96-14787. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio  

  • [Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 29662-29664]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 96-14787]
    
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    40 CFR Part 52
    
    [OH91-2; FRL-5506-5]
    
    
    Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio
    
    AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    
    ACTION: Final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: On November 3, 1995, Ohio submitted revisions to its 
    particulate matter plans for the Cleveland and Steubenville 
    nonattainment areas. These revisions were submitted to address plan 
    deficiencies that were identified by EPA in a final limited disapproval 
    of the particulate matter plans published in the Federal Register on 
    May 27, 1994. For the Cleveland area, these revisions provide earlier 
    attainment of the air quality standard and correct the deficient test 
    method disapproved in that rulemaking. For the Steubenville area, these 
    revisions include an administrative order for tightening controls at 
    Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel's basic oxygen furnace, and provide a fully 
    updated modeling analysis demonstrating that the plan assures 
    attainment. EPA is approving these revisions and terminating the 
    potential for sanctions based on the deficiencies identified in the 
    rulemaking of May 27, 1994.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective July 12, 1996.
    
    ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision and USEPA's analysis 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 (AR-18J), Chicago, 
    Illinois 60604; and
    Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), Docket and Information Center (Air 
    Docket 6102) Room M1500, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 
    401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
     John Summerhays, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch 
    (AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection, Region 5, Chicago, 
    Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6067.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    I. Background
    
        Ohio submitted major revisions to its particulate matter 
    regulations on November 14, 1991, with supplemental submittals on 
    December 4, 1991, and January 8, 1992. EPA proposed rulemaking on these 
    submittals on August 3, 1993, at 58 FR 41218, and published a notice of 
    final rulemaking on May 27, 1994, at 59 FR 27464, granting limited 
    approval/limited disapproval of these submittals. Although EPA approved 
    most of Ohio's regulations, EPA concluded that Ohio had not satisfied 
    selected requirements of the Clean Air Act applicable to its two 
    particulate matter nonattainment areas, i.e., Cuyahoga County 
    (including Cleveland) and the Steubenville area. This represented a 
    disapproval finding under Section 179(a)(2), thus initiating an 18-
    month period after which sanctions were to be imposed in these areas 
    under Section 179(b) unless or until the deficiencies are remedied.
        On November 3, 1995, Ohio submitted further revisions to its 
    particulate matter plans, seeking to remedy the deficiencies identified 
    in EPA's May 1994 rulemaking. On January 23, 1996 (at 61 FR 1727), EPA 
    proposed to approve the State's submittal and proposed to conclude that 
    all particulate matter SIP requirements were satisfied (except for new 
    source review requirements, which were not addressed in either the 
    January 1996 or the May 1994 rulemaking and are being addressed 
    separately). Simultaneously, EPA issued an interim final determination 
    that the deficiencies had been remedied (at 61 FR 1720), thereby 
    staying application of sanctions.
        In brief, for Cuyahoga County, the deficiencies were (1) failure to 
    satisfy requirements for Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) 
    by December 1992; and (2) failure to assure attainment due to 
    deficiencies in the test method applicable to coke quenching. EPA 
    proposed to find that these deficiencies were addressed when Ohio 
    revised its rules to require a control strategy adequate to satisfy 
    RACM requirements by December 1993 and improved the test method for 
    coke quenching. For the Steubenville area, the deficiency was an 
    inadequate attainment demonstration due to, among other factors, 
    inadequate accounting for emissions from Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel's 
    basic oxygen furnace. EPA proposed to find this deficiency remedied by 
    submittal of Findings and Orders issued by Ohio to Wheeling-Pittsburgh 
    Steel requiring tightened control of basic oxygen furnace emissions and 
    a revised attainment demonstration. A more detailed discussion of the 
    prior deficiencies is provided in the Federal Register of May 27, 1994 
    (59 FR 27464), and a summary of that discussion and a more extensive 
    discussion of Ohio's submittal which remedied those deficiencies is 
    provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking of January 23, 1996 (61 
    FR 1727). Today's rule is final action on Ohio's November 1995 
    submittal and final action with respect to the previously identified 
    deficiencies.
        At the time of the proposed rulemaking, Ohio had conducted a public 
    hearing in connection with its Cuyahoga County rule revisions but had 
    not yet held and submitted documentation of a public hearing with 
    respect to revisions to the Steubenville area attainment demonstration. 
    The State held a public hearing on the Steubenville area revisions on 
    January 22, 1996, and provided materials to EPA documenting this 
    hearing and demonstrating satisfaction of related public comment 
    requirements in its December 21, 1995, and March 13, 1996, submittals. 
    EPA has evaluated these materials and has concluded that the relevant 
    procedural requirements have been satisfied.
    
