Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Kentucky: Redesignation of the Boyd County, Kentucky Portion of the Huntington-Ashland 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment for Ozone, 26759-26770 [E7-9130]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
required for the calendar year in which
the loan is approved. The Administrator
can waive the requirement that an audit
be performed in the year in which the
loan is approved if operations of the
applicant have not yet started.
(b) If a loan offer is accepted, the
applicant will be required to submit
quarterly financial and progress reports
utilizing the Agency’s electronic
reporting system.
§ 1738.64
Applicable laws.
(a) Applicants are required to comply
with certain regulations on
nondiscrimination and equal
employment opportunity. See RUS
Bulletin 1790–1, ‘‘Nondiscrimination
Among Beneficiaries of RUS Programs’’
and RUS Bulletin 20–15:320–15, ‘‘Equal
Employment Opportunity in
Construction Financed with RUS
Loans’’; 7 CFR parts 15 and 15b and 45
CFR part 90.
(b) Applicants are required to comply
with all Federal, state and local laws,
rules, regulations, ordinances, codes
and orders.
§§ 1738.65–1738.99
§ 1738.100
[Reserved]
OMB control number.
The information collection
requirements in this part are approved
by the Office of Management Budget
(OMB) and assigned OMB control
number 0572–0130.
Dated: May 4, 2007.
James M. Andrew,
Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
[FR Doc. E7–9021 Filed 5–10–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–15–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R04–OAR–2006–0362–200702; FRL–
8312–6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes; Kentucky:
Redesignation of the Boyd County,
Kentucky Portion of the HuntingtonAshland 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment
Area to Attainment for Ozone
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On September 29, 2006, the
Commonwealth of Kentucky
(Kentucky), through the Kentucky
Division for Air Quality (KDAQ),
submitted a request to redesignate the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:37 May 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
Kentucky portion of the bi-state
Huntington-Ashland 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area to attainment for the
8-hour National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS); and to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision containing a maintenance plan
for the Kentucky portion of the bi-state
Huntington-Ashland area. The bi-state
Huntington-Ashland 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area is comprised of one
county in Kentucky (Boyd County) and
two counties in West Virginia (Cabell
and Wayne counties). In this action,
EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky’s
8-hour ozone redesignation request for
Boyd County, which is the Kentucky
portion of the bi-state HuntingtonAshland 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area. Additionally, EPA is proposing to
approve the 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan for Boyd County, Kentucky,
including the state motor vehicle
emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). This proposed
approval of Kentucky’s redesignation
request is based on EPA’s determination
that Kentucky has demonstrated that
Boyd County, Kentucky has met the
criteria for redesignation to attainment
specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA),
including the determination that the
entire (both the Kentucky and West
Virginia portions) Huntington-Ashland
8-hour ozone nonattainment area has
attained the 8-hour ozone standard. On
May 17, 2006, the State of West Virginia
submitted a redesignation request and
maintenance plan for the West Virginia
portion (Cabell and Wayne counties) of
this 8-hour ozone area. EPA has taken
action on West Virginia’s redesignation
request and maintenance plan through a
separate action. The final rulemaking
approving the West Virginia submittal
was published in the Federal Register
on September 15, 2006. In this action,
EPA is also providing the status of its
transportation conformity adequacy
determination for the new MVEBs for
2018 that are contained in the 8-hour
ozone maintenance plan for Boyd
County, Kentucky. MVEBs for Cabell
and Wayne counties in West Virginia
are included in the West Virginia
submittal.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 11, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2006–0362, by one of the
following methods:
(a) www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
(b) E-mail: LeSane.Heidi@epa.gov.
(c) Fax: 404–562–9019.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26759
(d) Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2006–0362
Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
(e) Hand Delivery or Courier: Heidi
LeSane, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street,
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2006–
0362. 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 through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. 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, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
E:\FR\FM\11MYP1.SGM
11MYP1
26760
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heidi LeSane, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street,
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The
telephone number is (404) 562–9074.
Mrs. LeSane can also be reached via
electronic mail at
LeSane.Heidi@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Background for EPA’s
Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These Actions?
V. What Is the Effect of EPA’s Proposed
Actions?
VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the Request?
VII. What Are the Proposed State MVEBs for
Boyd County, Kentucky?
VIII. What Is the Status of EPA’s Adequacy
Determination for the MVEBs for Boyd
County, Kentucky?
IX. Proposed Action on the Redesignation
Request and Maintenance Plan SIP
Revision Including Proposed Approval
of the 2018 MVEBs
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA
Taking?
EPA is proposing to take three related
actions, which are summarized below
and described in greater detail
throughout the notice of proposed
rulemaking: (1) To redesignate Boyd
County, Kentucky to attainment for the
8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2) to approve
Kentucky’s 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan, including the associated MVEBs;
and (3) to notify the public of the status
of EPA’s adequacy determination for the
Boyd County MVEBs.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:37 May 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
First, EPA is proposing to determine
that the bi-state Huntington-Ashland
8-hour ozone nonattainment area has
attained the 8-hour ozone standard, and
that the Boyd County, Kentucky portion
has met the requirements for
redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E)
of the CAA. The bi-state HuntingtonAshland 8-hour ozone area is comprised
of one county in Kentucky (Boyd
County) and two counties in West
Virginia (Cabell and Wayne counties).
Today’s proposal addresses only the
Kentucky portion of the bi-state
Huntington-Ashland 8-hour ozone area.
In a separate rulemaking, EPA approved
the redesignation request and
maintenance plan for the West Virginia
portion of this 8-hour ozone area (see 71
FR 39618). EPA is now proposing to
approve a request to change the legal
designation of Boyd County, Kentucky
from nonattainment to attainment for
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Second, EPA is also proposing to
approve Kentucky’s 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for Boyd County,
Kentucky (such approval being one of
the CAA criteria for redesignation to
attainment status). The maintenance
plan is designed to help keep the
Huntington-Ashland area (of which
Boyd County is a part) in attainment for
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2018.
Consistent with the CAA, the
maintenance plan that EPA is proposing
to approve today also includes 2018
state MVEBs for NOX and VOCs.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve
the 2018 state MVEBs that are included
as part of Kentucky’s maintenance plan.
These MVEBs apply only to Boyd
County, Kentucky. MVEBs for Cabell
and Wayne counties in West Virginia
are included in the West Virginia
submittal.
Third, EPA is announcing the status
of EPA’s Adequacy Process for the
newly-established 2018 MVEBs for
Boyd County, Kentucky. Through a
separate action, MVEBs for West
Virginia portion of this 8-hour ozone
area were established (see 71 FR 39618).
The Adequacy comment period for the
Boyd County, Kentucky 2018 MVEBs
began on June 21, 2006, with EPA’s
posting of the availability of this
submittal on EPA’s Adequacy Web site
(https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm).
The Adequacy comment period for
these 2018 MVEBs closed on July 21,
2006. No requests for or adverse
comments on this submittal were
received during EPA’s Adequacy
comment period. Please see section VIII
of this rulemaking for further
explanation of this process, and for
more details on the MVEBs.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Today’s notice of proposed
rulemaking is in response to Kentucky’s
September 29, 2006, SIP submittal
which supersedes Kentucky’s June 7,
2006, submittal that included a request
for parallel processing. The September
29, 2006, submittal requested
redesignation of Boyd County, Kentucky
as part of the bi-state HuntingtonAshland Area, and included a SIP
revision addressing the specific issues
summarized above, and the necessary
elements for redesignation described in
section 107(d)(3)(E).
II. What Is the Background for EPA’s
Proposed Actions?
Ground-level ozone is not emitted
directly by sources. Rather, emissions of
NOX and VOCs react in the presence of
sunlight to form ground-level ozone.
NOX and VOCs are referred to as
precursors of ozone. The CAA
establishes a process for air quality
management through the NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a
revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08
parts per million (ppm). This new
standard is more stringent than the
previous 1-hour ozone standard. Under
EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the
8-hour ozone standard is attained when
the 3-year average of the annual fourth
highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone
concentrations is less than or equal to
0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when
rounding is considered). (See, 69 FR
23857 (April 30, 2004) for further
information.) Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period
must meet a data completeness
requirement. The ambient air quality
monitoring data completeness
requirement is met when the average
percent of days with valid ambient
monitoring data is greater than 90
percent, and no single year has less than
75 percent data completeness as
determined in Appendix I of part 50.
