Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 61241

contained in the maintenance plan for

the horizon years 2015 and beyond

adopted on July 30, 1996 and submitted

by the Virginia Department of

Environmental Quality on July 30, 1996.

PART 81—[AMENDED]

4. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671.

Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment

Status Designations

4. In § 81.347 the ‘‘Virginia—Ozone’’

table is amended by revising the entry

for ‘‘Richmond Area’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.347 Virginia.

* * * * *

VIRGINIA—OZONE

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

* * * * * * *

Richmond Area:

Charles City County (part).................... ............................ 12/17/97 Attainment.

Beginning at the intersection of State Route 156

and the Henrico/Charles City County Line, proceeding south along State Route 5/156 to the

intersection with State Route 106/156, proceeding

south along Route 106/156 to the intersection

with the Prince George/Charles City County line,

proceeding west along the Prince George/Charles

City County line to the intersection with the Chesterfield/Charles City County line, proceeding north

along the Chesterfield/Charles City County line to

the intersection with the Henrico/Charles City

County line, proceeding north along the Henrico/

Charles City County line to State Route 156.

Chesterfield County, Colonial Heights, Hanover County,

Henrico County, Hopewell, Richmond.

* * * * * * *

1This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

[FR Doc. 97–30138 Filed 11–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[OH107–3; KY94–9717a; FRL–5922–5]

Clean Air Act Promulgation of

Extension of Attainment Date for

Ozone Nonattainment Area; Ohio;

Kentucky

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On May 27, 1997, USEPA

extended the attainment date for the

Cincinnati-Hamilton interstate,

moderate ozone nonattainment area

from November 15, 1996 to November

15, 1997 utilizing ‘‘direct final

rulemaking’’ procedures. On July 28,

1997, USEPA withdrew the direct final

rule due to the receipt of adverse

comments. In this action USEPA is

responding to public comments

received in response to the proposed

rule and announcing that it is extending

the attainment date for the CincinnatiHamilton interstate moderate ozone

nonattainment area from November 15,

1996 to November 15, 1997. This

extension is based in part on monitored

air quality readings for the national

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)

for ozone during 1996. The USEPA is

also revising the table in the Code of

Federal Regulations concerning ozone

attainment dates in this area.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This extension becomes

effective December 17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The Kentucky SIP revision

is available for inspection at the

following addresses:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Atlanta Federal Center, Region 4 Air

Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street

S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–3104.

Natural Resources and Environmental

Protection Cabinet, 803 Schenkel

Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601.

The Ohio SIP revision is available for

inspection at the following addresses:

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois, 60604.

Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution

Control, 1800 Watermark Drive,

Columbus, OH 43215.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph M. LeVasseur at the USEPA

Region 4 address listed above or

Randolph O. Cano at Region 5 at the

address listed above. (It is

recommended that you contact Joseph

M. LeVasseur at (404) 562-9035 before

visiting the Region 4 office.) (It is

recommended that you contact

Randolph O. Cano at (312) 886–6036

before visiting the Region 5 office.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Attainment Date Extension

for the Cincinnati-Hamilton

Metropolitan Moderate Ozone

Nonattainment Area

On November 7, 1996, the Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio

EPA) requested a one-year attainment

date extension for the Ohio portion of

the Cincinnati-Hamilton moderate

ozone nonattainment area which

consists of Hamilton, Butler, Clermont

and Warren Counties in Ohio. Similarly,

on November 15, 1996, the Kentucky

Natural Resources and Environmental

Protection Cabinet (KNREPC) requested
61242 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

a one-year attainment date extension for

the Kentucky portion of the CincinnatiHamilton moderate ozone

nonattainment area which consists of

Kenton, Boone and Campbell Counties.

Since this area was classified as a

moderate ozone nonattainment area, the

statutory ozone attainment date, as

prescribed by section 181(a) of the Clean

Air Act (CAA), is November 15, 1996.

The submittals requested that the

attainment date be extended to

November 15, 1997. On May 27, 1997

(62 FR 28634), USEPA extended the

attainment date for the CincinnatiHamilton interstate, moderate ozone

nonattainment area from November 15,

1996 to November 15, 1997 utilizing

‘‘direct final rulemaking’’ procedures.

