[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7453-7456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3072]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[OH06-2-6229, OH01-2-6230, OH32-2-6231; FRL-5151-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: USEPA is approving a redesignation request and maintenance
plan for Preble, Columbiana, and Jefferson County, Ohio as a revision
to Ohio's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone.
The revision is based on a request from the State of Ohio to
redesignate these areas, and approve their maintenance plans, and on
the supporting data the State submitted. Under the Clean Air Act,
designations can be changed if sufficient data are available to warrant
such change.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes effective on March 10, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the requested redesignation, maintenance plan, and
other materials relating to this rulemaking are available for public
inspection during normal business hours at the following addresses:
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and
Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AE-17J), Chicago,
Illinois 60604; and Jerry Kurtzweg (ANR-443), United States
Environmental Protection, Agency, 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.
20460. (It is recommended that you telephone William Jones at (312)
886-6058, before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Jones, Regulation Development
Section, Air Enforcement Branch (AE-17J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6058.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under Section 107(d) of the pre-amended
Clean Air Act (CAA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) promulgated the ozone attainment status for each area of every
State. For the State of Ohio, Preble, Columbiana, and Jefferson
Counties were designated as nonattainment areas for ozone. See 43 FR
8962 (March 3, 1978), and 43 FR 45993 (October 5, 1978). On November
15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Pub. L.
No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. Pursuant
to Section 107(d)(1)(C)(i) of the amended CAA, Preble, Jefferson, and
Columbiana Counties retained their designations of nonattainment for
ozone by operation of law. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). At the
same time, Preble and Jefferson Counties were classified as
transitional areas; and Columbiana County was classified as an
incomplete data area.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) requested that
Preble County be redesignated to attainment in a letter dated May 23,
1986; and that Jefferson and Columbiana Counties be redesignated to
attainment in a letter dated July 14, 1986. On December 20, 1993, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) proposed to
disapprove the requested redesignations. See 58 FR 66334. The public
comment period was from December 20, 1993, to January 19, 1994. Only
one public comment was received on the proposed rulemaking to
disapprove the redesignations. It was a January 18, 1994, letter from
the State of Ohio requesting a 90-day extension of [[Page 7454]] the
comment period. On February 18, 1994, the USEPA extended the comment
period until April 19, 1994. See 59 FR 8150. The OEPA submitted
comments in an April 14, 1994, letter that included maintenance and
contingency plans for the counties. The results of OEPA's public
hearing and resulting revision to the maintenance and contingency plans
are contained in a letter dated August 10, 1994. No other comments were
received during the extended comment period.
After reviewing Ohio's April 14, 1994, and August 10, 1994,
submittal, USEPA published a direct final rulemaking to approve the
redesignation requests on September 21, 1994. See 59 FR 48395. At the
same time USEPA published a proposed rulemaking, see 59 FR 48416, to
approve the requests, in the event that adverse public comments were
received. Adverse comments were received and a notice was published to
remove the direct final rulemaking, but not the proposed rulemaking.
I. Summary of Comments and Responses
USEPA has considered the adverse comments received and has decided
to proceed with formal action approving the redesignations. A summary
of adverse comments submitted in response to the September 21, 1994
proposed rulemaking (59 FR 48416) and responses to these comments is
provided below. All of the adverse comments received were made by
Pollution Probe.
Comment: There remain a number of important questions and concerns
with regard to the long-range transport of ozone and ozone precursors
across the U.S.-Canada border. This particular redesignation request by
the State of Ohio is one of a number of requests which may cumulatively
have a very significant impact on our future air quality. The commentor
also questioned whether the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency had
evaluated the impact of Oxides of nitrogen (NOX)/Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) emissions from Ohio sources on downwind regions in
Canada.
Response: In response, the USEPA notes that the governments of the
United States and Canada are in the process of developing a joint study
of the transboundary ozone phenomena under the U.S.-Canada Clean Air
Quality Agreement. It is envisioned that this regional ozone study will
provide the scientific information necessary to understand what
contributes to ozone levels in the region, as well as, what control
measures would contribute to reductions in ozone levels. This new
regional ozone study is a cooperative effort between the U.S. and
Canada. Should this or other studies provide a sufficient scientific
basis for taking action in the future, the USEPA will decide what is an
appropriate course of action. The USEPA may take appropriate action
notwithstanding the redesignation of these areas in Ohio. Therefore,
the USEPA does not believe that the contentions regarding transboundary
impact currently provide a basis for delaying action on these
redesignation requests or disapproving the redesignations. This is
particularly true since approval of the redesignations is not expected
to result in an increase in ozone precursor emissions and is not
expected to adversely affect air quality in Canada. In fact, decreases
in both VOC and NOX emissions from the areas being redesignated
are expected over the 10-year maintenance period. See 59 FR 48396-
48397. It should also be noted that the redesignation does not allow
States to automatically remove control programs which have contributed
to an area's attainment of a U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) for any pollutant and that no previously-implemented control
strategies are being relaxed as part of these redesignations.
