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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[OH 103-1a; FRL-6464-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio

Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to redesignate Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain

Counties to the status of areas in attainment of the National Ambient

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)for sulfur dioxide (SO2). Ohio

requested this action on October 26, 1995, and provided supplemental

supporting material to EPA in a letter dated September 14, 1999.

EPA is also proposing to approve the maintenance plans for

Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties. The plans are intended to

ensure maintenance of the NAAQS, and were submitted with the

redesignation requests.

In conjunction with these actions, EPA is proposing to approve

State-adopted emission limits for the following facilities: in

Coshocton County: Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric--Conesville

plant; in Gallia County: Ohio Valley Electric Company--Kyger Creek

plant and Ohio Power--Gavin Plant; and in Lorain County: CEI--Avon Lake

plant, Ohio Edison--Edgewater Plant, U.S. Steel--Lorain plant, and B.F.

Goodrich Company--Lorain County plant. These limits would replace

equivalent limits in the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for these

three Counties.

EPA is ``parallel processing'' Ohio's request to redesignate the

three counties to attainment while Ohio finalizes its rule revisions.

If Ohio's final submittal is the same as the submittal on which this

proposal is made and EPA receives no persuasive adverse comments then

EPA will take final action to approve the redesignation requests.

Otherwise, EPA will repropose this action.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received by November

29, 1999.

ADDRESSES: You may send written comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air Program Branch (AR-18J),

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

Copies of the revision request are available for inspection at the

following address: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and

Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

(We recommend that you telephone Phuong Nguyen, Environmental

Scientist, at (312) 886-6701 before visiting the region 5 office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phuong Nguyen at (312) 886-6701.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplemental information section is

organized as follows:

I. General Information:

1. What action is EPA proposing to take today?

2. Why is EPA proposing to take this action?

3. What is the background for this action?

II. Background on Ohio Submittal

1. What information did Ohio submit, and what were its requests?

2. What guidance documents did EPA use in this rulemaking to

evaluate Ohio's request?

III. State Implementation Plan (SIP)

1. How do these emission limits compare to the FIP limits?

2. What are the sources and emission limits that will be

affected by EPA's action?

IV. Maintenance Plan

1. How does the maintenance plan apply in these three counties?

2. What are the reduction requirements?

V. Redesignation Evaluation

1. What five criteria did EPA use to review the redesignation

request?

2. Are these criteria satisfied for Coshocton, Gallia, and

Lorain counties?

I. General Information

1. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take Today?

In this action, EPA proposes to approve three SO2

redesignation requests submitted by the State of Ohio for Coshocton,

Gallia, and Lorain Counties. EPA also proposes to approve the

maintenance plans for these counties. Finally, EPA proposes to approve

State-adopted emission limits for the remaining sources in these three

counties.

This action applies parallel processing, in which EPA proposes

action on proposed State rules based on the expectation that the State

will finalize its rules as proposed. If the State's final rules differs

significantly from the proposed rules, then EPA will repropose action.

2. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take This Action?

EPA is proposing to take this action because the redesignation

requests meet the five criteria all redesignation requests must meet.

The emission limits

[[Page 58019]]

in the submittal are equivalent to those allowed by the FIP limits.

Coshocton, Gallia, Lorain Counties have been designated as

nonattainment areas for sulfur dioxide but now meet the sulfur dioxide

NAAQS. The three counties have plans for keeping their sulfur dioxide

levels within the health-based standard for the next 10 years and

beyond. The plans require the three counties to consider impacts of

future activities on air quality and to manage those activities.

3. What Is the Background for This Action?

EPA promulgated the applicable FIP in 1976. The FIP requires

significant emission reductions at specific facilities throughout the

State to attain and maintain the NAAQS for SO2.

On October 5, 1978, Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties (among

others) were designated as nonattainment areas for the primary sulfur

dioxide standards. The State adopted its own regulations in 1979,

generally imposing limits similar to those promulgated in the FIP. The

State submitted these regulations for EPA approval in 1980, including

regulations for Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties.

The State then withdrew its submittal for selected sources. These

sources are:

1. Coshocton County:

--Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric--Conesville plant.

2. Gallia County:

--Ohio Valley Electric Company--Kyger Creek plant,

--Ohio Power--Gavin plant.

3. Lorain County:

--Cleveland Electric Illuminating (CEI)--Avon Lake plant,

--Ohio Edison--Edgewater plant.

--U.S. Steel--Lorain plant.

--B.F. Goodrich Company.

EPA approved this SIP regulation on January 27, 1981, for

Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain counties (46 FR 8481) except for the

source limits withdrawn by the State. The federally promulgated FIP

regulations, therefore, have remained in effect for the above sources.

On October 26, 1995, Governor George Voinovich requested that EPA

redesignate to attainment all remaining SO2 nonattainment

areas within the State of Ohio, including Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain

Counties.

