Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7449

The actions in this document are

taken pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of

the Occupational Safety and Health Act

of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657),

Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 1–90 (55

FR 9033), and 29 CFR part 1911.

Signed at Washington, DC., this 2nd day of

February, 1995.

Joseph A. Dear,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

For the reasons set forth above, 29

CFR part 1910 is hereby amended as

follows:

PART 1910—[AMENDED]

1. The Authority citation for subpart

R of 29 CFR part 1910 continues to read

as follows:

Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653,

655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 12–

71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83

(48 FR 35736), or 1–90 (55 FR 9033), as

applicable.

Sections 1910.261, 1910.262, 1910.265,

1910.266, 1910.267, 1910.268, 1910.272,

1910.274, and 1910.275 also issued under 29

CFR part 1911.

Section 1910.272 also issued under 5

U.S.C. 553.

2. A note is added at the end of

§ 1910.266, to read as follows:

§ 1910.266 Logging operations.

* * * * *

Note: In the Federal Register of February

8, 1995, OSHA stayed the following

paragraphs of § 1910.266 from February 9,

1995 until August 9, 1995:

1. (d)(1)(v) insofar as it requires foot

protection to be chain-saw resistant.

2. (d)(1)(vii) insofar as it requires face

protection.

3. (d)(2)(iii).

4. (f)(2)(iv).

5. (f)(2)(xi).

6. (f)(3)(ii).

7. (f)(3)(vii).

8. (f)(3)(viii).

9. (f)(7)(ii) insofar as it requires that

parking brakes be able to stop the machine.

10. (g)(1) and (g)(2) insofar as they require

inspection and maintenance of employeeowned vehicles.

11. (h)(2)(vii) insofar as it precludes

backcuts at the level of the horizontal cut of

the undercut when the Humboldt cutting

method is used.

[FR Doc. 95–3041 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51 and 93

[FRL–5149–8]

Transportation Conformity Rule

Amendments: Transition to the Control

Strategy Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

SUMMARY: This action aligns the timing

of certain transportation conformity

consequences with the imposition of

Clean Air Act highway sanctions for a

six-month period. For ozone

nonattainment areas with an incomplete

15% emissions-reduction state

implementation plan with a protective

finding; incomplete ozone attainment/

3% rate-of-progress plan; or finding of

failure to submit an ozone attainment/

3% rate-of-progress plan, and areas

whose control strategy implementation

plan for ozone, carbon monoxide,

particulate matter, or nitrogen dioxide is

disapproved with a protective finding,

the conformity status of the

transportation plan and program will

not lapse as a result of such failure until

highway sanctions for such failure are

effective under other Clean Air Act

sections.

This action delays the lapse in

conformity status, which would

otherwise prevent approval of new

highway and transit projects, and allows

States more time to prevent the lapse by

submitting complete control strategy

implementation plans. EPA is issuing

this interim final rule, effective for a sixmonth period, without prior proposal in

order to prevent previously

unforeseeable delays in State ozone

implementation plan development from

causing widespread conformity lapsing.

In a parallel action in this Federal

Register, EPA is requesting comment on

this interim final rule and on similar but

permanent rule changes.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This interim final rule

is effective on February 8, 1995 until

August 8, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this

rulemaking are contained in Docket No.

A–95–02. The docket is located in room

M–1500 Waterside Mall (ground floor)

at the Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street SW., Washington, DC

20460. The docket may be inspected

from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, including all non-government

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathryn Sargeant, Emission Control

Strategies Branch, Emission Planning

and Strategies Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 2565

Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105.

(313) 668–4441.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Transportation Conformity Rule

The final transportation conformity

rule, ‘‘Criteria and Procedures for

Determining Conformity to State or

Federal Implementation Plans of

Transportation Plans, Programs, and

Projects Funded or Approved Under

Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit

Act,’’ was published November 24, 1993

(58 FR 62188) and amended 40 CFR

parts 51 and 93. The Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking was published on January

11, 1993 (58 FR 3768).

