[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 208 (Thursday, October 28, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58018-58021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28042]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[OH 103-1a; FRL-6464-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio 
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to redesignate Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain 
Counties to the status of areas in attainment of the National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)for sulfur dioxide (SO2). Ohio 
requested this action on October 26, 1995, and provided supplemental 
supporting material to EPA in a letter dated September 14, 1999.
    EPA is also proposing to approve the maintenance plans for 
Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties. The plans are intended to 
ensure maintenance of the NAAQS, and were submitted with the 
redesignation requests.
    In conjunction with these actions, EPA is proposing to approve 
State-adopted emission limits for the following facilities: in 
Coshocton County: Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric--Conesville 
plant; in Gallia County: Ohio Valley Electric Company--Kyger Creek 
plant and Ohio Power--Gavin Plant; and in Lorain County: CEI--Avon Lake 
plant, Ohio Edison--Edgewater Plant, U.S. Steel--Lorain plant, and B.F. 
Goodrich Company--Lorain County plant. These limits would replace 
equivalent limits in the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for these 
three Counties.
    EPA is ``parallel processing'' Ohio's request to redesignate the 
three counties to attainment while Ohio finalizes its rule revisions. 
If Ohio's final submittal is the same as the submittal on which this 
proposal is made and EPA receives no persuasive adverse comments then 
EPA will take final action to approve the redesignation requests. 
Otherwise, EPA will repropose this action.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received by November 
29, 1999.

ADDRESSES: You may send written comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Program Branch (AR-18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604.
    Copies of the revision request are available for inspection at the 
following address: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and 
Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 
(We recommend that you telephone Phuong Nguyen, Environmental 
Scientist, at (312) 886-6701 before visiting the region 5 office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phuong Nguyen at (312) 886-6701.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplemental information section is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information:

    1. What action is EPA proposing to take today?
    2. Why is EPA proposing to take this action?
    3. What is the background for this action?

II. Background on Ohio Submittal

    1. What information did Ohio submit, and what were its requests?
    2. What guidance documents did EPA use in this rulemaking to 
evaluate Ohio's request?

III. State Implementation Plan (SIP)

    1. How do these emission limits compare to the FIP limits?
    2. What are the sources and emission limits that will be 
affected by EPA's action?

IV. Maintenance Plan

    1. How does the maintenance plan apply in these three counties?
    2. What are the reduction requirements?

V. Redesignation Evaluation

    1. What five criteria did EPA use to review the redesignation 
request?
    2. Are these criteria satisfied for Coshocton, Gallia, and 
Lorain counties?

I. General Information

1. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take Today?
    In this action, EPA proposes to approve three SO2 
redesignation requests submitted by the State of Ohio for Coshocton, 
Gallia, and Lorain Counties. EPA also proposes to approve the 
maintenance plans for these counties. Finally, EPA proposes to approve 
State-adopted emission limits for the remaining sources in these three 
counties.
    This action applies parallel processing, in which EPA proposes 
action on proposed State rules based on the expectation that the State 
will finalize its rules as proposed. If the State's final rules differs 
significantly from the proposed rules, then EPA will repropose action.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take This Action?
    EPA is proposing to take this action because the redesignation 
requests meet the five criteria all redesignation requests must meet. 
The emission limits

[[Page 58019]]

in the submittal are equivalent to those allowed by the FIP limits. 
Coshocton, Gallia, Lorain Counties have been designated as 
nonattainment areas for sulfur dioxide but now meet the sulfur dioxide 
NAAQS. The three counties have plans for keeping their sulfur dioxide 
levels within the health-based standard for the next 10 years and 
beyond. The plans require the three counties to consider impacts of 
future activities on air quality and to manage those activities.
3. What Is the Background for This Action?
    EPA promulgated the applicable FIP in 1976. The FIP requires 
significant emission reductions at specific facilities throughout the 
State to attain and maintain the NAAQS for SO2.
    On October 5, 1978, Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties (among 
others) were designated as nonattainment areas for the primary sulfur 
dioxide standards. The State adopted its own regulations in 1979, 
generally imposing limits similar to those promulgated in the FIP. The 
State submitted these regulations for EPA approval in 1980, including 
regulations for Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties.
    The State then withdrew its submittal for selected sources. These 
sources are:

1. Coshocton County:
    --Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric--Conesville plant.
2. Gallia County:
    --Ohio Valley Electric Company--Kyger Creek plant,
    --Ohio Power--Gavin plant.
3. Lorain County:
    --Cleveland Electric Illuminating (CEI)--Avon Lake plant,
    --Ohio Edison--Edgewater plant.
    --U.S. Steel--Lorain plant.
    --B.F. Goodrich Company.

