(a) The requirements of Subpart G of this chapter are not met because the Ohio plan does not provide for the attainment and maintenance of the national standard for photochemical oxidants (hydrocarbons) in the Metropolitan Cincinnati interstate region by May 31, 1975.

(b) The requirements of §52.14 are not met by Rule 3745-21-09(N)(3) (a) and (e); Rule 3745-21-09(Z)(1)(a); Rule 3745-21-10, Section G; and Rule 3745-21-10, Section H, because these Ohio Rules do not provide for attainment and maintenance of the photochemical oxidant (hydrocarbon) standards throughout Ohio.

(1) USEPA is disapproving new exemptions for the use of cutback asphalt [(Rule 3745-21-09(N)(3) (a) and (e)], because Ohio did not provide documentation regarding the temperature ranges in the additional two months that the State permits the use of cutback asphalts, and a lack of training is not sufficient reason for the 1000 gallons exemptions.

(2) USEPA is disapproving Section V [Rule 3745-21-09(V)], because it contains an alternative leak testing procedure for gasoline tank trucks which USEPA finds to be unapprovable.

(3) USEPA is disapproving exclusion of the external floating roof (crude oil) storage tanks from the secondary seal requirement [Rule 3745-21-09(Z)(1)(a)], because Ohio has not demonstrated that the relaxation would not interfere with the timely attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS for ozone.

(4) USEPA is disapproving compliance test method Section G, [Rule 3745-21-10] as an alternative leak testing procedure for gasoline tank trucks, because such action on Section G, is consistent with USEPA's action on Rule 3745-21-09(V), which USEPA finds to be unapprovable.

(5) USEPA is disapproving compliance test method Section H, [Rule 3745-21-10], which involves a pressure test of only the vapor recovery lines and associated equipment. Compliance test method Section H is inconsistent with USEPA's control technique guidances and with tank truck certification regulations that are in effect in 19 other States. In addition, OEPA has presented no acceptable evidence demonstrating why this rule constitutes RACT.

[38 FR 30974, Nov. 8, 1973, as amended at 39 FR 13542, Apr. 15, 1974; 51 FR 40676, Nov. 7, 1986; 54 FR 1940, Jan. 18, 1989]