On May 28, 1996, EPA Administrator Browner sent a letter to

Governor Voinovich informing him that the redesignation request

depended on EPA approval of State-adopted rules in place of FIP rules.

II. Background on Ohio Submittal

1. What Information Did Ohio Submit and What Were its Requests?

In June 1999, Ohio e-mailed copies of proposed rule revisions for

Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties to EPA. On September 14, 1999,

Ohio submitted additional material requested by EPA to support the

State's requests to redesignate these Counties to attainment with

respect to SO2. The state requested parallel processing by

EPA to approve SIP limits for the specific facilities named above in

these three counties in place of federal promulgated limits. In

addition, the State requested approval for the SO2

maintenance plans for Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties. Finally,

the State requested approval of its request to redesignate these three

counties to attainment status for sulfur dioxide.

2. What Guidance Documents Did EPA Use in This Rulemaking To Evaluate

Ohio's Requests?

Guidance for these requests includes a September 28, 1994,

memorandum from the Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, to the Director, Air and

Radiation Division, Region 5, entitled, ``Response to Request for

Guidance on Issues with Ohio Sulfur Dioxide Federal Implementation

Plan''.

This memorandum sets forth three criteria to be met for the

approval of State limits that are equivalent to existing FIP limits

without new modeling. Under the first two criteria, there must be no

known inadequacy in the original attainment demonstration. Under the

third criterion, the State limits must reflect no relaxation of

existing emission limits.

All three of these criteria are met by the State-promulgated SIP

limits. Therefore, the revised limits, if adopted and submitted as

proposed, can be considered to be adequate to assure attainment without

further modeling.

Another guidance document relevant to this rulemaking is an April

21, 1983 memorandum entitled ``Section 107 Designation Policy Summary''

from the Director of the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, which requires eight consecutive quarters of data showing

SO2 NAAQS attainment before an area can be redesignated. A

county violates the NAAQS when its SO2 level exceeds the

NAAQS more than once in any year. Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain

Counties have eight consecutive quarters of data showing SO2

NAAQS attainment.

Finally, a September 4, 1992, EPA policy memorandum on ``Procedures

for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' was also

relevant to this rulemaking. This memorandum explains that additional

dispersion modeling is not required in support of an SO2

redesignation request if an adequate modeled attainment demonstration

was previously submitted and approved as part of the implemented SIP,

and no indication of an existing air quality deficiency exists. These

conditions are met here.

III. SIP Approval

1. How Do These Emission Limits Compare to the FIP Limits?

The proposed emission limits are equivalent to the FIP limits for

Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties, respectively. As a result of

these limits, attainment in Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain counties is

assured on the basis of State-adopted, EPA-approved limits.

Consequently, there is no further need for federally promulgated

limits, and the corresponding FIP limits for these sources in all three

counties can be rescinded.

2. What Are the Sources and Emission Limits That Will Be Affected by

the SIP Approval?

The table below shows the sources and state emission limits that

will be affected by the SIP approval.

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

County names State emission limits Source names

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

Coshocton County..................... --OAC 3745-18-22 (B) --Columbus and Southern Ohio

Electric; Conesville.

Gallia County........................ --OAC 3745-18-33 (B) --Ohio Valley Electric

Company; Kyger Creek.

--OAC 3745-18-33 (D) --Ohio Power-Gavin.

Lorain County........................ --OAC 3745-18-53 (B) --CEI-Avon Lake.

--OAC 3745-18-53 (D) --Ohio Edision; Edgewater

Plant.

--OAC 3745-18-53 (E) --U.S. Steel.

--OAC 3745-18-53 (G) --B.F. Goodrich.

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

[[Page 58020]]

IV. Maintenance Plan Approval

1. How Does the Maintenance Plan Apply in These Three Counties?

Ohio's attainment plan for sulfur dioxide provides for attainment

even with major sources emitting their maximum allowable emissions.

Therefore, maintenance is provided by assuring that minor source

impacts do not increase significantly. The principal minor sources are

distant point sources and diesel vehicles.

2. What Are the Reduction Requirements?

Title IV reductions and the required national conversion to low

sulfur diesel fuel were the identified maintenance plan provisions

contained in the approved redesignation for Washington and Morgan

Counties in 1994 (59 FR 48403). These reductions will also be realized

in the other nonattainment counties such as Coshocton, Gallia, and

Lorain.

V. Redesignation Evaluation Criteria

1. What Five Criteria Did EPA Use To Review the Redesignation Requests?

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (Act), as amended in

1990, establishes requirements to be met before an area may be

redesignated from nonattainment to attainment. The criteria used to

review redesignation requests are derived from the Act. An area can be

redesignated to attainment if the following five conditions are met:

(A) The area has attained the applicable NAAQS.

(B) The area has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of the

Act.

