Approval and Promulgation of Maintenance Plan Revisions; Ohio

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH 122-1a; FRL-6328-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Maintenance Plan Revisions; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are approving a March 18, 1999 request from Ohio for a

State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision of the Stark County (Canton,

Ohio) ozone maintenance plan. The maintenance plan revision establishes

new transportation conformity mobile source emissions budgets for the

year 2005. We are approving the allocation of a portion of the safety

margin for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen

(NOX) to the area's 2005 mobile source emissions budgets 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.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 21, 1999, unless EPA receives

adverse written comments by May 20, 1999. If adverse comment is

received, EPA 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 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,

[[Page 19287]]

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)

353-8656.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Supplementary Information section is

organized as follows:

What action is EPA 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 Stark County maintenance plan?

Why is the request approvable?

What Action is EPA Taking Today?

In this action, we are approving a revision to the maintenance plan

for Stark County, Ohio. The revision will change the mobile source

emission budget 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 the Stark County metropolitan planning

organization will benefit from this revision. Although, the long range

transportation plan for the Stark County area projects higher emissions

than currently allowed in the maintenance plan, the conformity rule

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 March 18, 1999, Ohio submitted to EPA a SIP revision request for

the Stark County ozone maintenance area. A public hearing on this

proposal was held on February 18, 1999. No one from the public

commented on the proposed revisions.

In the submittal, Ohio requested to establish new 2005 mobile

source emissions budgets for both VOC and NOX for the Stark

County, Ohio, ozone maintenance area. The State requested that 2 tons

per day of VOC and 1 ton per day of NOX be allocated from

the maintenance plan's safety margin. 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, EPA 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 Stark 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 Stark

County area has an approved 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: Stark County

attained the one hour ozone standard during the 1989-1991 time period.

The State uses 1990 as the attainment level of emissions for Stark

County. The emissions from point, area and mobile sources in 1990

equaled 86.67 tons per day of VOC and 39.81 tons per day of

NOX. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency projected

emissions out to the year 2005 and projected a total of 73.61 tons per

day of VOC and 37.64 tons per day of NOX from all sources in

Stark County. The safety margin for Stark County is calculated to be

the difference between these amounts or 13.06 tons per day of VOC and

2.17 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, Stark County

[tons/day]

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

VOC emissions

Source category -----------------

1990 2005

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

Point................................................. 12.36 14.07

Mobile (on-road)...................................... 31.66 15.34

Area.................................................. 42.65 44.20

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

Totals............................................ 86.67 73.61

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

Safety Margin = 1990 total emissions--2005 total emissions = 13.06

tons/day VOC

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

NOX emissions

Source category -----------------

1990 2005

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

Point................................................. 6.74 7.96

Mobile (on-road)...................................... 16.20 12.00

Area.................................................. 16.87 17.68

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

Totals............................................ 39.81 37.64

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

Safety Margin = 1990 total emissions--2005 total emissions = 2.17

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 Stark County Maintenance Plan?

It raises the 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

[[Page 19288]]

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 Stark County

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

inventory year and the 2005 projected emissions inventory (13.06 tons/

day VOC safety margin, and 2.17 tons/day NOX safety margin)

as shown in Table 1. The SIP revision requests the allocation of 2

tons/day VOC, and 1 ton/day NOX, into the area's mobile

source emissions budgets from the safety margin. The 2005 mobile source

emissions budgets showing the safety margin allocations are outlined in

Table 2. The mobile source emissions budget in Table 2 will be used for

transportation conformity purposes.

Table 2 below illustrates that the requested portion of the safety

margins 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 Stark 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.

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

Emissions Budget, Stark County

[tons/day]

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

VOC emissions

Source category -----------------

1990 2005

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

Point................................................. 12.36 14.07

Mobile (on-road)...................................... 31.66 17.34

Area.................................................. 42.65 44.20

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

Totals............................................ 86.67 75.61

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

Remaining Safety Margin = 1990 total emissions--2005 total

emissions = 11.06 tons/day VOC.

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

NOX emissions

Source category -----------------

1990 2005

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

Point................................................. 6.74 7.96

Mobile (on-road)...................................... 16.20 13.00

Area.................................................. 16.87 17.68

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

Totals............................................ 39.81 38.64

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

Remaining Safety Margin = 1990 total emissions--2005 total

emissions = 1.17 tons/day NOX

Why is the Request Approvable?

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

requested allocation of the safety margin for the Stark County (Canton)

area is approvable because the new mobile source emissions budgets for

NOX and VOCs maintain 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.

EPA Action

EPA is approving the requested allocation of the safety margin to

the mobile source budget for the Stark County (Canton) ozone

maintenance area.

EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because EPA

views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse

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

publication, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision should

adverse written comments be filed. This action will be effective

without further notice unless EPA receives relevant adverse written

comment by May 20, 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 June 21, 1999.

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 Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

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. 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.

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 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. EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those

regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that

the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the

potential to influence the regulation.

This action is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it approves a

state rule implementing a previously promulgated health or safety-based

Federal standard, and preserves the existing level of pollution control

for the affected areas.

D. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian

Tribal Governments

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

[[Page 19289]]

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.'' This 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. 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. EPA 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. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not contain any information collection

requirements which requires OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction

Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

I. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice

Under E.O. 12898 each Federal agency must make achieving

environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and

addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human

health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and

activities on minorities and low-income populations. Today's action

(revising the emissions budgets in Ohio's maintenance plan for Stark

County) does not adversely affect minorities and low-income populations

because the new, more stringent 8-hour ozone standard is in effect and

provides increased protection to the public, especially children and

other at-risk populations.

J. 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 new regulations. To comply with

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

available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless

doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise

impractical.

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.

K. 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 June 21, 1999. 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,

Ozone, Nitrogen oxides, Transportation conformity.

Dated: April 8, 1999.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

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:

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

Subpart KK--Ohio

2. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(11) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.1885 Control Strategy: Ozone

(a) * * *

(11) Approval--On March 18, 1999, Ohio submitted a revision to the

[[Page 19290]]

maintenance plan for the Stark County (Canton) area. The revision

consists of allocating a portion of the Stark County area's safety

margins to the transportation conformity mobile source emissions

budgets. The mobile source budgets for transportation conformity

purposes for the Stark County area are now: 17.34 tons per day of

volatile organic compound emissions for the year 2005 and 13.00 tons

per day of oxides of nitrogen emissions for the year 2005.

[FR Doc. 99-9866 Filed 4-19-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P