Redesignation of Jefferson County, Ohio To Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 711-724 [E6-22617]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the
national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). Redesignation is an
action that merely affects the status of
a geographical area, does not impose
any new requirements on sources, or
allows a state to avoid adopting or
implementing other requirements, 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
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000) requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ This proposed rule also
does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175,
because redesignation is an action that
affects the status of a geographical area
and does not impose any new regulatory
requirements on tribes, impact any
existing sources of air pollution on
tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance
of ozone national ambient air quality
standards in tribal lands. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this rule.
Although Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this rule, EPA met with
interested tribes in Michigan to discuss
the redesignation process and the
impact of a change in designation status
of these areas on the tribes.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
Because it is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy
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 (NTTA), 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
impracticable. In reviewing program
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
program 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 Act. Redesignation is
an action that affects the status of a
geographical area but does not impose
any new requirements on sources. Thus,
the requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: December 21, 2006.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E6–22616 Filed 1–5–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
711
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R05–OAR–2006–0891; FRL–8266–4]
Redesignation of Jefferson County,
Ohio To Attainment of the 8-Hour
Ozone Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On July 31, 2006, and
supplemented on October 3, 2006, the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(Ohio EPA) submitted: a request for EPA
approval of redesignation of Jefferson
County to attainment of the 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS), and a request for
EPA approval of a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision for the ozone
maintenance plan for Jefferson County.
Jefferson County is the Ohio portion of
the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH 8hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is
proposing to determine that this area
has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
based on three years of complete,
quality-assured ambient air quality
monitoring data. Preliminary, nonquality assured data for the 2006 ozone
season show that the area continues to
attain the NAAQS. EPA is also
proposing approval of Ohio’s ozone
maintenance plan for Jefferson County
as a revision to the Ohio SIP and the
State’s request to redesignate Jefferson
County to attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQs. Finally, EPA is
proposing to approve the Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOC) and
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for Jefferson
County, as supported by the ozone
maintenance plan for this County, for
purposes of conformity determinations.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before February 7, 2007. Submit your
comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA–R05–OAR–2006–0891, 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,
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
712
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Illinois. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office’s
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office’s official hours of
operation are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2006–
0891. 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.
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
Jennifer Dunn, Environmental Engineer,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
at (312) 353–5899, before visiting the
Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Dunn, Environmental Engineer,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs
Branch, (AR–18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604, (312) 353–5899,
dunn.jennifer@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
follows:
I. What Actions Are 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 Actions Are EPA Proposing To
Take?
We are proposing to take several
related actions for Jefferson County,
Ohio. First, we are proposing to
determine that Jefferson County has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Second, we are proposing to approve
Ohio’s ozone maintenance plan for
Jefferson County as a requested revision
of the Ohio SIP. The maintenance plan
is designed to keep Jefferson County
and, in conjunction with a West
Virginia ozone maintenance plan for
Hancock and Brooke Counties, the
entire Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH
area in attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for the next 12 years, through
2018.
Third, we are proposing to find that
Jefferson County and the State of Ohio
have met the requirements for
redesignation to attainment of the 8hour ozone NAAQS under section
107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
We are, therefore, proposing to approve
the July 31, 2006, and October 3, 2006,
requests from the State of Ohio to
change the designation of Jefferson
County from nonattainment to
attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.1
1A
separate proposed rule from EPA published
on October 2, 2006 (71 FR 57905) addresses a
request from the State of West Virginia to
redesignate Hancock and Brooke Counties, West
Virginia to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Fourth, as supported by and
consistent with the ozone maintenance
plan, we are also proposing to approve
the 2018 VOC and NOX MVEBs for
Jefferson County for conformity
determination purposes.
These proposed actions pertain to the
designation of Jefferson County for the
8-hour ozone NAAQS, and to the VOC
and NOX emission controls in this
County related to attainment and
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. If you own or operate a VOC
or NOX emissions source in this County
or live in this County, this proposed
rule may impact or apply to you. It may
impact you if you are involved in
transportation planning or
implementation of emission controls in
this area. Finally, it may also impact
you if you breathe the air in Jefferson
County or the air which has passed
through Jefferson County or the
Steubenville-Weirton area as a whole.
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)).2 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 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 three
most recent years of ozone data at the
time (2001–2003 when the 8-hour ozone
designations were initially established)
were considered to establish the ozone
designations. The Federal Register
notice making 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
2 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.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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 average 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).3 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 were
based on the levels of the monitored 8hour 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 than marginal areas,
including tighter restrictions on the
sizes of existing VOC and NOX sources
required to install emission controls,
tighter restrictions on mandated
emission controls, and offsetting of new
sources. Severe nonattainment areas
also have a later attainment deadline. In
contrast, the attainment deadline for
basic nonattainment areas does not
depend on the magnitude of the area 8hour ozone design values.
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) over the
most recent three-year period at all
monitors in an area and in its impacted
downwind environs (See 69 FR 23857
(April 30, 2004) for further information).
Such 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, the
Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area,
including Jefferson County, was
designated as subpart 1 nonattainment
for the 8-hour ozone standard. The
designation was based on ozone data
collected during the 2001–2003 period.
On July 31, 2006, the State of Ohio
submitted a draft request for
redesignation of Jefferson County to
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
based on ozone data collected in the
Steubenville-Weirton WV-OH area
during the 2003–2005 period. On
October 3, 2006, the State of Ohio
completed the ozone redesignation
request by submitting documentation of
the public hearing conducted by the
State for the redesignation request and
ozone maintenance plan. The
information contained in the State’s July
31, 2006, ozone redesignation request
submittal was unchanged through the
State’s public review process
(summarized in the October 3, 2006,
submittal). The State of West Virginia
has also submitted an ozone
redesignation request for the West
Virginia portion of the SteubenvilleWeirton, WV-OH area (for Hancock and
Brooke Counties). A separate proposed
rule from EPA published on October 2,
2006 (71 FR 57905), addresses this
request.
3 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.
III. What Are the Criteria for
Redesignation to Attainment?
The CAA provides the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area
to attainment. Specifically, section
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
713
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 the
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
(TSDs) 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
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
714
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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: (1) Determine
that Jefferson County has attained the 8-
hour ozone standard; (2) approve the
ozone maintenance plan for this County
and the VOC and NOX MVEBs
supported by the ozone maintenance
plan; and, (3) approve the redesignation
of this County to attainment of the 8hour ozone NAAQS. The bases for our
proposed determination and approvals
are as follows:
1. Jefferson County and the
Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH Area
Have Attained the 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS
Analyses of the attainment of the 8hour ozone NAAQS are conducted in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and 40
CFR part 50 appendix I. These analyses
use the most recent three complete,
consecutive calendar years of qualityassured air quality monitoring data at all
monitoring sites in the area and in its
impacted downwind environs. 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 the most
recent 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 ozone standard is attained
if the area’s ozone design value 4 is
0.084 ppm (84 ppb) or less. The data
must be collected and quality-assured in
accordance with 40 CFR part 50, and
must be recorded in EPA’s Air Quality
System (AQS). The ozone monitors
generally should have remained at the
same locations for the duration of the
monitoring period required to
demonstrate attainment (for three years
or more).
As part of the July 31, 2006, ozone
redesignation request, the Ohio EPA
submitted summarized ozone
monitoring data indicating the top four
daily maximum 8-hour ozone
concentrations for each monitoring site
in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH
area during the 2002–2005 period.
These summarized worst-case ozone
concentrations are part of the qualityassured ozone data collected in this area
and recorded in the AQS. The annual
fourth-high 8-hour daily maximum
concentrations for each year during the
2003–2005 period, along with the threeyear averages, are summarized in Table
1 for Jefferson County, Ohio and
Hancock County, West Virginia. All
monitoring sites achieved at least 99%
data completeness.
TABLE 1.—ANNUAL FOURTH-HIGH DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS IN PARTS PER MILLION (PPM) FOR
JEFFERSON COUNTY, OHIO AND HANCOCK COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA *
County
Monitoring site
2003
2004
2005
Average
Jefferson County, Ohio ...................................................................
227 North 5h ..............................
618 Logan ..................................
Oak St. & Owin ..........................
0.079
..............
0.077
..............
0.071
0.073
..............
0.083
0.075
..............
0.078
0.075
Hancock County, West Virginia ......................................................
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
* Data for Hancock County was included in appendix A of the Ohio EPA’s submission and is used in Table 1. The data table in the main body
of the State’s submission included data for Ohio County, West Virginia (part of the Wheeling area and not part of the Steubenville-Weirton area)
rather than Hancock County, West Virginia.
The monitoring site in Jefferson
County was relocated to a site 1⁄3 mile
from the original site after 2003 because
Ohio EPA lost access to the original site.
The new site meets all citing criteria
described in 40 CFR 58 Appendix E.
The original and final sites are
sufficiently close to each other, and
removed from sources of ozone
precursors such that the two sites
represent the same air quality.
