[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 9, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30937-30939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-14596]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[FRL-6344-6]
Identification of Additional Ozone Areas Attaining the 1-Hour
Standard and to Which the 1-Hour Standard is No Longer Applicable
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to identify seven additional ozone areas
where the 1-hour standard no longer applies. Thus, upon finalization of
this proposed action, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for ozone
will be amended to reflect such changes. On July 18, 1997, EPA provided
by rule that the 1-hour ozone standard would no longer apply to an area
based on a determination by EPA that the area has attained that
standard. The 1-hour standard will continue to apply to areas for which
EPA has not made a determination through rulemaking. The EPA has
previously taken final action regarding the applicability of the 1-hour
standard for other areas on June 5, 1998 and July 22, 1998. The seven
additional proposed areas are: Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY; Pittsburgh-
Beaver Valley, PA; Lancaster, PA; Sunland Park, NM; LaFourche Parish,
LA; Kansas City, MO-KS; and Spalding County, GA.
DATES: Your comments must be submitted on or before July 9, 1999 in
order to be considered.
ADDRESSES: You may comment in various ways:
On paper. Send paper comments (in duplicate, if possible) to the
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention:
Docket No. A-99-10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St.,
SW, Room M-1500, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 260-7548.
Electronically. Send electronic comments to EPA at: A-and-R-
Docket@epamail.epa.gov. Avoid sending confidential business
information. We accept comments as e-mail attachments or on disk.
Either way, they must be in WordPerfect 5.1 or 6.0 or ASCII file
format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
You may file your comments on this proposed rule online at many Federal
Depository Libraries. Be sure to identify all comments and data by
Docket number A-99-10.
Public inspection. You may read the proposed rule (including paper
copies of comments and data submitted electronically, minus anything
claimed as confidential business information) at the Docket and
Information Center. They are available for public inspection from 8:00
a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
may charge a reasonable fee for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about this notice should be
addressed to Annie Nikbakht (policy) or Barry Gilbert (air quality
data), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality
Strategies and Standards Division, Ozone Policy and Strategies Group,
MD-15, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-5246/5238
or e-mail to nikbakht.annie@epamail.epa.gov or
gilbert.barry@epamail.epa.gov. To ask about policy matters or
monitoring data for a specific geographic area, call one of these
contacts:
Region III--Marcia Spink (215) 814-2104, Region IV--Karla McCorkle
(404) 562-9043,
[[Page 30938]]
Region V--William Jones (312) 886-6058,
Region VI--Lt. Mick Cote (214) 665-7219,
Region VII--Royan Teter (913) 551-7609.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What is the background for this proposed action?
II. What action is EPA proposing to take today?
III. What does the air quality data for the areas subject to today's
proposed rule look like?
IV. What is the effect of the revocation?
V. What administrative requirements are considered in today's
proposed rule?
I. What Is the Background for This Proposed Action?
On July 16, 1997 (62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997), we issued a
regulation replacing the 1-hour ozone standard with an 8-hour standard
at a level of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). The form of the 8-hour
standard is based on the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each
monitor within an area. The new primary standard, which became
effective on September 16, 1997, provides increased protection to the
public, especially children and other at-risk populations.
Also, on July 16, 1997, we announced that we were delaying
revocation of the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) until areas attain the 1-hour NAAQS. We did this to provide
continuity in public health protection during the transition to the new
NAAQS. We provided, by regulation, that the 1-hour standard would no
longer apply to an area upon a determination by EPA that the area has
attained the 1-hour standard.
On July 16, 1997, President Clinton issued a memorandum (62 FR
38421, July 18, 1997) to the Administrator of EPA indicating that
within 90 days of our issuing the new 8-hour standard, we would publish
an action identifying ozone areas to which the 1-hour standard would no
longer apply. The memorandum recognized that for areas where the air
quality did not currently attain the 1-hour standard, the 1-hour
standard would continue in effect. The provisions of subpart 2 of title
I of the Clean Air Act (CAA) would also apply to currently designated
nonattainment areas until EPA determines that the area has air quality
meeting the 1-hour standard.
