Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 98 /Thursday, May 21, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27895

§ 165.T01–002 Safety Zone; New York

Super Boat Race, Hudson River, New York

and New Jersey.

(a) Location. The following area is a

safety zone: All waters of the Lower

Hudson River between Pier 76 in

Manhattan and a point on the New

Jersey shore in Weehawken, New Jersey

at 40°45′52′′N 074°01′01′′W, and north

of a line connecting the following

points:

Latitude Logitude

40°42′16.0′′N 074°01′09.0′′W, then

south to

40°41′55.0′′N 074°01′16.0′′W, then

west to

40°41′47.0′′N 074°01′36.0′′W, then

northwest to

40°41′55.0′′N 074°01′59.0′′W, then

to shore at

40°42′20.5′′N 074°02′06.0′′W.

(b) Effective period. This safety zone

is in effect on Sunday, September 13,

1998, from 11:30 a.m. until 4 p.m.,

unless terminated sooner by the Captain

of the Port New York.

(c) Regulations. (1) The general

regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23

apply.

(2) All persons and vessels shall

comply with the instructions of the

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the

designated on scene patrol personnel.

U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel

include commissioned, warrant, and

petty officers of the Coast Guard. Upon

being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard

vessel via siren, radio, flashing light, or

other means, the operator of a vessel

shall proceed as directed.

Dated: May 8, 1998.

L.M. Brooks,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain

of the Port, New York.

[FR Doc. 98–13581 Filed 5–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH115–1; FRL–6100–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Maintenance Plan Revisions; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency, (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) is proposing to approve an

April 27, 1998, request from Ohio, for

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

maintenance plan revisions for the

following maintenance areas in Ohio:

Canton (Stark County), Cleveland

(Lorain, Cuyahoga, Lake, Ashtabula,

Geauga, Medina, Summit and Portage

Counties), Columbus (Franklin,

Delaware and Licking Counties),

Steubenville (Jefferson County), Toledo

(Lucas and Wood Counties),

Youngstown (Mahoning and Trumbull

Counties) as well as Clinton County,

Columbiana County and Preble County.

The revisions would remove the air

quality triggers from each area’s

contingency plan. The contingency

plans were included in these areas’

maintenance plans to correct violations

of the one hour ozone National Ambient

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

DATES: Written comments on this

proposal must be received on or before

June 22, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

inspection during normal business

hours at the following location:

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch, (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Please contact 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. Attainment Areas in Ohio

Since the Clean Air Act (CAA)

attainment status designations were

made, all of the Ohio areas listed in the

summary section of this Federal

Register Notice have attained the one

hour ozone standard and have been

redesignated to attainment for ozone. As

a requirement to being redesignated to

attainment, these areas developed

maintenance plans. The purpose of the

maintenance plans is to assure

maintenance of the one hour ozone

NAAQS for at least ten years. Included

in the maintenance plans were

contingency provisions. The purpose of

the contingency provisions are to

identify and correct any violation of the

one hour ozone NAAQS in a timely

fashion. Triggers are included in the

contingency provisions to identify the

need to implement measures and correct

air quality problems until such time as

a revised maintenance or attainment

plan could be developed to address the

level of the air quality problem.

Triggering events in the contingency

plans could be linked to ozone air

quality and/or an emission level of

ozone precursors.

The maintenance plan approvals were

finalized by USEPA and published in

the Federal Register for these Ohio

areas as follows: Canton and

Youngstown (61 FR 3319; January 31,

1996), Cleveland (61 FR 20458; May 7,

1996), Columbus (61 FR 3591; February

1, 1996), Steubenville, Columbiana

County and Preble County (60 FR 7453;

February 8, 1995), Toledo (60 FR 39115;

August 1, 1995) and Clinton County (61

FR 11560; March 21, 1996).

II. One Hour Ozone Standard

Revocation

On July 18, 1998, USEPA finalized a

revision to the NAAQS for ozone which

changed the standard from 0.12 parts

per million (ppm) averaged over one

hour, to 0.08 ppm, averaged over eight

hours. USEPA is revoking the one hour

standard in separate rulemakings based

on an area’s attainment of the one hour

ozone standard. The first round of

revocations will be for areas attaining

the one hour standard based on quality

assured air monitoring data for the years

1994–1996. The second round of one

hour ozone standard revocations will be

for areas attaining the one hour standard

based on quality assured air monitoring

data for the years 1995–1997. After

these two rulemakings are finalized, the

USEPA intends to publish rulemakings

on an annual basis revoking the one

hour ozone standard for additional areas

that come into attainment of the one

hour standard.

