[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 18, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19435-19447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7352]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-1022; FRL-8301-7]
Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of the Youngstown Area to
Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 15, 2007, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(Ohio EPA), submitted a request for a redesignation of its portion of
the Youngstown area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), and a request for EPA approval of an
ozone maintenance plan for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties,
Ohio. The State public hearing on the submittal was held on January 9,
2007.
EPA is proposing to determine that the Youngstown area has attained
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA believes that the State's ozone maintenance
plan for the area is acceptable and, in conjunction with projected
emissions in the Pennsylvania portion of the area (Mercer County), will
provide for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in these Counties
through 2018. EPA is proposing approval of the State's request to
redesignate Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio to
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve
the Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX) Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio for purposes of transportation
conformity determinations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 18, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-1022, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected].
Fax: (312) 886-5824.
Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section,
Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77
[[Page 19436]]
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office's official hours of operation are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-1022. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI, or otherwise protected, through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters and any form of
encryption, and should be free of any defects or viruses. For
additional instructions on submitting comments, go to section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hardcopy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hardcopy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Patricia Morris, Environmental
Scientist, at (312) 353-8656, before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Morris, Environmental
Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8656, [email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' Is used, we mean the EPA. This supplementary
information section is arranged as follows:
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?
III. What Is the Background for These Actions?
IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
V. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request and What Is the
Basis for EPA's Proposed Actions?
VI. Has Ohio Adopted Acceptable Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for
the Ozone Maintenance Plan Which Can Be Used To Support Conformity
Determinations?
VII. What Action Is EPA Taking?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
2. Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?
We are proposing to take several related actions for Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio. First, we are proposing to
determine that the interstate Youngstown area (officially, the
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon PA-OH area as defined for 8-hour ozone
designation purposes) has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Second, we
are proposing to approve Ohio's ozone maintenance plan for Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties as a requested revision to the Ohio
State Implementation Plan (SIP). The maintenance plan is designed to
keep the area in attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 11
years, through 2018. Thirdly, we are proposing to find that the Ohio
portion of this area (Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties), has
met the requirements for redesignation to attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Fourth, as supported by, and consistent with, the ozone maintenance
plan, we are also proposing to approve the 2009 and 2018 VOC and
NOX MVEBs for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties
for transportation conformity determination purposes.
These proposed actions pertain to the designations of Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
to the emission controls in these counties related to the attainment
and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. If you own or operate a VOC
or NOX emissions source in these counties or live in these
counties, this proposed rule may impact or apply to you. It may also
impact you if you are involved in transportation planning or
implementation of emission controls in this area. It may also impact
you if you breathe air which has passed through the Youngstown area, or
if you are concerned with clean air, human health or the environment.
III. What Is the Background for These Actions?
A. General Background
In EPA's April 30, 2004, rulemaking establishing designations and
classifications for the 8-hour ozone standard, EPA designated the
Youngstown area as subpart 1 nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard. EPA based the designation on ozone data collected during the
2001-2003 period.
On December 4, 2006, the State of Ohio submitted a request for
redesignation of Mahoning, Trumbull,
[[Page 19437]]
and Columbiana Counties to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based
on ozone data collected in these counties and Mercer County,
Pennsylvania during the 2004-2006 period. On January 9, 2007, the State
of Ohio held a public hearing on the ozone redesignation request and
ozone maintenance plan. Based on a February 15, 2007, submittal from
the State, all information contained in the State's December 4, 2006,
ozone redesignation request submittal was unchanged through the State's
public review process.
B. What Is the Impact of the December 22, 2006, United States Court of
Appeals Decision Regarding EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule?
1. Summary of Court Decision
On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-
hour Ozone Standard (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). South Coast Air
Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F. 3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The
Court held that certain provisions of EPA's Phase I Rule were
inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The Court
rejected EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in
nonattainment areas under Subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2 of Title I,
part D of the Act. The Court also held that EPA improperly failed to
retain four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the
anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) Nonattainment area
New Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an area's 1-hour
nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour
severe or extreme nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be implemented
pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the
contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress toward
attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS;
and (4) certain conformity requirements for certain types of Federal
actions. The Court upheld EPA's authority to revoke the 1-hour standard
provided there were adequate anti-backsliding provisions.
This section sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the
Court's ruling on this redesignation action. For the reasons set forth
below, EPA does not believe that the Court's ruling alters any
requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to preclude
redesignation, and does not prevent EPA from finalizing this
redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's decision, as it currently
stands or as it may be modified based upon any petition for rehearing
that has been filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward with
redesignation of this area to attainment, because in either
circumstance redesignation is appropriate under the relevant
redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding policies regarding
redesignation requests.
2. Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard
With respect to the 8-hour standard, the court's ruling rejected
EPA's reasons for classifying areas under Subpart 1 for the 8-hour
standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency. Consequently, it is
possible that this area could, during a remand to EPA, be reclassified
under Subpart 2. although any future decision by EPA to classify this
area under subpart 2 might trigger additional future requirements for
the area, EPA believes that this does not mean that redesignation
cannot now go forward. This belief is based upon (1) EPA's longstanding
policy of evaluating redesignation requirements in accordance with the
requirements due at the time the request was submitted; and (2)
consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any
requirements that might be applied in the future.
First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the
Youngstown area was classified under Subpart 1 and was obligated to
meet the Subpart 1 requirements. Under EPA's longstanding
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to qualify
for redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must
meet only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the
submittal of a complete redesignation request. September 4, 1992
Calcagni memorandum (``Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division). See also Michael Shapiro
Memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7,
1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.
3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004), which upheld this interpretation. See, e.g.,
also 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St.
Louis).
Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new
SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was
submitted. The DC Circuit has recognized the inequity in such
retroactive rulemaking. See Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F. 3d 63 (D.C.
Cir. 2002), in which the DC Circuit upheld a District Court's ruling
refusing to make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date. Such a determination would have
resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area. The
Court stated: ``Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment
determination within the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed
solution only makes the situation worse. Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the States, which would face fines and
suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even
though they were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly,
here it would be unfair to penalize the area by applying to it for
purposes of redesignation additional SIP requirements under Subpart 2
that were not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation
request.
3. Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard
With respect to the 1-hour standard requirements, Mahoning and
Trumbull Counties and also, separately, Columbiana County were
designated as an Attainment area subject to a Clean Air Act section
175A maintenance plan under the 1-hour standard. The Court's ruling
does not impact redesignation requests for these types of areas.
First, there are no conformity requirements that are relevant for
redesignation requests, including the requirement to submit a
transportation conformity SIP.\1\ Under longstanding EPA policy, EPA
believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirement as not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation
request under section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still
required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where
state rules have not been approved. 40 CFR 51.390. See Wall v. EPA, 265
F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See also 60
FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995) (Tampa, FL redesignation). EPA approved Ohio's
general and transportation conformity SIPs on March 11, 1996 (61 FR
9646) and May 30, 2000 (65 FR 34395), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(E) currently requires States
to submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain Federal
criteria and procedures for determining transportation conformity.
Transportation conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle
emissions budgets that are established in control strategy SIPs and
maintenance plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, with respect to the three other anti-backsliding provisions
for the 1-hour standard that the Court found were not properly
retained, Mahoning and Trumbull Counties and separately
[[Page 19438]]
Columbiana County are attainment areas subject to maintenance plans for
the 1-hour standard, and the NSR, contingency measure (pursuant to
section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)) and fee provision requirements no
longer apply to an area that has been redesignated to attainment of the
1-hour standard.
Thus the decision in South Coast should not alter requirements that
would preclude EPA from finalizing the redesignation of this area.
IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment provided that:
(1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the
applicable NAAQS based on current air quality data; (2) the
Administrator has fully approved an applicable state implementation
plan for the area under section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the
Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable emission reductions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP, Federal air pollution control
regulations, and other permanent and enforceable emission reductions;
(4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the
area meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and (5) the
state containing the area has met all requirements applicable to the
area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
EPA provided guidance on redesignations in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in several guidance documents. A listing of
pertinent guidance documents is provided in other redesignation actions
(for example in the Federal Register of September 9, 2005, at 70 FR
53606).
V. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request and What Is the Basis
for EPA's Proposed Actions?
EPA is proposing to: (1) Determine that the Youngstown area has
attained the 8-hour ozone standard; (2) approve the ozone maintenance
plan for the Ohio portion of this area (Columbiana, Mahoning and
Trumbull counties) and the VOC and NOX MVEBs supported by
this ozone maintenance plan; and, 3) approve the redesignation of the
Ohio portion to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The basis for our proposed determination and approval is as
follows:
1. The Youngstown Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS if there are no violations of the NAAQS, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50 appendix I based on the
most recent three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-
assured air quality monitoring data at all monitoring sites in the
area. For each monitor in the area and nearby, the average of the
annual fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations
measured and recorded over a three-year period must not exceed the
ozone standard. Based on the ozone data rounding convention described
in 40 CFR part 50 appendix I, the 8-hour standard is attained if the
area's ozone design value \2\ is 0.085 ppm (85 ppb) or lower. The data
must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part
50, and must be recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). The ozone
monitors generally should have remained at the same locations for the
duration of the monitoring period required to demonstrate attainment
(for three years or more \3\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The worst-case monitoring site-specific ozone design value
in the area.
\3\ EPA generally opposes terminating or relocating monitors at
sites that are currently recording violations of the ozone standard.
In addition, EPA encourages states to continue monitoring at most
sites over the long term to confirm maintenance of the ozone
standard and to support the determination of robust ozone
concentration trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the December 4, 2006, ozone redesignation request, the
Ohio EPA submitted summarized ozone monitoring data indicating the top
four daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations for each monitoring site
in the Youngstown area during the 2004-2006 period. When the
redesignation request was submitted, the complete 2006 monitoring data
had not been quality assured and the data table submitted by Ohio EPA
shows less than 75% data for the Ohio monitoring sites. However, now
the Ohio EPA has completed all quality assurance procedures and the AQS
system has over 75% data completeness for the Ohio sites. The following
table summarizes the worst-case ozone concentrations that are part of
the quality-assured ozone data collected and recorded in these
Counties. These data have been entered into EPA's AQS. The annual
fourth-high 8-hour daily maximum ozone concentrations, along with their
three-year averages are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1.--Fourth-High 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations
[In parts per billion (ppb)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Monitoring site 2004 2005 2006 Average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mahoning OH............................... 345 Oakhill................. 74 83 76 77
Trumbull OH............................... 6346 Kinsman-Bloomfield Rd.. 78 83 74 78
Trumbull OH............................... 842 Youngstown-Kingsville Rd 80 87 82 83
Mercer PA................................. Pa518 (New Castle Road) & 76 87 79 79
Pa418.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These data show that the site-specific ozone design values (average
fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations over the period
of 2004-2006) for all monitoring sites in the Youngstown area are below
the 85 ppb average ozone standard violation cut-off. These data support
the conclusion that the Youngstown area ozone monitors did not record a
violation of the 8-hour ozone standard during the 2004-2006 period, and
monitored attainment of the standard during this period.
As discussed below with respect to the ozone maintenance plan, the
State commits to continue ozone monitoring in these Counties.
We believe that the data submitted by the State to the AQS provide
an adequate demonstration that the Youngstown area has attained the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, we propose to find that the Youngstown
[[Page 19439]]
area, including Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio, has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
2. Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Have Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and These Areas
Have a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
We have determined that the State of Ohio has met all currently
applicable SIP requirements for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). We
have determined that the Ohio SIP meets currently applicable SIP
requirements under subpart 1 part D of title I of the CAA (requirements
specific to basic ozone nonattainment areas). See section
107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA. In addition, we have determined that the
Ohio SIP is fully approved with respect to all applicable requirements.
