Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules 33495

machines of any kind. On April 9, 1992,

the Commission issued a final rule

defining key terms in the Act. Among

the terms defined by the Commission

was ‘‘electronic or electromechanical

facsimile.’’ The Commission defined

this term by reference to the Johnson

Act, 15 U.S.C. 1171(a)(2) and (3). See 25

CFR 502.8. Although an agency’s

interpretation of ambiguous terms in a

federal law that it is responsible for

administering is ordinarily entitled to

great deference, the courts, in several

recent decisions, have not relied on the

Commission’s definition of electronic or

electromechanical facsimile. Instead the

courts have relied exclusively on the

terms contained in the Indian Gaming

Regulatory Act, applying a plain

language interpretation of this phrase.

To ensure consistency with

developments in the case law and to

ensure a uniform approach to this term

by the Commission and the courts, the

Commission now proposes and seeks

public comment on removal of 25 CFR

502.8 and use instead the plain language

interpretation that has been preferred by

the courts.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This rule will not have a significant

economic effect on a substantial number

of small entities as defined under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601

et seq. Indian Tribes are not considered

to be small entities for the purposes of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

This rule is not a major rule under 5

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

This rule does not have an annual effect

on the economy of $100 million or

more. This rule will not cause a major

increase in costs or prices for

consumers, individual industries,

Federal, state or local government

agencies or geographic regions and does

not have a significant adverse effect on

competition, employment, investment,

productivity, innovation, or the ability

of U.S. based enterprises to compete

with foreign-based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Commission has determined that

this proposed rule does not impose an

unfunded mandate on State, local or

tribal governments or on the private

sector of more than $100 million per

year. Thus, it is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et

seq. The Commission has also

determined that the proposed rule does

not have a unique effect on tribal

governments because the proposed

removal of the reference to the Johnson

Act merely codifies the practice of

defining ‘‘electronic and

electromechanical facsimile’’ in

accordance with the plain meaning of

those words.

Takings

In accordance with Executive Order

12630, the Commission has determined

that this rule does not have significant

takings implications. A takings

implication assessment is not required.

Civil Justice Reform

In accordance with Executive Order

12988, the Office of General Counsel has

determined that the rule does not

unduly burden the judicial system and

meets the requirements of sections 3(a)

and 3(b)(2) of the Order. Instead, the

rule is likely to decrease litigation with

Indian tribes and reduce unnecessary

friction between the Department of

Justice and the Commission.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This regulation does not require an

information collection under the

Paperwork Reduction Act 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act

The Commission has analyzed this

rule in accordance with the criteria of

the National Environmental Policy Act.

This rule does not constitute a major

Federal action significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment. An

environmental assessment is not

required.

List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 502

Gaming, Indian lands.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the National Indian Gaming

Commission proposes to amend 25 CFR

Part 502 as follows:

PART 502—DEFINITIONS OF THIS

CHAPTER

1. The authority citation for part 502

continues to read as follows:

Authority 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.

2. Amend § 502.8 as follows:

§ 502.8 [Removed and Reserved]

Remove and reserve § 502.8.

Dated: June 18, 2001.

Elizabeth L. Homer,

Vice Chair.

Teresa E. Poust,

Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 01–15700 Filed 6–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7565–01–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[WI85–01–7316; FRL–7000–6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Plans; Wisconsin; Post-1996

Rate Of Progress Plan for the

Milwaukee-Racine Ozone

Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve

the post-1996 Rate-Of-Progress (ROP)

plan submitted by the State of

Wisconsin for the Milwaukee-Racine

ozone nonattainment area, as a

requested revision of the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone.

The Clean Air Act (Act) requires a post1996 ROP plan for the MilwaukeeRacine ozone nonattainment area. The

purpose of the post-1996 ROP plan is to

incrementally provide for progress

toward attainment of the 1-hour ozone

standard in the Milwaukee-Racine

ozone nonattainment area by reducing

ground-level ozone precursor emissions.

The submitted plan, which covers the

period of 1996 through 1999 and

emission reductions occurring by

November 15, 1999, shows that

Wisconsin reduced emissions of volatile

organic compounds (VOC), ozoneforming pollutants by the amounts

required by the Act.

DATES: EPA must receive comments in

writing by July 23, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to: Carlton Nash, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

Copies of the state’s submittal

addressed in this proposed rule, and

other relevant materials are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following address:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604. Please contact Jacqueline

Nwia at (312) 886–6081 before visiting

the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jacqueline Nwia, Environmental

Scientist, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Air and Radiation Division

(AR–18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago cv, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–

6081, nwia.jacqueline@epa.gov.

33496 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’

or ‘‘our’’ mean EPA.

This section provides additional

information by addressing the following

questions and topics:

I. What Is EPA Proposing to Approve In This

Action?

II. What Is the Procedural Background of the

Wisconsin Submittal?

III. The Wisconsin Post-1996 ROP Plan.

A. What is a post-1996 ROP plan?

B. What environmental benefits does the

post-1996 ROP plan provide?

C. What Wisconsin counties are in the

Milwaukee-Racine ozone nonattainment

area?

D. Who is affected by the Wisconsin post1996 ROP plan?

E. What public review opportunities were

provided?

F. What criteria must a post-1996 ROP plan

meet to be approved?

G. What are the special requirements for

claiming VOC reductions from sources

outside the nonattainment area

boundary?

IV. Wisconsin’s Calculation of the Needed

ROP Reduction.

A. How did Wisconsin calculate the

needed ROP?

1. Emission Baselines.

2. 1999 Emission Target Level to Meet ROP

Emission Reduction Requirement.

4. 1999 Projected Growth Level.

5. Emission Reduction Needed for ROP

Reduction Net-Of-Growth.

V. The Wisconsin Post-1996 ROP Plan

Control Strategies.

A. What are the criteria for acceptable

control strategies?

B. What are the control strategies under the

Wisconsin post-1996 ROP plan?

1. Point/Area Sources.

a. Wood Furniture Coating.

b. Yeast Manufacturing.

c. Screen Printing.

d. Gray Iron and Steel Foundries.

e. Industrial Adhesives.

f. Lithographic Printing.

g. Degreasing.

h. Federal Architectural and Industrial

Maintenance (AIM) Coating (Industrial).

i. Federal AIM Coating.

j. Autobody Refinishing.

k. Stage 2 Vapor Recovery.

l. Traffic Markings.

m. Underground Gasoline Tank Vent

Valves.

n. Federal Commercial and Consumer

Solvents.

o. Reformulated Gasoline-Area Petroleum

Sources.