Therefore, the data from the two sites
can be combined when calculating the
three-year average ozone concentration
in Table 1.
The monitored ozone concentrations
for 2003–2005 show that the entire
Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area has
attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The
current three-year average (2003–2005)
for Jefferson County, Ohio is 0.078 ppm.
The current three-year average (2003–
2005) for Hancock County, West
Virginia is 0.075 ppm. The data
collected at the Jefferson County and
Hancock County, West Virginia
monitoring sites show that the area
satisfies the CAA requirement that the
ozone standard must be attained at all
sites in and around the ozone
nonattainment area. The three-year
ozone design value for the
nonattainment area is less than 0.085
ppm. Furthermore, available (nonquality assured) ozone monitoring data
from 2006 indicates that this area
continues to attain the ozone NAAQs.
The Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency and the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection
have committed to continue ozone
monitoring in this area as part of the
State’s ozone maintenance plan. This
commitment meets a redesignation
requirement, in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58, that ozone monitoring will be
continued to assure continued
attainment of the 8-hour ozone
standard. Furthermore, the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency and
the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection will consult
with EPA prior to altering the existing
4 The worst-case monitoring site-specific ozone
design value in the area or in its impacted
downwind environs.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
monitoring network if changes become
necessary in the future. The two states
will continue to quality assure the data
to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 58
and all other federal requirements. The
data will be available in real time on the
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency’s Web site and will be entered
into AQS on a timely basis and in
accordance with federal guidelines.
We find that the ozone monitoring
data submitted by the States of Ohio and
West Virginia provide an adequate
demonstration that the SteubenvilleWeirton, WV-OH area has attained the
8-hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, we
propose to determine that Jefferson
County, Ohio, as part of the
Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area, has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
2. Jefferson County and the State of
Ohio Have Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D of the CAA and This Area Has
a Fully Approved SIP Under Section
110(k) of the CAA
We have determined that Jefferson
County and the State of Ohio have met
all currently applicable SIP
requirements for Jefferson County under
section 110 of the CAA (general SIP
requirements). We have determined that
the Ohio SIP meets the currently
applicable SIP requirements under
subpart 1 part D of title I of the CAA
(requirements specific to basic ozone
nonattainment areas). See section
107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA. In addition,
we have determined that all applicable
requirements are approved into the
Ohio SIP. See section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of
the CAA. In making these
determinations, we determined the CAA
requirements which are applicable to
Jefferson County, and determined that
the applicable portions of the SIP
meeting these requirements are fully
approved under section 110(k) of the
CAA. We note that SIPs must be fully
approved only with respect to currently
applicable requirements of the CAA,
which in this case are those CAA
requirements applicable to Jefferson
County at the time the State submitted
a complete ozone redesignation request
for this area, on October 3, 2006.
a. Jefferson County has 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 to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
attainment under this interpretation, the
state and the area must meet the
relevant CAA requirements that apply at
the time of the State’s submittal of a
complete redesignation request for the
area. See also the September 17, 1993,
Michael Shapiro memorandum, and 66
FR 12459, 12465–12466 (March 7, 1995)
(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor,
Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS). Applicable
requirements of the CAA that come due
subsequent to the state’s submittal of a
complete redesignation request remain
applicable until a redesignation of the
area to attainment of the standard is
approved, but are not required as
prerequisites to redesignation. See
section 175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra Club
v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See
also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003)
(redesignation of the St. Louis/East St.
Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS).
General SIP requirements: Section
110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the
general requirements for a SIP, which
include: enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures,
means, or techniques; provisions for the
establishment and operation of
appropriate devices necessary to collect
data on ambient air quality; and
programs to enforce the emission
limitations. General SIP elements and
requirements are delineated in section
110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA.
These SIP elements and requirements
include, but are not limited to, the
following: (a) Submittal of a SIP that has
been adopted by the State after
reasonable public notice and a hearing;
(b) provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality;
(c) implementation of a source permit
program; (d) provisions for the
implementation of part C requirements
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)) and part D requirements (New
Source Review (NSR)) for new sources
or major source modifications; (e)
criteria for stationary source emission
control measures, monitoring, and
reporting; (f) provisions for air quality
modeling; and, (g) provisions for public
and local agency participation.
SIP requirements and elements are
discussed in the following EPA
documents: ‘‘Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4,
1992; ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Actions Submitted in Response to Clean
Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,’’
Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
715
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
nonattainment area’s classification. EPA
believes that the requirements linked
with a particular nonattainment area’s
classification are the relevant measures
to evaluate when 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 policy on
applicability of conformity and
oxygenated fuels requirements for
redesignation purposes, as well as with
section 184 ozone transport
requirements. See: Reading,
Pennsylvania proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176,
October 10, 1996 and 62 FR 24826, May
7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio
final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
716
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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.
Part D, subpart 1 requirements: For
purposes of evaluating this
redesignation request, the applicable
subpart 1 part D requirements for all
nonattainment areas 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, a notice of proposed
rulemaking for an ozone redesignation
for the St. Louis area, for a discussion
of section 172 requirements.
No requirements for 8-hour ozone
under part D of the CAA came due for
Jefferson County prior to the State’s
submittal (October 3, 2006) of a
complete ozone redesignation request
for this area. For example, the
requirement for an ozone attainment
demonstration, as contained in section
172(c)(1), is not yet applicable, nor are
the requirements for Reasonably
Available Control Measures (RACM)
and Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) (section 172(c)(1)),
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
(section 172(c)(2)), and attainment plan
and RFP contingency measures (section
172(c)(9)). Therefore, none of the part D
requirements are applicable to Jefferson
County 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 relating to consultation,
enforcement and enforceability, which
EPA promulgated pursuant to CAA
requirements.
In addition to the fact that part D
requirements did not become due prior
to Ohio’s submission of a complete
ozone redesignation request for Jefferson
County, and, therefore, are not believed
by the EPA to be applicable for
redesignation purposes in this case, EPA
similarly believes that it is reasonable to
interpret the conformity requirements as
not applying for purposes of evaluating
the ozone redesignation request under
section 107(d) of the CAA. Further, EPA
believes that it is reasonable to interpret
the conformity requirements as not
applying for purposes of evaluating the
ozone redesignation request under
section 107(d) of the CAA because state
conformity rules are still required after
redesignation of areas to attainment of a
NAAQS and Federal conformity rules
apply where state rules have not been
approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d
426 (6th Cir. 2001). See also 60 FR
62748 (December 7, 1995) (Tampa,
Florida).
EPA has also 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 the
area demonstrates maintenance of the
standard without 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 is
not relying on reductions from NSR to
attain the ozone standard, and so 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
Jefferson County 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).
EPA approved Ohio’s general and
transportation conformity SIPs on
March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9646) and May
30, 2000 (65 FR 34395), respectively. In
its July 31, 2006 submission Ohio
included the on-highway motor vehicle
emission budgets (MVEB) for 2009 and
2018 that Table 2 outlines. EPA
reviewed the budgets for the West
Virginia portion of the SteubenvilleWeirton area on October 2, 2006 (71 FR
57905).
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
TABLE 2.—2009 AND 2018 FINAL MVEBS FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY, OHIO
VOC
emissions
(tpd)
Inventory year
2009
2009
2009
2018
projected on-road mobile source emissions ..............................................................................................................
safety margin allocated to MVEBs .............................................................................................................................
MVEBs ........................................................................................................................................................................
projected on-road mobile source emissions ..............................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
NOX
emissions
(tpd)
2.29
0.34
2.63
1.19
3.57
0.53
4.10
1.45
717
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2.—2009 AND 2018 FINAL MVEBS FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY, OHIO—Continued
VOC
emissions
(tpd)
Inventory year
2018 safety margin allocated to MVEBs .............................................................................................................................
2018 MVEBs ........................................................................................................................................................................
The area must use the motor vehicle
emissions budgets from the
maintenance plan in any conformity
determination that is effective on or
after the effective date of the
maintenance plan approval. We
conclude that Jefferson County and the
State of Ohio 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 for this area.
b. Jefferson County has a fully
approved applicable SIP under section
110(k) of the CAA. EPA has fully
approved the Ohio SIP for Jefferson
County 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 Jefferson County for
purposes of redesignation. No Jefferson
County SIP provisions are currently
disapproved, conditionally approved, or
partially approved. As indicated above,
EPA believes that the section 110
elements not connected with
nonattainment plan submissions and
not linked to the area’s nonattainment
status are not applicable requirements
for purposes of reviewing the State’s
redesignation request. EPA has also
noted that it may conclude that the
section 110 SIP submission approved
under the 1-hour standard will be
adequate for purposes of attaining and
maintaining the 8-hour standard. EPA
also believes that since the part D
requirements for the eight-hour ozone
standard did not become due prior to
Ohio’s submission of a final, complete
redesignation request for Jefferson
County, they also are not applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation.