Required under section 176(c) of the

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, the

transportation conformity rule

established the criteria and procedures

by which the Federal Highway

Administration, the Federal Transit

Administration, and metropolitan

planning organizations determine the

conformity of federally funded or

approved highway and transit plans,

programs, and projects to state

implementation plans (SIPs). According

to the Clean Air Act, federally

supported activities must conform to the

implementation plan’s purpose of

attaining and maintaining the national

ambient air quality standards.

The final transportation conformity

rule requires that conformity

determinations use the motor vehicle

emissions budget(s) in a submitted

‘‘control strategy’’ SIP (defined below),

and the rule includes special provisions

to address failures in control strategy

SIP development. These failures include

failure to submit a control strategy SIP,

submission of an incomplete control

strategy SIP, or disapproval of a control

strategy SIP. Specifically, according to

40 CFR 51.448 (and 40 CFR 93.128),

following these SIP development

failures, no new or amended

transportation plans or transportation

improvement programs (TIPs) may be

found to conform to the SIP after a

certain grace period (i.e., the existing

transportation plan and TIP are

‘‘frozen’’), and eventually, the

conformity status of the existing

transportation plan and TIP lapses.

When the conformity status of the

transportation plan and TIP lapses, no

new project-level conformity

determinations may be made, and the

only federal highway and transit

projects which may proceed are exempt

or grandfathered projects. Non-federal
7450 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

highway or transit projects may be

adopted or approved by recipients of

funds designated under title 23 U.S.C.

or the Federal Transit Act only if they

are not regionally significant.

As described in the preamble to the

final transportation conformity rule (58

FR 62191–3), EPA developed these

requirements in response to public

comments which claimed that the

proposed interim period conformity

criteria (e.g., the ‘‘build/no-build test’’)

did not ensure emissions reductions

consistent with Clean Air Act

requirements for reasonable further

progress and attainment, and which

emphasized the importance of

emissions budgets in determining

conformity. EPA imposed restrictions

such as conformity lapsing where the

State failed to establish emission

budgets in a timely fashion, because

EPA believed that in the prolonged

absence of a control strategy SIP,

preventing new conformity

determinations and postponing new

commitments of funds would prevent

uncontrolled emissions increases while

the State was establishing its control

strategies.

B. Control Strategy SIP Requirements

Control strategy SIPs include 15%

rate-of-progress plans, reasonable

further progress plans, and attainment

demonstrations.

Clean Air Act section 182(b)(1)

required moderate and above ozone

nonattainment areas to submit a 15%

volatile organic compound emission

reduction rate-of-progress plan by

November 15, 1993. Moderate ozone

areas were also required by that section

to submit an attainment demonstration

by this date if they were not using

photochemical grid modeling to develop

the demonstration.

Serious and above ozone

nonattainment areas (and moderate

ozone nonattainment areas using

photochemical grid modeling under

EPA’s interpretation of section

182(b)(1)) were required to submit an

attainment demonstration by November

15, 1994 under Clean Air Act section

182(c)(2)(A). Clean Air Act section

182(c)(2)(B) also required serious and

above ozone nonattainment areas to

submit by this date a reasonable-furtherprogress (or rate-of-progress) plan for

3% annual emission reductions until

the attainment date.

Carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment

areas classified as moderate with design

value greater than 12.7 parts per million

or serious were required by Clean Air

Act section 187(a)(7) to submit an

attainment demonstration by November

15, 1992.

Areas in nonattainment for particulate

matter less than a nominal 10 microns

in aerodynamic diameter (PM–10) were

required to submit an attainment

demonstration at varying dates

depending upon their date of

classification, but Clean Air Act section

189(a)(1)(B) required many areas to

submit the attainment demonstration by

November 15, 1991.

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) areas were

required by Clean Air Act section 191 to

submit an attainment demonstration by

May 15, 1992.

