Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio

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 (NOX)/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 NOX 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 NOX emission reductions in Preble, and

Columbiana counties. [[Page 7455]]

Jefferson county is expected to have a decrease in NOX

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

NOX emissions in Jefferson County. The emissions estimates were

based on a 0.5 lb NOX/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