Specifically, section 2.3 of 40 CFR part
50, Appendix I, ‘‘Comparisons with the
Primary and Secondary Ozone
Standards’’ states:
The primary and secondary ozone ambient
air quality standards are met at an ambient
air quality monitoring site when the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration is less than or equal to 0.08
ppm. The number of significant figures in the
level of the standard dictates the rounding
convention for comparing the computed 3year average annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration with the level of the standard.
The third decimal place of the computed
value is rounded, with values equal to or
greater than 5 rounding up. Thus, a
computed 3-year average ozone
E:\FR\FM\11MYP1.SGM
11MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
concentration of 0.085 ppm is the smallest
value that is greater than 0.08 ppm.
The CAA required EPA to designate
as nonattainment any area that was
violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
based on the three most recent years of
ambient air quality data. The
Huntington-Ashland 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area was designated
using 2001–2003 ambient air quality
data. The Federal Register document
making these designations was signed
on April 15, 2004, and published on
April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). The CAA
contains two sets of provisions—subpart
1 and subpart 2—that address planning
and control requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas. (Both are found in
title I, part D.) Subpart 1 (which EPA
refers to as ‘‘basic’’ nonattainment)
contains general, less prescriptive,
requirements for nonattainment areas
for any pollutant—including ozone—
governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2
(which EPA refers to as ‘‘classified’’
nonattainment) provides more specific
requirements for certain ozone
nonattainment areas. Some 8-hour
ozone nonattainment areas are subject
only to the provisions of subpart 1.
Other 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas
are also subject to the provisions of
subpart 2. Under EPA’s Phase 1 8-hour
ozone implementation rule (69 FR
23857) (Phase 1 Rule), signed on April
15, 2004 and published on April 30,
2004, an area was classified under
subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone
design value (i.e., the 3-year average of
the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentrations), if it had a 1-hour design
value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest
1-hour design value in Table 1 of
subpart 2). All other areas are covered
under subpart 1, based upon their
8-hour ambient air quality design
values.
Various aspects of EPA’s Phase 1
8-hour ozone implementation rule were
challenged in court and on December
22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C.
Circuit Court) vacated EPA’s Phase 1
Implementation Rule for the 8-hour
Ozone Standard. South Coast Air
Quality Management Dist. (SCAQMD) v.
EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The
D.C. Circuit Court held that certain
provisions of EPA’s Phase I Rule were
inconsistent with the requirements of
the CAA. The Court rejected EPA’s
reasons for implementing the 8-hour
standard in nonattainment areas under
subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2 of title I,
part D of the CAA. The Court also held
that EPA improperly failed to retain four
measures required for 1-hour
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:37 May 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
nonattainment areas under the antibacksliding provisions of EPA’s
regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New
Source Review (NSR) requirements
based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment
classification; (2) CAA section 185
penalty fees for 1-hour severe or
extreme nonattainment areas; (3)
measures to be implemented pursuant
to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the
CAA, on the contingency of an area not
making reasonable further progress
toward attainment of the 1-hour
NAAQS, or for failure to attain that
NAAQS; and (4) certain conformity
requirements for certain types of federal
actions. The D.C. Circuit Court upheld
EPA’s authority to revoke the 1-hour
standard provided that there were
adequate anti-backsliding provisions in
place.
This section sets forth EPA’s views on
the potential effect of the Court’s ruling
on this redesignation action. For the
reasons described throughout this notice
of proposed rulemaking, EPA does not
believe that the D.C. Circuit Court’s
ruling alters any requirements relevant
to the redesignation of the Kentucky
portion of the Huntington-Ashland Area
(Boyd County) so as to preclude
redesignation, and does not prevent
EPA from proposing to finalize, or
finalizing, the Boyd County, Kentucky
redesignation. EPA believes that the
Court’s decision, as it currently stands
or as it may be modified based upon the
petitions for rehearing that have been
filed, imposes no impediment to moving
forward with redesignation of the
Huntington-Ashland Area to attainment,
because redesignation is appropriate
under the relevant redesignation
provisions of the CAA and longstanding
policies regarding redesignation
requests.