2. Mobile Sources.

a. Federal Tier I Vehicle Tailpipe

Standards.

b. Reformulated Gasoline.

c. Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection/

Maintenance Program.

d. Federal Gasoline Detergent Additive.

e. Federal On-Board Vapor Recovery

Canisters.

f. Reformulated Gasoline—Off-Road

Source.

g. Federal Off-Road Engine Standards.

C. What are the Federal Register citations

for the federal approval or promulgation

of the control measures?

D. How did Wisconsin calculate the

emission reductions for the control

strategies?

E. What amount of emission reduction

does each control strategy achieve?

VI. EPA Review of the Post-1996 ROP Plan.

A. Why is the Wisconsin Post-1996 ROP

plan approvable?

VII. What Action Are We Proposing Today?

VIII. Administrative Requirements.

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Executive Order 13045

C. Executive Order 13084

D. Executive Order 13132

E. Regulatory Flexibility

F. Unfunded Mandates

I. What Is EPA Proposing to Approve In

This Action?

We are approving the post-1996 ROP

plan for the Milwaukee-Racine ozone

nonattainment area because the plan

identifies control measures to achieve a

projected 9 percent VOC emission

reduction by November 15, 1999.

Section 182(c)(2) of the Act requires

serious and above ozone nonattainment

areas to submit plans that would

achieve reductions in VOC emissions by

at least 3 percent per year, net of

growth, averaged over each consecutive

3 year period beginning in 1996 until

the areas attainment date. These plans

are referred to as rate-of-progress (ROP)

plans. Section 182(c)(2) also requires

such areas to submit a plan that

demonstrates attainment of the ozone

standard based on photochemical grid

modeling or an equally effective

method. The attainment demonstration

and ROP plans were due to EPA by

November 15, 1994.

Many states, however, found it

difficult to meet the date for submittal

of an attainment demonstration and

post-1996 ROP plan due primarily to an

inability to address or control transport

of ozone. We consequently recognized

the efforts made by the states and the

challenges in developing technical

information and control measures with

respect to these submittals in a

memorandum entitled ‘‘Ozone

Attainment Demonstrations,’’ dated

March 2, 1995, from Mary D. Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The memorandum then

allowed new time frames for these SIP

submittals and divided the required SIP

submittals into two phases. Generally,

Phase I consists of: SIP measures

providing for ROP reductions due by the

end of 1999, an enforceable SIP

commitment to submit any remaining

required ROP reductions on a specified

schedule after 1999, and an enforceable

SIP commitment to submit the

additional SIP measures needed for

attainment. Phase II consists of the

remaining ROP SIP measures, the

attainment demonstration and

additional local rules needed to attain,

and any regional controls needed for

attainment by all areas in the region.

This action is proposing to approve

Wisconsin’s post-1996 ROP plan.

II. What Is the Procedural Background

of the Wisconsin Submittal?

On December 11, 1997, the State of

Wisconsin submitted the post-1996 ROP

plan for the Milwaukee-Racine area as a

requested SIP revision. The plan was

submitted to meet the Act’s

requirement, in section 182(c)(2)(B), that

the state demonstrate a 9 percent

reduction of VOC emission in the

Milwaukee-Racine ozone nonattainment

area during the 3 year period between

1996 and 1999. We issued a

completeness letter on December 29,

1998. Wisconsin subsequently

submitted several supplements to the

December 11, 1997 ROP plan, consisting

of supplemental documentation, on

August 5, 1999, January 31, 2000, March

3, 2000, and February 2001.

III. The Wisconsin Post-1996 ROP Plan

A. What is a Post-1996 ROP Plan?

An ROP plan is a strategy to achieve

timely periodic reductions of emissions

that produce ground-level ozone in

areas that are not attaining the ozone

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS). A post-1996 ROP plan must

demonstrate a projected 9 percent

emission reduction of ozone-forming

VOC emissions in those areas between

1996 and 1999.

ROP plans are a requirement of the

Act under section 182. Section

182(c)(2)(B) requires states with ozone

nonattainment areas classified as

serious and above to adopt and

implement plans to achieve periodic

reductions in VOC emissions after 1996.

The requirement is intended to ensure

that an area make progress toward

attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The

post-1996 ROP emission reductions

must be achieved at a rate of 3 percent

per year relative to the 1990 baseline

emissions, net of growth of emissions,

averaged over three-year periods. The

first three-year 9 percent milestone,

called the ‘‘post-1996 ROP plan,’’ must

demonstrate that these emission

reductions were projected to have

occured by November 15, 1999. Because

the Milwaukee-Racine ozone

nonattainment area is classified as a

severe area, the area was required to

meet the post-1996 ROP requirement.

The post-1996 ROP plan contains: (1)

Documentation showing how the state

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules 33497

calculated the emission reduction(s)

needed on a daily basis to achieve the

9 percent VOC emission reduction; (2)

a description of the control measures

used to achieve the emission reduction;

and (3) a description of how the state

determined the emission reduction from

each control measure.

The post-1996 ROP plan will

contribute to continued progress toward

achieving attainment by the Act’s

mandated date of November 15, 2007 for

the Milwaukee-Racine ozone

nonattainment area.

B. What Environmental Benefits Does

the Post-1996 ROP Plan Provide?

The Wisconsin post-1996 ROP plan

shows reductions of VOC emissions.

VOC emissions contribute to the

formation of ground-level ozone in the

atmosphere.

The post-1996 ROP plan demonstrates

VOC emission reductions from sources

within the Milwaukee-Racine ozone

nonattainment area and several source

categories within 100 kilometer of the

nonattainment area boundary. Although

some of the VOC reductions are from

sources outside the nonattainment area,

they are creditable towards the post1996 ROP plan. These outside VOC

emissions contribute to ozone formation

in the Milwaukee-Racine area, and

reducing such emissions will contribute

to the Milwaukee-Racine area’s progress

towards attainment.

The reactivity of ozone causes health

problems because it damages lung

tissue, reduces lung function and

sensitizes the lungs to other irritants.

When inhaled, even at low levels, ozone

can cause or aggravate a variety of

respiratory problems, including

shortness of breath, chest pain,

wheezing, coughing, asthma, decreased

lung capacity, and inflammation of lung

tissue. Repeated exposure to ozone at

elevated concentrations for several

months may cause permanent structural

damage to the lungs.

Ozone also affects vegetation and

ecosystems, leading to reductions in

agricultural and commercial forest

yields, reduced growth and survivability

of tree seedlings, and increased plant

susceptibility to disease and pests.

