[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 14, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26396-26399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-12633]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[OH104-1a; FRL-5822-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio Ozone
Maintenance Plan
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USEPA approves a revision submitted on July 9, 1996, and
January 31, 1997, to the ozone maintenance plans for the Dayton-
Springfield Area (Miami, Montgomery, Clark, and Greene Counties),
Toledo Area (Lucas and Wood Counties), Canton Area (Stark County), Ohio
portion of the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area (Mahoning and Trumbull
Counties), Columbus Area (Franklin, Delaware, and Licking Counties),
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain Area (Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Lake, Lorain, Medina,
Summit, Portage, and Geauga Counties), Preble County, Jefferson County,
Columbiana and Clinton Counties.
The revision is based on a request from the State of Ohio to revise
the Federally approved maintenance plan for these areas to provide the
State and the affected areas with greater flexibility in choosing an
appropriate ozone contingency measure for each area in the event such a
measure is needed. This action approves the State's request as a
common-sense approach to protecting air quality in Ohio.
In the proposed rule section of this Federal Register, USEPA is
proposing approval of this revision, and is now soliciting public
comments on this action. If adverse comments are received on this
direct final rule, USEPA will withdraw this final rule and address
these comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.
EFFECTIVE DATES: This final rule will become effective on July 14, 1997
unless adverse or critical comments are received by June 13, 1997. If
the effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed 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 requested maintenance plan revision, and other
materials
[[Page 26397]]
relating to this rulemaking are available for public inspection during
normal business hours at the following address: United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard (AR-18J), Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Paskevicz, Environmental
Protection Specialist, at (312) 886-6084.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
During 1993 and 1994, the State of Ohio made a number of submittals
of maintenance plans for areas which have been redesignated to
attainment for ozone. All of these plans contained contingency
provisions which are required as part of Section 175A(d) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) Amendments. These contingency provisions were addressed
in detail in the Federal Registers approving the State
submittals.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The redesignation request approvals and the accompanying
discussion of contingency provisions are found in 60 FR 7453 dated
February 8, 1995, 60 FR 22289 dated May 5, 1995, 60 FR 39115 dated
August 1, 1995, 61 FR 3319 dated January 31, 1996, 61 FR 3591 dated
February 1, 1996, 61 FR 11560 dated March 31, 1996, and 61 FR 20458
dated May 7, 1996. The original State submittals and the USEPA's
analyses of each of the submittals are maintained in the docket in
the Air and Radiation Division in Chicago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 9, 1996, the State submitted a request to revise the
contingency measure portion of the maintenance plans contained in the
approved redesignations for the various counties. The State requested
the revision because of concern that the currently approved provisions
may not meet the future needs when circumstances regarding controls or
technology have changed. The State cited the example of the Stage II
vapor control program (one of the approved contingency measures) which
becomes less cost-effective out into the future as the automobile fleet
turns over with corresponding installation of improved on-board vapor
control technology. While the Stage II control measure was effective at
the time of implementation, and continues to be at this time; by the
year 2010 a significant portion of the automobile fleet will have on-
board controls which are expected to serve the same function
(controlling gasoline vapors during refueling) as the Stage II
requirement. Therefore, the State believes that it is important to
retain a degree of flexibility in selecting the appropriate volatile
organic compound (VOC) control technology for the circumstances which
exist at such time as additional controls become necessary.
The State of Ohio submitted the following language as a substitute
for the previously approved contingency plans for all of the areas
listed in this document:
The maintenance plan contingency measures to be considered will
be chosen from the following list or an unspecified emission control
measure deemed appropriate, based upon a consideration of cost
effectiveness, VOC reduction potential, economic and social factors,
as the contingency measure for each of these areas.
a. Lower Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) for gasoline;
b. Reformulated gasoline program;
c. Application of Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
on sources covered by new control technology guidelines;
d. VOC offsets for new or modified major sources;
e. Automobile Inspection and Maintenance (I/M); and,
f. Trip reduction programs, including but not limited to
employer-based transportation management programs, area-wide
rideshare programs, work schedule changes and telecommuting.
The decision on which program is to be implemented would be made
and executed within 12 months after a determination that a violation
has been monitored after all VOC emission reduction programs
contained in the State implementation plan have been implemented.
Reasonably available controls for sources of oxides of nitrogen
(NOx RACT) would be a secondary contingency to be implemented after
a violation occurs after the VOC contingency measure has been fully
implemented. This contingency would only apply in those redesignated
areas formerly designated moderate non-attainment (the Toledo,
Dayton and Cleveland-Akron-Lorain Metropolitan areas).