Furthermore, USEPA notes that the extent of any contribution from
these areas to monitored ozone levels in Canada cannot be determined
with any degree of certainty on the basis of the information presently
available to the USEPA. The extent to which emissions from these areas
in Ohio, which are between 80 and 150 miles from the Canadian border,
contribute to ozone formation in Canada is highly uncertain,
particularly since winds flowing into areas in Ontario pass through a
number of urbanized areas in both the U.S. and Canada. Ozone
concentrations in Canada may be attributable to or fostered by ozone
precursor emissions generated within Canadian borders. As a
consequence, the USEPA does not believe that the presently available
information provides any basis for affecting its decision regarding the
redesignation of these areas in Ohio.
Comment: A growing body of evidence shows that the negative impacts
to human health and vegetation do occur at or below 82 parts per
billion (ppb) ozone. While we recognize that the US NAAQS for ozone is
currently .12 parts per million, and that the standard is currently
being reviewed, does the air quality monitoring data submitted by the
State show ozone concentrations exceeding 80 ppb in the three counties
under discussion or in other sections of the State?
Response: Yes, in Preble, and Jefferson Counties, and the counties
adjacent to Columbiana County concentrations above 80 ppb have been
monitored. However, as mentioned by the commentor, the monitoring data
for these counties show that the counties are not in violation of the
ozone NAAQS. Also, a revision to the NAAQS is currently under
consideration by the USEPA. Until any change is made, however, the
USEPA is bound to implement the provisions of the Act as they relate to
the current standard, including those relating to designation and
redesignations.
Comment: What were the assumptions and analyses which led to the
conclusion that total emissions will decrease in the three Ohio
counties under discussion? Overall oxides of nitrogen emissions in the
United States are projected to rise after the year 2000, even if
mandatory CAA measures for stationary and mobile sources are
implemented. We are unfamiliar with the types of emission reduction
measures that are likely to be carried out in the United States'
regions designated ``attainment.'' Future growth is one important
factor which needs consideration. For example, in southeast Michigan,
forecasters anticipate that an additional 6 percent growth in
population will, with current trends, result in a 40 percent increase
in vehicle miles travelled by 2010.
Response: The area source emissions were projected to grow at the
same rate as the expected population growth. The population growth rate
used for Preble County is 0.83386 percent per year from 1990 to 1995
and 0.6279 percent per year from 1995 to 2005. The population growth
rate used for Columbiana and Jefferson Counties was about 1 percent per
year from 1990 to 2005. The point source emissions growth was projected
using Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) earnings data by Standard
Industrial Classification Code (SIC). This factor varied by SIC but was
generally around 1.1 percent per year. The mobile source emissions were
projected using the MOBILE5A emissions model to provide emission
factors for the vehicle mix in the future, and population data to
project the growth in vehicle miles traveled by these vehicles. Large
decreases occurred in mobile source emissions in the counties. Due to
the Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Program (FMVECP). These
decreases resulted in overall VOC emissions reductions in all three
counties, and overall NOX emission reductions in Preble, and
Columbiana counties. [[Page 7455]]
Jefferson county is expected to have a decrease in NOX
emissions from 1990 to 2005 due to the Acid Rain provisions of the
Clean Air Act. This decrease accounted for most of the reductions in
NOX emissions in Jefferson County. The emissions estimates were
based on a 0.5 lb NOX/Million Btu emissions limit for the units
affected under phase I. This same limit was estimated for units
expected to be covered under phase II. The phase I limit is mandated by
the Clean Air Act, but a phase II limit had not been specified by
either the CAA or USEPA when the redesignation request was prepared so
the same limit was used as an estimate.
Upon redesignation to attainment, these areas will be subject to
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration provisions of the Clean Air
Act that apply to stationary sources of air pollution. These areas are
also subject to the provisions in their maintenance plans; so, that if
a violation of the NAAQS occurs, the area would have to implement a
contingency measure to correct the problem. In addition, these areas
are still subject to the controls approved into the SIPs and would
still get emission reduction benefits from the FMVECP.
II. Rulemaking Action
The redesignation requests are approved as meeting conditions of
the CAA in Section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
This action has been classified as a table 3 action by the Regional
Administrator under the processing procedures published in the Federal
Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an
October 4, 1993, memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and
Budget has exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.)
Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under Section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP-
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the CAA,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The
CAA forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976); 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
Redesignation of an area to attainment under Section 107(d)(3)(E)
of the CAA does not impose any new requirements on small entities.
Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical
area and does not impose any regulatory requirements on sources. The
Administrator certifies that the approval of the redesignation request
will not affect a substantial number of small entities.
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 April 10, 1995. 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
40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control.
Dated: January 26, 1995.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
Chapter 1, 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. 7401-7671q.
2. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(5) to
read as follows:
Sec. 52.1885 Control strategy: Ozone.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(5) The maintenance plans for the following counties are approved:
(i) Preble, Columbiana, and Jefferson Counties.
PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PURPOSES--OHIO
1. The authority citation of part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. In Sec. 81.336 the ozone table is amended by revising the
entries for Columbiana, Preble, and Jefferson Counties to read as
follows:
Sec. 81.336 Ohio.
* * * * *
Ohio--Ozone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date\1\ Type Date\1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Columbiana County Area, March 10, 1995............ Attainment...............
Columbiana County.
* * * * * *
*
Preble County Area, Preble March 10, 1995............ Attainment ..............
County.
[[Page 7456]]
* * * * * *
*
Steubenville Area, Jefferson March 10, 1995............ Attainment...............
County.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-3072 Filed 2-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
