Approval and Promulgation of Maintenance Plan Revisions; Ohio

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR PART 52

[OH 129-1a; FRL-6464-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Maintenance Plan Revisions; Ohio

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: USEPA is approving an August 19, 1999, request from Ohio for a

State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision of the Columbiana County ozone

maintenance plan. The maintenance plan revision establishes a new

transportation conformity mobile source emissions budget for the year

2005. USEPA is approving the allocation of a portion of the safety

margin for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) to the area's 2005

mobile source emissions budget for transportation conformity purposes.

This allocation will still maintain the total emissions for the area at

or below the attainment level required by the transportation conformity

regulations. The transportation conformity budget for volatile organic

compounds will remain the same as previously approved in the

maintenance plan.

DATES: This rule is effective on January 3, 2000, unless USEPA receives

adverse written comments by December 3, 1999. If adverse comment is

received, USEPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the

Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take

effect.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

[[Page 59645]]

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604.

You may inspect copies of the documents relevant to this action

during normal business hours at the following location:

Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois, 60604.

Please contact Patricia Morris at (312) 353-8656 before visiting

the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Morris, Environmental

Scientist, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-

18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8656.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'',

``us'', or ``our'' are used we mean USEPA.

This Supplementary Information section is organized as follows:

What action is USEPA taking today?

Who is affected by this action?

How did the State support its request?

What is transportation conformity?

What is an emissions budget?

What is a safety margin?

How does this action change the Columbiana County ozone maintenance

plan?

Why is the request approvable?

USEPA Action.

Administrative Requirements.

What Action is USEPA Taking Today?

In this action, we are approving a revision to the ozone

maintenance plan for Columbiana County, Ohio. The revision will change

the mobile source emissions budget for NOX that is used for

transportation conformity purposes. The revision will keep the total

emissions for the area at or below the attainment level required by

law. This action will allow State or local agencies to maintain air

quality while providing for transportation growth.

Who Is Affected by This Action?

Primarily, the transportation sector represented by Ohio Department

of Transportation and persons needing to travel through Columbiana

County will be affected by this revision. A proposed project to build a

new 4 lane highway through a portion of Columbiana County would produce

higher emissions than currently allowed in the maintenance plan. The

conformity rule, however, provides that if a ``safety margin'' exists

in the maintenance plan, then the safety margin can be allocated to the

transportation sector via the mobile source budget.

How Did the State Support This Request?

On August 19, 1999, Ohio submitted to USEPA a SIP revision request

for the Columbiana County ozone maintenance area. A public hearing on

this proposal was held on September 22, 1999. No one from the public

commented on the proposed revisions. At the public hearing Ohio

officially changed the request from 1 ton per day of NOX to

0.5 ton per day of NOX to be allocated to the mobile source

budget.

In the submittal, Ohio requested to establish a new 2005 mobile

source emissions budget for NOX for the Columbiana County,

Ohio, ozone maintenance area. The State originally requested that 1 ton

per day of NOX be allocated from the maintenance plan's

safety margin. After comment from USEPA, however, the request was

changed to 0.5 ton per day of NOX. The 0.5 ton per day

change will accommodate the proposed highway and leave a safety margin

for future use. The mobile source budgets are used for transportation

conformity purposes.

What Is Transportation Conformity?

Transportation conformity means that the level of emissions from

the transportation sector (cars, trucks and buses) must be consistent

with the requirements in the SIP to attain and maintain the air quality

standards. The Clean Air Act, in section 176(c), requires conformity of

transportation plans, programs and projects to an implementation plan's

purpose of attaining and maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards. On November 24, 1993, USEPA published a final rule

establishing criteria and procedures for determining if transportation

plans, programs and projects funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C.

or the Federal Transit Act conform to the SIP.

The transportation conformity rules require an ozone maintenance

area, such as Columbiana County, to compare the actual projected

emissions from cars, trucks and buses on the highway network, to the

mobile source emissions budget established by a maintenance plan. The

Columbiana County area has an approved ozone maintenance plan. Our

approval of the maintenance plan established the mobile source

emissions budgets for transportation conformity purposes.

What Is an Emissions Budget?

An emissions budget is the projected level of controlled emissions

from the transportation sector (mobile sources) that is estimated in

the SIP. The SIP controls emissions through regulations, for example,

on fuels and exhaust levels for cars. The emissions budget concept is

further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993,

transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also

describes how to establish the mobile source emissions budget in the

SIP and how to revise the emissions budget. The transportation

conformity rule allows the mobile source emissions budget to be changed

as long as the total level of emissions from all sources remains below

the attainment level.

What Is a Safety Margin?

A ``safety margin'' is the difference between the attainment level

of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions

(from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of

emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which

the area met the air quality health standard. For example: Columbiana

County was monitoring attainment of the one hour ozone standard during

the 1988-1990 time period. The State uses 1990 as the attainment level

of emissions for Columbiana County. The emissions from County point,

area and mobile sources in 1990 equaled 23.98 tons per day of VOC and

11.66 tons per day of NOX. The Ohio Environmental Protection

Agency projected emissions out to the year 2005 and projected a total

of 18.70 tons per day of VOC and 10.02 tons per day of NOX

from all sources in Columbiana County. The safety margin for the County

is calculated to be the difference between these amounts or 5.28 tons

per day of VOC and 1.64 tons per day of NOX. Table 1 gives

detailed information on the estimated emissions from each source

category and the safety margin calculation.