II. Description of Interim Final Rule

A. Incomplete 15% SIPs and

Disapprovals With Protective Findings

This interim final rule delays the

lapse in transportation plan/TIP

conformity until Clean Air Act section

179(b) highway sanctions are effective,

for areas with a 15% SIP which EPA

found incomplete but noted in the

finding (according to 40 CFR

51.448(c)(1)(iii)) that the submittal

would have been considered complete

with respect to requirements for

emission reductions if all committed

measures had been submitted in

enforceable form as required by Clean

Air Act section 110(a)(2)(A) (i.e.,

incomplete with a ‘‘protective finding’’).

EPA is also similarly delaying the

conformity lapse which results from

EPA disapproval of a control strategy

SIP with a ‘‘protective finding’’ as

described in 40 CFR 51.448(a)(3) and

(d)(3). Clean Air Act highway sanctions

will become effective in both types of

areas two years following the date of

EPA’s incompleteness determination or

disapproval, unless the State remedies

the failure.

Under the November 1993

transportation conformity rule, the

conformity status of the transportation

plan and TIP lapses in such areas twelve

months following the incompleteness

determination or disapproval, unless

another SIP is submitted to EPA and

found to be complete. This interim final

rule delays the transportation plan/TIP

conformity lapse. It also restores the

conformity status of transportation

plans and TIPs for which twelve months

have already elapsed since EPA made

the incompleteness determination or

disapproval with protective finding,

provided conformity has not lapsed for

other reasons under the transportation

conformity rule. A list of areas with

incomplete 15% SIPs with protective

findings (and the dates of those EPA

findings) is in the docket.

EPA is delaying the transportation

plan/TIP conformity lapse in these areas

because the agency now believes that a

twelve-month period to make these

control strategy SIPs fully enforceable is

a too stringent definition of ‘‘timely’’

SIP development in this particular

context, given the lengthy legislative

and administrative processes of many

States. Although EPA believed this time

period was appropriate at the time EPA

promulgated the transportation

conformity rule, EPA has now seen that

in practice the time was too short to be

reasonable for purposes of determining

when transportation plans and TIPs

should lapse following SIP development

failures.

EPA believes it is appropriate to allow

States more time to complete these SIPs

before negative conformity

consequences are imposed, particularly

because in these areas with

incompleteness findings or disapprovals

with protective findings, the State has

developed motor vehicle emissions

budget(s) which are part of an overall

strategy to achieve the required

emission reductions and therefore are

appropriate for use in conformity

determinations. In these areas, lapsing is

not necessary in the short term to

prevent uncontrolled motor vehicle

emissions increases while the State

completes the SIP, because the motor

vehicle emissions budget(s) are already

applying in conformity determinations

as a constraint.

However, EPA continues to believe

that a conformity lapse is appropriate in

the prolonged absence of a complete

control strategy SIP. In such cases, EPA

can no longer remain confident that

states will be able to adopt and

implement the rules necessary to

support the SIP emissions budget. EPA

believes that the application of Clean

Air Act highway sanctions signifies that

SIP development has not proceeded in

a timely fashion and, therefore, that the

conformity process should ensure that

significant new transportation projects

will not be undertaken.

B. Ozone Attainment/3% Rate-ofProgress SIPs

For ozone nonattainment areas which

fail to submit an attainment SIP due

November 15, 1994 (including moderate

areas using photochemical grid

modeling) and/or a 3% rate-of-progress

SIP revision (hereafter called an

‘‘attainment/3% rate-of-progress SIP’’),

this interim final rule similarly delays

the transportation plan/TIP conformity

lapse until Clean Air Act highway

sanctions are effective. Clean Air Act

highway sanctions apply in these areas

two years following the date of EPA’s

finding of failure to submit, unless the

State remedies the failure. This rule also
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7451

eliminates the transportation plan/TIP

‘‘freeze’’ in these areas.

