62734 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

31, 1995. The Act provides that there

will be an Inspector General in SSA,

appointed in accordance with the

Inspector General Act of 1978, as

amended (5 U.S.C. App.3). Appropriate

personnel from the HHS Office of

Inspector General transferred to SSA to

staff the new OIG. Ongoing

investigations pertaining to programs

and operations of SSA also were

transferred.

Since 1979, the Office of Inspector

General of the Department of Health and

Human Services has been designated as

among the agencies with law

enforcement officers authorized to

request the issuance of search warrants

under 28 CFR Part 60. To make this

authority explicit, this rule amends

§ 60.2 of 28 CFR Part 60 by designating

special agents of the Office of Inspector

General of the former parent agency, the

Department of Health and Human

Services (§ 60.2(q)), and adding special

agents of the Office of Investigations of

the Office of Inspector General of the

newly-created Social Security

Administration (new § 60.2(p)). It also

adds the Office of Investigations of the

Office of Inspector General, Social

Security Administration as new

§ 60.3(a)(18). The Office of

Investigations, Office of Inspector

General, Department of Health and

Human Services will continue to be

separately designated in § 60.3(a)(3).

Because the material contained herein

is a matter of Department of Justice

practice and procedure, the provision of

the Administrative Procedure Act (5

U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed

rulemaking, opportunity for public

participation, and delay in effective date

is inapplicable. This rule has been

drafted and reviewed in accordance

with section 1(b) of Executive Order

12866. It has been determined that this

rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive

Order 12866 and accordingly this rule

has not been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget.

In accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the

Attorney General has reviewed this rule

and by approving it certifies that it will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

This rule will not have a substantial

direct impact upon the states, on the

relationship between the national

government and the states, or on

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this rule does not

have sufficient federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 60

Law enforcement officers, Search

warrants.

By virtue of the authority vested in

me by Rule 41(h) of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, Part 60 of

Chapter I of Title 28, Code of Federal

Regulations is hereby amended as

follows:

PART 60—AUTHORIZATION OF

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

OFFICERS TO REQUEST THE

ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT

1. The authority citation for Part 60 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: Rule 41(h), Fed. R. Crim. P (18

U.S.C. appendix).

2. Section 60.2 is amended by adding

paragraphs (p) and (q), to read as

follows:

§ 60.2 Authorized categories.

* * * * *

(p) Any special agent of the Office of

Inspector General, Social Security

Administration.

(q) Any special agent of the Office of

Inspector General, Department of Health

and Human Services.

3. Section 60.3 is amended by adding

a new paragraph (a)(18) to read as

follows:

§ 60.3 Agencies with authorized

personnel.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(18) Social Security Administration,

Office of Inspector General

* * * * *

Dated: November 28, 1995.

Janet Reno,

Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 95–29490 Filed 12–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 917

[KY–209]

Kentucky Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: OSM is approving a proposed

amendment to the Kentucky regulatory

program (hereinafter referred to as the

‘‘Kentucky program’’ under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). Kentucky proposed

revisions to the Kentucky

Administration Regulations (KAR)

pertaining to outcrop barrier pillars at

405 KAR 16:010 and 405 KAR 18:010.

The amendment is intended to provide

additional safeguards and clarify

ambiguities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 7, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William J. Kovacic, Director, Lexington

Field Office, 2675 Regency Road,

Lexington, Kentucky 40503. Telephone:

(606) 233–2896.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Kentucky Program

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

III. Director’s Findings

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

V. Director’s Decision

VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Kentucky

Program

On May 18, 1982, the Secretary of the

Interior conditionally approved the

Kentucky program. Background

information on the Kentucky program,

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and the

conditions of approval can be found in

the May 18, 1982 Federal Register (47

FR 21404). Subsequent actions

concerning conditions of approval and

program amendments can be found at

30 CFR 917.11, 917.13, 917.15, 917.16,

and 917.17.

II. Submission of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated August 2, 1994,

(Administrative Record No. KY–1305)

Kentucky submitted a proposed

amendment to its program pursuant to

SMCRA at its own initiative. Kentucky

is revising 405 KAR 16:010 pertaining to

surface mining activities affecting

outcrop barrier pillars and 405 KAR

18:010 pertaining to underground

mining activities affecting outcrop

barrier pillars.