See section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA. In making these
determinations, we noted the CAA requirements that are applicable to
the areas, and determined that the applicable portions of the SIP
meeting these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of
the CAA. We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to
currently applicable requirements of the CAA, those CAA requirements
applicable to Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties at the time
the State submits the final, complete ozone redesignation request for
these areas.
a. Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Have Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum (see ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. To qualify for redesignation of an area to
attainment under this interpretation, the state and the area must meet
the relevant CAA requirements that come due prior to the State's
submittal of a complete redesignation request for the area. See also
the September 17, 1993, Michael Shapiro memorandum and 66 FR 12459,
12465-12466 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor,
Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS). Applicable
requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the state's
submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable until a
redesignation of the area to attainment of the standard is approved,
but are not required as prerequisites to redesignation. See Section
175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of the St.
Louis/East St. Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
General SIP requirements: Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA
contains the general requirements for a SIP, which include: Enforceable
emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques;
provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices
necessary to collect data on ambient air quality; and programs to
enforce the emission limitations. General SIP elements and requirements
are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA.
These requirements and SIP elements include, but are not limited to,
the following: (a) Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the
State after reasonable public notice and a hearing; (b) provisions for
establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor
ambient air quality; (c) implementation of a source permit program; (d)
provisions for the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD)) and part D requirements (New Source
Review (NSR)) for new sources or major source modifications; (e)
criteria for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring,
and reporting; (f) provisions for air quality modeling; and, (g)
provisions for public and local agency participation.
SIP requirements and elements are discussed in the following EPA
documents: ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992; ``State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,''
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, October 28, 1992; and ``State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, September 17,
1993.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires SIPs to contain certain
measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing
to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision,
EPA required states to establish programs to address transport of air
pollutants (NOX SIP call and Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR)). EPA has also found, generally, that states have not submitted
SIPs under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA to meet the interstate
transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA (70 FR
21147, April 25, 2005). However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements
for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's
classification. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a
particular nonattainment area's classification are the relevant
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to
apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular
area in the state.
We believe that these requirements should not be construed to be
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. Further, we
believe that the other section 110 elements described above that are
not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and that are not
linked with an area's attainment status are also not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to
these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We
conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements which are
linked with an area's designation and classification are the relevant
measures for evaluating this aspect of a redesignation request. This
approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of
conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for redesignation
purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements.
See: Reading, Pennsylvania proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-
53176, October 10, 1996 and 62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-
Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa,
Florida final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the
discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio ozone redesignation
(65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ozone
redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001).
We believe that section 110 elements not linked to the area's
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Nonetheless, we also note that EPA has previously approved provisions
in the Ohio SIP addressing section 110 elements under the 1-hour
[[Page 19440]]
ozone standard. We have analyzed the Ohio SIP as codified in 40 CFR
part 52, subpart KK and have determined that it is consistent with the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. The SIP, which has been
adopted after reasonable public notice and hearing, contains
enforceable emission limitations; requires monitoring, compiling, and
analyzing ambient air quality data; requires preconstruction review of
new major stationary sources and major modifications of existing
sources; provisions for adequate funding, staff, and associated
resources necessary to implement its requirements; requires stationary
source emissions monitoring and reporting; and, otherwise satisfies the
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2).
Part D SIP requirements: EPA has determined that the Ohio SIP meets
applicable ozone SIP requirements under part D of the CAA. Under part
D, for ozone, an area's classification (subpart 1, marginal, moderate,
serious, severe, and extreme) indicates the requirements to which it
will be subject. Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172-176 of the
CAA, sets forth the basic nonattainment area plan requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of part D, found in
section 182 of the CAA, establishes additional specific requirements
for ozone nonattainment areas depending on the area's nonattainment
classification.
Part D, subpart 1 requirements: For purposes of evaluating this
redesignation request, the applicable requirements are those contained
in Subpart I of Part D, in particular in sections 172(c)(1)-(9) and
176. A thorough discussion of the requirements of section 172 can be
found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR
13498). See also 68 FR 4852-4853, in an ozone redesignation notice of
proposed rulemaking for the St. Louis area, for a discussion of section
172 requirements.
No requirements for the 8-hour ozone standard under part D of the
CAA will come due for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties prior
to June 15, 2007. For example, the requirement for an ozone attainment
demonstration, as contained in section 172(c)(1), is not yet
applicable, nor are the requirements for Reasonably Available Control
Measures (RACM) and Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
(section 172(c)(1)), Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) (section
172(c)(2)), and attainment plan and RFP contingency measures (section
172(c)(9)). All of these required SIP elements are required for
submittal after June 15, 2007, and Ohio has submitted the public
hearing transcript and response to comment to complete the ozone
redesignation request and maintenance plan for Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties prior to the due date. Therefore, none of the part
D requirements are considered to be applicable to Mahoning, Trumbull,
and Columbiana Counties for purposes of redesignation for ozone.
Section 176 conformity requirements: Section 176(c) of the CAA
requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that
Federally-supported or funded activities, including highway projects,
conform to the air planning goals in the applicable SIP. The
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans,
programs, and projects developed, funded, or approved under Title 23
U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as well
as to all other Federally-supported or funded projects (general
conformity). State conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with
Federal conformity regulations that the CAA required the EPA to
promulgate.
In addition to the fact that part D requirements will not become
due prior to Ohio's submittal of the complete ozone redesignation
request for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, and,
therefore, are not believed by the EPA to be applicable for
redesignation purposes in this case, EPA similarly believes that it is
reasonable to interpret the conformity requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating the ozone redesignation request under section
107(d) of the CAA. EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the
conformity requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the
ozone redesignation request under section 107(d) of the CAA because
state conformity rules are still required after redesignation of areas
to attainment of a NAAQS and Federal conformity rules apply where state
rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir.
2001). See also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida). EPA
approved Ohio's general and transportation conformity SIPs on March 11,
1996 (61 FR 9646) and May 30, 2000 (65 FR 34395), respectively.
