[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71515-71520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-30468]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH154-1; FRL-7415-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio 
Particulate Matter

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: USEPA is proposing action on a variety of revisions to 
particulate matter regulations submitted by Ohio on July 18, 2000. 
USEPA is proposing to approve revisions to the form of opacity limits 
for utility and steel mill storage piles and roadways. USEPA is also 
proposing to approve formalization of existing requirements for 
continuous emission monitoring for certain types of facilities, 
criteria for the state to issue equivalent visible emission limits, and 
revised limits for stationary internal combustion engines. USEPA is 
proposing to disapprove authority for revising emission limits for Ford 
Motor's Cleveland Casting Plant via Title V permit modifications.

DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must arrive on or before 
January 2, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation 
Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604.
    Copies of the State's submittal are available for inspection at the 
following address: (We recommend that you telephone John Summerhays at 
(312) 886-6067, before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation 
Division (AR-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Regulation 
Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6067.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document is organized as follows:

I. Background
II. Revisions to Opacity Limits for Utilities
III. Revisions to Opacity Limits for Steel Companies
IV. Criteria for State-Issued Visible Emissions Limits
V. Revisions to Limits via Title V Permit
VI. Other Submittal Elements
VII. Summary of USEPA Action
VIII. Administrative Requirements

[[Page 71516]]

I. Background

    Ohio adopted major revisions to its particulate matter regulations 
in 1991, addressing requirements of the Clean Air Act amendments of 
1977 and 1990. Ohio has submitted and USEPA has approved those 
regulations. (See 59 FR 27464, May 27, 1994, and 61 FR 29662, June 12, 
1996) However, several companies appealed those regulations to the 
state Environmental Review Board. As a result of lengthy discussions 
aimed at resolving these appeals, Ohio adopted an assortment of 
revisions to its particulate matter regulations on December 17, 1997. 
Ohio submitted the revised regulations to USEPA on July 18, 2000.
    The submitted regulations reflect several significant revisions to 
prior particulate matter regulations. First, Ohio has redesigned the 
limits on visible emissions from roadways and storage pile operations 
at utility storage piles. Second, Ohio has similarly redesigned the 
visible emission limits for roadways and storage piles at iron and 
steel facilities. Third, Ohio has established criteria for determining 
the appropriate visible emissions limit for cases where a source meets 
its mass emission limit but cannot comply with the standard visible 
emissions limit. These revisions are intended to provide objective 
criteria by which the state can establish alternate visible emission 
limits without need for State Implementation Plan (SIP) review by 
USEPA. Fourth, Ohio adopted provisions by which Ford could modify its 
limits via amendments to its Title V permit. Ohio further made a 
variety of other revisions, including adoption of a rule requiring 
continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) that are already required 
in permits, updating the form and content of the limits for stationary 
internal combustion engines, updating the rule on contingency measures, 
and removing an appendix that provided guidance to state permit 
writers. Finally, Ohio has modified the limits for several facilities 
in Cuyahoga County (the Cleveland area), including Ford, LTV, and 
General Chemical.
    Based on discussions with USEPA, Ohio is conducting a further 
assessment of whether the revised limits in Cuyahoga County suffice to 
assure attainment of the annual particulate matter standard. USEPA is 
deferring action on these revisions pending receipt of this further 
assessment. The remaining elements of Ohio's submittal are addressed in 
today's action.

