[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 144 (Friday, July 27, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41246-41258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-14589]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0344; FRL-8447-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Mercer County Portion of the
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, OH-PA 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to
Attainment and Approval of the Associated Maintenance Plan and 2002
Base-Year Inventory
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a redesignation request and State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) is requesting that the Mercer County portion of the Youngstown-
Warren-Sharon, OH-PA ozone nonattainment area (``Youngstown Area'' or
``Area'') be redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The Area is comprised of Mercer
County, Pennsylvania and Trumbull, Mahoning, and Columbiana Counties,
Ohio. In this rulemaking action EPA is proposing to approve the ozone
redesignation request, maintenance plan, and 2002 base year inventory
for Mercer County. In a separate rulemaking action (72 FR 19435, April
18, 2007) EPA proposed to approve the ozone redesignation request for
Trumbull, Mahoning, and Columbiana Counties. In conjunction with its
redesignation request, the Commonwealth submitted a SIP revision
consisting of a maintenance plan for Mercer County that provides for
continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years
after redesignation. EPA is proposing to make a determination that
Mercer County has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based upon three
years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data
for 2004-2006. EPA's proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone
redesignation request is based on its determination that the Area has
met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean
Air Act (CAA). In addition, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has also
submitted a 2002 base-year inventory for Mercer County, and EPA is
proposing to approve that inventory for Mercer County as a SIP
revision. EPA is also providing information on the status of its
adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs)
that are identified in the maintenance plan for Mercer County for
purposes of transportation conformity, and is also proposing to approve
those MVEBs. Note that separate conformity budgets are being
established by Ohio for Trumbull, Mahoning, and Columbiana Counties.
EPA is proposing approval of the redesignation request and of the
maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory SIP revisions in
accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 27, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2007-0344 by one of the following methods:
A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
B. E-mail: [email protected].
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0344, Christopher Cripps, Acting Chief,
Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2007-0344. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 http://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, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468,
400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Caprio, (215) 814-2156, or by e-
mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever
[[Page 41247]]
``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table Of Contents
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing To Take?
II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Commonwealth's Request?
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and
Identified in the Maintenance Plan for Mercer County Adequate and
Approvable?
VIII. Proposed Actions
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing To Take?
On March 27, 2007, the PADEP formally submitted a request to
redesignate Mercer County from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-
hour NAAQS for ozone. Concurrently, Pennsylvania submitted a
maintenance plan for Mercer County as a SIP revision to ensure
continued attainment throughout the Youngstown Area over the next 11
years. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base-year inventory for Mercer
County as a SIP revision. The Youngstown Area is comprised of Mercer
County, Pennsylvania and Trumbull, Mahoning, and Columbiana Counties,
Ohio. It is currently designated a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area. EPA is proposing to determine that Mercer County has attained the
8-hour ozone NAAQS and that it has met the requirements for
redesignation pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is,
therefore, proposing to approve the redesignation request to change the
designation of Mercer County from nonattainment to attainment for the
8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the Mercer County
maintenance plan as a SIP revision for Mercer County (such approval
being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status).
The maintenance plan is designed to ensure continued attainment in
Mercer County for the next 11 years. EPA is also proposing to approve
the 2002 base-year inventory for Mercer County as a SIP revision.
Additionally, EPA is announcing its action on the adequacy process for
the MVEBs identified in the Mercer County maintenance plan, and
proposing to approve the MVEBs identified for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) for Mercer County
for transportation conformity purposes. Note that in a separate
rulemaking action (72 FR 19435, April 18, 2007) EPA is proposing to
approve Trumbull, Mahoning, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio MVEBs.
II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions?
A. General
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emissions of NOX and VOC react in the presence of sunlight
to form ground-level ozone. The air pollutants NOX and VOC
are referred to as precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process
for air quality management through the attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent
than the previous 1-hour standard. EPA designated, as nonattainment,
any area violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the air quality data
for the three years of 2001-2003. These were the most recent three
years of data at the time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The Youngstown
Area was designated a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area in a
Federal Register notice signed on April 15, 2004 and published on April
30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its exceedance of the 8-hour health-
based standard for ozone during the years 2001-2003.
On April 30, 2004, EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) to
revoke the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Youngstown Area (as well as most
other areas of the country), effective June 15, 2005. See, 40 CFR
50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 (April 30, 2004); 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005).
However, 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 (DC Cir. 2006)
(hereafter ``South Coast''). On June 8, 2007, in South Coast Air
Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, Docket No. 04-1201, in response to
several petitions for rehearing, the DC Circuit clarified that the
Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule
that had been successfully challenged. Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule
provisions related to classifications for areas currently classified
under subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the Act as 8-hour nonattainment
areas, the 8-hour attainment dates and the timing for emissions
reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS remain
effective. The June 8 decision left intact the Court's rejection of
EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in certain
nonattainment areas under Subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By limiting
the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-hour
standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that
had not been successfully challenged. The June 8 decision reaffirmed
the December 22, 2006 decision that EPA had 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 transportation conformity requirements for certain
types of federal actions. The June 8 decision clarified that the
Court's reference to conformity requirements was limited to requiring
the continued use of 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8-
hour budgets were available for 8-hour conformity determinations.
Elsewhere in this document, mainly in section VI.B. ``Mercer County Has
Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA,'' EPA
discusses its rationale why the decision in South Coast is not an
impediment to redesignating Mercer County to attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
The CAA, title I, Part D, contains two sets of provisions--subpart
1 and subpart 2--that address planning and control requirements for
nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as ``basic''
nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive requirements for
nonattainment areas for any pollutant--including ozone--governed by a
NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as ``classified'' nonattainment)
provides more specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. In
2004, the Youngstown Area was classified a basic 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003.
