Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 44903

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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Intergovernmental relations, Lead,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: August 18, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For reasons set forth in the preamble,

part 51 of chapter I of title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR

PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND

SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION

PLANS

1. The authority citation for part 51 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

2. Section 51.100 is amended by

revising paragraph (s) introductory text

and paragraph (s)(1) to read as follows:

§ 51.100 Definitions.

* * * * *

(s) Volatile organic compounds (VOC)

means any compound of carbon,

excluding carbon monoxide, carbon

dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides

or carbonates, and ammonium

carbonate, which participates in

atmospheric photochemical reactions.

(1) This includes any such organic

compound other than the following,

which have been determined to have

negligible photochemical reactivity:

methane; ethane; methylene chloride

(dichloromethane); 1,1,1-trichloroethane

(methyl chloroform); 1,1,2-trichloro1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC–113);

trichlorofluoromethane (CFC–11);

dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC–12);

chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC–22);

trifluoromethane (HFC–23); 1,2-dichloro

1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (CFC–114);

chloropentafluoroethane (CFC–115);

1,1,1-trifluoro 2,2-dichloroethane

(HCFC–123); 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane

(HFC–134a); 1,1-dichloro 1-fluoroethane

(HCFC–141b); 1-chloro 1,1-

difluoroethane (HCFC–142b); 2-chloro1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC–124);

pentafluoroethane (HFC–125); 1,1,2,2-

tetrafluoroethane (HFC–134); 1,1,1-

trifluoroethane (HFC–143a); 1,1-

difluoroethane (HFC–152a);

parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF);

cyclic, branched, or linear completely

methylated siloxanes; acetone;

perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene);

3,3-dichloro-1,1,1,2,2-

pentafluoropropane (HCFC–225ca); 1,3-

dichloro-1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane

(HCFC–225cb); 1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5-

decafluoropentane (HFC–43–10mee);

difluoromethane (HFC–32);

ethylfluoride (HFC–161); 1,1,1,3,3,3-

hexafluoropropane (HFC–236fa);

1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC–

245ca); 1,1,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane

(HFC–245ea); 1,1,1,2,3-

pentafluoropropane (HFC–245eb);

1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC–

245fa); 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoropropane

(HFC–236ea); 1,1,1,3,3-

pentafluorobutane (HFC–365mfc);

chlorofluoromethane (HCFC–31); 1-

chloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC–151a); 1,2-

dichloro-1,1,2-trifluoroethane (HCFC–

123a); 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-4-

methoxy-butane (C4F9OCH3); 2-

(difluoromethoxymethyl)-1,1,1,2,3,3,3-

heptafluoropropane ((CF3)2CFCF2OCH3);

1-ethoxy-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-

nonafluorobutane (C4F9OC2H5); 2-

(ethoxydifluoromethyl)-1,1,1,2,3,3,3-

heptafluoropropane

((CF3)2CFCF2OC2H5); and

perfluorocarbon compounds which fall

into these classes:

(i) Cyclic, branched, or linear,

completely fluorinated alkanes;

(ii) Cyclic, branched, or linear,

completely fluorinated ethers with no

unsaturations;

(iii) Cyclic, branched, or linear,

completely fluorinated tertiary amines

with no unsaturations; and

(iv) Sulfur containing

perfluorocarbons with no unsaturations

and with sulfur bonds only to carbon

and fluorine.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–22510 Filed 8–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH104–1A; FRL–5877–9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Maintenance Plan Revisions; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) is approving through ‘‘direct

final’’ procedure, a June 10, 1997,

request from Ohio, for State

Implementation Plan (SIP) maintenance

plan revisions for the following areas:

Toledo area (including Lucas and Wood

counties), the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain

area (including Lorain, Cuyahoga, Lake,

Ashtabula, Geauga, Medina, Summit

and Portage counties), and the DaytonSpringfield area (including

Montgomery, Clark, Greene, and Miami

counties). The maintenance plan

revisions are allocating to the mobile

source emission budget for

transportation conformity a portion of

the existing ‘‘Safety Margins.’’ The

safety margin is the difference between

the attainment inventory level of the

total emissions and the projected levels

of the total emissions in the final year

of the maintenance plan.