II. Revisions to Opacity Limits for Utilities

    A consortium of utility companies requested a variety of revisions 
to limitations applicable to fugitive emissions from their coal storage 
piles. The previous state rule included in the current SIP limited 
visible emissions to 13 minutes per hour. The revised rule limits 
opacity from material handling operations to 20 percent opacity, 
assessed as a 3-minute average. The revised rule sets a separate limit 
for vehicle operations on coal piles (not including vehicle exhaust), 
also set at 20 percent opacity as a 3-minute average. The revised rule 
retains the 13 minutes per hour visible emissions limit for wind 
erosion off storage piles, the same limit for unpaved roads, and a 6 
minutes per hour visible emissions limit for paved roads.
    The revised rules also amend certain aspects of the methods by 
which opacity readings are taken. Observations for material handling at 
utility coal piles are to be taken ``where the fugitive dust plume is 
distinctly separate from the falling material and from the surface of 
the pile.'' Observations of opacity from vehicles moving on coal piles 
are to be taken at or above the top of the vehicle and at least one 
vehicle length from the rear of the vehicle, so as to be outside the 
immediate wake of the vehicle.
    USEPA views these revised limits as having approximately the same 
stringency as the previous limits. All of these facilities are in areas 
attaining the air quality standards for particles nominally 10 microns 
and smaller in aerodynamic diameter (PM10), and so both the 
prior limits and the revised limits are intended only to assure fairly 
modest precautions to avoid excess fugitive emissions. While opacity 
observations both at or above vehicle height and at least one vehicle 
length away will be lower than opacity observations at more typical 
observation points (about a meter above ground), USEPA nevertheless 
anticipates that this limit will require a similar level of control as 
was expected under the previous limit. USEPA also views as reasonable 
the provision to avoid observing visible emissions where these 
observations can be confounded by falling material or the surface of 
the pile. Therefore, USEPA believes that the proposed revisions to 
limits for fugitive emissions from utility coal piles given in Rule 
3745-17-07(B)(7) are approvable.
    Ohio also revised the test method for observing visible emissions 
on utility roadways and parking areas. The revised rule, in Rule 3745-
17-03(B)(4)(d), states that observations of visible emissions on 
roadways and parking areas are to be taken at a fixed location at a 
height four feet above ground. In most contexts, USEPA rejects 
observing visible emissions at a fixed location, requiring instead that 
each observation be taken wherever the plume is densest. However, since 
a roadway dictates a fixed path for vehicles, thus preventing 
circumvention by vehicles taking variable paths on the roadway, and 
since the distribution of emissions along the road will not change from 
vehicle traverse to vehicle traverse, USEPA accepts this test method 
feature for this particular source type.

III. Revisions to Opacity Limits for Steel Companies

    Ohio's revised Rule 3745-17-07, specifically new provisions in 
3745-17-07(B)(8), specify revised opacity limits for Ohio steel 
companies that resemble some of the revised limits for utilities. The 
limit for material handling operations is the same 20 percent opacity 
limit based on the same 3-minute average method. For wind erosion, 
while the rules for utilities retain the prior limit of 13 minutes of 
visible emissions per hour, the revised rules subject wind erosion at 
steel plants to a limit of 10 percent opacity as a 3-minute average.
    The limits for fugitive emissions from vehicle operations are based 
on a new test method originally used by Illinois. In this method, 
opacity readings are initiated when a vehicle passes the observer, with 
follow-up readings taken 5 and 10 seconds later. These 3 readings are 
taken for each of 4 vehicle passes. The average of these 12 readings 
must not exceed 10 percent. This 10 percent limitation applies both to 
vehicles traversing storage piles and to vehicles traveling on plant 
roadways and parking areas.
    USEPA supports use of the Illinois method, which focuses opacity 
readings on the times emissions are occurring and thus is not unduly 
affected by the number of vehicles that pass by. Although limited 
information exists as to the emission levels required by for example a 
10 percent opacity limit under this method, USEPA's judgment is that 
this limit requires a similar control level as the previous limit of 13 
minutes of visible emissions per hour. USEPA also believes that the 
other limits being applied to fugitive dust from iron and steel 
facilities in Rule 3745-17-07(B)(8) are also at least approximately 
equivalent to the prior limits.

[[Page 71517]]

    Unlike most of Ohio's steel mills, two mills are in areas that were 
previously designated nonattainment. In such areas, the state must show 
that control requirements for relevant source suffice to assure 
attainment. Ohio's rule changes alter the control requirements for one 
of these mills, specifically LTV Steel's Cleveland Works facilities. As 
noted previously, Ohio is conducting a further evaluation of the impact 
of various Cleveland area limit revisions, and USEPA is deferring 
action on these changes pending this further evaluation.
    Ohio also changed the limitations in Rule 3745-17-13 (E) and (F) 
governing Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, replacing the visible emission 
limitations applicable to fugitive dust with detailed requirements for 
the work practices the company must undertake to limit fugitive dust. 
USEPA views the work practice requirements given in the new Appendix A 
to Rule 3745-17-13 as likely to achieve approximately the same level of 
control as was required by the previous visible emission limitations. 
No other changes were made to the limitations applicable to Wheeling-
Pittsburgh Steel. Therefore, USEPA believes that the revisions for 
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel are approvable without any further attainment 
demonstration.