Therefore, the Youngstown Area is subject to the requirements of
subpart 1 of Part D.
Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when
the 3-
[[Page 41248]]
year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08
ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). See 69 FR 23857
(April 30, 2004) for further information. Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet data completeness
requirements. The data completeness requirements are met when the
average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater
than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data
completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. The ozone
monitoring data indicates that the Youngstown Area has a design value
of 0.083 ppm for the 3-year period of 2004-2006, using complete,
quality-assured data. Therefore, the ambient ozone data for the
Youngstown Area indicates no violations of the 8-hour ozone standard.
B. The Youngstown Area
The Youngstown Area consists of Mercer County, Pennsylvania and
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio. Prior to its
designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the Youngstown Area
was a marginal 1-hour ozone nonattainment area, and therefore, was
subject to requirements for marginal nonattainment areas pursuant to
section 182(a) of the CAA. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). EPA
determined that the Youngstown Area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
by the November 15, 1993 attainment date (60 FR 3349, January 17,
1995). The Ohio counties were subsequently redesignated as attainment
(Mahoning and Trumbull Counties on January 31, 1996 (61 FR 3319) and
Columbiana County on February 8, 1995 (60 FR 7453)).
On March 27, 2007, the PADEP requested that Mercer County be
redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The
redesignation request included three years of complete, quality-assured
data for the period of 2004-2006, indicating that the 8-hour NAAQS for
ozone had been achieved in the Youngstown Area. The data satisfies the
CAA requirements that the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration (commonly referred to
as the area's design value), must be less than or equal to 0.08 ppm
(i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). Under the CAA, a
nonattainment area may be redesignated if sufficient complete, quality-
assured data is available to determine that the area attained the
standard and the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements
set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E).
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA,
allows for redesignation, providing that:
(1) EPA determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS;
(2) EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k);
(3) EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable
reductions;
(4) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section 175A; and
(5) The State containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and Part D.
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 has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents:
``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,''
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June, 18, 1990;
``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
``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 (Act) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John
Calcagni Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
``Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for Redesignation
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from
G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17,
1993;
``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 for Air and Radiation, September 17,
1993;
Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air
Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10,
``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and
CO Nonattainment Areas,'' dated November 30, 1993;
``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for
Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration,
and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S.
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10,
1995.
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
On March 27, 2007, the PADEP requested redesignation of Mercer
County to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. On March 27, 2007,
PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for Mercer County as a SIP revision,
to ensure continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS over the next
11 years, until 2018. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base-year inventory
concurrently with its maintenance plan as a SIP revision. EPA has
determined that Mercer County has attained the 8-hour ozone standard
and has met the requirements for redesignation set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E).
V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?
Approval of the redesignation request would change the official
designation of Mercer County from nonattainment to attainment for the
8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate
into the Pennsylvania SIP a 2002 base-year inventory and a maintenance
plan ensuring continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Mercer
County for the next 11 years, until 2018. The maintenance plan
[[Page 41249]]
includes contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 8-
hour NAAQS (should they occur), and identifies the NOX and
VOC MVEBs (Mercer County only) for transportation conformity purposes
for the years 2009 and 2018. These MVEBs are displayed in the following
table:
Table 1.--Mercer County Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per
Summer Day (tpsd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009.................................................. 4.2 11.2
2018.................................................. 2.6 4.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Commonwealth's Request?
EPA is proposing to determine that Mercer County has attained the
8-hour ozone standard, and that all other redesignation criteria have
been met. The following is a description of how the PADEP's March 27,
2007 submittal satisfies the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA.
A. Mercer County Has Attained the 8-Hour NAAQS
EPA is proposing to determine that Mercer County 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, as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of Part 50,
based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured
air quality monitoring data. To attain this standard, the design value,
which is the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor, within the area,
over each year must not exceed the ozone standard of 0.08 ppm. Based on
the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the
standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The
data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58, and recorded in the Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors
generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of
the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment.
In the Youngstown Area, there are four ozone monitors, one located
in Mahoning County, Ohio, two located in Trumbull County, Ohio and one
in Mercer County, Pennsylvania that measure air quality with respect to
ozone. As part of its redesignation request, Pennsylvania referenced
ozone monitoring data for the years 2004-2006 for the Youngstown Area.
This data has been quality assured and is recorded in the AQS. The
PADEP uses the AQS as the permanent database to maintain its data and
quality assures the data transfers and content for accuracy. The
fourth-high 8-hour daily maximum concentrations, along with the three-
year average are summarized in Tables 2-5.