3. The Air Quality Improvement in the
Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH Area Is
Due to Permanent and Enforceable
Reductions in Emissions Resulting From
Implementation of the SIP, Federal Air
Pollution Control Regulations, and
Other Permanent and Enforceable
Emission Reductions
In making this demonstration, the
States of West Virginia 5 and Ohio have
NOX
emissions
(tpd)
0.18
1.37
0.22
1.67
documented changes in VOC and NOX
emissions from all anthropogenic (manmade or man-based) sources in the
Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area
occurring between 2002, an ozone
standard violation year, and 2004, one
of the years in which the SteubenvilleWeirton, WV-OH area has recorded
attainment of the 8-hour ozone
standard. The States have also discussed
permanent and enforceable emission
reductions that have occurred elsewhere
in these two States and in other upwind
areas that have contributed to the air
quality improvement in the
Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area.
Table 3 summarizes the VOC and NOX
emissions totals from the anthropogenic
sources in 2002 and 2004 for the
Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area.6
From the Table, it can be seen that VOC
emissions have decreased slightly
between 2002 and 2004, whereas NOX
emissions have significantly declined
between 2002 and 2004.
The States of Ohio and West Virginia
conclude that the differences in the
2002 and 2004 emissions are due
primarily to the implementation of
permanent and enforceable emission
control requirements.
TABLE 3.—TOTAL ANTHROPOGENIC VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2002 AND 2004 IN THE STEUBENVILLE-WEIRTON,
WV-OH AREA
[Tons per day]
County
Point
Area
Non-road
On-road
Total
2002 Volatile Organic Compounds
1.1
6.7
3.1
4.5
1.0
1.5
4.2
3.2
9.4
15.9
2002 Total .............................................................................................................
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Jefferson County, Ohio ................................................................................................
Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia ............................................................
7.8
7.6
2.5
7.4
25.3
5 West Virginia submitted a separate ozone
redesignation request for its portion of the
Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. The West
Virginia redesignation request is being addressed in
a separate EPA proposed rule (71 CFR 57905). West
Virginia did supply emissions data for the
Steubenville-Weirton area to the State of Ohio for
inclusion in Ohio’s ozone redesignation request.
The West Virginia data summarized here are those
data provided to the State of Ohio, and may differ
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
from those summarized in the West Virginia ozone
redesignation request. We have noticed minor
differences in the two sets of data, but emphasize
that the differences are minor and primarily due to
rounding differences induced by how the two States
have handled the summarized data and by how
various EPA reviewers have handled and rounded
the data in the proposed rules.
6 Minor differences exist between the emissions
summarized in Table 3 and those summarized by
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the State of Ohio in its July 31, 2006, ozone
redesignation request. For purposes of maintaining
significant figure consistency and for readability,
we have rounded all emissions to one significant
decimal place. The State of Ohio has not
maintained this consistency, leading to some
differences in individual category emissions and in
emissions totals.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
718
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3.—TOTAL ANTHROPOGENIC VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2002 AND 2004 IN THE STEUBENVILLE-WEIRTON,
WV-OH AREA—Continued
[Tons per day]
County
Point
Area
Non-road
On-road
Total
2004 Volatile Organic Compounds
Jefferson County, Ohio ................................................................................................
Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virgina .............................................................
1.2
4.8
3.1
4.6
0.9
1.5
3.6
2.6
8.8
13.5
2004 Total .............................................................................................................
Difference (2002–2004) 7 ......................................................................................
6.0
1.8
7.7
¥0.1
2.4
0.1
6.2
1.2
22.3
3.0
Jefferson County, Ohio ................................................................................................
Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia ............................................................
190.0
5.9
0.2
4.6
2.4
4.3
6.3
4.3
198.9
19.1
2002 Total .............................................................................................................
195.9
4.8
6.7
10.6
218.0
Jefferson County, Ohio ................................................................................................
Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia ............................................................
154.7
4.5
0.2
4.8
2.3
5.3
5.4
3.6
162.6
18.2
2004 Total .............................................................................................................
Difference (2002–2004) ........................................................................................
159.2
36.7
5.0
¥0.2
7.6
¥0.9
9.0
1.6
180.8
37.2
2002 Nitrogen Oxides
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
2004 Nitrogen Oxides
The significant decline in NOX
emissions in this area between 2002 and
2004 occurred primarily at Electric
Generating Units (EGU) as the result of
the implementation of the States’ NOX
emission control rules (resulting from
the implementation of EPA’s NOX SIP
call and acid rain emission controls
under title IV of the CAA). NOX
reductions also resulted from tighter
federal standards on new vehicles.
We concur with the States that NOX
emissions have been significantly
lowered in the Steubenville-Weirton,
WV-OH area. We also concur with the
States that these emission reductions
have contributed to attainment of the
8-hour ozone standard in the
Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area.
Therefore, the State of Ohio has met this
criterion for redesignation of Jefferson
County to attainment of the 8-hour
ozone standard.
Besides implementation of the NOX
emission control rules, additional
implemented, or soon to be
implemented, emission control rules
include several Federal rules: (1) Tier II
emission standards for vehicles and
gasoline sulfur 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,
7 Positive differences indicate a decrease in
emissions over time from 2002 to 2004. Negative
differences indicate emissions were increasing over
time, primarily as the result of emission changes
from source growth exceeding the impacts of
implemented emission controls.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
(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 NOX emissions
throughout the States of Ohio and West
Virginia and will contribute to future
emission reductions in these States.
The State of Ohio commits to
continuing the existing VOC and NOX
emission controls after the SteubenvilleWeirton, WV-OH area is redesignated to
attainment of the 8-hour ozone
standard.
4. Jefferson County Has a Fully
Approvable Ozone Maintenance Plan
Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to
redesignate Jefferson County to
attainment of the ozone NAAQS, Ohio
submitted a SIP revision request to
provide for maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in Jefferson County and
in the entire Steubenville-Weirton, WVOH area through 2018, exceeding the
minimum 10 year 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
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
b. What Are the Attainment Emission
Inventories for Jefferson County? Ohio
EPA prepared comprehensive VOC and
NOX emission inventories for Jefferson
County, including EGU and non-EGU
point (significant stationary sources),
other (smaller and widely-distributed
stationary sources that are also called
area sources), Marine, Aircraft, and Rail
mobile (MAR), mobile on-road, and
mobile non-road sources for 2002 (the
base year). To develop the attainment
year (2004) and projected maintenance
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
years (2009 and 2018) emissions, the
Ohio EPA projected the 2002 emissions
applying various source categoryspecific growth factors and emission
control factors.
The State has thoroughly documented
how the 2002 base year emissions were
derived. The following summarizes the
procedures and sources of data used by
the Ohio EPA to derive the base year
emissions.
i. Point Sources. The primary source
of point source information was facilityspecific information collected annually
by the State for sources covered by Title
V source permits. This information
includes emissions, process rates,
operating schedules, emissions control
data, and other relevant 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 program. The
sources included in the 2002 point
source inventory were identified using
Ohio’s Title V STARS database. The
emissions included in this database are
facility-reported actual emissions.
Ohio EPA defines point source
process emissions as those that occur at
a Title V facility with 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 Jefferson County
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 Jefferson
County ozone redesignation request.
ii. Area (Other) Sources. Area sources
are those sources which are generally
small, numerous, and have not been
inventoried as specific point, mobile, or
biogenic sources. The emissions for
these sources are calculated and
grouped by source type and are
estimated using various surrogates, such
as population, energy usage, estimates
of employees in various occupational
groups and facility-types. The area
source emissions are typically defined
at the county level.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
To estimate the area source emissions,
Ohio EPA has either used published
Emission Inventory Improvement
Program (EIIP) emissions estimation
methodologies or other methodologies
typically used by other states. Area
source categories include: Various
stationary combustion sources (not
including the EGU sources included in
the point source portion of the
emissions inventory); human cremation;
agricultural pesticides; architectural
surface coatings; auto body refinishing;
consumer and commercial solvents;
degreasing and solvent cleaning (not
included in point source emissions);
fuel marketing; graphic arts (the
emissions from the smaller facilities not
included in the Title V STARS
database); hospital sterilizers; small
industry surface coating; small industry
rubber and plastics coating; landfills;
portable fuel containers; traffic
markings; and Privately Owned
Treatment Works (POTWs). The State
has documented the data sources and
emission factors or calculation
procedures used for each of these area
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 NMIM
output was converted to the NIF format
and submitted to LADCO for processing
in the EMS to obtain spatially and
temporally allocated summer emission
rates. The basic non-road algorithm for
calculating emissions in NMIM uses
base year equipment populations,
average load factors, available engine
powers, activity hours and emission
factors to calculate the emissions.
iv. Marine, Aircraft, and Rail (MAR)
Sources. Due to the significance of the
emissions from these 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 the spatial range of
each vessel type.
