[Federal Register: December 2, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 231)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 71515-71520]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02de02-41]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[OH154-1; FRL-7415-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio
Particulate Matter
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: USEPA is proposing action on a variety of revisions to
particulate matter regulations submitted by Ohio on July 18, 2000.
USEPA is proposing to approve revisions to the form of opacity limits
for utility and steel mill storage piles and roadways. USEPA is also
proposing to approve formalization of existing requirements for
continuous emission monitoring for certain types of facilities,
criteria for the state to issue equivalent visible emission limits, and
revised limits for stationary internal combustion engines. USEPA is
proposing to disapprove authority for revising emission limits for Ford
Motor's Cleveland Casting Plant via Title V permit modifications.
DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must arrive on or before
January 2, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation
Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United States
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
Copies of the State's submittal are available for inspection at the
following address: (We recommend that you telephone John Summerhays at
(312) 886-6067, before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation
Division (AR-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Regulation
Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6067.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document is organized as follows:
I. Background
II. Revisions to Opacity Limits for Utilities
III. Revisions to Opacity Limits for Steel Companies
IV. Criteria for State-Issued Visible Emissions Limits
V. Revisions to Limits via Title V Permit
VI. Other Submittal Elements
VII. Summary of USEPA Action
VIII. Administrative Requirements
[[Page 71516]]
I. Background
Ohio adopted major revisions to its particulate matter regulations
in 1991, addressing requirements of the Clean Air Act amendments of
1977 and 1990. Ohio has submitted and USEPA has approved those
regulations. (See 59 FR 27464, May 27, 1994, and 61 FR 29662, June 12,
1996) However, several companies appealed those regulations to the
state Environmental Review Board. As a result of lengthy discussions
aimed at resolving these appeals, Ohio adopted an assortment of
revisions to its particulate matter regulations on December 17, 1997.
Ohio submitted the revised regulations to USEPA on July 18, 2000.
The submitted regulations reflect several significant revisions to
prior particulate matter regulations. First, Ohio has redesigned the
limits on visible emissions from roadways and storage pile operations
at utility storage piles. Second, Ohio has similarly redesigned the
visible emission limits for roadways and storage piles at iron and
steel facilities. Third, Ohio has established criteria for determining
the appropriate visible emissions limit for cases where a source meets
its mass emission limit but cannot comply with the standard visible
emissions limit. These revisions are intended to provide objective
criteria by which the state can establish alternate visible emission
limits without need for State Implementation Plan (SIP) review by
USEPA. Fourth, Ohio adopted provisions by which Ford could modify its
limits via amendments to its Title V permit. Ohio further made a
variety of other revisions, including adoption of a rule requiring
continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) that are already required
in permits, updating the form and content of the limits for stationary
internal combustion engines, updating the rule on contingency measures,
and removing an appendix that provided guidance to state permit
writers. Finally, Ohio has modified the limits for several facilities
in Cuyahoga County (the Cleveland area), including Ford, LTV, and
General Chemical.
Based on discussions with USEPA, Ohio is conducting a further
assessment of whether the revised limits in Cuyahoga County suffice to
assure attainment of the annual particulate matter standard. USEPA is
deferring action on these revisions pending receipt of this further
assessment. The remaining elements of Ohio's submittal are addressed in
today's action.
II. Revisions to Opacity Limits for Utilities
A consortium of utility companies requested a variety of revisions
to limitations applicable to fugitive emissions from their coal storage
piles. The previous state rule included in the current SIP limited
visible emissions to 13 minutes per hour. The revised rule limits
opacity from material handling operations to 20 percent opacity,
assessed as a 3-minute average. The revised rule sets a separate limit
for vehicle operations on coal piles (not including vehicle exhaust),
also set at 20 percent opacity as a 3-minute average. The revised rule
retains the 13 minutes per hour visible emissions limit for wind
erosion off storage piles, the same limit for unpaved roads, and a 6
minutes per hour visible emissions limit for paved roads.
The revised rules also amend certain aspects of the methods by
which opacity readings are taken. Observations for material handling at
utility coal piles are to be taken ``where the fugitive dust plume is
distinctly separate from the falling material and from the surface of
the pile.'' Observations of opacity from vehicles moving on coal piles
are to be taken at or above the top of the vehicle and at least one
vehicle length from the rear of the vehicle, so as to be outside the
immediate wake of the vehicle.
