```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 123 (Thursday, June 26, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36277-36279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14831]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2005-OH-0002; FRL-9912-60-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Ohio; Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On June 27, 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
proposed action on particulate matter rule revisions that Ohio 
submitted on June 4, 2003. While EPA subsequently took final action 
with respect to provisions that it proposed to approve, EPA has not 
taken final action with respect to provisions relating to opacity 
limitations that EPA proposed to disapprove on June 27, 2005. EPA is 
evaluating the public comments received in response to the proposed 
disapproval published on June 27, 2005.
    EPA believes that events subsequent to the publication of the 
proposed disapproval and the associated comment period have not altered 
the criteria for evaluating Ohio's rule revisions relating to opacity 
and have not otherwise influenced whether the rule revisions should be 
disapproved, as proposed. Nevertheless, given the passage of time, EPA 
is soliciting supplemental comment specifically with respect to whether 
events subsequent to the prior comment period should alter EPA's 
proposed disapproval of Ohio's June 4, 2003, submission with respect to 
SIP opacity

[[Page 36278]]

limitations. EPA is not soliciting comments on Ohio's submission or 
EPA's proposed June 27, 2005, action on that submission, except to the 
extent that events subsequent to the original comment period are 
relevant to EPA's evaluation of the submission and EPA's proposed 
action. This is not a re-opening of the original comment period, but 
the opening of a supplemental comment period, as described further 
below.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2005-OH-0002, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (312) 692-2551.
    4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and 
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and 
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal 
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for 
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of 
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2005-OH-0002. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov 
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' 
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
send an email comment directly to EPA without going through 
www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured 
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you 
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or 
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. 
We recommend that you telephone John Summerhays, Environmental 
Scientist, at (312) 886-6067, before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Environmental 
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs 
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6067, 
summerhays.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 4, 2003, Ohio submitted revisions to particulate matter 
rules in the EPA approved SIP for the state, in Ohio Administrative 
Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-17. These revisions included significant 
revisions to Ohio's requirements regarding opacity limits applicable to 
various sources, reflected in revisions to OAC 3745-17-03. Among other 
changes, these revisions provided that sources meeting certain 
criteria, including operating a continuous opacity monitoring system 
(COMS) in compliance with pertinent data quality requirements, could 
opt to demonstrate compliance by showing that the COMS data meet 
modified opacity limits. The revisions also include various less 
substantive updates, simplifications, and clarifications in other parts 
of OAC 3745-17 that are unrelated to the applicable opacity standards.
    EPA proposed action on these revisions to OAC 3745-17 on June 27, 
2005, published at 70 FR 36901. EPA proposed to disapprove the 
revisions in OAC 3745-17-03, finding that the revisions relaxed 
applicable opacity requirements without any demonstration pursuant to 
Clean Air Act section 110(l) that the relaxation does not interfere 
with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or satisfaction of other 
requirements. EPA proposed to approve most of the remaining revisions 
that Ohio submitted. These remaining revisions were part of a 
subsequently submitted and subsequently approved set of revisions, and 
so these remaining revisions are not at issue here. EPA received 
comments on the June 25, 2007, proposal from several commenters.
    On September 10, 2009, Ohio submitted additional rule revisions 
expressly intended to consolidate its air quality standards. These rule 
revisions included an update to the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-
03(A), intended to clarify that the ambient monitoring methods given in 
OAC 3745-17-01 were to be used to assess attainment with air quality 
standards in a rule relocated from OAC 3745-17-02 to OAC 3745-25-02. 
EPA published direct final action approving the air quality standards-
related revisions on October 26, 2010, at 75 FR 65572.
    Unfortunately, EPA's October 2010 action on Ohio's September 2009 
submission (addressing the state's air quality standards rules) 
erroneously appeared to suggest that EPA was approving the entirety of 
the substantive revisions to OAC 3745-17-03, even though the action 
only addressed the revision to the cross reference in paragraph A and 
not the other substantive provisions in OAC 3745-17-03 such as the 
opacity-related provisions in OAC 3745-17-03(B). Upon finding this 
error, EPA published action on April 3, 2013, at 78 FR 19990, to 
correct this error pursuant to its authority under the Administrative 
Procedures Act. Two parties then objected to this method of correcting 
the typographical error and requested that EPA address this error 
pursuant to EPA's authority under Clean Air Act section 110(k)(6). EPA 
agreed to these requests and published proposed action pursuant to 
Clean Air Act section 110(k)(6) on February 7, 2014, at 79 FR 7412. EPA 
is currently evaluating comments on the February 2014

[[Page 36279]]

proposal and will take final action upon that proposal separately.
    EPA believes that neither these events nor any other events warrant 
any alterations in the criteria for evaluation of Ohio's opacity rules 
or in the analysis of Ohio's June 4, 2003, submission. Actions on other 
parts of OAC Chapter 3745-17 rules and actions pertinent to revision of 
the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A) and other provisions related 
to air quality standards are not pertinent to EPA's proposed 
disapproval of the revisions to the substantive opacity provisions of 
OAC 3745-17-03. EPA has not issued any revised guidance or taken other 
action on issues pertinent to its review of Ohio's opacity rule 
revisions. Therefore, EPA believes that no new issues have arisen since 
its June 27, 2005, proposed disapproval and the associated comment 
period that warrant consideration before EPA takes final action on 
these rule revisions. However, EPA is specifically soliciting comment 
on whether any events subsequent to the comment period on the June 27, 
2005, action should have any impact on that proposed disapproval, and 
if so how those events should influence the appropriate criteria.

II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is soliciting comments on whether any events which have 
occurred, or any policy considerations which have arisen, after the 
comment period on EPA's June 27, 2005, proposed disapproval of 
revisions to Ohio's opacity rules in OAC 3745-17-03 should be 
considered by EPA in evaluating these rule revisions. EPA's proposed 
rulemaking of June 27, 2005, solicited comments that could be made at 
that time and EPA is not soliciting resubmission of prior comments or 
submission of additional comments that could have been made at that 
time. EPA is specifically soliciting only comments that could not have 
been made at the time of its prior proposed rulemaking because they are 
based upon events or policy considerations that arose subsequent to 
that comment period.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is 
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely proposes to disapprove state law as not meeting 
Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule proposes to disapprove pre-existing requirements 
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty 
beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded 
mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as 
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it 
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the 
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999). This action merely proposes to disapprove a state rule, and 
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59 
FR 22951, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it proposes to disapprove a state rule.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action 
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning 
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus 
be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state 
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 10, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2014-14831 Filed 6-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```