64746 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

For valuation dates occurring in the month—

The values of it are:

it for t = it for t = it for t =

*******

January 2002 ........................................................................ .0580 1–25 .0425 >25 N/A N/A

Issued in Washington, DC, on this 11th day

of December 2001.

Steven A. Kandarian,

Executive Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 01–30963 Filed 12–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7708–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 918

[SPATS No. LA–020–FOR]

Louisiana Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is

approving an amendment to the

Louisiana regulatory program (Louisiana

program) under the Surface Mining

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

(SMCRA). Louisiana proposed to add

standards for measuring revegetation

success on pastureland. Louisiana

intends to revise the Louisiana program

to be consistent with the corresponding

Federal regulations and to improve

operational efficiency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 14, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael C. Wolfrom, Director, Tulsa

Field Office, Office of Surface Mining,

5100 East Skelly Drive, Suite 470, Tulsa,

Oklahoma 74135–6548. Telephone:

(918) 581–6430. Internet:

mwolfrom@osmre.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Louisiana Program

II. Submission of the Amendment

III. Director’s Findings

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

V. Director’s Decision

VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Louisiana

Program

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a

State to assume primacy for the

regulation of surface coal mining and

reclamation operations on non-Federal

and non-Indian lands within its borders

by demonstrating that its State program

includes, among other things, ’’* * * a

State law which provides for the

regulation of surface coal mining and

reclamation operations in accordance

with the requirements of this Act * * *;

and rules and regulations consistent

with regulations issued by the Secretary

pursuant to this Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C.

1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these

criteria, the Secretary of the Interior

conditionally approved the Louisiana

program on October 10, 1980. You can

find background information on the

Louisiana program, including the

Secretary’s findings and the disposition

of comments in the October 10, 1980,

Federal Register (45 FR 67340). You can

find later actions concerning the

Louisiana program at 30 CFR 918.15 and

918.16.

II. Submission of the Amendment

By letter dated June 1, 2001

(Administrative Record No. LA–365.04),

Louisiana sent us an amendment to its

program under SMCRA and the Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(b).

Louisiana sent the amendment in

response to our letters dated March 24,

1999, and August 16, 2000, that we sent

to Louisiana under 30 CFR 732.17

(Administrative Record Nos. LA–365

and LA–365.01, respectively).

We announced receipt of the

amendment in the June 27, 2001,

Federal Register (66 FR 34137). In the

same document, we opened the public

comment period and provided an

opportunity for a public hearing or

meeting on the adequacy of the

amendment. The public comment

period closed on July 27, 2001. Because

no one requested a public hearing or

meeting, we did not hold one.

During our review of the amendment,

we identified concerns relating to

sampling procedures; data submission

and analysis; data forms for ground

cover and whole release area harvesting;

example uses of sample adequacy

formulas for ground cover and hay

production measurements; statistical

analysis on whole release area

harvesting; and acceptable plant species

for permanent ground cover. We

notified Louisiana of these concerns by

letter dated August 20, 2001

(Administrative Record No. LA–365.10).

By letter dated October 10, 2001

(Administrative Record No. LA–365.11),

Louisiana sent revisions to its program

amendment. Because the revisions

merely clarified certain provisions of

Louisiana’s amendment, we did not

reopen the public comment period.

III. Director’s Findings

Following, under SMCRA and the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15

and 732.17, are the Director’s findings

concerning the amendment to the

Louisiana program.

Louisiana submitted revegetation

success guidelines that describe the

standards and procedures for

determining revegetation success on

pastureland. The Federal regulations at

30 CFR 816.116(a)(1) require that each

regulatory authority select revegetation

success standards and statistically valid

sampling techniques for measuring

revegetation success and include them

in its approved regulatory program.

Louisiana developed its revegetation

success guidelines for pastureland to

satisfy this requirement. The guidelines

for pastureland include revegetation

success standards and statistically valid

sampling techniques for measuring

revegetation success of reclaimed

pastureland in accordance with

Louisiana’s counterpart to 30 CFR

816.116. Louisiana’s standards, criteria,

and parameters for revegetation success

on pastureland reflect the extent of

cover, species composition, and soil

stabilization required in the Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 816.111. As

required by the Federal regulations at 30

CFR 816.116(a)(2) and (b), Louisiana’s

revegetation success standards include

criteria representative of unmined lands

in the area being reclaimed to evaluate

the appropriate vegetation parameters of

ground cover and production suitable to

the approved postmining land use of

pastureland. Louisiana’s guidelines

specify the procedures and techniques

to be used for sampling, measuring, and

analyzing vegetation parameters.

