[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65567-65572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26880]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0684; FRL-9215-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Ohio; Particulate Matter Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a request submitted by the Ohio Environmental 
Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) on August 22, 2008, to revise the Ohio 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The 
State has submitted revisions to twelve rules and rescinded one rule in 
Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-17, ``Particulate Matter 
Standards.'' The revisions were submitted by Ohio EPA to satisfy the 
State's 5-year review requirements. The particulate matter (PM) 
standards contain the particulate emission control requirements that 
have been necessary to attain and maintain the 2006 National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM in the State.
    EPA is approving the revisions to nine of the OAC 3745-17 rules. 
EPA is approving only a portion of Rule 7, while not acting on the 
portion providing a partial exemption from opacity limits for a lime 
kiln in Woodville, Ohio. We are conditionally approving Rule 11 based 
on a

[[Page 65568]]

commitment by Ohio to address EPA's concerns with the large item size 
exemptions. EPA is not acting on Rule 3, regarding opacity measurement 
methods. Lastly, EPA is approving the rescission of Rule 5 from the 
Ohio SIP.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective December 27, 2010, 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 26, 2010. If adverse 
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the 
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the 
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2008-0684, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#95f7fae7e1eff0e7bbfff4ecd5f0e5f4bbf2fae3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f3919c8187899681dd99928ab3968392dd949c85">[email protected]</span></a>.
    3. Fax: (312) 692-2054.
    4. Mail: Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the 
Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements 
should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office 
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2008-0684. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only 
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is 
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Matt Rau, 
Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886-6524 before visiting the Region 5 
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, 
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d6a4b7a3f8bbb7a2a2beb3a196b3a6b7f8b1b9a0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bcceddc992d1ddc8c8d4d9cbfcd9ccdd92dbd3ca">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
section is arranged as follows:
I. What is the background for this action?
II. What is EPA's analysis of the revision?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    Ohio requested a revision to its SIP on August 22, 2008. Ohio seeks 
approval of its revision of OAC Chapter 3745-17 to clarify and amend 
its existing PM rules, in accordance with Chapter 119.032 of the Ohio 
Revised Code, which requires Ohio EPA to review and revise its rules 
every five years. The revisions include updating the limits for sources 
that have changed PM limits or have permanently shut down.

II. What is EPA's analysis of the revision?

    Ohio submitted revisions to twelve rules and one rescinded rule 
within its PM rules, OAC 3745-17. EPA agrees with the revisions Ohio 
made to nine of its PM rules. EPA is approving the changes because the 
rules are not weakened by the revisions Ohio made. EPA is also taking 
no action on OAC 3745-17-03, which will be addressed later in separate 
rulemaking. For OAC 3745-17-07, EPA is taking no action on a portion 
and approving the rest of the rule. EPA is conditionally approving OAC 
3745-17-11 on the condition that Ohio submits revised rule language 
within one year that resolves EPA concerns. EPA is approving the 
rescission of OAC 3745-17-05.

A. OAC 3745-17-01--Definitions

    Ohio revised some of the definitions in Rule 1 along with the 
addition of new definitions. The new definitions are for ``OEPA,'' 
``Ohio EPA,'' ``PM<INF>2.5</INF>,'' and ``PM<INF>10</INF>.'' Fine 
particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) has an aerodynamic diameter of 
2.5 micrometers ([micro]m) or smaller, while larger particulate matter 
with a diameter up to 10 [micro]m is known as coarse particulate matter 
(PM<INF>10</INF>). The State has replaced references to total suspended 
particulates with PM<INF>10</INF> and deleted the definition for 
``total suspended particulates'' from Rule 1. The definition of ``total 
suspended particulates'' is no longer needed because the term no longer 
appears in OAC Chapter 3745-17. Ohio also added incorporation by 
reference information in Rule 1 that references a variety of test 
methods, the Code of Federal Regulations, and other information. The 
additional definitions, addition of incorporations by reference, and 
deletion of a now unused definition clarify OAC Chapter 3745-17. EPA is 
approving the revisions to Rule 1.

B. OAC 3745-17-02--Ambient Air Quality Standards

    The ambient air quality standards for PM in Rule 2 have been 
updated to reflect the current Federal standards for particulate matter 
as promulgated in October 2006. EPA considers the revisions to be 
approvable since the state standards are as stringent as the Federal 
standards. A comment was added to Rule 2 that refers readers to the 
``Incorporation by Reference'' section in Rule 1 (OAC 3745--17-01(C)). 
Readers seeking test methods, engineering guides, Code of Federal 
Regulations, or other incorporated material are referenced to where the 
material is found. This comment that was also added to Rules 3, 7, 8, 
12, and 13, will

[[Page 65569]]

assist people in finding the supplementary publications referenced in 
OAC Chapter 3745-17. EPA is approving the Rule 2 revisions because the 
air quality standards were made as strict as Federal standards and the 
incorporation by reference comments adds clarity.

