[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 20, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19286-19290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-9866]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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