Determination of Attainment, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio; Redesignation of Allen and Stark Counties to Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 77678-77690 [E6-22156]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
77678
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
VII. 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
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
This proposed action merely proposes
to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this
proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.).
Because 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).
Unfunded Mandates Reform 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.
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
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:37 Dec 26, 2006
Jkt 211001
National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: December 19, 2006.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E6–22140 Filed 12–26–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R05–OAR–2006–0046; FRL–8261–5]
Determination of Attainment, Approval
and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans and Designations of Areas for
Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio;
Redesignation of Allen and Stark
Counties to Attainment of the 8-Hour
Ozone Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On June 20, 2005, the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio
EPA), submitted a request for EPA
approval of redesignations of Allen
County (Lima) and Stark County
(Canton) to attainment of the 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS), and a request for
EPA approval of ozone maintenance
plans for Allen and Stark Counties as
revisions to the Ohio State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Additional
supporting information was submitted
on August 24, 2006, and December 4,
2006. EPA is proposing to approve
Ohio’s requests and corresponding SIP
revisions. EPA is also proposing to
approve the Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX) Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
(MVEBs) for Allen and Stark Counties,
as supported by the ozone maintenance
plans for these Counties, for purposes of
conformity determinations.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before January 26, 2007. Submit your
comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA–R05–OAR–2006–0046, by one of
the following methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
• 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
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,
E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM
27DEP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2006–
0046. 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 email 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. It is
recommended that you telephone
Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist,
at (312) 886–6057, before visiting the
Region 5 office.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:37 Dec 26, 2006
Jkt 211001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604, (312) 886–6057,
doty.edward@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA. This supplementary
information section is arranged as
follow:
I. What Action is EPA Proposing to Take?
II. What is the Background for These
Actions?
III. What are the Criteria for Redesignation to
Attainment?
IV. What are EPA’s Analyses of the State’s
Requests and What are the Bases for
EPA’s Proposed Actions?
V. Has Ohio Adopted Acceptable Motor
Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the End
Year of the Ozone Maintenance Plans
Which Can Be Used to Support
Conformity Determinations?
VI. What Are the Effects of EPA’s Proposed
Actions?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Action Is EPA Proposing to
Take?
We are proposing to take several
related actions for both Allen County
and Stark County, Ohio. First, we are
proposing to determine that Allen and
Stark Counties have attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and that both of these
Counties have met the requirements for
redesignation to attainment of the 8hour ozone NAAQS under section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. We are,
therefore, proposing to approve the
request from the State of Ohio to change
the designations of Allen and Stark
Counties from nonattainment to
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Second, we are proposing to approve
Ohio’s ozone maintenance plans for
Allen and Stark Counties as revisions to
the Ohio SIP. The maintenance plans
are designed to keep these Counties in
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
for the next 12 years, through 2018. As
supported by and consistent with the
ozone maintenance plans, we are also
proposing to approve the 2018 VOC and
NOX MVEBs for Allen and Stark
Counties for conformity determination
purposes.
II. What Is the Background for These
Actions?
EPA has determined that ground-level
ozone is detrimental to human health.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated an
8-hour ozone NAAQS (62 FR 38856) of
0.08 parts per million parts of air (0.08
ppm) (80 parts per billion (ppb)). This
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
77679
standard is violated in an area when any
ozone monitor in the area (or in its
impacted downwind environs) records
8-hour ozone concentrations with a
three-year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour ozone
concentrations equaling or exceeding 85
ppb. This 8-hour ozone standard
replaced a prior 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
which was promulgated on February 8,
1979 (44 FR 8202), and revoked on June
15, 2005.
Ground-level ozone is not generally
emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emitted NOX and VOC react in the
presence of sunlight to form groundlevel ozone along with other secondary
compounds. NOX and VOC are referred
to as ‘‘ozone precursors.’’
The CAA required EPA to designate
as nonattainment any area that violated
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Federal
Register notice promulgating these
designations was published on April 30,
2004 (69 FR 23857).
The CAA contains two sets of
provisions—subpart 1 and subpart 2—
that address planning and emission
control requirements for nonattainment
areas (both are found in title I, part D
of the CAA). Subpart 1 contains general,
less prescriptive, requirements for
nonattainment areas for any pollutant
governed by a NAAQS, and applies to
all nonattainment areas. Subpart 2
contains more specific requirements for
certain ozone nonattainment areas, and
applies to ozone nonattainment areas
classified under section 181 of the CAA.
In the April 30, 2004 designation
rulemaking, EPA divided 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas into the categories
of subpart 1 nonattainment (‘‘basic’’
nonattainment) and subpart 2
nonattainment (‘‘classified’’
nonattainment) based on their 8-hour
ozone design values (i.e., on the threeyear averages of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour ozone
concentrations at the worst-case
monitoring sites in the designated areas)
and on their 1-hour ozone design values
(i.e., on the fourth-highest daily
maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations
over the three-year period at the worstcase monitoring sites in the designated
areas).1 8-hour ozone nonattainment
areas with 1-hour ozone design values
equaling or exceeding 121 ppb were
designated as subpart 2, classified
nonattainment areas. Classification of
the subpart 2 nonattainment areas was
based on the levels of the monitored 81 The 8-hour ozone design value and the 1-hour
ozone design value for each area were not
necessarily recorded at the same monitoring site.
The worst-case monitoring site for each ozone
concentration averaging time was considered for
each area.
E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM
27DEP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
77680
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
hour ozone design values for each
nonattainment area. All other 8-hour
nonattainment areas were designated as
subpart 1, basic nonattainment areas,
which have no area-specific
classifications.
Emission control requirements for
classified nonattainment areas are
linked to area classifications. Areas with
more serious ozone pollution problems
are subject to more prescribed
requirements. The requirements are
designed to bring areas into attainment
by their specified attainment dates,
which also depend on the area
classifications. For example, marginal
nonattainment areas are subject to the
fewest mandated control requirements
and have the earliest attainment
deadline. Severe nonattainment areas
are required to meet more mandated
emission controls, including tighter
restrictions on the sizes of existing VOC
and NOX sources required to install
emission controls and tighter
restrictions on mandated emission
controls and offsetting of new sources,
and have a later attainment deadline. In
contrast, the attainment deadline for
basic nonattainment areas does not
depend on the magnitude of the areas’
8-hour ozone design values, and the
required emission controls are less
prescriptive.
Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part
50, the 8-hour ozone standard is
attained when the three-year average of
the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentrations is less than or equal to
0.08 ppm (i.e., less than or equal to
0.084 ppm or 84 ppb based on data
rounding conventions specified in
appendix I of 40 CFR part 50) at all
monitors in an area and in nearby
downwind environs (for further
information, see 69 FR 23857, April 30,
2004). The supporting data must meet a
minimum data completeness
requirement. The completeness
requirement (specified in appendix I of
40 CFR part 50) for ozone data
supporting a determination of
attainment and a redesignation to
attainment is met when the annual
average percent of days with valid
ambient monitoring data is greater than
90 percent for the ozone seasons during
the three-year period, with no single
year with less than 75 percent data
completeness during the ozone season.