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the September

6, 1994, Federal Register (59 FR 46013),

and in the same document opened the

public comment period and provided an

opportunity for a public hearing on the

adequacy of the proposed amendment.

The public comment period closed on

October 6, 1994.

By letter dated January 11, 1995

(Administrative Record No. KY–1332),

Kentucky proposed additional revisions

to 405 KAR 16:010 and 405 KAR 18:010.

Based upon the additional revisions to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 62735

the proposed program amendment

submitted by Kentucky, OSM reopened

the public comment period in the

February 17, 1995, Federal Register (60

FR 9314) and provided an opportunity

for a public hearing on the adequacy of

the revised amendment. The public

comment period closed on March 20,

1995.

III. Director’s Findings

Set forth below, pursuant to SMCRA

and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

732.15 and 732.17, are the Director’s

findings concerning the proposed

amendment.

Revisions not specifically discussed

below concern nonsubstantive wording

changes.

A. 405 KAR 16:010—General

Provisions/Surface Mines

Kentucky proposes to revise 405 KAR

16:010 to add provisions for the

protection of unmined barriers of coal

left by underground mining. At new

section (8), Kentucky is prohibiting the

removal of coal from an unmined barrier

of coal left by an underground mine

where the underground workings dip

toward and approach the land surface,

unless the Natural Resources and

Environmental Protection Cabinet

(Cabinet) has otherwise approved the

removal. The Cabinet shall approve the

removal if all other applicable

requirements of 405 KAR Chapters 7–24

and KRS Chapter 350 are met and at

least one of the following conditions is

met: (a) The removal will not adversely

affect the stability of the unmined

barrier of coal; (b) the removal will

completely eliminate or significantly

reduce underground workings; (c) the

removal will eliminate or significantly

reduce an existing or potential threat to

the health or safety of the public

resulting from the existing underground

workings; (d) the removal will eliminate

or significantly reduce existing or

potential adverse impacts to the

quantity or quality of ground or surface

water resulting from the existing

underground workings; or (e) the

unmined barrier of coal is not necessary

to protect the health or safety of the

public or to protect the quantity or

quality of ground or surface water.

Kentucky’s intent behind this

regulation is to reduce the occurrences

of a ‘‘blowout,’’ which is a rapid release

to the land of a large volume of water

impounded in underground mine

workings. (Administrative Record No.

KY–1305.) While there is no Federal

counterpart to the Kentucky regulation,

the regulation’s intent is not

inconsistent with section 102 of SMCRA

which established SMCRA to protect,

inter alia, society and the environment

from the adverse effects of surface coal

mining operations. Therefore, the

Director finds the proposed regulation at

405 KAR 16:010, section (8) not

inconsistent with SMCRA and the

Federal regulations.

B. 405 KAR 18:010—General Provisions/

Underground Mines

Kentucky proposes to revise 405 KAR

18:010 to add provisions for protection

against the sudden release of water

accumulated in underground workings

to the land surface. At new section (6),

Kentucky is requiring that, except where

surface openings are approved in the

permit, an unmined barrier of coal shall

be left where the underground workings

dip toward and approach the land

surface. The Cabinet shall waive this

requirement if it determines that the

proposed operation meets the applicable

requirements of 405 KAR Chapters 7–24

and KRS 350 and either of the following

provisions: (a) The applicant has

demonstrated in the permit application

to the satisfaction of the Cabinet, based

upon the geologic and hydrologic

conditions in the permit area, that

accumulation of water in the under

ground workings cannot be reasonably

expected to occur; or (b) adequate

measures to prevent accumulation of

water in the underground workings

have been included in the permit

application and have been approved by

the Cabinet. Kentucky is also requiring

that if an unmined barrier of coal is

required, it shall be of sufficient width

to prevent failure and sudden release of

water accumulated in underground

workings to land surface. The Cabinet

may determine, on a case-by-case basis,

the width of the unmined barrier of

coal. The width shall not be less than

that given by the formula: W = 50 + H,

where W is the minimum width in feet

and H is the maximum hydrostatic head

in feet that can build up on the unmined

barrier of coal. The Cabinet may

approve a width less than the minimum

indicated by the formula if the applicant

has demonstrated in the permit

application to the Cabinet’s satisfaction

that the lesser width will achieve the

purpose of this regulation.