On January 16, 1998, USEPA

published a proposed rule (63 FR 2726)

in the Federal Register proposing to

revoke the one hour ozone standard in

areas attaining the standard based on

quality assured air monitoring data for

the years 1994–1996 (first round of

revocations). In that proposal, USEPA

proposed to revoke the one hour ozone

standard in the Ohio areas subject to

this proposed action [Canton (Stark

County), Cleveland (Lorain, Cuyahoga,

Lake, Ashtabula, Geauga, Medina,

Summit and Portage Counties),

Columbus (Franklin, Delaware and

Licking Counties), Steubenville

(Jefferson County), Toledo (Lucas and

Wood Counties), Youngstown

(Mahoning and Trumbull Counties)] as
27896 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 98 /Thursday, May 21, 1998 / Proposed Rules

well as Clinton, Columbiana and Preble

Counties.

On July 16, 1997, President Clinton

issued a directive to Administrator

Browner on implementation of the new

ozone standard, as well as the current

one hour ozone standard (62 FR 38421).

In that directive the President laid out

a plan on how the new ozone and

particulate matter standards, as well as

the current one hour standard, are to be

implemented. A December 29, 1997,

memorandum entitled ‘‘Guidance for

Implementing the 1-Hour and PreExisting PM10 NAAQS’’ signed by

Richard D. Wilson, USEPA’s Acting

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation reflected that directive. The

purpose of this guidance document is to

ensure that the momentum gained by

States to attain the one hour ozone

NAAQS was not lost when moving

toward implementing the eight hour

ozone NAAQS.

The guidance document explains that

maintenance plans will remain in effect

for areas where the one hour standard

is revoked; however, those maintenance

plans may be revised to withdraw

certain contingency measure provisions

that have not been triggered or

implemented prior to USEPA’s

determination of attainment and

revocation. Where the contingency

measure is linked to the one hour ozone

standard or air quality ozone

concentrations, the measures may be

removed from the maintenance plan.

Measures linked to non-air quality

elements, such as emissions increases or

vehicle miles traveled, may be removed

if the State demonstrates that removing

the measure will not affect an area’s

ability to attain the eight hour ozone

standard.

In other words, after the one hour

standard is revoked for an area, USEPA

believes it is permissible to withdraw

contingency measures designed to

correct violations of that standard.

Therefore, since such measures were

designed to address future violations of

a standard that no longer exists, it is no

longer necessary to retain them.

Furthermore, USEPA believes that

future attainment and maintenance

planning efforts should be directed

toward attaining the eight hour ozone

NAAQS.

III. Review of the State Submittal

In a letter from Donald R.

Schregardus, Director, Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency

(OEPA) received by USEPA on April 27,

1998, OEPA officially requested that all

air quality triggers be deleted from the

maintenance plans for the areas in Ohio

now attaining the one hour ozone

standard and where USEPA has

proposed to revoke the one hour

standard (the areas listed in the

Summary Section). As part of the

implementation of the eight hour ozone

standard, the State’s ozone air quality

will be evaluated and eight hour

attainment and nonattainment

designations will be made. USEPA

believes that Ohio’s request is consistent

with the December 29, 1997, guidance

document and the July 16, 1997,

Presidential Directive, and that the

request is approvable.

The OEPA has officially announced a

public hearing on this matter to be held

on June 1, 1998.

This revision is being proposed under

a procedure called parallel processing,

whereby USEPA proposes rulemaking

action concurrently with the State’s

procedures for amending its regulations.

If the proposed revision is substantially

changed USEPA will evaluate those

changes and may publish another notice

of proposed rulemaking. If no

substantial changes are made other than

any consistent with this notice, the

USEPA will publish a final rulemaking

on the revisions. The final rulemaking

action by USEPA on Ohio’s request to

revise the maintenance plans to remove

air quality triggers will occur only after

the one hour ozone standard has been

revoked in final and Ohio’s public

hearing documentation is submitted to

the USEPA.

While Ohio requested that the air

quality triggers in Dayton’s maintenance

plan be removed, USEPA has yet to

propose revocation of the one hour

standard for Dayton. Revocation of the

one hour standard is a prerequisite for

revising maintenance plans to remove

contingency provisions. USEPA will

address Dayton in a future rulemaking.

IV. USEPA Proposed Action

The USEPA is proposing to approve

the requested revision to the above

mentioned maintenance plans in Ohio.

The USEPA is parallel processing this

request concurrent with the state

proceedings. Written comments must be

received by USEPA on or by June 22,

1998.

V. 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. section 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. 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

Clean Air Act forbids USEPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. USEPA,

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 ). USEPA will be

reviewing the effect of the Ohio audit

privilege and immunity law on various

Ohio environmental programs,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 98 /Thursday, May 21, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27897

including those under the Clean Air

Act, and taking appropriate action(s), if

any, after thorough analysis and

opportunity for Ohio to state and

explain its views and positions on the

issues raised by the law. The action

taken herein does not express or imply

any viewpoint on the question of

whether there are legal deficiencies in

this or any Ohio Clean Air Act program

resulting from the effect of the audit

privilege and immunity law. As a

consequence of the review process, the

regulations subject to the action taken

herein may be disapproved, federal

approval for the Clean Air Act program

under which they are implemented may

be withdrawn, or other appropriate

action may be taken, as necessary.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Nitrogen oxides, Implementation plans.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: May 7, 1998.