In the April 30, 2004 designation/
classification rulemaking, Allen and
Stark Counties were both designated as
subpart 1 nonattainment for the 8-hour
ozone standard. The designations were
based on ozone data collected during
the 2001–2003 period.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:37 Dec 26, 2006
Jkt 211001
On June 20, 2006, the State of Ohio
requested redesignation of Allen and
Stark Counties to attainment of the 8hour ozone NAAQS based on ozone
data collected in these Counties during
the 2003–2005 period. On August 24,
2006, the State of Ohio completed the
ozone redesignation request by
submitting documentation of the public
hearings conducted by the State for the
ozone redesignation request and ozone
maintenance plans. The information
contained in the State’s June 20, 2006
ozone redesignation request submittal
was unchanged through the State’s
public review process. On December 4,
2006, the State submitted a clarification
of the State’s ozone maintenance plans,
confirming that the State is committed
to implement contingency emission
control measures in the event of a
violation of the 8-hour ozone standard
in either Allen County or Stark County
after these Counties are redesignated to
attainment of the 8-hour ozone
standard.
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 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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
(TSD’s) for Redesignation of Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide 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;
‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in
Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,’’
Memorandum from D. Kent Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality
Management Division, 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. What Are EPA’s Analyses of the
State’s Requests and What Are the
Bases for EPA’s Proposed Actions?
EPA is proposing to determine that
Allen and Stark Counties have attained
the 8-hour ozone standard, approve the
ozone maintenance plans for these
Counties, and approve the VOC and
NOX MVEBs supported by these ozone
E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM
27DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
maintenance plans. EPA is also
proposing to approve the redesignation
of these Counties to attainment of the 8hour ozone NAAQS. The bases for our
proposed determinations and approvals
follow.
1. Allen and Stark Counties Have
Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
For ozone, as noted above, an area
may be considered to be attaining the 8hour 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. To attain
this standard, the average of the annual
fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentrations measured
and recorded at each monitor (the
monitoring site’s ozone design value)
within the area and in its impacted
downwind environs 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 0.084 ppm (84 ppb) or
lower. The data must be collected and
quality-assured in accordance with 40
77681
CFR part 50, and must be recorded in
EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS).
As part of the June 20, 2006 ozone
redesignation request, Ohio EPA
submitted ozone monitoring data
indicating the top four daily maximum
8-hour ozone concentrations for each
monitoring site in Allen and Stark
Counties during the 2003–2005 period.
These ozone concentrations 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
Allen
Stark
Stark
Stark
Monitoring site
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
2650 Bible
Malone College
245 West Fifth
1175 West Vine
These data show that the site-specific
ozone design values (average fourthhigh daily maximum 8-hour ozone
concentrations over the period of 2003–
2005) for all monitoring sites in Allen
and Stark Counties are below the 85 ppb
ozone standard violation cut-off. These
data support the conclusion that the
Allen County and Stark County ozone
monitors did not record a violation of
the 8-hour ozone standard during the
2003–2005 period, and monitored
attainment of the standard during this
period. We note that the ozone data
recorded in the AQS show that these
monitoring sites met completeness
requirements for the period covered
here. Based on these data, we propose
to find that Allen and Stark Counties
have attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Based on available data (not fully
quality assured), these monitoring sites
continue to show attainment of the 8hour ozone NAAQS through 2006.
The State of Ohio has committed to
continue the operation of these ozone
monitors through the ozone
maintenance period, and will consult
with the EPA if changes in the
monitoring system are required.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
2003
2. Allen and Stark 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 Allen and
Stark Counties and the State of Ohio
have met all currently applicable SIP
requirements for Allen and Stark
Counties, including the requirements
under section 110 of the CAA (general
SIP requirements) and the 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,
EPA has fully approved the pertinent
elements of the Ohio SIP. See section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii) 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 Allen and
Stark Counties at the time the State
submitted the final, complete ozone
redesignation request for these areas
(August 24, 2006).
a. Allen and Stark 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
2004
88
87
85
86
76
74
71
76
20:37 Dec 26, 2006
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Average
81
76
76
86
82
79
77
83
redesignation request for the area. See
also the September 17, 1993 Michael
Shapiro memorandum and 66 FR 12459,
12465–12466 (March 7, 1995,
redesignating 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,
redesignating 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; programs to
enforce the emission limitations;
submittal of a SIP that has been adopted
by the State after reasonable public
notice and a hearing; implementation of
a source permit program; provisions for
the implementation of part C
requirements (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)) and part D
requirements (New Source Review
2 The worst-case monitoring site-specific ozone
design value in the area.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
2005
E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM
27DEP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
77682
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(NSR)) for new sources or major source
modifications; criteria for stationary
source emission control measures,
monitoring, and reporting; provisions
for air quality modeling; and 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. See also other guidance
documents listed above.
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
area’s designation. EPA believes that the
requirements linked with a particular
area’s nonattainment designation and
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:37 Dec 26, 2006
Jkt 211001
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-Loraine,
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
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 SIP requirements under part
D of the CAA. Under part D, 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 depending on the area’s
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
nonattainment classification. Since
Allen and Stark Counties are designated
as subpart 1 nonattainment areas for the
8-hour ozone standard, the subpart 2
part D requirements do not apply to
these Counties.
Part D, subpart 1 requirements: For
purposes of evaluating this
redesignation request, the applicable
subpart 1 part D requirements are
contained 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 came
due for Allen and Stark Counties prior
to when the State submitted the
complete ozone redesignation request.
For example, the requirement for an
ozone attainment demonstration, as
contained in section 172(c)(1), was not
yet due when the State submitted the
ozone redesignation request for these
Counties, nor were 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 Ohio submitted the complete,
adopted ozone redesignation request
and maintenance plans for Allen and
Stark Counties. Therefore, none of the
part D requirements for the 8-hour
ozone standard are considered to be
applicable to Allen and Stark Counties
for purposes of redesignation.
Section 176 conformity requirements:
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires
states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that Federallysupported 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.
As with other part D requirements,
EPA interprets the conformity
requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating the ozone
E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM
27DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
redesignation request under section
107(d) of the CAA. In addition, please
note that conformity rules are required
for areas that are redesignated to
attainment of a NAAQS, and that
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).
Part D new source review
requirements: EPA has determined that
areas being redesignated need not
comply with the requirement that a New
Source Review (NSR) program be
approved prior to redesignation,
provided that that the area demonstrates
maintenance of the standard without
emission reductions from part D NSR,
since Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) requirements will
apply after redesignation. A more
detailed rationale for this view is
described in a memorandum from Mary
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review
Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.’’ Ohio has
demonstrated that Allen and Stark
Counties will be able to maintain the 8hour ozone standard without part D
NSR in effect, and therefore, we
conclude that the State need not have a
fully approved part D NSR program
prior to approval of the redesignation
request. The State’s PSD program will
become effective in Allen and Stark
Counties upon redesignation to
attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit,
Michigan (60 FR 12467–12468, March 7,
1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio
(61 FR 20458, 20469–20470, May 7,
1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR
53665, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids,
Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21,
1996).