    [[Page 29663]]
    
    II. Comments on Proposed Rulemaking
    
        One set of comments on the proposed rulemaking was received by EPA. 
    These comments were submitted by Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur on 
    behalf of Ford Motor Company (Ford). These comments urged EPA not to 
    rulemake on the State's November 1995 submittal alone, and instead 
    urged EPA to request that the State address Ford's concerns with the 
    existing particulate matter regulations and to conduct rulemaking on a 
    combined set of revised regulations. No comments were made concerning 
    EPA's proposed analysis of the State's November 1995 submittal.
        EPA responds that it would be inappropriate to defer rulemaking on 
    the State's November 1995 submittal pending receipt of a prospective 
    future submittal, particularly in the absence of any expectation that 
    the prospective future submittal would alter EPA's views of the 
    existing submittal. EPA has an obligation to complete rulemaking in 
    timely fashion on any SIP revision requested by the State. Both EPA and 
    the State of Ohio have a particular interest in prompt completion of 
    this rulemaking because sanctions, while stayed by the interim final 
    determination, are nevertheless outstanding until final action 
    approving the corrections to the deficiencies is published. The 
    commenter does not claim that its requested rule revisions are mandated 
    by the Clean Air Act, and the commenter identifies no other basis for 
    EPA to require the State to conduct the desired rulemaking. In any 
    case, assuming that Ohio adopts and submits rule revisions addressing 
    Ford's concerns, EPA will undertake timely rulemaking on those rule 
    revisions as well, in accordance with EPA's obligations under the Clean 
    Air Act.
    
    III. Today's Action
    
        With respect to Cuyahoga County, EPA concludes that (1) the revised 
    rules now provide for RACM by December 1993; (2) the coke quench water 
    test method issue and the associated attainment demonstration issue 
    have been resolved; and (3) additional revisions to the limitations for 
    Ford's Cleveland Casting Plant do not jeopardize attainment. With 
    respect to the Steubenville area, EPA concludes that the State has now 
    submitted a fully approvable attainment demonstration for the area. In 
    particular, EPA is approving the rule revisions for Cuyahoga County and 
    the Findings and Order requiring control system enhancements at 
    Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel's basic oxygen furnace.
        Based on these findings, EPA concludes that Ohio's particulate 
    matter plans for the Cuyahoga County and Steubenville nonattainment 
    areas now satisfy all applicable requirements under Part D of the Clean 
    Air Act (except for new source review requirements, which are not 
    addressed here or in the May 1994 rulemaking and are being addressed 
    separately). Consequently, EPA finds that Ohio has remedied the 
    deficiencies identified in the rulemaking of May 27, 1994. This finding 
    fully terminates the potential for sanctions pursuant to that prior 
    rulemaking.
        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, 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 Act, 
    preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute 
    federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
    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).
        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 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.
        Under Sections 202, 203 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
    of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, 
    EPA must undertake various actions in association with rules that 
    include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
    million or more to the private sector, or to State, local, or tribal 
    governments in the aggregate.
        EPA has determined that the approval action taken today does not 
    include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 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 
    Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, 
    or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
    action.
        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 August 12, 1996. 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
    requirements.
    
        Dated: May 2, 1996.
    Valdas V. Adamkus,
    Regional Administrator.
        Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter I, part 52, is 
    amended as follows:
    
    PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
    
        1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
    
        Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
    
        2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(110) to read 
    as follows:
    
    
    Secs. 52.1870  Identification of plan.
    
    * * * * *
        (c) * * *
        (110) On November 3, 1995, December 21, 1995, and March 21, 1996,
    
    [[Page 29664]]
    
    OEPA submitted revisions to its particulate matter plan, addressing 
    prior deficiencies in its plans for Cuyahoga and Jefferson Counties.
        (i) Incorporation by reference.
        (A) Rule 3745-17-03--Rule 3745-17-03--Measurement methods and 
    procedures, effective November 15, 1995.
        (B) Rule 3745-17-04--Compliance time schedules, effective November 
    15, 1995.
        (C) Rule 3745-17-12--Additional restrictions on particulate 
    emissions from specific air contaminant sources in Cuyahoga County, 
    effective November 15, 1995.
        (D) Findings and Orders issued to the Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel 
    Corporation, signed by Donald Schregardus and effective on October 31, 
    1995.
        (ii) Additional material--Dispersion modeling analyses for the 
    Steubenville area and for Cuyahoga County near Ford's Cleveland Casting 
    Plant.
    
    [FR Doc. 96-14787 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
7/12/1996
Published:
06/12/1996
Department:
Environmental Protection Agency
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
96-14787
Dates:
This action is effective July 12, 1996.
Pages:
29662-29664 (3 pages)
Docket Numbers:
OH91-2, FRL-5506-5
PDF File:
96-14787.pdf
CFR: (1)
40 CFR 52