DATES: This ‘‘direct final’’ rule is

effective on October 24, 1997, unless

USEPA receives significant written

adverse or critical comments (which

have not already been addressed) by

September 24, 1997. If the effective date

is delayed, timely notice will be

published in the Federal Register.

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

Scott Hamilton at (312) 353–4775 before

visiting the Region 5 office.

Written comments should be sent to:

J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch, (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois,

60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Hamilton, 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) 353–4775.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Clean Air Act in section 176(c)

requires conformity of activities to an

implementation plan’s purpose of

attaining and maintaining the National

ambient air quality standards. On

November 24, 1993, the USEPA

promulgated a final rule establishing

criteria and procedures for determining
44904 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

conformity of transportation plans,

programs and projects funded or

approved under Title 23 U.S.C. of the

Federal Transit Act. The State of Ohio

finalized and adopted State

transportation conformity rules on

August 1, 1995, the rules became

effective August 21, 1995, and Ohio

submitted the rules as a SIP revision

request on August 17, 1995. The rules

were approved by the USEPA on July

15, 1996 (61 FR 24702).

The transportation conformity rules

require, among other things, a

comparison to the mobile source

emissions budget established by a

control strategy SIP. A control strategy

SIP is defined by the conformity rules

to be a maintenance plan, an attainment

demonstration, or a rate of progress

plan. The Toledo area, Dayton/

Springfield area, and Cleveland/Akron/

Lorain area in Ohio are all maintenance

areas with approved maintenance plans.

The USEPA approval of the

maintenance plans established the

mobile source budget for transportation

conformity purposes.

In the preamble to the November 24,

1993, transportation conformity rule (58

FR 62188) the emissions budget concept

is explained. The preamble also

describes how to establish the motor

vehicle emissions budget in the SIP and

how to revise the emissions budget. The

State transportation conformity rule at

3745–101–16 of the Ohio

Administrative Code allows the mobile

source emissions budget to be changed

as long as the total level of emissions

from all sources remain below the

milestone level. In the case of a

maintenance plan the milestone level is

the attainment level established in the

maintenance plan.

The maintenance plan is designed to

plan for future growth while still

maintaining the ozone air quality

standard. Growth in industries,

population and traffic is offset with

reductions from cleaner cars and other

emissions reduction programs. Through

the maintenance plan the State and

local agencies can manage the air

quality while providing for growth.

II. Evaluation of the State Submittals

On June 10, 1997, Ohio submitted to

the USEPA SIP revision requests for the

Toledo area (including Lucas and Wood

counties), the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain

area (including Lorain, Cuyahoga, Lake,

Ashtabula, Geauga, Medina, Summit

and Portage counties), and the DaytonSpringfield area (including

Montgomery, Clark, Greene, and Miami

counties). Public hearings for the

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area and the

Dayton-Springfield area regarding these

issues were held on June 3, 1997. A

public hearing for the Toledo area was

held on July 3, 1997. Documentation on

the public hearings were submitted to

complete the SIP revision requests.

(1) Toledo SIP Revision

Ohio has requested to allocate to the

Toledo mobile source budget part of the

reductions achieved between the 1990

attainment inventory year and the 2005

projected emissions inventory (57.338

tons/day Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOC) existing safety margin, and 46.38

tons/day Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)

existing safety margin, as described in

60 FR 21456 and 60 FR 21490; May 2,

1995). The SIP revision requests the

allocation of 6.0 tons/day VOC, and 10.5

tons/day NOx, into the area’s mobile

source budget from the existing safety

margin. Table 1 illustrates the approved

emissions budgets for VOC and NOx

from point, mobile (on-road) and area

sources. The safety margin allocations

are shown in table 2.