We conclude that Allen and Stark
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. Allen and Stark Counties Have a
Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under
Section 110(k) of the CAA
EPA has fully approved the Ohio SIP
for Allen and Stark Counties under
section 110(k) of the CAA for all
applicable requirements. EPA may rely
on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request (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)) plus any additional
measures it may approve in conjunction
with a redesignation action. See 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 Allen and Stark Counties
for purposes of ozone redesignation. No
SIP provisions relevant to Allen or Stark
Counties 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
believes that approval of section 110 SIP
elements under the 1-hour ozone
standard satisfies the prerequisite for
approval of the ozone redesignation
request for purposes of attaining and
77683
maintaining the 8-hour ozone standard.
EPA also believes that since the part D
requirements for the 8-hour ozone
standard 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
Allen and Stark Counties Are Due To
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
in Emissions From Implementation of
the SIP and Federal Air Pollution
Control Regulations and Other
Permanent and Enforceable Emission
Reductions
We believe that the State of Ohio has
adequately demonstrated that the
observed air quality improvements in
Allen and Stark 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 manbased) sources in Allen and Stark
Counties between 2002, an ozone
standard violation year, and 2004, one
of the years in which Allen and Stark
Counties recorded attainment of the 8hour ozone standard. The Ohio EPA has
also identified permanent and
enforceable emission reductions which
occurred elsewhere in the State and in
other upwind areas that have
contributed to the air quality
improvement in Allen and Stark
Counties. Table 2 summarizes the VOC
and NOX emissions totals from the
anthropogenic sources in 2002 and 2004
for both Counties as summarized in the
State’s ozone redesignation submittal.
TABLE 2.—TOTAL ANTHROPOGENIC VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2002 AND 2004 IN ALLEN AND STARK COUNTIES
(TONS PER SUMMER DAY)
Source category
2002
2004
Allen County Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions
Point .................................................................................................................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile .............................................................................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...............................................................................................................................................................
4.77
5.17
2.19
7.72
4.92
5.08
2.11
6.51
Total ..........................................................................................................................................................................
19.85
18.62
Point .................................................................................................................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile .............................................................................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...............................................................................................................................................................
12.14
0.45
5.30
11.71
12.57
0.47
4.85
10.13
Total ..........................................................................................................................................................................
29.60
28.02
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Allen County Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:37 Dec 26, 2006
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM
27DEP1
77684
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2.—TOTAL ANTHROPOGENIC VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2002 AND 2004 IN ALLEN AND STARK COUNTIES
(TONS PER SUMMER DAY)—Continued
Source category
2002
2004
Stark County Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions
Point .................................................................................................................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile .............................................................................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...............................................................................................................................................................
2.90
21.23
5.98
16.56
2.97
21.03
5.44
14.03
Total ..........................................................................................................................................................................
46.67
43.47
Point .................................................................................................................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile .............................................................................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...............................................................................................................................................................
5.12
1.17
10.06
25.35
4.85
1.23
9.25
22.00
Total ..........................................................................................................................................................................
41.70
37.33
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Stark County Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
Information in the above table
indicates that both Counties
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 air quality in
Allen and Stark Counties.
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. EPA
believes these emission reductions
contributed significantly to the air
quality improvements in Allen and
Stark Counties through the reduction of
transported ozone and ozone precursors.
Although both Allen and Stark Counties
have no significant EGUs, these
Counties have benefited from the NOX
emission reductions occurring in the
surrounding areas. These regional NOX
emission reductions are considered to
be permanent and enforceable.
Besides implementation of the
regional NOX emission controls, the
State of Ohio notes that, in the mid1990’s, the State of Ohio promulgated
statewide rules requiring Reasonably
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:37 Dec 26, 2006
Jkt 211001
Available Control Techniques (RACT)
for significant sources of VOC emissions
(those with potential VOC emissions of
100 tons or more per year) whose
construction or modification
commenced on or after October 19,
1979. RACT rules for smaller sources
have been implemented in the ozone
nonattainment areas.
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 nonroad 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 emission limits
in the SIP will assure that these
emission reductions will remain in
place even after redesignation of Allen
and Stark Counties to attainment of the
8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the State
commits to maintaining these emission
controls after the redesignation.
4. Allen and Stark Counties Have Fully
Approvable Ozone Maintenance Plans
Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to
redesignate Allen and Stark 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 Allen and Stark
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Counties through 2018, exceeding the
10 year minimum maintenance period
required by the CAA.
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.
E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM
27DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
b. What Are the Attainment Emission
Inventories for Allen and Stark
Counties?
Ohio EPA prepared VOC and NOX
emission inventories for Allen and Stark
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 facilityspecific emissions and source activity
data collected annually by the State for
sources covered by Title V 3 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.
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) in
3 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:37 Dec 26, 2006
Jkt 211001
National Emissions Inventory Input
Format (NIF) 3.0 format. LADCO
imported and processed the NIF files in
the Emissions Modeling System (EMS)
and applied temporal and spatial
profiles to calculate July weekday
emissions rates. The Allen and Stark
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 Allen and
Stark Counties ozone redesignation
requests. Since no EGUs exist in Allen
and Stark Counties, there are no EGU
emissions in these Counties.
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). The output of
the NMIM was converted to the NIF
format and submitted to LADCO for
processing in the EMS to obtain
spatially and temporally allocated
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
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
77685
the emissions. To address concerns
about the accuracy of NMIM results for
some source categories, LADCO
contracted with a consultant to review
the base data and to make recommended
changes. The non-road mobile source
emissions inventory has been
appropriately adjusted based on the
contractor recommendations.
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
are expected to be the most significant
rail operations in the two Counties,
operators of Class I operations were
queried for activity and emissionsrelated 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. For passenger trains and
commuter lines, the Ohio EPA obtained
information from AMTRAK concerning
train schedules, miles of transport, and
schedules of operation. This
information was coupled with a fuel
usage rate estimate of 2.35 gallons per
train-mile of travel to obtain the total
fuel usage per unit time in each of the
Counties. Total fuel use by county was
used to assign emissions from this
source category 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 LTOengine 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
E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM
27DEP1
77686
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS),
emissions were calculated and assigned
to each county in the State, including
Allen and Stark Counties.
The MAR data were processed by
LADCO using the EMS to calculate July
2002 daily emissions of VOC and NOX.
v. On-Road Mobile Sources. The
inventories of on-road mobile source
emissions for both Allen County and
Stark County were developed by the
Ohio EPA in conjunction with the Ohio
Department of Transportation (Ohio
DOT), LADCO, and EPA. The Ohio DOT
provided the daily vehicle miles
traveled data and vehicle age and type
distribution data. The Ohio DOT and
the Ohio EPA jointly developed
estimated vehicle speeds for functional
roadway class categories (the Ohio DOT
also provided the roadway miles by
functional class). Traffic monitoring
conducted by the Ohio DOT was used
to modify the vehicle speeds and traffic
levels for specific roadway segments
where deemed necessary. This vehicle
travel information, along with the
MOBILE 6.2 vehicle emission factor
model, was used to estimate mobile
source VOC and NOX emissions for
Allen and Stark Counties.
vi. Projected Emissions for the
Attainment Year. Ambient ozone air
quality data showed that Allen and
Stark Counties met the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the 2003–2005 period. Ohio
EPA selected 2004, the central year of
this period, to estimate the ‘‘attainment
year’’ emissions for both Counties,
needed as the base period emissions for
the demonstrations of maintenance. 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 Allen and Stark Counties.