C. OAC 3745-17-03--Measurement Methods and Procedures

    In a separate submission, Ohio submitted revisions to OAC 3745-17-
03 to allow large boiler sources a new compliance option using 
continuous emission monitoring data even if 1.1 percent of readings 
exceed current allowable levels. Those revisions are being evaluated in 
separate rulemaking; see the June 27, 2005 proposed rule at 70 FR 
36901. Ohio's August 22, 2008, submission makes only relatively minor 
revisions to this rule. Therefore, EPA is not acting on these minor 
revisions in this rulemaking and instead will continue to address 
revisions to OAC 3745-17-03 in separate rulemaking.

D. OAC 3745-17-04--Compliance Time Schedules

    Rule 4 was modified to reflect the altered compliance schedules for 
significantly modified sources and to remove references to permanently 
shutdown sources. The closed facilities are units at: The Ford Motor 
Company, Cleveland Castings Plant (Ford); International Mill Service, 
Incorporated; Standard Slag Company; and the Mingo Junction and 
Steubenville Wheeling-Pittsburg Steel Corporation facilities. The 
removal of references to permanently shutdown facilities allows readers 
to more easily determine the correct compliance schedule. The addition 
of specified compliance deadlines allows particulate matter limits 
compliance to proceed. The Rule 4 revisions are being approved by EPA.

E. OAC 3745-17-05--Non-Degradation Policy

    Rule 5 prohibits significant and avoidable deterioration of air 
quality in area attaining the NAAQS. Ohio has found that Rule 5 is too 
vague to be enforceable, so that the rule did not protect air quality. 
Subsequent to the adoption of Rule 5, Ohio adopted and is implementing 
rules that impose new source review requirements for major sources, 
found at OAC 3745-31 (approved by EPA on January 10, 2003, 68 FR 1366), 
to prevent deterioration of the ambient air quality. Ohio has rules 
that provide specific emission limits for a variety of sources, 
including rules that restrict the emissions from new sources, such that 
the NAAQS will not be threatened. The specific emission limits in or 
resulting from Ohio's rules can be enforced. As Rule 5 has been 
superseded by more effective rules, EPA agrees that Rule 5 can be 
removed from the SIP and thus is approving the rescission.

F. OAC 3745-17-07--Control of Visible Particulate Emissions From 
Stationary Sources

    EPA is taking no action on OAC 3745-17-07 (A)(3)(j). Section 
(A)(3)(j) provides startup and shutdown exemptions from opacity limits 
for the Martin Marietta Magnesia Specialties, Inc. facility in 
Woodville, Ohio. EPA is working with Ohio to resolve concerns on the 
exemption conditions in section (A)(3)(j). EPA will act on the startup 
and shutdown exemptions after the issues are resolved, so EPA is taking 
no action now on this section of Rule 7.
    EPA is approving the minor wording changes in the rest of Rule 7 
along with the previously mentioned incorporation by reference comment. 
The minor wording revisions may ease the readability and do not weaken 
the rule, so EPA is proceeding with approving those portions of Rule 7.

G. OAC 3745-17-08--Restriction of Emission of Fugitive Dust

    Ohio removed the exemption of the AK Steel Corporation's Middletown 
Works from Rule 8. Consent decree conditions require upgraded pollution 
controls on the Middletown Works facility. The consent decree also 
caused the fugitive dust rule exemption to expire on May 22, 2006. Ohio 
removed the expired fugitive dust exemptions for three units at the 
Middletown Works facility from Rule 8. The number 3 blast furnace along 
with the number 15 and number 16 basic oxygen furnaces are no longer 
exempt from the fugitive dust emission control requirements in OAC 
3745-17-07 and -08. As a result, the Middletown Works units are now 
subject to the requirement in OAC 3745-17-07(B)(1) to limit opacity to 
twenty percent as a three-minute average. The units are also subject to 
requirements in OAC 3745-17-08 for reasonably available control 
technology, most notably an outlet emissions limit in OAC 3745-17-08 
(B)(3) of 0.030 grains of particulate per dry standard cubic foot of 
exhaust. The comment on incorporation by reference was added to Rule 8, 
too. The revisions clarify the rule as outdated limits are removed and 
the revised rule provides current incorporation by reference 
information. The removal of the exemption from fugitive dust emission 
limits for three Middletown Works units makes the units subject to 
emission limits, effectively strengthening the particulate emission 
limits for the three units. EPA is approving the revisions to Rule 8.