Table 2.--Youngstown Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Average Values Mercer
County, Pennsylvania Monitor/AQS ID 42-085-0100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 4th
highest
Year reading
(ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004....................................................... 0.076
2005....................................................... 0.087
2006....................................................... 0.079
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.079 ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--Youngstown Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Average Values Mahoning
County, Ohio Monitor/AQS ID 39-099-0013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 4th
highest
Year reading
(ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004....................................................... 0.074
2005....................................................... 0.083
2006....................................................... 0.076
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.077 ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--Youngstown Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Average Values Trumbull
County, Ohio Monitor/AQS ID 39-155-0009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 4th
highest
Year reading
(ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004....................................................... 0.078
2005....................................................... 0.083
2006....................................................... 0.074
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.078 ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5.--Youngstown Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Average Values Trumbull
County, Ohio Monitor/AQS ID 39-155-0011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 4th
highest
Year reading
(ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004....................................................... 0.080
2005....................................................... 0.087
2006....................................................... 0.082
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.083 ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The air quality data for 2004-2006 show that the Youngstown Area
has attained the standard with a design value of 0.083 ppm. The data
collected at the Youngstown Area monitors satisfy the CAA requirement
that the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The
PADEP's request for redesignation for Mercer County indicates that the
data is complete and was quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR part
58. In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance
plan, PADEP has committed to continue monitoring in accordance with 40
CFR part 58. In summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by
Pennsylvania and data taken from AQS indicate that the Youngstown Area
has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
B. Mercer County Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110
and Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k)
of the CAA
EPA has determined that Mercer County has met all SIP requirements
applicable for purposes of this redesignation under section 110 of the
CAA (General SIP Requirements) and that it meets all applicable SIP
requirements under Part D of Title I of the CAA, in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has determined that the SIP
is fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii).
In making these proposed determinations, EPA ascertained which
requirements are applicable to Mercer County 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 applicable requirements.
[[Page 41250]]
The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (``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) with respect to the timing of applicable requirements.
Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation, States
requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant CAA
requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete
redesignation request. See also, Michael Shapiro memorandum, September
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-12466 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation
of Detroit-Ann Arbor). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due
subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request
remain applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not
required as a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the
CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also, 68 FR
at 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).
This section sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the
Court's rulings on this proposed redesignation action. For the reasons
set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's rulings alter
any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to
preclude redesignation, and do not prevent EPA from proposing or
ultimately finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's
December 22, 2006 and June 8, 2007 decisions impose no impediment to
moving forward with redesignation of this area to attainment, because
even in light of the Court's decisions, redesignation is appropriate
under the relevant redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding
policies regarding redesignation requests.
1. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general
requirements for a SIP, which includes enforceable emissions
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 limitations. The general SIP elements and requirements set
forth in section 110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to the
following:
Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State
after reasonable public notice and hearing;
Provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate
procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;
Implementation of a source permit program; provisions for
the implementation of Part C requirements (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD));
Provisions for the implementation of Part D requirements
for New Source Review (NSR) permit programs;
Provisions for air pollution modeling; and
Provisions for public and local agency participation in
planning and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another State. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants in accordance with the NOX SIP Call, October
27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOX SIP Call, May
14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). However, the
section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are not linked with a
particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that
State. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classifications 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. Thus, we do not believe that these requirements are
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an
area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes
of redesignation. The Area will still be subject to these requirements
after it is redesignated. The section 110 and Part D requirements which
are linked with a particular area's designation and classification are
the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request.
This policy is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability
of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels
requirement. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings
(61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996), (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 redesignation (65
FR at 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR
at 53099, October 19, 2001). Similarly, with respect to the
NOX SIP Call rules, EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule to
Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the NOX SIP Call
rules are not ``an'' 'applicable requirement' for purposes of section
110(1) because the NOX rules apply regardless of an area's
attainment or nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the 1-hour)
NAAQS.'' 69 FR 23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004).
EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
As we explain later in this notice, no Part D requirements applicable
for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due for
Mercer County prior to submission of the redesignation request.
2. Part D Nonattainment Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard
Pursuant to an April 30, 2004, final rule (69 FR 23951), the
Youngstown Area was designated a basic nonattainment area under subpart
1 for the 8-hour ozone standard. Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in
subpart 1 of Part D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the CAA, found in
subpart 2 of Part D, establishes additional specific requirements
depending on the area's nonattainment classification.
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 of
the Area cannot now go forward. This belief is based upon (1) EPA's
longstanding policy of evaluating redesignation requests in accordance
with the requirements due at the time the request is submitted; and (2)
consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any
requirements that might in the future be applied.
First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, Mercer
County was classified under subpart 1 and was obligated to meet only
subpart 1 requirements. Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of
section
[[Page 41251]]
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. See 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, 12465-12466 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004),
which upheld this interpretation. See 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 D.C. 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 D.C. 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.
With respect to 8-hour subpart 2 requirements, if Mercer County
initially had been classified under subpart 2, the first two Part D
subpart 2 requirements applicable to Mercer County under section 182(a)
of the CAA would be: a base-year inventory requirement pursuant to
section 182(a)(1) of the CAA, and, the emissions statement requirement
pursuant to section 182(a)(3)(B).
As stated previously, these requirements are not yet due for
purposes of redesignation of Mercer County, but nevertheless,
Pennsylvania already has in its approved SIP, an emissions statement
rule for the 1-hour standard that covers all portions of the designated
8-hour nonattainment area and, that satisfies the emissions statement
requirement for the 8-hour standard. See, 25 Pa. Code 135.21(a)(1),
codified at 40 CFR 52.2020; 60 FR 2881, January 12, 1995. With respect
to the base-year inventory requirement, in this notice of proposed
rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base-year inventory
for Mercer County, which was submitted on March 27, 2007, concurrently
with its maintenance plan, into the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing
to approve the 2002 base-year inventory as fulfilling the requirements,
if necessary, of both section 182(a)(1) and section 172(c)(3) of the
CAA. A detailed evaluation of Pennsylvania's 2002 base-year inventory
for Mercer County can be found in a Technical Support Document (TSD)
prepared by EPA for this rulemaking. EPA has determined that the
emission inventory and emissions statement requirements for Mercer
County have been satisfied.
In addition to the fact that Part D requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation did not become due prior to submission of the
redesignation request, EPA believes that the general conformity and NSR
requirements do not require approval prior to redesignation.