LADCO provided growth and source
control projection data to project VOC
and NOX area source emissions. The
Ohio DOT provided projections of
vehicle travel estimates (Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT)) to allow the projection
of mobile source emissions, with
MOBILE 6.2 providing the projected
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 Allen and
Stark 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.
There are no EGU facilities in Allen
and Stark Counties, but the emissions
from these source types have been
derived by the Ohio EPA for other
Counties in Ohio and have been
factored into the State’s demonstration
of maintenance. Reductions in NOX
emissions in surrounding counties are
assumed to reduce ozone levels in Allen
and Stark Counties through reductions
in transported ozone and NOX.
c. Demonstration of Maintenance
As part of the June 20, 2006
redesignation request submittal, Ohio
EPA requested revisions to the Ohio SIP
to incorporate ozone maintenance plans
for Allen and Stark Counties as required
under section 175A of the CAA. The
maintenance plans demonstrate
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. 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 Allen and Stark
Counties to the years of 2009 and 2018
to demonstrate maintenance of the 8hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years
after the expected redesignation dates
for these areas. For both Counties, Ohio
EPA used source growth estimates
provided by LADCO along with mobile
source growth estimates generated using
VMT projections provided by the Ohio
DOT and MOBILE 6.2 to project the
Allen and Stark Counties VOC and NOX
emissions.
Table 3 summarizes the VOC and
NOX emissions projected to occur in
Allen County during the demonstrated
maintenance period. Similarly, Table 4
summarizes the VOC and NOX
emissions projected to occur in Stark
County 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 3.—PROJECTED VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS IN ALLEN COUNTY (TONS/DAY)
2004
Attainment
Source sector
2009 Interim
2018
Maintenance
Safety
margin
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
VOC Emissions:
Point ..........................................................................................................................
Area (Other) ..............................................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile ......................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................................................................................
Marine-Air-Railroad ...................................................................................................
Total VOC Emissions ........................................................................................
4.92
5.08
1.98
6.51
0.13
18.62
5.28
4.85
1.77
*5.08
0.12
17.10
6.44
4.89
1.24
*2.89
0.12
15.58
**3.04
NOX Emissions:
Point ..........................................................................................................................
Area (Other) ..............................................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile ......................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................................................................................
Marine-Air-Railroad ...................................................................................................
Total NOX Emissions ........................................................................................
12.57
0.47
2.29
10.13
2.56
28.02
13.66
0.52
1.92
*8.28
1.80
26.18
15.98
0.55
1.13
*3.47
1.69
22.82
**5.20
* Includes 15 percent growth cushion increase to mobile source budget.
** Difference between 2004 attainment year emissions and 2018 maintenance year emissions.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:37 Dec 26, 2006
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM
27DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
77687
TABLE 4.—PROJECTED VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS IN STARK COUNTY (TONS/DAY)
2004
Attainment
Source sector
2009 Interim
2018
Maintenance
Safety
margin
VOC Emissions:
Point ..........................................................................................................................
Area (Other) ..............................................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile ......................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................................................................................
Marine-Air-Railroad ...................................................................................................
Total VOC Emissions ........................................................................................
2.97
21.03
5.29
14.03
0.15
43.47
3.14
20.49
3.92
*10.02
0.14
37.71
3.77
21.93
3.22
*5.37
0.14
34.43
**9.04
NOX Emissions:
Point ..........................................................................................................................
Area (Other) ..............................................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile ......................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................................................................................
Marine-Air-Railroad ...................................................................................................
Total NOX Emissions ........................................................................................
4.85
1.23
6.22
22.00
3.03
37.33
4.16
1.40
4.81
*18.03
2.39
30.79
4.72
1.46
2.50
*7.08
2.22
17.98
**19.35
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
* Includes 15 percent growth cushion increase to mobile source budget.
** 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 Allen and Stark
Counties. This will result in decreased
ozone and ozone precursor transport
into Allen and Stark Counties, and will
support maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone standard in these areas.
The emissions projections for Allen
and Stark Counties lead to the
conclusion that Allen and Stark
Counties 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 Allen and Stark Counties 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 will be
maintained in Allen and Stark Counties.
As also noted by Ohio EPA, 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
The contingency plan provisions of
the CAA are designed to result in
prompt correction or prevention of
violations of the NAAQS that might
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:37 Dec 26, 2006
Jkt 211001
occur after redesignation of an area to
attainment of the NAAQS. 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 address possible future ozone
air quality problems in Allen and Stark
Counties. 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 Response) or
has actually occurred or appears to be
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 Stark
County or an annual fourth-high
monitored 8-hour ozone concentration
of 85 ppb occurs in Allen County. A
Warning Level Response will consist of
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
a study to determine whether the high
ozone value indicates a trend toward
higher ozone concentrations and/or
whether emissions appear to be
increasing. The study will evaluate
whether the trend, if any, is likely to
continue. If so, the control measures
necessary to reverse the trend will be
selected by the State for evaluation and
possible adoption. Implementation of
necessary controls in response to a
Warning Level Response triggering will
occur 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 either of the maintenance areas
or whenever a violation of the 8-hour
ozone standard is actually monitored in
either of the maintenance areas. An
Action Level Response will also be
triggered if a violation of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS is recorded in either
Allen County or in Stark County after
these two Counties are redesignated to
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
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. If a new emission
control measure is already promulgated
E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM
27DEP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
77688
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 demonstrate that the proposed
emission control measures are adequate
to reverse the upward trend in peak
ozone concentrations and to maintain
the 8-hour ozone standard in the subject
maintenance area (the area in which the
Action Level Response is triggered). 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 so that they can be in
place within 18 months from the close
of the ozone season in which the Action
Level Response is triggered.
The State’s ozone maintenance plans
list the following emission control
measures as possible contingency
measures:
• 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:
0 Trip reduction programs,
including: employer-based
transportation management plans; areawide rideshare programs; work schedule
changes; and telecommuting;
0 Traffic flow and transit
improvements; and,
0 Other new or innovative
transportation measures not yet in
widespread use that affect state and
local governments deemed 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;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:37 Dec 26, 2006
Jkt 211001
• 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 Allen and Stark
Counties to attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and to submit revised
maintenance plans extending the
maintenance period for an additional 10
years. We find Ohio’s ozone
maintenance demonstration and
contingency plan acceptable.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
V. Has Ohio Adopted Acceptable Motor
Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the End
Year of the Ozone Maintenance Plans
Which Can Be Used To Support
Conformity Determinations?