On June 5, 1998 (63 FR 31014) and July 22, 1998 (63 FR 39432), we
issued final rules for many areas because they had attained the 1-hour
standard and so the 1-hour standard no longer applies to these areas.
II. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take Today?
Today we are proposing to revoke the 1-hour standard in seven more
areas that we determined are not violating the 1-hour standard. The
newly identified areas are: Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY; Pittsburgh-
Beaver Valley, PA; Lancaster, PA; Sunland Park, NM; LaFourche Parish,
LA; Kansas City, MO-KS; and Spalding County, GA.
III. What Does the Air Quality Data for the Areas Subject to
Today's Proposed Rule Look Like?
Today's proposal, to determine that these areas are attaining the
1-hour standard and thus no longer subject to the 1-hour standard, is
based upon analysis of quality-assured, ambient air quality monitoring
data showing no violations of the 1-hour ozone standard based on the
most recent data available, i.e., 1996-1998 data. Detailed air quality
data used for today's proposal are in the Technical Support Document to
Docket No. A-99-10. The method for determining attainment of the ozone
NAAQS is in 40 CFR 50.9 and appendix H to that section. The level of
the 1-hour primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone is 0.12 ppm.
IV. What Is the Effect of the Revocation?
Once we determine that the 1-hour standard no longer applies to an
area, the area is no longer subject to the nonattainment area planning
requirements of subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA (section
182). This is because the nonattainment requirements in subpart 2 apply
only for purposes of the 1-hour standard. Therefore, any sanctions or
Federal implementation plan clocks started, under sections 110 or 179
of the CAA and 40 CFR 52.31 with respect to planning requirements in
section 182 of the CAA, are no longer applicable when we issue a final
rule determining the area has attained the 1-hour standard.
Moreover, the conformity requirements of section 176 would no
longer apply to areas unless they had a maintenance plan approved under
section 175A. With respect to new source review requirements, whether
part D new source review requirements or part C prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) requirements applies, will depend on
the particular approved SIP provisions applicable to the areas.
Finally, given that the designations of these areas were based upon
the 1-hour ozone standard, which will no longer apply, the designation
will be replaced in part 81 of the CFR by an indication that the 1-hour
ozone standard is no longer applicable.
V. What Administrative Requirements Are Considered in Today's
Proposed Rule?
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is
``significant'' and, therefore, subject to Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the E.O. The OMB is
exempting this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 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),
unless EPA certifies 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. The EPA is
proposing to certify that this rule, in its final form, will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because
the determination that the 1-hour standard ceases to apply does not
subject any entities to any additional requirements.
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 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
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.
The EPA is proposing that today's action, if finalized, would not
include a Federal mandate that may result in
[[Page 30939]]
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 imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional
costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action.
D. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: ``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.
The EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory
actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to E.O.
13045 because this is not an economically significant regulatory action
as defined by E.O. 12866, and it implements a previously promulgated
health or safety-based Federal standard.
E. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership
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, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to provide to OMB a description of
the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of the
affected State, local and tribal governments; the nature of their
concerns; copies of any 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 proposed rule does not create a mandate on State, local or
tribal governments. The proposed 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.
F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute that significantly 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, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to
provide to OMB, 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 officials 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 proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. The identified areas are not
located in tribal lands, and this proposed action does not involve or
impose any requirements that affect Indian tribes. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposal does not contain any information collection
requirements which requires OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction
Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
H. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice
Under E.O. 12898, each Federal agency must make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minorities and low-income populations. Today's proposed
action (identifying additional ozone areas where the 1-hour standard is
no longer applicable) does not adversely affect minorities and low-
income populations because the new, more stringent 8-hour ozone
standard is in effect and provides increased protection to the public,
especially children and other at-risk populations.
I. 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 new regulations. To comply with
NTTAA, the 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 proposed action.
Today's proposed action does not require the public to perform
activities conducive to the use of VCS.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Issued in Washington, D.C. on May 12, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-14596 Filed 6-7-99; 10:42 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