Locomotive activity was divided into
various rail categories: Class I
operations; Class II/III operations;
passenger trains; consumer lines; and
yard operations. Since Class I operations
are expected to be the most significant
rail operations in most areas, including
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
719
Jefferson County, operators of Class I
operations were queried for activity and
emissions-related information for each
railroad line. Class I activity levels were
provided by county in terms of tonmiles of freight movement and
estimated fuel consumption. This
approach provided for more specific
estimates of emissions by railroad line.
Class I railroads, however, could not
provide information about their
switching rail activity. Class II/III
emissions were based on national fuel
consumption and per employee fuel
consumption estimates.
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
Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS),
which calculates aircraft-specific
emissions.
LADCO processed all of the MAR
emissions data through the EMS to
calculate July 2002 summer day
emissions for VOC and NOX.
v. On-Road Mobile Sources. A
regional transportation model operated
by the Brooke, Hancock, Jefferson
Transportation Study (BHJTS), West
Virginia Department of Transportation
(WVDOT), and Ohio Department of
Transportation (Ohio DOT) was used to
estimate traffic levels, vehicle age and
type distributions, vehicle speeds, and
other emissions-related vehicle
parameters for the roadways in Jefferson
County and elsewhere in the
Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area.
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 Jefferson County and the entire
Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area.
vi. Projected Emissions for the
Attainment Year. Ambient air quality
data showed that the SteubenvilleWeirton, WV-OH area met the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in 2004. Ohio EPA
projected point source emissions from
the 2002 baseline to 2004 with the
statewide EGU NOX budgets from the
Ohio NOX rule. Mobile source emission
projections were based on the
MOBILE6.2 model. Ohio EPA also used
growth and control files for point, area,
and non-road categories that LADCO
developed in determining 2004
emissions of NOX and VOCs for
Jefferson County. The State of West
Virginia estimated 2004 VOC and NOX
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
720
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
emissions for its portion of the
Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. The
estimated 2004 emissions have been
compared to the 2002 emissions to
demonstrate the basis for the improved
air quality in the Steubenville-Weirton,
WV-OH area. See Table 3 above for the
2004 attainment level emissions.
c. Demonstration of Maintenance. As
part of the July 31, 2006, redesignation
request submittal, Ohio EPA included a
requested revision to the Ohio SIP to
incorporate an ozone maintenance plan
for Jefferson County. This plan
demonstrates maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS through 2018 by
documenting current and projected VOC
and NOX emissions and showing that
future emissions of VOC and NOX will
remain at or below the attainment year
emission levels. A maintenance
demonstration need not be based on
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 State of Ohio and the State of
West Virginia projected the VOC and
NOX emissions in the SteubenvilleWeirton, WV-OH area for 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 this
area. For Jefferson County, Ohio EPA
used source growth estimates provided
by LADCO along with mobile source
growth estimates generated using the
regional transportation model and
MOBILE 6.2 to project the Jefferson
County VOC and NOX emissions. The
methods used by the State of West
Virginia are described in West Virginia’s
ozone redesignation request (reviewed
by EPA on October 2, 2006 (71 FR
57905)).
Table 4 summarizes the VOC
emissions projected to occur in Jefferson
County, Ohio and in Hancock and
Brooke Counties, West Virginia during
the demonstrated ozone maintenance
period. Similarly, Table 5 summarizes
the NOX emissions projected to occur in
the same area during the demonstrated
ozone maintenance period. The State of
Ohio and the State of West Virginia
chose 2018 as a projection year to meet
the 10-year maintenance demonstration
requirement, allowing several years for
EPA to complete the redesignation
rulemaking process. The States also
chose 2009 as an interim year to
demonstrate that VOC and NOX
emissions will remain below the
attainment year levels throughout the
10-year maintenance period.
TABLE 4.—PROJECTED VOC EMISSIONS IN THE STEUBENVILLE-WEIRTON, WV-OH AREA
[tons/day]
2004 Attainment
Source sector
2009 Interim
2018 Maintenance
Safety margin
Jefferson County, Ohio VOC Emissions
EGU Point ........................................................................................................................
Non-EGU Point ................................................................................................................
Area (Other) .....................................................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile .............................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...............................................................................................................
Marine-Air-Railroad ..........................................................................................................
0.9
0.2
3.1
0.9
3.6
0.1
1.0
0.2
2.9
0.8
*2.6
0.1
1.0
0.2
2.9
0.6
*1.4
0.1
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Total Jefferson County .............................................................................................
8.8
7.6
6.2
**2.6
Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia VOC Emissions
EGU Point ........................................................................................................................
Non-EGU Point ................................................................................................................
Area (Other) .....................................................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile (MAR included) ...................................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...............................................................................................................
0
4.8
4.6
1.5
2.6
0
4.3
4.5
1.2
*2.0
0
5.3
5.2
1.0
*1.0
....................
....................
....................
....................
Total Hancock and Brooke Counties .......................................................................
Total Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH .........................................................................
13.5
22.3
12.0
19.6
12.5
18.7
**1.0
**3.6
* Includes
15 percent mobile source budget increase as a safety margin. Actual projected 2018 on-road mobile source VOC emissions in Jefferson County are 1.19 tons per day. In Brooke and Hancock Counties, the actual projected 2018 on-road mobile source VOC are 0.88 tons per
day.
** Difference between 2004 attainment year emissions and 2018 maintenance year emissions.
TABLE 5.—PROJECTED NOX EMISSIONS IN THE STEUBENVILLE-WEIRTON, WV-OH AREA
[tons/day]
2004 Attainment
Source sector
2009 Interim
2018 Maintenance
Safety margin
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Jefferson County, Ohio NOX Emissions
EGU Point ........................................................................................................................
Non-EGU Point ................................................................................................................
Area (Other) .....................................................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile .............................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...............................................................................................................
Marine-Air-Railroad ..........................................................................................................
148.8
5.9
0.2
0.7
5.4
1.5
60.8
5.6
0.2
0.6
*4.1
1.4
41.0
5.4
0.2
0.3
*1.7
1.3
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Total Jefferson County .............................................................................................
162.5
72.7
49.9
**112.6
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
721
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5.—PROJECTED NOX EMISSIONS IN THE STEUBENVILLE-WEIRTON, WV-OH AREA—Continued
[tons/day]
2004 Attainment
Source sector
2009 Interim
2018 Maintenance
Safety margin
Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia NOX Emissions
EGU Point ........................................................................................................................
Non-EGU Point ................................................................................................................
Area (Other) .....................................................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile (MAR included) ...................................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...............................................................................................................
0
4.5
4.8
5.3
3.6
0
5.1
4.9
3.8
*2.8
0
5.6
5.2
3.2
*1.2
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Total Hancock and Brooke Counties .......................................................................
18.2
16.6
15.2
**3.0
Total Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH .........................................................................
180.7
89.3
65.1
**115.6
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
* Includes 15 percent mobile source budget increase as a safety margin. Actual projected 2018 on-road mobile source NO emissions in JefX
ferson County are 1.45 tons per day. Actual projected 2018 on-road mobile source NOX emissions in Hancock and Brooke Counties are 0.94
tons per day.
** 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 beyond 2006, will
further lower NOX emissions in upwind
areas, resulting in decreased ozone and
ozone precursor transport into Jefferson
County and the Steubenville-Weirton,
WV-OH area. This will also support
maintenance of the ozone standard in
this area, which particularly benefits
from the NOX SIP call and CAIR. These
two regulations focus on utility
emissions in the Eastern United States
and impose a permanent cap on overall
emissions from affected sources. This
cap is likely to minimize growth of this
very important component of emissions
in the Steubenville-Weirton area.
The emission projections for Jefferson
County and the Steubenville-Weirton,
WV-OH area as a whole coupled with
the expected impacts of the States’ EGU
NOX rules and CAIR lead to the
conclusion that Jefferson County and
the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area
should maintain the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS throughout the required 10-year
maintenance period and through 2018.
The projected decreases in local VOC
and local and regional NOX emissions
indicate that peak ozone levels in the
Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area may
actually further decline during the
maintenance period.
Based on the comparison of the
projected emissions and the attainment
year emissions, we conclude that Ohio
EPA has successfully demonstrated that
the 8-hour ozone standard can be
maintained in Jefferson County and in
the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area.
We believe that this is especially likely
given the expected impacts of the NOX
SIP call and CAIR. As noted by Ohio
EPA, this conclusion is further
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
supported by the fact that other states in
the eastern portion of the United States
are also expected to further reduce
regional NOX emissions through
implementation of their ozone 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 to be
adopted and implemented. The
maintenance plan must include a
requirement that the State will
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 a contingency
plan to address a possible future ozone
air quality problem in the SteubenvilleWeirton, WV-OH area. The contingency
plan has two levels of actions/responses
depending on whether a violation of the
8-hour ozone standard is only
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
threatened (Warning Level Response) or
has actually occurred or appears to be
very imminent (Action Level Response).
