[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 98 (Thursday, May 21, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27895-27897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13614]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH115-1; FRL-6100-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Maintenance Plan Revisions; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency, (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is 
proposing to approve an April 27, 1998, request from Ohio, for State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) maintenance plan revisions for the following 
maintenance areas in Ohio: Canton (Stark County), Cleveland (Lorain, 
Cuyahoga, Lake, Ashtabula, Geauga, Medina, Summit and Portage 
Counties), Columbus (Franklin, Delaware and Licking Counties), 
Steubenville (Jefferson County), Toledo (Lucas and Wood Counties), 
Youngstown (Mahoning and Trumbull Counties) as well as Clinton County, 
Columbiana County and Preble County. The revisions would remove the air 
quality triggers from each area's contingency plan. The contingency 
plans were included in these areas' maintenance plans to correct 
violations of the one hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
(NAAQS).

DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be received on or before 
June 22, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for inspection 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 Scott Hamilton at (312) 353-4775 before visiting the 
Region 5 office.
    Written comments should be sent 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Hamilton, Environmental 
Scientist, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-4775.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Attainment Areas in Ohio

    Since the Clean Air Act (CAA) attainment status designations were 
made, all of the Ohio areas listed in the summary section of this 
Federal Register Notice have attained the one hour ozone standard and 
have been redesignated to attainment for ozone. As a requirement to 
being redesignated to attainment, these areas developed maintenance 
plans. The purpose of the maintenance plans is to assure maintenance of 
the one hour ozone NAAQS for at least ten years. Included in the 
maintenance plans were contingency provisions. The purpose of the 
contingency provisions are to identify and correct any violation of the 
one hour ozone NAAQS in a timely fashion. Triggers are included in the 
contingency provisions to identify the need to implement measures and 
correct air quality problems until such time as a revised maintenance 
or attainment plan could be developed to address the level of the air 
quality problem. Triggering events in the contingency plans could be 
linked to ozone air quality and/or an emission level of ozone 
precursors.
    The maintenance plan approvals were finalized by USEPA and 
published in the Federal Register for these Ohio areas as follows: 
Canton and Youngstown (61 FR 3319; January 31, 1996), Cleveland (61 FR 
20458; May 7, 1996), Columbus (61 FR 3591; February 1, 1996), 
Steubenville, Columbiana County and Preble County (60 FR 7453; February 
8, 1995), Toledo (60 FR 39115; August 1, 1995) and Clinton County (61 
FR 11560; March 21, 1996).

II. One Hour Ozone Standard Revocation

    On July 18, 1998, USEPA finalized a revision to the NAAQS for ozone 
which changed the standard from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged 
over one hour, to 0.08 ppm, averaged over eight hours. USEPA is 
revoking the one hour standard in separate rulemakings based on an 
area's attainment of the one hour ozone standard. The first round of 
revocations will be for areas attaining the one hour standard based on 
quality assured air monitoring data for the years 1994-1996. The second 
round of one hour ozone standard revocations will be for areas 
attaining the one hour standard based on quality assured air monitoring 
data for the years 1995-1997. After these two rulemakings are 
finalized, the USEPA intends to publish rulemakings on an annual basis 
revoking the one hour ozone standard for additional areas that come 
into attainment of the one hour standard.
    On January 16, 1998, USEPA published a proposed rule (63 FR 2726) 
in the Federal Register proposing to revoke the one hour ozone standard 
in areas attaining the standard based on quality assured air monitoring 
data for the years 1994-1996 (first round of revocations). In that 
proposal, USEPA proposed to revoke the one hour ozone standard in the 
Ohio areas subject to this proposed action [Canton (Stark County), 
Cleveland (Lorain, Cuyahoga, Lake, Ashtabula, Geauga, Medina, Summit 
and Portage Counties), Columbus (Franklin, Delaware and Licking 
Counties), Steubenville (Jefferson County), Toledo (Lucas and Wood 
Counties), Youngstown (Mahoning and Trumbull Counties)] as

[[Page 27896]]