Robert Springer,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region V.

[FR Doc. 98–13614 Filed 5–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region II Docket No. NY27–1–178, FRL–

6101–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Emission Trade

to Meet Reasonably Available Control

Technology for the State of New York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing

approval of a revision to the New York

State Implementation Plan for ozone.

This revision proposes to establish and

require an emission trade between

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation

and Champion International Paper

Corporation which will result in both

sources meeting the requirements of

Reasonably Available Control

Technology for oxides of nitrogen. The

intended effect of this proposed action

is to approve source-specific permit

conditions, requiring the sources to

trade emissions in accordance with

requirements of the Clean Air Act, and

resulting in emission reductions which

will help toward attaining the national

ambient air quality standards for ozone.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 22, 1998.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to: Ronald Borsellino, Chief,

Air Programs Branch, U.S. EPA, Region

II Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor,

New York, New York 10007–1866.

Copies of the state submittal and other

information are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours, by appointment, at the Air

Programs Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II

Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New

York, New York; as well as the New

York State Department of

Environmental Conservation, Division

of Air Resources, 50 Wolf Road, Albany,

New York 12233.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Ruvo, Environmental Engineer,

Air Programs Branch, U.S. EPA, Region

II Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor,

New York, New York 10007–1866; (212)

637–4014.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Clean Air Act (the Act) requires

that States develop Reasonably

Available Control Technology (RACT)

regulations for all major stationary

sources of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in

areas which have been classified as

‘‘moderate,’’ ‘‘serious,’’ ‘‘severe,’’ and

‘‘extreme,’’ ozone nonattainment areas,

and in all areas of the Ozone Transport

Region (OTR). The EPA has defined

RACT as the lowest emission limitation

that a particular source is capable of

meeting by the application of control

technology that is reasonably available

considering technological and economic

feasibility (44 FR 53762, Sept. 17, 1979).

This requirement is established by

sections 182(b)(2), 182(f), and 184(b) of

the Act. The Act’s NOX requirements are

further described in more detail in ‘‘The

General Preamble for Implementation of

Title I of the Clean Air Act

Amendments,’’ (57 FR 13498, April 16,

1992) and ‘‘The NOX Supplement to the

General Preamble’’ (57 FR 55620,

November 25, 1992).

The entire State of New York is

included in the OTR, therefore RACT

must be applied to all major stationary

sources of NOX emissions. New York

State has defined a major stationary

source for NOX as a source in the New

York City metropolitan area and the

lower Orange County metropolitan area

which has the potential to emit 25 tons

per year (TPY) and as a source in the

rest of the State which has the potential

to emit 100 TPY.

New York State adopted its NOX

RACT regulation, part 227–2, on January

19, 1994. Part 227–2, section 2.5(b)

allows for system-wide emissions

averaging as a compliance strategy. The

average must be weighted so the mass

emission rate of the units in operation

is equivalent to the mass emission rate

that would be achieved if each operating

unit individually met the applicable

RACT emission limit. Averaging may

include units owned and operated by

the same person.

II. State Submittal

On November 8, 1995, New York

proposed for comment special permit

conditions for the Niagara Mohawk

Power Corporation and the Champion

International Paper Corporation for an

emission trade to meet the NOX RACT

requirements of part 227–2. New York

approved the special permit conditions

on December 14, 1995, having received

no public comments. On April 9, 1996,

New York State submitted the special

permit conditions to EPA as a sourcespecific revision to the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone.

New York submitted additional

technical information on April 30, 1996,

October 17, 1996 and December 5, 1996.

The SIP revision was reviewed by EPA

in accordance with the completeness

criteria found at Title 40, part 51,

appendix V of the Code of Federal

Regulations. EPA determined the SIP

revision to be administratively and

technically complete in a June 4, 1996

letter to New York.

In the process of its review of the

April 9, 1996 SIP revision, EPA noted

deficiencies in the special permit

conditions. In a February 6, 1997 letter,

EPA requested New York to correct

these deficiencies, delaying review of

the SIP revision. New York re-proposed

for comment the special permit

conditions for the emission trade on

September 24, 1997. New York

approved the special permit conditions

on December 2, 1997, having received

no public comments. On February 2,

1998, New York submitted to EPA the

December 2, 1997 special permit

conditions. The February 2, 1998

submittal supplemented the original

April 9, 1996 SIP revision.

For a more detailed discussion of New

York’s SIP submittal and EPA’s

proposed action, the reader is referred to

the Technical Support Document (TSD)

which was developed as part of this

action. Copies of the TSD are found at

the previously mentioned addresses.

III. Analysis of State Submittal

A. Facility Descriptions

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation

(NMPC) operates four fossil fuel-fired

utility plants in New York State; the