We conclude that Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties have
satisfied all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of
the CAA to the extent that these requirements apply for purposes of
reviewing the State's ozone redesignation request.
b. Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties have a fully approved
applicable SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA
EPA has fully approved the Ohio SIP for Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties under section 110(k) of the CAA for all applicable
requirements. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request, plus any additional measures it may approve in
conjunction with a redesignation action. See the September 4, 1992 John
Calcagni memorandum, page 3, Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance
v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265
F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the passage
of the CAA of 1970, Ohio has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully
approved, provisions addressing the various required SIP elements
applicable to Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties for purposes
of redesignation. No Mahoning, Trumbull, or Columbiana County SIP
provisions are currently disapproved, conditionally approved, or
partially approved. As indicated above, EPA believes that the section
110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not
linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable
requirements for purposes of review of the State's redesignation
request. EPA also believes that since the part D requirements did not
become due prior to Ohio's submittal of the final, complete
redesignation request, they also are not applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation.
3. The Air Quality Improvements in Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties Are Due To Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
We believe that the State of Ohio has adequately demonstrated that
the observed air quality improvements in Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties are due to permanent and enforceable emission
reductions resulting from the implementation of the SIP, Federal
measures, and other State-adopted measures. In making this
demonstration, the State has documented the changes in VOC and
NOX emissions from all anthropogenic (man-made or man-based)
sources in Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties between 2002, an
ozone standard violation year, and 2004, one of the years in which
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties recorded attainment of the
8-hour ozone standard. The Ohio EPA has also
[[Page 19441]]
discussed permanent and enforceable emission reductions have occurred
elsewhere in the State and in other upwind areas that have contributed
to the air quality improvement in Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties. Table 2 summarizes the VOC and NOX emissions
totals from the anthropogenic sources in 2002 and 2004 for all counties
(Mahoning, Trumbull, Columbiana, and Mercer) in the nonattainment area
as summarized in the State's ozone redesignation submittal. The
Youngstown 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, which is a bi-state area,
must show emission reductions across the entire area. The table shows
all the counties in the area including the Ohio and Pennsylvania
counties.
Table 2.--Total Anthropogenic VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio and Mercer County,
Pennsylvania
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Volatile Organic Compounds
Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total All Source Categories................... 70.51 64.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total All Source Categories................... 95.53 82.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercer County Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total All Source Categories................... 20.80 19.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercer County Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total All Source Categories................... 25.44 22.43
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined Total for Youngstown/Warren/Sharon OH- 91.31 83.65
PA VOCs......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined Total for Youngstown/Warren/Sharon OH- 120.97 104.93
PA NOX.......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the above table, it can be seen that the Youngstown area
experienced decreases in VOC and NOX anthropogenic emissions
between 2002 and 2004. The State of Ohio concludes that the differences
in the 2002 and 2004 emissions are due primarily to the implementation
of permanent and enforceable emission control requirements. The State
asserts that these emission reductions along with those occurring
elsewhere in the State and in upwind areas have led to observed
improvements in ozone air quality in the Youngstown area.
Also, the State notes a significant decline in regional
NOX emissions between 2002 and 2004 as the result of the
implementation of State NOX emission control rules for
combustion sources, primarily Electric Generating Units (EGUs), in
compliance with EPA's NOX SIP call and acid rain control
requirements under title IV of the CAA. Besides the NOX
emission reductions occurring within the State itself, the
implementation of statewide NOX emission control rules
occurred in many States east of the Mississippi River. These emission
reductions are assumed to have contributed significantly to the air
quality improvements in the Youngstown area through the reduction of
transported ozone and ozone precursors. The Youngstown area has several
EGUs which show reductions between 2002 and 2004. The EGU
NOX emissions are reduced from 23.36 tons per year in 2002
to 17.93 tons per day in 2004. These reductions are documented in Table
23 of the Ohio submittal. In addition, the area has benefited from the
NOX emission reductions occurring throughout the State of
Ohio and in the surrounding areas. These regional NOX
emission reductions are considered to be permanent and enforceable.
Besides the implementation of the regional NOX emission
controls, the State of Ohio notes that, in the mid-1990's, the State of
Ohio promulgated statewide rules requiring Reasonably Available Control
Techniques (RACT) for significant new sources of VOC emissions. The
RACT rules have been implemented for significant new VOC sources
locating in Ohio subsequent to the State's adoption of the rules. The
Ohio rules are found in OAC Chapter 3745-21. Additional implemented, or
soon to be implemented, emission control rules include several Federal
rules: (1) Tier II emission standards for vehicles and gasoline sulfur
content standards (promulgated by EPA in February 2000 and currently
being implemented); (2) heavy-duty diesel engine emission control rules
(promulgated by the EPA in July 2000 and currently being implemented);
and, (3) clean air non-road diesel rule (promulgated by the EPA in May
2004 and currently being phased in through 2009). All of these rules
have contributed to reducing VOC and NOX emissions
throughout the State of Ohio (and in other States surrounding Ohio) and
will contribute to further, future emission reductions in Ohio.
The State of Ohio commits to maintain the existing VOC and
NOX emission controls after Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties are redesignated to attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, and these reductions are required to be maintained under the
Ohio SIP.
4. Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Have a Fully Approvable
Ozone Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to redesignate Mahoning, Trumbull,
and Columbiana Counties to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, Ohio
submitted SIP revision requests to provide for maintenance of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in the Youngstown area through 2018, exceeding the 10
year minimum maintenance period required by the CAA.
[[Page 19442]]
a. What Is Required in an Ozone Maintenance Plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the required elements of air
quality maintenance plans for areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment of a NAAQS. Under section 175A, a
maintenance plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the
applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves
the redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation,
the State must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates
that maintenance of the standard will continue for 10 years following
the initial 10 year maintenance period. To address the possibility of
future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems
necessary, to assure prompt correction of any future NAAQS violations.