With respect to section 176, Conformity Requirements, section
176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures
to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects conform to the
air quality 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 revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability
that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate. EPA believes it is
reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying
for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section
107(d) since State conformity rules are still required after
redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where State rules have
not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426, 438-440 (6th Cir.
2001), upholding this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748 (December 7,
1995).
In the case of Mercer County, EPA has also determined that before
being redesignated, Mercer County need not comply with the requirement
that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation. EPA has
determined that areas being redesignated need not comply with the
requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation,
provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard without
Part D NSR in effect. The rationale for this position is described in a
memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D NSR Requirements
or Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' Normally, State's
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program will become
effective in the area immediately upon redesignation to attainment. See
the more detailed explanations in the following redesignation
rulemakings: Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467-12468 (March 7, 1995); Cleveland-
Akron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville,
KY (66 FR 53665, 53669, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, MI (61 FR
31831, 31836-31837, June 21, 1996). In the case of Mercer County the
Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP (codified at
40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1)) explicitly apply the requirements for NSR in
section 184 of the CAA to ozone attainment areas within the OTR. The
OTR NSR requirements are more stringent than that required for a
marginal or basic ozone nonattainment area. On October 19, 2001 (66 FR
53094), EPA fully approved Pennsylvania's NSR SIP revision consisting
of Pennsylvania's Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations that cover Mercer
County.
EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements,
including the NSR program, as not being applicable for purposes of
redesignation. The rationale for this is based on two considerations.
First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions for the section 184
requirements continues to apply to areas in the OTR after redesignation
to attainment. Therefore, the State remains obligated to have NSR, as
well as RACT, and Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) programs
even after redesignation. Second, the section 184 control measures are
region-wide requirements and do not apply to Mercer County by virtue of
the Area's designation and classification. See 61 FR 53174, 53175-53176
(October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830-24832 (May 7, 1997).
[[Page 41252]]
3. Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard
In its June 8, 2007 decision the Court limited its vacatur so as to
uphold those provisions of the anti-backsliding requirements that were
not successfully challenged. Therefore the Area must meet the federal
anti-backsliding requirements, see 40 CFR 51.900, et seq.; 70 FR 30592,
30604 (May 26, 2005) which apply by virtue of the area's classification
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. As set forth in more detail below, the area
must also address four additional anti-backsliding provisions
identified by the Court in its decisions.
The anti-backsliding provisions at 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1) prescribe 1-
hour ozone NAAQS requirements that continue to apply after revocation
of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS to former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas.
Section 51.905(a)(1)(i) provides that:
The area remains subject to the obligation to adopt and
implement the applicable requirements as defined in section
51.900(f), except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of paragraph
(b) of this section. * * *
Section 51.900(f), as amended by 70 FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005),
states that:
Applicable requirements means for an area the following
requirements to the extent such requirements applied to the area for
the area's classification under section 181(a)(1) of the CAA for the
1-hour NAAQS at the time of designation for the 8-hour NAAQS.
(1) Reasonably available control technology (RACT).
(2) Inspection and maintenance programs (I/M).
(3) Major source applicability cut-offs for purposes of RACT.
(4) Rate of Progress (ROP) reductions.
(5) Stage II vapor recovery.
(6) Clean fuels fleet program under section 183(c)(4) of the CAA.
(7) Clean fuels for boilers under section 182(e)(3) of the CAA.
(8) Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) during heavy traffic
hours as provided section 182(e)(4) of the CAA.
(9) Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under section 182(c)(1) of the
CAA.
(10) Transportation control measures (TCMs) under section 182(c)(5)
of the CAA.
(11) Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provisions of section 182(d)(1) of
the CAA.
(12) NOX requirements under section 182(f) of the CAA.
(13) Attainment demonstration or alternative as provided under Sec.
51.905(a)(1)(ii).
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.905(c), the Area is subject to the
obligations set forth in Sec. Sec. 51.905(a) and 51.900(f).
Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the
Youngstown Area was designated a marginal nonattainment area for the 1-
hour standard. With respect to the 1-hour standard, the applicable
requirements under the anti-backsliding provisions at 40 CFR
51.905(a)(1) for the Youngstown Area are limited to RACT and I/M
programs specified in section 182(a) of the CAA and are discussed in
the following paragraphs:
Section 182(a)(2)(A) required SIP revisions to correct or amend
RACT for sources in marginal areas, such as the Youngstown Area, that
were subject to control technique guidelines (CTGs) issued before
November 15, 1990 pursuant to CAA section 108. On December 22, 1994,
EPA fully approved into the Pennsylvania SIP all corrections required
under section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA (59 FR 65971, December 22, 1994)
(this covers the Mercer County, PA portion of the Youngstown Area). EPA
believes that this requirement applies only to marginal and higher
classified areas under the 1-hour NAAQS pursuant to the 1990 amendments
to the CAA; therefore, this is a one-time requirement. After an area
has fulfilled the section 182(a)(2)(A) requirement for the 1-hour
NAAQS, there is no requirement under the 8-hour NAAQS.
Section 182(a)(2)(B) relates to the savings clause for vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M). It requires marginal areas to adopt
vehicle I/M programs. This provision was not applicable to the
Youngstown Area because this Area did not have and was not required to
have an I/M program before November 15, 1990.
In addition the Court held that EPA should have retained four
additional measures in its anti-backsliding provisions: (1)
Nonattainment area NSR; (2) Section 185 penalty fees; (3) contingency
measures under section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act; and (4) 1-
hour motor vehicle emission budgets that were yet not replaced by 8-
hour emissions budgets. These requirements are addressed below:
With respect to NSR, EPA has determined that areas being
redesignated need not have an approved nonattainment New Source Review
program, for the same reasons discussed previously with respect to the
applicable Part D requirement for the 8-hour standard.
