[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 208 (Thursday, October 28, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58018-58021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28042]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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