The September 4, 1992, John Calcagni memorandum provides additional
guidance on the content of maintenance plans. An ozone maintenance plan
should, at minimum, address the following items: (1) The attainment VOC
and NOX emissions inventories; (2) a maintenance
demonstration showing maintenance for the first 10 years of the
maintenance period; (3) a commitment to maintain the existing
monitoring network; (4) factors and procedures to be used for
verification of continued attainment; and, (5) a contingency plan to
prevent and/or correct a future violation of the NAAQS. The Ohio
maintenance plan is designed to work in conjunction with Pennsylvania's
maintenance plan to keep the Youngstown area in attainment for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
b. What Are the Attainment Emission Inventories for Mahoning, Trumbull,
and Columbiana Counties?
Ohio EPA prepared VOC and NOX emission inventories for
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, including point
(significant stationary sources), other (area sources, smaller and
widely-distributed stationary sources), Marine, Aircraft, and Railroad
(MAR) mobile sources, non-road (off-road) mobile sources, and on-road
mobile sources for 2002 (the base nonattainment year), 2004 (the
attainment year), 2009, and 2018 (the projected maintenance year). To
develop the 2004, 2009, and 2018 emission inventories, the Ohio EPA
projected the 2002 emissions applying various source category-specific
growth factors and emission control factors. The State has documented
how the 2002 base year emissions were derived and how these emissions
were projected to derive the 2004, 2009, and 2018 emissions. The
following summarizes the procedures and sources of data used by the
Ohio EPA to derive the 2002 emissions.
i. Point Sources
The primary source of point source information was facility-
specific emissions and source activity data collected annually by the
State for sources covered by Title V \4\ source permits. This
information includes emissions, process rates, source operating
schedules, emissions control data, and other relevant source
information. The State also used emissions data provided by EPA's EGU
emission inventory, maintained to support the NOX SIP call
emissions trading program and the acid rain control/trading program.
The sources included in the 2002 point source emissions inventory were
identified using Ohio's Title V STARS database system. The emissions
included in this database are facility-reported actual emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Title V of the CAA requires source-specific emission permits
detailing all applicable emission control requirements and emission
limits, as specified in the SIP, for each source facility covered by
the State's Title V source permit program and requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio EPA defines point source emissions as those which occur at an
identifiable stationary stack or vent. Point source emissions not
emitted from discrete stacks or vents are defined to be fugitive
emissions. Facility-specific fugitive emissions are also reported by
each Title V facility and stored in the Title V STARS database.
Point source emissions included in the 2002 base year emissions
inventory were provided to the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium
(LADCO). LADCO applied temporal and spatial profiles to calculate July
weekday emissions rates. The Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties' emissions derived from this set of emissions data were split
into EGU emissions and non-EGU emissions for inclusion in the base year
emissions inventory used to support the Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties ozone redesignation request.
ii. Area (Other) Sources
Area sources are those sources which are generally small, numerous,
and have not been inventoried as specific point, mobile, or biogenic
sources. The emissions for these sources are generally calculated using
various surrogates, such as population, estimates of employees in
various occupational groups, etc., and grouped by general source types.
The area source emissions are typically defined at the county level.
Ohio EPA has either used published Emission Inventory Improvement
Program (EIIP) emissions estimation methodologies or other
methodologies typically used by other states to estimate the area
source emissions. Area source categories include: Various stationary
combustion sources (not including the EGU sources included in the point
source portion of the emissions inventory); agricultural pesticides;
architectural surface coatings; auto body refinishing; consumer and
commercial solvent usage; solvent cleaning; fuel marketing; graphic
arts; hospital sterilizers; industrial surface coating (minus point
source emissions for this source category); municipal solid waste
disposal; portable fuel containers; privately owned treatment works;
traffic markings; human cremation; industrial fuel combustion;
residential fuel combustion; structural fires; and miscellaneous source
categories. The State has documented the data sources used for each of
these source categories.
iii. Non-Road Mobile Sources
The non-road mobile source emissions inventory was generated
regionally by running EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM).
LADCO applied spatial and temporal allocations to derive emissions for
a July weekday. The basic non-road algorithm for calculating emissions
in NMIM uses base year equipment populations, average load factors,
available engine powers, activity hours and emission factors to
calculate the emissions.
iv. Marine, Aircraft, and Rail (MAR) Sources
Due to the significance of the emissions from these mobile source
types, the Ohio EPA has decided to treat these source categories
separately from other non-road mobile sources. The MAR emissions
include emissions from commercial marine, aircraft, and locomotive
sources.
Commercial marine vessels consist of several different categories
of vessel types. For each vessel type, there are unique engine types,
emission rates, and activity data sets. The emissions inventory
documentation lists the vessel types and activity data sources by
vessel type, along with special distribution of each vessel type.
Locomotive activity was divided into various rail categories: Class
I operations; Class II/III operations; passenger trains; commuter
lines; and yard operations. Since Class I operations
[[Page 19443]]
are expected to be the most significant rail operations in the three
Counties, operators of Class I operations were queried for activity and
emissions-related information for each railroad line. This approach
provided for more specific estimates of emissions by railroad line.
Class II/III emissions were based on national fuel consumption and per
employee fuel consumption estimates. The number of railroad employees
in each county was used to allocate the fuel consumption to each county
and, therefore, the emissions to each county.
EPA provided the aircraft emission estimates based on Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) published Landing and Take-Off (LTO)
rates by engine type for each airline and major airport in the State of
Ohio. The LTO-engine information was combined with engine type-specific
emission factors developed by the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO), and, through use of a FAA Emissions and Dispersion
Modeling System (EDMS), emissions were calculated and assigned to each
county in the State, including Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties.
The MAR data were processed by LADCO to calculate July 2002 daily
emissions of VOC and NOX.
v. On-Road Mobile Sources
The inventories of on-road mobile source emissions for Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties were developed by the Ohio EPA in
conjunction with the Ohio Department of Transportation (Ohio DOT), the
Eastgate Regional Council of Governments (Eastgate), LADCO, and EPA.