C. What Wisconsin Counties are in the

Milwaukee-Racine Ozone

Nonattainment Area?

The Milwaukee-Racine ozone

nonattainment area includes the

counties of Kenosha, Milwaukee,

Ozaukee, Racine, Washington, and

Waukesha.

D. Who is Affected by the Wisconsin

Post-1996 ROP Plan?

Wisconsin’s post-1996 ROP plan does

not create any new control

requirements. Instead, it demonstrates

that existing state and federal

regulations and control programs in the

Milwaukee-Racine area will result in a

9 percent VOC emission reduction. The

control measures in Wisconsin’s plan

affect a variety of industries, businesses,

and motor vehicle owners. State

regulations in the post-1996 ROP plan

are federally enforceable through

separate SIP revisions or through

separate EPA promulgation. One

exception is the state’s motor vehicle

inspection and maintenance program.

We conditionally approved an enhanced

motor vehicle inspection and

maintenance program on January 12,

1995 (60 FR 2881). Subsequently,

Wisconsin submitted a revision on

December 30, 1998 and is expected to

submit another revision in the near

future. These revisions must be finally

approved prior to final approval of the

post-1996 ROP plan.

E. What Public Review Opportunities

Were Involved?

Wisconsin afforded the public a 30

day opportunity for public comment on

the post-1996 ROP plan from September

10, 1997 through October 10, 1997.

Wisconsin also held a public hearing on

the post-1996 ROP plan on October 10,

1997.

F. What Criteria Must a post-1996 ROP

Plan Meet to be Approved?

Section 182(c)(2)(B) establishes

elements that a post-1996 ROP plan

must contain for approval. These

elements are: (1) an emission baseline;

(2) an emission target level; (3) an

emission reduction estimate to

compensate for emission growth

projections and to reach the ROP

emission reduction goal; and (4)

emission reduction estimates for the

plan’s control measures. Through these

elements, the plan must illustrate that

the nonattainment area will achieve a 9

percent VOC emission reduction by

November 15, 1999.

We have issued several guidance

documents for states to use in

developing approvable post-1996 ROP

plans. These documents address such

topics as: (1) The relationship of ROP

plans to other SIP elements required by

the Act; (2) calculation of baseline

emissions and emission target levels; (3)

procedures for projecting emission

growth; and (4) methodology for

determining emission reduction

estimates for various control measures,

including federal measures.

Our January 1994, policy document,

Guidance on the Post-1996 Rate-OfProgress Plan and the Attainment

Demonstration (post-1996 policy),

provides states with an appropriate

method to calculate the emission

reductions needed to meet the ROP

emission reduction requirement. A

complete list of ROP guidance

documents is provided in the Technical

Support Document (TSD) for this

rulemaking. You can get the TSD for

this proposed rulemaking from the

Region 5 office at the address indicated

above.

G. What are the Special Requirements

for Claiming VOC Reductions From

Sources Outside the Nonattainment

Area Boundary?

On December 29, 1997, we issued a

policy memorandum entitled,

‘‘Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour

Ozone and Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS’’

(December 1997 policy) which provides

additional guidance on the types of

emission reductions that are creditable

towards ROP. This guidance provides

flexibility in terms of substituting of

credits for ROP emission reductions,

including expanding the geographic

boundary of the area from which

emission reductions may be obtained to

meet the post-1996 ROP requirement.

Specifically, areas may take credit for

emission reductions obtained from

sources outside the designated

nonattainment area boundary for post1996 plans. The geographic expansion

for substitution of VOC emission

reductions occurring outside the

nonattainment area is limited to an area

within 100 kilometers from the

nonattainment area boundary. However,

to take credit for VOC emission

reductions outside the nonattainment

area boundaries, the emissions from

sources outside the nonattainment area

that are involved must be included in

the baseline ROP emissions and target

ROP reduction calculation.

Wisconsin claimed emission

reduction credits for the following

source categories: autobody refinishing,

traffic markings, and organic solvents.

Wisconsin included the emissions from

these source categories outside the

nonattainment area in the baseline ROP

emissions and target ROP reduction

calculation. The outside nonattainment

counties included are: Brown, Calumet,

Columbia, Dane, Dodge, Fond du Lac,

Green, Green Lake, Jefferson, Marquette,

Outagamie, Rock, Waushara, and

Winnebago. These counties are within

100 kilometers of the Milwaukee-Racine

ozone nonattainment area boundary.

33498 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules

IV. Wisconsin’s Calculation of the

Needed ROP Reduction.

A. How did Wisconsin Calculate the

Needed ROP and Contingency Measure

Reduction?

The following table summarizes

Wisconsin’s post-1996 ROP calculations

for determining the ROP emission

reductions, as well as our adjustments

to the calculations. We adjusted the

calculations by removing the traffic

markings emissions for the 100

kilometer boundary area, which

Wisconsin included in the 1990 base

year emission inventory. Wisconsin

claimed emission reductions from this

category, which we found not to be

approvable because they are not

permanent and enforceable.

Consequently, the emissions from this

category were removed from the 1990

base year emission inventory. The

calculation of required emission

reductions was based solely on VOC

emission reductions and includes

emissions from outside the MilwaukeeRacine ozone nonattainment area

boundary but within 100 kilometers of

the boundary for certain source

categories.

REQUIRED VOC REDUCTION BY 1999

Calculation of the VOC Reduction Needs by 1999

Wisconsin’s

calculations

tons of VOC/

day

EPA’s adjusted calculations tons

of VOC/day

1990 Milwaukee-Racine Area Total VOC Emissions .................................................................................................. 461.5 458.36

1990 ROP VOC Emissions (Anthropogenic only) ....................................................................................................... 392.6 389.38

1990–99 Noncreditable Reductions ............................................................................................................................ 69.81 69.81

1990 Adjusted Base Year Emissions (1990 ROP Emissions minus Noncreditable Reductions) .............................. 322.79 319.57

9 percent of Adjusted Base Year Emissions ............................................................................................................... 29.05 28.76

1999 Fleet Turnover Correction Factor ....................................................................................................................... 5.3 5.3

1996 Target Level ........................................................................................................................................................ 278.87 276.13

1999 Target Level (1996 Target Level minus 9 percent Reductions minus Fleet Turnover Correction Factor) ....... 240.02 237.57

1999 Projected VOC Emissions (1990 VOC Emissions Grown to 1999 plus Noncreditable Emission Reductions) 405.74 402.5

Required Reductions by 1999 to Meet the 9 Percent ROP Requirement Net-of-Growth (1999 Projected Emissions minus 1999 Target Level) .............................................................................................................................. 165.72 164.93

Using our post-1996 policy, the

needed emissions reductions are

calculated by taking the following steps:

(1) Establish the emission baselines

for VOC;

(2) Calculate the emission target level

to meet the overall 9 percent reduction

by 1999;

(3) Estimate the projected emission

growth that would occur if no 9 percent

emission reduction takes place;

(4) Subtract the projected emission

level from the emission target to

determine the VOC emission reduction

needed, net of growth.