A Warning Level Response will be
triggered whenever an annual (1-year)
fourth-high monitored 8-hour ozone
concentration of 88 ppb occurs within
the ozone maintenance area (within the
Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area). A
Warning Level Response will consist of
a study to determine whether the 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 and, if so, the
control measures necessary to reverse
the trend. This would involve taking
into consideration ease and timing for
implementation, as well as economic
and social considerations.
Implementation of necessary controls in
response to a Warning Level Response
will take place as expeditiously as
possible, but in no event later than 12
months from the conclusion of the most
recent ozone season.
An Action Level Response will be
triggered whenever a two-year averaged
annual fourth-high monitored 8-hour
ozone concentration of 85 ppb or greater
occurs within the maintenance area. A
violation of the 8-hour ozone standard
(three-year average fourth-high value of
85 ppb or greater) will also prompt an
Action Level Response. 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
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
722
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
18 months from the close of the ozone
season that prompted the Action Level
Response. Any new emission control
measure that is selected for
implementation will be given a public
review. If a new emission control
measure is already promulgated and
scheduled to be implemented at the
Federal or State level and that emission
control measure is determined to be
sufficient to address the upper trend in
peak ozone concentrations, 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 Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area.
The selection of emission control
measures will be based on costeffectiveness, emission reduction
potential, economic and social
considerations, or other factors that the
Ohio EPA and West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection
(WVDEP) deem to be appropriate.
Selected emission control measures will
be subjected to public review and the
States will seek public input prior to
selecting new emission control
measures.
The State of Ohio ozone redesignation
request lists the following possible
emission control measures as
contingency measures in the ozone
maintenance portion of the State’s
submittal:
• Lower Reid vapor pressure gasoline
program;
• Tighten RACT on existing sources
covered by U.S. EPA Control Technique
Guidleines issued in response to the
1990 CAA;
• Extension of Reasonably Available
Control Techniques (RACT)
requirements to include source
categories previously excluded. New
VOC RACT rules could be adopted for
the following source categories:
—Consumer products
—Architectural and industrial
maintenance coatings
—Stage I gasoline dispensing facilities
(including pressure valves)
—Automobile refinishing
—Cold cleaner degreasers
—Portable fuel containers
—Synthetic organic compound
manufacturing
—Organic compound batch processes
—Wood manufacturing
—Industrial wastewater
—Aerospace industry
—Ship building
—Bakeries
—Plastic parts coating
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
—Volatile organic liquid storage
—Industrial solvent cleaning
—Offset lithography
—Industrial surface coating; and,
—Other sources with VOC emissions
greater than 50 tons per year;
• Revision of new source permitting
requirements to require more stringent
emissions control technology and/or
greater emissions offsets;
• NOX RACT, with the following
being potential source categories
covered by such RACT requirements:
—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;
• Transportation measures such as
trip reduction programs, traffic flow and
transit improvements. The selected
transportation measure would need to
achieve at least a half a percent
reduction in actual area wide VOC
emissions.
• Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit
programs for fleet vehicle operations.
• Require VOC or NOX emissions
offsets for new and modified major and/
or minor sources.
• Increase the ratio of emissions
offsets required for new sources.
• Require VOC or NOX controls on
new minor sources (less than 100 tons).
No contingency measure will be
implemented without the State
providing the opportunity for full public
participation and review.
e. Provisions for a Future Update of
the Ozone Maintenance Plan. As
required by section 175A(b) of the CAA,
the State commits to submit to the EPA
an update of the ozone maintenance
plan eight years after redesignation of
Jefferson County to attainment of the 8hour ozone NAAQS. The updated
maintenance plan will provide for
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
standard in Jefferson County and the
Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area for
an additional 10 years beyond the
period covered by the initial ozone
maintenance plan.
We find Ohio’s ozone maintenance
demonstration and contingency plan
acceptable.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
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. How Are the Motor Vehicle Emission
Budgets Developed and What Are the
Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for
Jefferson County?
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
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
plans, and maintenance plans, EPA
must affirmatively find that the MVEBs
are ‘‘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. In this
notice, EPA is reviewing the adequacy
of the Jefferson County motor vehicle
emission budgets as part of the review
and proposal on the overall ozone
maintenance plan. The State of Ohio
had previously requested parallel
processing and the expediency of this
review process is best suited to
following the 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)
mechanism.
Ohio and West Virginia are managing
mobile source emissions in the
Steubenville-Weirton area by
establishing separate MVEBs for their
respective portions of this area. EPA has
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
proposed approval of the NOX and VOC
MVEBs for the West Virginia portion of
the Steubenville-Weirton area in the
Federal Register (71 FR 57905) on
October 2, 2006. The Jefferson County
ozone maintenance plan contains VOC
and NOX MVEBs for 2009 and 2018.
EPA has reviewed these MVEBs for
Jefferson County and finds that they
meet the adequacy criteria in the
Transportation Conformity Rule.
Furthermore, EPA, through this
rulemaking, is proposing to approve the
MVEBs for use to determine
transportation conformity in Jefferson
County. EPA has determined that the
budgets are consistent with the control
measures and future emissions
projected in the SIP and that Jefferson
County and the Steubenville-Weirton,
WV-OH area 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. Table 2 contains the 2009
and 2018 VOC and NOX MVEBs for
Jefferson County. 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
Jefferson County and the SteubenvilleWeirton, WV-OH area can maintain the
8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile
source emissions at the levels of the
MVEBs since total source emissions,
even with the increased mobile source
emissions, will remain under the
attainment year levels in both Jefferson
County and the West Virginia portion of
the Steubenville-Weirton area.
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 4 and 5 above, Jefferson County
VOC and NOX emissions are projected
to have safety margins of 2.6 tons per
day for VOC and 112.6 tons per day for
NOX in 2018 (the differences between
the 2004, attainment year, and 2018
VOC and NOX emissions for all sources
in Jefferson County).
The MVEBs requested by Ohio EPA
contain safety margins (selected by the
State) significantly smaller than the
safety margins reflected in the total
emissions for Jefferson County. The
State is not requesting allocation of the
entire available safety margins actually
reflected in the demonstration of
maintenance. Therefore, even though
the State is requesting MVEBs that
exceed the projected on-road mobile
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
723
source emissions for 2018 contained in
the demonstration of maintenance, the
increase in on-road mobile source
emissions considered for transportation
conformity purposes is well within the
safety margins of the ozone maintenance
demonstration.
C. Are the MVEBs Approvable?
The VOC and NOX MVEBs for
Jefferson County including the
additional safety margin are approvable
because they maintain the total
emissions for Jefferson County at or
below the attainment year emission
inventory levels, as required by the
transportation conformity regulations.
VI. What Are the Effects of EPA’s
Proposed Actions?
Approval of the redesignation request
would change the designation of
Jefferson County for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 81, from
nonattainment to attainment. It would
also incorporate into the Ohio SIP a
plan for maintaining the ozone NAAQS
through 2018. The maintenance plan
includes a list of potential contingency
measures to remedy possible future
violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
It establishes NOX MVEBs of 4.10 tons
per day and 1.67 tons per day for 2009
and 2018, respectively. The plan
establishes VOC MVEBs of 2.63 tons per
day and 1.37 tons per day for 2009 and
2018, respectively.
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.).
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
724
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule proposes to approve
pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required
by state law, it does not contain any
unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4).
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the
national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a federal standard, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act.
Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This proposed rule also does not have
tribal implications because it will not
have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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).
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272,
requires Federal agencies to use
technical standards that are developed
or adopted by voluntary consensus to
carry out policy objectives, so long as
such standards are not inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. Absent a prior
existing requirement for the state to use
voluntary consensus standards, EPA has
no authority to disapprove a SIP
submission for failure to use such
standards, and it would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in place of a program
submission that otherwise satisfies the
provisions of the Clean Air Act.
Therefore, the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTA do not apply.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: December 21, 2006.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E6–22617 Filed 1–5–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
VerDate Aug<31>2005
National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0699; FRL–8266–9]
RIN 2060–AN71
Standards of Performance for
Equipment Leaks of VOC in the
Synthetic Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing Industry; Standards of
Performance for Equipment Leaks of
VOC in Petroleum Refineries
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of
public comment period.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that the
comment period on the proposed rule
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
amendments for the Standards of
Performance for Equipment Leaks of
VOC in the Synthetic Organic
Chemicals Manufacturing Industry;
Standards of Performance for
Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum
Refineries, published on November 7,
2006, is being extended until February
8, 2007.
DATES: Comments. Comments on the
proposed amendments published on
November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65302) must
be received on or before February 8,
2007.
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2006–0699, by one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
• Fax: (202) 566–1741.
• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send
comments to: Air and Radiation Docket
(6102T), Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2006–0699, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a
total of two copies. 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
20460.