H. OAC 3745-17-09--Restrictions on Particulate Emissions and Odors From 
Incinerators

    No changes were made to Rule 9 since it was approved by EPA on May 
27, 1994, 59 FR 27464. Ohio requested approval of Rule 9, so EPA is 
approving the unrevised rule again. This is known as re-codifying the 
rule.

I. OAC 3745-17-10--Restrictions on Particulate Emissions From Fuel 
Burning Equipment

    Minor wording changes were made to Rule 10. The wording changes 
help clarify the rule and therefore are being approved by EPA.

J. OAC 3745-17-11--Restrictions on Particulate Emissions From 
Industrial Processes

    The most significant revision to OAC 3745-17-11 pertains to surface 
coating. Although the primary emissions of concern from surface coating 
are the volatile organic compound emissions that arise from solvent 
evaporation, OAC 3745-17-11 establishes a particulate emission limit 
for coating operations simply because OAC 3745-17-11 establishes 
generic emission limits for any process handling material such as 
coatings and objects being coated. However, testing of particulate 
emissions from coating operations is difficult, making it difficult to 
determine whether particular control measures provide for compliance. 
Therefore, Ohio exempted surface coating operations from the generic 
emission limits in OAC 3745-17-11 and subjected these sources instead 
to a set of rules requiring a specific set of work practices that will 
control these emissions. EPA agrees with the State that these work 
practice requirements provide a more effective means to requiring 
control of these operations than the generic emission limits in 3745-
17-11.
    EPA has concerns about one aspect of Ohio's revisions to OAC 3745-
17-11, in which Ohio authorizes itself to exempt sources that are too 
large to meet the new work practice requirements. EPA is concerned that 
this provision grants ``director's discretion'' for the State to 
authorize exemptions that EPA might find problematic without providing 
any opportunity for EPA to object. However, on July 2, 2010, Bob 
Hodanbosi, Ohio EPA Air Pollution Control Division Chief, submitted a 
commitment by e-mail to Cheryl Newton, EPA Region 5

[[Page 65570]]

Air and Radiation Division Director, to amend the pertinent rule within 
one year of an EPA conditional approval of the rule. The amendment 
would provide that any exemption granted by the State must be submitted 
for EPA approval as a State Implementation Plan revision. This revision 
would address EPA's concern. Therefore, EPA is conditionally approving 
this rule, on the condition that Ohio makes the revision that they 
committed to make.
    The revisions to OAC 3745-17-11 also grant an exemption from the 
rule's limits for jet engine testing. PM emissions resulting from this 
exemption are expected to be small given that a small number of engines 
will be tested at once and only for a limited time. Ohio stated that 
the maximum PM emissions rate resulting from this exemption will be 10 
pounds per hour. EPA finds that this exemption will have de minimis 
impact, and finds this revision approvable. In summary, EPA is 
conditionally approving revisions to OAC 3745-17-11, conditioned on 
Ohio revising the rule further to provide that exemptions granted by 
the State shall be submitted to EPA for review.

K. OAC 3745-17-12--Additional Restrictions on Particulate Emissions 
From Specific Air Contaminant Sources in Cuyahoga County

    The changes to Rule 12 are all for the Ford Motor Company, 
Cleveland Castings Plant facility, with one exception, the 
``Incorporation by Reference'' comment mentioned earlier.
    Several emission units at the Ford facility have been permanently 
shutdown. Thus, most of the revisions to Rule 12 involve removing 
references to the permanently shutdown units. Ohio revised control 
requirements and added alternative control requirements for some of the 
units that will ensure the operating Ford units remain controlled 
following the unit shutdowns and replacements.
    The removed limits are not expected to harm air quality because the 
units have permanently shutdown. The other Rule 12 revisions 
accommodate the closed units. The updated control requirements reflect 
necessary changes to keep the operating units well controlled. Some 
control devices have been shutdown as portions of the Ford plant 
closed. In cases where a control device serves multiple units, exhaust 
from units remaining operational need to be rerouted to operating 
control devices. The Ohio revisions to Rule 12 keep the operating Ford 
units controlled while removing the permanently shutdown units and 
controls from the rule. EPA believes that the revisions will clarify 
the rule without harming air quality and therefore is approving the 
Rule 12 changes.