While there is no direct Federal

counterpart to the Kentucky regulation,

the Director finds as more fully stated in

the previous finding that the proposed

regulation at section (6) of 18:010 to not

be consistent with SMCRA and the

Federal regulations.

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Public Comments

The Director solicited public

comments and provided an opportunity

for a public hearing on the proposed

amendment submitted on August 2,

1994. Because no one requested an

opportunity to speak at a public hearing,

no hearing was held.

The Director reopened the public

comment period and provided an

opportunity for a public hearing on the

revised amendment submitted on

January 11, 1995. Because no one

requested an opportunity to speak at a

public hearing, no hearing was held.

One public comment was received.

The Kentucky Resources Council, Inc.

generally supported the amendment but

recommended that the outcrop barrier

width potentially be increased based on

site-specific data to prevent the

discharge of water through any existing

fractures and bedding planes to prevent

surface instability and slides. The

Director notes that Kentucky may

determine, on a case-by-case basis, the

width of the outcrop barrier needed to

prevent the discharge of water.

Kentucky, in its October 14, 1994,

Statement of Consideration stated that

the width may be potentially increased

if Kentucky deems it necessary.

Federal Agency Comments

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i),

the Director solicited comments on the

proposed amendment submitted on

August 2, 1994, and revised on January

11, 1995, from various Federal agencies

with an actual or potential interest in

the Kentucky program. The U.S.

Department of the Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service and the Bureau of

Mines, and the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, concurred

without comment.

The U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management,

commented that leaving outcrop barriers

in place serves a useful purpose but

where feasible, drifts should be located

updip to prevent drainage from

improperly sealed openings. It cited a

situation in West Virginia where a

blowout occurred which created acid

mine drainage. Kentucky’s proposed

regulations at 405 KAR 16:010 and

18:010 both require that before an

unmined coal barrier is removed, the

operation must meet all applicable

requirements of 405 KAR Chapters 7–

24. Section 8(1) of 405 KAR 18:060

allows gravity discharges of water,

except for those drift mines subject to

section 8(2), if the discharge complies

with the performance standards and any
62736 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

additional KPDES permit requirements.

Section 8(2) of 405 KAR 18:060 requires

that the entries and accesses of drift

mines used after May 18, 1982, must be

located to prevent any gravity discharge

from the mine when it is located in acid

or iron producing coal seams. Therefore,

Kentucky’s regulations are designed to

prevent acid mine drainage from

occurring in the situation described by

the commenter.

The U.S. Department of Labor, Mine

Safety and Health Administration

(MSHA) had three comments

concerning 405 KAR 16:010 section 8.

Its first comment was that the phrase

‘‘unmined barrier of coal left by an

underground mine’’ be replaced with

‘‘outcrop barrier’’ to add specificity to

the proposed revisions. It was also

concerned that a misinterpretation of

the term ‘‘unmined barrier of coal left by

an underground mine’’ could mean that

barrier pillars could be left in place as

operations retreat from mining causing

stress in the overlying strata. Its second

comment was that the method of mining

be specified. Finally, MSHA was

concerned about subsection (2)(b) of 405

KAR 16:010 section 8, which allows the

removal of the barrier if the removal

will completely eliminate or

significantly reduce existing

underground workings. It was

concerned that subsection (2)(b) could

allow the removal of the outcrop barrier

even if it caused the collapse of the

overlying strata. It recommended that if

the removal of the barrier is done by

augering or highwall mining then an

adequate amount of the barrier should

be left in place to support the highwall

during mining because the overburden

would cave in after the barrier was

removed, thereby increasing the hazard

of highwall collapse to miners.