Each of the areas to which this revision applies have approved
maintenance plans which include contingency measures. In this revision
the State is broadening the number of measures from which the State or
planning agency may choose in order to resolve violations of the ozone
ambient air quality standard. For every one of the State's maintenance
areas, this revision increases the number of measures from which to
choose. Certain of these measures have been addressed in the
contingency plan portion of previous State maintenance plan submittals
which have been approved by USEPA, as noted in footnote number 1.
II. Contingency Plan Requirements
Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation
of the national ambient air quality standards that occurs after the
redesignation of the area.2 These contingency measures do
not have to be fully adopted at the time of redesignation. However, the
contingency plan is considered to be an enforceable part of the State
implementation plan (SIP) and should ensure that the contingency
measures are adopted expeditiously once they are triggered by a
specific event. The contingency plan should identify the measures to be
adopted and include a trigger mechanism and a schedule for adoption and
implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Guidance for contingency measures is found in the memoranda
``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs
Branch, June 1, 1992; and ``Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back-up measures are required for areas which selected low-RVP as
the contingency measure in the maintenance plan. However, USEPA has
approved contingency measures which do not commit to specific back-up
programs. (The Indianapolis redesignation 59 FR 54391, dated October
31, 1994, contained a maintenance plan measure which did not commit to
specific programs. The USEPA agreed with Indiana that circumstances may
change significantly over time for a select group of back-up measures,
thereby rendering the measure(s) less useful or implementable). For
example, the selection of a basic I/M program as a back-up measure
today would render a certain amount of VOC reduction from the current
fleet of autos. However, the use of basic I/M in the future would not
yield the reductions from a fleet of high tech automobiles because the
basic program is not sophisticated enough to identify emission failures
in new technology cars.
III. The Ohio Maintenance Plan
The Director of Ohio EPA, in a letter to USEPA dated July 9, 1996,
requested a revision to the ozone maintenance plans for a number of
maintenance areas and maintenance counties. This request was followed
up with a letter dated January 31, 1997, containing additional
information completing the request. Based on a comment from the Mid-
Ohio Regional Planning Commission, a minor change to the July 9, 1996,
submittal was made and subsequently submitted as final in the Ohio EPA
Director's January 31, 1997, letter to the USEPA. This change allows
contingency measure decision makers to include the implementation of an
automobile inspection and maintenance program as a contingency measure
for all areas
[[Page 26398]]
required to implement an air quality maintenance plan. The original
July 9, 1996, submittal allowed only the Toledo area (consisting of
Wood and Lucas counties) to implement I/M. This change allows I/M, in
addition to other measures, to be made available for all counties which
select I/M as a contingency measure.
Maintenance plans for ozone in Ohio have been approved for the
Cleveland/Akron/Lorain area consisting of Cuyahoga, Lake, Lorain,
Medina, Summit, Portage, Geauga and Ashtabula counties; and the Canton
area consisting of Stark county; and, the Youngstown area consisting of
Mahoning and Trumbull counties; and, the Dayton area consisting of
Montgomery, Greene, Miami and Clark counties; the Columbus area
consisting of Franklin, Delaware and Licking counties; and, the
counties of Preble, Jefferson, Columbiana, and Clinton. The Ohio
contingency measures were required as part of the redesignation to
attainment for ozone and are part of these maintenance plans submitted
by the State for the various nonattainment areas which were
redesignated to attainment for ozone. The listing of areas is found in
40 CFR part 52.1885(b). Each of the maintenance plans included one or
more contingency measures to be implemented in the event a violation of
the ozone standard was recorded. The revision approved here revises the
maintenance plan to include a list of measures from which to choose for
each of the various areas. This action allows more flexibility in
determining an appropriate emission reduction measure, or mix of
measures, should additional controls become necessary. Air quality
managers in these areas are not required to select all of the measures
listed, but are expected to select the appropriate measure or measures
which at the time of decision are expected to reduce the emissions of
VOC and return the area to attainment of the ozone standard.
Ohio has chosen the use of low-RVP gasoline and reformulated
gasoline as two of a variety of possible automobile fuel contingency
measures from which to choose to reduce the emissions of VOC. The State
has indicated that additional measures would be available as back-ups
in the event the USEPA does not allow the use of low-RVP gasoline.
However these back-ups would be selected based on future circumstances,
not present expectations of such measures.