Wisconsin’s calculation methods are

discussed below.

1. Emission Baselines

The Act requires that the baseline

emissions represent 1990 anthropogenic

emissions on a peak ozone season

weekday basis. Peak ozone season

weekday emissions represent the

average VOC daily emissions that occur

on weekdays during the peak 3-month

ozone period of June through August.

Wisconsin used the MilwaukeeRacine area’s 1990 base year emission

inventory for the VOC baseline. We

approved the Milwaukee-Racine area

1990 inventory as a SIP revision on June

15, 1994 (59 FR 30702). In addition,

Wisconsin included the 1990 VOC

emissions from certain source categories

outside the nonattainment area

boundary but within 100 kilometers of

the boundary, namely for the Traffic

Markings, Autobody Refinishing,

Degreasing and Organic Solvents

categories. The 1990 emissions for the

sources in the 100 kilometer area were

extracted from a statewide emission

inventory. These emissions were also

used in the domain-wide modeling for

the 1-hour attainment demonstration

modeling performed by the Lake

Michigan Air Director’s Consortium and

submitted separately as a SIP revision in

December 2000. It should be noted,

however, that because we determined

that the emission reductions claimed by

Wisconsin for the traffic markings

category for the 100 kilometer area were

not approvable, we excluded these

emissions from the 1990 baseline

inventory. These emissions amounted to

3.17 tpd. We then recalculated the post1996 ROP plan requirement, including

the 1999 target level, 1999 projections

and required emission reductions as

illustrated in the table above.

The Act requires that the ROP

baseline be ‘‘adjusted’’ to exclude

emissions eliminated by the Federal

Motor Vehicle Control Program

(FMVCP), Federal Reid Vapor Pressure

(RVP) regulations promulgated before

November 15, 1990, state regulations

required to correct deficiencies in

existing VOC RACT regulations, and

state regulations required to correct

deficiencies in existing I/M programs.

Because these regulations were

promulgated or required before the 1990

amendments to the Act, the Act

prohibits states from claiming ROP

reductions from these regulations. To

achieve an accurate ROP target, the state

must subtract these noncreditable

reductions from the baseline to reflect

the impact of these reductions on 1999

emissions. The resulting inventory is

called the ‘‘adjusted base year

inventory.’’

Wisconsin determined the emission

reductions associated with the

noncreditable FMVCP and RVP

programs by using the MOBILE

emission factors program.

Wisconsin determined that its VOC

RACT rule corrections were technical in

nature and, therefore, did not require

any adjustments to the 1990 emission

inventory. Wisconsin was not required

to implement an I/M program before the

1990 amendments, and thus did not

make adjustments to the 1990 emission

inventory for I/M corrections, either.

2. 1999 Emission Target Level to Meet

ROP Emission Reduction Requirement

After the adjusted base year emission

inventory is established, the next step is

to calculate the VOC emission target

level for 1999. Our post-1996 policy

provides the method for calculating

target levels. To calculate the VOC

target, the previous milestone target

must first be identified; in this case it is

the 1996 target level. From the 1996

target level, subtract, (1) the percent

reduction required to meet the ROP

requirement, and (2) the fleet turnover

correction factor.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules 33499

For the Milwaukee-Racine area’s post1996 ROP plan, it would not be

appropriate to use the 1996 target level

from the 15 percent plan because the 15

percent plan covered a different

geographic area than the post-1996 ROP

plan. Thus, the 1996 target level must be

recalculated by reducing the 1990

adjusted ROP base year inventory for

1996 for this geographic area by 15

percent.

The fleet turnover correction factor

represents the emission reduction that

has occurred under the pre-1990 Act

FMVCP and RVP regulations between

consecutive milestone years, for the

post-1996 plan, from 1996 to 1999.

Since the 1996 target level and the 9

percent ROP reduction do not factor in

these reductions, the fleet turnover

correction factor is necessary to

accurately calculate the emission level

that must be achieved by 1999.

Performing the 1999 target level

calculations consistent with this

methodology results in a 1999 target

level of 242.07 tpd. However, Wisconsin

used a different methodology to

calculate the 1999 target level.

Wisconsin calculated the 1999 target

level by subtracting the fleet turnover

correction factor from 76% (100%-15%-

9%) of the 1990 adjusted ROP base year

inventory for 1999. Wisconsin’s

methodology yields a 1999 target level

of 237.57 tpd.

Wisconsin’s calculation methodology

is not consistent with the Act or our

policy. However, we will accept the

1999 target level value resulting from

application of Wisconsin’s

methodology, 237.57 tpd, because it is

a value that is less than, and thus, more

stringent, than what would otherwise be

allowed based on the Act and our

policy.

3. 1999 Projected Growth Level

To account for source emission

growth between 1990 and 1999, the

state must develop projected emission

inventories for VOC. The projected

emission inventories represent the

expected emissions in 1999 if no post1996 ROP control measures had been

implemented.

Wisconsin established the projected

emission inventories for point, area, and

nonroad source categories by taking the

1990 emission inventories and applying

either EPA growth factors, or statederived growth factors. Projected

vehicle emissions were established

using the MOBILE model. Our TSD for

this proposed rulemaking contains more

details about the growth factors used in

Wisconsin’s post-1996 plan. You may

obtain a copy of the TSD by contacting

the Region 5 office as indicated above.

The projected VOC emissions for 1999

are 402.5 tpd for point, area, on-road

mobile, and non-road mobile.

4. Emission Reduction Needed for ROP

Reduction Net-Of-Growth

Based on the emissions inventory and

calculations, a 164.93 TPD VOC

emission reduction is needed for the

Milwaukee-Racine ozone nonattainment

area to meet the 9 percent requirement.

V. Wisconsin’s Post-1996 ROP Plan

Control Strategies

A. What are the Criteria for Acceptable

Control Strategies?

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

emission reductions claimed for ROP

must be creditable to the extent that the

reductions have actually occurred

before the applicable ROP milestone

date, in this case November 15, 1999.

To meet this requirement, our policy

provides that all credited emission

reductions must be real, permanent, and

enforceable. In addition, the plan’s

control measures must be adopted and

implemented before November 15, 1999.