    EPA approved this SIP regulation on January 27, 1981, for 
Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain counties (46 FR 8481) except for the 
source limits withdrawn by the State. The federally promulgated FIP 
regulations, therefore, have remained in effect for the above sources.
    On October 26, 1995, Governor George Voinovich requested that EPA 
redesignate to attainment all remaining SO2 nonattainment 
areas within the State of Ohio, including Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain 
Counties.
    On May 28, 1996, EPA Administrator Browner sent a letter to 
Governor Voinovich informing him that the redesignation request 
depended on EPA approval of State-adopted rules in place of FIP rules.

II. Background on Ohio Submittal

1. What Information Did Ohio Submit and What Were its Requests?
    In June 1999, Ohio e-mailed copies of proposed rule revisions for 
Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties to EPA. On September 14, 1999, 
Ohio submitted additional material requested by EPA to support the 
State's requests to redesignate these Counties to attainment with 
respect to SO2. The state requested parallel processing by 
EPA to approve SIP limits for the specific facilities named above in 
these three counties in place of federal promulgated limits. In 
addition, the State requested approval for the SO2 
maintenance plans for Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties. Finally, 
the State requested approval of its request to redesignate these three 
counties to attainment status for sulfur dioxide.
2. What Guidance Documents Did EPA Use in This Rulemaking To Evaluate 
Ohio's Requests?
    Guidance for these requests includes a September 28, 1994, 
memorandum from the Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, to the Director, Air and 
Radiation Division, Region 5, entitled, ``Response to Request for 
Guidance on Issues with Ohio Sulfur Dioxide Federal Implementation 
Plan''.
    This memorandum sets forth three criteria to be met for the 
approval of State limits that are equivalent to existing FIP limits 
without new modeling. Under the first two criteria, there must be no 
known inadequacy in the original attainment demonstration. Under the 
third criterion, the State limits must reflect no relaxation of 
existing emission limits.
    All three of these criteria are met by the State-promulgated SIP 
limits. Therefore, the revised limits, if adopted and submitted as 
proposed, can be considered to be adequate to assure attainment without 
further modeling.
    Another guidance document relevant to this rulemaking is an April 
21, 1983 memorandum entitled ``Section 107 Designation Policy Summary'' 
from the Director of the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, which requires eight consecutive quarters of data showing 
SO2 NAAQS attainment before an area can be redesignated. A 
county violates the NAAQS when its SO2 level exceeds the 
NAAQS more than once in any year. Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain 
Counties have eight consecutive quarters of data showing SO2 
NAAQS attainment.
    Finally, a September 4, 1992, EPA policy memorandum on ``Procedures 
for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' was also 
relevant to this rulemaking. This memorandum explains that additional 
dispersion modeling is not required in support of an SO2 
redesignation request if an adequate modeled attainment demonstration 
was previously submitted and approved as part of the implemented SIP, 
and no indication of an existing air quality deficiency exists. These 
conditions are met here.

III. SIP Approval

1. How Do These Emission Limits Compare to the FIP Limits?
    The proposed emission limits are equivalent to the FIP limits for 
Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties, respectively. As a result of 
these limits, attainment in Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain counties is 
assured on the basis of State-adopted, EPA-approved limits. 
Consequently, there is no further need for federally promulgated 
limits, and the corresponding FIP limits for these sources in all three 
counties can be rescinded.
2. What Are the Sources and Emission Limits That Will Be Affected by 
the SIP Approval?
    The table below shows the sources and state emission limits that 
will be affected by the SIP approval.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             County names                         State emission limits                     Source names
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coshocton County.....................  --OAC 3745-18-22 (B)                        --Columbus and Southern Ohio
                                                                                    Electric; Conesville.
Gallia County........................  --OAC 3745-18-33 (B)                        --Ohio Valley Electric
                                                                                    Company; Kyger Creek.
                                       --OAC 3745-18-33 (D)                        --Ohio Power-Gavin.
Lorain County........................  --OAC 3745-18-53 (B)                        --CEI-Avon Lake.
                                       --OAC 3745-18-53 (D)                        --Ohio Edision; Edgewater
                                                                                    Plant.
                                       --OAC 3745-18-53 (E)                        --U.S. Steel.
                                       --OAC 3745-18-53 (G)                        --B.F. Goodrich.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 58020]]

IV. Maintenance Plan Approval

1. How Does the Maintenance Plan Apply in These Three Counties?
    Ohio's attainment plan for sulfur dioxide provides for attainment 
even with major sources emitting their maximum allowable emissions. 
Therefore, maintenance is provided by assuring that minor source 
impacts do not increase significantly. The principal minor sources are 
distant point sources and diesel vehicles.
2. What Are the Reduction Requirements?
    Title IV reductions and the required national conversion to low 
sulfur diesel fuel were the identified maintenance plan provisions 
contained in the approved redesignation for Washington and Morgan 
Counties in 1994 (59 FR 48403). These reductions will also be realized 
in the other nonattainment counties such as Coshocton, Gallia, and 
Lorain.