Under the November 1993

transportation conformity rule, in ozone

nonattainment areas where EPA finds a

failure to submit the attainment/3%

rate-of-progress SIP, no new or amended

transportation plans or TIPs could be

adopted after March 15, 1995 (i.e., the

existing transportation plan/TIP would

be ‘‘frozen’’). The conformity status of

the transportation plan and TIP would

have lapsed November 15, 1995.

This interim final rule also delays the

transportation plan/TIP conformity

lapse until the application of Clean Air

Act highway sanctions for ozone

nonattainment areas with incomplete

attainment/3% rate-of-progress SIPs.

This rule also eliminates the

transportation plan/TIP ‘‘freeze’’ for

these areas.

Under the November 1993

transportation conformity rule, if EPA

found an area’s ozone attainment/3%

rate-of-progress SIP incomplete without

a protective finding, the transportation

plan/TIP would have ‘‘frozen’’ 120 days

following EPA’s incompleteness

finding, and the conformity status of the

transportation plan/TIP would have

lapsed November 15, 1995. For areas for

which EPA made an incompleteness

determination with a protective finding,

the conformity status of the

transportation plan/TIP would have

lapsed twelve months from the date of

the incompleteness finding (no ‘‘freeze’’

would have occurred).

Under this interim final rule, in any

ozone nonattainment area with an

incomplete attainment/3% rate-ofprogress SIP, the conformity status of

the transportation plan/TIP will not

lapse until Clean Air Act section

179(b)(1) highway sanctions are

effective as a result of the

incompleteness (provided the

conformity status of the transportation

plan and TIP does not lapse for other

reasons under the transportation

conformity rule). Consequently, there

will be no distinction among

incompleteness determinations

regarding protective findings.

EPA is delaying the transportation

plan/TIP conformity lapse due to failure

to submit and incomplete ozone

attainment/3% rate-of-progress SIPs

because unforeseeable delays in the

development of these SIPs, including

delays beyond the control of state air

quality planning agencies due to the

complexity of required modeling, have

convinced the agency that the grace

periods in the November 1993 rule

constitute a too stringent definition of

‘‘timely’’ establishment of emissions

budgets in this particular context. Since

states have been proceeding towards SIP

development and delays have not been

within their control, EPA now believes

that the original grace period is

unreasonable.

However, EPA continues to believe

that conformity lapsing is appropriate in

the prolonged absence of a complete

ozone attainment/3% rate-of-progress

SIP. EPA believes that the application of

Clean Air Act highway sanctions

signifies that SIP development has not

proceeded in a timely fashion and,

therefore, that the conformity process

should ensure that significant new

transportation projects will not be

undertaken.

C. Other Control Strategy SIPs

This interim final rule does not

change the consequences in 40 CFR

51.448 for disapproval of any control

strategy SIP without a protective

finding; for failure to submit or

submission of incomplete CO, PM–10,

or NO2 attainment demonstrations; or

for failure to submit or submission of

incomplete 15% SIPs without protective

findings. EPA believes that

transportation plan/TIP ‘‘freeze’’ and

conformity lapse is appropriate as

currently required because in these

cases adequate emissions budgets have

not been established in a timely fashion.

III. Rulemaking Process

A. Rulemaking Procedures

This rule is being published as an

interim final rule without benefit of a

prior proposal and public comment

period because EPA finds that ‘‘good

cause’’ exists for deferring those

procedures until after publishing the

changes as an interim final rule. Good

cause exists for two reasons. First, it is

contrary to the public interest for the

transportation conformity rule to halt

implementation of transportation plans,

programs, and projects when for the

reasons described above EPA believes

that such delay is not necessary at this

time for the lawful and effective

implementation of Clean Air Act section

176(c).