The post-1996 plan must also

adequately document the methods used

to calculate the emission reduction for

each control measure. Our policy as

described in the General Preamble to the

Act (April 16, 1992, 57 FR 13567)

provides that, at a minimum, the

methods should meet the following four

principles: (1) Emission reductions from

control measures must be quantifiable;

(2) control measures must be

enforceable; (3) interpretation of the

control measures must be replicable;

and, (4) control measures must be

accountable.

Section 182(b)(1)(D) of the Act

prescribes limits on what control

measures states can include in ROP

plans. All permanent and enforceable

control measures occurring after 1990

are creditable with the following

exceptions: (1) FMVCP requirements

promulgated by January 1, 1990; (2) RVP

regulations promulgated by November

15, 1990; (3) Reasonably Available

Control Technology (RACT) ‘‘Fix-Up’’

regulations required under section

182(a)(2)(A) of the Act; and (4)

Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)

program ‘‘Fix-Ups’’ as required under

section 182(a)(2)(B) of the Act.

B. What are the Control Measures in the

Wisconsin Post-1996 ROP Plan?

1. Point/Area Sources

a. Wood Furniture Coating.

Wisconsin’s rule (NR 422.125) limits

the VOC emissions from wood furniture

finishing operations in the MilwaukeeRacine area as well as Sheboygan,

Manitowoc and Kewaunee Counties.

The rule was effective on September 1,

1995 with a compliance date of

September 1, 1996. The rule will

achieve a control efficiency of 20% and

0.26 tpd in emission reductions through

1999.

b. Yeast Manufacturing.

Wisconsin’s rule (NR 424.05) limits

the VOC emissions from yeast

manufacturing operations in the

Milwaukee-Racine area. The rule was

effective on July 1, 1994 with

compliance dates of May 31 and

November 30, 1995. The rule will

achieve a control efficiency of 47% and

0.36 tpd in emission reductions through

1999.

c. Screen Printing.

Wisconsin’s rule (NR 422.145) limits

VOC emission from screen printing

units at screen printing facilities. The

rule was effective on July 1, 1994 with

compliance dates of July 1, 1994 and

May 31, 1995. The rule will achieve a

control efficiency of 4.5% and 0.5 tpd

in emission reductions through 1999.

d. Gray Iron and Steel Foundries.

Wisconsin’s rule (NR 419.08) limits

VOC emissions at facilities that

manufacture cores or molds for use at

iron and steel foundries. The rule was

effective on July 1, 1994 with a

compliance date of May 31, 1995. The

rule will achieve a control efficiency of

7% and 0.07 tpd in emission reductions

through 1999.

e. Industrial Adhesives.

Wisconsin’s rule (NR 422.127) limits

VOC emissions from processes using

adhesives or adhesive primers on wood

furniture, office partitions, or wood

entry/passage doors. The rule was

effective on September 1, 1995 with a

compliance date of June 30, 1996. The

rule will achieve a control efficiency of

4.5% and 0.02 tpd in emission

reductions through 1999.

f. Lithographic Printing.

Wisconsin’s rule (NR 422.142) limits

VOC emissions from lithographic

printing presses. The rule was effective

on July 1, 1995 with a compliance date

of July 1, 1996. The rule will achieve a

control efficiency of 11.2% in the

graphic arts category and 8.8% for the

printing and publishing category with a

total of 0.64 tpd in emission reductions

through 1999. In addition, Wisconsin

included 4.7 tpd of VOC reductions

achieved at a Quad Graphics facility in

Dodge County whose emissions in 1990

were 6.7 tpd. Permitted changes to the

facility’s rotogravure presses in 1994

achieved a 4.7 tpd emission reduction.

Thus, the total emission reduction for

this category is 5.34 tpd.

g. Degreasing.

33500 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Wisconsin’s rule (NR 423.03) further

limits VOC emissions from the four

main types of degreasing equipment

used in Wisconsin, namely, cold

cleaners, open top vapor degreasers

(OTVD), conveyorized vapor degreasers

and conveyorized non-vapor degreasers.

The revised rule was effective on

September 1, 1994 with a compliance

date of May 15, 1995. The rule will

achieve a control efficiency of 30% in

the degreasing category and 2.7 tpd in

emission reductions through 1999.

However, Wisconsin also includes

emission reductions from the organic

solvents category due to the Federal

Consumer and Commercial Products

rule. Wisconsin assumes a 25% control

efficiency and 1.12 tpd of emission

reductions for a total of 3.82 tpd of

reductions for the degreasing category.

However, our current policy only allows

a 20% control efficiency assumption for

that category based on the national rule

for consumer products. Consequently,

Wisconsin’s emission reduction credit

of 1.12 tpd is not approvable. We will,

however, approve a 20% emission

reduction yielding a 0.9 tpd reduction.

In total, the emission reductions

approvable for the degreasing category

is 3.6 tpd.

h. Federal Architectural and

Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coating

(Industrial).

This federal rule applies to

commercial coatings which are applied

in the field by industry, contractors,

businesses, and homeowners. VOC

emissions are limited by product

reformulation to lower VOC content,

product substitution and consumer

education in using techniques for

application, storage and disposal.

Wisconsin’s December 1997 submittal

estimated that the anticipated federal

rule for architectural coatings would

provide for a 20% control from 1990–

1996 and a 25% control from 1996 to

1999. The state’s supplemental

submittal, however, now estimates a

20% control through 1999. This is

consistent with our policy

memorandum which allows a 20%

control assumption. The emission

reductions from this category from

industrial sources is estimated at 1.1

tpd.

i. Federal AIM Coating.

Again, this federal rule applies to

commercial coatings which are applied

in the field by industry, contractors,

businesses, and homeowners. VOC

emissions are limited by product

reformulation to lower VOC content,

product substitution and consumer

education in using techniques for

application, storage and disposal.

The state’s December 1997 submittal

estimated that the anticipated federal

rule for architectural coatings would

provide for a 20% control from 1990–

1996 and a 25% control from 1996 to

1999. The state’s supplemental

submittal, however, now estimates a

20% control through 1999. This is

consistent with our policy

memorandum which allows a 20%

control assumption. The emission

reductions from this category are 2.91

tpd for sources other than industrial

which are accounted for above.

j. Autobody Refinishing.