TABLE 1.—NOx AND VOC EMISSIONS BUDGET; AND SAFETY MARGIN DETERMINATIONS, TOLEDO

[Tons/day]

Source category 1990 1996 2000 2005

VOC Emissions:

Point .......................................................................................................................... 60.08 39.49 39.31 38.87

Mobile (on-road) ........................................................................................................ 66.33 51.28 41.25 1 29.85

Area ........................................................................................................................... 37.25 37.35 37.56 37.60

Totals ..................................................................................................................... 163.66 128.12 118.12 106.32

Safety Margin=1990 total emissions—2005 total emissions=57.34 tons/day VOC.

NOx Emissions:

Point .......................................................................................................................... 73.97 73.40 40.15 40.69

Mobile (on-road) ........................................................................................................ 37.82 32.56 29.06 24.69

Area ........................................................................................................................... 10.26 10.27 10.28 10.29

Totals ..................................................................................................................... 122.05 116.23 79.49 75.67

Safety Margin=1990 total emissions—2005 total emissions=46.38 tons/day NOx

1On May 2, 1995, the USEPA approved the addition of 1.142 tons/day VOC of the existing ‘‘safety margin’’ into the year 2005 VOC mobile

source budget for purposes of conformity. (60 FR 21458; May 2, 1995)

TABLE 2.—ALLOCATION OF SAFETY MARGIN TO THE 2005 MOBILE SOURCE BUDGET, TOLEDO

[Tons/day]

Source category 1990 1996 2000 2005

VOC Emissions:

Point .......................................................................................................................... 60.08 39.49 39.31 38.87

Mobile (on-road) ........................................................................................................ 66.33 51.28 41.25 35.85

Area ........................................................................................................................... 37.25 37.35 37.56 37.60

Totals ..................................................................................................................... 163.66 128.12 118.12 112.32

Remaining Safety Margin=1990 total emissions—2005 total emissions=51.34 tons/day VOC.

NOx Emissions:

Point .......................................................................................................................... 73.97 73.40 40.15 40.69

Mobile (on-road) ........................................................................................................ 37.82 32.56 29.06 35.19
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 44905

TABLE 2.—ALLOCATION OF SAFETY MARGIN TO THE 2005 MOBILE SOURCE BUDGET, TOLEDO—Continued

[Tons/day]

Source category 1990 1996 2000 2005

Area ........................................................................................................................... 10.26 10.27 10.28 10.29

Totals ..................................................................................................................... 122.05 116.23 79.49 86.17

Remaining Safety Margin=1990 total emissions—2005 total emissions=35.88 tons/day NOx.

Table 2 illustrates that the requested

portion of the safety margin can be

allocated to the mobile source budget

and still remain at or below the 1990

attainment level of total emissions for

the Toledo area. This allocation is

allowed by the conformity rule since the

area would still be at or below the 1990

attainment level for the total emissions

in the area.

(2) Cleveland-Akron-Lorain SIP Revision

Ohio has requested to allocate to the

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain mobile source

budget, part of the reduction achieved

between the 1993 attainment inventory

year and the 2006 projected emissions

inventory (120.2 tons/day VOC existing

safety margin, and 41.5 tons/day NOX

existing safety margin, as described in

61 FR 20458; May 7, 1996). The SIP

revision requests the allocation of 33.9

tons/day VOC, and 29.0 tons/day NOX,

into the area’s mobile source budget.

Table 3 illustrates the approved

emissions budgets for VOC and NOX

from point, mobile (on-road) and area

sources. The safety margin allocations

are shown in table 4.

TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS BUDGET; AND SAFETY MARGIN DETERMINATIONS, CLEVELAND/

AKRON/LORAIN

[Tons/day]

Source category 1990 1993 1996 2000 2006

VOC Emissions:

Point ......................................................................................... 82.22 75.75 78.55 82.44 88.63

Mobile (on-road) ...................................................................... 248.4 181.4 131.2 78.4 48.8

Area ......................................................................................... 201.05 201.37 201.45 201.63 200.86

Totals ................................................................................... 531.7 458.5 411.2 362.5 338.3

Safety Margin=1993 total emissions—2006 total emissions=120.2 tons/day VOC.