L. OAC 3745-17-13--Additional Restrictions on Particulate Emissions 
From Specific Air Contaminant Sources in Jefferson County

    Ohio revised OAC 3745-17-13 to reflect numerous emission decreases 
and increases in Jefferson County. Most notably, Ohio removed the 
requirements for permanently shutdown facilities and units from Rule 
13, thereby providing that these facilities must have zero emissions. 
One exception to this general characterization of Ohio's rule changes 
is that Wheeling-Pittsburg Steel must continue to control emissions 
from fugitive dust sources (roadways and storage piles) at its 
Steubenville facility despite this facility's shutdown status. The 
revised rule allows slightly more emissions from fugitive dust sources 
at Wheeling-Pittsburg Steel's Steubenville and Mingo Junction 
facilities. In addition, the revised rules provide slightly higher 
emission limits at some sources and slightly lower emission limits at 
other sources at the Mingo Junction facility.
    Under section 110(l) of the CAA, EPA may not approve these rule 
revisions if the revisions would interfere with attainment of pertinent 
air quality standards. Ohio's submission provides detailed information 
on changes in the area's allowable emission since 1991, when Ohio 
submitted its attainment plan for PM<INF>10</INF> for this area. 
However, some of the listed changes in allowable emissions are not 
attributable to rule changes in Ohio's 2008 submittal and instead are 
attributable to construction permits, most notably three permits: (1) A 
permit to consolidate boiler operations; (2) a permit to construct an 
electric arc furnace in Mingo Junction in conjunction with shutdown of 
three units in Steubenville (Blast Furnace <greek-i>1 and boilers 
number 1 and 10) and three coke plants and a sinter plant in 
neighboring Follansbee, West Virginia; and (3) a permit to rebuild and 
expand the capacity of Blast Furnace number 5 in conjunction with the 
shutdown of Blast Furnace number 3. Ohio did not specify which 
increases and reductions should be considered to be associated with the 
rule revisions and which are associated with construction permits. 
Nevertheless, to evaluate the approvability of Ohio's revisions, EPA 
used allowable emission levels provided in Ohio's submission to examine 
the expected emission changes that appeared to be mandated by these 
rule changes for Jefferson County.
    Clearly the most significant emission changes pursuant to Ohio's 
revised rules result from the shutdown of Jefferson County facilities, 
in particular the shutdown of the International Mill Service and 
Standard Slag facilities and most of the Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel-
Steubenville Works. Other changes allowed a relatively modest increase 
in allowable emissions from fugitive dust sources and a modest net 
increase in process emission limits. At the Steubenville Works, 
allowable emissions of fugitive dust (e.g., roadway dust) increased 
from 1.35 to 1.72 pounds per hour, but the shutdown of the remainder of 
the facility resulted in a net allowable emission decrease of 21.80 
pounds per hour. At the Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel-Mingo Junction Works, 
the fugitive dust limit increased from 4.91 to 7.67 pounds per hour, 
and other limits were increased or decreased slightly, resulting in a 
net reduction at the facility of 14.32 pounds per hour. The net effect 
of the increases and decreases in emission limits at the Mingo Junction 
facility was a 5.25 pounds per hour reduction. Since the emission 
decreases in these revisions are substantially greater than the 
emission increases, and every facility is decreasing emissions as a 
result of this rule change, EPA is satisfied that these revisions will 
yield lower PM<INF>10</INF> concentrations throughout Jefferson County, 
so that these revisions will not interfere with attainment or 
maintenance of the PM<INF>10</INF> standards.
    EPA must also examine whether the revisions might interfere with 
attainment of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards, particularly because Jefferson County has been designated as 
not attaining the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards. The emission limits in 
Rule 13 are PM<INF>10</INF> limits, but fine particulate matter, 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, is a subset of PM<INF>10</INF>. The particulate 
matter formerly emitted by units being shutdown contain as high or 
higher fractions of fine particulate matter than the units being 
allowed higher emissions. Therefore, the conclusion found for 
PM<INF>10</INF> also applies for PM<INF>2.5</INF>. EPA is satisfied 
that the revisions will yield lower PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations 
throughout Jefferson County, so that these revisions will not interfere 
with attainment or maintenance of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards.
    Ohio's submission includes dispersion modeling indicating that the 
revised limits at each facility including the higher fugitive dust 
limits will not threaten the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. The modeling method 
used by the facility and State differs from the modeling method EPA 
recommends for this scenario. Nevertheless, the modeling

[[Page 65571]]

provides supportive evidence that the revisions to Ohio's rules will 
not interfere with attainment of applicable air quality standards or 
with any other requirement.
    EPA agrees with the State's conclusion that the revisions to Rule 
13 will not interfere with attainment of PM NAAQS. EPA is therefore 
approving the Rule 13 revisions.