Our policy allows a 37% emission

reduction from this category. The state’s

December 1997 post-1996 ROP plan

submittal assumed a 30% emission

reduction based on a state-adopted rule,

NR 422.095, which was effective on

September 1, 1995 and a compliance

date of September 1, 1995. Wisconsin’s

rule limits VOC emissions from motor

vehicle refinishing operations. However,

the state’s supplemental submittal

applies a control efficiency of 67.4% to

emissions from within the

nonattainment area based on the state’s

analysis of the rule’s control efficiency

for a resulting emissions reduction of

6.64 tpd. Furthermore, a control

efficiency of 37% was applied to

emissions for this category within the

100 kilometer area as allowed by our

policy for an emission reduction of 2.91

tpd. The total emissions reduction from

this category are 9.55 tpd.

k. Stage 2 Vapor Recovery.

Wisconsin’s rule (NR 420.045) limits

VOC emissions from gasoline

dispensing facilities during vehicle

refueling. The rule was effective on

February 1, 1993 with a full compliance

date of March 31, 1995. The emission

reduction for this category is 6.61 tpd.

l. Traffic Markings.

Wisconsin’s rule (NR 422.17) limits

the VOC emissions of traffic markings

on any paved surface during the ozone

season in the ozone nonattainment area.

The rule was effective on August 1,

1994 with a compliance date of April

30, 1996. The rule will achieve a control

efficiency of 75.9% and 3.11 tpd in

emissions reduction through 1999 in the

ozone nonattainment area. Wisconsin

also applied the same control efficiency

to VOC emissions from traffic marking

coating used within in the 100 km area

resulting in an additional 2.46 tpd of

emission reductions. Wisconsin

provided documentation that the

Wisconsin Department of

Transportation was employing NR

422.17 compliant traffic markings in

counties within the 100 kilometers. The

Act requires that creditable emission

reductions be permanent and

enforceable. Since NR 422.17 does not

cover the counties within the 100

kilometers, the emission reductions

resulting from that rule as applied to

emissions in the 100 kilometer area

cannot be approved into the SIP. We

acknowledge that emissions reductions

have likely occurred as a result of the

state’s decision to employ compliant

traffic marking coatings outside the

nonattainment area. However, these

emission reductions are not creditable

towards the post-1996 ROP plan.

Consequently, the total creditable

emission reduction from this category is

3.11 tpd.

m. Underground Gasoline Tank Vent

Valves.

The state rule (NR 420.035) requires

gasoline dispensing facilities with

gasoline storage tanks with a capacity of

2000 gallons or more all ensure that

each pressure vacuum valve installed on

a storage tank vent pipe is certified by

the California air resources board and is

maintained in good working order. The

rule was effective on August 1, 1994

with a compliance date of March 31,

1995. The rule will achieve 0.67 tpd in

emissions reduction through 1999 as

determined by the MOBILE5a model.

n. Federal Commercial and Consumer

Solvents.

We promulgated this federal rule on

September 11, 1998, which has a

compliance date of December 10, 1998.

Our policy allows for a 20% emission

reduction assumption for this category,

which results in a 3.06 tpd emission

reduction in Wisconsin’s post-1996 ROP

plan.

o. Reformulated Gasoline-Area

Petroleum Sources.

Reformulated gasoline is discussed

below. These emissions reductions

come from using reformulated gasoline

at area sources, namely, underground

tank breathing, automobile refueling,

Stage I and Gasoline Truck Transport

activities. The emission reduction

estimates for this category is 2.73 tpd.

2. Mobile Sources.

a. Federal Tier I Vehicle Tailpipe

Standards.

Section 202 of the Act sets new Tier

1 emission standards for motor vehicles.

We have promulgated standards for

1994 and later model year light-duty

cars and light-duty trucks (56 FR 25724,

June 5, 1991). For passenger cars and

light-duty vehicle trucks weighing up to

6,000 pounds, the implementation of

the standards was to be phased in over

three years: 40 percent of the

manufactured vehicles for model year

1994, 80 percent of the manufactured

vehicles in model year 1995, and 100

percent of the manufactured vehicles in

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules 33501

model years 1996 and later. For gasoline

and diesel powered light-duty trucks

weighing more than 6,000 pounds, the

Tier 1 standards were to be met in 50

percent of the manufactured vehicles in

model year 1996 and in 100 percent of

the manufactured vehicles thereafter.

Wisconsin used the MOBILE5a

emission factor model to calculate the

VOC emission reductions for this

control measures. Wisconsin’s emission

reduction estimates are adequately

documented and acceptable for credit

towards the post-1996 ROP plan. A total

of 5.17 tpd of emission reductions will

be achieved from the program through

1999.

b. Reformulated Gasoline.

The Act requires EPA to adopt and

enforce a reformulated gasoline program

for severe and worse ozone areas by the

1995 ozone season. The RFG regulations

will further reduce gasoline volatility.

Wisconsin used the MOBILE5a

emission factor model to calculate the

VOC emission reductions for this

control measure. Wisconsin’s emission

reduction estimates are adequately

documented and acceptable for credit

towards the post-1996 ROP plan. A total

of 14.77 tpd of emission reductions will

be achieved from the program through

1999.

c. Enhanced Motor Vehicle

Inspection/Maintenance Program.

The Enhanced I/M program began

operation in the Milwaukee-Racine area

in December 1995. The program is a

biennial testing program which requires

two years of testing to complete one test

cycle. The program achieved its full

emissions reduction potential upon

completion of a cycle in December 1997.

Wisconsin used the MOBILE5a

emission factor model to calculate the

VOC emission reductions for this

control measure. Wisconsin’s emission

reduction estimates are adequately

documented and acceptable for credit

towards the post-1996 ROP plan.

Wisconsin’s initial emission reduction

claim of 24.09 tpd was adjusted to

account for the pressure test correction

amounting to 4.01 tpd. Thus, a total of

20.08 tpd of emission reductions will be

achieved from the program though 1999.

d. Federal Gasoline Detergent

Additive.

Beginning January 1, 1995, federal

regulations required that gasoline sold

nationwide contain additives to prevent

accumulation of deposits in engines and

fuel systems. Preventing such deposits

maintains the efficiency of engine

systems and reduces VOC emissions.

The state used our guidance to

determine that the use of gasoline

containing the required additives will

reduce vehicle VOC emissions by 0.52

tpd.

e. Federal On-Board Vapor Recovery

Canisters.

In 1994, we published regulations that

require vehicles to capture vehicle

refueling emissions. These regulations

require that 40 percent of 1998

passenger cars meet Onboard Refueling

Vapor Recovery (ORVR or OVR)

emission standards. Eighty percent of

1999 model year cars and 100 percent

of 2000 and later model year cars must

meet ORVR requirements.

Emissions reduction from this

category are 1.41 tpd.

f. Reformulated Gasoline—Off-Road

Source.