A. What Are Motor Vehicle Emission
Budgets and Are They Adequate?
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 onroad 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 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.
When reviewing SIP revisions
containing MVEBs, including
attainment strategies, rate-of-progress
plans, and maintenance plans, EPA
must find that the MVEBs are
E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM
27DEP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
‘‘adequate’’ for use in determining
transportation conformity. Once EPA
finds the submitted MVEBs to be
adequate for transportation conformity
purposes, the MVEBs are used by state
and Federal agencies in determining
whether proposed transportation
projects conform to the SIPs as required
by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA’s
substantive criteria for determining the
adequacy of MVEBs are specified in 40
CFR 93.118(e)(4).
EPA’s process of determining
adequacy of MVEBs consists of three
basic steps: (1) Providing public
notification of a SIP submission; (2)
providing the public the opportunity to
comment on the MVEBs during a public
comment period; and (3) making a
finding of adequacy. The process of
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
Rule Amendments—Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule Change’’
published on July 1, 2004 (69 FR
40004). EPA follows this guidance and
rulemaking in making its adequacy
determinations.
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: https://
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. We have
opened the public comment period on
the adequacy of the submitted MVEBs
for Allen and Stark Counties at the
adequacy review Web site.
The Allen County and Stark County
ozone maintenance plans contain VOC
and NOX MVEBs for 2018. EPA has
reviewed the submittal and the
proposed VOC and NOX MVEBs for
Allen and Stark Counties, and finds that
the MVEBs meet the adequacy criteria
in the Transportation Conformity Rule.
Any comments on the adequacy of the
MVEBs should be noted through the
adequacy review Web site.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:37 Dec 26, 2006
Jkt 211001
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, Allen County is
projected to have a VOC safety margin
of 3.04 tons per day and a NOX safety
margin of 5.20 tons per day in 2018, and
Stark County is projected to have a VOC
safety margin of 9.04 tons per day and
a NOX safety margin of 19.35 tons per
day in 2018 (the differences between the
2004, attainment year, and 2018 VOC
and NOX emissions for all sources in
these Counties).
C. Are the MVEBs Approvable?
EPA, through this rulemaking, is
proposing to approve the MVEBs for use
to determine transportation conformity
in Allen and Stark Counties because
EPA has determined that the budgets are
consistent with the control measures
and future emissions projected in the
SIP and that Allen and Stark 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 Allen County as 2.89 tons
per day for VOC and 3.47 tons per day
for NOX and the 2018 MVEBs for Stark
County as 5.37 tons per day for VOC
and 7.08 tons per day for NOX. These
MVEBs exceed the on-road mobile
source VOC and NOX emissions
projected by the Ohio EPA for 2018, but
do match the on-road mobile source
emissions for 2018 summarized in
Tables 3 and 4 above. Through
discussions with all organizations
involved in transportation planning for
Allen and Stark Counties, Ohio EPA
decided to include 15 percent safety
margins in the MVEBs to provide for
mobile source growth not anticipated in
the projected 2018 emissions. Ohio EPA
has demonstrated that Allen and Stark
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.
The VOC and NOX MVEBs for Allen
and Stark Counties are approvable
because they maintain the total
emissions for Allen and Stark Counties
at or below the attainment year emission
inventory levels, as required by the
transportation conformity regulations.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
77689
VI. What Are the Effects of EPA’s
Proposed Actions?
Approval of the redesignation request
would change the official designations
of Allen and Stark Counties for the 8hour ozone NAAQS, found at 40 CFR
part 81, from nonattainment to
attainment. Final rulemaking approving
the redesignation request would also
incorporate into the Ohio SIP plans for
maintaining the ozone NAAQS through
2018 in these areas. The maintenance
plans include contingency measures to
remedy possible future violations of the
8-hour ozone NAAQS, and establishes
2018 MVEBs for these Counties.
VII. 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
E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM
27DEP1
77690
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:37 Dec 26, 2006
Jkt 211001
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 in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: December 19, 2006.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E6–22156 Filed 12–26–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
contact Kurt Gustafson at (202) 343–
9219 or gustafson.kurt@epa.gov. If a
hearing is requested no later than
January 16, 2007, a hearing will be held
at a time and place to be published in
the Federal Register. Persons wishing to
testify at a public hearing must contact
Kurt Gustafson at (202) 343–9219, and
submit copies of their testimony to the
docket and to Kurt Gustafson at the
addresses below, no later than 10 days
prior to the hearing. After the hearing,
the docket for this rulemaking will
remain open for an additional 30 days
to receive comments. If a hearing is
held, EPA will publish a document in
the Federal Register extending the
comment period for 30 days after the
hearing.
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2006–0841, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Air Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–
0841. Comments may also be e-mailed
to a-and-r-docket@epamail.epa.gov. In
addition, please mail a copy of your
comments on the information collection
provisions to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attn:
Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–
0841. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://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 https://
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
ADDRESSES:
40 CFR Part 80
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0841; FRL–8261–8]
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel
Additives: Extension of the
Reformulated Gasoline Program to the
East St. Louis, IL Ozone Nonattainment
Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Under section 211(k)(6) of the
Clean Air Act, the Administrator of EPA
shall require the sale of reformulated
gasoline (RFG) in an ozone
nonattainment area upon the
application of the Governor of the State
in which the nonattainment area is
located. This notice proposes to extend
the Act’s prohibition against the sale of
conventional (i.e., non-reformulated)
gasoline in RFG areas to the Illinois
portion of the St. Louis, MissouriIllinois 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area hereafter referred to as the East St.
Louis, Illinois nonattainment area. The
Agency proposes to implement this
prohibition on May 1, 2007, for all
persons other than retailers and
wholesale purchaser-consumers (i.e.,
refiners, importers, and distributors).
For retailers and wholesale purchaserconsumers, EPA proposes to implement
the prohibition on June 1, 2007. On June
1, 2007, the East St. Louis ozone
nonattainment area would be a covered
area for all purposes in the federal RFG
program. EPA seeks comment on
alternative implementation dates it
could establish if unexpected delays in
issuing the final rule render the
proposed implementation dates
impractical.
Comments on this proposed rule
must be received in writing by January
26, 2007. To request a public hearing,
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM
27DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 27, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77678-77690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-22156]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0046; FRL-8261-5]
Determination of Attainment, Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Ohio; Redesignation of Allen and Stark Counties to Attainment
of the 8-Hour Ozone Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 20, 2005, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(Ohio EPA), submitted a request for EPA approval of redesignations of
Allen County (Lima) and Stark County (Canton) to attainment of the 8-
hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), and a request
for EPA approval of ozone maintenance plans for Allen and Stark
Counties as revisions to the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP).
Additional supporting information was submitted on August 24, 2006, and
December 4, 2006. EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's requests and
corresponding SIP revisions. EPA is also proposing to approve the
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for Allen and Stark Counties, as
supported by the ozone maintenance plans for these Counties, for
purposes of conformity determinations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 26, 2007. Submit
your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0046, by
one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
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 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,
[[Page 77679]]
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-0046. 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.