This is consistent with USEPA policy regarding approval of low-RVP
fuel controls under section 175A of the Clean Air Act.3
Also, under this policy, USEPA approved the maintenance plan for Preble
County, Ohio, on September 21, 1994 (59 FR 48395) which identified low-
RVP without requiring a necessity finding at the time of approval of
the plan. The finding of necessity would be made at the time the
trigger event occurs, and at that time, the State must commit to adopt
a back-up measure in the event the USEPA does not agree with the
State's submittal of a study to demonstrate that low-RVP gasoline is
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See memorandum ``Requirements for Reduced RVP in State
Maintenance Plans,'' from Michael Horowitz, Office of General
Counsel, USEPA, to William L. MacDowell, Air and Radiation Division,
Region 5, USEPA, November 8, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State will be required to submit an implementation plan
revision adopting State fuel control and request a waiver from federal
preemption. The waiver request must indicate the quantity of VOC
reductions needed to attain the standard, identify and quantify other
control measures, provide background information giving the reason why
non-fuel measures are not practicable, and show that these non-fuel
measures are not sufficient to achieve timely attainment.
IV. Final Action
The USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
USEPA views this action as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, USEPA is publishing a separate document
in this Federal Register publication, which constitutes a ``proposed
approval'' of the requested SIP revision and clarifies that the
rulemaking will not be deemed final if timely adverse or critical
comments are filed. The ``direct final'' approval shall be effective on
July 14, 1997, unless USEPA receives adverse or critical comments
(which have not been previously addressed) by June 13, 1997.
If USEPA receives such comments adverse to or critical of the
approval discussed above, USEPA will withdraw this approval before its
effective date, and publish a subsequent Federal Register document
which withdraws this final action. Public comments received will then
be addressed in a subsequent rule.
Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at
this time. If no such comments are received, USEPA hereby advises the
public that this action will be effective on July 14, 1997.
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.
Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA 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 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 impose any new requirements, the Administrator
certifies 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 Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of the
State action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions
concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. EPA., 427 U.S.
246, 256-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must undertake various actions
in association with any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated costs to state, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under
state or
[[Page 26399]]
local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional
costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector,
result from this action.
D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted 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
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
E. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 14, 1997. 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, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: April 23, 1997.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
Part 52, 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.
Subpart KK--Ohio
2. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1885 Control strategy: Ozone.
(a) * * *
(5) On July 9, 1996, and on January 31, 1997, the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency submitted a revision to the State's
maintenance plan for ozone. This revision affects the contingency
measures contained in the maintenance plan for a number of counties
throughout the State. (These areas include: in the Dayton area,
Montgomery, Greene, Miami, and Clark Counties, in the Toledo area,
Lucas and Wood Counties, the Canton area, Stark County, the Youngstown
area, Mahoning and Trumbull Counties, the Columbus area, Franklin,
Delaware, and Licking Counties, the Cleveland/Akron/Lorain area,
Cuyahoga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Summit, Portage, Geauga and Ashtabula
Counties, and also Preble, Jefferson, Columbiana, and Clinton Counties.
It provides for greater flexibility in selecting the appropriate
control technology for the circumstances which exist at that point in
the future if additional controls become necessary. The State of Ohio
identified the following language as a substitute for the previously
approved contingency plans for all of the areas listed in the ozone
maintenance plan (see 40 CFR 52.1885(b)):
(i) The maintenance plan contingency measures to be considered will
be chosen from the following list or an unspecified emission control
measure deemed appropriate, based upon a consideration of cost
effectiveness, VOC reduction potential, economic and social factors, as
the contingency measure for each of these areas:
(A) Lower Reid Vapor Pressure for gasoline;
(B) Reformulated gasoline program;
(C) Application of Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
on sources covered by new control technology guidelines;
(D) VOC offsets for new or modified major sources;
(E) Automobile Inspection and Maintenance; and,
(F) Trip reduction programs, including but not limited to employer-
based transportation management programs, area-wide rideshare programs,
work schedule changes and telecommuting.
(ii) The decision on which program is to be implemented would be
made and executed within 12 months after a determination that a
violation has been monitored after all VOC emission reduction programs
contained in the State implementation plan have been implemented.
(iii) Reasonably available controls for sources of oxides of
nitrogen (NOX RACT) would be a secondary contingency to be
implemented after a violation occurs after the VOC contingency measure
has been fully implemented. This contingency would only apply in those
redesignated areas formerly designated moderate non-attainment (the
Toledo, Dayton and Cleveland/Akron/Lorain Metropolitan areas).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-12633 Filed 5-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