Furthermore, the conformity

consequences for ozone areas which this

interim final rule delays would have

occurred before full notice-andcomment rulemaking could have been

completed. EPA could not have initiated

full notice-and-comment rulemaking far

enough in advance to effectively delay

the conformity consequences at issue

because it was first necessary to

evaluate the States’ progress in control

strategy SIP development and

submission, and to determine whether

the existing grace periods were

appropriate. In addition, it is possible

that a disapproval with a protective

finding could have occurred during the

full notice-and-comment rulemaking

process. Thus, it was impracticable to

provide notice-and-comment

procedures prior to the time by which

EPA needs to implement these changes

to avoid the conformity consequences

that would otherwise result under the

existing rule.

Although prior notice-and-comment

rulemaking was impracticable, a draft of

this rule was distributed to

representatives of affected State and

local transportation and air quality

planning agencies and the public, and a

conference call was held with

stakeholders such as the State and

Territorial Air Pollution Program

Administrators/Association of Local Air

Pollution Control Officials, the

American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials, the

American Public Transit Association,

the National Association of Regional

Councils, the American Association of

Metropolitan Planning Organizations,

the National Governors’ Association, the

Surface Transportation Policy Project,

the Environmental Defense Fund, the

Natural Resources Defense Council, the

Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, the

Highway Users Federation, and the

American Road and Transportation

Builders Association to solicit input on

the interim final rule prior to

promulgation.

In addition, the Secretary of

Transportation reviewed and concurred

with this interim final rule.

This interim final rule is taking effect

immediately upon publication because,

as described above, conformity lapsing

which is contrary to the public interest

would otherwise be occurring during

the 30-day period between publication

and the effective date ordinarily

provided under the Administrative

Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

EPA finds good cause to make this

interim final rule effective immediately

for the same reasons described above in

justification of taking final action

without prior proposal. In addition, this

rule relieves a restriction and, therefore,

qualifies for an exception from the

APA’s 30-day advance-notice period

under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).

The provisions of this interim final

rule shall apply only for six months,

during which time EPA will conduct

full notice-and-comment rulemaking on

these provisions and whether to make

these provisions permanent. A proposed

rule is published in the proposed rule

section of this Federal Register, and the

public comment period on this proposal

will last until March 10, 1995. Public
7452 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

comments will be addressed in a

subsequent final rule, which will be

promulgated before the six-month limit

on the applicability of this interim final

rule expires.

B. Future Amendments to the

Transportation Conformity Rule

EPA intends to make additional

limited amendments to the

transportation conformity rule. EPA

intends to clarify certain ambiguous

language in 40 CFR 51.448 and 93.128

to ensure implementation consistent

with the intent of EPA and the

Department of Transportation (DOT), as

expressed in guidance memoranda

issued since November 1993. These

changes are necessary to have legal

certainty that the amendments

promulgated today will continue to

have their intended effect.

In addition, EPA intends to amend the

transportation conformity rule in order

to allow transportation control measures

which are in an approved SIP and have

been included in a conforming

transportation plan and TIP to proceed

even if the conformity status of the

current transportation plan and TIP has

lapsed.

EPA is not issuing these amendments

in this interim final rule because prior

notice-and-comment rulemaking is not

impracticable in these cases. EPA

intends to propose these amendments in

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking within

the next several months, and

representatives from the organizations

listed above will be given an

opportunity to comment on a draft

NPRM this month.

Since publication of the

transportation conformity rule in

November 1993, EPA, DOT, and state

and local air and transportation officials

have had experience implementing the

criteria and procedures in the rule. It is

that mutual experience which leads to

the amendments which EPA will be

proposing today and in the very near

future. In each case, the amendments

are needed to clarify ambiguities,

correct errors, or make the conformity

process more logical and feasible.

There are many other issues which

were debated in the original rulemaking,

some of which are the subject of

litigation at this time. EPA does not

intend its issuance of back-to-back

rulemakings to imply a willingness to

open the conformity rule to

amendments which suit one or the other

petitioners’ purpose. Both EPA and

DOT, of course, are very willing and

eager to assist transportation and air

quality planners in complying with the

rule and the statutory intent.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof;

(4) Raise novel or policy issues arising

out of legal mandates, the President’s

priorities, or the principles set forth in

the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory

action.’’ As such, this action was

submitted to OMB for review. Changes

made in response to OMB suggestions or

recommendations will be documented

in the public record.