The Huntington-Ashland Area was
originally designated as moderate
nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone
standard on November 6, 1991 (56 FR
56694). The Area was redesignated as
attainment for the 1-hour ozone
standard on June 29, 1995 (60 FR
33748). On April 30, 2004, EPA
designated the Huntington-Ashland
Area (of which Boyd County is a part)
as a ‘‘basic’’ 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area. (69 FR 23857)
The D.C. Circuit Court’s decision in
2006 also addressed the 8-hour ozone
classification scheme. The Court
rejected EPA’s reasons for classifying
areas under subpart 1 for the 8-hour
standard, and remanded that matter to
the Agency. Consequently, it is possible
that the Huntington-Ashland Area
could, as a result of the remand to EPA,
be reclassified under subpart 2.
Although any future decision by EPA to
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26761
classify this area under subpart 2 might
trigger additional future requirements
for the area, this does not mean that
redesignation cannot go forward now.
EPA’s position is based upon: (1) EPA’s
longstanding policy of evaluating
requirements in accordance with the
requirements due at the time that the
request is submitted; and (2)
consideration of the inequity of
retroactively applying any requirements
that might be applied in the future.
In September 2006, when Kentucky
submitted its final redesignation
request, the Huntington-Ashland Area
was classified under subpart 1of the
CAA, and was obligated to meet only
the subpart 1 requirements. Under
EPA’s longstanding interpretation of
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, to
qualify for redesignation, states
requesting redesignation to attainment
must meet only the relevant SIP
requirements that came due prior to the
submittal of a complete redesignation
request. See, ‘‘Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4,
1992; see also, Michael Shapiro
Memorandum, ‘‘SIP Requirements for
Areas Submitting Requests for
Redesignation to Attainment of the
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide NAAQS
On or After November 15, 1992,’’
Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, September 17, 1993; and
60 FR 12459, 12465–66 (March 7, 1995)
(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor).
See, Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537
(7th Cir. 2004), which upheld this
interpretation. See also, 68 FR 25418,
25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003)
(redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri).
Moreover, it would be inequitable to
retroactively apply any new SIP
requirements that were not applicable at
the time the request was submitted. The
D.C. Circuit Court recognized the
general inequity in retroactive
rulemakings in Sierra Club v. Whitman,
285 F. 3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002), in which
the D.C. Circuit Court upheld a district
court’s refusal to make retroactive an
EPA determination of nonattainment
that was past the statutory due date.
Such a determination would have
resulted in the imposition of additional
requirements on the area. In Sierra Club,
the D.C. Circuit Court stated,
‘‘[a]lthough EPA failed to make the
nonattainment determination within the
statutory time frame, Sierra Club’s
proposed solution only makes the
situation worse. Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the states,
which would face fines and suits for not
E:\FR\FM\11MYP1.SGM
11MYP1
26762
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
implementing air pollution prevention
plans in 1997, even though they were
not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68.
Similarly, with regard to Kentucky’s
redesignation request, it would be unfair
to penalize Kentucky by retroactively
applying to it for purposes of
redesignation, additional SIP
requirements under subpart 2 that were
not in effect at the time it submitted its
redesignation request, and that are not
currently in effect, but that might be in
effect as a result of the D.C. Circuit
Court’s remand.
With respect to the requirements
under the 1-hour standard ozone
standard, Boyd County, Kentucky was
originally designated as moderate
nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone
standard in November 6, 1991 (56 FR
56694). The Area was redesignated as
attainment for the 1-hour ozone
standard on June 29, 1995 (60 FR
33748). Therefore, Boyd County,
Kentucky was designated to attainment
of the 1-hour ozone standard prior to its
nonattainment designation for the 8hour ozone standard. As a result, it is
considered to be a 1-hour attainment
area subject to a CAA section 175A
maintenance plan for the 1-hour
standard. The D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling
does not impact redesignation requests
for these types of areas for two main
reasons.
