Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2005-OH-0005-0004
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Proposed Approval of Ohio Particulate Matter rules concerning Equivalent Visible Emission Levels
Posted Date: 2007-01-23T05:00Z

[Federal Register: January 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 14)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 2823-2825]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23ja07-13]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2005-OH-0005; FRL-8272-9]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio 
Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is re-proposing approval of Ohio rules concerning 
equivalent visible emission limits (EVELs). Ohio's rules provide 
criteria for establishment of EVELs, and the rules provide that EVELs 
established according to these criteria take effect without formal 
review by EPA. EPA proposed to approve these rules on December 2, 2002, 
at 67 FR 71515. However, that proposal did not clearly solicit comment 
on the timing by which actions on EVELs by the State take effect. EPA 
is proposing that previous State modifications to EVELs would become 
effective at the federal level immediately upon the effective date of 
any final EPA action approving these Ohio rules. Similarly, any future 
action by the State to establish, modify, or rescind EVELs in 
accordance with the criteria given in these Ohio rules would become 
effective at the federal level immediately upon the effective date of 
the State action.

[[Page 2824]]

DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must arrive on or before 
February 22, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2005-OH-0005, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 

submitting comments.
     E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
     Fax: (312) 886-5824.
     Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, 
Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
     Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant 
Section, 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-
2005-OH-0005. 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. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to 
Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    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 
whose disclosure 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 legal holidays. We 
recommend that you telephone John Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, 
at (312) 886-6067 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Environmental 
Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6067, summerhays.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is 
arranged as follows:

I. What action is EPA taking today?
II. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking today?

    EPA is re-proposing to approve Ohio rules providing for State 
issuance of equivalent visible emission limits (EVELs), rules which 
were a part of a set of particulate matter regulations that Ohio 
submitted on July 18, 2000. EPA originally proposed to approve these 
rules on December 2, 2002, at 67 FR 71515. However, that proposal did 
not clearly explain EPA's views regarding the consequences of approval 
on historic EVELs that were previously approved into the State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA today is explaining its views and 
soliciting comment on this issue.
    The rules that EPA proposes to approve provide that EVELs issued by 
the State in accordance with the specified criteria take effect without 
formal review by EPA. Consequently, when the State issues an EVEL for a 
unit at a source, this EVEL will supersede any EVEL that may previously 
have been issued for that unit, regardless of whether or not the prior 
EVEL was part of the SIP. Similar consequences apply when the State 
terminates an EVEL for a unit at a source, presumably by issuing a 
permit or other enforceable document that re-establishes the standard 
opacity limits of OAC 3745-17-07 (A)(1) as the applicable opacity 
limits; that action will terminate the EVEL for that unit, again 
regardless of whether the prior EVEL was part of the SIP. EPA's 
understanding is that the State will periodically review whether 
previously issued EVELs are still warranted, as part of its management 
of the EVELs that apply in the State.
    EPA is proposing that, as of the effective date of EPA finalizing 
this proposal, no EVEL shall apply unless Ohio has issued a currently 
effective EVEL in accordance with its Rule 3745-17-07(C), and the 
federally enforceable level of any such EVEL shall reflect the 
currently effective EVEL that the State has thus issued. Therefore, EPA 
is proposing to delete provisions of the Ohio SIP that contain EVELs, 
in particular paragraphs (c)(62) and (c)(65) of 40 CFR 52.1870.
    EPA recognizes that the Ohio SIP contains other EVELs, implicitly 
included in SIP-approved permits or administrative orders that also 
contain other limits. For administrative convenience, EPA proposes not 
to modify the text of the SIP codification given in 40 CFR 52.1870 to 
discontinue these EVELs explicitly. Nevertheless, EPA proposes that 
when this proposed rulemaking becomes final and effective, these EVELs 
will automatically be discontinued and replaced by the opacity limits 
that Ohio has adopted more recently in accordance with the criteria 
given in Rule 3745-17-07(C). (The more recent permits or administrative 
orders may or may not have limits matching the prior SIP limits.) 
Similarly, EPA proposes that any future State action to establish, 
modify, or rescind opacity limits in accordance with the criteria in 
Rule 3745-17-07(C) shall immediately alter the federal opacity limit 
accordingly.

II. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific 
questions or organize comments by referencing a

[[Page 2825]]

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866; Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is 
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as 
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator 
certifies that this proposed 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.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements 
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty 
beyond that required by state law, it 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).

Executive Order 13132 Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it 
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the 
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act.

Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because 
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian 
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive 
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13045 Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
and Safety Risks

    This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant.

Executive Order 13211 Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant regulatory action,'' this 
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use 
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are 
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a 
prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus 
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for 
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with 
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of 
a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the 
Clean Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA 
do not apply.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Particulate matter.

    Dated: January 11, 2007.
Mary A. Gade,
Regional Administrator
 [FR Doc. E7-923 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P