It is recommended that you telephone Edward Doty, Environmental
Scientist, at (312) 886-6057, before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6057, doty.edward@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean the EPA. This supplementary information section is
arranged as follow:
I. What Action is EPA Proposing to Take?
II. What is the Background for These Actions?
III. What are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
IV. What are EPA's Analyses of the State's Requests and What are the
Bases for EPA's Proposed Actions?
V. Has Ohio Adopted Acceptable Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for
the End Year of the Ozone Maintenance Plans Which Can Be Used to
Support Conformity Determinations?
VI. What Are the Effects of EPA's Proposed Actions?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Action Is EPA Proposing to Take?
We are proposing to take several related actions for both Allen
County and Stark County, Ohio. First, we are proposing to determine
that Allen and Stark Counties have attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
that both of these Counties have met the requirements for redesignation
to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA. We are, therefore, proposing to approve the request from the
State of Ohio to change the designations of Allen and Stark Counties
from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Second, we are proposing to approve Ohio's ozone maintenance plans
for Allen and Stark Counties as revisions to the Ohio SIP. The
maintenance plans are designed to keep these Counties in attainment of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years, through 2018. As
supported by and consistent with the ozone maintenance plans, we are
also proposing to approve the 2018 VOC and NOX MVEBs for
Allen and Stark Counties for conformity determination purposes.
II. What Is the Background for These Actions?
EPA has determined that ground-level ozone is detrimental to human
health. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone NAAQS (62 FR
38856) of 0.08 parts per million parts of air (0.08 ppm) (80 parts per
billion (ppb)). This standard is violated in an area when any ozone
monitor in the area (or in its impacted downwind environs) records 8-
hour ozone concentrations with a three-year average of the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations equaling or
exceeding 85 ppb. This 8-hour ozone standard replaced a prior 1-hour
ozone NAAQS, which was promulgated on February 8, 1979 (44 FR 8202),
and revoked on June 15, 2005.
Ground-level ozone is not generally emitted directly by sources.
Rather, emitted NOX and VOC react in the presence of
sunlight to form ground-level ozone along with other secondary
compounds. NOX and VOC are referred to as ``ozone
precursors.''
The CAA required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that
violated the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Federal Register notice
promulgating these designations was published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR
23857).
The CAA contains two sets of provisions--subpart 1 and subpart 2--
that address planning and emission control requirements for
nonattainment areas (both are found in title I, part D of the CAA).
Subpart 1 contains general, less prescriptive, requirements for
nonattainment areas for any pollutant governed by a NAAQS, and applies
to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 contains more specific
requirements for certain ozone nonattainment areas, and applies to
ozone nonattainment areas classified under section 181 of the CAA.
In the April 30, 2004 designation rulemaking, EPA divided 8-hour
ozone nonattainment areas into the categories of subpart 1
nonattainment (``basic'' nonattainment) and subpart 2 nonattainment
(``classified'' nonattainment) based on their 8-hour ozone design
values (i.e., on the three-year averages of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations at the worst-case monitoring
sites in the designated areas) and on their 1-hour ozone design values
(i.e., on the fourth-highest daily maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations
over the three-year period at the worst-case monitoring sites in the
designated areas).\1\ 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas with 1-hour
ozone design values equaling or exceeding 121 ppb were designated as
subpart 2, classified nonattainment areas. Classification of the
subpart 2 nonattainment areas was based on the levels of the monitored
8-
[[Page 77680]]
hour ozone design values for each nonattainment area. All other 8-hour
nonattainment areas were designated as subpart 1, basic nonattainment
areas, which have no area-specific classifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 8-hour ozone design value and the 1-hour ozone design
value for each area were not necessarily recorded at the same
monitoring site. The worst-case monitoring site for each ozone
concentration averaging time was considered for each area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission control requirements for classified nonattainment areas
are linked to area classifications. Areas with more serious ozone
pollution problems are subject to more prescribed requirements. The
requirements are designed to bring areas into attainment by their
specified attainment dates, which also depend on the area
classifications. For example, marginal nonattainment areas are subject
to the fewest mandated control requirements and have the earliest
attainment deadline. Severe nonattainment areas are required to meet
more mandated emission controls, including tighter restrictions on the
sizes of existing VOC and NOX sources required to install
emission controls and tighter restrictions on mandated emission
controls and offsetting of new sources, and have a later attainment
deadline. In contrast, the attainment deadline for basic nonattainment
areas does not depend on the magnitude of the areas' 8-hour ozone
design values, and the required emission controls are less
prescriptive.
Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard
is attained when the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations is less than or equal
to 0.08 ppm (i.e., less than or equal to 0.084 ppm or 84 ppb based on
data rounding conventions specified in appendix I of 40 CFR part 50) at
all monitors in an area and in nearby downwind environs (for further
information, see 69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004). The supporting data must
meet a minimum data completeness requirement. The completeness
requirement (specified in appendix I of 40 CFR part 50) for ozone data
supporting a determination of attainment and a redesignation to
attainment is met when the annual average percent of days with valid
ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent for the ozone
seasons during the three-year period, with no single year with less
than 75 percent data completeness during the ozone season.
In the April 30, 2004 designation/classification rulemaking, Allen
and Stark Counties were both designated as subpart 1 nonattainment for
the 8-hour ozone standard. The designations were based on ozone data
collected during the 2001-2003 period.
On June 20, 2006, the State of Ohio requested redesignation of
Allen and Stark Counties to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based
on ozone data collected in these Counties during the 2003-2005 period.
On August 24, 2006, the State of Ohio completed the ozone redesignation
request by submitting documentation of the public hearings conducted by
the State for the ozone redesignation request and ozone maintenance
plans. The information contained in the State's June 20, 2006 ozone
redesignation request submittal was unchanged through the State's
public review process. On December 4, 2006, the State submitted a
clarification of the State's ozone maintenance plans, confirming that
the State is committed to implement contingency emission control
measures in the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard in
either Allen County or Stark County after these Counties are
redesignated to attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.
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 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 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 (TSD's) for Redesignation of Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide 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;
``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting
Director, Air Quality Management Division, 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. What Are EPA's Analyses of the State's Requests and What Are the
Bases for EPA's Proposed Actions?
EPA is proposing to determine that Allen and Stark Counties have
attained the 8-hour ozone standard, approve the ozone maintenance plans
for these Counties, and approve the VOC and NOX MVEBs
supported by these ozone
[[Page 77681]]
maintenance plans. EPA is also proposing to approve the redesignation
of these Counties to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The bases
for our proposed determinations and approvals follow.
