Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

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 Wheeling-Pittsburgh

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.

[[Page 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:

Secs. 52.1870 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(110) On November 3, 1995, December 21, 1995, and March 21, 1996,

[[Page 29664]]

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