Ground cover and production suitable

to the approved postmining land use of

pastureland is considered equal to the

approved success standard when they

are not less than 90 percent of the

success standard. Sampling techniques

for measuring success use a 90-percent

statistical confidence interval. We find

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 64747

that use of these procedures and

techniques will ensure consistent,

objective collection of vegetation data.

For the above reasons, we find that

the revegetation success standards and

statistically valid sampling techniques

for measuring revegetation success

contained in Louisiana’s revegetation

success guidelines for pastureland

satisfy the requirements of 30 CFR

816.116(a)(1).

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Federal Agency Comments

On June 12, 2001, under section

503(b) of SMCRA and 30 CFR

732.17(h)(11)(i) of the Federal

regulations, we requested comments on

the amendment from various Federal

agencies with an actual or potential

interest in the Louisiana program

(Administrative Record No. LA–365.05).

The Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS) responded on July 10,

2001 (Administrative Record No. LA–

365.08) with extensive comments on the

technical adequacy of the amendment.

These comments are discussed below.

A. The NRCS recommends that

Louisiana delete the word ‘‘density’’

from its introductory language at A.2.

concerning ‘‘ground cover’’ because

Louisiana does not use the term

‘‘ground cover density’’ in the

remainder of its revegetation guidelines

for pastureland.

We disagree with the NRCS’s

comment. The Federal regulation at 30

CFR 701.5 defines ground cover as ‘‘the

area of ground covered by the combined

aerial parts of the vegetation and the

litter that is produced naturally onsite,

expressed as a percentage of the total

area of measurement.’’ Louisiana

definition of ground cover at § 105 is

substantively identical to the Federal

definition. The addition of the word

‘‘density’’ to the phrase ‘‘ground cover’’

does not in any way change the

regulatory definition of ground cover.

Furthermore, because this is an

introductory paragraph rather than a

detailed requirement for revegetation

standards and methods, we believe the

use of the word ‘‘density’’ is of no

consequence.

B. The NRCS states that Louisiana

should change the scientific name for

Kudzu found at B.2.f. As proposed,

Louisiana uses the name Pueraria

lobata. The NRCS recommends that

Louisiana change it to Pueraria

montana var. lobata.

We recognize that the NRCS promotes

the use of the scientific name of the

species of plants listed in the NRCS

plants database. However, Pueraria

lobata is the accepted scientific name

for Kudzu listed in ‘‘Common Weeds of

the United States’’ by the USDA in

1971, and in the current 1995 volume of

the Southern Weed Science Society.

Furthermore, Louisiana gives both the

scientific and common names. Thus, we

find Louisiana’s use of the scientific

name Pueraria lobata acceptable.

C. The NRCS states that, at C.1.c.

concerning success standards and

measurement frequency, it is unclear

whether adequate sample size still

needs to be documented when the

initial mean is greater than or equal to

the standard. The NRCS maintains that

even though initial sampling results in

a mean that is greater than the standard,

documentation that the mean is from an

adequate sample should still be

required.

Section D.3.a. of Louisiana’s

guidelines gives the detailed

requirements for determining sample

adequacy for ground cover data.

Specifically, it requires a minimum

number of samples in a multi-stage

sampling procedure where sample

adequacy is calculated after the

minimum samples are collected. This

requirement is further clarified in

Appendix F: Example Use of Sample

Adequacy Formula for Ground Cover

Measurements, where it is clearly stated

that the sample adequacy requirements

must be fulfilled before a comparison to

the standard can be made. Thus, we find

that Louisiana’s guidelines are clear that

an adequate sample size needs to be

documented prior to comparing the

sample mean with the standard.