NOX Emissions:

Point ......................................................................................... 245.59 254.61 263.91 277.05 298.00

Mobile (on-road) ...................................................................... 176.6 159.9 142.2 95.5 75.4

Area ......................................................................................... 80.46 80.56 80.51 80.61 80.18

Totals ................................................................................... 502.6 495.1 486.6 453.2 453.6

Safety Margin=1993 total emissions—2006 total emissions=41.5 tons/day NOX.

TABLE 4.—ALLOCATION OF VOC EMISSIONS TO THE 2006 MOBILE SOURCE BUDGET, CLEVELAND/AKRON/LORAIN

[Tons/day]

Source category 1990 1993 1996 2000 2006

VOC Emissions:

Point ......................................................................................... 82.22 75.75 78.55 82.44 88.63

Mobile (on-road) ...................................................................... 248.4 181.4 131.2 78.4 82.7

Area ......................................................................................... 201.05 201.37 201.45 201.63 200.86

Totals ................................................................................... 531.7 458.5 411.2 362.5 372.2

Remaining Safety Margin=1993 total emissions—2006 total emissions=86.3 tons/day VOC.

NOX Emissions:

Point ......................................................................................... 245.59 254.61 263.91 277.05 298.00

Mobile (on-road) ...................................................................... 176.6 159.9 142.2 95.5 104.4

Area ......................................................................................... 80.46 80.56 80.51 80.61 80.18

Totals ................................................................................... 502.6 495.1 486.6 453.2 482.6

Remaining Safety Margin=1993 total emissions—2006 total emissions=12.5 tons/day NOX.

Tables 3 and 4 illustrate that the SIP

revision request can be granted to

allocate a portion of the safety margin to

the mobile source budget and still

remain at or below the 1993 attainment

year inventory total for the Cleveland/

Akron/Lorain area. This allocation is

allowed by the conformity rule since the

area would still be at or below the 1993

attainment level for the total emissions

in the area.
44906 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

(3) Dayton-Springfield SIP Revision

Ohio has requested to allocate to the

Dayton-Springfield mobile source

budget, the reduction achieved between

the 1990 attainment inventory year and

the 2005 projected emissions inventory

(2.4 tons/day VOC existing safety

margin, as described in 60 FR 22289;

May 5, 1995). The SIP revision requests

the allocation of the 2.4 tons/day VOC

safety margin into the area’s mobile

source budget. Table 5 illustrates the

approved emissions budgets for VOC

from point, mobile (on-road) and area

sources. The safety margin allocations

are shown in table 6.

TABLE 5.—VOC EMISSIONS BUDGET; AND SAFETY MARGIN DETERMINATIONS, DAYTON-SPRINGFIELD

[Tons/day]

Source category 1990 1996 2000 2005

VOC Emissions:

Point .......................................................................................................................... 37.4 61.6 77.7 97.4

Biogenic ..................................................................................................................... 105.2 105.2 105.2 105.2

Mobile (on-road) ........................................................................................................ 103.6 45.5 39.4 31.7

Area ........................................................................................................................... 54.9 58.3 60.6 64.4

Totals ..................................................................................................................... 301.1 270.6 282.9 298.7

Safety Margin=1990 total emissions¥2005 total emissions=2.4 tons/day VOC.

TABLE 6.—ALLOCATION OF VOC EMISSIONS TO THE 2005 MOBILE SOURCE BUDGET, DAYTON-SPRINGFIELD

[Tons/day]

Source category 1990 1996 2000 2005

VOC Emissions:

Point .......................................................................................................................... 37.4 61.6 77.7 97.4

Biogenic ..................................................................................................................... 105.2 105.2 105.2 105.2

Mobile (on-road) ........................................................................................................ 103.6 45.5 39.4 34.1

Area ........................................................................................................................... 54.9 58.3 60.6 64.4

Totals ..................................................................................................................... 301.1 270.6 282.9 301.1

Remaining Safety Margin=1990 total emissions¥2005 total emissions=0.0 tons/day VOC.

As illustrated by Tables 5 and 6 the

SIP revision requests to allocate all of

the VOC safety margin to the mobile

source budget. This allocation is

allowed by the conformity rule since the

area would still be at the 1990

attainment level for the total emissions

in the area.