On July 28, 1997 (62 FR 40280), USEPA

withdrew the direct final rule due to the

receipt of adverse comments. In this

action USEPA is responding to public

comments received in response to the

proposed rule and announcing that it is

extending the attainment date for the

Cincinnati-Hamilton interstate moderate

ozone nonattainment area from

November 15, 1996 to November 15,

1997. This extension is based in part on

monitored air quality readings for the

ozone national ambient air quality

standard (NAAQS) during 1996.

CAA Requirements and USEPA Actions

Concerning Designation and

Classification

Section 107(d)(4) of the CAA requires

the States and USEPA to designate areas

as attainment, nonattainment, or

unclassifiable for ozone as well as other

pollutants for which national ambient

air quality standards (NAAQS) have

been set. Section 181(a)(1) requires that

ozone nonattainment areas be classified

as marginal, moderate, serious, severe,

or extreme, depending on their air

quality. In a series of Federal Register

documents, USEPA completed this

process by designating and classifying

all areas of the country for ozone. See,

e.g., 56 FR 58694 (Nov. 6, 1991); 57 FR

56762 (Nov. 30, 1992).

Areas designated nonattainment for

ozone are required to meet attainment

dates specified under the CAA. The

Cincinnati-Hamilton ozone

nonattainment area was designated

nonattainment and classified moderate

for ozone pursuant to 56 FR 58694 (Nov.

6, 1991). By this classification, its

attainment date became November 15,

1996. A discussion of the attainment

dates is found in 57 FR 13498 (April 16,

1992) (the General Preamble).

CAA Requirements and USEPA Actions

Concerning Meeting the Attainment

Date

Section 181(b)(2)(A) requires the

Administrator, within six months of the

attainment date, to determine whether

ozone nonattainment areas attained the

NAAQS. For ozone, USEPA determines

attainment status on the basis of the

expected number of exceedances of the

NAAQS over the most recent three-year

period. See General Preamble, 57 FR

13506. In the case of moderate ozone

nonattainment areas, the three-year

period is 1994–1996. CAA section

181(b)(2)(A) further states that, for areas

classified as marginal, moderate, or

serious, if the Administrator determines

that the area did not attain the standard

by its attainment date, the area must be

reclassified upward (bumped-up).

A review of the actual ambient air

quality ozone data from the USEPA

Aerometric Information Retrieval

System (AIRS), shows that a number of

air quality monitors located in the

Cincinnati-Hamilton ozone

nonattainment area recorded

exceedances of the NAAQS for ozone

during the three-year period from 1994

to 1996. At one of these monitors,

Warren County, OH, the number of

expected exceedances was 2.0 per year,

for 1994 and 1995. Because these

exceedances averaged more than 1.0

over the three-year period, they

constitute a violation of the ozone

NAAQS for the Cincinnati-Hamilton

area during this three-year period. Thus,

the area did not meet the November 15,

1996 attainment date.

However, CAA section 181(a)(5)

provides an exemption from these

bump-up requirements. Under this

exemption, USEPA may grant up to two,

one-year extensions of the attainment

date under specified conditions:

Upon application by any State, the

Administrator may extend for one

additional year (hereinafter referred to

as the ‘‘Extension Year’’) the date

specified in table 1 of paragraph (1) of

this subsection if—

(A) The State has complied with all

requirements and commitments

pertaining to the area in the applicable

implementation plan, and

(B) No more than one exceedance of

the NAAQS level for ozone has occurred

in the area in the year preceding the

Extension Year.

No more than two one-year extensions

may be issued for a single

nonattainment area.

The USEPA interprets this provision

to authorize the granting of a one-year

extension under the following minimum

conditions:

(1) The State requests a one-year

extension,

(2) All requirements and

commitments in the USEPA-approved

SIP for the area have been complied

with, and

(3) The area has no more than one

measured exceedance of the NAAQS at

each monitor in the area during the year

that includes the attainment date (or the

subsequent year, if a second one-year

extension is requested).