USEPA views these revised limits as having approximately the same
stringency as the previous limits. All of these facilities are in areas
attaining the air quality standards for particles nominally 10 microns
and smaller in aerodynamic diameter (PM10), and so both the
prior limits and the revised limits are intended only to assure fairly
modest precautions to avoid excess fugitive emissions. While opacity
observations both at or above vehicle height and at least one vehicle
length away will be lower than opacity observations at more typical
observation points (about a meter above ground), USEPA nevertheless
anticipates that this limit will require a similar level of control as
was expected under the previous limit. USEPA also views as reasonable
the provision to avoid observing visible emissions where these
observations can be confounded by falling material or the surface of
the pile. Therefore, USEPA believes that the proposed revisions to
limits for fugitive emissions from utility coal piles given in Rule
3745-17-07(B)(7) are approvable.
Ohio also revised the test method for observing visible emissions
on utility roadways and parking areas. The revised rule, in Rule 3745-
17-03(B)(4)(d), states that observations of visible emissions on
roadways and parking areas are to be taken at a fixed location at a
height four feet above ground. In most contexts, USEPA rejects
observing visible emissions at a fixed location, requiring instead that
each observation be taken wherever the plume is densest. However, since
a roadway dictates a fixed path for vehicles, thus preventing
circumvention by vehicles taking variable paths on the roadway, and
since the distribution of emissions along the road will not change from
vehicle traverse to vehicle traverse, USEPA accepts this test method
feature for this particular source type.
III. Revisions to Opacity Limits for Steel Companies
Ohio's revised Rule 3745-17-07, specifically new provisions in
3745-17-07(B)(8), specify revised opacity limits for Ohio steel
companies that resemble some of the revised limits for utilities. The
limit for material handling operations is the same 20 percent opacity
limit based on the same 3-minute average method. For wind erosion,
while the rules for utilities retain the prior limit of 13 minutes of
visible emissions per hour, the revised rules subject wind erosion at
steel plants to a limit of 10 percent opacity as a 3-minute average.
The limits for fugitive emissions from vehicle operations are based
on a new test method originally used by Illinois. In this method,
opacity readings are initiated when a vehicle passes the observer, with
follow-up readings taken 5 and 10 seconds later. These 3 readings are
taken for each of 4 vehicle passes. The average of these 12 readings
must not exceed 10 percent. This 10 percent limitation applies both to
vehicles traversing storage piles and to vehicles traveling on plant
roadways and parking areas.
USEPA supports use of the Illinois method, which focuses opacity
readings on the times emissions are occurring and thus is not unduly
affected by the number of vehicles that pass by. Although limited
information exists as to the emission levels required by for example a
10 percent opacity limit under this method, USEPA's judgment is that
this limit requires a similar control level as the previous limit of 13
minutes of visible emissions per hour. USEPA also believes that the
other limits being applied to fugitive dust from iron and steel
facilities in Rule 3745-17-07(B)(8) are also at least approximately
equivalent to the prior limits.
[[Page 71517]]
Unlike most of Ohio's steel mills, two mills are in areas that were
previously designated nonattainment. In such areas, the state must show
that control requirements for relevant source suffice to assure
attainment. Ohio's rule changes alter the control requirements for one
of these mills, specifically LTV Steel's Cleveland Works facilities. As
noted previously, Ohio is conducting a further evaluation of the impact
of various Cleveland area limit revisions, and USEPA is deferring
action on these changes pending this further evaluation.
Ohio also changed the limitations in Rule 3745-17-13 (E) and (F)
governing Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, replacing the visible emission
limitations applicable to fugitive dust with detailed requirements for
the work practices the company must undertake to limit fugitive dust.
USEPA views the work practice requirements given in the new Appendix A
to Rule 3745-17-13 as likely to achieve approximately the same level of
control as was required by the previous visible emission limitations.
No other changes were made to the limitations applicable to Wheeling-
Pittsburgh Steel. Therefore, USEPA believes that the revisions for
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel are approvable without any further attainment
demonstration.