The section 185 penalty fee requirement applies only in severe and
extreme nonattainment areas, and therefore was never applicable in the
Youngstown 1-hour marginal nonattainment area.
With respect to the requirement for submission of contingency
measures for the 1-hour standard, section 182(a) does not require
contingency measures for marginal areas.
The conformity portion of the Court's ruling does not impact the
redesignation request for Mercer County except to the extent that the
Court in its June 8 decision clarified that for those areas with 1-hour
MVEBs, anti-backsliding requires that those 1-hour budgets must be used
for 8-hour conformity determinations until replaced by 8-hour budgets.
There are no applicable 1-hour MVEBs for Mercer County. (As discussed
elsewhere in this document, EPA is only proposing to approve 8-hour
MVEBs for the Mercer County portion of the Youngstown Area.) To meet
this requirement, conformity determinations in such areas must comply
with the applicable requirements of EPA's conformity regulations at 40
CFR part 93. The court clarified that 1-hour conformity determinations
are not required for anti-backsliding purposes.
Thus EPA has concluded that Mercer County has met all requirements
applicable for redesignation under the 1-hour standard.
4. Transport Region Requirements
All areas in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), both attainment and
nonattainment, are subject to additional control requirements under
section 184 for the purpose of reducing interstate transport of
emissions that may contribute to downwind ozone nonattainment. The
section 184 requirements include RACT, NSR, enhanced vehicle inspection
and maintenance, and Stage II vapor recovery or a comparable measure.
In the case of Mercer County, which is located in the OTR,
nonattainment NSR will continue to be applicable after redesignation.
On October 19, 2001, EPA approved the 1-hour NSR SIP revision for the
Area. See 66 FR 53094 (October 19, 2001).
EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements,
including NSR, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Reading, PA Redesignation, 61 FR 53174, (October 10, 1996), 62 FR 24826
(May 7, 1997). The rationale for this is based on two considerations.
First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions for the section 184
requirements continues to apply to areas in the OTR after redesignation
to attainment. Therefore, the State remains obligated to have NSR, as
well as RACT, and I/M even after redesignation. Second, the section 184
control measures are region-wide requirements and do not apply to the
area by virtue of the area's nonattainment designation and
classification, and thus are properly
[[Page 41253]]
considered not relevant to an action changing an area's designation.
See 61 FR 53174, 53175-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830-
24832 (May 7, 1997).
5. Mercer County Has a Fully Approved SIP for Purposes of Redesignation
EPA has fully approved the Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of
this redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request. Calcagni Memo, p.3; Southwestern Pennsylvania
Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall
v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it
may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. See, 68 FR at
25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein.
C. The Air Quality Improvement in Mercer County Is Due to Permanent and
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of
the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and
Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
EPA believes that the Commonwealth has demonstrated that the
observed air quality improvement in Mercer County is due to permanent
and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation
of the SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures.
Emissions reductions attributable to these rules are shown in Table 6.
Table 6.--Total VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in Tons per Summer Day (TPSD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Pennsylvania Ohio Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002............................................................ 20.8 70.5 91.3
2004............................................................ 19.0 64.6 83.6
Difference (02-04).............................................. -1.8 -5.9 -7.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002............................................................ 25.5 95.5 121.0
2004............................................................ 22.4 82.5 104.9
Difference (02-04).............................................. -3.1 -13.0 -16.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions throughout the Area decreased
by 7.7 tpsd from 91.3 tpsd to 83.6 tpsd; NOX emissions
throughout the Area decreased by 16.1 tpsd from 121.0 tpsd to 104.9
tpsd. These reductions, and anticipated future reductions, are due to
the following permanent and enforceable measures.
1. Stationary Point Sources
Federal NOX SIP Call (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001).
2. Stationary Area Sources
Solvent Cleaning (68 FR 2206, January 16, 2003).
Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004).
3. Highway Vehicle Sources
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (FMVCP).
--Tier 1 (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991).
--Tier 2 (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000).
Heavy-duty Engine and Vehicle Standards (62 FR 54694, October 21,
1997, and 65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000).
National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) Program (PA) (64 FR 72564,
December 28, 1999).
Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance Program (70 FR 58313,
October 6, 2005).
4. Non-Road Sources
Non-road Diesel (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004).
EPA believes that permanent and enforceable emissions reductions
are the cause of the long-term improvement in ozone levels and are the
cause of Mercer County achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone
standard.
D. Mercer County Has a Fully Approvable Maintenance Plan Pursuant to
Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to redesignate Mercer County to
attainment status, Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision to provide for
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Area for at least 11 years
after redesignation. The Commonwealth is requesting that EPA approve
this SIP revision as meeting the requirement of CAA 175A. Once
approved, the maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will ensure
that the SIP for Mercer County meets the requirements of the CAA
regarding maintenance of the applicable 8-hour ozone standard.
What Is Required in a Maintenance Plan?
Section 175 of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after approval of a
redesignation of an area to attainment. Eight years after the
redesignation, the Commonwealth must submit a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year 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 8-hour ozone
violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment. The Calcagni memorandum dated September 4, 1992, provides
additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. An ozone
maintenance plan should address the following provisions:
(a) an attainment emissions inventory;
(b) a maintenance demonstration;
(c) a monitoring network;
(d) verification of continued attainment; and
(e) a contingency plan.
