29662 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(185)(i)(A)(9),

(194)(i)(G), (198)(i)(K), (207)(i)(B)(2),

and (225)(i)(B)(3) to read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(185) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(9) Rule 410.7, adopted May 6, 1991.

* * * * *

(194) * * *

(i) * * *

(G) South Coast Air Quality

Management District.

(1) Rule 1130.1, adopted July 9, 1993.

* * * * *

(198) * * *

(i) * * *

(K) Santa Barbara County Air

Pollution Control District.

(1) Rule 354, adopted June 28, 1994.

* * * * *

(207) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(2) Rule 231, adopted September 27,

1994.

* * * * *

(225) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(3) Rule 239, adopted June 8, 1995.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–14784 Filed 6–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–W

40 CFR Part 52

[OH91–2; FRL–5506–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On November 3, 1995, Ohio

submitted revisions to its particulate

matter plans for the Cleveland and

Steubenville nonattainment areas. These

revisions were submitted to address

plan deficiencies that were identified by

EPA in a final limited disapproval of the

particulate matter plans published in

the Federal Register on May 27, 1994.

For the Cleveland area, these revisions

provide earlier attainment of the air

quality standard and correct the

deficient test method disapproved in

that rulemaking. For the Steubenville

area, these revisions include an

administrative order for tightening

controls at Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel’s

basic oxygen furnace, and provide a

fully updated modeling analysis

demonstrating that the plan assures

attainment. EPA is approving these

revisions and terminating the potential

for sanctions based on the deficiencies

identified in the rulemaking of May 27,

1994.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

July 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision

and USEPA’s analysis 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

(AR–18J), Chicago, Illinois 60604; and

Office of Air and Radiation (OAR),

Docket and Information Center (Air

Docket 6102) Room M1500, United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Summerhays, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), United States

Environmental Protection, Region 5,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6067.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Ohio submitted major revisions to its

particulate matter regulations on

November 14, 1991, with supplemental

submittals on December 4, 1991, and

January 8, 1992. EPA proposed

rulemaking on these submittals on

August 3, 1993, at 58 FR 41218, and

published a notice of final rulemaking

on May 27, 1994, at 59 FR 27464,

granting limited approval/limited

disapproval of these submittals.

Although EPA approved most of Ohio’s

regulations, EPA concluded that Ohio

had not satisfied selected requirements

of the Clean Air Act applicable to its

two particulate matter nonattainment

areas, i.e., Cuyahoga County (including

Cleveland) and the Steubenville area.

This represented a disapproval finding

under Section 179(a)(2), thus initiating

an 18-month period after which

sanctions were to be imposed in these

areas under Section 179(b) unless or

until the deficiencies are remedied.

On November 3, 1995, Ohio

submitted further revisions to its

particulate matter plans, seeking to

remedy the deficiencies identified in

EPA’s May 1994 rulemaking. On

January 23, 1996 (at 61 FR 1727), EPA

proposed to approve the State’s

submittal and proposed to conclude that

all particulate matter SIP requirements

were satisfied (except for new source

review requirements, which were not

addressed in either the January 1996 or

the May 1994 rulemaking and are being

addressed separately). Simultaneously,

EPA issued an interim final

determination that the deficiencies had

been remedied (at 61 FR 1720), thereby

staying application of sanctions.

In brief, for Cuyahoga County, the

deficiencies were (1) failure to satisfy

requirements for Reasonably Available

Control Measures (RACM) by December

1992; and (2) failure to assure

attainment due to deficiencies in the

test method applicable to coke

quenching. EPA proposed to find that

these deficiencies were addressed when

Ohio revised its rules to require a

control strategy adequate to satisfy

RACM requirements by December 1993

and improved the test method for coke

quenching. For the Steubenville area,

the deficiency was an inadequate

attainment demonstration due to, among

other factors, inadequate accounting for

emissions from Wheeling-Pittsburgh

Steel’s basic oxygen furnace. EPA

proposed to find this deficiency

remedied by submittal of Findings and

Orders issued by Ohio to WheelingPittsburgh Steel requiring tightened

control of basic oxygen furnace

emissions and a revised attainment

demonstration. A more detailed

discussion of the prior deficiencies is

provided in the Federal Register of May

27, 1994 (59 FR 27464), and a summary

of that discussion and a more extensive

discussion of Ohio’s submittal which

remedied those deficiencies is provided

in the notice of proposed rulemaking of

January 23, 1996 (61 FR 1727). Today’s

rule is final action on Ohio’s November

1995 submittal and final action with

respect to the previously identified

deficiencies.

At the time of the proposed

rulemaking, Ohio had conducted a

public hearing in connection with its

Cuyahoga County rule revisions but had

not yet held and submitted

documentation of a public hearing with

respect to revisions to the Steubenville

area attainment demonstration. The

State held a public hearing on the

Steubenville area revisions on January

22, 1996, and provided materials to EPA

documenting this hearing and

demonstrating satisfaction of related

public comment requirements in its

December 21, 1995, and March 13, 1996,

submittals. EPA has evaluated these

materials and has concluded that the

relevant procedural requirements have

been satisfied.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 29663

II. Comments on Proposed Rulemaking

One set of comments on the proposed

rulemaking was received by EPA. These

comments were submitted by Porter,

Wright, Morris & Arthur on behalf of

Ford Motor Company (Ford). These

comments urged EPA not to rulemake

on the State’s November 1995 submittal

alone, and instead urged EPA to request

that the State address Ford’s concerns

with the existing particulate matter

regulations and to conduct rulemaking

on a combined set of revised

regulations. No comments were made

concerning EPA’s proposed analysis of

the State’s November 1995 submittal.

EPA responds that it would be

inappropriate to defer rulemaking on

the State’s November 1995 submittal

pending receipt of a prospective future

submittal, particularly in the absence of

any expectation that the prospective

future submittal would alter EPA’s

views of the existing submittal. EPA has

an obligation to complete rulemaking in

timely fashion on any SIP revision

requested by the State. Both EPA and

the State of Ohio have a particular

interest in prompt completion of this

rulemaking because sanctions, while

stayed by the interim final

determination, are nevertheless

outstanding until final action approving

the corrections to the deficiencies is

published. The commenter does not

claim that its requested rule revisions

are mandated by the Clean Air Act, and

the commenter identifies no other basis

for EPA to require the State to conduct

the desired rulemaking. In any case,

assuming that Ohio adopts and submits

rule revisions addressing Ford’s

concerns, EPA will undertake timely

rulemaking on those rule revisions as

well, in accordance with EPA’s

obligations under the Clean Air Act.

III. Today’s Action

With respect to Cuyahoga County,

EPA concludes that (1) the revised rules

now provide for RACM by December

1993; (2) the coke quench water test

method issue and the associated

attainment demonstration issue have

been resolved; and (3) additional

revisions to the limitations for Ford’s

Cleveland Casting Plant do not

jeopardize attainment. With respect to

the Steubenville area, EPA concludes

that the State has now submitted a fully

approvable attainment demonstration

for the area. In particular, EPA is

approving the rule revisions for

Cuyahoga County and the Findings and

Order requiring control system

enhancements at Wheeling-Pittsburgh

Steel’s basic oxygen furnace.

Based on these findings, EPA

concludes that Ohio’s particulate matter

plans for the Cuyahoga County and

Steubenville nonattainment areas now

satisfy all applicable requirements

under Part D of the Clean Air Act

(except for new source review

requirements, which are not addressed

here or in the May 1994 rulemaking and

are being addressed separately).

Consequently, EPA finds that Ohio has

remedied the deficiencies identified in

the rulemaking of May 27, 1994. This

finding fully terminates the potential for

sanctions pursuant to that prior

rulemaking.

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 section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Act do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, 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

Act, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The Act

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246,

256–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

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 for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995, memorandum from Mary D.

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has

exempted this regulatory action from

Executive Order 12866 review.

Under Sections 202, 203 and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’),

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with rules that include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to the private sector, or to State, local,

or tribal governments in the aggregate.

EPA has determined that the approval

action taken today 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.

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 August 12, 1996.

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 in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

Pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 2, 1996.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

Title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, chapter I, part 52, is

amended as follows:

PART 52—APPROVAL AND

PROMULGATION OF

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

2. Section 52.1870 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(110) to read as

follows:

§§ 52.1870 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(110) On November 3, 1995,

December 21, 1995, and March 21, 1996,
29664 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

1On September 19, 1995, EPA published a notice

of proposed rulemaking (60 FR 48439) that

proposes to find, pursuant to section 188(b)(2) of

the Act, that Liberty Borough nonattainment area

has not attained the PM–10 NAAQS by the statutory

attainment date of December 31, 1994.

OEPA submitted revisions to its

particulate matter plan, addressing prior

deficiencies in its plans for Cuyahoga

and Jefferson Counties.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Rule 3745–17–03—Rule 3745–17–

03—Measurement methods and

procedures, effective November 15,

1995.

(B) Rule 3745–17–04—Compliance

time schedules, effective November 15,

1995.

(C) Rule 3745–17–12—Additional

restrictions on particulate emissions

from specific air contaminant sources in

Cuyahoga County, effective November

15, 1995.

(D) Findings and Orders issued to the

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation,

signed by Donald Schregardus and

effective on October 31, 1995.

(ii) Additional material—Dispersion

modeling analyses for the Steubenville

area and for Cuyahoga County near

Ford’s Cleveland Casting Plant.

[FR Doc. 96–14787 Filed 6–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

40 CFR Part 52

[SIPTRAX No. PA 20–1–4026; PA 31–1–

4027; PA 39–1–4028; AD–FRL–5463–3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Pennsylvania: Partial Approval of PM–

10 Implementation Plan for the Liberty

Borough Area of Allegheny County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving, in part,

revisions to the Allegheny County

portion for the Pennsylvania State

Implementation Plan (SIP) prepared by

the Allegheny County Health

Department (ACHD) and formally

submitted by the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection

(PADEP). PADEP submitted the SIP

revisions, in general, to satisfy the Clean

Air Act’s (the Act’s) requirements for

control of particulate matter with an

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM–10),

and specifically, to satisfy the Act’s

requirements applicable to the Liberty

Borough area of Allegheny County,

which is classified as a moderate

nonattainment area for the national

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)

for PM–10. EPA is approving the

regulatory portions the

Commonwealth’s submittals. EPA is

deferring action, at this time, on the

attainment demonstration and

associated air quality analyses portion

of one of the Commonwealth’s

submittals. This action is being taken

under section 110 of the Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule will

become effective on July 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the Air, Radiation,

and Toxics Divisions, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107; the

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460; and the

Allegheny County Health Department,

Bureau of Environmental Quality,

Division of Air Quality, 301 39th Street,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas A. Casey, (215) 566–2194.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

11, 1995, EPA published a notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (60 FR

18385). The NPR proposed full approval

of three revisions to the Allegheny

County portion of the Pennsylvania SIP:

a November 8, 1988 submittal which

included the adoption of the PM–10

NAAQS and other provisions to satisfy

pre-1990 Clean Air Act Amendment

requirements pertaining to Group III

PM–10 areas; a December 31, 1992

submittal which consisted of regulations

to reduce PM–10 emissions and to limit

visible emissions from several categories

of fugitive dust sources; and a January

6, 1995 submittal which included

revised regulatory provisions to reduce

PM–10 emissions and an attainment

demonstration of the NAAQs for PM–10

with its associated technical air quality

analyses.

Description of Today’s Action

EPA is approving the

Commonwealth’s November 8, 1988

submittal, December 31, 1992 submittal,

and the regulatory portion of the

January 6, 1994 submittal.

The underlying rationale for EPA’s

approval of these submittals is provided

in the April 11, 1995, NPR, referenced

above, as well as in the Technical

Support Document (TSD), and will not

be restated here. Today’s action is

considered a partial approval because

EPA is deferring action at this time on

the attainment demonstration portion of

the January 6, 1994 submittal and its

associated air quality analyses.

EPA is deferring action, at this time,

on the attainment demonstration

portion of the January 6, 1994 submittal

for two reasons. First, EPA received

adverse comments on those aspects on

EPA’s April 11, 1995 proposal related to

the attainment demonstration and air

quality analyses, and is still considering

those comments. Secondly, since the

time EPA’s April 11, 1995 proposal on

the SIP revisions listed above, EPA has

commenced rulemaking to determine

whether or not the Liberty Borough PM–

10 nonattainment area attained the

NAAQS by the December 31, 1994

deadline required for moderate areas.1

Summary of Public Comments

This section summarizes the public

comments that were submitted

regarding EPA’s proposed approval of

the regulatory portions of the SIP

submittals, and provides EPA’s

responses to those comments. The

public comments received regarding

EPA’s proposed approval of the

attainment demonstration portion of the

January 6, 1994 submittal will be not be

discussed in this notice but rather as

part of any future rulemaking actions by

EPA on that attainment demonstration

and its associated air quality analyses.

Nine letters of public comment were

submitted on EPA’s April 11, 1995

proposal (60 FR 18385) which relate to

the regulatory portions of the

Commonwealth’s submittals upon

which EPA is taking final action. These

comments can be divided in to two

major areas: enforcement and general

support.

Enforcement Comment: Three

commenters raised concerns that the

ACHD and the PADEP do not dedicate

sufficient resources to enforcement, do

not inspect coke oven batteries often

enough, and that EPA should, therefore,

disapprove the SIP because the

Commonwealth has not fulfilled its

requirement under section 110(a)(2)(E)

of the Act to provide adequate

personnel to implement the SIP.

Response: EPA has determined that

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

satisfies section 110(a)(2)(E) of the Act.

General Support: Four commenters

expressed general support for EPA’s

April 11, 1995 proposed actions.

Final Action: EPA is approving, in

part, revisions submitted by the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the

Allegheny County portion of the

Pennsylvania SIP. Specifically EPA is

approving a November 8, 1988 submittal

which included the adoption of the PM–

10 NAAQS and other provisions to

satisfy the pre-1990 Clean Air Act