Reformulated gasoline is discussed

above. The emission reduction estimates

resulting from reformulated gasoline use

in off road mobile sources is 1.4 tpd.

g. Federal Off-Road Engine Standards.

Federal standards for non-road

engines were promulgated on July 3,

1995 (60 FR 34582). States may take

credit for this measures in their ROP

plans pursuant to our policy

memoranda, ‘‘Guidance on Projection of

Nonroad Inventories to Future Years,’’

dated February 4, 1994, and ‘‘Future

Nonroad Emission Reduction Credits for

Court-Ordered Nonroad Standards,’’

dated November 28, 1994. Based on

these policies, Wisconsin concluded

that the emission reductions that would

occur by 1999 were 5.58 tpd.

C. What are the Federal Register

Citations for the Federal Approval or

Promulgation of the Control Measures?

FEDERAL APPROVAL OR PROMULGATION OF CONTROL MEASURES IN THE MILWAUKEE-RACINE AREA 9 PERCENT RATE-OFPROGRESS PLAN

Control measure Date of EPA SIP approval or promulgation

Wood Furniture Coating ............................................................................ April 4, 1996 (61 FR 14972).

Yeast Manufacturing ................................................................................. June 30,1995 (60 FR 34170).

Screen Printing ......................................................................................... July 28, 1995 (60 FR 38722), Technical Correction on February 12,

1996 (61 FR 5307).

Gray Iron and Steel Foundries ................................................................. February 13, 1996 (61 FR 5514).

Industrial Adhesives .................................................................................. April 25, 1996 (61 FR 18257).

Lithographic Printing ................................................................................. April 9, 1996 (61 FR 15706).

Degreasing ................................................................................................ April 29, 1996 (61 FR 18681).

Federal Tier 1 Vehicle Tailpipe Standards ............................................... Federal Regulation, 40 CFR 86, June 5, 1991 (56 FR 25724).

Reformulated Gasoline ............................................................................. Federal Regulation, 40 CFR 80, Subpart D, February 16, 1994 (59 FR

7716).

Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance ............................................. Conditional Approval on January 12, 1995 (60 FR 2881). Revision submitted on December 30, 1998. EPA must finally approve prior to full

and final approval of this post-1996 ROP plan.

Federal Gasoline Detergent Additives ...................................................... Federal Regulation, 40 CFR 80, Subpart G, November 1, 1994 (59 FR

54706).

Federal Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coating ...................... Federal Regulation, 40 CFR Part 59 Subpart D, and September 11,

1998 (63 FR 48848). Also see ‘‘Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-ofProgress Plans for Reductions from the Maintenance Architectural

and Industrial Maintenance Coatings Rule,’’ 3/22/95, and ‘‘Update on

the Credit for the 15% Rate-of- progress Plans for Reductions from

Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings Rule,’’ 3/7/96.

Autobody Refinishing ................................................................................ February 12, 1996 (61 FR 5306).

Stage 2 Vapor Recovery .......................................................................... August 13, 1993 (58 FR 43082).

Federal On-Board Vapor Recovery Canisters .......................................... Federal Regulation, 40 CFR 86, 88 and 600, April 16, 1994 (59 R

16262).

Traffic Marking .......................................................................................... April 29, 1996 (61 FR 18681).

Underground Gas Tank Vent Valves ........................................................ April 29, 1996 (61 FR 18681).

33502 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules

FEDERAL APPROVAL OR PROMULGATION OF CONTROL MEASURES IN THE MILWAUKEE-RACINE AREA 9 PERCENT RATE-OFPROGRESS PLAN—Continued

Control measure Date of EPA SIP approval or promulgation

Federal Commercial and Consumer Solvents .......................................... Federal Regulation, 40 CFR Part 59 Subpart C, September 11, 1998

(63 FR 48791). Also see ‘‘Regulatory Schedule for Consumer and

Commercial Products under Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act,’’ 6/

22/95.

Reformulated Gasoline (area source petroleum activities) ...................... Federal Regulation, 40 CFR 80, Subpart D, February 16, 1994 (59 FR

7716).

Reformulated Gasoline (off-road) ............................................................. Federal Regulation 40 CFR 80, Subpart D, February 16, 1994 (59 FR

7716).

Federal Off-Road Engine Standards ........................................................ Federal Regulation, 40 CFR 90, July 3, 1995 (60 FR 34582).

D. How did Wisconsin Calculate the

Emission Reductions for the Control

Strategies?

We have issued several policy

documents, listed in the TSD for this

proposed rulemaking, which provide

assumptions for states to use in

quantifying emission reductions. We

have also developed the MOBILE model

for the states to calculate emission

reductions from mobile sources.

Wisconsin appropriately used our

policy documents and MOBILE model

for calculating emission reductions.

Wisconsin obtained the necessary data

for quantifying the source baselines and

emission reductions from its 1990

emission inventory, permit information,

and emissions reporting data from

affected industries. Where Wisconsin

had to develop its own assumptions

regarding emission reductions, the

assumptions were adequately justified

based on existing data.

The Wisconsin post-1996 ROP plan

does not contain any new state rules, it

merely accounts for the emission

reductions achieved from existing

creditable state and federal measures

occurring from 1990–1999. Many of the

point, area, on-road and off-road source

measures for which Wisconsin is

claiming post-1996 ROP credit were part

of the 15 percent ROP plan, including

Tier 1, reformulated gasoline for on-road

and off-road mobile and area sources,

off-road small engine standards, federal

detergent additive, wood furniture

coating, yeast manufacturing, screen

printing controls, gray iron and steel

foundries, industrial adhesives,

lithographic printing, degreasing, AIM,

autobody refinishing, Stage II, traffic

markings, gas station tank breathing,

and consumer and commercial

products.

E. What Amount of Emission Reduction

Does Each Control Strategy Achieve?

The following table summarizes the

state’s VOC reduction claims for the

post-1996 ROP control measures, and

the amount of reductions we find

approvable.

There are two categories for which

emission reductions claimed by the

state are determined not to be

approvable. First, the state claims a 25%

control efficiency for the organic

solvents category based on the Federal

Consumer and Commercial Products

rule. However, our more current policy

only allows a 20% control efficiency

assumption for that category based on

the national rule for consumer products.

Thus, Wisconsin’s emission reduction

credit of 1.12 tpd is not approvable.

However, a 20% reduction yielding a

0.9 tpd reduction is approvable.