1. Allen and Stark Counties Have Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
For ozone, as noted above, 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. To attain this standard, the average of
the annual fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentrations measured and recorded at each monitor (the monitoring
site's ozone design value) within the area and in its impacted downwind
environs 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 0.084 ppm (84 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The worst-case monitoring site-specific ozone design value
in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the June 20, 2006 ozone redesignation request, Ohio EPA
submitted ozone monitoring data indicating the top four daily maximum
8-hour ozone concentrations for each monitoring site in Allen and Stark
Counties during the 2003-2005 period. These ozone concentrations 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 2003 2004 2005 Average
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen..................................... 2650 Bible 88 76 81 82
Stark..................................... Malone College 87 74 76 79
Stark..................................... 245 West Fifth 85 71 76 77
Stark..................................... 1175 West Vine 86 76 86 83
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These data show that the site-specific ozone design values (average
fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations over the period
of 2003-2005) for all monitoring sites in Allen and Stark Counties are
below the 85 ppb ozone standard violation cut-off. These data support
the conclusion that the Allen County and Stark County ozone monitors
did not record a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard during the
2003-2005 period, and monitored attainment of the standard during this
period. We note that the ozone data recorded in the AQS show that these
monitoring sites met completeness requirements for the period covered
here. Based on these data, we propose to find that Allen and Stark
Counties have attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Based on available data (not fully quality assured), these
monitoring sites continue to show attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
through 2006.
The State of Ohio has committed to continue the operation of these
ozone monitors through the ozone maintenance period, and will consult
with the EPA if changes in the monitoring system are required.
2. Allen and Stark 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 Allen and Stark Counties and the State of
Ohio have met all currently applicable SIP requirements for Allen and
Stark Counties, including the requirements under section 110 of the CAA
(general SIP requirements) and the 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, EPA has fully approved the pertinent elements of the Ohio
SIP. See section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) 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 Allen and Stark
Counties at the time the State submitted the final, complete ozone
redesignation request for these areas (August 24, 2006).
a. Allen and Stark 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, redesignating 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, redesignating 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; programs to enforce
the emission limitations; submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by
the State after reasonable public notice and a hearing; implementation
of a source permit program; provisions for the implementation of part C
requirements (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)) and part D
requirements (New Source Review
[[Page 77682]]
(NSR)) for new sources or major source modifications; criteria for
stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, and reporting;
provisions for air quality modeling; and 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. See also other guidance documents listed above.
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 area's designation. EPA
believes that the requirements linked with a particular area's
nonattainment designation and 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-
Loraine, 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 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 SIP requirements under part D of the CAA. Under part D, 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 depending on the
area's nonattainment classification. Since Allen and Stark Counties are
designated as subpart 1 nonattainment areas for the 8-hour ozone
standard, the subpart 2 part D requirements do not apply to these
Counties.
Part D, subpart 1 requirements: For purposes of evaluating this
redesignation request, the applicable subpart 1 part D requirements are
contained 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 came due for Allen and Stark Counties prior to when the State
submitted the complete ozone redesignation request. For example, the
requirement for an ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in
section 172(c)(1), was not yet due when the State submitted the ozone
redesignation request for these Counties, nor were 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 Ohio submitted the complete,
adopted ozone redesignation request and maintenance plans for Allen and
Stark Counties. Therefore, none of the part D requirements for the 8-
hour ozone standard are considered to be applicable to Allen and Stark
Counties for purposes of redesignation.
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.
As with other part D requirements, EPA interprets the conformity
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the ozone
[[Page 77683]]
redesignation request under section 107(d) of the CAA. In addition,
please note that conformity rules are required for areas that are
redesignated to attainment of a NAAQS, and that 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).
Part D new source review requirements: EPA has determined that
areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a
New Source Review (NSR) program be approved prior to redesignation,
provided that that the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard
without emission reductions from part D NSR, since Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements will apply after
redesignation. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in
a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D New Source Review
Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' Ohio
has demonstrated that Allen and Stark Counties will be able to maintain
the 8-hour ozone standard without part D NSR in effect, and therefore,
we conclude that the State need not have a fully approved part D NSR
program prior to approval of the redesignation request. The State's PSD
program will become effective in Allen and Stark Counties upon
redesignation to attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60
FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR
20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665,
October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21,
1996).
We conclude that Allen and Stark 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. Allen and Stark Counties Have a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under
Section 110(k) of the CAA
EPA has fully approved the Ohio SIP for Allen and Stark Counties
under section 110(k) of the CAA for all applicable requirements. EPA
may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request
(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))
plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a
redesignation action. See 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 Allen and Stark Counties for purposes of ozone
redesignation. No SIP provisions relevant to Allen or Stark Counties
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 believes that approval of section 110 SIP elements under
the 1-hour ozone standard satisfies the prerequisite for approval of
the ozone redesignation request for purposes of attaining and
maintaining the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA also believes that since the
part D requirements for the 8-hour ozone standard 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 Allen and Stark Counties Are Due To
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions From Implementation
of the SIP and Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other
Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions
We believe that the State of Ohio has adequately demonstrated that
the observed air quality improvements in Allen and Stark 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 Allen and Stark Counties between
2002, an ozone standard violation year, and 2004, one of the years in
which Allen and Stark Counties recorded attainment of the 8-hour ozone
standard. The Ohio EPA has also identified permanent and enforceable
emission reductions which occurred elsewhere in the State and in other
upwind areas that have contributed to the air quality improvement in
Allen and Stark Counties. Table 2 summarizes the VOC and NOX
emissions totals from the anthropogenic sources in 2002 and 2004 for
both Counties as summarized in the State's ozone redesignation
submittal.
Table 2.--Total Anthropogenic VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in
Allen and Stark Counties (tons per summer day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category 2002 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen County Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point......................................... 4.77 4.92
Area.......................................... 5.17 5.08
Non-Road Mobile............................... 2.19 2.11
On-Road Mobile................................ 7.72 6.51
-------------------------
Total..................................... 19.85 18.62
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen County Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point......................................... 12.14 12.57
Area.......................................... 0.45 0.47
Non-Road Mobile............................... 5.30 4.85
On-Road Mobile................................ 11.71 10.13
-------------------------
Total..................................... 29.60 28.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 77684]]
Stark County Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point......................................... 2.90 2.97
Area.......................................... 21.23 21.03
Non-Road Mobile............................... 5.98 5.44
On-Road Mobile................................ 16.56 14.03
-------------------------
Total..................................... 46.67 43.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stark County Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point......................................... 5.12 4.85
Area.......................................... 1.17 1.23
Non-Road Mobile............................... 10.06 9.25
On-Road Mobile................................ 25.35 22.00
-------------------------
Total..................................... 41.70 37.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information in the above table indicates that both Counties
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 air quality in Allen and Stark Counties.
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. EPA believes these emission reductions contributed significantly
to the air quality improvements in Allen and Stark Counties through the
reduction of transported ozone and ozone precursors. Although both
Allen and Stark Counties have no significant EGUs, these Counties have
benefited from the NOX emission reductions occurring in the
surrounding areas. These regional NOX emission reductions
are considered to be permanent and enforceable.
Besides 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 sources of VOC emissions (those with
potential VOC emissions of 100 tons or more per year) whose
construction or modification commenced on or after October 19, 1979.
RACT rules for smaller sources have been implemented in the ozone
nonattainment areas.
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 emission limits in the SIP will assure
that these emission reductions will remain in place even after
redesignation of Allen and Stark Counties to attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, and the State commits to maintaining these emission
controls after the redesignation.
