[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 132 (Monday, July 12, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37402-37406]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-17491]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH 125-1a; FRL-6375-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Maintenance Plan Revisions; Ohio

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: USEPA is approving a June 1, 1999 request from Ohio for a 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision of the Dayton/Springfield, 
Ohio ozone maintenance plan. The maintenance plan revision establishes 
a new transportation conformity mobile source emissions budget for the 
year 2005. We are also approving the revision of the maintenance plan 
which reestimates point source growth and allots a larger volatile 
organic compounds (VOCs) budget to the area's 2005 mobile source sector 
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. We are 
also correcting a typographical error in the original maintenance plan 
approval.

DATES: This rule is effective on August 26, 1999, unless USEPA receives 
adverse written comments by August 11, 1999. If adverse comment is 
received, USEPA 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: 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 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 Patricia Morris at 
(312) 353-8656 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Morris, 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) 353-8656.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Supplementary Information section is 
organized as follows:

What action is USEPA taking today?
Who is affected by this action?
How did the State support its request?
What is transportation conformity?
What is an emissions budget?
What is a safety margin?
How does this action change the Dayton/Springfield, Ohio maintenance 
plan?
Why is the request approvable?

[[Page 37403]]

What Action Is USEPA Taking Today?

    In this action, we are approving a revision to the maintenance plan 
for the Dayton/Springfield, Ohio, ozone maintenance area. The Dayton/
Springfield, Ohio ozone maintenance area includes the Counties of 
Montgomery, Clark, Greene and Miami Counties. The revision will change 
the mobile source emission budget that is used for transportation 
conformity purposes. The revision will also change the projected growth 
in industrial sources (point sources) from the projections in the 
currently approved maintenance plan. The revision will keep the 
projected total emissions for the area at or below the attainment level 
required by law. This action will allow State or local agencies to 
maintain air quality while providing for transportation growth and 
growth in point and area sources.
    We are also correcting a typographical error in the original 
maintenance plan approval. The original Federal Register approval on 
May 5, 1995, (60 FR 22289) contained a typographical error in Table 1 
showing the VOC emissions from the source categories in the Dayton/
Springfield area. The 2005 VOC emissions for point and area sources are 
incorrect in Table 1. The correct number for point source VOC emissions 
in 2005 should be 98.0 and the correct number for area sources in 2005 
should be 63.8 tons of VOC. These corrected numbers match the original 
submittal from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) and are 
documented in the docket materials. This correction does not change the 
substance of the maintenance plan approval.

Who Is Affected by This Action?

    Primarily, the transportation sector represented by the Ohio 
Department of Transportation and the Miami Valley Regional Planning 
Commission (the metropolitan planning organization) will benefit from 
this revision. Although, the long range transportation plan for the 
Dayton/Springfield area projects higher emissions than currently 
allowed in the maintenance plan, the conformity rule provides that the 
maintenance plan can be revised. The Dayton/Springfield maintenance 
plan does not currently have a ``safety margin'' which can be allocated 
to the transportation sector. In a Federal Register notice (62 FR 
44903) published on August 25, 1997, all of the VOC safety margin was 
allocated to the mobile source budget. Therefore, there is no safety 
margin to allocate.
    Instead, the OEPA and the Regional Air Pollution Control Agency 
have reestimated the projected growth from industrial sources. Current 
projections of industrial growth are less than the projections 
estimated in the approved maintenance plan. The maintenance plan and 
the projections in the maintenance plan were approved on May 5, 1995, 
in the Federal Register (60 FR 22289). These projections allowed for 
substantial growth in industrial sources. The growth in industrial 
sources was offset by reductions from the mobile source sector through 
implementation of the inspection and maintenance program and cleaner 
automobiles. If source growth or population growth were to increase as 
initially projected, the OEPA would need to offset the emissions by 
implementing a reduction strategy to keep the maintenance plan 
emissions at the air quality attainment level.

How Did the State Support This Request?

