33314 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 / Proposed Rules

1113, Architectural Coatings is being

proposed for approval under section

110(k)(3) of the CAA in light of EPA’s

authority pursuant to section 301(a) to

adopt regulations necessary to further

air quality by strengthening the SIP. The

submitted version of Rule 1113

strengthens the SIP by updating a

portion of the SIP for the Los Angeles

Air Basin that has not been revised

since 1985. EPA notes, however, that

the submitted rule does not fulfill

SCAQMD’s SIP-approved commitment

in CTS–07 to reduce VOCs from

architectural coatings by 75%. Air

quality progress and attainment of the

public health-based ozone standard both

require that the District pursue

expeditiously further emission

reductions from this large segment of

the South Coast VOC emissions

inventory.

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.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order (E.O.)

12866 review.

The proposed rule is not subject to

E.O. 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks,’’ because it is

not an ‘‘economically significant’’ action

under E.O. 12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 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, EPA 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 sections 110 and

301, and subchapter I, part D of the

Clean Air 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 CAA, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 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 the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action proposed 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

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compound.

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

Dated: June 7, 1998.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 98–16255 Filed 6–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH116–1; FRL–6112–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Maintenance Plan Revisions; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

is proposing to approve an April 27,

1998, request from Ohio, for State

Implementation Plan (SIP) maintenance

plan revision for the Dayton-Springfield

(Montgomery, Clark, Greene and Miami

Counties) ozone maintenance area. The

revision would remove the air quality

triggers from the area’s contingency

plan. The contingency plans were

included in the areas’ maintenance plan

to correct violations of the one hour

ozone National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS), which has been

proposed to be revoked for this area.

DATES: Written comments on this

proposal must be received on or before

July 20, 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 initial Clean Air Act (CAA)

attainment status designations were

made, the Dayton area has attained the

one hour ozone standard and has been

redesignated to attainment status for

ozone. As a requirement to being

redesignated to attainment status, the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 / Proposed Rules 33315

area developed a maintenance plan. The

purpose of the maintenance plan is to

assure maintenance of the one hour

ozone NAAQS for at least ten years.

The maintennce plan included

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.

Dayton’s maintenance plan was

finalized by EPA and published in the

Federal Register on May 5, 1995 (60 FR

22289).

II. One Hour Ozone Standard

Revocation

On July 18, 1997, EPA 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. The EPA 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,

EPA 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 May 18, 1998, EPA published a

proposed rule (63 FR 27247) in the

Federal Register proposing to revoke

the one hour ozone standard in areas

attaining the one hour standard based

on quality assured air monitoring data

for the years 1995–1997. In that

proposal, EPA proposed to revoke the

one hour ozone standard in the Dayton,

Ohio ozone maintenance area.

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, EPA’s Acting

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation, reflected that directive. The

purpose of the guidance reflected in the

memorandum 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 EPA’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, EPA

believes it is permissible to withdraw

contingency measures designed to

correct violations of that standard. 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, EPA

believes that future attainment and

maintenance planning efforts should be

directed toward attaining the eight hour

ozone NAAQS. 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.

III. Review of the State Submittal

In a letter from Donald R.

Schregardus, Director, Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency

(OEPA) received by EPA 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 EPA has proposed

to revoke the one hour standard. On

May 18, 1998, EPA proposed to revoke

the one hour ozone standard in the

Dayton area. Therefore, in this Federal

Register document, EPA is proposing to

delete the air quality trigger in the

Dayton area’s maintenance plan. In a

previous Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, EPA proposed the deletion

of air quality triggers in maintenance

plans for other Ohio areas (where the

one hour standard was proposed to be

revoked) (see 63 FR 27895).

The OEPA has officially announced a

public hearing on this matter to be held

on June 1, 1998.

EPA 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.

This revision approval is being

proposed under a procedure called

parallel processing, whereby EPA

proposes rulemaking action

concurrently with the State’s procedures

for amending its regulations. If the

proposed revision is substantially

changed, EPA will evaluate those

changes and may publish another notice

of proposed rulemaking. If no

substantial changes are made other than

any consistent with this document, the

EPA will publish a final rulemaking on

the revisions. The final rulemaking

action by EPA on Ohio’s request to

revise the maintenance plan to remove

the air quality trigger will occur only

after the one hour ozone standard has

been revoked in final and Ohio’s public

hearing documentation is submitted to

the EPA.

IV. EPA Proposed Action

The EPA is proposing to approve the

requested revision to the Dayton area’s

maintenance plan. The EPA is parallel

processing this request concurrent with

State proceedings on the affected

provision. Written comments must be

received by EPA on or by July 20, 1998.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Executive Order 13045

The proposed rule is not subject to

Executive Order 13045, titled

‘‘Protection of Children’s Health from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks,’’ because it is not an

‘‘economically significant’’ action under

Executive Order 12866.

C. 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
33316 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 / Proposed Rules

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

D. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

government entities with jurisdiction.

This proposed rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because SIP

approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air 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 create any new requirements, I

certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of the State action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.

EPA., 427 U.S. 246, 256–66 (1976) 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

E. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 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.

F. 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). 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 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, Nitrogen

oxides, Ozone.

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

Dated: June 2, 1998.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–16247 Filed 6–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P