D. The NRCS expressed concern about

the provision at C.2.a., which provides

that the success standard for production

of hay on pastureland shall be 90

percent of an approved reference area if

a reference area is established, or 90

percent of the estimated yield found in

the NRCS parish soil survey at

Appendix K. The NRCS states that most

of the species listed in Appendix L,

which contains a list of acceptable plant

species for ground cover, do not have

production estimates in the soil survey

found in Appendix K, and existing

reference areas that have these species

are rare. The NRCS also states that

species such as buffalograss and the

gama grasses listed do not have the

production potential of a bermudagrass

stand under a high level of management.

Louisiana’s guidelines specify that

forage production will use the standards

of yields found in the NRCS parish soil

survey in Appendix K. Because the only

species listed in the survey are common

bermudagrass, improved bermudagrass,

bahiagrass, coastal bermudagrass,

pensacola bahiagrass, and tall fescue,

the reclaimed pasture will need to be

seeded to one of these species in order

to have a valid comparison to the

standard. Once the production standard

is selected, the presence of other

planted or volunteer species in the

pasture will in no way change the

production standard for comparison. If

it is determined that the operator could

not meet the production standard due to

an overabundance of acceptable

volunteer species that were not as

productive as the approved seed mix,

then the operator would have to manage

the stand to increase the cover of the

approved species and decrease the cover

of the acceptable species until the

standard could be met.

Louisiana allows in its determination

of ground cover that up to 15 percent of

that cover can be volunteer species that

are acceptable based on the list

provided in Appendix L. Because this

list is for the purposes of ground cover,

no production rates for the species

listed are required.

E. The NRCS expressed concern that

the phrase, ‘‘similar plant species and

diversity,’’ found at C.3.a.i. is too vague.

The NRCS asks how the terms ‘‘similar’’

and ‘‘diversity’’ will be determined, and

points out that there are several

different methods to define these terms.

We disagree with this comment. The

word ‘‘similar’’ is a commonly used

term, and we do not believe further

definition is required. Furthermore,

Louisiana must use the entire list of

factors at C.3.a. when determining the

similarity of the reference area to the

reclaimed area. This is a qualitative

assessment based on the expertise and

judgement of the Louisiana program

consistent with factors cited in the

scientific literature for the establishment

of reference areas for this purpose.

The word ‘‘diversity’’ is defined at

C.1.b. Louisiana’s guidelines provide

that ground cover must consist of the

species mixture approved in the original

permit or an approved acceptable

species mixture as recommended by the

NRCS for use in that area. Furthermore,

no more than 15% of the stand can be

approved species not listed in the

permit. The Federal regulations at 30

CFR 816.111 require vegetative diversity

as a performance standard for plant

establishment. Louisiana has

established a qualitative standard for

diversity. This is consistent with the

Federal regulations, which allows a

qualitative standard for diversity.

F. The NRCS states that the use of the

phrases, ‘‘proposed mined release area,’’

‘‘mined test area,’’ ‘‘reclaimed area,’’

and ‘‘pastureland area’’ at C.3.a.ii., iv.,

v., and ix. is confusing. The NRCS

suggests that if all these terms are meant

64748 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

to denote pastureland in the reclaimed

area, Louisiana should use the same

term. If they are not meant to mean the

same thing, the NRCS states that

Louisiana should more clearly define

them.

Louisiana proposes nine factors to be

evaluated in order to determine if an

unmined reference area is representative

of a reclaimed area. Based on a simple

reading of the terms in the context

presented, it is clear that all the above

phrases refer to the reclaimed area. We

do not believe additional clarification is

necessary.

G. The NRCS points out that D.2.a.

describes three sampling methods in

which a sample is defined as a single

point, a single point frame, or a transect.

Further, the provision at D.4.a. requires

a minimum of 100 samples be taken.

The NRCS expressed concern that the

level of effort required for each of the

methods is very different, and asks if

this is what Louisiana intended. If not,

the NRCS recommends that Louisiana

clarify the provision at D.4.a.

We agree with this comment. In a

letter dated August 20, 2001

(Administrative Record No. LA–365.10),

we informed Louisiana that, while a

minimum sample size of 100 may be

appropriate for the pin sampling

technique, a sample size of 100 seems

excessive for the point frame and line

intercept sampling techniques.