IV. Criteria for State-Issued Visible Emissions Limits
The current SIP provides the option for sources to justify source-
specific stack opacity limits in lieu of the standard stack opacity
limit. The standard stack opacity limit supplements mass emission
limits by providing an additional means of requiring effective emission
control. However, some sources can meet applicable mass emission limits
and yet cannot meet the standard stack opacity limit. For these
sources, the SIP provides the option for the source to demonstrate that
an alternative opacity limit corresponds to compliance with the mass
emission limit, or more precisely that compliance with the alternative
opacity limit suffices to indicate compliance with the mass emission
limit. Ohio labels this an equivalent visible emission limit.
In the current SIP, when the State concludes that an equivalent
visible emission limit is warranted, the State must submit a source-
specific request with suitable justification to USEPA. In the revised
rules, Ohio has given itself the authority to establish federally
enforceable equivalent visible emission limits without requiring USEPA
review, based on detailed criteria inserted into the rules. USEPA may
approve the revised rules only if these criteria would lead Ohio to
establish the same equivalent visible emission limit that USEPA would
establish.
The prerequisites for equivalent visible emission limits are given
in Rule 3745-17-07(C). The source must demonstrate compliance with its
mass emission limit. The source must observe opacity during the mass
emissions test. The source must be ``operated and maintained so as to
minimize the opacity of the emissions during the [mass emissions]
test.'' An equivalent visible emission limit may be established only if
opacity exceeds the standard opacity limits despite satisfaction of
these requirements.
If the source satisfies these prerequisites, Ohio must then follow
the detailed procedures in Engineering Guide numbers 13 and 15
(versions effective June 20, 1997) as referenced in Rule 3745-17-
07(C)(4) to determine the numerical value of the equivalent visible
emission limit. In cases where the average of three emission test runs
shows compliance with mass emission limits despite one or two of these
runs exceeding the emission limit, an equivalent visible emission limit
may be derived only from test runs that show emissions at or below the
emission limit. Since the general opacity limit has two parts,
equivalent visible emission limits may have two parts as well.
Specifically, the general opacity limit requires 6-minute average
opacity values to be at or below 20 percent, except for one 6-minute
average opacity that may be as high as 60 percent. Equivalent visible
emission limits may be set in lieu of either or both of these general
limits. If any 6-minute average opacity exceeds 60 percent, despite
compliance with the mass emission limit and minimization of opacity,
the higher value may be set as a once-per-hour 6-minute average opacity
limit. If any hour's second highest 6-minute average opacity exceeds 20
percent, again despite compliance with the mass emission limit and
minimization of opacity, the highest second highest 6-minute average
opacity value would be set as a limit on the second highest 6-minute
average opacity.
USEPA follows essentially the same criteria and procedures in
setting equivalent visible emission limits for new source performance
standards pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations part 60.11(e) (40
CFR 60.11(e)). If a source subject to a new source performance standard
in 40 CFR part 60 cannot meet an applicable opacity limit, it may
petition USEPA for an equivalent visible emission limit. Under 40 CFR
60.11(e)(7), ``[USEPA] will grant such a petition upon a demonstration
by the owner or operator that the affected facility and associated air
pollution control equipment was operated and maintained in a manner to
minimize the opacity of emissions during the performance tests; that
the performance tests were performed under the conditions established
by [USEPA], and that the affected facility and associated air pollution
control equipment were incapable of being adjusted or operated to meet
the applicable opacity standard.'' Under 40 CFR 60.11(e)(8), USEPA sets
an equivalent visible emission limit at the maximum level that is
consistent with compliance with the mass emission limit.
Ohio's criteria for setting equivalent visible emission limits
closely parallel USEPA's criteria in 40 CFR 60.11(e). Ohio has an
explicit prerequisite that affected facility and associated air
pollution control equipment was operated and maintained in a manner so
as to minimize the opacity. Rule 3745-17-07(C)(3)(a) dictates that the
performance tests must be conducted in accordance with conditions and
procedures accepted by Ohio. Although Ohio's rule does not have an
explicit prerequisite of the facility and control equipment being
incapable of being adjusted or operated to meet the opacity limits,
USEPA views this prerequisite as part of the prerequisite for
minimizing emissions. Thus, if in USEPA's judgment the facility could
meet the general opacity limits through adjustments or changes in
operation of the facility and/or control equipment, USEPA would
conclude that the source has failed the prerequisite for operating the
facility and control equipment so as to minimize opacity.