Analysis of the Mercer County Maintenance Plan
(a) Attainment inventory--An attainment inventory includes the
[[Page 41254]]
emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment. PADEP determined that the appropriate attainment
inventory year is 2004. That year establishes a reasonable year within
the three-year block of 2004-2006 as a baseline and accounts for
reductions attributable to implementation of the CAA requirements to
date. The 2004 inventory is consistent with EPA guidance and is based
on actual ``typical summer day'' emissions of VOC and NOX
during 2004 and consists of a list of sources and their associated
emissions.
The 2002 and 2004 point source data was compiled from actual
sources. Pennsylvania requires owners and operators of larger
facilities to submit annual production figures and emission
calculations each year. Throughput data are multiplied by emission
factors from Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) Data Systems and EPA's
publication series AP-42, and are based on Source Classification Codes
(SCC). The 2002 area source data was compiled using county-level
activity data, from census numbers, from county numbers, etc. The 2004
area source data was projected from the 2002 inventory using temporal
allocations provided by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management
Association (MARAMA).
The on-road mobile source inventories for 2002 and 2004 were
compiled using MOBILE6.2 and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
(PENNDOT) estimates for VMT. The PADEP has provided detailed data
summaries to document the calculations of mobile on-road VOC and
NOX emissions for 2002, as well as for the projection years
of 2004, 2009, and 2018 (shown in Table 8 below). The 2002 and 2004
emissions for the majority of non-road emission source categories were
estimated using the EPA NONROAD 2005 model. The NONROAD model
calculates emissions for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum
gasoline, and compressed natural gas-fueled non-road equipment types
and includes growth factors. The NONROAD model does not estimate
emissions from locomotives or aircraft. For 2002 and 2004 locomotive
emissions, the PADEP projected emissions from a 1999 survey using
national fuel consumption information and EPA emission and conversion
factors. There are no significant commercial aircraft operations
(aircraft that can seat over 60 passengers) in Mercer County. Mercer
County airports do not support enough flights or the type of aircraft
to create measurable emissions from these sources. Emissions from
airport ground support equipment are considered to be zero. For 2002
and 2004 aircraft emissions, PADEP estimated emissions using small
airport operations statistics from http://www.airnav.com, and emission
factors and operational characteristics in the EPA-approved model,
Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS).
More detailed information on the compilation of the 2002, 2004,
2009, and 2018 inventories can be found in the Technical Appendices,
which are part of PADEP's March 27, 2007 state submittal.
(b) Maintenance Demonstration--On March 27, 2007, the PADEP
submitted a maintenance plan as required by section 175A of the CAA.
The Mercer County maintenance plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that current and future emissions of VOC
and NOX remain at or below the attainment year 2004
emissions levels throughout Mercer County through the year 2018. A
maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling. See, Wall v.
EPA, supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. See also, 66 FR at 53099-53100;
68 FR at 25430-25432.
Table 7 specifies the VOC and NOX emissions for the
Youngstown Area for 2004, 2009, and 2018. The PADEP chose 2009 as an
interim year in the maintenance demonstration period to demonstrate
that the VOC and NOX emissions are not projected to increase
above the 2004 attainment level during the time of the maintenance
period.
Table 7.--VOC and NOX Emissions for The Youngstown Area (TPSD); 2004, 2009, 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 2009 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA OH Total PA OH Total PA OH Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.
VOC........................ 1.7 6.0 7.8 2.7 6.4 9.1 3.7 7.8 11.4
NOX........................ 2.9 20.3 23.2 4.3 8.3 12.6 5.5 12.7 18.2
Area.
VOC........................ 7.6 24.1 31.7 7.4 22.9 30.2 7.8 23.0 30.9
NOX........................ 0.8 2.5 3.3 0.9 2.8 3.7 0.9 3.0 3.9
Mobile.
VOC........................ 5.9 26.2 32.1 4.5 19.6 24.1 3.0 10.4 13.4
NOX........................ 15.8 43.5 59.3 11.6 33.7 45.3 5.3 13.3 18.5
Nonroad.
VOC........................ 3.8 8.3 12.1 3.4 6.5 9.9 2.6 5.2 7.8
NOX........................ 2.8 16.3 19.1 2.3 12.5 14.8 1.4 8.2 9.6
Total.
VOC........................ 19.1 64.6 83.6 18.0 55.4 73.4 17.1 46.3 63.4
NOX........................ 22.4 82.5 104.9 19.1 57.4 76.4 13.1 37.2 50.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the following programs are either effective or due to
become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance
demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS:
The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (71 FR 25328, April
28, 2006).
The Federal NOX SIP Call (66 FR 43795, August
21, 2001).
Area VOC regulations concerning portable fuel containers
(69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004), consumer products (69 FR 70895,
December 8, 2004), and architectural and industrial maintenance
coatings (AIM) (69 FR 68080, November 23, 2004).
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (light-duty ) (Tier
1, Tier 2; 56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991; 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000).
Vehicle emission/inspection/maintenance program (70 FR
58313, October 6, 2005).
Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/2007) and low sulfur on-
road (2006); 66 FR 5002 (January 18, 2001).
[[Page 41255]]
Non-road emission standards (2008) and off-road diesel
fuel (2007/2010); 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004).
NLEV/PA Clean Vehicle Program (54 FR 72564, December 28,
1999)--Pennsylvania will implement this program in car model year 2008
and beyond.
Pennsylvania Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions Control Program
(May 10, 2002).
Based on the comparison of the projected emissions and the
attainment year emissions along with the additional measures, EPA
concludes that PADEP has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour
ozone standard should be maintained in Mercer County.
(c) Monitoring Network--There are four ozone monitors located
throughout the Youngstown Area, one located in Mahoning County, Ohio,
two located in Trumbull County, Ohio and one in Mercer County,
Pennsylvania that measure air quality with respect to ozone, in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
(d) Verification of Continued Attainment--In addition to
maintaining the key elements of its regulatory program, the
Commonwealth will track the attainment status of the ozone NAAQS in the
Youngstown Area by reviewing air quality and emissions data during the
maintenance period. The Commonwealth will perform an annual evaluation
of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) data and emissions reported from
stationary sources, and compare them to the assumptions about these
factors used in the maintenance plan. The Commonwealth will also
evaluate the periodic (every three years) emission inventories prepared
under EPA's Consolidated Emission Reporting Regulation (40 CFR part 51,
subpart A) to see if they exceed the attainment year inventory (2004)
by more than 10 percent. The PADEP will also continue to operate the
existing ozone monitoring station in Mercer County pursuant to 40 CFR
part 58 throughout the maintenance period and submit quality-assured
ozone data to EPA through the AQS system. Section 175A(b) of the CAA
states that eight years following redesignation of Mercer County, PADEP
will be required to submit a second maintenance plan that will ensure
attainment through 2028. PADEP has made the commitment to meet the
requirement section 175A(b).
(e) The Maintenance Plan's Contingency Measures--The contingency
plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation of the
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires
that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to ensure that the Commonwealth will promptly correct a
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance
plan should identify the events that would ``trigger'' the adoption and
implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s)
that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the
time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s).
The ability of Mercer County to stay in compliance with the 8-hour
ozone standard after redesignation depends upon VOC and NOX
emissions in the Youngstown Area remaining at or below 2004 levels. The
Commonwealth's maintenance plan projects VOC and NOX
emissions to decrease and stay below 2004 levels through the year 2018.
The Commonwealth's maintenance plan outlines the procedures for the
adoption and implementation of contingency measures to further reduce
emissions should a violation occur.
Contingency measures will be considered if for two consecutive
years the fourth highest 8-hour ozone concentrations at any of the
Youngstown Area monitors are above 84 ppb. If this trigger point
occurs, the Commonwealth will evaluate, in cooperation with the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, whether additional local emission
control measures should be implemented in order to prevent a violation
of the air quality standard. PADEP will also analyze the conditions
leading to the excessive ozone levels and evaluate which measures might
be most effective in correcting the excessive ozone levels. PADEP will
also analyze the potential emissions effect of Federal, state
(including states upwind of Pennsylvania), and local measures that have
been adopted but not yet implemented at the time the excessive ozone
levels occurred. PADEP will then begin the process of implementing any
selected measures.
Contingency measures will also be considered in the event that a
violation of the 8-hour ozone standard occurs at any of the Youngstown
Area monitors. In the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone
standard, PADEP will adopt additional emissions reduction measures as
expeditiously as practicable in accordance with the implementation
schedule listed later in this notice and in the Pennsylvania Air
Pollution Control Act in order to return the Youngstown Area to
attainment with the standard. Contingency measures to be considered for
Mercer County will include, but not be limited to the following:
Regulatory measures:
--Additional controls on consumer products.
--Additional controls on portable fuel containers.
Non-Regulatory measures:
--Voluntary diesel engine ``chip reflash'' (installation software to
correct the defeat device option on certain heavy-duty diesel engines).
--Diesel retrofit, including replacement, repowering or alternative
fuel use, for public or private local on-road or off-road fleets.
--Idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives.
--Idling reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops,
warehouses and other freight-handling facilities.
--Accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment, especially
commercial equipment, including promotion of electric equipment.
--Additional promotion of alternative fuel (e.g., biodiesel) for home
heating and agricultural use.
The plan lays out a process to have any regulatory contingency
measures in effect within 19 months of the trigger. The plan also lays
out a process to implement the non-regulatory contingency measures
within 12-24 months of the trigger.
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and Identified
in the Mercer County Maintenance Plan Adequate and Approvable?
A. What are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets?
Under the CAA, States are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone areas. These
control strategy SIPs (i.e., RFP SIPs and attainment demonstration
SIPs) and maintenance plans identify and establish MVEBs for certain
criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from
on-road mobile sources. In the maintenance plan, the MVEBs are termed
``on-road mobile source emission budgets.'' Pursuant to 40 CFR part 93
and Sec. 51.112, MVEBs must be established in an ozone maintenance
plan. An MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions that is
allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. An MVEB
serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation
system. The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the
November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The
preamble also describes
[[Page 41256]]
how to establish and revise the MVEBs in control strategy SIPs and
maintenance plans.
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 State's air quality plan that
addresses pollution from cars and trucks. ``Conformity'' to the SIP
means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of
or reasonable progress towards the NAAQS. If a transportation plan does
not ``conform,'' most new projects that would expand the capacity of
roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA
policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and ensuring
conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP.
When reviewing submitted ``control strategy'' SIPs or maintenance
plans containing MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEB contained
therein ``adequate'' for use in determining transportation conformity.
After EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB can be used by state and
federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation
projects ``conform'' to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the
CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining ``adequacy'' of a MVEB
are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
EPA's process for determining ``adequacy'' consists of three basic
steps: public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment
period, and EPA's adequacy finding. This process for determining the
adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA's May 14,
1999 guidance, ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2,
1999, Conformity Court Decision.'' This guidance was finalized in the
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the ``New 8-Hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous
Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments--Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change'' on
July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA consults this guidance and follows this
rulemaking in making its adequacy determinations.