    The State provided updated emissions projections and budget numbers 
to support their request. On June 1, 1999, Ohio formally submitted to 
USEPA a SIP revision request for the Dayton/Springfield ozone 
maintenance area. A public hearing on this proposal was held on June 3, 
1999. No one from the public commented on the proposed revisions.
    In the submittal, Ohio requested to allocate 5.5 tons per day to 
establish a new 2005 mobile source emissions budgets for VOC for the 
Dayton, Ohio, ozone maintenance area. The State recalculated the 
stationary source growth between the years 1990 and 2005 (the last year 
of the maintenance plan). Stationary sources in 1990 were estimated to 
contribute 37.4 tons per day of VOC. In 2005 stationary sources were 
allowed to grow up to 98.0 (this is the corrected number) tons per day 
of VOC. This is a significant increase in industrial emissions over a 
15 year time frame. Growth of stationary source emissions was not as 
large as earlier anticipated. Based on the revised projections, 
stationary source growth will be reduced to 92.5 tons per day which is 
still a significant potential increase. The State requested that 5.5 
tons per day of VOC be allocated to the mobile source sector for the 
conformity budget. The mobile source budgets are used for 
transportation conformity purposes.

What Is Transportation Conformity?

    Transportation conformity means that the level of emissions from 
the transportation sector (cars, trucks and buses) must be consistent 
with the requirements in the SIP to attain and maintain the air quality 
standards. The Clean Air Act, in section 176(c), requires conformity of 
transportation plans, programs and projects to an implementation plan's 
purpose of attaining and maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards. On November 24, 1993, USEPA published a final rule 
establishing criteria and procedures for determining if transportation 
plans, programs and projects funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. 
or the Federal Transit Act conform to the SIP.
    The transportation conformity rules require an ozone maintenance 
area, such as Dayton/Springfield, to compare the actual projected 
emissions from cars, trucks and buses on the highway network, to the 
mobile source emissions budget established by the maintenance plan. The 
Dayton/Springfield area has an approved maintenance plan. Our approval 
of the maintenance plan on May 5, 1995, established the mobile source 
emissions budgets for transportation conformity purposes. The 
transportation conformity budget was changed on August 25, 1997, when 
USEPA approved a revision to the maintenance plan which allocated the 
2.4 tons per day VOC safety margin to the mobile source budget. At that 
time, the mobile source budget changed from 31.7 tons per day of VOC to 
34.1 tons per day of VOC.

What Is an Emissions Budget?

    An emissions budget is the projected level of controlled emissions 
from the transportation sector (mobile sources) that is estimated in 
the SIP. The SIP controls emissions through regulations, for example, 
on fuels and exhaust levels for cars. The emissions budget concept is 
further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, 
transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also 
describes how to establish the mobile source emissions budget in the 
SIP and how to revise the emissions budget. The transportation 
conformity rule allows the mobile source emissions budget to be changed 
as long as the total level of emissions from all sources remains below 
the attainment level.

What Is a Safety Margin?

    A ``safety margin'' is the difference between the attainment level 
of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions 
(from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of 
emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which 
the area met the air quality health standard. For example: the Dayton/
Springfield area attained the

[[Page 37404]]

one hour ozone standard during the 1989-1991 time period. The State 
uses 1990 as the attainment level of emissions for the area. The 
emissions from point, area and mobile sources in 1990 equaled 131.1 
tons per day of VOC. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency projected 
emissions out to the year 2005 and projected a total of 131.1 tons per 
day of VOC. The safety margin is calculated to be the difference 
between these amounts or, in this case, 0 tons per day of VOC. Table 1 
gives detailed information on the estimated emissions from each source 
category and the safety margin calculation.
    The 2005 emission projections reflect the point, area and mobile 
source changes and reductions and are illustrated in Table 1. Please 
note that these numbers reflect the corrected typographical error to 
the point and area source 2005 numbers.

        Table 1.--NOX and VOC Emissions Budget; and Safety Margin
                      Determinations, Stark County
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Source category                       1990    2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Emissions:
  Point.................................................    37.4    98.0
  Mobile (on-road)......................................   103.6    34.1
  Biogenic..............................................   105.2   105.2
  Area..................................................    54.9    63.8
                                                         ---------------
    Totals..............................................   301.1  301.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety Margin = 1990 total emissions -2005 total emissions = 0 tons/day
  VOC

    The emissions are projected to maintain the area's air quality 
consistent with the air quality health standard. The safety margin 
credit can be allocated to the transportation sector. The total 
emission level, must stay below the attainment level or safety level 
and to be acceptable. The safety margin is the extra safety [points] 
that can be allocated as long as the total level is maintained.

How Does This Action Change the Dayton/Springfield Maintenance 
Plan?