B. Reporting and Recordkeeping

Requirements

This rule does not contain any

information collection requirements

from EPA which require approval by

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

requires federal agencies to identify

potentially adverse impacts of federal

regulations upon small entities. In

instances where significant impacts are

possible on a substantial number of

these entities, agencies are required to

perform a Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis (RFA).

EPA has determined that today’s

regulations will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. This regulation affects

moderate and above ozone

nonattainment areas, which are almost

exclusively urban areas of substantial

population, and affects federal agencies

and metropolitan planning

organizations, which by definition are

designated only for metropolitan areas

with a population of at least 50,000.

Therefore, as required under section

605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 601 et seq., I certify that this

regulation does not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate Matter, Reporting and

Recordkeeping Requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 93

Administrative practice and

procedure, Air pollution control, Carbon

monoxide, Intergovernmental relations,

Ozone.

Dated: January 31, 1995.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

40 CFR parts 51 and 93 are amended

as follows:

PARTS 51 AND 93—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 51

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401(a)(2), 7475(e),

7502 (a) and (b), 7503, 7601(a)(1) and 7602.

2. The authority citation for part 93

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671p.

3. The identical texts of §§ 51.448 and

93.128 are amended as follows:

a. By redesignating paragraphs (b)(2)

and (c)(2) as (b)(3) and (c)(3);

b. In the newly redeisgnated

paragraph (c)(3)(iii) by revising the

reference ‘‘paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii)’’

to read ‘‘paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii); and

c. By adding new paragraphs (a)(4),

(b)(2), (c)(2), and (d)(4).

The identical text of additions reads

as follows: §lll.lll Transition

from the interim period to the control

strategy period.

(a) * * *

(4) Until August 8, 1995, for areas

otherwise subject to paragraph (a)(3) of

this section, the conformity lapse

imposed by the final sentence of

paragraph (a)(3) of this section shall not

apply. The conformity status of the

transportation plan and TIP shall lapse

on the date that highway sanctions as a

result of the disapproval are imposed on

the nonattainment area under section

179(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, unless

another control strategy implementation
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7453

plan revision is submitted to EPA and

found to be complete.

(b) * * *

(2) Until August 8, 1995, for ozone

nonattainment areas where EPA has

notified the State, MPO, and DOT of the

State’s failure to submit a control

strategy implementation plan revision

required by Clean Air Act sections

182(c)(2)(A) and/or 182(c)(2)(B), failure

to submit an attainment demonstration

for an intrastate moderate ozone

nonattainment area that chose to use the

Urban Airshed Model for such

demonstration, or failure to submit an

attainment demonstration for a

multistate moderate ozone

nonattainment area, the following shall

apply in lieu of the provisions of

paragraph (b)(1) of this section:

(i) The conformity status of the

transportation plan and TIP shall lapse

on the date that highway sanctions are

imposed on the nonattainment area for

such failure under section 179(b)(1) of

the Clean Air Act, unless the failure has

been remedied and acknowledged by a

letter from the EPA Regional

Administrator; and

(ii) The consequences described in

paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be

nullified if such provisions have been

applied as a result of a failure described

in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, and

paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall

henceforth apply with respect to any

such failure.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) Until August 8, 1995, for the ozone

nonattainment areas described in

paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, the

following shall apply in lieu of the

provisions of paragraph (c)(1) of this

section:

(i) The conformity status of the

transportation plan and TIP shall lapse

on the date that highway sanctions are

imposed on the nonattainment area

under section 179(b)(1) of the Clean Air

Act for the failures described below,

unless the failure has been remedied

and acknowledged by a letter from the

EPA Regional Administrator, in ozone

nonattainment areas where EPA notifies

the State, MPO, and DOT that any of the

following control strategy

implementation plan revisions are

incomplete:

(A) The implementation plan revision

due November 15, 1994, as required by

Clean Air Act sections 182(c)(2)(A) and/

or 182(c)(2)(B);

(B) The attainment demonstration

required for moderate intrastate ozone

nonattainment areas which chose to use

the Urban Airshed Model for such

demonstration and for multistate

moderate ozone nonattainment areas; or

(C) The VOC reasonable further

progress demonstration due November

15, 1993, as required by Clean Air Act

section 182(b)(1), if EPA notes in its

incompleteness finding as described in

paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section that

the submittal would have been

considered complete with respect to

requirements for emission reductions if

all committed measures had been

submitted in enforceable form as

required by Clean Air Act section

110(a)(2)(A); and

(ii) The consequences described in

paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall be

nullified if such provisions have been

applied as a result of a failure described

in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, and

paragraph (c)(2) of this section shall

henceforth apply with respect to any

such failure.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(4) Until August 8, 1995, for areas

otherwise subject to paragraph (d)(3) of

this section, the conformity lapse

imposed by the final sentence of

paragraph (d)(3) of this section shall not

apply. The conformity status of the

transportation plan and TIP shall lapse

on the date that highway sanctions as a

result of the disapproval are imposed on

the nonattainment area under section

179(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, unless

another control strategy implementation

plan revision is submitted to EPA and

found to be complete.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–3003 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[OH06–2–6229, OH01–2–6230, OH32–2–

6231; FRL–5151–1]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: USEPA is approving a

redesignation request and maintenance

plan for Preble, Columbiana, and

Jefferson County, Ohio as a revision to

Ohio’s State Implementation Plan (SIP)

for ozone.

The revision is based on a request

from the State of Ohio to redesignate

these areas, and approve their

maintenance plans, and on the

supporting data the State submitted.

Under the Clean Air Act, designations

can be changed if sufficient data are

available to warrant such change.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes

effective on March 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the requested

redesignation, maintenance plan, and

other materials relating to this

rulemaking are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following addresses: United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard

(AE–17J), Chicago, Illinois 60604; and

Jerry Kurtzweg (ANR–443), United

States Environmental Protection,

Agency, 401 M Street, S.W. Washington,

D.C. 20460. (It is recommended that you

telephone William Jones at (312) 886–

6058, before visiting the Region 5

Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Jones, Regulation Development

Section, Air Enforcement Branch (AE–

17J), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois

60604, (312) 886–6058.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under

Section 107(d) of the pre-amended

Clean Air Act (CAA), the United States

Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) promulgated the ozone

attainment status for each area of every

State. For the State of Ohio, Preble,

Columbiana, and Jefferson Counties

were designated as nonattainment areas

for ozone. See 43 FR 8962 (March 3,

1978), and 43 FR 45993 (October 5,

1978). On November 15, 1990, the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990 were

enacted. Pub. L. No. 101–549, 104 Stat.

2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Pursuant to Section 107(d)(1)(C)(i) of the

amended CAA, Preble, Jefferson, and

Columbiana Counties retained their

designations of nonattainment for ozone

by operation of law. See 56 FR 56694

(November 6, 1991). At the same time,

Preble and Jefferson Counties were

classified as transitional areas; and

Columbiana County was classified as an

incomplete data area.

The Ohio Environmental Protection

Agency (OEPA) requested that Preble

County be redesignated to attainment in

a letter dated May 23, 1986; and that

Jefferson and Columbiana Counties be

redesignated to attainment in a letter

dated July 14, 1986. On December 20,

1993, the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) proposed to

disapprove the requested

redesignations. See 58 FR 66334. The

public comment period was from

December 20, 1993, to January 19, 1994.

Only one public comment was received

on the proposed rulemaking to

disapprove the redesignations. It was a

January 18, 1994, letter from the State of

Ohio requesting a 90-day extension of