• Hand Delivery: In person or by
courier, deliver comments to: Air and
Radiation Docket (6102T), EPA West,
Room B–102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Please include a total of two copies.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–
0699. The 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
website 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
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 4 (Monday, January 8, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 711-724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-22617]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0891; FRL-8266-4]
Redesignation of Jefferson County, Ohio To Attainment of the 8-
Hour Ozone Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On July 31, 2006, and supplemented on October 3, 2006, the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) submitted: a request
for EPA approval of redesignation of Jefferson County to attainment of
the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), and a
request for EPA approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
for the ozone maintenance plan for Jefferson County. Jefferson County
is the Ohio portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area. EPA is proposing to determine that this area has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based on three years of complete,
quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data. Preliminary, non-
quality assured data for the 2006 ozone season show that the area
continues to attain the NAAQS. EPA is also proposing approval of Ohio's
ozone maintenance plan for Jefferson County as a revision to the Ohio
SIP and the State's request to redesignate Jefferson County to
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQs. Finally, EPA is proposing to
approve the Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX) Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for Jefferson
County, as supported by the ozone maintenance plan for this County, for
purposes of conformity determinations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 7, 2007. Submit
your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0891, 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,
[[Page 712]]
Illinois. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional
Office's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office's
official hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-0891. 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.
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 Jennifer Dunn, Environmental
Engineer, at (312) 353-5899, before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Dunn, Environmental Engineer,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-5899, dunn.jennifer@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 follows:
I. What Actions Are 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 Actions Are EPA Proposing To Take?
We are proposing to take several related actions for Jefferson
County, Ohio. First, we are proposing to determine that Jefferson
County has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Second, we are proposing to approve Ohio's ozone maintenance plan
for Jefferson County as a requested revision of the Ohio SIP. The
maintenance plan is designed to keep Jefferson County and, in
conjunction with a West Virginia ozone maintenance plan for Hancock and
Brooke Counties, the entire Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area in
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years, through
2018.
Third, we are proposing to find that Jefferson County and the State
of Ohio have met the requirements for redesignation to attainment of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). We are, therefore, proposing to approve the July 31, 2006, and
October 3, 2006, requests from the State of Ohio to change the
designation of Jefferson County from nonattainment to attainment of the
8-hour ozone NAAQS.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A separate proposed rule from EPA published on October 2,
2006 (71 FR 57905) addresses a request from the State of West
Virginia to redesignate Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia
to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, as supported by and consistent with the ozone maintenance
plan, we are also proposing to approve the 2018 VOC and NOX
MVEBs for Jefferson County for conformity determination purposes.
These proposed actions pertain to the designation of Jefferson
County for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and to the VOC and NOX
emission controls in this County related to attainment and maintenance
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. If you own or operate a VOC or
NOX emissions source in this County or live in this County,
this proposed rule may impact or apply to you. It may impact you if you
are involved in transportation planning or implementation of emission
controls in this area. Finally, it may also impact you if you breathe
the air in Jefferson County or the air which has passed through
Jefferson County or the Steubenville-Weirton area as a whole.
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)).\2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground-level ozone is not 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 three most recent years of ozone
data at the time (2001-2003 when the 8-hour ozone designations were
initially established) were considered to establish the ozone
designations. The Federal Register notice making 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
[[Page 713]]
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 average 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).\3\ 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 were based on the levels of the monitored
8-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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 than marginal areas, including tighter
restrictions on the sizes of existing VOC and NOX sources
required to install emission controls, tighter restrictions on mandated
emission controls, and offsetting of new sources. Severe nonattainment
areas also have a later attainment deadline. In contrast, the
attainment deadline for basic nonattainment areas does not depend on
the magnitude of the area 8-hour ozone design values.
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)
over the most recent three-year period at all monitors in an area and
in its impacted downwind environs (See 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for
further information). Such 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, the
Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area, including Jefferson County, was
designated as subpart 1 nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard.
The designation was based on ozone data collected during the 2001-2003
period.
On July 31, 2006, the State of Ohio submitted a draft request for
redesignation of Jefferson County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS based on ozone data collected in the Steubenville-Weirton WV-OH
area during the 2003-2005 period. On October 3, 2006, the State of Ohio
completed the ozone redesignation request by submitting documentation
of the public hearing conducted by the State for the redesignation
request and ozone maintenance plan. The information contained in the
State's July 31, 2006, ozone redesignation request submittal was
unchanged through the State's public review process (summarized in the
October 3, 2006, submittal). The State of West Virginia has also
submitted an ozone redesignation request for the West Virginia portion
of the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area (for Hancock and Brooke
Counties). A separate proposed rule from EPA published on October 2,
2006 (71 FR 57905), addresses this request.
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 the
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 (TSDs) 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
[[Page 714]]
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: (1) Determine that Jefferson County has
attained the 8-hour ozone standard; (2) approve the ozone maintenance
plan for this County and the VOC and NOX MVEBs supported by
the ozone maintenance plan; and, (3) approve the redesignation of this
County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The bases for our
proposed determination and approvals are as follows:
1. Jefferson County and the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH Area Have
Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
Analyses of the attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS are conducted
in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50 appendix I. These
analyses use the most recent three complete, consecutive calendar years
of quality-assured air quality monitoring data at all monitoring sites
in the area and in its impacted downwind environs. 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 the most recent 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 ozone
standard is attained if the area's ozone design value \4\ is 0.084 ppm
(84 ppb) or less. The data must be collected and quality-assured in
accordance with 40 CFR part 50, and must be recorded in EPA's Air
Quality System (AQS). The ozone monitors generally should have remained
at the same locations for the duration of the monitoring period
required to demonstrate attainment (for three years or more).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The worst-case monitoring site-specific ozone design value
in the area or in its impacted downwind environs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the July 31, 2006, ozone redesignation request, the Ohio
EPA submitted summarized ozone monitoring data indicating the top four
daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations for each monitoring site in
the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area during the 2002-2005 period. These
summarized worst-case ozone concentrations are part of the quality-
assured ozone data collected in this area and recorded in the AQS. The
annual fourth-high 8-hour daily maximum concentrations for each year
during the 2003-2005 period, along with the three-year averages, are
summarized in Table 1 for Jefferson County, Ohio and Hancock County,
West Virginia. All monitoring sites achieved at least 99% data
completeness.
Table 1.--Annual Fourth-High Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations in Parts Per Million (ppm) for Jefferson
County, Ohio and Hancock County, West Virginia *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Monitoring site 2003 2004 2005 Average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson County, Ohio.................... 227 North 5h................ 0.079 ........ ........ ........
618 Logan................... ........ 0.071 0.083 0.078
Hancock County, West Virginia............. Oak St. & Owin.............. 0.077 0.073 0.075 0.075
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data for Hancock County was included in appendix A of the Ohio EPA's submission and is used in Table 1. The
data table in the main body of the State's submission included data for Ohio County, West Virginia (part of
the Wheeling area and not part of the Steubenville-Weirton area) rather than Hancock County, West Virginia.
The monitoring site in Jefferson County was relocated to a site \1/
3\ mile from the original site after 2003 because Ohio EPA lost access
to the original site. The new site meets all citing criteria described
in 40 CFR 58 Appendix E. The original and final sites are sufficiently
close to each other, and removed from sources of ozone precursors such
that the two sites represent the same air quality. Therefore, the data
from the two sites can be combined when calculating the three-year
average ozone concentration in Table 1.
The monitored ozone concentrations for 2003-2005 show that the
entire Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area has attained the 8-hour ozone
standard. The current three-year average (2003-2005) for Jefferson
County, Ohio is 0.078 ppm. The current three-year average (2003-2005)
for Hancock County, West Virginia is 0.075 ppm. The data collected at
the Jefferson County and Hancock County, West Virginia monitoring sites
show that the area satisfies the CAA requirement that the ozone
standard must be attained at all sites in and around the ozone
nonattainment area. The three-year ozone design value for the
nonattainment area is less than 0.085 ppm. Furthermore, available (non-
quality assured) ozone monitoring data from 2006 indicates that this
area continues to attain the ozone NAAQs.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection have committed to continue ozone
monitoring in this area as part of the State's ozone maintenance plan.
This commitment meets a redesignation requirement, in accordance with
40 CFR part 58, that ozone monitoring will be continued to assure
continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. Furthermore, the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the West Virginia Department
of Environmental Protection will consult with EPA prior to altering the
existing
[[Page 715]]
monitoring network if changes become necessary in the future. The two
states will continue to quality assure the data to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 58 and all other federal requirements. The data
will be available in real time on the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency's Web site and will be entered into AQS on a timely basis and in
accordance with federal guidelines.
