[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 16, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18520-18521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9752]



[[Page 18520]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH106-1a; FRL-5808-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On November 12, 1996, USEPA received a State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) revision request from the Ohio Environmental Protection 
Agency (Ohio EPA). This revision request was in the form of an 
amendment to the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) which added an 
additional exemption from organic compound emission controls for 
qualifying new sources. In this action, USEPA is approving the State's 
SIP revision request through a ``direct final'' rulemaking; the 
rationale for this approval is set forth below. Elsewhere in this 
Federal Register, USEPA is proposing approval and soliciting comment on 
this direct final action; if adverse comments are received, USEPA will 
withdraw the direct final rulemaking and address the comments received 
in a new final rule; otherwise, no further rulemaking will occur on 
this SIP revision request.

DATES: This action will be effective June 16, 1997 unless substantive 
adverse comments not previously addressed by the State or USEPA are 
received by May 16, 1997. If the effective date of this action is 
delayed due to adverse comments, timely notice will be published in the 
Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois, 60604.
    Copies of the Ohio submittal are available for public review during 
normal business hours, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., at the above 
address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randolph O. Cano, Regulation 
Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604. 
Telephone: (312) 886-6036.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Rule 3745-21-07 of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) specifies 
organic compound control requirements for existing stationary sources 
located in twenty-eight Ohio Counties: Butler, Clark, Clermont, 
Cuyahoga, Darke, Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, Geauga, Greene, 
Hamilton, Lake, Licking, Lorain, Lucas, Madison, Medina, Miami, 
Montgomery, Perry, Pickaway, Portage, Preble, Starke, Summit, Union, 
Warren and Wood which are referred to as ``Priority I'' counties in 
Rule 3745-21-06. It should be noted that Rule 3745-21-06 which lists 
the counties subject to the requirements of Rule 3745-21-07 is not 
being considered as part of this direct final rule. Rule 3745-21-07 
also specifies organic compound control requirements for all new 
stationary sources regardless of location.
    On November 12, 1996, USEPA received a SIP revision request from 
Ohio EPA in the form of an October 7, 1996 amendment to Rule 3745-21-
07--Section(G)(9)(g)--which added an additional exemption from organic 
compound emission controls for qualifying new sources which met three 
requirements.
    1. The Director of the Ohio EPA determined that ``Best Available 
Technology'' (BAT) for the emissions unit, as required by Ohio's permit 
to install rules, is either less stringent than or inconsistent with 
the requirements of OAC Rule 3745-21-07(G). The term ``BAT'' is defined 
at Section 3704.01 of the Ohio Regulatory Code (ORC). Since a BAT 
determination could be less stringent than the USEPA definition of 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements due to 
Ohio's definition of BAT, in cases where an emissions limitation is 
applicable, the BAT determination must reflect the lowest emission 
limit that the emissions unit is capable of meeting by the application 
of control technology that is reasonably available considering 
technological and economic feasibility. In addition, the BAT 
determination for an emissions unit located within an ozone 
nonattainment area must comply with Section 193 (General Savings 
Clause) of the Clean Air Act (Act).
    2. The USEPA has provided written approval of the issuance of a 
permit to install for the emissions unit.
    3. The issued permit to install contains terms and conditions 
specifying the BAT requirements for the emissions unit, and the permit 
is issued by Ohio EPA in a manner that makes the terms and conditions 
of the permit federally enforceable.
    In addition to adopting Section (G)(9)(g), the October 7, 1996, 
final rule made a limited number of changes to portions of OAC Rule 
3745-21-07 previously adopted and approved by USEPA. USEPA has reviewed 
these changes and found them to be nonsubstantive.

II. Rulemaking Action

    The USEPA approves the incorporation of Section (G)(9)(g) of OAC 
Rule 3745-21-07 into the Ohio SIP. Because nonsubstantive revisions 
were also made to Rule 3745-21-07, the USEPA is incorporating all of 
Rule 3745-21-07 so that the text of the current State rule is identical 
to the text of the federally approved rule. The USEPA is publishing 
this action without prior proposal because USEPA views this as a 
noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comments. However, 
in a separate document in this Federal Register publication, the USEPA 
is proposing to approve the SIP revision should adverse or critical 
comments be filed. This action will be effective on June 16, 1997 
unless, by May 16, 1997, adverse or critical comments are received.
    If the USEPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn 
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent rulemaking that 
will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a 
proposed rule. The USEPA will not 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 comments are received, the public is 
advised that this action will be effective on June 16, 1997.
    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.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature 
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a 
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. section 600 et seq., 
USEPA

[[Page 18521]]

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. sections 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-for-profit 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 Act forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs 
on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. EPA., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 
(1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

C. 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. No new Federal requirements are imposed. 
Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector, result from this action.

D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    Under 5 U.S.C. 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).

E. 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 June 16, 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.

    Dated: April 1, 1997.
Michelle D. Jordan,
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 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(114) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (114) On November 12, 1996, the Ohio Environmental Protection 
Agency submitted a request to incorporate section(G)(9)(g) of Rule 
3745-21-07 of the Ohio Administrative Code into the Ohio State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). Section (G)(9)(g) provides an additional 
exemption from organic compound emission controls for qualifying new 
sources. Because, in the process of adopting section(G)(9)(g), minor 
editorial changes were made to other parts of Rule 3745-21-07, the 
United States Environmental Protection Agency is incorporating all of 
Rule 3745-21-07 into the Ohio SIP. This will avoid confusion by making 
the SIP approved rule identical to the current State rule.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Rule 3745-21-07 of the Ohio Administrative Code, adopted 
October 7, 1996, effective October 31, 1996, as certified by Donald R. 
Schregardus, Director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.

[FR Doc. 97-9752 Filed 4-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P