22284 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

year and periodic inventories and

emissions are calculated using emission

factors established by EPA (such as

those found in EPA publication AP–42)

or other methods acceptable to EPA.

The North Carolina submittal waives the

emission statement requirement for

sources with less than 25 tons per year

combined of actual plant-wide NOX and

VOC emissions and has included

calculations of these emissions in their

1990 Base Year Emission Inventory.

Final Action

In this action, EPA is approving the

Emission Statement SIP revision

submitted by the State of North Carolina

through the NCDEHNR on August 15,

1994. The EPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed. This

action will be effective July 5, 1995

unless, by June 5, 1995, adverse or

critical comments are received. If the

EPA receives such comments, this

action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time. If no such comments are

received, the public is advised that this

action will be effective July 5, 1995.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 42

U.S.C. 7607 (b)(1), petitions for judicial

review of this action must be filed in the

United States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by July 5, 1995.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for

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) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607

(b)(2).)

The OMB has exempted this action

from review under Executive Order

12866.

Nothing in this action shall be

construed as permitting, allowing, or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for a revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 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, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

economic 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.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on small entities. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-state

relationship under the CAA, preparation

of a regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

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

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410 (a)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Emission

statements, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Oxides of nitrogen, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, SIP

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: March 28, 1995.

Patrick M. Tobin,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, 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. 7401–7671q.

Subpart II—North Carolina

2. Section 52.1770 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(73) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1770 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(73) Revisions to the State of North

Carolina State Implementation Plan

(SIP) concerning emission statements

were submitted on August 15, 1994, by

the North Carolina Department of

Environment, Health and Natural

Resources.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

Revisions to North Carolina

Regulation 15A NCAC 2Q .0207,

effective July 1, 1994.

(ii) Other material. None.

[FR Doc. 95–10823 Filed 5–4–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[WI45–01–6501; FRL–5203–1]

Approval of the State Implementation

Plan; Wisconsin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On January 10, 1995, the

United States Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA) proposed approval of

the State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision request for the Milwaukee

ozone nonattainment area (Kenosha,

Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine,

Washington, and Waukesha counties),

as submitted by the State of Wisconsin.

The purpose of the revision is to offset

any growth in emissions from growth in

vehicle miles traveled (VMT), or

number of vehicle trips, and to attain

reduction in motor vehicle emissions, in

combination with other measures, as

needed to comply with Reasonable

Further Progress (RFP) milestones of the

Clean Air Act (Act). Wisconsin

submitted the implementation plan

revision to satisfy the statutory

mandates, found in section 182 of the

Act, which requires the State to submit

a SIP revision that identifies and adopts

specific enforceable Transportation

Control Measures (TCM) to offset any

growth in emissions from growth in

VMT, or number of vehicle trips, in

severe ozone nonattainment areas. The

USEPA received no public comments on

the above proposed approval. This rule

finalizes the approval of the first

element of the VMT offset program for

the Milwaukee area.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will be

effective June 5, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision,

public comments and USEPA’s

responses are available for inspection at

the following address: (It is

recommended that you telephone

Michael Leslie at (312) 353–6680 before

visiting the Region 5 Office.) United
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22285

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

A copy of this SIP revision is

available for inspection at the following

location: Office of Air and Radiation

(OAR) Docket and Information Center

(Air Docket 6102), room M1500, United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street S.W., Washington,

D.C. 20460, (202) 260–7548.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael G. Leslie, Regulation

Development Section (AT–18J), Air

Toxics and Radiation Branch, Air and

Radiation Division, United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone

Number (312) 353–6680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background Information

Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act

requires States that contain severe ozone

nonattainment areas to adopt

transportation control measures and

transportation control strategies to offset

growth in emissions from growth in

VMT or number of vehicle trips and to

attain reductions in motor vehicle

emissions (in combination with other

measures) as needed to comply with the

Act’s RFP milestones and attainment

requirements. The requirements for

establishing a VMT Offset program are

set forth in 182(d)(1)(A) and discussed

in the General Preamble to Title I of the

Act (57 FR 13498 April 16, 1992).

As described in the proposal, section

182(d)(1)(A) sets forth three elements

that must be met by a VMT Offset SIP.

Under USEPA’s alternative

interpretation, the three required

elements of section 182(d)(1)(A) are

separable, and can be divided into three

separate submissions that could be

submitted on different dates. Section

179(a) of the Act, in establishing how

USEPA would be required to apply

mandatory sanctions if a State fails to

submit a full SIP, also provides that the

sanctions clock starts if a State fails to

submit one or more SIP elements, as

determined by the Administrator. The

USEPA believes that this language

provides USEPA the authority to

determine that the different elements of

the SIP submissions are separable.

Moreover, given the continued timing

problems addressed above, USEPA

believes it is appropriate to allow States

to separate the VMT Offset SIP into

three elements, each to be submitted at

different times: (1) The initial

requirement to submit TCMs that offset

growth in emissions; (2) the requirement

to comply with the 15 percent periodic

reduction requirement of the Act; and

(3) the requirement to comply with the

post-1996 periodic reduction and

attainment requirements of the Act.

II. Final Rulemaking Action

In this action, USEPA is approving

the first element of the VMT offset SIP

revision submitted by the State of

Wisconsin. As noted in the January 10,

1995, proposal, the USEPA will not take

final action on the second element until

the State has submitted a complete 15

percent ROP plan. The third element of

the Wisconsin VMT offset SIP will also

be the subject of a future rulemaking.

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214–2225), as

revised by an October 4, 1993,

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has

exempted this regulatory action from

Executive Order 12866 review.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to any SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

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 economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

government entities with jurisdiction

over populations of less than 50,000.

The SIP approvals under section 110

and subchapter I, part D, of the 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 impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Act, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of State action. The Act

forbids USEPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. USEPA, 427 U.S.

246, 256–66 (1976).

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 July 5, 1995. 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, Ozone.

Dated: April 20, 1995.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C 7401–7671q.

Subpart YY—Wisconsin

2. Section 52.2585 is amended by

adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

§ 52.2585 Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *

(g) Approval—On November 15, 1993,

the Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources submitted a revision to the

ozone State Implementation Plan. The

submittal pertained to a plan for

forecasting VMT in the severe ozone

nonattainment area of southeastern

Wisconsin and demonstrated that

Transportation Control Measures would

not be necessary to offset growth in

emissions.

[FR Doc. 95–11046 Filed 5–4–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[WA 32–1–6894a; FRL–5192–1]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plan: Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the State of

Washington’s contingency measure plan

as a revision to Washington’s State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for carbon