[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 160 (Wednesday, August 19, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44399-44401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-22337]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[OH117-1; FRL-6147-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Maintenance Plan Revisions; Ohio
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is
finalizing a June 18, 1998, proposal to approve an Ohio State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to remove the air quality triggers
from the Dayton-Springfield (Montgomery, Clark, Greene, and Miami
Counties), Ohio maintenance area contingency plan.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will be effective on August 19, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for inspection during normal business hours at the following
location: Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604.
Please contact William Jones at (312) 886-6058 before visiting the
Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Jones, Environmental
Scientist, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6058.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Since the initial Clean Air Act (CAA) attainment status
designations were made, the Dayton-Springfield area has attained the
one hour ozone standard and has been redesignated to attainment status
for ozone. As a requirement of being redesignated to attainment status,
the area developed a maintenance plan. The purpose of the maintenance
plan is to assure maintenance of the one hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for at least ten years.
The area's maintenance plan included contingency provisions. The
contingency provisions are intended to identify and correct violations
of the one hour ozone NAAQS in a timely fashion. Triggers are included
in the contingency provisions to identify the need to implement
measures and correct air quality problems until such time as a revised
maintenance or attainment plan could be developed to address the level
of the air quality problem. Triggering events in the contingency plans
could be linked to ozone air quality and/or an emission level of ozone
precursors.
USEPA approved the Dayton-Springfield ozone maintenance plan in the
Federal Register on May 5, 1995 (60 FR 22289).
II. One Hour Ozone Standard Revocation
On July 18, 1997, USEPA approved a revision to the NAAQS for ozone
which changed the standard from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged
over one hour, to 0.08 ppm, averaged over eight hours. The USEPA is
revoking the one hour standard in separate rulemakings based on an
area's attainment of the one hour ozone standard. The first round of
revocations was for areas attaining the one hour standard based on
quality assured air monitoring data for the years 1994-1996. The second
round of one hour ozone standard revocations was for areas attaining
the one hour standard based on quality assured air monitoring data for
the years 1995-1997. USEPA intends to publish rulemakings on an annual
basis revoking the one hour ozone standard for additional areas that
come into attainment of the one hour standard.
On July 22, 1998, USEPA published a final rule (63 FR 39432) in the
Federal Register revoking the one hour ozone standard in areas
attaining the one hour standard based on quality assured air monitoring
data for the years 1995-1997. In that action, USEPA revoked the one
hour ozone standard in the Dayton-Springfield, Ohio ozone maintenance
area, effective July 22, 1998.
On July 16, 1997, President Clinton issued a directive to
Administrator Browner on implementation of the new ozone standard, as
well as the current one hour ozone standard (62 FR 38421). In that
directive the President laid out a plan on how the new ozone and
particulate matter standards, as well as the current one hour standard,
are to be implemented. A December 29, 1997 memorandum entitled
``Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour and Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS,''
signed by Richard D. Wilson, USEPA's Acting Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, reflected that directive. The purpose of the
guidance set forth in the memorandum is to ensure that the momentum
gained by States to attain the one hour ozone NAAQS was not lost when
moving toward implementing the eight hour ozone NAAQS.
The guidance document explains that maintenance plans will remain
in effect for areas where the one hour standard is revoked; however,
those maintenance plans may be revised to withdraw certain contingency
measure provisions that have not been triggered or implemented prior to
USEPA's determination of attainment and revocation. Where the
contingency measure is linked to the one hour ozone standard or air
quality ozone concentrations, the measures may be removed from the
maintenance plan. Measures linked to non-air quality elements, such as
emissions increases or vehicle miles traveled, may be removed if the
State demonstrates that removing the measure will not affect an area's
ability to attain the eight hour ozone standard.
In other words, after the one hour standard is revoked for an area,
USEPA believes it is permissible to withdraw contingency measures
designed to correct violations of that standard. Since such measures
were designed to address future violations of a standard that no longer
exists, it is no longer necessary to retain them. Furthermore, USEPA
believes that future attainment and maintenance planning efforts should
be directed toward attaining the eight hour ozone NAAQS. As part of the
implementation of the eight hour ozone standard, the State's ozone air
quality will be evaluated and eight hour attainment and nonattainment
designations will be made.