V. Redesignation Evaluation Criteria

1. What Five Criteria Did EPA Use To Review the Redesignation Requests?
    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (Act), as amended in 
1990, establishes requirements to be met before an area may be 
redesignated from nonattainment to attainment. The criteria used to 
review redesignation requests are derived from the Act. An area can be 
redesignated to attainment if the following five conditions are met:
    (A) The area has attained the applicable NAAQS.
    (B) The area has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of the 
Act.
    (C) The EPA has determined that the improvement in air quality in 
the area is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions.
    (D) The EPA has determined that the maintenance plan for the area 
has met all of the requirements of section 175A of the Act.
    (E) The State has met all requirements applicable to the area under 
section 110 and part D of the Act.
2. Are These Five Criteria Satisfied for Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain 
Counties?

A. Demonstrated Attainment of the NAAQS

    Relevant Agency guidance is provided in both the April 21, 1983, 
and September 4, 1992 guidance documents cited above. The April 21, 
1983 memorandum explains that eight consecutive quarters of data 
showing SO2 NAAQS attainment are required for redesignation. 
The September 4, 1992 guidance explains that the area must have no more 
than one exceedance per year.
    Ohio's September 14, 1999, submittal provides ambient monitoring 
data showing that Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain counties have met the 
NAAQS for the years 1980-1995.
    Dispersion modeling is commonly used to demonstrate attainment of 
the SO2 NAAQS. A modeling analysis was done in 1976 to show 
that, under all allowed operating scenarios, the emission limits in 
these three counties' SO2 SIPs would lead to attainment and 
maintenance of the SO2 standards. According to the September 
4, 1992 memorandum, no further dispersion modeling is needed for the 
counties' redesignation. Ohio has provided evidence that sources in 
these counties are complying with these limits.
    Based on this evidence, EPA concludes that emissions are 
sufficiently low to assure attainment throughout these areas currently 
designated nonattainment.

B. Fully Approved SIP

    The SIP for the area at issue must be fully approved under section 
110(k) of the Act and must satisfy all requirements that apply.
    EPA's guidance for implementing section 110 of the Act is discussed 
in the General Preamble to Title I (44 FR 20372, April 14, 1979; and 57 
FR 13498, April 16, 1992). The SO2 SIP for Coshocton, 
Gallia, and Lorain counties met the requirements of section 110 of the 
Act, and EPA approved the SIP on January 27, 1981, except that EPA did 
not take action for a limited set of sources.
    State limits for the remaining set of specific sources in 
Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties are being proposed for approval 
in this rulemaking.

C. Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions

    Coshocton, Gallia, Lorain Counties attained the SO2 
standards by implementing the SO2 SIP controls.
    The reductions in SO2 emissions primarily come from 
converting some fuel-burning sources to lower sulfur content fuels, and 
to shutting down various types of sources. The use of lower-sulfur 
``cleaner'' fuels is ensured by the facilities'' air emission permits 
and federally enforceable SIP regulations.

D. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan

    EPA has concluded that the combination of limitations on maximum 
allowable emissions from major point sources and implementation of 
programs that will yield reductions in minor source emissions will 
assure maintenance of the standards. Approval of the maintenance plan 
is being proposed in today's action.

E. Part D and Other Section 110 Requirements

    With the approval of limits proposed today, along with the approval 
of limits and attainment demonstration published January 27, 1981 (46 
FR 8481), Ohio has met the relevant requirements.

VI. Proposed Rulemaking Action

    In summary, EPA is proposing to approve State-adopted emission 
limits for 7 sources in Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties. In 
addition, EPA is proposing to approve the SO2 maintenance 
plan for Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties as adequately ensuring 
that attainment will be maintained. We are proposing to rescind the FIP 
limits for Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties because we are also 
proposing to replace these FIP limits with the State limits. Finally, 
EPA is proposing to approve redesignation requests from the State of 
Ohio which were submitted on September 14, 1999.

VII. Administration Requirements

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 Orders on Federalism

    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. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA'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 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 rule does not create a mandate on state, 
local or tribal governments.

[[Page 58021]]

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.
    On August 4, 1999, President Clinton issued a new executive order 
on federalism, Executive Order 13132 [64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999)], 
which will take effect on November 2, 1999. In the interim, current 
Executive Order 12612 [52 FR 41685 (October 30, 1987)] on federalism 
still applies. This rule will not have a substantial direct effect on 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 12612. 
The rule affects only one State, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act.

C. Executive Order 13045

    This Order regarding 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.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve 
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA 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 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 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 EPA 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, EPA 
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, 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.
    EPA 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. 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 a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, 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 action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, sulfur dioxide.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: October 20, 1999.
Francis X. Lyons,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 99-28042 Filed 10-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P