On October 10, 2001 (Administrative

Record No. LA–365.11), Louisiana

revised section D. by removing D.3.

concerning representative test plots,

redesignating D.4. as D.3., and revising

the provision at redesignated D.3. to

specify that the minimum sample size

depends upon the results of the first

stage of a multi-staged sampling

procedure. We find that the revisions to

section D. are appropriate, and resolve

the NRCS’s concerns.

H. The NRCS states that, at section

D.4. concerning sample adequacy, it is

unclear if sample adequacy will be

determined for the reference area when

using a reference area for comparison to

the reclaimed site. The NRCS also states

that the sample adequacy equations in

this section do not account for Beta

error.

Section C.3.a. concerning reference

area requirements states that either

statistically adequate subsampling or

whole plot harvesting may be used to

determine yields. Thus, sample

adequacy must be determined for

reference areas. Furthermore, the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR

816.116(a)(2) require that the sampling

techniques for measuring success will

use a 90% statistical confidence interval

(i.e. one-sided test with a 0.10 alpha

error). Neither SMCRA not the Federal

regulations require consideration of Beta

error.

I. The NRCS recommends that, in

Appendix A: Selection of Random

Sampling Sites, Louisiana revise the last

sentence of the second paragraph by

replacing the word, ‘‘axes’’ with the

phrase, ‘‘grid intervals.’’

We find that Louisiana’s use of the

term ‘‘axes’’ as a reference line to a

coordinate system is acceptable.

J. The NRCS points out that the

example found in Appendix F: Example

Use of Sample Adequacy Formula for

Ground Cover Measurements shows

only ten transects sampled, when the

minimum required by D.4.a. is 100. The

NRCS states Louisiana should consider

reducing the number of minimum

samples for transects to between 15 and

30. The NRCS also expressed concern

that the calculations shown in the

example are incorrect.

We agree with this comment. As

stated above in the response to comment

G., we informed Louisiana in our

August 20, 2001, letter, that the example

calculations for determining sample

adequacy for ground cover in the

appendices need to reflect the

appropriate required minimum sample

size. We further informed Louisiana that

in Appendix F, the mean value in the

last calculation of sample adequacy

needs to be changed from 72.48 to 74.8.

In its October 10, 2001, letter,

Louisiana revised the provision at

redesignated D.3. to specify that the

minimum sample size depends upon

the results of the first stage of a multistaged sampling procedure. Louisiana

further revised the mean value in the

last calculation of sample adequacy. We

find that the revisions to section D.3.

and Appendix F are appropriate, and

resolve the NRCS’s concerns.

K. Finally, the NRCS recommends

that Louisiana change the names of

several species found in Appendix L.

We agree with this comment. In our

August 20, 2001, letter, we

recommended that Louisiana correct

several of the scientific and common

names found in Appendix L. In its

October 10, 2001, letter, Louisiana made

the revisions we recommended. We find

that the revisions Louisiana made are

appropriate, and resolve the NRCS’s

concerns.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we

are required to obtain the written

concurrence of the EPA for those

provisions of the program amendment

that relate to air or water quality

standards issued under the authority of

the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et

seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.

7401 et seq.). However, none of the

revisions that Louisiana proposed to

make in this amendment pertain to air

or water quality standards. Therefore,

we did not ask the EPA for its

concurrence.

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we

requested comments on the amendment

from the EPA (Administrative Record

No. LA–365.05). The EPA did not

respond to our request.

State Historical Preservation Officer

(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation (ACHP)

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are

required to request comments from the

SHPO and ACHP on amendments that

may have an effect on historic

properties. On June 12, 2001, we

requested comments on Louisiana’s

amendment (Administrative Record No.

LA–365.05), but neither responded to

our request.

Public Comments

We asked for public comments on the

amendment, but did not receive any.

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above findings, we

approve the amendment as sent to us by

Louisiana on June 1, 2001, and as

revised on October 10, 2001.

We approve the revegetation success

standards for pastureland that Louisiana

proposed with the provision that they

be published in identical form to the

revegetation success standards for

pastureland sent to and reviewed by

OSM and the public.