    It raises the budget for mobile sources and lowers the amount of 
expected growth in industrial source (point source) emissions. The 
maintenance plan is designed to provide for future growth while still 
maintaining the ozone air quality standard. Growth in industries, 
population, and traffic is offset with reductions from cleaner cars and 
other emission reduction programs. Through the maintenance plan the 
State and local agencies can manage and maintain air quality while 
providing for growth.
    In the submittal, Ohio requested to change the projected growth of 
stationary source emissions and to use the difference to add 5.5 tons 
per day of VOC to the mobile source emissions budget. The SIP revision 
requests the allocation of 5.5 tons/day VOC, into the area's mobile 
source emissions budget. The 2005 mobile source emissions budget 
showing the maintenance plan changes to stationary and area sources are 
in Table 2. The mobile source emissions budget in Table 2 will be used 
for transportation conformity purposes.
    Table 2 below illustrates that the requested changes can be made to 
the 2005 mobile source budget and that total emissions will still 
remain at the 1990 attainment level of total emissions for the Dayton/
Springfield maintenance area. Since the area would still be at or below 
the 1990 attainment level for the total emissions, this allocation is 
allowed by the conformity rule.

Table 2.--Maintenance Plan Changes to the 2005 Emissions Budget, Dayton/
                               Springfield
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Source category                       1990    2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Emissions:
  Point.................................................    37.4    92.5
  Mobile (on-road)......................................   103.6    39.6
  Biogenic..............................................   105.2   105.2
  Area..................................................    54.9    63.8
                                                         ---------------
    Totals..............................................   301.1  301.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remaining Safety Margin = 1990 total emissions - 2005 total emissions =
  0 tons/day VOC

Why is the Request Approvable?

    After review of the SIP revision request, USEPA finds that the 
requested change in the maintenance plan for the Dayton/Springfield 
area is approvable. The revised growth estimates for stationary sources 
are reasonable because the past data between 1990 and 1998 indicate a 
slower growth rate than in the original maintenance plan. The 5.5 tons 
per day allocated to mobile sources still allows sufficient growth 
margin for the stationary sources and maintains the total emissions for 
the area at the attainment year inventory level as required by the 
transportation conformity regulations.

USEPA Action

    USEPA is approving the requested change to the growth estimates in 
the maintenance plan and the change to the mobile source budget for the 
Dayton/Springfield ozone maintenance area.
    USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because 
USEPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal 
Register publication, USEPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision 
should adverse written comments be filed. This action will be effective 
without further notice unless USEPA receives relevant adverse written 
comment by August 11, 1999. Should the Agency receive such comments, it 
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 no such comments are received, the public 
is advised that this action will be effective on August 26, 1999.

Administrative Requirements

    Administrative Requirements are organized as follows:

A. Executive Order 12866
B. Executive Order 12875
C. Executive Order 13045
D. Executive Order 13084
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
F. Unfunded Mandates
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
K. Petitions for Judicial Review

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

    Under E.O. 12875, USEPA 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. If the mandate is unfunded, USEPA must provide to the 
Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent of USEPA's 
prior consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and 
tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires USEPA to 
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of

[[Page 37405]]

state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely 
input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant 
unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, 
local or tribal governments. The 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.

C. 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 
USEPA 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. USEPA 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 action is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it approves a 
state rule implementing a previously promulgated health or safety-based 
Federal standard, and preserves the existing level of pollution control 
for the affected areas.

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

    Under E.O. 13084, USEPA 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. If the mandate is unfunded, 
USEPA must 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 USEPA'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 USEPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elected 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 rule does not 
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal 
governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 
13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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 final 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 Clean Air 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 
Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, USEPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; 
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, USEPA 
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 USEPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    USEPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of 
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector. 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 to the private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. USEPA will submit a report containing this rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

I. 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 action 
(revising the emissions budgets in Ohio's maintenance plan for Stark 
County) 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.

[[Page 37406]]

J. 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, USEPA 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.
    USEPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

K. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 10, 1999. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Ozone, Nitrogen oxides, Transportation conformity.

    Dated: June 29, 1999.
Francis X. Lyons,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart KK--Ohio

    2. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(12) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1885  Control Strategy: Ozone

    (a) * * *
    (12) Approval--On June 1, 1999, Ohio submitted a revision to the 
ozone maintenance plan for the Dayton/Springfield area. The revision 
consists of revising the point source growth estimates and allocating 
5.5 tons per day of VOCs to the transportation conformity mobile source 
emissions budget. The mobile source VOC budget for transportation 
conformity purposes for the Dayton/Springfield area is now: 39.6 tons 
per day of volatile organic compound emissions for the year 2005. The 
approval also corrects a typographical error in the maintenance plan 
point and area source numbers for 2005.

[FR Doc. 99-17491 Filed 7-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P