IV. Criteria for State-Issued Visible Emissions Limits

    The current SIP provides the option for sources to justify source-
specific stack opacity limits in lieu of the standard stack opacity 
limit. The standard stack opacity limit supplements mass emission 
limits by providing an additional means of requiring effective emission 
control. However, some sources can meet applicable mass emission limits 
and yet cannot meet the standard stack opacity limit. For these 
sources, the SIP provides the option for the source to demonstrate that 
an alternative opacity limit corresponds to compliance with the mass 
emission limit, or more precisely that compliance with the alternative 
opacity limit suffices to indicate compliance with the mass emission 
limit. Ohio labels this an equivalent visible emission limit.
    In the current SIP, when the State concludes that an equivalent 
visible emission limit is warranted, the State must submit a source-
specific request with suitable justification to USEPA. In the revised 
rules, Ohio has given itself the authority to establish federally 
enforceable equivalent visible emission limits without requiring USEPA 
review, based on detailed criteria inserted into the rules. USEPA may 
approve the revised rules only if these criteria would lead Ohio to 
establish the same equivalent visible emission limit that USEPA would 
establish.
    The prerequisites for equivalent visible emission limits are given 
in Rule 3745-17-07(C). The source must demonstrate compliance with its 
mass emission limit. The source must observe opacity during the mass 
emissions test. The source must be ``operated and maintained so as to 
minimize the opacity of the emissions during the [mass emissions] 
test.'' An equivalent visible emission limit may be established only if 
opacity exceeds the standard opacity limits despite satisfaction of 
these requirements.
    If the source satisfies these prerequisites, Ohio must then follow 
the detailed procedures in Engineering Guide numbers 13 and 15 
(versions effective June 20, 1997) as referenced in Rule 3745-17-
07(C)(4) to determine the numerical value of the equivalent visible 
emission limit. In cases where the average of three emission test runs 
shows compliance with mass emission limits despite one or two of these 
runs exceeding the emission limit, an equivalent visible emission limit 
may be derived only from test runs that show emissions at or below the 
emission limit. Since the general opacity limit has two parts, 
equivalent visible emission limits may have two parts as well. 
Specifically, the general opacity limit requires 6-minute average 
opacity values to be at or below 20 percent, except for one 6-minute 
average opacity that may be as high as 60 percent. Equivalent visible 
emission limits may be set in lieu of either or both of these general 
limits. If any 6-minute average opacity exceeds 60 percent, despite 
compliance with the mass emission limit and minimization of opacity, 
the higher value may be set as a once-per-hour 6-minute average opacity 
limit. If any hour's second highest 6-minute average opacity exceeds 20 
percent, again despite compliance with the mass emission limit and 
minimization of opacity, the highest second highest 6-minute average 
opacity value would be set as a limit on the second highest 6-minute 
average opacity.
    USEPA follows essentially the same criteria and procedures in 
setting equivalent visible emission limits for new source performance 
standards pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations part 60.11(e) (40 
CFR 60.11(e)). If a source subject to a new source performance standard 
in 40 CFR part 60 cannot meet an applicable opacity limit, it may 
petition USEPA for an equivalent visible emission limit. Under 40 CFR 
60.11(e)(7), ``[USEPA] will grant such a petition upon a demonstration 
by the owner or operator that the affected facility and associated air 
pollution control equipment was operated and maintained in a manner to 
minimize the opacity of emissions during the performance tests; that 
the performance tests were performed under the conditions established 
by [USEPA], and that the affected facility and associated air pollution 
control equipment were incapable of being adjusted or operated to meet 
the applicable opacity standard.'' Under 40 CFR 60.11(e)(8), USEPA sets 
an equivalent visible emission limit at the maximum level that is 
consistent with compliance with the mass emission limit.
    Ohio's criteria for setting equivalent visible emission limits 
closely parallel USEPA's criteria in 40 CFR 60.11(e). Ohio has an 
explicit prerequisite that affected facility and associated air 
pollution control equipment was operated and maintained in a manner so 
as to minimize the opacity. Rule 3745-17-07(C)(3)(a) dictates that the 
performance tests must be conducted in accordance with conditions and 
procedures accepted by Ohio. Although Ohio's rule does not have an 
explicit prerequisite of the facility and control equipment being 
incapable of being adjusted or operated to meet the opacity limits, 
USEPA views this prerequisite as part of the prerequisite for 
minimizing emissions. Thus, if in USEPA's judgment the facility could 
meet the general opacity limits through adjustments or changes in 
operation of the facility and/or control equipment, USEPA would 
conclude that the source has failed the prerequisite for operating the 
facility and control equipment so as to minimize opacity.
    USEPA thus concludes that Ohio imposes the same prerequisites for 
granting equivalent visible emission limits as USEPA. Further, Ohio has 
provided specific procedures by which their equivalent visible emission 
limits would be set at appropriate levels. Therefore, USEPA believes 
that it is appropriate to authorize Ohio to issue equivalent visible 
emission limits according to these criteria without source-specific 
USEPA review.