To implement this decision, we are

amending the Federal regulations at 30

CFR Part 918, which codify decisions

concerning the Louisiana program. We

find that good cause exists under 5

U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule

effective immediately. Section 503(a) of

SMCRA requires that the State’s

program demonstrate that the State has

the capability of carrying out the

provisions of the Act and meeting its

purposes. Making this rule effective

immediately will expedite that process.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory

Planning and Review

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12630—Takings

This rule does not have takings

implications. This determination is

based on the analysis performed for the

counterpart Federal regulations.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 64749

Executive Order 13132—Federalism

This rule does not have federalism

implications. SMCRA delineates the

roles of the Federal and State

governments with regard to the

regulation of surface coal mining and

reclamation operations. One of the

purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a

nationwide program to protect society

and the environment from the adverse

effects of surface coal mining

operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of

SMCRA requires that State laws

regulating surface coal mining and

reclamation operations be ‘‘in

accordance with’’ the requirements of

SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires

that State programs contain rules and

regulations ‘‘consistent with’’

regulations issued by the Secretary

under SMCRA.

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice

Reform

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and

has determined that, to the extent

allowed by law, this rule meets the

applicable standards of subsections (a)

and (b) of that section. However, these

standards are not applicable to the

actual language of State regulatory

programs and program amendments

because each program is drafted and

promulgated by a specific State, not by

OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and

30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and

732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed

State regulatory programs and program

amendments submitted by the States

must be based solely on a determination

of whether the submittal is consistent

with SMCRA and its implementing

Federal regulations and whether the

other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730,

731, and 732 have been met.

Executive Order 13211—Regulations

That Significantly Affect the Supply,

Distribution, or Use of Energy

On May 18, 2001, the President issued

Executive Order 13211 which requires

agencies to prepare a Statement of

Energy Effects for a rule that is (1)

considered significant under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a

significant adverse effect on the supply,

distribution, or use of energy. Because

this rule is exempt from review under

Executive Order 12866, and because it

is not expected to have a significant

adverse effect on the supply,

distribution, or use of energy, a

Statement of Energy Effects is not

required.

National Environmental Policy Act

Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C.

1292(d)) provides that a decision on a

proposed State regulatory program

provision does not constitute a major

Federal action within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). A determination has

been made that such decisions are

categorically excluded from the NEPA

process (516 DM 8.4.A).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by the Office of

Management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

which is the subject of this rule is based

upon counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

counterpart Federal regulations.

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:

a. Does not have an annual effect on

the economy of $100 million.

b. Will not cause a major increase in

costs or prices for consumers,

individual industries, federal, state, or

local government agencies, or

geographic regions.

c. Does not have significant adverse

effects on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation, or

the ability of U.S. based enterprises to

compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This determination is based upon the

fact that the State submittal which is the

subject of this rule is based upon

counterpart Federal regulations for

which an analysis was prepared and a

determination made that the Federal

regulation was not considered a major

rule.

Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

on any governmental entity or the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 918

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

November 14, 2001.

Ervin J. Barchenger,

Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent

Regional Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 30 CFR Part 918 is amended

as set forth below:

PART 918—LOUISIANA

1. The authority citation for Part 918

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

2. Section 918.15 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of final

publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 918.15 Approval of Louisiana regulatory

program amendments.

* * * * *

Original amendment

submission date

Date of final

publication Citation/description

*******

June 1, 2001 .................................. 12/14/01 ......................................... Revegetation Success Standards for Pastureland

64750 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

1Alternately, if a VOC is listed as a hazardous air

pollutant (HAP) under section 112 of the Act,

Federal permitting requirements set a threshold of

25 tons per year for any combination of two or more

of these listed HAPs and 10 tons per year of a single

listed HAP.

[FR Doc. 01–30895 Filed 12–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[WI109–01–7339a, FRL–7115–7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Wisconsin; Automobile Refinishing

Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is approving a February 1,

2001, request from Wisconsin to revise

its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for

ozone. This rule revises Wisconsin’s

regulations to control volatile organic

compound emissions from automobile

refinishing operations. In addition, on

July 31, 2001, Wisconsin submitted a

SIP revision that, among other things,

renumbers a portion of the regulations

submitted on February 1, 2001. EPA

acted on the majority of the July 31,

2001 submittal in our approval of the

state’s one-hour ozone attainment

demonstration. We are addressing the

renumbering portion of that submittal

with this action.

DATES: This rule is effective on February

12, 2002, unless EPA receives adverse

written comments by January 14, 2002.

If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA

will publish a timely withdrawal of the

rule in the Federal Register and inform

the public that the rule will not take

effect.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to:

Carlton Nash, Chief, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch, (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois,

60604. You may inspect copies of the

documents relevant to this action during

normal business hours at the following

location: Regulation Development

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois, 60604.

Please contact Kathleen D’Agostino at

(312) 886–1767 before visiting the

Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental

Engineer, Regulation Development

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–1767.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA taking?

II. Why did Wisconsin adopt regulations for

automobile refinishing operations?

III. Why is EPA taking this action?

IV. Is this action final, or may I still submit

comments?

V. What administrative requirements did

EPA consider?

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

EPA is approving revisions to

Wisconsin’s regulations to control

volatile organic compound (VOC)

emissions from automobile refinishing

operations.

II. Why Did Wisconsin Adopt

Regulations for Automobile Refinishing

Operations?

Section 182(b)(1)(A) of the Clean Air

Act (the Act) required states with ozone

nonattainment areas classified as

moderate or above to submit plans to

reduce VOC emissions by at least 15

percent from 1990 baseline levels. As

part of Wisconsin’s 15 percent plan, the

state chose to adopt rules to reduce VOC

emissions from automobile refinishing

operations. EPA approved Wisconsin’s

rules in a February 12, 1996 Federal

Register document (61 FR 5306).

Subsequently, EPA promulgated

National Volatile Organic Compound

Emission Standards for Automobile

Refinish Coatings (40 CFR part 59,

subpart B) in a September 11, 1998

Federal Register document (63 FR

48806).

Wisconsin’s February 1, 2001

submittal revises the state’s automobile

refinishing regulations to ensure

consistency with the Federal rules. In

addition, Wisconsin’s revisions exempt

automobile refinishing sources from

permitting requirements, if they emit

less than 1,666 pounds of VOC per

month, prior to entering any control

equipment (slightly less than 10 tons

per year). This is lower than the

threshold of 40 tons per year for VOCs

set by Federal permitting requirements.1

Wisconsin has also repealed the

emission limitation for cleanup solvents

for non-plastic substrates. The low VOC

solvent required to comply with

Wisconsin’s original rule did not allow

a source to clean or prepare the surface

adequately to accept a primer coating.

As a result, vehicles needed to be

repainted to achieve an acceptable

finish.

III. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

EPA is approving Wisconsin’s rule

revisions because they are consistent

with the Act and consistent with EPA’s

national rule for automobile refinish

coatings, as promulgated on September

11, 1998. EPA’s rule does not contain an

emission limit for cleanup solvent for

non-plastic substrates, and repainting

inadequately prepared surfaces is

counterproductive. The emission level

used to exempt automobile refinishing

operations from permitting

requirements is consistent with other

VOC source category exemption levels,

and nothing the state is proposing is less

stringent than Federal permitting

requirements. EPA is incorporating a

section of the automobile refinishing

regulations that became effective on

September 1, 2001, because portions of

that rule had to be renumbered.

IV. Is This Action Final, or May I Still

Submit Comments?

EPA is publishing this action without

prior proposal, because EPA views this

as a noncontroversial revision and

anticipates no adverse comments.

However, in a separate document in this

Federal Register publication, EPA is

proposing to approve the SIP revision

should adverse written comments be

filed. This action will be effective

without further notice unless EPA

receives relevant adverse written

comments by January 14, 2002. Should

the Agency receive such comment, we

will publish a final rule informing the

public that this action will not take

effect. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time. If we do not receive

comments, this action will be effective

on February 12, 2002.

V. What Administrative Requirements

Did EPA Consider?

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. For

this reason, this action is also not

subject to Executive Order 13211,

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May

22, 2001). This action merely approves

state law as meeting Federal

requirements and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the

Administrator certifies that this rule

will not have a significant economic