In response to the first comment, the

Director finds the meaning of the term

‘‘unmined barrier of coal left by an

underground mine’’ sufficiently clear

from the context of its use in the

proposed regulation because it

specifically refers to those underground

workings that dip toward and approach

the land surface. Also any concern

about the retention of barrier pillars

during the retreat phase of mining is

misplaced. The removal of barrier

pillars during the retreat phase of

mining occurs during underground

mining. Chapter 16 applies to surface

coal mining operations. In response to

the second comment, the Director again

notes that Chapter 16 of Title 405 of the

Kentucky Regulations only applies to

surface coal mining operations.

Therefore, no clarification is necessary

since Chapter 16 deals exclusively with

surface activities.

Finally, the Director disagrees with

MSHA’s concerns that section 8(2)(b)

may create a hazard to miners.

Kentucky’s statute at KRS 350.028(5)

prevents the Kentucky SMCRA from

superseding, amending, modifying or

repealing the Federal Coal Mine Health

and Safety Act of 1969 and its

amendments. In addition, to eliminate

or significantly reduce the existing

underground workings the coal pillars

and outcrop barrier would have to be

removed. Augering and highwall mining

could not be used to remove coal pillars

left in the underground workings and it

could only remove a portion of the coal

outcrop barrier. Remining would be the

method of surface mining used to

eliminate or significantly reduce the

existing underground workings, not

augering or highwall mining. To

completely eliminate or significantly

reduce underground workings by

surface mining methods, the operator

must remine the area which includes

removing the overburden (thus

eliminating the possibility of a

collapsing highwall) and then mining by

conventional strip mining methods.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii),

OSM is required to obtain the written

concurrence of the EPA with respect to

those provisions of the proposed

program amendment that relate to air or

water quality standards promulgated

under the authority of the Clean Water

Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean

Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).

On August 11, 1994, OSM solicited

EPA’s concurrence with the proposed

amendment. On August 25, 1994, EPA

gave its written concurrence

(Administrative Record No. KY–1310).

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above finding(s), the

Director approves the proposed

amendment as submitted by Kentucky

on August 2, 1994, and revised on

January 11, 1995.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

Part 917, codifying decisions concerning

the Kentucky program, are being

amended to implement this decision.

This final rule is being made effective

immediately to expedite the State

program amendment process and to

encourage States to bring their programs

into conformity with the Federal

standards without undue delay.

Consistency of State and Federal

standards is required by SMCRA.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review).

Executive Order 12778

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 2 of Executive Order 12778

(Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that, to the extent allowed

by law, this rule meets the applicable

standards of subsections (a) and (b) of

that section. However, these standards

are not applicable to the actual language

of State regulatory programs and

program amendments since each such

program is drafted and promulgated by

a specific State, not by OSM. Under

sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30

U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30 CFR

730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),

decisions on proposed State regulatory

programs and program amendments

submitted by the States must be based

solely on a determination of whether the

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and

its implementing Federal regulations

and whether the other requirements of

30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have

been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since section

702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d))

provides that agency decisions on

proposed State regulatory program

provisions do not constitute major

Federal actions within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

which is the subject of this rule is based

upon corresponding Federal regulations

for which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 62737

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

corresponding Federal regulations.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 917

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: December 1, 1995.

Allen D. Klein,

Regional Director, Appalachian Regional

Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII,

Subchapter T of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as set forth

below:

PART 917—KENTUCKY

1. The authority citation for Part 917

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

2. Section 917.15 is amended by

adding paragraph (zz) to read as follows:

§ 917.15 Approval of regulatory program

amendments.

* * * * *

(zz) Revisions to the following rules,

as submitted to OSM on August 2, 1994,

and revised on January 11, 1995, are

approved effective December 7, 1995:

405 KAR 16:010

Sections 1, 6, 7, and 8 General Provisions/

Surface Mines

405 KAR 18:010

Sections 4, 5, and 6 General Provisions/

Underground Mines

[FR Doc. 95–29876 Filed 12–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH80–2–7241; FRL–5340–1]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Ohio

AGENCY: United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The USEPA is approving, in

final, Ohio’s 1990 base-year ozone

precursor emissions inventories for the

Canton, Cincinnati-Hamilton,

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain and

Youngstown-Warren-Sharon ozone

nonattainment areas as revisions to the

Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP).

The emissions inventories were

submitted to satisfy a Federal

requirement that States containing

ozone nonattainment areas submit

inventories of actual ozone precursor

emissions for the year 1990. The Ohio

ozone nonattainment areas covered by

this rulemaking are Canton (Stark

County); Cincinnati-Hamilton (Butler,

Clermont, Hamilton and Warren

Counties); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain

(Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake,

Lorain, Medina, Portage and Summit

Counties); and Youngstown-WarrenSharon (Mahoning and Trumbull

Counties).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will be

effective January 8, 1996.

ADDRESSEES: Copies of the State

submittal and USEPA’s analysis of it are

available for inspection at the following

location (it is recommended you contact

William Jones at (312) 886–6058 before

visiting the Region 5 office): J. Elmer

Bortzer, Chief, Regulation Development

Section, Regulation Development

Branch (AR–18J), USEPA, Region 5, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Jones, Environmental Engineer,

Regulation Development Section,

Regulation Development Branch (AR–

18J), USEPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312) 886–6058.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 (Act) requires

States with ozone nonattainment areas

to submit a comprehensive, accurate

and current inventory of actual ozone

precursor emissions (which includes

volatile organic compounds (VOC),

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and carbon

monoxide (CO)) for each ozone

nonattainment area by November 15,

1992. This inventory must include

anthropogenic base-year (1990)

emissions from stationary point, area,

non-road mobile, and on-road mobile

sources, as well as biogenic (naturally

occurring) sources in all ozone

nonattainment areas. The emissions

inventory must be based on conditions

that exist during the peak ozone season

(generally the period when peak hourly

ozone concentrations occur in excess of

the primary ozone National Ambient Air

Quality Standard—NAAQS). Ohio’s

annual ozone season is from April 1 to

October 31 of each year.

II. Criteria for Evaluating Ozone

Emissions Inventories

Guidance for preparing and reviewing

the emission inventories is provided in

the following USEPA guidance

documents or memoranda: ‘‘State

Implementation Plans; General

Preamble for the Implementation of

Title I of the Act,’’ (Preamble) as

published in the April 16, 1992 Federal

Register (57 FR 13498); ‘‘Emission

Inventory Requirements for Ozone State

Implementation Plans,’’ (EPA–450/4–

91–010) dated March 1991; a

memorandum from John Calcagni,

Director, Air Quality Management

Division, OAQPS, entitled ‘‘Public

Hearing Requirements for the 1990

Base-Year Emissions Inventories for

Ozone and Carbon Monoxide

Nonattainment Areas,’’ dated September

29, 1992; ‘‘Procedures for the

Preparation of Emissions Inventories for

Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of

Ozone, Volumes I and II,’’ (EPA–450/4–

91–016 and EPA–450/4–91–014)

(Procedures; Volumes I and II) dated

May 1991; and ‘‘Procedures for

Emissions Inventories Preparation,

Volume IV: Mobile Sources,’’ (EPA–450/

4–81–026d) (Procedures; Volume IV)

dated 1992.

As a primary tool for the review of the

quality of emission inventories, the

USEPA has also developed three levels

(I, II, and III) of emission inventories

checklists. The Level I and II checklists

are used to determine that all required

components of the base-year emission

inventory and associated documentation

are present. These reviews also evaluate

the level of quality of the associated

documentation and the data provided

by the State and assess whether the

emission estimates were developed

according to the USEPA guidance. The

Level III review evaluates crucial

aspects and the overall acceptability of

the emission inventory submittal.

Failure to meet one of the ten critical

aspects would lead to disapproval of the

emissions inventory submittal.

Detailed Level I and II review

procedures can be found in the USEPA

guidance document entitled ‘‘Quality

Review Guidelines for 1990 Base Year

Emissions Inventories,’’ (Quality

Review) (EPA–454/R–92–007) dated

August 1992. Level III criteria were

attached to a memorandum from John S.

Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, entitled

‘‘Emission Inventory Issue,’’ dated June

24, 1993. The Level I, II, and III

checklists used in reviewing this

emissions inventory submittal are

attached to a USEPA technical support

document dated October 3, 1995.

III. State Submittal

On March 15, 1994, the Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency

(OEPA) submitted a revision to the

ozone portion of Ohio’s SIP which

consisted of the 1990 base-year ozone

emissions inventory for the following