USEPA thus concludes that Ohio imposes the same prerequisites for
granting equivalent visible emission limits as USEPA. Further, Ohio has
provided specific procedures by which their equivalent visible emission
limits would be set at appropriate levels. Therefore, USEPA believes
that it is appropriate to authorize Ohio to issue equivalent visible
emission limits according to these criteria without source-specific
USEPA review.
V. Revisions to Limits via Title V Permit
In Rule 3745-17-12(I)(50), Ohio authorizes use of Title V permits
to establish an alternative set of emission limits at Ford Motor
Company's Cleveland Casting Plant. This paragraph identifies several
elements of procedure for the state to follow, much of which reflects
standard Title V procedures for
[[Page 71518]]
permit modifications. Ohio must give USEPA 45 days' notice of the
proposed Title V permit modifications. Ohio shall not issue the permit
modifications if USEPA objects to the permit modification, unless and
until USEPA's objection is resolved. Ford Motor Company must provide a
demonstration using modeling consistent with USEPA's modeling
guidelines that the alternative set of limits assures attainment of the
air quality standards for PM10. Once the alternative set of limits are
in effect in issued permit modifications, Ford no longer needs to
comply with the superseded limits in Rule 3745-17-12(I).
Rule 3745-17-12(I)(50) also provides the option of amending Ford's
emission limitations via new source permit issued under Rule 3745-31-
02. In accordance with new source permitting procedures, USEPA and
other interested parties would have 30 days to comment, and permit
issuance would not be contingent on USEPA objections being resolved.
Although new source permits are issued only if at least one emission
unit is newly constructed or modified, such permits may also amend the
limitations for other, existing and unmodified units. Ordinarily, such
limitations supplement and do not supersede any SIP limits that apply
to the units. However, in this case, Rule 3745-17-12(I)(50) provides
that the new source permit limits would supersede the SIP limits, and
Ford's Cleveland Casting Plant need not comply with the limits in the
SIP so long as it complies with the limits in the new source permit.
Ohio also added Rule 3745-17-12(I)(51). This paragraph states that
once a permit has been issued in accordance with Rule 3745-17-12(I)(50)
that amends the requirements applicable to Ford, Ohio shall revise Rule
3745-17-12(I) to become consistent with the revised control strategy.
USEPA believes that the Clean Air Act does not authorize these
revisions. Section 504 in Title V of the Clean Air Act provides that
permits required under Title V must include provisions ``as are
necessary to assure compliance with applicable requirements of [the
Clean Air Act], including the requirements of the applicable
implementation plan.'' That is, these permits must assure compliance
with the existing implementation plan. The permits may not change the
implementation plan or assure compliance with an alternative set of
provisions that fail in any way to assure compliance with the existing
implementation plan.
If a state wishes to revise its implementation plan, it must pursue
the revisions in accordance with section 110 in Title I of the Clean
Air Act, entitled ``Implementation Plans.'' Section 110 includes
detailed criteria and a detailed review process for state
implementation plan revisions. Congress clearly designed a process
involving substantial USEPA oversight of revisions to SIPs,
specifically providing USEPA with a much longer time for review of SIPs
than for Title V permits. The first step in review of implementation
plan revisions is a review for completeness, including whether the
state has provided adequate technical information to judge the merits
of the revision; no counterpart to this step is provided in USEPA's
review of Title V permits. Section 110(k) then grants USEPA 12 months
to review proposed revisions to implementation plans, in stark contrast
to the 45 days for USEPA review of proposed Title V permits. Finally,
state implementation plans under section 110 remain unchanged unless
USEPA takes affirmative action approving revisions to the plan, whereas
Title V permits take effect in the absence of USEPA raising timely
objections to the permit. Thus, the provision in Ohio's Rule 3745-17-
12(I)(50) for using the Title V permit process to change emission
limits that are at the core of Ohio's implementation plan for meeting
the PM10 standard in the Cleveland area is clearly contrary to the
structure and provisions of the Clean Air Act.