III. Review of the State Submittal
In a letter from Donald R. Schregardus, Director, Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) received by USEPA on April 27,
1998, OEPA officially requested that all air quality triggers be
deleted from the maintenance plans for the areas in Ohio now attaining
the one hour ozone standard and where USEPA proposed to revoke the one
hour standard. In a letter from Robert Hodanbosi, Chief of the Division
of Air Pollution Control, dated June 11, 1998, OEPA transmitted the
results of its public hearing held on June 1, 1998. No public comments
were made at the hearing and no written comments were received.
The USEPA believes that Ohio's request is consistent with the
December 29, 1997 guidance document and the
[[Page 44400]]
July 16, 1997 Presidential Directive, and that the request is
approvable. On June 18, 1998, USEPA proposed to approve Ohio's request
to remove the air quality triggers from the Dayton-Springfield, Ohio
maintenance plan. On July 22, 1998, USEPA revoked the one hour ozone
standard in the Dayton-Springfield area.
IV. Public Comments on the Proposed Rulemaking
The public comment period on USEPA's June 18, 1998, proposal to
approve Ohio's request ended on July 20, 1998. See 63 FR 33314. No
public comments were received on USEPA's proposed approval.
V. USEPA Final Action
USEPA is approving in final the maintenance plan revisions to
remove the air quality triggers in the Dayton-Springfield, Ohio ozone
maintenance area.
VI. Administrative Procedure Act
This action will be effective immediately upon publication in the
Federal Register pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553(d) (1) and (3) (APA) for good cause. A delayed effective date is
unnecessary due to the nature of this action, which removes certain SIP
measures related to the 1-hour ozone standard, which has been revoked.
The thirty day delay of the effective date of this action generally
required by the Administrative Procedure Act is unwarranted in that it
does not serve the public interest to unnecessarily delay the effective
date of this action.
VII. Administrative Requirements
(A) Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory
action from Executive Order 12866 review.
(B) Executive Order 13045
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, titled
``Protection of Children's Health From Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks,'' because it is not an ``economically significant''
action under Executive Order 12866.
(C) Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it does not create any new
requirements. Therefore, because this Federal SIP approval does not
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the
Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
(D) Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
signed into law on March 22, 1995, USEPA 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 the removal of pre-existing
requirements under state or 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.
(E) Audit Privilege and Immunity Law
Nothing in this action should be construed as making any
determination or expressing any position regarding Ohio's audit
privilege and immunity law (Sections 3745.70-3745.73 of the Ohio
Revised Code). USEPA will be reviewing the effect of the Ohio audit
privilege and immunity law on various Ohio environmental programs,
including those under the Clean Air Act, and taking appropriate
action(s), if any, after thorough analysis and opportunity for Ohio to
state and explain its views and positions on the issues raised by the
law. The action taken herein does not express or imply any viewpoint on
the question of whether there are legal deficiencies in this or any
Ohio Clean Air Act program resulting from the effect of the audit
privilege and immunity law. As a consequence of the review process, the
regulations subject to the action taken herein may be disapproved,
federal approval for the Clean Air Act program under which they are
implemented may be withdrawn, or other appropriate action may be taken,
as necessary.
(F) Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. USEPA will submit 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 United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
(G) Petitions for Judicial Review
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 October 19, 1998. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for 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, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen oxides.
Dated: August 11, 1998.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region V.
Part 52, chapter I, 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 et seq.
Subpart KK--Ohio
2. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(10) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1885 Control Strategy: Ozone.
(a) * * *
(10) Approval--On April 27, 1998, Ohio submitted a revision to
remove the
[[Page 44401]]
air quality triggers from the ozone maintenance plan for the Dayton-
Springfield, Ohio Area (Miami, Montgomery, Clark, and Greene Counties)
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 98-22337 Filed 8-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