4. Allen and Stark Counties Have Fully Approvable Ozone Maintenance
Plans Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to redesignate Allen and Stark
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 Allen and Stark Counties through 2018, exceeding the 10 year minimum
maintenance period required by the CAA.
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.
[[Page 77685]]
b. What Are the Attainment Emission Inventories for Allen and Stark
Counties?
Ohio EPA prepared VOC and NOX emission inventories for
Allen and Stark 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 \3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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) in National Emissions Inventory Input Format (NIF) 3.0 format.
LADCO imported and processed the NIF files in the Emissions Modeling
System (EMS) and applied temporal and spatial profiles to calculate
July weekday emissions rates. The Allen and Stark 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 Allen and Stark Counties ozone
redesignation requests. Since no EGUs exist in Allen and Stark
Counties, there are no EGU emissions in these Counties.
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). The output of the NMIM was converted to the NIF
format and submitted to LADCO for processing in the EMS to obtain
spatially and temporally allocated 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.
To address concerns about the accuracy of NMIM results for some source
categories, LADCO contracted with a consultant to review the base data
and to make recommended changes. The non-road mobile source emissions
inventory has been appropriately adjusted based on the contractor
recommendations.
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 are expected to be
the most significant rail operations in the two 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. For passenger trains and
commuter lines, the Ohio EPA obtained information from AMTRAK
concerning train schedules, miles of transport, and schedules of
operation. This information was coupled with a fuel usage rate estimate
of 2.35 gallons per train-mile of travel to obtain the total fuel usage
per unit time in each of the Counties. Total fuel use by county was
used to assign emissions from this source category 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
[[Page 77686]]
Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS), emissions were calculated and
assigned to each county in the State, including Allen and Stark
Counties.
The MAR data were processed by LADCO using the EMS to calculate
July 2002 daily emissions of VOC and NOX.
v. On-Road Mobile Sources. The inventories of on-road mobile source
emissions for both Allen County and Stark County were developed by the
Ohio EPA in conjunction with the Ohio Department of Transportation
(Ohio DOT), LADCO, and EPA. The Ohio DOT provided the daily vehicle
miles traveled data and vehicle age and type distribution data. The
Ohio DOT and the Ohio EPA jointly developed estimated vehicle speeds
for functional roadway class categories (the Ohio DOT also provided the
roadway miles by functional class). Traffic monitoring conducted by the
Ohio DOT was used to modify the vehicle speeds and traffic levels for
specific roadway segments where deemed necessary. This vehicle travel
information, along with the MOBILE 6.2 vehicle emission factor model,
was used to estimate mobile source VOC and NOX emissions for
Allen and Stark Counties.
vi. Projected Emissions for the Attainment Year. Ambient ozone air
quality data showed that Allen and Stark Counties met the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the 2003-2005 period. Ohio EPA selected 2004, the central year
of this period, to estimate the ``attainment year'' emissions for both
Counties, needed as the base period emissions for the demonstrations of
maintenance. 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 Allen and Stark Counties. LADCO
provided growth and source control projection data to project VOC and
NOX area source emissions. The Ohio DOT provided projections
of vehicle travel estimates (Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)) to allow the
projection of mobile source emissions, with MOBILE 6.2 providing the
projected 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 Allen and Stark
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.
There are no EGU facilities in Allen and Stark Counties, but the
emissions from these source types have been derived by the Ohio EPA for
other Counties in Ohio and have been factored into the State's
demonstration of maintenance. Reductions in NOX emissions in
surrounding counties are assumed to reduce ozone levels in Allen and
Stark Counties through reductions in transported ozone and
NOX.
c. Demonstration of Maintenance
As part of the June 20, 2006 redesignation request submittal, Ohio
EPA requested revisions to the Ohio SIP to incorporate ozone
maintenance plans for Allen and Stark Counties as required under
section 175A of the CAA. The maintenance plans demonstrate 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. 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
Allen and Stark 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 both Counties, Ohio
EPA used source growth estimates provided by LADCO along with mobile
source growth estimates generated using VMT projections provided by the
Ohio DOT and MOBILE 6.2 to project the Allen and Stark Counties VOC and
NOX emissions.
Table 3 summarizes the VOC and NOX emissions projected
to occur in Allen County during the demonstrated maintenance period.
Similarly, Table 4 summarizes the VOC and NOX emissions
projected to occur in Stark County 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 3.--Projected VOC and NOX Emissions In Allen County (tons/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 2009 2018 Safety
Source sector Attainment Interim Maintenance margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Emissions:
Point................................................... 4.92 5.28 6.44
Area (Other)............................................ 5.08 4.85 4.89
Non-Road Mobile......................................... 1.98 1.77 1.24
On-Road Mobile.......................................... 6.51 *5.08 *2.89
Marine-Air-Railroad..................................... 0.13 0.12 0.12
Total VOC Emissions................................. 18.62 17.10 15.58 **3.04
---------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions:
Point................................................... 12.57 13.66 15.98
Area (Other)............................................ 0.47 0.52 0.55
Non-Road Mobile......................................... 2.29 1.92 1.13
On-Road Mobile.......................................... 10.13 *8.28 *3.47
Marine-Air-Railroad..................................... 2.56 1.80 1.69
Total NOX Emissions................................. 28.02 26.18 22.82 **5.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 15 percent growth cushion increase to mobile source budget.
** Difference between 2004 attainment year emissions and 2018 maintenance year emissions.
[[Page 77687]]
Table 4.--Projected VOC and NOX Emissions In Stark County (tons/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 2009 2018 Safety
Source sector Attainment Interim Maintenance margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Emissions:
Point................................................... 2.97 3.14 3.77
Area (Other)............................................ 21.03 20.49 21.93
Non-Road Mobile......................................... 5.29 3.92 3.22
On-Road Mobile.......................................... 14.03 *10.02 *5.37
Marine-Air-Railroad..................................... 0.15 0.14 0.14
Total VOC Emissions................................. 43.47 37.71 34.43 **9.04
---------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions:
Point................................................... 4.85 4.16 4.72
Area (Other)............................................ 1.23 1.40 1.46
Non-Road Mobile......................................... 6.22 4.81 2.50
On-Road Mobile.......................................... 22.00 *18.03 *7.08
Marine-Air-Railroad..................................... 3.03 2.39 2.22
Total NOX Emissions................................. 37.33 30.79 17.98 **19.35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 15 percent growth cushion increase to mobile source budget.
** 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 Allen and Stark Counties. This will result in decreased ozone and
ozone precursor transport into Allen and Stark Counties, and will
support maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard in these areas.
The emissions projections for Allen and Stark Counties lead to the
conclusion that Allen and Stark Counties 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
Allen and Stark Counties 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 will be maintained in Allen
and Stark Counties. As also noted by Ohio EPA, 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
The contingency plan provisions of the CAA are designed to result
in prompt correction or prevention of violations of the NAAQS that
might occur after redesignation of an area to attainment of the NAAQS.
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