We find that the ozone monitoring data submitted by the States of
Ohio and West Virginia provide an adequate demonstration that the
Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Therefore, we propose to determine that Jefferson County, Ohio, as part
of the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area, has attained the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
2. Jefferson County and the State of Ohio Have Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and This Area Has
a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
We have determined that Jefferson County and the State of Ohio have
met all currently applicable SIP requirements for Jefferson County
under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). We have
determined that the Ohio SIP meets the currently applicable SIP
requirements under subpart 1 part D of title I of the CAA (requirements
specific to basic ozone nonattainment areas). See section
107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA. In addition, we have determined that all
applicable requirements are approved into the Ohio SIP. See section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA. In making these determinations, we
determined the CAA requirements which are applicable to Jefferson
County, and determined that the applicable portions of the SIP meeting
these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA.
We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to currently
applicable requirements of the CAA, which in this case are those CAA
requirements applicable to Jefferson County at the time the State
submitted a complete ozone redesignation request for this area, on
October 3, 2006.
a. Jefferson County has 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 to attainment under this interpretation, the state and
the area must meet the relevant CAA requirements that apply at the time
of the State's submittal of a complete redesignation request for the
area. See also the September 17, 1993, Michael Shapiro memorandum, and
66 FR 12459, 12465-12466 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann
Arbor, Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS). Applicable
requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the state's
submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable until a
redesignation of the area to attainment of the standard is approved,
but are not required as prerequisites to redesignation. See section
175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of the St.
Louis/East St. Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
General SIP requirements: Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA
contains the general requirements for a SIP, which include: enforceable
emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques;
provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices
necessary to collect data on ambient air quality; and programs to
enforce the emission limitations. General SIP elements and requirements
are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA.
These SIP elements and requirements include, but are not limited to,
the following: (a) Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the
State after reasonable public notice and a hearing; (b) provisions for
establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor
ambient air quality; (c) implementation of a source permit program; (d)
provisions for the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD)) and part D requirements (New Source
Review (NSR)) for new sources or major source modifications; (e)
criteria for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring,
and reporting; (f) provisions for air quality modeling; and, (g)
provisions for public and local agency participation.
SIP requirements and elements are discussed in the following EPA
documents: ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992; ``State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,''
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, October 28, 1992; and ``State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, September 17,
1993. 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 nonattainment area's
classification. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a
particular nonattainment area's classification are the relevant
measures to evaluate when 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 policy on applicability of conformity
and oxygenated fuels requirements for redesignation purposes, as well
as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See: Reading,
Pennsylvania proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October
10, 1996 and 62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio
final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
[[Page 716]]
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.
Part D, subpart 1 requirements: For purposes of evaluating this
redesignation request, the applicable subpart 1 part D requirements for
all nonattainment areas 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, a notice of proposed rulemaking for
an ozone redesignation for the St. Louis area, for a discussion of
section 172 requirements.
No requirements for 8-hour ozone under part D of the CAA came due
for Jefferson County prior to the State's submittal (October 3, 2006)
of a complete ozone redesignation request for this area. For example,
the requirement for an ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in
section 172(c)(1), is not yet applicable, nor are the requirements for
Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) and Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) (section 172(c)(1)), Reasonable Further
Progress (RFP) (section 172(c)(2)), and attainment plan and RFP
contingency measures (section 172(c)(9)). Therefore, none of the part D
requirements are applicable to Jefferson County 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 relating to consultation, enforcement
and enforceability, which EPA promulgated pursuant to CAA requirements.
In addition to the fact that part D requirements did not become due
prior to Ohio's submission of a complete ozone redesignation request
for Jefferson County, and, therefore, are not believed by the EPA to be
applicable for redesignation purposes in this case, EPA similarly
believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity requirements
as not applying for purposes of evaluating the ozone redesignation
request under section 107(d) of the CAA. Further, EPA believes that it
is reasonable to interpret the conformity requirements as not applying
for purposes of evaluating the ozone redesignation request under
section 107(d) of the CAA because state conformity rules are still
required after redesignation of areas to attainment of a NAAQS and
Federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been
approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001). See also 60 FR
62748 (December 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida).
EPA has also 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 the area demonstrates
maintenance of the standard without 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
is not relying on reductions from NSR to attain the ozone standard, and
so 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 Jefferson County 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).
EPA approved Ohio's general and transportation conformity SIPs on
March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9646) and May 30, 2000 (65 FR 34395),
respectively. In its July 31, 2006 submission Ohio included the on-
highway motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) for 2009 and 2018 that
Table 2 outlines. EPA reviewed the budgets for the West Virginia
portion of the Steubenville-Weirton area on October 2, 2006 (71 FR
57905).
Table 2.--2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for Jefferson County, Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
Inventory year emissions emissions
(tpd) (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 projected on-road mobile source emissions.. 2.29 3.57
2009 safety margin allocated to MVEBs........... 0.34 0.53
2009 MVEBs...................................... 2.63 4.10
2018 projected on-road mobile source emissions.. 1.19 1.45
[[Page 717]]
2018 safety margin allocated to MVEBs........... 0.18 0.22
2018 MVEBs...................................... 1.37 1.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The area must use the motor vehicle emissions budgets from the
maintenance plan in any conformity determination that is effective on
or after the effective date of the maintenance plan approval. We
conclude that Jefferson County and the State of Ohio 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 for this area.
b. Jefferson County has a fully approved applicable SIP under
section 110(k) of the CAA. EPA has fully approved the Ohio SIP for
Jefferson County 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 Jefferson County for
purposes of redesignation. No Jefferson County SIP provisions are
currently disapproved, conditionally approved, or partially approved.
As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked to the
area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for
purposes of reviewing the State's redesignation request. EPA has also
noted that it may conclude that the section 110 SIP submission approved
under the 1-hour standard will be adequate for purposes of attaining
and maintaining the 8-hour standard. EPA also believes that since the
part D requirements for the eight-hour ozone standard did not become
due prior to Ohio's submission of a final, complete redesignation
request for Jefferson County, they also are not applicable requirements
for purposes of redesignation.
3. The Air Quality Improvement in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH Area
Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting
From Implementation of the SIP, Federal Air Pollution Control
Regulations, and Other Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions
In making this demonstration, the States of West Virginia \5\ and
Ohio have documented changes in VOC and NOX emissions from
all anthropogenic (man-made or man-based) sources in the Steubenville-
Weirton, WV-OH area occurring between 2002, an ozone standard violation
year, and 2004, one of the years in which the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-
OH area has recorded attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. The
States have also discussed permanent and enforceable emission
reductions that have occurred elsewhere in these two States and in
other upwind areas that have contributed to the air quality improvement
in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. Table 3 summarizes the VOC and
NOX emissions totals from the anthropogenic sources in 2002
and 2004 for the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area.\6\ From the Table,
it can be seen that VOC emissions have decreased slightly between 2002
and 2004, whereas NOX emissions have significantly declined
between 2002 and 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ West Virginia submitted a separate ozone redesignation
request for its portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. The
West Virginia redesignation request is being addressed in a separate
EPA proposed rule (71 CFR 57905). West Virginia did supply emissions
data for the Steubenville-Weirton area to the State of Ohio for
inclusion in Ohio's ozone redesignation request. The West Virginia
data summarized here are those data provided to the State of Ohio,
and may differ from those summarized in the West Virginia ozone
redesignation request. We have noticed minor differences in the two
sets of data, but emphasize that the differences are minor and
primarily due to rounding differences induced by how the two States
have handled the summarized data and by how various EPA reviewers
have handled and rounded the data in the proposed rules.
\6\ Minor differences exist between the emissions summarized in
Table 3 and those summarized by the State of Ohio in its July 31,
2006, ozone redesignation request. For purposes of maintaining
significant figure consistency and for readability, we have rounded
all emissions to one significant decimal place. The State of Ohio
has not maintained this consistency, leading to some differences in
individual category emissions and in emissions totals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The States of Ohio and West Virginia conclude that the differences
in the 2002 and 2004 emissions are due primarily to the implementation
of permanent and enforceable emission control requirements.