Eastgate utilized a regional travel demand forecast model to simulate
traffic and to forecast traffic flow for given growth expectations in
the metropolitan areas of Mahoning and Trumbull counties. In rural
areas that are not covered by the network model, such as Columbiana
County, the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) data was used
to estimate vehicle mile of travel (VMT). The travel demand forecasting
model was used to predict the total daily vehicle miles traveled and
speeds on roadways. MOBILE6.2 is used to calculate emissions per mile
based on the VMT and speed projections from the travel demand forecast
model. The most current vehicle age distribution data, temperature data
and fuel properties data provided by Ohio EPA was used in the analysis.
vi. Projected Emissions for the Attainment Year
Ambient ozone air quality data showed that Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties met the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 2004-2006 period.
Ohio EPA used emission estimates for 2004 as the ``attainment year''
emissions for the area, to represent the base period emissions for the
demonstrations of maintenance. See the discussion of the demonstrations
of maintenance below. The 2004 emissions were estimated by growing the
emissions from the 2002 base year emission levels.
Ohio EPA used point source growth data provided by individual point
source facilities along with other source category-specific growth
estimates and emission control estimates to estimate stationary source
VOC and NOX emissions for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties. LADCO provided growth and source control projection data to
project VOC and NOX area source emissions. The Metropolitan
Planning Organization for the area, Eastgate, provided projections of
vehicle travel estimates (Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)) and emissions,
with MOBILE 6.2 providing the expected changes in vehicle emission
factors. The estimated 2004 emissions have been compared to the 2002
base year emissions to demonstrate the basis for the improved air
quality in Mahoning, Trumbull and Columbiana Counties. See Table 2
above for a summary of the 2004 VOC and NOX emissions and
for a comparison of these emissions with the 2002 emissions.
c. Demonstration of Maintenance
As part of the December 4, 2006, redesignation request submittal,
Ohio EPA included requested revisions to the Ohio SIP to incorporate
the ozone maintenance plan for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties as required under section 175A of the CAA. Included in the
maintenance plan is the ozone attainment maintenance demonstration.
This demonstration shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through
2018 by documenting attainment year and future projected VOC and
NOX emissions and showing that future emissions of VOC and
NOX will remain at or below the attainment year emission
levels. Note that an ozone maintenance demonstration need not to be
based on ozone modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001),
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094,
53099-53100 (October 19, 2001) and 68 FR 25430-25432 (May 12, 2003).
The Ohio EPA projected the VOC and NOX emissions in
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties to the years of 2009 and
2018 to demonstrate maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least
10 years after the expected redesignation dates for these areas. For
all counties, Ohio EPA used source growth estimates provided by LADCO
along with mobile source growth estimates provided by the Eastgate
travel demand model and MOBILE 6.2 to project the Mahoning, Trumbull,
and Columbiana Counties VOC and NOX emissions.
Table 3 summarizes the VOC and NOX emissions projected
to occur in Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Ohio during the
demonstrated maintenance period. The State of Ohio chose 2018 as a
maintenance year to meet the 10-year maintenance requirement of the
CAA, allowing several years for EPA to complete the redesignation
rulemaking process. The State also chose 2009 as an interim year to
demonstrate that VOC and NOX emissions will remain below the
attainment year levels throughout the 10-year maintenance period. Table
4 summarizes the VOC and NOX emissions projected to occur in
Mercer County, Pennsylvania over the same maintenance period.
Table 3.--Projected VOC and NOX Emissions In Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio
[Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 2018
Source sector Attainment 2009 Interim Maintenance Safety margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Emissions:
Point (includes EGU)........................ 6.02 6.39 7.75 ..............
Area (Other)................................ 24.10 22.86 23.03 ..............
Non-Road Mobile............................. 7.95 6.24 4.90 ..............
On-Road Mobile.............................. 26.21 17.03 9.01 ..............
[[Page 19444]]
Marine-Air-Railroad......................... 0.32 0.29 0.29 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total VOC Emissions..................... 64.60 52.81 44.98 *19.62
NOX Emissions:
Point....................................... 20.25 8.32 12.69 ..............
Area (Other)................................ 2.49 2.79 2.96 ..............
Non-Road Mobile............................. 10.26 8.23 4.21 ..............
On-Road Mobile.............................. 43.50 29.32 11.56 ..............
Marine-Air-Railroad......................... 6.00 4.30 4.01 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total NOX Emissions..................... 82.50 52.96 35.43 *47.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Difference between 2004 attainment year emissions and 2018 maintenance year emissions.
Table 4.--Projected VOC and NOX Emissions In Mercer County, Pennsylvania
[Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 2018
Source sector Attainment 2009 Interim Maintenance Safety margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Emissions:
Point....................................... 1.73 2.73 3.66 ..............
Area (Other)................................ 7.61 7.36 7.83 ..............
Non-Road (includes MAR)..................... 3.78 3.41 2.59 ..............
On-Road Mobile.............................. 5.93 4.23 2.63 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total VOC Emissions..................... 19.05 17.73 16.71 *2.34
NOX Emissions:
Point....................................... 2.93 4.30 5.52 ..............
Area (Other)................................ 0.85 0.88 0.89 ..............
Non-Road (includes MAR)..................... 2.82 2.35 1.44 ..............
On-Road Mobile.............................. 15.83 11.22 4.89 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total NOX Emissions..................... 22.43 18.75 12.74 *9.69
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Difference between 2004 attainment year emissions and 2018 maintenance year emissions.
The Ohio EPA also notes that the State's EGU NOX
emissions control rules stemming from EPA's NOX SIP call and
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), to be implemented after 2006, will
further lower NOX emissions throughout the State and upwind
of Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties. This will result in
decreased ozone and ozone precursor transport into Mahoning, Trumbull,
and Columbiana Counties, and will support maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone standard.
The emissions projections for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties, Ohio and Mercer County, Pennsylvania along with the expected
impacts of the State's EGU NOX control rules lead to the
conclusion that the Youngstown area should maintain the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS throughout the required 10-year maintenance period and through
2018. The projected decreases in local VOC and local and regional
NOX emissions indicate that peak ozone levels in the
Youngstown area may actually further decline during the maintenance
period.
