[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 9, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30937-30939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-14596]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[FRL-6344-6]


Identification of Additional Ozone Areas Attaining the 1-Hour 
Standard and to Which the 1-Hour Standard is No Longer Applicable

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to identify seven additional ozone areas 
where the 1-hour standard no longer applies. Thus, upon finalization of 
this proposed action, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for ozone 
will be amended to reflect such changes. On July 18, 1997, EPA provided 
by rule that the 1-hour ozone standard would no longer apply to an area 
based on a determination by EPA that the area has attained that 
standard. The 1-hour standard will continue to apply to areas for which 
EPA has not made a determination through rulemaking. The EPA has 
previously taken final action regarding the applicability of the 1-hour 
standard for other areas on June 5, 1998 and July 22, 1998. The seven 
additional proposed areas are: Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY; Pittsburgh-
Beaver Valley, PA; Lancaster, PA; Sunland Park, NM; LaFourche Parish, 
LA; Kansas City, MO-KS; and Spalding County, GA.

DATES: Your comments must be submitted on or before July 9, 1999 in 
order to be considered.

ADDRESSES: You may comment in various ways:
    On paper. Send paper comments (in duplicate, if possible) to the 
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention: 
Docket No. A-99-10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., 
SW, Room M-1500, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 260-7548.
    Electronically. Send electronic comments to EPA at: A-and-R-
D[email protected]. Avoid sending confidential business 
information. We accept comments as e-mail attachments or on disk. 
Either way, they must be in WordPerfect 5.1 or 6.0 or ASCII file 
format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 
You may file your comments on this proposed rule online at many Federal 
Depository Libraries. Be sure to identify all comments and data by 
Docket number A-99-10.
    Public inspection. You may read the proposed rule (including paper 
copies of comments and data submitted electronically, minus anything 
claimed as confidential business information) at the Docket and 
Information Center. They are available for public inspection from 8:00 
a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We 
may charge a reasonable fee for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about this notice should be 
addressed to Annie Nikbakht (policy) or Barry Gilbert (air quality 
data), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality 
Strategies and Standards Division, Ozone Policy and Strategies Group, 
MD-15, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-5246/5238 
or e-mail to [email protected] or 
[email protected]. To ask about policy matters or 
monitoring data for a specific geographic area, call one of these 
contacts:

Region III--Marcia Spink (215) 814-2104, Region IV--Karla McCorkle 
(404) 562-9043,

[[Page 30938]]

Region V--William Jones (312) 886-6058,
Region VI--Lt. Mick Cote (214) 665-7219,
Region VII--Royan Teter (913) 551-7609.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this proposed action?
II. What action is EPA proposing to take today?
III. What does the air quality data for the areas subject to today's 
proposed rule look like?
IV. What is the effect of the revocation?
V. What administrative requirements are considered in today's 
proposed rule?

I. What Is the Background for This Proposed Action?

    On July 16, 1997 (62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997), we issued a 
regulation replacing the 1-hour ozone standard with an 8-hour standard 
at a level of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). The form of the 8-hour 
standard is based on the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest 
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each 
monitor within an area. The new primary standard, which became 
effective on September 16, 1997, provides increased protection to the 
public, especially children and other at-risk populations.
    Also, on July 16, 1997, we announced that we were delaying 
revocation of the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard 
(NAAQS) until areas attain the 1-hour NAAQS. We did this to provide 
continuity in public health protection during the transition to the new 
NAAQS. We provided, by regulation, that the 1-hour standard would no 
longer apply to an area upon a determination by EPA that the area has 
attained the 1-hour standard.
    On July 16, 1997, President Clinton issued a memorandum (62 FR 
38421, July 18, 1997) to the Administrator of EPA indicating that 
within 90 days of our issuing the new 8-hour standard, we would publish 
an action identifying ozone areas to which the 1-hour standard would no 
longer apply. The memorandum recognized that for areas where the air 
quality did not currently attain the 1-hour standard, the 1-hour 
standard would continue in effect. The provisions of subpart 2 of title 
I of the Clean Air Act (CAA) would also apply to currently designated 
nonattainment areas until EPA determines that the area has air quality 
meeting the 1-hour standard.
    On June 5, 1998 (63 FR 31014) and July 22, 1998 (63 FR 39432), we 
issued final rules for many areas because they had attained the 1-hour 
standard and so the 1-hour standard no longer applies to these areas.

II. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take Today?

    Today we are proposing to revoke the 1-hour standard in seven more 
areas that we determined are not violating the 1-hour standard. The 
newly identified areas are: Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY; Pittsburgh-
Beaver Valley, PA; Lancaster, PA; Sunland Park, NM; LaFourche Parish, 
LA; Kansas City, MO-KS; and Spalding County, GA.

III. What Does the Air Quality Data for the Areas Subject to 
Today's Proposed Rule Look Like?

    Today's proposal, to determine that these areas are attaining the 
1-hour standard and thus no longer subject to the 1-hour standard, is 
based upon analysis of quality-assured, ambient air quality monitoring 
data showing no violations of the 1-hour ozone standard based on the 
most recent data available, i.e., 1996-1998 data. Detailed air quality 
data used for today's proposal are in the Technical Support Document to 
Docket No. A-99-10. The method for determining attainment of the ozone 
NAAQS is in 40 CFR 50.9 and appendix H to that section. The level of 
the 1-hour primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone is 0.12 ppm.

IV. What Is the Effect of the Revocation?

    Once we determine that the 1-hour standard no longer applies to an 
area, the area is no longer subject to the nonattainment area planning 
requirements of subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA (section 
182). This is because the nonattainment requirements in subpart 2 apply 
only for purposes of the 1-hour standard. Therefore, any sanctions or 
Federal implementation plan clocks started, under sections 110 or 179 
of the CAA and 40 CFR 52.31 with respect to planning requirements in 
section 182 of the CAA, are no longer applicable when we issue a final 
rule determining the area has attained the 1-hour standard.
    Moreover, the conformity requirements of section 176 would no 
longer apply to areas unless they had a maintenance plan approved under 
section 175A. With respect to new source review requirements, whether 
part D new source review requirements or part C prevention of 
significant deterioration (PSD) requirements applies, will depend on 
the particular approved SIP provisions applicable to the areas.
    Finally, given that the designations of these areas were based upon 
the 1-hour ozone standard, which will no longer apply, the designation 
will be replaced in part 81 of the CFR by an indication that the 1-hour 
ozone standard is no longer applicable.

V. What Administrative Requirements Are Considered in Today's 
Proposed Rule?

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 
the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is 
``significant'' and, therefore, subject to Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the E.O. The OMB is 
exempting this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604), 
unless EPA certifies 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. The EPA is 
proposing to certify that this rule, in its final form, will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because 
the determination that the 1-hour standard ceases to apply does not 
subject any entities to any additional requirements.

C. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 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 
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must 
select the most cost-effective 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.
    The EPA is proposing that today's action, if finalized, would not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in

[[Page 30939]]

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 imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, 
result from this action.

D. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    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 E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health 
or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory 
actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the 
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to 
influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 
13045 because this is not an economically significant regulatory action 
as defined by E.O. 12866, and it implements a previously promulgated 
health or safety-based Federal standard.

E. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership

    Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to provide to OMB a description of 
the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of the 
affected State, local and tribal governments; the nature of their 
concerns; copies of any written communications from the governments; 
and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In 
addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective process 
permitting elected officials and other representatives of State, local 
and tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the 
development of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded 
mandates.''
    Today's proposed rule does not create a mandate on State, local or 
tribal governments. The proposed rule does not impose any enforceable 
duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) 
of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute that significantly 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, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to 
provide to OMB, 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, E.O. 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. The identified areas are not 
located in tribal lands, and this proposed action does not involve or 
impose any requirements that affect Indian tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposal does not contain any information collection 
requirements which requires OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

H. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice

    Under E.O. 12898, each Federal agency must make achieving 
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 
activities on minorities and low-income populations. Today's proposed 
action (identifying additional ozone areas where the 1-hour standard is 
no longer applicable) does not adversely affect minorities and low-
income populations because the new, more stringent 8-hour ozone 
standard is in effect and provides increased protection to the public, 
especially children and other at-risk populations.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing new regulations. To comply with 
NTTAA, the EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this proposed action. 
Today's proposed action does not require the public to perform 
activities conducive to the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. on May 12, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-14596 Filed 6-7-99; 10:42 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P