[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7453-7456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3072]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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 [[Page 7454]] the 
comment period. On February 18, 1994, the USEPA extended the comment 
period until April 19, 1994. See 59 FR 8150. The OEPA submitted 
comments in an April 14, 1994, letter that included maintenance and 
contingency plans for the counties. The results of OEPA's public 
hearing and resulting revision to the maintenance and contingency plans 
are contained in a letter dated August 10, 1994. No other comments were 
received during the extended comment period.
    After reviewing Ohio's April 14, 1994, and August 10, 1994, 
submittal, USEPA published a direct final rulemaking to approve the 
redesignation requests on September 21, 1994. See 59 FR 48395. At the 
same time USEPA published a proposed rulemaking, see 59 FR 48416, to 
approve the requests, in the event that adverse public comments were 
received. Adverse comments were received and a notice was published to 
remove the direct final rulemaking, but not the proposed rulemaking.

I. Summary of Comments and Responses

    USEPA has considered the adverse comments received and has decided 
to proceed with formal action approving the redesignations. A summary 
of adverse comments submitted in response to the September 21, 1994 
proposed rulemaking (59 FR 48416) and responses to these comments is 
provided below. All of the adverse comments received were made by 
Pollution Probe.
    Comment: There remain a number of important questions and concerns 
with regard to the long-range transport of ozone and ozone precursors 
across the U.S.-Canada border. This particular redesignation request by 
the State of Ohio is one of a number of requests which may cumulatively 
have a very significant impact on our future air quality. The commentor 
also questioned whether the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency had 
evaluated the impact of Oxides of nitrogen (NO<INF>X)/Volatile Organic 
Compound (VOC) emissions from Ohio sources on downwind regions in 
Canada.
    Response: In response, the USEPA notes that the governments of the 
United States and Canada are in the process of developing a joint study 
of the transboundary ozone phenomena under the U.S.-Canada Clean Air 
Quality Agreement. It is envisioned that this regional ozone study will 
provide the scientific information necessary to understand what 
contributes to ozone levels in the region, as well as, what control 
measures would contribute to reductions in ozone levels. This new 
regional ozone study is a cooperative effort between the U.S. and 
Canada. Should this or other studies provide a sufficient scientific 
basis for taking action in the future, the USEPA will decide what is an 
appropriate course of action. The USEPA may take appropriate action 
notwithstanding the redesignation of these areas in Ohio. Therefore, 
the USEPA does not believe that the contentions regarding transboundary 
impact currently provide a basis for delaying action on these 
redesignation requests or disapproving the redesignations. This is 
particularly true since approval of the redesignations is not expected 
to result in an increase in ozone precursor emissions and is not 
expected to adversely affect air quality in Canada. In fact, decreases 
in both VOC and NO<INF>X emissions from the areas being redesignated 
are expected over the 10-year maintenance period. See 59 FR 48396-
48397. It should also be noted that the redesignation does not allow 
States to automatically remove control programs which have contributed 
to an area's attainment of a U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
(NAAQS) for any pollutant and that no previously-implemented control 
strategies are being relaxed as part of these redesignations.
    Furthermore, USEPA notes that the extent of any contribution from 
these areas to monitored ozone levels in Canada cannot be determined 
with any degree of certainty on the basis of the information presently 
available to the USEPA. The extent to which emissions from these areas 
in Ohio, which are between 80 and 150 miles from the Canadian border, 
contribute to ozone formation in Canada is highly uncertain, 
particularly since winds flowing into areas in Ontario pass through a 
number of urbanized areas in both the U.S. and Canada. Ozone 
concentrations in Canada may be attributable to or fostered by ozone 
precursor emissions generated within Canadian borders. As a 
consequence, the USEPA does not believe that the presently available 
information provides any basis for affecting its decision regarding the 
redesignation of these areas in Ohio.
    Comment: A growing body of evidence shows that the negative impacts 
to human health and vegetation do occur at or below 82 parts per 
billion (ppb) ozone. While we recognize that the US NAAQS for ozone is 
currently .12 parts per million, and that the standard is currently 
being reviewed, does the air quality monitoring data submitted by the 
State show ozone concentrations exceeding 80 ppb in the three counties 
under discussion or in other sections of the State?
    Response: Yes, in Preble, and Jefferson Counties, and the counties 
adjacent to Columbiana County concentrations above 80 ppb have been 
monitored. However, as mentioned by the commentor, the monitoring data 
for these counties show that the counties are not in violation of the 
ozone NAAQS. Also, a revision to the NAAQS is currently under 
consideration by the USEPA. Until any change is made, however, the 
USEPA is bound to implement the provisions of the Act as they relate to 
the current standard, including those relating to designation and 
redesignations.
    Comment: What were the assumptions and analyses which led to the 
conclusion that total emissions will decrease in the three Ohio 
counties under discussion? Overall oxides of nitrogen emissions in the 
United States are projected to rise after the year 2000, even if 
mandatory CAA measures for stationary and mobile sources are 
implemented. We are unfamiliar with the types of emission reduction 
measures that are likely to be carried out in the United States' 
regions designated ``attainment.'' Future growth is one important 
factor which needs consideration. For example, in southeast Michigan, 
forecasters anticipate that an additional 6 percent growth in 
population will, with current trends, result in a 40 percent increase 
in vehicle miles travelled by 2010.
    Response: The area source emissions were projected to grow at the 
same rate as the expected population growth. The population growth rate 
used for Preble County is 0.83386 percent per year from 1990 to 1995 
and 0.6279 percent per year from 1995 to 2005. The population growth 
rate used for Columbiana and Jefferson Counties was about 1 percent per 
year from 1990 to 2005. The point source emissions growth was projected 
using Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) earnings data by Standard 
Industrial Classification Code (SIC). This factor varied by SIC but was 
generally around 1.1 percent per year. The mobile source emissions were 
projected using the MOBILE5A emissions model to provide emission 
factors for the vehicle mix in the future, and population data to 
project the growth in vehicle miles traveled by these vehicles. Large 
decreases occurred in mobile source emissions in the counties. Due to 
the Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Program (FMVECP). These 
decreases resulted in overall VOC emissions reductions in all three 
counties, and overall NO<INF>X emission reductions in Preble, and 
Columbiana counties. [[Page 7455]] 
    Jefferson county is expected to have a decrease in NO<INF>X 
emissions from 1990 to 2005 due to the Acid Rain provisions of the 
Clean Air Act. This decrease accounted for most of the reductions in 
NO<INF>X emissions in Jefferson County. The emissions estimates were 
based on a 0.5 lb NO<INF>X/Million Btu emissions limit for the units 
affected under phase I. This same limit was estimated for units 
expected to be covered under phase II. The phase I limit is mandated by 
the Clean Air Act, but a phase II limit had not been specified by 
either the CAA or USEPA when the redesignation request was prepared so 
the same limit was used as an estimate.
    Upon redesignation to attainment, these areas will be subject to 
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration provisions of the Clean Air 
Act that apply to stationary sources of air pollution. These areas are 
also subject to the provisions in their maintenance plans; so, that if 
a violation of the NAAQS occurs, the area would have to implement a 
contingency measure to correct the problem. In addition, these areas 
are still subject to the controls approved into the SIPs and would 
still get emission reduction benefits from the FMVECP.

II. Rulemaking Action

    The redesignation requests are approved as meeting conditions of 
the CAA in Section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
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.
    This action has been classified as a table 3 action by the Regional 
Administrator under the processing procedures published in the Federal 
Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an 
October 4, 1993, memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and 
Budget has exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 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. 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 CAA 
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, I certify 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 regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The 
CAA forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. 
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976); 42 
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    Redesignation of an area to attainment under Section 107(d)(3)(E) 
of the CAA does not impose any new requirements on small entities. 
Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical 
area and does not impose any regulatory requirements on sources. The 
Administrator certifies that the approval of the redesignation request 
will not affect a substantial number of small entities.
    Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 10, 1995. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental 
relations, Ozone.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control.

    Dated: January 26, 1995.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
    Chapter 1, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    2. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(5) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 52.1885  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (5) The maintenance plans for the following counties are approved:
    (i) Preble, Columbiana, and Jefferson Counties.

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PURPOSES--OHIO

    1. The authority citation of part 81 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    2. In Sec. 81.336 the ozone table is amended by revising the 
entries for Columbiana, Preble, and Jefferson Counties to read as 
follows:


Sec. 81.336  Ohio.

* * * * *

                                                   Ohio--Ozone                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Designation                            Classification     
        Designated area         --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Date\1\                      Type              Date\1\        Type   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
        *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *        
                                                        *                                                       
Columbiana County Area,          March 10, 1995............  Attainment...............                          
 Columbiana County.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                
        *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *        
                                                        *                                                       
Preble County Area, Preble       March 10, 1995............  Attainment ..............                          
 County.                                                                                                        
[[Page 7456]]                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                
        *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *        
                                                        *                                                       
Steubenville Area, Jefferson     March 10, 1995............  Attainment...............                          
 County.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                
        *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *        
                                                        *                                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.                                                      

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-3072 Filed 2-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P