The 2005 emission projections reflect the point, area and mobile

source reductions and are illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1.--NOX and VOC Emissions Budget; and Safety Margin

Determinations, Columbiana County

[Tons/day]

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

Source Category 1990 2005

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

VOC Emission

Point............................................... 1.89 2.25

Mobile.............................................. 11.69 5.65

Area................................................ 10.40 10.80

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

Totals............................................ 23.98 18.70

[[Page 59646]]

Safety Margin = 1990 total emissions--2005 total emissions = 5.28 tons/

day VOC

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

NOX Emissions

Point............................................... 0.06 0.07

Mobile.............................................. 7.00 5.05

Area................................................ 4.60 4.90

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

Totals............................................ 11.66 10.02

Safety Margin = 1990 total emissions--2005 total emissions = 1.64 tons/

day NOX

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

The emissions are projected to maintain the area's air quality

consistent with the air quality health standard. The safety margin

credit can be allocated to the transportation sector. The total

emission level, even with this allocation will be below the attainment

level or safety level and thus is acceptable. The safety margin is the

extra safety [points] that can be allocated as long as the total level

is maintained.

How Does This Action Change the Columbiana County Zone Maintenance

Plan?

It raises the NOX emissions budget for mobile sources.

The maintenance plan is designed to provide for future growth while

still maintaining the ozone air quality standard. Growth in industries,

population, and traffic is offset with reductions from cleaner cars and

other emission reduction programs. Through the maintenance plan the

State and local agencies can manage and maintain air quality while

providing for growth.

In the submittal, Ohio requested to allocate part of the area's

safety margin to the mobile source emissions budget. The Columbiana

County area's safety margin is the difference between the 1990

attainment inventory year and the 2005 projected emissions inventory

(5.28 tons /day VOC safety margin, and 1.64 tons/day NOX

safety margin) as shown in Table 1. The SIP revision requests the

allocation of 0.5 ton/day NOX, into the area's mobile source

NOX emissions budget from the safety margin. The 2005 mobile

source NOX emissions budget showing the safety margin

allocations are outlined in Table 2. The mobile source NOX

emissions budget in Table 2 will be used for transportation conformity

purposes.

Table 2 below illustrates that the requested portion of the safety

margin can be allocated to the 2005 mobile source budget and that total

emissions will still remain at or below the 1990 attainment level of

total emissions for the Columbiana County maintenance area. Since the

area would still be at or below the 1990 attainment level for the total

emissions, this allocation is allowed by the conformity rule. The VOC

budget and safety margin will remain the same.

Table 2.--Allocation of Safety Margin to the 2005 Mobile Source

Emissions Budget, Columbiana County

[Tons/day]

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

Source category 1990 2005

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

NOX Emissions

Point............................................... 0.06 0.07

Mobile.............................................. 7.00 5.55

Area................................................ 4.60 4.90

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

Total............................................. 11.66 10.52

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

Remaining Safety Margin = 1990 total emissions -2005 total

emissions = 1.14 tons/day NOX

Why is the Request Approvable?

After review of the SIP revision request, USEPA finds that the

requested allocation of the safety margin for the Columbiana County

area is approvable because the new mobile source emissions budget for

NOX maintains the total emissions for the area at or below

the attainment year inventory level as required by the transportation

conformity regulations. This allocation is allowed by the conformity

rule since the area would still be at or below the 1990 attainment

level for the total emissions.

USEPA Action

USEPA is approving the requested allocation of the safety margin to

the mobile source NOX emission budget for the Columbiana

County ozone maintenance area.

USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because

USEPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no

adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal

Register publication, USEPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision

should adverse written comments be filed. This action will be effective

without further notice unless USEPA receives relevant adverse written

comment by December 3, 1999. Should the Agency receive such comments,

it will publish a final rule informing the public that this action will

not take effect. Any parties interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public

is advised that this action will be effective on January 3, 2000.

Administrative 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, USEPA 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, USEPA must provide to the

Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent of USEPA'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 USEPA 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. 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, the 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

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

[[Page 59647]]

significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that USEPA 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, USEPA 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,

USEPA 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 USEPA'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 USEPA 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, USEPA

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, USEPA

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 USEPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

USEPA 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. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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. USEPA will submit a report containing this rule 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 rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

H. 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, USEPA 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.

USEPA 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.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 January 3, 2000. 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, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen oxides, Transportation

conformity.

Dated: October 20, 1999.

Francis X. Lyons,

Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, 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:

[[Page 59648]]

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

Subpart KK--Ohio

2. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(13) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.1885 Control Strategy: Ozone.

(a) * * *

(13) Approval--On August 19, 1999, Ohio submitted a revision to the

ozone maintenance plan for the Columbiana County area. The revision

consists of allocating a portion of the Columbiana County area's

NOX safety margin to the transportation conformity mobile

source emissions budget. The mobile source emissions budgets for

transportation conformity purposes for the Columbiana County area are

now: 5.65 tons per day of volatile organic compound emissions for the

year 2005 and 5.55 tons per day of oxides of nitrogen emissions for the

year 2005. This approval only changes the NOX transportation

conformity emission budget for Columbiana County.

[FR Doc. 99-28386 Filed 11-2-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P