V. Revisions to Limits via Title V Permit

    In Rule 3745-17-12(I)(50), Ohio authorizes use of Title V permits 
to establish an alternative set of emission limits at Ford Motor 
Company's Cleveland Casting Plant. This paragraph identifies several 
elements of procedure for the state to follow, much of which reflects 
standard Title V procedures for

[[Page 71518]]

permit modifications. Ohio must give USEPA 45 days' notice of the 
proposed Title V permit modifications. Ohio shall not issue the permit 
modifications if USEPA objects to the permit modification, unless and 
until USEPA's objection is resolved. Ford Motor Company must provide a 
demonstration using modeling consistent with USEPA's modeling 
guidelines that the alternative set of limits assures attainment of the 
air quality standards for PM10. Once the alternative set of limits are 
in effect in issued permit modifications, Ford no longer needs to 
comply with the superseded limits in Rule 3745-17-12(I).
    Rule 3745-17-12(I)(50) also provides the option of amending Ford's 
emission limitations via new source permit issued under Rule 3745-31-
02. In accordance with new source permitting procedures, USEPA and 
other interested parties would have 30 days to comment, and permit 
issuance would not be contingent on USEPA objections being resolved. 
Although new source permits are issued only if at least one emission 
unit is newly constructed or modified, such permits may also amend the 
limitations for other, existing and unmodified units. Ordinarily, such 
limitations supplement and do not supersede any SIP limits that apply 
to the units. However, in this case, Rule 3745-17-12(I)(50) provides 
that the new source permit limits would supersede the SIP limits, and 
Ford's Cleveland Casting Plant need not comply with the limits in the 
SIP so long as it complies with the limits in the new source permit.
    Ohio also added Rule 3745-17-12(I)(51). This paragraph states that 
once a permit has been issued in accordance with Rule 3745-17-12(I)(50) 
that amends the requirements applicable to Ford, Ohio shall revise Rule 
3745-17-12(I) to become consistent with the revised control strategy.
    USEPA believes that the Clean Air Act does not authorize these 
revisions. Section 504 in Title V of the Clean Air Act provides that 
permits required under Title V must include provisions ``as are 
necessary to assure compliance with applicable requirements of [the 
Clean Air Act], including the requirements of the applicable 
implementation plan.'' That is, these permits must assure compliance 
with the existing implementation plan. The permits may not change the 
implementation plan or assure compliance with an alternative set of 
provisions that fail in any way to assure compliance with the existing 
implementation plan.
    If a state wishes to revise its implementation plan, it must pursue 
the revisions in accordance with section 110 in Title I of the Clean 
Air Act, entitled ``Implementation Plans.'' Section 110 includes 
detailed criteria and a detailed review process for state 
implementation plan revisions. Congress clearly designed a process 
involving substantial USEPA oversight of revisions to SIPs, 
specifically providing USEPA with a much longer time for review of SIPs 
than for Title V permits. The first step in review of implementation 
plan revisions is a review for completeness, including whether the 
state has provided adequate technical information to judge the merits 
of the revision; no counterpart to this step is provided in USEPA's 
review of Title V permits. Section 110(k) then grants USEPA 12 months 
to review proposed revisions to implementation plans, in stark contrast 
to the 45 days for USEPA review of proposed Title V permits. Finally, 
state implementation plans under section 110 remain unchanged unless 
USEPA takes affirmative action approving revisions to the plan, whereas 
Title V permits take effect in the absence of USEPA raising timely 
objections to the permit. Thus, the provision in Ohio's Rule 3745-17-
12(I)(50) for using the Title V permit process to change emission 
limits that are at the core of Ohio's implementation plan for meeting 
the PM10 standard in the Cleveland area is clearly contrary to the 
structure and provisions of the Clean Air Act.
    Rule 3745-17-12(I)(50) is also contrary to USEPA's regulations 
addressing the contents of Title V permits and their relationship to 
state implementation plans. Regulations for Title V permits in 40 CFR 
70.1 define ``applicable requirements'' as, among other things, ``[a]ny 
standard or other requirement provided for in the applicable 
implementation plan approved or promulgated by EPA through rulemaking 
under title I of the Act''. The first and foremost elements of Title V 
permit content, as described in 40 CFR 70.6(a)(1), are provisions to 
``assure compliance with all applicable requirements''. Neither here 
nor elsewhere in 40 CFR part 70 does USEPA authorize a Title V permit 
to modify applicable requirements.
    In contrast, 40 CFR part 51 has extensive guidance on revisions to 
implementation plans. Appendix V to 40 CFR part 51 defines criteria for 
judging whether a submittal is complete. As stated in 40 CFR 51.103, 
``[r]evisions of a plan * * * will not be considered part of an 
applicable plan until such revisions have been approved by [USEPA] in 
accordance with this part.''
    Importantly, with the exception of periodic monitoring to assure 
compliance, neither 40 CFR part 70 nor the Title V of the Clean Air Act 
give a permitting authority the authority to create new requirements 
through a Title V permit. In some cases, USEPA allows permitting 
authorities to include in Title V permits conditions that differ from 
but are equivalent to streamlined applicable requirements. USEPA has 
issued white papers addressing this possibility. However, these white 
papers do not offer the option of altering the core requirement of any 
individual applicable requirement, even if a case is made that a 
relaxation for one applicable requirement is compensated for by 
tightening another applicable requirement. Such proposals for net 
equivalent limits must be submitted to USEPA as requests for state 
implementation plan revisions subject to review under Title I of the 
Clean Air Act and 40 CFR part 51.
    Rule 3745-17-12(I)(50) authorizes changes to limitations through 
new source permits as well as through Title V permits. This approach is 
also not authorized in the Clean Air Act or in applicable regulations. 
New source permits, like Title V permits, do not satisfy the procedural 
requirements for state implementation plan review. For this reason, 
limits imposed in new source permits on new or existing sources are 
supplemental to and do not supersede existing SIP limits. Neither the 
Clean Air Act nor USEPA regulations authorize a new source permit to 
allow noncompliance with a SIP limitation on any emission unit. 
Consequently, USEPA believes that Rule 3745-17-12(I)(50) must be 
disapproved.
    Rule 3745-17-12(I)(51) states simply that any alternative 
limitations established by permit under Rule 3745-17-12(I)(50) must be 
incorporated into Ohio regulations in Rule 3745-17-12(I). While USEPA 
does not object to this particular provision, USEPA believes that this 
paragraph has no effect because no alternative limits may be 
established under Rule 3745-17-12(I)(50). For this reason, and because 
paragraph (I)(51) is closely tied to paragraph (I)(50), USEPA believes 
it most appropriate to disapprove both paragraphs.