The USEPA’s review of the SIP

revision requests finds that the

requested allocation of the safety

margins for the Toledo, Cleveland/

Akron/Lorain and Dayton/Springfield

areas are approvable since the approval

of the new mobile source emissions

budgets will keep the total emissions for

the area at or below the attainment year

inventory level as required by the

transportation conformity regulations.

III. USEPA Action

The USEPA approves the requested

allocation of the safety margin to the

mobile source budget for the Toledo,

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, and DaytonSpringfield areas. This action will be

effective on October 24, 1997 unless, by

September 24, 1997, significant written

adverse or critical comments on the

approval are received.

If the USEPA receives such written

adverse comments, the approval will be

withdrawn before the effective date by

publishing a subsequent rulemaking

that will withdraw the final action. All

written public comments received will

be addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. The USEPA does not

plan to institute a second comment

period on this action. Any parties

interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time. If no such

written comments are received, the

public is advised that this action will be

effective on October 24, 1997.

IV. Administrative Requirements

(A) Future Requests

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, 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.

(B) Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866 review.

(C) Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA 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, USEPA 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-forprofit 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 USEPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. USEPA.,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 44907

427 U.S. 246, 256–66 (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 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). U.S. EPA 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 CAA 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) Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under section 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,

USEPA 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 section

804(2).

(G) 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 October 24, 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, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Nitrogen Oxides, Transportation

conformity.

Dated: August 8, 1997.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

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. 7401–7671q.

Subpart KK—Ohio

2. Section 52.1885 is amended by

adding paragraph (a)(6) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1885 Control strategy: Ozone.

(a) * * *

(6) Approval—On June 10, 1997, Ohio

submitted revisions to the maintenance

plans for the Toledo area (including

Lucas and Wood counties), the

Cleveland/Akron/Lorain area (including

Lorain, Cuyahoga, Lake, Ashtabula,

Geauga, Medina, Summit and Portage

counties), and the Dayton-Springfield

area (including Montgomery, Clark,

Greene, and Miami counties). The

revisions consist of an allocation of a

portion of the safety margin in each area

to the transportation conformity mobile

source budget for that area. The mobile

source budgets for transportation

conformity purposes for Toledo are

now: 35.85 tons per day of volatile

organic compound emissions for the

year 2005 and 35.19 tons per day of

oxides of nitrogen emissions for the year

2005. The mobile source budgets for

transportation conformity purposes for

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain are now: 82.7

tons per day of volatile organic

compound emissions for the year 2006

and 104.4 tons per day of oxides of

nitrogen emissions for the year 2006.

For the Dayton-Springfield area, the

oxides of nitrogen mobile source budget

remains the same and the mobile source

budget for volatile organic compounds

is now 34.1 tons per day.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–22067 Filed 8–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 034–0049a FRL–5880–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, Bay

Area Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action on a revision to the California

State Implementation Plan. The revision

concerns a rule from the Bay Area Air

Quality Management District

(BAAQMD). This approval action will

incorporate this rule into the federally

approved SIP. The intended effect of

approving this rule is to regulate

emissions of VOCs in accordance with

the requirements of the Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

This revised rule controls VOC

emissions from stationary storage tanks

containing organic liquids. Thus, EPA is

finalizing the approval of the BAAQMD

rule revision into the California SIP

under provisions of the CAA regarding

EPA action on SIP submittals, EPA’s

general rulemaking authority, plan

submissions, and enforceability

guidelines. This rule is being

incorporated into the SIP in accordance

with the area’s ozone maintenance plan

for redesignation to attainment.

DATES: This action is effective on

October 24, 1997 unless adverse or

critical comments are received by

September 24, 1997. If the effective date

is delayed, a timely notice will be

published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be

submitted to Andrew Steckel at the

Region IX office listed below. Copies of

the rule revisions and EPA’s evaluation

report for BAAQMD Rule 8–5, Storage

of Organic Liquids, are available for

public inspection at EPA’s Region IX

office during normal business hours.

Copies of the submitted rule revisions

are available for inspection at the

following locations: