2760 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules

a revised I/M program, to meet the 15

percent rate of progress requirements

and include sufficient contingency

measures to achieve a 3 percent

reduction.

The EPA believes that approval of the

control measures in these plans will

strengthen the SIP. Therefore, the EPA

is proposing limited approval of the

control measures in the 15 Percent Plans

and Contingency Plans. The EPA is not

addressing whether these control

measures, being approved as a

strengthening of the SIP, meet any other

underlying requirements of the Act such

as the requirement for VOC RACT under

182(b)(2). The EPA will address these

requirements in separate Federal

Register notices.

Under section 179(a)(2), if the

Administrator disapproves a submission

under section 110(k) for an area

designated nonattainment based on the

submission’s failure to meet one or more

of the elements required by the Act, the

Administrator must apply one of the

sanctions set forth in section 179(b)

unless the deficiency has been corrected

within 18 months of such disapproval.

Section 179(b) provides two sanctions

available to the Administrator: highway

funding and the imposition of emission

offset requirements. The 18-month

period referred to in section 179(a) will

begin on the effective date established

in the final limited disapproval action.

If the deficiency is not corrected within

6 months of the imposition of the first

sanction, the second sanction will

apply. This sanctions process is set forth

at 59 FR 39832 (Aug. 4, 1994), to be

codified at 40 CFR 52.31. Moreover, the

final disapproval triggers the federal

implementation plan (FIP) requirement

under section 110(c).

Also, 40 CFR 51.448(b) of the Federal

transportation conformity rules (40 CFR

51.448(b)) state that if the EPA

disapproves a submitted control strategy

implementation plan revision which

initiates the sanction process under

CAA section 179, the conformity status

of the transportation plan and

transportation improvement plan shall

lapse 120 days after the EPA’s limited

disapproval.

Nothing in this proposed rule 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 any SIP

shall be considered separately in light of

specific technical, economic, and

environmental factors and in relation to

relevant statutory and regulatory

requirements.

Regulatory Process

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from review

under Executive Order l2866.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the 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, the 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-forprofit 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 Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, 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

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v US EPA,

427 US 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42

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

The EPA’s proposed limited

disapproval of the State request under

section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of

the CAA does not affect any existing

requirements applicable to small

entities. Any pre-existing Federal

requirements remain in place after this

proposed limited disapproval. Federal

disapproval of the State submittal does

not affect its State-enforceability.

Moreover, the EPA’s limited

disapproval of the submittal does not

impose any new Federal requirements.

Therefore, the EPA certifies that this

proposed limited disapproval action

does not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities

because it does not remove existing

requirements, nor does it impose any

new Federal requirements.

Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’),

signed into law on March 22, 1995, the

EPA must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final 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.

Through submission of these SIP

revisions which have been proposed for

limited approval in this action, the State

and any affected local or tribal

governments have elected to adopt the

program provided for under section

175A of the CAA. The rules and

commitments given limited approval in

this action may bind State, local and

tribal governments to perform certain

actions and also require the private

sector to perform certain duties. To the

extent that the rules and commitments

being given limited approval by this

action will impose or lead to the

imposition of any mandate upon the

State, local, or tribal governments, either

as the owner or operator of a source or

as a regulator, or would impose or lead

to the imposition of any mandate upon

the private sector; the EPA’s action will

impose no new requirements. Such

sources are already subject to these

requirements under State law.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action. Therefore, the EPA has

determined that this proposed action

does not include a mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate or to the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Ozone,

Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: December 12, 1995.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator (6RA).

[FR Doc. 96–1543 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52 And 81

[OH79–2–7115; FRL–5406–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Denial of comment period

extension on proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This action denies a request

to extend the comment period on the

proposed rule approving the Cleveland/

Akron/Lorain (CAL) ozone

nonattainment area redesignation to
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules 2761

1The reader may refer to the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, December 5, 1991 (FR 63774), and the

preamble to the final rule promulgated September

4, 1992 (FR 40792) for further background and

information on the OCS regulations.

attainment request and maintenance

plan.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark J. Palermo, Regulation

Development Section, Regulation

Development Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Telephone:

(312) 886–6082.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June

15, 1995, the USEPA published a

proposed rule (60 FR 31433) to approve

a redesignation to attainment request

and maintenance plan submitted by the

State of Ohio for the CAL ozone

nonattainment area, consisting of the

Counties of Lorain, Cuyahoga, Lake,

Ashtabula, Geauga, Medina, Summit,

and Portage. The maintenance plan is

designed to help the area meet the

ozone air quality standard for the next

ten years. The comment period closed

on July 17, 1995. On July 19, 1995, the

USEPA received a phone message

requesting that the public comment

period on the proposed rulemaking be

extended until 30 to 60 days after Ohio

releases the results of its 1994 air toxics

monitoring study in order to have

adequate time to review the 1994 air

toxics monitoring data relating to the

city of Cleveland before submitting

comments in full. The Ohio study is an

intermittent year round monitoring

program occurring in certain Ohio

cities, such as Cleveland, which

samples ambient air concentrations of

certain air toxics at monitoring locations

in those cities for twenty-four hours

every six days. In general, some air

toxics compounds are also classified as

volatile organic compounds (VOC),

which contribute to ground-level ozone

formation. The requestor wanted to use

the air toxics monitoring data gathered

in the city of Cleveland in 1994 relating

to VOCs and compare it with VOC

emission inventory data used by Ohio to

justify the CAL area redesignation

request. Results of the Ohio air toxics

study has been published from the

beginning of the program in 1989 to

1993, and at the time the extension

request was made the 1994 study had

been completed but not yet published.

To fulfill one of the Clean Air Act’s

criteria for redesignating ozone

nonattainment areas under section

107(d)(3)(E), the State of Ohio included

ozone precursor emissions inventory

data to demonstrate that levels of VOCs

in the CAL area decreased from 1990 to

1993 due to enforceable emissions

reductions resulting from the

implementation of two federal

programs; lower fuel volatility and the

Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program.

During that period ozone air pollution

levels also decreased in the CAL area as

demonstrated by ozone ambient air

monitoring data. This data

demonstrated that the area met the

ozone National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) during 1992

through 1994. Preliminary ozone

monitoring data for the 1995 ozone

season demonstrate that the CAL area

continues to maintain compliance with

the ambient air quality standards for

ozone.

There is no justification to reopen the

comment period to allow time to review

the 1994 Ohio air toxics study because

the study was neither designed nor

intended to collect data which could

identify the aggregate ozone precursor

emissions of VOC from every source in

the CAL area for a typical summer day

or determine whether these emissions

have in fact risen or declined over time.

The emission inventory data, submitted

in the CAL area redesignation request,

on the other hand, serves both these

functions. As discussed in the June 15,

1995, Federal Register, the State’s data

supporting the CAL area redesignation

request fully comports with

requirements under the Clean Air Act

and was appropriately compiled in

accordance with USEPA guidance (See

60 FR at 31433). For the reasons

discussed above, the request to extend

the comment period on the proposed

rulemaking has been denied.

Dated: December 15, 1995.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–1558 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 55

[FRL–5405–3]

Outer Continental Shelf Air

Regulations Consistency Update for

California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (‘‘EPA’’).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;

consistency update.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to update a

portion of the Outer Continental Shelf

(‘‘OCS’’) Air Regulations. Requirements

applying to OCS sources located within

25 miles of states’ seaward boundaries

must be updated periodically to remain

consistent with the requirements of the

corresponding onshore area (‘‘COA’’), as

mandated by section 328(a)(1) of the

Clean Air Act (‘‘the Act’’), the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990. The portion

of the OCS air regulations that is being

updated pertains to the requirements for

OCS sources for which the Santa

Barbara County Air Pollution Control

District (Santa Barbara County APCD),

South Coast Air Quality Management

District (South Coast AQMD) and

Ventura County Air Pollution Control

District (Ventura County APCD) are the

designated COAs. The OCS

requirements for the above Districts,

contained in the Technical Support

Document, are proposed to be

incorporated by reference into the Code

of Federal Regulations and are listed in

the appendix to the OCS air regulations.

Proposed changes to the existing

requirements are discussed in

Supplementary Information.

DATES: Comments on the proposed

update must be received on or before

February 28, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be mailed

(in duplicate if possible) to: EPA Air

Docket (A–5), Attn: Docket No. A–93–16

Section IX, Environmental Protection

Agency, Air and Toxics Division,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne St., San

Francisco, CA 94105. Docket:

Supporting information used in

developing the proposed notice and

copies of the documents EPA is

proposing to incorporate by reference

are contained in Docket No. A–93–16

(Section IX). This docket is available for

public inspection and copying

Monday—Friday during regular

business hours at the following

locations:

EPA Air Docket (A–5), Attn: Docket No.

A–93–16 Section IX, Environmental

Protection Agency, Air and Toxics

Division, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne St.,

San Francisco, CA 94105.

EPA Air Docket (LE–131), Attn: Air

Docket No. A–93–16 Section IX,

Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street SW., Room M–1500,

Washington, DC 20460.

A reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christine Vineyard, Air and Toxics

Division (A–5–3), U.S. EPA Region 9, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105, (415) 744–1197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 4, 1992, EPA

promulgated 40 CFR part 55 1, which

established requirements to control air