VI. Other Submittal Elements

    In addition to the revisions requested by industry appellants of 
Ohio's rules, Ohio also made four revisions that might be considered 
corrections to their rules. These revisions include adoption of a rule 
requiring continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) that are

[[Page 71519]]

already required in permits, updating the form and content of the 
limits for stationary internal combustion engines, updating the rule on 
contingency measures, and removing an appendix that provides guidance 
to state permit writers.
    Rule 3745-17-03(C) requires facilities subject to 40 CFR 51 
Appendix P to operate, maintain, and submit periodic results from CEMS. 
In general terms, Appendix P requires CEMS at large boilers, fluid 
catalytic cracking units (at refineries), nitric acid plants, and 
sulfuric acid plants. Ohio previously satisfied this requirement by 
submitting state operating permits for each affected facility mandating 
CEMS. USEPA approval of these permits is codified at 40 CFR 
52.1870(c)(88). These permits have now expired. USEPA believes that 
Rule 3745-17-03(C) provides for satisfaction of the requirements of 
Appendix P on a more permanent basis. In conjunction with approving 
this rule, USEPA intends to remove the codification of its approval of 
the now expired permits.
    Ohio modified both the criteria for differentiating large and small 
stationary internal combustion engines (defined in paragraphs (B)(23) 
and (B)(24) of Rule 3745-17-01) and the emission limits applicable to 
each (specified in Rule 3745-17-11(B)(5)). These revisions parallel the 
changes in the source characteristics that USEPA recommends using in 
evaluating emissions from this source type. These revisions should not 
affect the level of control of these sources and thus should not have 
any significant effect on emissions from this source category. 
Therefore, USEPA believes these revisions are acceptable.
    Rule 3745-17-14 identifies sources to provide contingency measures 
and provides criteria for implementing these measures if needed to 
attain particulate matter standards. Ohio used the measures identified 
by the sources to develop the contingency plan required under Clean Air 
Act section 172(c)(9), which USEPA approved on May 6, 1996, at 61 FR 
20139. The approved plan reflected measures for only a subset of the 
sources in Rule 3745-17-14, since other sources listed in this rule 
were unable to identify suitable contingency measures. Ohio's recent 
revisions to Rule 3745-17-14(A) delete these extraneous sources from 
the listing in Rule 3745-17-14 and more generally bring the 
requirements for identification of measures into conformance with the 
set of measures actually identified and incorporated into the approved 
contingency plan. These rule revisions do not in any way change the 
stringency, triggering process, or other features of the existing 
contingency plan. Therefore, USEPA believes these revisions are 
acceptable.
    Finally, Ohio revised its Rule 3745-17-14 to remove guidance 
contained as Appendix B to this rule concerning criteria for 
particulate matter sources to be eligible for registration status 
rather than requiring permits to operate. USEPA has not previously 
approved Appendix B, and Appendix B is not necessary to meet any Clean 
Air Act requirement. Therefore, USEPA has no objection to Ohio 
rescinding this appendix, and USEPA need not take any action for this 
appendix to remain as not part of Ohio's SIP.

