C. 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, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to 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 officials 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. This action

does not involve or impose any

requirements that affect Indian Tribes.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership). Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the 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.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This rule will not have substantial

direct effects on the 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 13132, because it

merely approves a state rule

implementing a Federal standard, and

does not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

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.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

This 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).

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 costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective 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 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 action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule

will be effective January 16, 2001 unless

EPA receives adverse written comments

by December 15, 2000.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

68904 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 January 16, 2001.

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

§ 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovermental

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: October 27, 2000.

Gary Guleziah,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

Title 40, Chapter I of the Code of

Federal Regulations, is amended as

follows:

PART 52—APPROVAL AND

PROMULGATION OF

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

2. Section 52.2575 is amended by

adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2575 Control strategy: Sulfur dioxide.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) An SO2 maintenance plan was

submitted by the State of Wisconsin on

November 5, 1999, for the City of

Rhinelander, Oneida County.

PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS

FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING

PURPOSES

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

2. Section 81.350 is amended by

revising the entry for Oneida County in

the table entitled ‘‘Wisconsin-SO2’’ to

read as follows:

§ 81.350 Wisconsin.

WISCONSIN—SO2

Designated area Does not meet primary standards

Does not meet secondary standards Cannot be classified Better than national

standards

*******

Oneida County ................................................ .................................... .................................... .................................... X

*******

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–29221 Filed 11–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[MO 117–1117a; FRL–6900–8]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Plans for Designated Facilities and

Pollutants; Control of Landfill

Emissions From Municipal Solid Waste

Landfills; State of Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to

the state of Missouri’s section 111(d)

plan for controlling emissions from

existing municipal solid waste (MSW)

landfills. The plan adopts the revisions

to the Federal Emission Guidelines

published June 16, 1998, and February

24, 1999. Approval of the revised plan

will ensure that the state plan contains

the most current Federal requirements.

DATES: This rule is effective on January

16, 2001 without further notice, unless

EPA receives adverse comment by

December 15, 2000. If EPA receives such

comments, it will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the

Federal Register and inform the public

that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments must be

submitted to Wayne Kaiser, Air

Planning and Development Branch, 901

North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas

66101.

Copies of documents relative to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the above listed Region 7

location. The interested persons

wanting to examine these documents

should make an appointment with the

office at least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wayne Kaiser at (913) 551–7603.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document whenever

‘‘we, us, or our’’ is used, we mean EPA.

Background

Standards and guidelines for new and

existing MSW landfills were

promulgated under the authority of

sections 111 and 129 of the CAA. These

standards are 40 CFR part 60, subpart

WWW, new source performance

standards (NSPS) for new MSW

landfills, and subpart Cc, emission

guidelines (EG) for existing MSW

landfills. The final NSPS and EG were

published in the Federal Register on

March 12, 1996.

EPA subsequently revised these

landfill rules twice, on June 16, 1998,

and February 24, 1999. These actions

amend, correct errors, and clarify

regulatory text of the March 12, 1996

rule.

We first approved Missouri’s 111(d)

plan for MSW landfills on April 24 1998

(63 FR 20320.) The state’s plan consists

primarily of two state rules which adopt

the Federal landfill requirements