well as Clinton, Columbiana and Preble Counties.
    On July 16, 1997, President Clinton issued a directive to 
Administrator Browner on implementation of the new ozone standard, as 
well as the current one hour ozone standard (62 FR 38421). In that 
directive the President laid out a plan on how the new ozone and 
particulate matter standards, as well as the current one hour standard, 
are to be implemented. A December 29, 1997, memorandum entitled 
``Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour and Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS'' 
signed by Richard D. Wilson, USEPA's Acting Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation reflected that directive. The purpose of this 
guidance document is to ensure that the momentum gained by States to 
attain the one hour ozone NAAQS was not lost when moving toward 
implementing the eight hour ozone NAAQS.
    The guidance document explains that maintenance plans will remain 
in effect for areas where the one hour standard is revoked; however, 
those maintenance plans may be revised to withdraw certain contingency 
measure provisions that have not been triggered or implemented prior to 
USEPA's determination of attainment and revocation. Where the 
contingency measure is linked to the one hour ozone standard or air 
quality ozone concentrations, the measures may be removed from the 
maintenance plan. Measures linked to non-air quality elements, such as 
emissions increases or vehicle miles traveled, may be removed if the 
State demonstrates that removing the measure will not affect an area's 
ability to attain the eight hour ozone standard.
    In other words, after the one hour standard is revoked for an area, 
USEPA believes it is permissible to withdraw contingency measures 
designed to correct violations of that standard. Therefore, since such 
measures were designed to address future violations of a standard that 
no longer exists, it is no longer necessary to retain them. 
Furthermore, USEPA believes that future attainment and maintenance 
planning efforts should be directed toward attaining the eight hour 
ozone NAAQS.

III. Review of the State Submittal

    In a letter from Donald R. Schregardus, Director, Ohio 
Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) received by USEPA on April 27, 
1998, OEPA officially requested that all air quality triggers be 
deleted from the maintenance plans for the areas in Ohio now attaining 
the one hour ozone standard and where USEPA has proposed to revoke the 
one hour standard (the areas listed in the Summary Section). As part of 
the implementation of the eight hour ozone standard, the State's ozone 
air quality will be evaluated and eight hour attainment and 
nonattainment designations will be made. USEPA believes that Ohio's 
request is consistent with the December 29, 1997, guidance document and 
the July 16, 1997, Presidential Directive, and that the request is 
approvable.
    The OEPA has officially announced a public hearing on this matter 
to be held on June 1, 1998.
    This revision is being proposed under a procedure called parallel 
processing, whereby USEPA proposes rulemaking action concurrently with 
the State's procedures for amending its regulations. If the proposed 
revision is substantially changed USEPA will evaluate those changes and 
may publish another notice of proposed rulemaking. If no substantial 
changes are made other than any consistent with this notice, the USEPA 
will publish a final rulemaking on the revisions. The final rulemaking 
action by USEPA on Ohio's request to revise the maintenance plans to 
remove air quality triggers will occur only after the one hour ozone 
standard has been revoked in final and Ohio's public hearing 
documentation is submitted to the USEPA.
    While Ohio requested that the air quality triggers in Dayton's 
maintenance plan be removed, USEPA has yet to propose revocation of the 
one hour standard for Dayton. Revocation of the one hour standard is a 
prerequisite for revising maintenance plans to remove contingency 
provisions. USEPA will address Dayton in a future rulemaking.

IV. USEPA Proposed Action

    The USEPA is proposing to approve the requested revision to the 
above mentioned maintenance plans in Ohio. The USEPA is parallel 
processing this request concurrent with the state proceedings. Written 
comments must be received by USEPA on or by June 22, 1998.

V. Administrative Requirements

(A) Future Requests

    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing 
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any 
SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be considered 
separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental 
factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory 
requirements.

(B) Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory 
action from Executive Order 12866 review.

(C) Regulatory Flexibility

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. section 600 et seq., 
USEPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the 
impact of any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 
sections 603 and 604. Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule 
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations 
of less than 50,000.
    SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Act 
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements 
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP 
approval does not impose any new requirements, the Administrator 
certifies that it does not have a significant impact on any small 
entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State 
relationship under the Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would 
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of the 
State action. The Clean Air Act forbids USEPA to base its actions 
concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. USEPA, 427 U.S. 
246, 256-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

(D) Unfunded Mandates

    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 
signed into law on March 22, 1995, USEPA must undertake various actions 
in association with 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. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under 
state or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no 
additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or the private 
sector, result from this action.

(E) Audit Privilege and Immunity Law

    Nothing in this action should be construed as making any 
determination or expressing any position regarding Ohio's audit 
privilege and immunity law (Sections 3745.70-3745.73 of the Ohio 
Revised Code ). USEPA will be reviewing the effect of the Ohio audit 
privilege and immunity law on various Ohio environmental programs,

[[Page 27897]]

including those under the Clean Air Act, and taking appropriate 
action(s), if any, after thorough analysis and opportunity for Ohio to 
state and explain its views and positions on the issues raised by the 
law. The action taken herein does not express or imply any viewpoint on 
the question of whether there are legal deficiencies in this or any 
Ohio Clean Air Act program resulting from the effect of the audit 
privilege and immunity law. As a consequence of the review process, the 
regulations subject to the action taken herein may be disapproved, 
federal approval for the Clean Air Act program under which they are 
implemented may be withdrawn, or other appropriate action may be taken, 
as necessary.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen oxides, Implementation 
plans.

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

    Dated: May 7, 1998.
Robert Springer,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region V.
[FR Doc. 98-13614 Filed 5-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P