VII. Summary of USEPA Action

    USEPA is proposing action on most elements of Ohio's particulate 
matter SIP revisions submitted July 18, 2000. USEPA is proposing to 
approve revisions to limitations in Rule 3745-17-07 on fugitive dust 
emissions for utilities and steelmaking facilities and the associated 
revisions to test methods in Rule 3745-17-03, with one exception. This 
exception is that USEPA is deferring action on the revisions of 
limitations for Ford Motor in Rule 3745-17-07(B)(9) and (B)(10), in 
conjunction with USEPA's deferral of action on various limit revisions 
for Cleveland area sources.
    USEPA is proposing to approve Rule 3745-17-03(C), which requires 
that sources subject to Appendix P of 40 CFR 51 install, satisfactorily 
operate, and report results from continuous emission monitoring 
systems. In conjunction with this action, USEPA is proposing to remove 
from the SIP the now-expired permits that Ohio previously submitted to 
satisfy Appendix P. USEPA is proposing to approve revisions to Rule 
3745-17-04, requiring immediate compliance with the newly adopted 
limitations, except that USEPA is deferring action on compliance dates 
associated with Cleveland area limitations pending action on the limits 
themselves. USEPA is proposing to approve revisions in Rule 3745-17-01 
and 3745-17-11 to limits for stationary internal combustion engines. 
USEPA is proposing to approve replacement of fugitive emission 
limitations in Rule 3745-17-13 for the Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel 
Company with requirements that the company follow specified practices 
to limit fugitive emissions. USEPA is proposing to approve revisions to 
Rule 3745-17-14 that bring this rule into conformance with the approved 
contingency plan and that remove a guidance statement that was not 
previously part of the SIP.
    USEPA is proposing to disapprove Rule 3745-17-12(I)(50) and 3745-
17-12(I)(51), which would allow Ohio to incorporate a revised set of 
emission limits for Ford Motor Company's Cleveland Casting Plant into 
either a Title V permit or a new source permit. USEPA proposes to 
conclude that this type of revision to applicable limitations must be 
subject to the review process under section 110 of the Clean Air Act 
for revisions to state implementation plans. Finally, USEPA is 
deferring action on revisions in Rules 3745-17-08, 3745-17-11, and 
3745-17-12 that alter the control strategy for meeting the PM10 
standards in Cuyahoga County, pending further analysis of whether these 
revisions continue to assure attainment of the annual PM10 standard.
    Final disapproval of the above paragraphs of Rule 3745-17-12(I) 
would not start any sanctions clock. This submittal was not needed to 
meet any provision of the Clean Air Act. Disapproval of these 
paragraphs would simply prevent the addition of these paragraphs to 
Ohio's state implementation plan and would not constitute a plan 
deficiency that under section 179 of the Clean Air Act would need to be 
remedied to avoid sanctions.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed 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 
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
this proposed 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.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any 
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does 
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because 
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian 
tribes, on the relationship

[[Page 71520]]

between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
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 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve 
state rules implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the 
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities 
established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, USEPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), USEPA has no 
authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It 
would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for USEPA, when it 
reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that 
otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This 
proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: November 15, 2002.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 02-30468 Filed 11-29-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P