M. OAC 3745-17-14--Contingency Plan Requirements for Cuyahoga and 
Jefferson Counties

    Minor wording changes were made to Rule 14. This included replacing 
total suspended particulates with PM<INF>10</INF>. Reference to the 
annual PM<INF>10</INF> standard was removed as the EPA has revoked that 
standard. EPA is approving the Rule 14 changes because the remaining 
particulate standards will adequately protect human health.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving revisions to the Ohio SIP. Ohio submitted 
revisions to OAC 3745-17. EPA is approving all of the submitted 
revisions to OAC 3745-17-01, -02, -04, -08, -09, -10, -12, -13, and -
14. EPA is approving the rescission of OAC 3745-17-05 from the Ohio 
SIP. EPA is approving OAC 3745-17-07, except for OAC 3745-17-07 
(A)(3)(j) that EPA is not taking action on. EPA is conditionally 
approving OAC 3745-17-11, based on commitment by Ohio to revise OAC 
3745-17-11(A)(1)(l) to require all large item size exemptions to be 
approved by EPA as a SIP revision for the exemption to be valid. Ohio 
has committed to providing the revised rule language by November 25, 
2011.

A. What does conditional approval mean?

    Pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, EPA may conditionally 
approve a portion of a SIP revision based on a commitment from a state 
to adopt specific, enforceable measures no later than twelve months 
from the date of final conditional approval. If it fails to commit to 
undertake the necessary changes, or fails to actually make the changes 
within the twelve month period, the conditional approval automatically 
converts to disapproval. EPA would subsequently publish a notice in the 
Federal Register providing notice and details of the disapproval. EPA 
is not required to separately propose a finding of disapproval. If a 
state submits final and effective rule revisions correcting the 
deficiencies within one year from this conditional approval becoming 
final and effective, EPA will publish a subsequent notice in the 
Federal Register to acknowledge conversion of the conditional approval 
to a full approval.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
    <bullet> Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
    <bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
    <bullet> Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the 
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, 
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on 
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by December 27, 2010. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are 
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of 
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules 
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate 
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can 
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed 
rulemaking. 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, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter.

    Dated: October 4, 2010.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

[[Page 65572]]

Subpart KK--Ohio

0
2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(150) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (150) On August 22, 2008, Ohio submitted revisions to
    Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-17, Rules 3745-17-01 through 
3745-112-14. The revisions contain particulate matter standards in the 
State of Ohio necessary to attain and maintain the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> 
NAAQS.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-17-01 Definitions: (A) and 
(B), Rule 3745-17-02 Ambient air quality standards, Rule 3745-17-04 
Compliance time schedules, Rule 3745-17-07 Control of visible 
particulate emissions from stationary sources, Rule 3745-17-08 
Restriction of emission of fugitive dust, Rule 3745-17-09 Restrictions 
on particulate emissions and odors from incinerators, Rule 3745-17-10 
Restrictions on particulate emissions from fuel burning equipment, Rule 
3745-17-12 Additional restrictions on particulate emissions from 
specific air contaminant sources in Cuyahoga county, Rule 3745-17-13 
Additional restrictions on particulate emissions from specific air 
contaminant sources in Jefferson county, and Rule 3745-17-14 
Contingency plan requirements for Cuyahoga and Jefferson counties. The 
rules became effective on February 1, 2008.
    (B) January 22, 2008, ``Director's Final Findings and Orders'', 
signed by Chris Korleski, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection 
Agency.
    (ii) Additional Information.
    (A) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-17-01 Definitions: (C), 
effective on February 1, 2008.

0
3. Section 52.1890 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.1890  Removed control measures.

* * * * *
    (d) On August 22, 2008, Ohio requested that Ohio Administrative 
Code 3745-17-05 ``Non-degradation Policy.'' be removed from the Ohio 
SIP. The rule was rescinded statewide on February 1, 2008.

0
4. Section 52.1919 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.1919  Identification of plan--conditional approval.

* * * * *
    (c) On August 22, 2008, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 
submitted a revision to Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-17-11. The 
rule establishes a particulate emission limit for coating operations in 
lieu of generic emission limits based on the weight of processed 
materials. On July 2, 2010, Ohio submitted a commitment to amend OAC 
3745-17-11 by November 25, 2011. The amendment would provide that any 
exemption granted by the state for sources too large to meet the 
coating work practice requirement must be submitted for EPA approval as 
a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision. When EPA determines the 
state has met its commitment, OAC 3745-17-11 will be incorporated by 
reference into the SIP.

[FR Doc. 2010-26880 Filed 10-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>