Based on the comparison of the projected emissions and the
attainment year emissions, we conclude that Ohio EPA has successfully
demonstrated that the 8-hour ozone standard should be maintained in
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties. We believe that this is
especially likely given the expected impacts of the NOX SIP
call and CAIR. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that
other states in the eastern portion of the United States are also
expected to reduce regional NOX emissions through
implementation of their NOX emission control rules for EGUs
and other NOX sources through the implementation of the
NOX SIP call and CAIR.
d. Contingency Plan
Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the
State will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that might occur
after redesignation. The maintenance plan must identify the contingency
measures to be considered for possible adoption, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and implementation of the selected contingency
measures, and a time limit for action by the State. The State should
also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The
maintenance plan must include a requirement that the State will
continue to implement all measures with respect to control of the
pollutant(s) that were included in the SIP before the redesignation of
the area to attainment. See section 175A(d) of the CAA.
As required by section 175A of the CAA, Ohio has adopted
contingency plans to help address possible future ozone air quality
problems in the Youngstown area. The contingency plans have two levels
of actions/responses depending on whether a violation of the 8-hour
ozone standard is only threatened (Warning Level
[[Page 19445]]
Response), has actually occurred or appears to be very imminent (Action
Level Response).
A Warning Level Response will be triggered whenever an annual (1-
year) fourth-high monitored 8-hour ozone concentration of 88 ppb occurs
in a single ozone season in the Youngstown area. A Warning Level
Response will consist of a study to determine whether the high ozone
value indicates a trend toward higher ozone concentrations or whether
emissions appear to be increasing. The study will evaluate whether the
trend, if any, is likely to continue and, if so, the control measures
necessary to reverse the trend will be selected for evaluation and
possible adoption. Implementation of necessary controls in response to
a Warning Level Response triggering will take place as expeditiously as
possible, but in no event later than 12 months from the conclusion of
the most recent ozone season (September 30).
An Action Level Response will be triggered whenever a two year
averaged annual fourth-high monitored 8-hour ozone concentration of 85
ppb occurs within the Youngstown area, or whenever a violation of the
8-hour ozone standard is actually monitored in either the Ohio or
Pennsylvania portions of the Youngstown area. Ohio and Pennsylvania
have agreed to work together to address any possible future violation
of the 8-hour ozone standard. In the event that an Action Level
Response is triggered and is not due to an exceptional event,
malfunction, or noncompliance with a source permit condition or rule
requirement, Ohio EPA will determine the additional emission control
measures needed to assure future attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
Emission control measures that can be implemented in a short time will
be selected in order to be in place within 18 months from the close of
the ozone season that prompted the Action Level Response. Any new
emission control measure that is selected for implementation will be
given a public review. If a new emission control measure is already
promulgated and scheduled to be implemented at the Federal or State
level and if that emission control measure is determined to be
sufficient to address the ozone air quality problem, additional local
measures may be unnecessary. Ohio EPA will submit to the EPA an
analysis to assess whether the proposed emission control measures are
adequate to reverse the increase in peak ozone concentrations and to
maintain the 8-hour ozone standard in the maintenance area. The
selection of emission control measures will be based on cost-
effectiveness, emission reduction potential, economic and social
considerations, or other factors that the Ohio EPA deems to be
appropriate. Selected emission control measures will be subjected to
public review and the State will seek public input prior to selecting
new emission control measures. Finally, emission control measures that
can be implemented in a short period of time will be selected in order
to be in place within 18 months from the close of the ozone season in
which the Action Level Response is triggered.
The State's redesignation request indicates that the contingency
measures to be considered will be selected from a comprehensive list of
measures deemed appropriate and effective at the time the selection is
made (after the need for contingency measures is triggered). The
selection of candidate contingency measures will be based on cost-
effectiveness, emission reduction potential, economic and social
considerations, and other factors that the Ohio EPA deems to be
appropriate. Ohio will solicit input from interested and affected
persons in the subject maintenance area prior to final selection of
contingency measures.
Although it is not possible at this time to specify which
contingency measures would actually be implemented, the Ohio EPA has
listed possible contingency measures. These include:
Low Reid vapor pressure gasoline;
Tightening of RACT on existing sources covered by EPA
Control Technique Guidelines issued in response to the 1990 Clean Air
Act amendments;
Application of RACT to smaller existing sources;
One or more transportation control measures sufficient to
achieve at least half of a percent reduction in actual area-wide VOC
emissions. The transportation control measures to be considered
include:
Trip reduction programs, including: Employer-based
transportation management plans; area-wide rideshare programs; work
schedule changes; and telecommuting;
Traffic flow and transit improvements; and
Other new or innovative transportation measures not yet in
widespread use that affected state and local governments deem
appropriate;
Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit programs for fleet
vehicle operations;
Controls on consumer products consistent with those
adopted elsewhere in the United States;
Requirements for VOC or NOX emission offsets
for new and modified major sources;
Requirements for VOC or NOX emission offsets
for new and modified minor sources;
Increase of the ratio of emission offsets required for new
sources; and
Requirements for VOC or NOX emission controls
on new minor sources (with emissions of less than 100 tons per year).
No contingency measures will be adopted and implemented without
providing the opportunity for full public participation and comment in
the contingency measure selection process.
A list of VOC and NOX source types potentially subject
to future emission controls include:
NOX RACT:
EGUs
Asphalt batching plants
Industrial/commercial and institutional boilers
Process heaters
Internal combustion engines
Combustion turbines
Other sources with NOX emissions exceeding 100 tons
per year
VOC RACT:
Consumer products
Architectural and industrial maintenance coatings
Stage I gasoline dispensing facilities
Automobile refinishing shops
Cold cleaner degreasers
Portable fuel containers
Synthetic organic compound manufacturing
Wood manufacturing
Industrial wastewater
Aerospace industry
Ship building
Bakeries
Plastic parts coating
Volatile organic liquid storage
Industrial solvent cleaning
Offset lithography
Industrial surface coating
Other VOC sources with emissions exceeding 50 tons per year.
e. Provisions for a Future Update of the Ozone Maintenance Plan
As required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, the State commits to
review the maintenance plans 8 years after redesignation of Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties to attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS as required by section 175A of the CAA.