Table 3.--Total Anthropogenic VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH Area
[Tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Point Area Non-road On-road Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 Volatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson County, Ohio................................... 1.1 3.1 1.0 4.2 9.4
Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia............... 6.7 4.5 1.5 3.2 15.9
------------------------------------------------------
2002 Total........................................... 7.8 7.6 2.5 7.4 25.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 718]]
2004 Volatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson County, Ohio................................... 1.2 3.1 0.9 3.6 8.8
Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virgina................ 4.8 4.6 1.5 2.6 13.5
------------------------------------------------------
2004 Total........................................... 6.0 7.7 2.4 6.2 22.3
Difference (2002-2004) \7\........................... 1.8 -0.1 0.1 1.2 3.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 Nitrogen Oxides
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson County, Ohio................................... 190.0 0.2 2.4 6.3 198.9
Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia............... 5.9 4.6 4.3 4.3 19.1
------------------------------------------------------
2002 Total........................................... 195.9 4.8 6.7 10.6 218.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 Nitrogen Oxides
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson County, Ohio................................... 154.7 0.2 2.3 5.4 162.6
Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia............... 4.5 4.8 5.3 3.6 18.2
------------------------------------------------------
2004 Total........................................... 159.2 5.0 7.6 9.0 180.8
Difference (2002-2004)............................... 36.7 -0.2 -0.9 1.6 37.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The significant decline in NOX emissions in this area
between 2002 and 2004 occurred primarily at Electric Generating Units
(EGU) as the result of the implementation of the States' NOX
emission control rules (resulting from the implementation of EPA's
NOX SIP call and acid rain emission controls under title IV
of the CAA). NOX reductions also resulted from tighter
federal standards on new vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Positive differences indicate a decrease in emissions over
time from 2002 to 2004. Negative differences indicate emissions were
increasing over time, primarily as the result of emission changes
from source growth exceeding the impacts of implemented emission
controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We concur with the States that NOX emissions have been
significantly lowered in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. We also
concur with the States that these emission reductions have contributed
to attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in the Steubenville-Weirton,
WV-OH area. Therefore, the State of Ohio has met this criterion for
redesignation of Jefferson County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone
standard.
Besides implementation of the NOX emission control
rules, additional implemented, or soon to be implemented, emission
control rules include several Federal rules: (1) Tier II emission
standards for vehicles and gasoline sulfur 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 NOX emissions throughout the States of Ohio and
West Virginia and will contribute to future emission reductions in
these States.
The State of Ohio commits to continuing the existing VOC and
NOX emission controls after the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH
area is redesignated to attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.
4. Jefferson County Has a Fully Approvable Ozone Maintenance Plan
Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to redesignate Jefferson County to
attainment of the ozone NAAQS, Ohio submitted a SIP revision request to
provide for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Jefferson County
and in the entire Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area through 2018,
exceeding the minimum 10 year 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.
b. What Are the Attainment Emission Inventories for Jefferson
County? Ohio EPA prepared comprehensive VOC and NOX emission
inventories for Jefferson County, including EGU and non-EGU point
(significant stationary sources), other (smaller and widely-distributed
stationary sources that are also called area sources), Marine,
Aircraft, and Rail mobile (MAR), mobile on-road, and mobile non-road
sources for 2002 (the base year). To develop the attainment year (2004)
and projected maintenance
[[Page 719]]
years (2009 and 2018) emissions, the Ohio EPA projected the 2002
emissions applying various source category-specific growth factors and
emission control factors.
The State has thoroughly documented how the 2002 base year
emissions were derived. The following summarizes the procedures and
sources of data used by the Ohio EPA to derive the base year emissions.
i. Point Sources. The primary source of point source information
was facility-specific information collected annually by the State for
sources covered by Title V source permits. This information includes
emissions, process rates, operating schedules, emissions control data,
and other relevant 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 program. The sources included in the 2002 point source
inventory were identified using Ohio's Title V STARS database. The
emissions included in this database are facility-reported actual
emissions.
Ohio EPA defines point source process emissions as those that occur
at a Title V facility with 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 Jefferson County 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 Jefferson County ozone redesignation request.
ii. Area (Other) Sources. Area sources are those sources which are
generally small, numerous, and have not been inventoried as specific
point, mobile, or biogenic sources. The emissions for these sources are
calculated and grouped by source type and are estimated using various
surrogates, such as population, energy usage, estimates of employees in
various occupational groups and facility-types. The area source
emissions are typically defined at the county level.
To estimate the area source emissions, Ohio EPA has either used
published Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) emissions
estimation methodologies or other methodologies typically used by other
states. Area source categories include: Various stationary combustion
sources (not including the EGU sources included in the point source
portion of the emissions inventory); human cremation; agricultural
pesticides; architectural surface coatings; auto body refinishing;
consumer and commercial solvents; degreasing and solvent cleaning (not
included in point source emissions); fuel marketing; graphic arts (the
emissions from the smaller facilities not included in the Title V STARS
database); hospital sterilizers; small industry surface coating; small
industry rubber and plastics coating; landfills; portable fuel
containers; traffic markings; and Privately Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs). The State has documented the data sources and emission factors
or calculation procedures used for each of these area 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 NMIM output was converted to the NIF format
and submitted to LADCO for processing in the EMS to obtain spatially
and temporally allocated summer emission rates. The basic non-road
algorithm for calculating emissions in NMIM uses base year equipment
populations, average load factors, available engine powers, activity
hours and emission factors to calculate the emissions.
iv. Marine, Aircraft, and Rail (MAR) Sources. Due to the
significance of the emissions from these 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 the spatial range of each vessel type.
Locomotive activity was divided into various rail categories: Class
I operations; Class II/III operations; passenger trains; consumer
lines; and yard operations. Since Class I operations are expected to be
the most significant rail operations in most areas, including Jefferson
County, operators of Class I operations were queried for activity and
emissions-related information for each railroad line. Class I activity
levels were provided by county in terms of ton-miles of freight
movement and estimated fuel consumption. This approach provided for
more specific estimates of emissions by railroad line. Class I
railroads, however, could not provide information about their switching
rail activity. Class II/III emissions were based on national fuel
consumption and per employee fuel consumption estimates.
EPA provided the aircraft emission estimates based on Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) published Landing and Take-Off (LTO)
rates by engine type for each airline and major airport in the State of
Ohio. The LTO-engine information was combined with engine type-specific
emission factors developed by the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) and, through use of a FAA Emissions and Dispersion
Modeling System (EDMS), which calculates aircraft-specific emissions.
LADCO processed all of the MAR emissions data through the EMS to
calculate July 2002 summer day emissions for VOC and NOX.
v. On-Road Mobile Sources. A regional transportation model operated
by the Brooke, Hancock, Jefferson Transportation Study (BHJTS), West
Virginia Department of Transportation (WVDOT), and Ohio Department of
Transportation (Ohio DOT) was used to estimate traffic levels, vehicle
age and type distributions, vehicle speeds, and other emissions-related
vehicle parameters for the roadways in Jefferson County and elsewhere
in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. 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
Jefferson County and the entire Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area.
vi. Projected Emissions for the Attainment Year. Ambient air
quality data showed that the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area met the
8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2004. Ohio EPA projected point source emissions
from the 2002 baseline to 2004 with the statewide EGU NOX
budgets from the Ohio NOX rule. Mobile source emission
projections were based on the MOBILE6.2 model. Ohio EPA also used
growth and control files for point, area, and non-road categories that
LADCO developed in determining 2004 emissions of NOX and
VOCs for Jefferson County. The State of West Virginia estimated 2004
VOC and NOX
[[Page 720]]
emissions for its portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. The
estimated 2004 emissions have been compared to the 2002 emissions to
demonstrate the basis for the improved air quality in the Steubenville-
Weirton, WV-OH area. See Table 3 above for the 2004 attainment level
emissions.
c. Demonstration of Maintenance. As part of the July 31, 2006,
redesignation request submittal, Ohio EPA included a requested revision
to the Ohio SIP to incorporate an ozone maintenance plan for Jefferson
County. This plan demonstrates maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
through 2018 by documenting current and projected VOC and
NOX emissions and showing that future emissions of VOC and
NOX will remain at or below the attainment year emission
levels. A maintenance demonstration need not be based on 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 State of Ohio and the State of West Virginia projected the VOC
and NOX emissions in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area
for 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 this area. For Jefferson County, Ohio EPA used source growth
estimates provided by LADCO along with mobile source growth estimates
generated using the regional transportation model and MOBILE 6.2 to
project the Jefferson County VOC and NOX emissions. The
methods used by the State of West Virginia are described in West
Virginia's ozone redesignation request (reviewed by EPA on October 2,
2006 (71 FR 57905)).
Table 4 summarizes the VOC emissions projected to occur in
Jefferson County, Ohio and in Hancock and Brooke Counties, West
Virginia during the demonstrated ozone maintenance period. Similarly,
Table 5 summarizes the NOX emissions projected to occur in
the same area during the demonstrated ozone maintenance period. The
State of Ohio and the State of West Virginia chose 2018 as a projection
year to meet the 10-year maintenance demonstration requirement,
allowing several years for EPA to complete the redesignation rulemaking
process. The States also chose 2009 as an interim year to demonstrate
that VOC and NOX emissions will remain below the attainment
year levels throughout the 10-year maintenance period.
Table 4.--Projected VOC Emissions in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH Area
[tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 2009 2018 Safety
Source sector Attainment Interim Maintenance margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson County, Ohio VOC Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU Point................................................... 0.9 1.0 1.0 ...........
Non-EGU Point............................................... 0.2 0.2 0.2 ...........
Area (Other)................................................ 3.1 2.9 2.9 ...........
Non-Road Mobile............................................. 0.9 0.8 0.6 ...........
On-Road Mobile.............................................. 3.6 *2.6 *1.4 ...........
Marine-Air-Railroad......................................... 0.1 0.1 0.1 ...........