Rule 3745-17-12(I)(50) is also contrary to USEPA's regulations
addressing the contents of Title V permits and their relationship to
state implementation plans. Regulations for Title V permits in 40 CFR
70.1 define ``applicable requirements'' as, among other things, ``[a]ny
standard or other requirement provided for in the applicable
implementation plan approved or promulgated by EPA through rulemaking
under title I of the Act''. The first and foremost elements of Title V
permit content, as described in 40 CFR 70.6(a)(1), are provisions to
``assure compliance with all applicable requirements''. Neither here
nor elsewhere in 40 CFR part 70 does USEPA authorize a Title V permit
to modify applicable requirements.
In contrast, 40 CFR part 51 has extensive guidance on revisions to
implementation plans. Appendix V to 40 CFR part 51 defines criteria for
judging whether a submittal is complete. As stated in 40 CFR 51.103,
``[r]evisions of a plan * * * will not be considered part of an
applicable plan until such revisions have been approved by [USEPA] in
accordance with this part.''
Importantly, with the exception of periodic monitoring to assure
compliance, neither 40 CFR part 70 nor the Title V of the Clean Air Act
give a permitting authority the authority to create new requirements
through a Title V permit. In some cases, USEPA allows permitting
authorities to include in Title V permits conditions that differ from
but are equivalent to streamlined applicable requirements. USEPA has
issued white papers addressing this possibility. However, these white
papers do not offer the option of altering the core requirement of any
individual applicable requirement, even if a case is made that a
relaxation for one applicable requirement is compensated for by
tightening another applicable requirement. Such proposals for net
equivalent limits must be submitted to USEPA as requests for state
implementation plan revisions subject to review under Title I of the
Clean Air Act and 40 CFR part 51.
Rule 3745-17-12(I)(50) authorizes changes to limitations through
new source permits as well as through Title V permits. This approach is
also not authorized in the Clean Air Act or in applicable regulations.
New source permits, like Title V permits, do not satisfy the procedural
requirements for state implementation plan review. For this reason,
limits imposed in new source permits on new or existing sources are
supplemental to and do not supersede existing SIP limits. Neither the
Clean Air Act nor USEPA regulations authorize a new source permit to
allow noncompliance with a SIP limitation on any emission unit.
Consequently, USEPA believes that Rule 3745-17-12(I)(50) must be
disapproved.
Rule 3745-17-12(I)(51) states simply that any alternative
limitations established by permit under Rule 3745-17-12(I)(50) must be
incorporated into Ohio regulations in Rule 3745-17-12(I). While USEPA
does not object to this particular provision, USEPA believes that this
paragraph has no effect because no alternative limits may be
established under Rule 3745-17-12(I)(50). For this reason, and because
paragraph (I)(51) is closely tied to paragraph (I)(50), USEPA believes
it most appropriate to disapprove both paragraphs.
VI. Other Submittal Elements
In addition to the revisions requested by industry appellants of
Ohio's rules, Ohio also made four revisions that might be considered
corrections to their rules. These revisions include adoption of a rule
requiring continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) that are
[[Page 71519]]
already required in permits, updating the form and content of the
limits for stationary internal combustion engines, updating the rule on
contingency measures, and removing an appendix that provides guidance
to state permit writers.
Rule 3745-17-03(C) requires facilities subject to 40 CFR 51
Appendix P to operate, maintain, and submit periodic results from CEMS.
In general terms, Appendix P requires CEMS at large boilers, fluid
catalytic cracking units (at refineries), nitric acid plants, and
sulfuric acid plants. Ohio previously satisfied this requirement by
submitting state operating permits for each affected facility mandating
CEMS. USEPA approval of these permits is codified at 40 CFR
52.1870(c)(88). These permits have now expired. USEPA believes that
Rule 3745-17-03(C) provides for satisfaction of the requirements of
Appendix P on a more permanent basis. In conjunction with approving
this rule, USEPA intends to remove the codification of its approval of
the now expired permits.
Ohio modified both the criteria for differentiating large and small
stationary internal combustion engines (defined in paragraphs (B)(23)
and (B)(24) of Rule 3745-17-01) and the emission limits applicable to
each (specified in Rule 3745-17-11(B)(5)). These revisions parallel the
changes in the source characteristics that USEPA recommends using in
evaluating emissions from this source type. These revisions should not
affect the level of control of these sources and thus should not have
any significant effect on emissions from this source category.
Therefore, USEPA believes these revisions are acceptable.