We consider Ohio's ozone maintenance demonstration and contingency
plan to be acceptable.
[[Page 19446]]
VI. Has Ohio Adopted Acceptable Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the
Ozone Maintenance Plan Which Can Be Used To Support Conformity
Determinations?
A. How Are the Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets Developed and What Are
the Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties?
Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, SIP
revisions and ozone maintenance plans for applicable areas (for ozone
nonattainment areas and for areas seeking redesignations to attainment
of the ozone standard or revising existing ozone maintenance plans).
These emission control SIP revisions (e.g. reasonable further progress
and attainment demonstration SIP revisions), including ozone
maintenance plans, must create MVEBs based on on-road mobile source
emissions that are allocated to highway and transit vehicle use that,
together with emissions from other sources in the area, will provide
for attainment or maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.
Under 40 CFR part 93, MVEBs for an area seeking a redesignation to
attainment of the NAAQS are established for the last year of the
maintenance plan (for the maintenance demonstration year). The State
has the option to establish additional MVEBs for additional years as
deemed appropriate by the interagency consultation process. The MVEBs
serve as ceilings on mobile source emissions from an area's planned
transportation system and are used to test planned transportation
system changes or projects to assure compliance with the emission
limits assumed in the SIP. The MVEB 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 MVEBs in
the SIP and how to revise the MVEBs if needed.
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such
as the construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e., be
consistent with) the part of the SIP that addresses emissions from
cars, trucks, and other on-roadway vehicles. Conformity to the SIP
means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality
standard violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a
transportation plan does not conform, most new transportation projects
that would expand the capacity of the roadways cannot go forward.
Regulations at 40 CFR Part 93 set forth EPA's policy, criteria, and
procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of transportation
activities to a SIP.
The Transportation Conformity Rule, in 40 CFR 93.118(f), provides
for adequacy findings through two mechanisms. First, 40 CFR
93.118(f)(1) provides for posting a notice to the EPA conformity Web
site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm
and providing a 30-day public comment period. Second, a mechanism is
described in 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2) which provides that EPA can review the
adequacy of an implementation plan submission simultaneously with its
review of the implementation plan itself. For this area, EPA is using
the first process and posted the notice on our adequacy Web site on
December 11, 2006. The comment period closed January 11, 2007, without
any comments from the public on the adequacy of the MVEBs.
Both Ohio and Pennsylvania are establishing separate State budgets
in the Ohio and Pennsylvania maintenance plans. When conducting
transportation conformity determinations, the Eastgate Regional Council
of Governments will use the budgets established for Mahoning, Trumbull,
and Columbiana Counties. Mobile source emissions will be constrained by
both the Ohio maintenance plan budgets and the budgets established for
Mercer County by Pennsylvania. These budgets will assure that mobile
source emissions do not increase and that the air quality remains below
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties ozone maintenance
plan contains VOC and NOX MVEBs for the years 2009 and 2018.
EPA has reviewed the submittal and has found that the MVEBs for
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties meet the adequacy criteria
in the Transportation Conformity Rule.
EPA, through this rulemaking, is proposing to approve the MVEBs for
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties because EPA has determined
that the budgets are consistent with the control measures and future
emissions projected in the SIP and that Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties can maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
for the relevant required 10-year period with mobile source emissions
at the levels of the MVEBs. Ohio EPA has determined the 2018 MVEBs for
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties to be 10.36 tons per day
for VOC and 13.29 tons per day for NOX and the 2009 MVEBs
for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties to be 19.58 tons per
day for VOC and 33.71 tons per day for NOX. These MVEBs
exceed the on-road mobile source VOC and NOX emissions
projected by the Ohio EPA for 2009 and 2018, but do not exceed the
levels necessary for continued maintenance of the NAAQS. Through
discussions with all organizations involved in transportation planning
for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio EPA decided to
include 15 percent safety margins in the MVEBs to provide for mobile
source growth not anticipated in the projected 2009 and 2018 emissions.
Ohio EPA has demonstrated that Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties can maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile source
emissions at the levels of the MVEBs since total source emissions with
the increased mobile source emissions will remain under the attainment
year levels. These MVEBs will be separate state area budgets for
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio. Pennsylvania
established MVEBs for Mercer County through the 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan that was submitted with Pennsylvania's request for
redesignation. Action on the Pennsylvania MVEBs will be taken through
separate rulemaking.
B. 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 for a future maintenance
year. As noted in Tables 3 and 4 above, Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties are projected to have a VOC safety margin of 22.42
tons per day and a NOX safety margin of 47.07 tons per day
in 2018. The addition of a portion of the safety margin to the MVEBs
continues to maintain the emissions levels below the attainment level.
C. Are the MVEBs Approvable?
The 2009 and 2018 VOC and NOX MVEBs for Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties (see Table 5) are approvable because
they maintain the total emissions for Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties at or below the attainment year emission inventory
levels, as required by the transportation conformity regulations.
[[Page 19447]]
Table 5.--Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Columbiana, Mahoning and
Trumbull Counties, Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Year
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Ohio budgets 2009 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC (tons/day).......................................... 19.58 10.36
NOX (tons/day).......................................... 33.71 13.29
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. What Action Is EPA Taking?
EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Youngstown area
is attainment the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and EPA is proposing to approve
Ohio's maintenance plan for assuring that the area will continue to
attain this standard. The maintenance plan demonstrates maintenance to
the year 2018 and includes contingency measures to remedy possible
future violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and establishes 2009 and
2018 MVEBs for these Counties. EPA is proposing to approve the 2018
MVEBs submitted by Ohio in conjunction with the redesignation request.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
Paperwork Reduction Act
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.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
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.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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).
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
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 a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act.
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
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 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).
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
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.
Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant regulatory action,'' 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).
National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a
prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of
a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the
Clean Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA
do not apply.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: April 6, 2007.
Walter W. Kovalick,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E7-7352 Filed 4-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P