(C) The EPA has determined that the improvement in air quality in

the area is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions.

(D) The EPA has determined that the maintenance plan for the area

has met all of the requirements of section 175A of the Act.

(E) The State has met all requirements applicable to the area under

section 110 and part D of the Act.

2. Are These Five Criteria Satisfied for Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain

Counties?

A. Demonstrated Attainment of the NAAQS

Relevant Agency guidance is provided in both the April 21, 1983,

and September 4, 1992 guidance documents cited above. The April 21,

1983 memorandum explains that eight consecutive quarters of data

showing SO2 NAAQS attainment are required for redesignation.

The September 4, 1992 guidance explains that the area must have no more

than one exceedance per year.

Ohio's September 14, 1999, submittal provides ambient monitoring

data showing that Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain counties have met the

NAAQS for the years 1980-1995.

Dispersion modeling is commonly used to demonstrate attainment of

the SO2 NAAQS. A modeling analysis was done in 1976 to show

that, under all allowed operating scenarios, the emission limits in

these three counties' SO2 SIPs would lead to attainment and

maintenance of the SO2 standards. According to the September

4, 1992 memorandum, no further dispersion modeling is needed for the

counties' redesignation. Ohio has provided evidence that sources in

these counties are complying with these limits.

Based on this evidence, EPA concludes that emissions are

sufficiently low to assure attainment throughout these areas currently

designated nonattainment.

B. Fully Approved SIP

The SIP for the area at issue must be fully approved under section

110(k) of the Act and must satisfy all requirements that apply.

EPA's guidance for implementing section 110 of the Act is discussed

in the General Preamble to Title I (44 FR 20372, April 14, 1979; and 57

FR 13498, April 16, 1992). The SO2 SIP for Coshocton,

Gallia, and Lorain counties met the requirements of section 110 of the

Act, and EPA approved the SIP on January 27, 1981, except that EPA did

not take action for a limited set of sources.

State limits for the remaining set of specific sources in

Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties are being proposed for approval

in this rulemaking.

C. Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions

Coshocton, Gallia, Lorain Counties attained the SO2

standards by implementing the SO2 SIP controls.

The reductions in SO2 emissions primarily come from

converting some fuel-burning sources to lower sulfur content fuels, and

to shutting down various types of sources. The use of lower-sulfur

``cleaner'' fuels is ensured by the facilities'' air emission permits

and federally enforceable SIP regulations.

D. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan

EPA has concluded that the combination of limitations on maximum

allowable emissions from major point sources and implementation of

programs that will yield reductions in minor source emissions will

assure maintenance of the standards. Approval of the maintenance plan

is being proposed in today's action.

E. Part D and Other Section 110 Requirements

With the approval of limits proposed today, along with the approval

of limits and attainment demonstration published January 27, 1981 (46

FR 8481), Ohio has met the relevant requirements.

VI. Proposed Rulemaking Action

In summary, EPA is proposing to approve State-adopted emission

limits for 7 sources in Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties. In

addition, EPA is proposing to approve the SO2 maintenance

plan for Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties as adequately ensuring

that attainment will be maintained. We are proposing to rescind the FIP

limits for Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties because we are also

proposing to replace these FIP limits with the State limits. Finally,

EPA is proposing to approve redesignation requests from the State of

Ohio which were submitted on September 14, 1999.

VII. Administration Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled

``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Orders on Federalism

Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or

tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those

governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office

of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal

governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written

communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation.

In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective

process permitting elected officials and other representatives of

state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely

input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant

unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not create a mandate on state,

local or tribal governments.

[[Page 58021]]

The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these entities.

Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not

apply to this rule.

On August 4, 1999, President Clinton issued a new executive order

on federalism, Executive Order 13132 [64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999)],

which will take effect on November 2, 1999. In the interim, current

Executive Order 12612 [52 FR 41685 (October 30, 1987)] on federalism

still applies. This rule will not have a substantial direct effect on

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 12612.

The rule affects only one State, and does not alter the relationship or

the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act.

C. Executive Order 13045

This Order regarding Protection of Children from Environmental

Health Risks and Safety Risks [62 FR 19885 (April 23, 1997)] applies to

any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as

defined under E.O. 12866; and (2) concerns an environmental health or

safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate

effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the

Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the

planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible

alternatives considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,

EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation.

In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective

process permitting elected and other representatives of Indian tribal

governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development

of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect

their communities.''

Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements

of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions.

This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because 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 create

any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under

the Clean Air Act, preparation of 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. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);

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

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;

or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual 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

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing

technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with

NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''

(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies

unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise

impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's

action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to

the use of VCS.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, sulfur dioxide.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

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

Dated: October 20, 1999.

Francis X. Lyons,

Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 99-28042 Filed 10-27-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P