The MVEBs for Mercer County are listed in Table 1 of this document
for 2009 and 2018, and are the projected emissions for the on-road
mobile sources plus any portion of the safety margin allocated to the
MVEBs (safety margin allocation for 2009 and 2018 only). Note that in a
separate rulemaking action (72 FR 19435, April 18, 2007) EPA proposed
approval of Trumbull, Mahoning, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio MVEBs.
These emission budgets, when approved by EPA, must be used for
transportation conformity determinations.
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. The attainment level of
emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which
the area met the NAAQS. The following example is for the 2018 safety
margin: Mercer County first attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the
2004 to 2006 time period. The Commonwealth used 2004 as the year to
determine attainment levels of emissions for Mercer County. The total
emissions from point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile non-road sources
in 2004 equaled 19.0 tpsd of VOC and 22.4 tpsd of NOX. The
PADEP projected emissions out to the year 2018 and projected a total of
17.1 tpsd of VOC and 13.1 tpsd of NOX from all sources in
Mercer County. The safety margin for 2018 would be the difference
between these amounts, or 1.9 tpsd of VOC and 9.3 tpsd of
NOX. The emissions up to the level of the attainment year
including the safety margins are projected to maintain the area's air
quality consistent with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The safety margin is
the extra emissions reduction below the attainment levels that can be
allocated for emissions by various sources as long as the total
emission levels are maintained at or below the attainment levels. Table
8 shows the safety margins for the 2009 and 2018 years.
Table 8.--2009 and 2018 Safety Margins for Mercer County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC emissions NOX emissions
Inventory year (tpsd) (tpsd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 Attainment......................... 19.0 22.4
2009 Interim............................ 18.0 19.1
2009 Safety Margin...................... 1.0 3.3
2004 Attainment......................... 19.0 22.4
2018 Final.............................. 17.1 13.1
2018 Safety Margin...................... 1.9 9.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PADEP allocated 0.3 tpsd VOC and 0.4 tpsd NOX to the
2009 interim VOC projected on-road mobile source emissions projection
and the 2009 interim NOX projected on-road mobile source
emissions projection to arrive at the 2009 MVEBs. For the 2018 MVEBs
the PADEP allocated 0.4 tpsd VOC and 0.4 tpsd NOX from the
2018 safety margins to arrive at the 2018 MVEBs. Once allocated to the
mobile source budgets these portions of the safety margins are no
longer available, and may no longer be allocated to any other source
category. Table 9 shows the final 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for Mercer
County.
Table 9.--2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for Mercer County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC emissions NOX emissions
Inventory year (tpsd) (tpsd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 projected on-road mobile source 4.2 11.2
projected emissions....................
2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs... 0.3 0.4
2009 MVEBs.............................. 4.5 11.6
[[Page 41257]]
2018 projected on-road mobile source 2.6 4.9
projected emissions....................
2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs... 0.4 0.4
2018 MVEBs.............................. 3.0 5.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?
The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for Mercer County are approvable because
the MVEBs for VOCs and NOX continue to maintain the total
emissions at or below the attainment year inventory levels as required
by the transportation conformity regulations. Note that in a separate
rulemaking action (72 FR 19435, April 18, 2007) EPA proposed approval
of Trumbull, Mahoning, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio MVEBs.
D. What Is the Adequacy and Approval Process for the MVEBs in the
Mercer County Maintenance Plan?
The MVEBs for the Mercer County maintenance plan are being posted
to EPA's conformity Web site concurrently with this proposal. The
public comment period will end at the same time as the public comment
period for this proposed rule. In this case, EPA is concurrently
processing the action on the maintenance plan and the adequacy process
for the MVEBs contained therein. In this proposed rule, EPA is
proposing to find the MVEBs adequate and also proposing to approve the
MVEBs as part of the maintenance plan. The MVEBs cannot be used for
transportation conformity until the maintenance plan and associated
MVEBs are approved in a final Federal Register notice, or EPA otherwise
finds the budgets adequate in a separate action following the comment
period.
If EPA receives adverse written comments with respect to the
proposed approval of the Mercer County MVEBs, or any other aspect of
our proposed approval of this updated maintenance plan, we will respond
to the comments on the MVEBs in our final action or proceed with the
adequacy process as a separate action. Our action on the Mercer County
MVEBs will also be announced on EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm (once there, click
on ``Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions'').
VIII. Proposed Actions
EPA is proposing to determine that Mercer County has attained the
8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the redesignation
of Mercer County from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. EPA has evaluated Pennsylvania's redesignation request and
determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes that the redesignation
request and monitoring data demonstrate that Mercer County has attained
the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this redesignation
request would change the designation of Mercer County from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also
proposing to approve the associated maintenance plan for Mercer County,
submitted on March 27, 2007, as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA
is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for Mercer County because
it meets the requirements of section 175A as described previously in
this notice. EPA is also proposing to approve the 2002 base-year
inventory for Mercer County, and the MVEBs submitted by Pennsylvania
for Mercer County in conjunction with its redesignation request. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered before taking final action.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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 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 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), nor will it 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), because it
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal
requirement, 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 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA'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),
EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use
VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, 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. Redesignation
is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does
not impose any new requirements on sources. 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. As required by section 3 of
Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this
proposed rule, EPA has taken the
[[Page 41258]]
necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March
15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in
accordance with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for
the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued
under the executive order.
This rule, proposing to approve the redesignation of Mercer County
to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance
plan, the 2002 base-year inventory, and the MVEBs identified in the
maintenance plan, 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
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 16, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E7-14589 Filed 7-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P