Rule 3745-17-14 identifies sources to provide contingency measures
and provides criteria for implementing these measures if needed to
attain particulate matter standards. Ohio used the measures identified
by the sources to develop the contingency plan required under Clean Air
Act section 172(c)(9), which USEPA approved on May 6, 1996, at 61 FR
20139. The approved plan reflected measures for only a subset of the
sources in Rule 3745-17-14, since other sources listed in this rule
were unable to identify suitable contingency measures. Ohio's recent
revisions to Rule 3745-17-14(A) delete these extraneous sources from
the listing in Rule 3745-17-14 and more generally bring the
requirements for identification of measures into conformance with the
set of measures actually identified and incorporated into the approved
contingency plan. These rule revisions do not in any way change the
stringency, triggering process, or other features of the existing
contingency plan. Therefore, USEPA believes these revisions are
acceptable.
Finally, Ohio revised its Rule 3745-17-14 to remove guidance
contained as Appendix B to this rule concerning criteria for
particulate matter sources to be eligible for registration status
rather than requiring permits to operate. USEPA has not previously
approved Appendix B, and Appendix B is not necessary to meet any Clean
Air Act requirement. Therefore, USEPA has no objection to Ohio
rescinding this appendix, and USEPA need not take any action for this
appendix to remain as not part of Ohio's SIP.
VII. Summary of USEPA Action
USEPA is proposing action on most elements of Ohio's particulate
matter SIP revisions submitted July 18, 2000. USEPA is proposing to
approve revisions to limitations in Rule 3745-17-07 on fugitive dust
emissions for utilities and steelmaking facilities and the associated
revisions to test methods in Rule 3745-17-03, with one exception. This
exception is that USEPA is deferring action on the revisions of
limitations for Ford Motor in Rule 3745-17-07(B)(9) and (B)(10), in
conjunction with USEPA's deferral of action on various limit revisions
for Cleveland area sources.
USEPA is proposing to approve Rule 3745-17-03(C), which requires
that sources subject to Appendix P of 40 CFR 51 install, satisfactorily
operate, and report results from continuous emission monitoring
systems. In conjunction with this action, USEPA is proposing to remove
from the SIP the now-expired permits that Ohio previously submitted to
satisfy Appendix P. USEPA is proposing to approve revisions to Rule
3745-17-04, requiring immediate compliance with the newly adopted
limitations, except that USEPA is deferring action on compliance dates
associated with Cleveland area limitations pending action on the limits
themselves. USEPA is proposing to approve revisions in Rule 3745-17-01
and 3745-17-11 to limits for stationary internal combustion engines.
USEPA is proposing to approve replacement of fugitive emission
limitations in Rule 3745-17-13 for the Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel
Company with requirements that the company follow specified practices
to limit fugitive emissions. USEPA is proposing to approve revisions to
Rule 3745-17-14 that bring this rule into conformance with the approved
contingency plan and that remove a guidance statement that was not
previously part of the SIP.
USEPA is proposing to disapprove Rule 3745-17-12(I)(50) and 3745-
17-12(I)(51), which would allow Ohio to incorporate a revised set of
emission limits for Ford Motor Company's Cleveland Casting Plant into
either a Title V permit or a new source permit. USEPA proposes to
conclude that this type of revision to applicable limitations must be
subject to the review process under section 110 of the Clean Air Act
for revisions to state implementation plans. Finally, USEPA is
deferring action on revisions in Rules 3745-17-08, 3745-17-11, and
3745-17-12 that alter the control strategy for meeting the PM10
standards in Cuyahoga County, pending further analysis of whether these
revisions continue to assure attainment of the annual PM10 standard.
Final disapproval of the above paragraphs of Rule 3745-17-12(I)
would not start any sanctions clock. This submittal was not needed to
meet any provision of the Clean Air Act. Disapproval of these
paragraphs would simply prevent the addition of these paragraphs to
Ohio's state implementation plan and would not constitute a plan
deficiency that under section 179 of the Clean Air Act would need to be
remedied to avoid sanctions.
VIII. Administrative Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship
[[Page 71520]]
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
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 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve
state rules implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, USEPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), USEPA has no
authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It
would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for USEPA, when it
reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that
otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This
proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: November 15, 2002.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 02-30468 Filed 11-29-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P