TABLE 1.—EXCEEDANCES OF THE OZONE AIR QUALITY STANDARD IN THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA 1994 TO 1996

Site County/state Year Exceedances

measured

Expected

exeedances

Oxford1 ............................................................................ Butler, OH ................................................. 1994 0 0.0

Middletown ....................................................................... Butler, OH ................................................. 1994 0 0.0

Middletown ....................................................................... Butler, OH ................................................. 1995 2 2.0

Middletown ....................................................................... Butler, OH ................................................. 1996 1 1.0

Hamilton ........................................................................... Butler, OH ................................................. 1994 0 0.0

Hamilton ........................................................................... Butler, OH ................................................. 1995 1 1.0

Hamilton ........................................................................... Butler, OH ................................................. 1996 0 0.0

4430 SR 222 ................................................................... Clermont, OH ............................................ 1994 1 1.0

4430 SR 222 ................................................................... Clermont, OH ............................................ 1995 1 1.0

4430 SR 222 ................................................................... Clermont, OH ............................................ 1996 0 0.0

11590 Grooms Rd ........................................................... Hamilton, OH ............................................ 1994 0 0.0

11590 Grooms Rd ........................................................... Hamilton, OH ............................................ 1995 0 0.0

11590 Grooms Rd ........................................................... Hamilton, OH ............................................ 1996 0 0.0

6950 Ripple Rd ................................................................ Hamilton, OH ............................................ 1994 0 0.0

6950 Ripple Rd ................................................................ Hamilton, OH ............................................ 1995 1 1.0

6950 Ripple Rd ................................................................ Hamilton, OH ............................................ 1996 0 0.0
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 61243

TABLE 1.—EXCEEDANCES OF THE OZONE AIR QUALITY STANDARD IN THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA 1994 TO 1996—

Continued

Site County/state Year Exceedances

measured

Expected

exeedances

Cincinnati ......................................................................... Hamilton, OH ............................................ 1994 0 0.0

Cincinnati ......................................................................... Hamilton, OH ............................................ 1995 1 1.0

Cincinnati ......................................................................... Hamilton, OH ............................................ 1996 0 0.0

Lebanon ........................................................................... Warren, OH .............................................. 1994 2 2.0

Lebanon ........................................................................... Warren, OH .............................................. 1995 2 2.0

Lebanon ........................................................................... Warren, OH .............................................. 1996 0 0.0

KY 338 ............................................................................. Boone, KY ................................................ 1994 0 0.0

KY 338 ............................................................................. Boone, KY ................................................ 1995 0 0.0

KY 338 ............................................................................. Boone, KY ................................................ 1996 0 0.0

Dayton ............................................................................. Campbell, KY ............................................ 1994 0 0.0

Dayton ............................................................................. Campbell, KY ............................................ 1995 0 0.0

Dayton ............................................................................. Campbell, KY ............................................ 1996 1 1.0

Covington ......................................................................... Kenton, KY ............................................... 1994 0 0.0

Covington ......................................................................... Kenton, KY ............................................... 1995 1 1.0

Covington ......................................................................... Kenton, KY ............................................... 1996 1 1.0

1This site was shutdown after 1994, so no data are available for 1995 and 1996.

In both extension requests Ohio and

Kentucky indicated that they satisfied

the attainment date extension criteria in

as much as no monitors in the

Cincinnati-Hamilton area monitored

more than one exceedance each during

1996. The 1996 monitoring data has

been quality controlled and quality

assured, as has been the data for 1994

and 1995. These data are summarized in

Table 1. An examination of the data

indicates that three of the ten monitors

recorded one exceedance each during

1996.

Both Ohio and Kentucky certified that

they are implementing the ozone State

Implementation Plans (SIPs) for the

area. USEPA conducted a review of the

ozone SIPs, as contained in 40 CFR part

52 and USEPA’s electronic version of

the SIP, and believes that the States are

implementing the USEPA approved

ozone SIPs. Additionally, USEPA has

not made a finding of failure to

implement the SIPs for the area. This

supports the States’ certification that the

area is implementing its SIPs.

Ohio is implementing the

requirements of the approved Ozone

SIP. Regarding implementation of the

vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/

M) program, Ohio enacted legislation

authorizing the I/M program and

adopted regulations for the operation of

the program. The USEPA approved the

program on April 4, 1995 (see 60 FR

16989). The State of Ohio awarded a

contract for program operations, and on

January 2, 1996, Ohio began testing

vehicles in the Cincinnati area. The

enactment of legislation, adoption of

regulations, and the capital investment

in structures and equipment to perform

testing meets the implementation test.

While the Cincinnati program has been

suspended due to program performance

problems, Ohio is in compliance with

CAA implementation requirements. The

Ohio Stage II vapor recovery program is

being implemented in the Cincinnati

area. The State is also collecting

emissions statements from sources in

the area. The State is implementing its

SIP for conformity. Also, the area is

implementing its approved SIP which

includes a program for controlling

volatile organic compound (VOC)

emissions from stationary sources. This

includes the Non-Control Technique

Guideline Reasonably Available Control

Technique requirements approved

within the past several years for the

following plants in the Ohio portion of

the area: Steelcraft Manufacturing Co.,

Chevron USA Inc., International Paper

Co., Morton Thiokol, Armco Steel Co.,

Formica Corp., PMC Specialties Group,

Hilton Davis Co., Monsanto Co., and

Proctor and Gamble.

Kentucky is implementing the

requirements of its approved ozone SIP

for the Cincinnati-Hamilton interstate

area. The Kentucky portion of the area

is implementing its program for

controlling oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and

VOC emissions from stationary sources.

Proposed Rule and Responses to

Comments

The USEPA published a direct final

rule to approve the attainment date

extension request for the CincinnatiHamilton moderate ozone

nonattainment area in the May 27, 1997

(62 FR 28634), Federal Register. This

action was accompanied by a proposed

rule (62 FR 28650). Because USEPA

received comments adverse to this

action, the direct final rule was

withdrawn. The comments received are

summarized below along with USEPA’s

responses. Copies of all comments have

been placed in the docket file and are

available for public review.

Comment 1: Ohio has failed to

comply with the CAA implementation

requirements under sec. 181 (a)(5)(B):

‘‘no more than one exceedance of the

NAAQS level for ozone has occurred in

the area in the year preceding the

Extension Year.’’ The USEPA’s proposal

states that ‘‘a review of the ozone data

for the area indicates the area has

monitored no more than one exceedance

of the NAAQS at any monitor during

1996.’’ Section 181 (a)(5)(B) states that

one exceedance be allowed in the area,

not one exceedance be allowed per

monitor.

USEPA Response: Appendix H to Part

50.9 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations provides for review of the

data from each monitor individually as

opposed to adding up all of the

individual monitor exceedances across

the region to determine whether or not

the area meets the air quality test for an

extension. This is consistent with the

process that USEPA uses to evaluate

whether or not an area attained the

ozone standard by its attainment date.

For instance in the Cincinnati/Northern

Kentucky area, USEPA reviewed the

monitoring data collected for 1994

through 1996 at each of the ten monitors

in the seven county multi-state area to

determine whether or not the area

attained the ozone standard by

November 15, 1996. This review

showed that the Lebanon monitor

located in Warren County was in

violation of the ozone standard. This

resulted in the entire multi-state area

having failed to attain the ozone

standard by 1996.

In determining whether or not to

extend the attainment date from 1996 to

1997, USEPA reviewed the ozone
61244 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

monitoring data for 1996 at each

monitoring site in the area to see if any

of the sites recorded more than one

exceedance of the ozone standard

during 1996 (see table 1). The results of

this review showed that while three of

the monitors recorded an exceedance

during 1996, none of the monitors

recorded more than one exceedance.

The monitors’ exceedances were not

added up to see if they were more than

one, which is consistent with how

USEPA evaluates data to determine if an

area attained the standard by 1996.

Therefore, the Cincinnati/Northern

Kentucky area meets the monitoring

requirements for an extension to

November 15, 1997.

Comment 2: A fourth exceedance in

three years was monitored at the

Middletown monitoring site. Therefore,

the area is in violation of the NAAQS

for ozone and now qualifies for serious

nonattainment so it does not meet the

requirements for an extension.

USEPA Response: The criteria in

section 181(a)(5) of the CAA requires

that in order for an area to be eligible

for an extension not more than one

exeedance of the NAAQS for ozone may

be monitored in the year prior to the

extension year. The year prior to the

extension year, in this case, is 1996. The

ambient air monitoring data for the area

shows that not more than one exeedance

occurred in 1996 at any monitoring site

in the area (see table 1). Therefore, the

area satisfies the air quality

requirements for an extension. The

preliminary air monitoring data for 1997

shows no indication that any monitor

recorded more than one exceedance.

Comment 3: Section 181 (a)(5) states

that an extension may be granted if ‘‘(A)

the State has complied with all

requirements and commitments

pertaining to the area in the applicable

implementation plan.’’ The State

committed to an I/M program in their

submitted SIP. The I/M program began,

but was suspended on August 20, 1996,

and is not expected to resume until at

least after the 1997 ozone season.

Additionally, the I/M program has not

yet made a full cycle (a full cycle takes

two years to complete). No program was

implemented that would take the place

of the 18 ton/day reduction which the

I/M program was to provide.

USEPA Response: Ohio is

implementing the I/M requirements of

the SIP. The State of Ohio awarded a

contract for program operations, and on

January 2, 1996, Ohio began testing

vehicles in the Cincinnati area. The

enactment of legislation, adoption of

regulations, and the capital investment

in structures and equipment to perform

testing meets the implementation test.

The State of Ohio has been working

to resume automobile testing in the

Cincinnati area. The program was

suspended, due to program performance

requirements. However, the State has

been actively working to get the

program back up and running in the

area. It is reasonable to allow the State

the opportunity to improve the

performance of the program and to

allow sufficient time to get the program

operational again. It is expected that the

program will be operational in January

1998.

Comment 4: The extension proposal

states that Stage II vapor recovery

program is fully implemented, however,

according to the Hamilton County

Department of Environmental Services

approximately 225 warning letters are

issued annually to facilities whose

vapor recovery devices were delinquent

upon inspection. Since the area only has

about 500 facilities, it is likely not

achieving the required reductions.

USEPA Response: Ohio has

implemented the Stage II gasoline vapor

control program in the Ohio portion of

the Cincinnati ozone nonattainment

area. Subsequent to the beginning of the

program, inspections have been carried

out by the local Department of

Environmental Services (DOES). These

inspections have uncovered a number of

deficiencies at some of the facilities

inspected prompting warning letters to

facility owners. The warning letters

represent a concerted effort on the part

of the DOES to encourage full

compliance with requirements of the

Stage II program. The DOES sent 291

warning letters to gasoline dispensing

facilities for a number of different

deficiencies. The warning letters do not

necessarily mean that the facility is not

complying with all of the required

elements of the Stage II rule. Of all of

the letters sent, 143 letters were sent to

stations because of recordkeeping

deficiencies as opposed to a control

equipment problem. Of the remaining

148 letters, there were 431 physical

problems such as a leaking nozzle or

damaged hoses, cited out of

approximately 10,000 gasoline

dispensing nozzles in the four Ohio

counties. Some of the nozzles, for

example, were cited for multiple

defects. These deficiencies represent 4.3

percent or less of the nozzles having

some type of problem. This indicates

that for the vast majority of the facilities

visited, the Stage II control equipment is

operational and the stage II program is

being adequately implemented in the

area.

Comment 5: The interstate area

continues to violate the standard while

claiming its Transportation

Improvement Program (TIP) will meet

the standards. The Ohio Indiana

Kentucky Regional Planning

Commission predicts that the area’s TIP

will conform, but fails to meet the

standard each year. This is perhaps due

to the use of outdated data and

modeling (from the 1960’s) for

determining conformity with the TIP.

USEPA Response: The CAA requires

the TIP to conform to the SIP. For the

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky area this

means that the area must perform a

build/no build analysis on its

transportation plan to show that its

volatile organic compound (VOC) and

oxides of nitrogen emissions (NOx) will

not increase if the transportation

projects are built. Additionally as part of

this conformity demonstration the

emissions resulting from building

projects outlined in the TIP must be

shown not to exceed the emissions

levels that are planned for in the SIP.

For Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky this

calls for comparing the projected TIP

emissions to the emissions in the 15%

rate of progress (ROP) plan submitted by

the State of Ohio to USEPA. The ROP

plan provides for an emissions

reduction in VOC that the area is

required to meet on its way toward

achieving the NAAQS. This level of

emissions will result in improved air

quality, but not necessarily air quality

that will attain the NAAQS. The current

SIP does not provide for the reductions

or a specific emissions level (attainment

target) in order to reach attainment of

the NAAQS. Until this level is set the

TIP is only required to meet the Rate of

Progress (ROP) emissions targets and the

build/no build test. The State has been

implementing its SIP for conformity in

the Cincinnati area by ensuring that the

TIP meets the ROP test. Therefore, the

area satisfied the SIP implementation

requirement for receiving an attainment

date extension.

While the interstate area is in

violation of the standard, it is eligible

for an attainment date extension

because it meets the air quality test of

no more than one exceedance at each

monitor in the area.

Comment 6: The proposed extension

does not include any requirements that

will bring the area into compliance.

Therefore, it is not reasonable to expect

that a one-year extension will improve

the area’s air quality.

USEPA Response: Section 181(a)(5) of

the CAA authorizes the Administrator to

provide a one-year extension of time to

attain the ozone NAAQS upon State

application as long as two requirements

are met. The State must have complied

with all requirements and commitments

pertaining to the area in the applicable
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 61245

implementation plan. No more than one

exceedance of the NAAQS level may

have occurred in the extension area in

the year proceeding the extension year.

A second one-year extension may be

granted if the requirements can be met

the following year.

Congress likely intended the

extension year as a period to evaluate

the effectiveness of the control strategy

prior to developing additional emission

control measures. Over the course of the

extension year, the Federal Motor

Vehicle Emissions Control Program

(FMVECP) will reduce mobile source

emissions as older, more polluting

motor vehicles were replaced by newer,

less polluting motor vehicles. Providing

an additional year for the FMVECP to

operate will provide sufficient

additional emission reductions bringing

the area closer toward achieving

attainment.

Comment 7: The scientific and

medical evidence shows that levels of

ozone in the area are unhealthy. The

purpose of the CAA is to protect the

environment and public health, and to

prevent damage from air pollution. If

the USEPA grants the area an extension,

it would fail to enforce the CAA, and

betray its mission to protect human

health and the environment.

USEPA Response: As stated above,

section 181(a)(5) authorizes the

Administrator to grant a one-year

extension of the ozone attainment date

upon application by the State if the two

conditions discussed above are met. In

granting such an extension, the

Administrator is clearly within the

scope of authority granted him by the

CAA. In as much as the extension is

authorized by the CAA, it should be

considered consistent with the goals

and objectives of the CAA. The

extension may allow the area to reach

attainment without incurring the

additional costs that would result from

reclassification to a serious area.

Comment 8: The commenter states

that an extension can only be granted

upon state submittal of an approvable

15% plan. The areas current 15% plan

is no longer valid because its I/M

program has been suspended. The

commenter requests further explanation

of the suspension and a schedule for

reimplementing the I/M program prior

to any final action on the attainment

date extension.

USEPA Response: In order to be

granted an extension, the States are

required to implement their SIPs for the

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky area.

Neither Ohio nor Kentucky has 15%

plans that are federally approved into

the State Implementation Plans for the

area. Therefore, the status of the 15%

plan is not relevant to the question of

whether or not the States are

implementing their SIP since it is not

part of the federally approved SIP. In

regards to the I/M program, which is a

part of the federally approved SIP for

Ohio, it is expected that the program

will be operational in January 1998. The

State is actively working to improve the

performance of the program and to

restart the I/M program.

Comment 9: Implementation of NOX

Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) for major sources in

the Ohio portion of the nonattainment

area is over a year late. Concerns

regarding this tardiness have been

repeatedly expressed in letters

addressed to USEPA. New York State

Department of Environmental

Conservation requests that pertinent

NOX requirements of the CAA be

addressed expeditiously through

revisions to the Ohio SIP.

USEPA Response: USEPA responded

to the letters from the State of New York

in three letters dated October 10, 1996,

October 30, 1996, and January 17, 1997.

In USEPA’s correspondence with the

State of New York, USEPA stated that it

would publish a proposed rule in the

Federal Register to provide the

community with an opportunity to

comment on removing the Cincinnati

area’s monitoring-based NOX waiver

and to comment on what ‘‘reasonable

time’’ may be necessary to allow major

stationary sources subject to the

reasonably available control technology

requirements to purchase install and

operate the required controls.

Along with the USEPA’s efforts in this

regard, it should be noted that on

October 10, 1997, USEPA Administrator

Carol Browner signed a proposed

rulemaking to require emissions

reductions, including NOX, in Ohio and

twenty-one other states in order to

reduce the effects on attainment caused

by the interstate transport of ozone,

which is clearly the issue that New York

in its correspondence sought to have the

USEPA address. The proposal reiterates

USEPA’s view that ozone pollution is a

regional as well as a local problem. As

USEPA has pointed out to New York in

it’s response letters, the State’s concerns

are more appropriately addressed

through a process dealing with resolving

the regional ozone pollution problem,

particularly long-range transport.

However, section 182(f), which

authorizes the granting of NOX waivers,

focuses only on the effects of reducing

NOX in local nonattainment areas, like

Cincinnati, while the provisions of

section 110(a)(2)(D), the main statutory

basis for the proposed action, are

specifically intended to address the

kinds of interstate problems exemplified

by long-range ozone transport. The

USEPA notes that the requirements of

the proposed ‘‘SIP call’’ action if

finalized would apply both to areas with

approved NOX waiver petitions and

areas without such petitions. That is,

any nonattainment area with NOX

waiver petitions approved by USEPA in

the past or in the future are not

proposed to be exempt from that action.

Comment 10: A commenter stated that

the area should not be granted an

extension because of existing air

pollution problems that cause adverse

health effects. Emission controls should

be more strict. The area should not be

given more time to comply because it is

not enforcing current rules, and is not

doing anything to solve current air

pollution problems.

USEPA Response: As stated above,

the one-year extension is authorized by

the CAA for areas that meet the

extension requirements. This gives the

area an additional year to realize the

benefits of the controls that are

currently in place and the effects

FMVECP on reducing automobile

emissions. The CAA allows areas that

qualify for an extension to request an

attainment date extension instead of

being reclassified upward to serious and

implementing more emission controls.

The area is enforcing its current controls

as described in the above responses.

USEPA Final Action

USEPA has determined that the

requirements for a one-year extension of

the attainment date have been fulfilled

as follows:

(1) Ohio and Kentucky have formally

submitted the attainment date extension

requests.

(2) Ohio and Kentucky are

implementing the USEPA-approved

SIPs.

(3) A review of actual ozone ambient

air quality data for the CincinnatiHamilton area indicates that the area

has monitored no more than one

exceedance of the NAAQS at any

monitor during 1996. Therefore, USEPA

is approving the attainment date

extension requests for the CincinnatiHamilton moderate ozone

nonattainment area from November 15,

1996 to November 15, 1997.

Therefore, USEPA approves the Ohio

and Kentucky attainment date extension

requests for the Cincinnati-Hamilton

ozone nonattainment area. As a result,

the Kentucky Control Strategy for Ozone

which is codified at 40 CFR 52.930 and

the Ohio Control Strategy for Ozone

which is codified at 40 CFR 52.1885 are

being amended to record these

attainment date extensions. The chart in
61246 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

40 CFR 81.318 entitled ‘‘KentuckyOzone’’ is being modified to reflect

USEPA’s approval of Kentucky’s

attainment date extension request. The

chart in 40 CFR 81.336 entitled ‘‘OhioOzone’’ is also being modified to reflect

USEPA’s approval of Ohio’s attainment

date extension request.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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.

Extension of an area’s attainment date

under the CAA does not impose any

new requirements on small entities.

Extension of an attainment date is an

action that affects a geographical area

and does not impose any regulatory

requirements on sources. USEPA

certifies that the approval of the

attainment date extension will not affect

a substantial number of small entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, USEPA

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, USEPA 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 USEPA to establish

a plan for informing and advising any

small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by

the rule.

The USEPA has determined that the

approval action promulgated 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

imposes no new requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

D. 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.) The USEPA will be

reviewing the effect of the Ohio audit

privilege and immunity law on various

Ohio environmental programs,

including those under the CAA. The

USEPA will take 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

CAA program under which they are

implemented may be withdrawn, or

other appropriate action may be taken,

as necessary.

E. 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

this Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by section

804(2).

F. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by January 16, 1998. 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 to grant

Ohio and Kentucky an extension to

attain the ozone NAAQS in the

Cincinnati-Hamilton ozone

nonattainment area as defined in 40

CFR 81.318 and 40 CFR 81.336 may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Ozone.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: November 5, 1997.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

Dated: November 6, 1997.

Gail C. Ginsberg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

Parts 52 and 81 of chapter I, title 40

of the Code of Federal Regulations are

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 S—Kentucky

2. Section 52.930 is amended by

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 52.930 Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *

(d) Kentucky’s November 15, 1996,

request for a one-year attainment date

extension for the Kentucky portion of

the Cincinnati-Hamilton metropolitan

moderate ozone nonattainment area

which consists of Kenton, Boone, and

Campbell Counties is approved. The

date for attaining the ozone standard in

these counties is November 15, 1997.

Subpart KK—Ohio

3. Section 52.1885 is amended by

adding paragraph (bb) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1885 Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *

(bb) Ohio’s November 7, 1996, request

for a one-year attainment date extension
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 61247

for the Ohio portion of the CincinnatiHamilton metropolitan moderate ozone

nonattainment area which consists of

Hamilton, Butler, Clermont and Warren

Counties is approved. The date for

attaining the ozone standard in these

counties is November 15, 1997.

PART 81—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

2. In § 81.318, the ‘‘Kentucky—

Ozone’’ table is amended by revising the

entry for the ‘‘Cincinnati-Hamilton

Area’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.318 Kentucky.

* * * * *

KENTUCKY—OZONE

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

Cincinnati-Hamilton Area:

Boone County ................................................................... .................... Nonattainment ............... .................... Moderate.2

Campbell County .............................................................. .................... Nonattainment ............... .................... Moderate.2

Kenton County .................................................................. .................... Nonattainment ............... .................... Moderate.2

* * * * * * *

1This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

2Attainment date extended to November 15, 1997.

* * * * *

3. In Section 81.336, the ‘‘Ohio—

Ozone’’ table is amended by revising the

entry for the ‘‘Cincinnati-Hamilton

Area’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.336 Ohio.

* * * * *

OHIO—OZONE

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

* * * * * * *

Cincinnati-Hamilton Area:

Butler County .................................................................... .................... Nonattainment ............... .................... Moderate.2

Clermont County ............................................................... .................... Nonattainment ............... .................... Moderate.2

Hamilton County ............................................................... .................... Nonattainment ............... .................... Moderate.2

Warren County .................................................................. .................... Nonattainment ............... .................... Moderate.2

* * * * * * *

1This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

2Attainment date extended to November 15, 1997.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–30136 Filed 11–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 65

Changes in Flood Elevation

Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency, FEMA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Modified base (1% annual

chance) flood elevations are finalized

for the communities listed below. These

modified elevations will be used to

calculate flood insurance premium rates

for new buildings and their contents.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The effective dates for

these modified base flood elevations are

indicated on the following table and

revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map(s)

(FIRMs) in effect for each listed

community prior to this date.

ADDRESSES: The modified base flood

elevations for each community are

available for inspection at the office of

the Chief Executive Officer of each

community. The respective addresses

are listed in the following table.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frederick H. Sharrocks, Jr., Chief,

Hazard Identification Branch, Mitigation

Directorate, 500 C Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2796.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Federal Emergency Management Agency

makes the final determinations listed

below of modified base flood elevations

for each community listed. These

modified elevations have been

published in newspapers of local

circulation and ninety (90) days have

elapsed since that publication. The

Associate Director has resolved any

appeals resulting from this notification.

The modified base flood elevations

are not listed for each community in

this notice. However, this rule includes

the address of the Chief Executive

Officer of the community where the

modified base flood elevation

determinations are available for

inspection.

The modifications are made pursuant

to section 206 of the Flood Disaster

Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105,

and are in accordance with the National

Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.

4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

For rating purposes, the currently

effective community number is shown

and must be used for all new policies

and renewals.

The modified base flood elevations

are the basis for the floodplain

management measures that the

community is required to either adopt