Secondly, Wisconsin claims 75.9%

control efficiency for the traffic

markings category based on the state’s

rule (NR 422.17) for emissions within

the ozone nonattainment area boundary

and the 100 kilometer area. However,

Wisconsin’s rule 422.17 is not

applicable and enforceable in the 100

kilometer area. Thus, Wisconsin’s

emission reduction credit of 5.57 tpd is

not approvable, although emission

reductions for this category within the

nonattainment area boundary of 3.11

tpd are approvable.

Control measure

VOC Reduction

State

Claimed

Tons/Day

VOC Reduction

Credit Approvable

Tons/Day

Mobile source measures:

Federal Tier 1 Vehicle Tailpipe Standards ............................................................................................................... 5.17 5.17

Reformulated Gasoline ............................................................................................................................................. 14.77 14.77

Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance ............................................................................................................. 20.08 20.08

Federal Gasoline Detergent Additive ....................................................................................................................... 0.52 0.52

Reformulated Gasoline (off-road) ............................................................................................................................. 1.4 1.4

Federal Off-Road Engine Standards ........................................................................................................................ 5.58 5.58

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................. 47.52 47.52

Industrial source measures:

Yeast Manufacturing ................................................................................................................................................. 0.36 0.36

Screen Printing ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.5 0.5

Gray Iron and Steel Foundries ................................................................................................................................. 0.07 0.07

Industrial Adhesives ................................................................................................................................................. 0.02 0.02

Lithographic Printing ................................................................................................................................................. 5.34 5.34

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................. 6.29 6.29

Area source measures:

Wood Furniture Coating ........................................................................................................................................... 0.26 0.26

Degreasing ............................................................................................................................................................... 3.82 3.6

Federal AIM Coating (Industrial) .............................................................................................................................. 1.1 1.1

Federal AIM Coating ................................................................................................................................................ 2.91 2.91

Autobody Refinishing ................................................................................................................................................ 9.55 9.55

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules 33503

Control measure

VOC Reduction

State

Claimed

Tons/Day

VOC Reduction

Credit Approvable

Tons/Day

Stage 2 Vapor Recovery .......................................................................................................................................... 6.61 6.61

Federal On-Board Vapor Recovery Canisters ......................................................................................................... 1.41 1.41

Traffic Marking .......................................................................................................................................................... 5.57 3.11

Underground Gas Tank Vent Valves ....................................................................................................................... 0.67 0.67

Federal Commercial and Consumer Solvents ......................................................................................................... 3.06 3.06

Reformulated Gasoline (area petroleum activities) .................................................................................................. 2.73 2.73

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................. 36.72 35.01

Total FMVCP non-creditable emissions reductions grown to 1999 ................................................................. 81.6 81.6

Total RVP non-creditable emissions reductions grown to 1999 ....................................................................... 1.5 1.5

Total 1999 VOC reductions ............................................................................................................................... 173.63 171.92

VI. EPA Review of Wisconsin’s Post1996 ROP Plan

A. Why is the Wisconsin post-1996 ROP

Plan Approvable?

We reviewed the documentation

submitted with the Wisconsin post-1996

ROP plan. From this review, we find

that the plan is approvable.

Wisconsin provided sufficient

justification that the nonattainment area

VOC emission reductions in

conjunction with the VOC emission

reductions from certain sources outside

the ozone nonattainment area boundary

but within 100 kilometers of that

boundary will reduce ozone precursor

emissions and, therefore, ozone

concentrations in the Milwaukee-Racine

ozone nonattainment area. Although

Wisconsin did not calculate the

emissions reduction needed to meet the

9 percent ROP reduction requirement

consistent with our guidance, we will

accept Wisconsin’s reduction

requirement because it is more stringent

than what would otherwise be allowable

under our guidance.

The post-1996 plan’s control

measures are creditable because the

emissions reductions achieved are real,

permanent, and enforceable. All

claimed emission reductions from the

plan’s control measures occurred by

November 15, 1999, the Act’s deadline

by which creditable reductions are to

occur.

The state’s emission reduction

estimates for the control strategies

follow our guidance documents, where

applicable, and are adequately

documented with acceptable emission

control assumptions.

Finally, the post-1996 ROP plan

shows that it will achieve a reduction of

ozone precursor emissions sufficient to

achieve the required ROP toward

attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in

the Milwaukee-Racine ozone

nonattainment area.

COMPARISON OF NEEDED AND

CREDITABLE EMISSION REDUCTIONS

TPD

VOC Reduction Needed to Meet 9

percent ROP ................................. 164.93

Total Creditable VOC Reduction ...... 171.92

For these reasons, we are proposing

approval of Wisconsin’s MilwaukeeRacine area post-1996 ROP plan, as

meeting the requirements of section

182(c)(2)(B).

VII. What Action Are We Proposing

Today?

In this rulemaking action, we are

proposing to approve Wisconsin’s SIP

revision, submitted on December 11,

1997, and subsequent supplemental

information submitted on August 5,

1999, January 31, 2000, March 3, 2000,

and February 2001, establishing a post1996 ROP plan for the MilwaukeeRacine ozone nonattainment area. It

should be noted that final approval of

Wisconsin’s post-1996 ROP plan is

contingent on final approval of the

motor vehicle I/M SIP revisions.

VIII. 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

we have 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 proposed 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 proposed 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

33504 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this proposed 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 proposed 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 Act.

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of

the Executive Order do not apply to this

proposed 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 proposed 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 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 Act, preparation

of flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The 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 this

proposed approval action 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

proposes to approve 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

proposed action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Ozone, Volatile Organic

Compounds.

Dated: June 13, 2001.

David Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 01–15619 Filed 6–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH148–1b; FRL–7001–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Maintenance Plan Revisions; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

a May 31, 2001, request from Ohio for

a State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision of the Cleveland/Akron/Lorain,

Ohio ozone maintenance plan. The

maintenance plan revision allocates a

portion of the safety margin to the

transportation conformity mobile source

emissions budget for the year 2006. EPA

is proposing to approve the allocation of

10 tons per day of volatile organic

compounds (VOC) to the area’s 2006

mobile source emissions budget 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.

In the Final Rules section of this

Federal Register, EPA is approving the

State’s SIP revision, as a direct final rule

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

revision and anticipates no adverse

comments. A detailed rationale for the

approval is set forth in the direct final

rule. If we receive no written adverse

comments in response to that direct

final rule we plan to take no further

activity in relation to this proposed rule.

If EPA receives significant adverse

comments, in writing, which have not

been addressed, we will withdraw the

direct final rule and address all public

comments received in a subsequent

final rule based on this proposed rule.

The EPA will not institute a second

comment period on this document.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before July 23, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to:

J. Elmer Bortzer, 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