First, there are no conformity
requirements relevant for the
Huntington-Ashland redesignation
request, such as a transportation
conformity SIP.1 It is EPA’s
longstanding policy position that it is
reasonable to interpret the conformity
SIP requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating a redesignation
request under section 107(d) because
state conformity rules are still required
after redesignation, and federal
conformity rules apply where state rules
have not been approved. See, 40 CFR
51.390; see also, Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d
426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding EPA’s
interpretation). See also, 60 FR 62748
(Dec. 7, 1995) (redesignation of Tampa,
Florida).
Second, with regard to the three other
anti-backsliding provisions for the
1-hour standard that the D.C. Circuit
Court found were not properly retained,
Boyd County, Kentucky is an attainment
area subject to a maintenance plan for
the 1-hour standard, and the NSR,
contingency measure (pursuant to
1 CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to
submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain
federal criteria and procedures for determining
transportation conformity. Transportation
conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle
emissions budgets that are established in control
strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:37 May 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)), and fee
provision requirements no longer apply
to this area because it was redesignated
to attainment of the 1-hour standard. As
a result, the decision in SCAQMD
should not alter any requirements that
would preclude EPA from finalizing the
Boyd County portion of the HuntingtonAshland area to attainment for the
8-hour ozone standard.
As noted earlier, in 2005, the ambient
ozone data for the Huntington-Ashland
nonattainment area indicated no further
violations of the 8-hour ozone standard,
using data from the 3-year period of
2003–2005 (with a 2003–2005 design
value of 0.079 ppm), to demonstrate
attainment. As a result, on September
29, 2006, Kentucky requested
redesignation of Boyd County, Kentucky
to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The redesignation request
includes three years of complete,
quality-assured ambient air quality data
for the ozone seasons (March 1st until
October 31st) of 2003–2005, indicating
that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been
achieved for the entire HuntingtonAshland area. Under the CAA,
nonattainment areas may be
redesignated to attainment if sufficient,
complete, quality-assured data is
available for the Administrator to
determine that the area has attained the
standard and the area meets the other
CAA redesignation requirements in
section 107(d)(3)(E).
III. What Are the Criteria for
Redesignation?
The CAA provides the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area
to attainment. Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for
redesignation providing that: (1) The
Administrator determines that the area
has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2)
the Administrator has fully approved
the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k); (3) the
Administrator determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP
and applicable Federal air pollutant
control regulations and other permanent
and enforceable reductions; (4) the
Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section
175A; and, (5) the state containing such
area has met all requirements applicable
to the area under section 110 and part
D of the CAA.
EPA provided guidance on
redesignation in the General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the
CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16,
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented
this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR
18070). EPA has provided further
guidance on processing redesignation
requests in the following documents:
1. ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design
Value Calculations,’’ Memorandum from Bill
Laxton, Director, Technical Support Division,
June 18, 1990;
2. ‘‘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;
3. ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,’’
Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch,
June 1, 1992;
4. ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director,
Air Quality Management Division, September
4, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Calcagni
Memorandum’’);
5. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air
Act Deadlines,’’ Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, October 28, 1992;
6. ‘‘Technical Support Documents (TSDs)
for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,’’
Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch,
August 17, 1993;
7. ‘‘ State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests
for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On
or After November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation,
September 17, 1993;
8. ‘‘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;
9. ‘‘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
10. ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress,
Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard,’’ Memorandum from
John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.
IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These
Actions?
On September 29, 2006, Kentucky
requested redesignation of the Kentucky
portion (Boyd County) of the bi-state
Huntington-Ashland 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area to attainment for the
8-hour ozone standard. EPA’s
evaluation indicates that Kentucky has
E:\FR\FM\11MYP1.SGM
11MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
demonstrated that Boyd County,
Kentucky (as part of the HuntingtonAshland area) has attained the standard
and has met the requirements for
redesignation set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is also
announcing the status of its adequacy
determination for the 2018 state MVEBs,
which is relevant to the requested
redesignation.
V. What Is the Effect of EPA’s Proposed
Actions?
EPA’s proposed actions establish the
basis upon which EPA may take final
action on these issues being proposed
for approval today. Approval of
Kentucky’s redesignation request would
change the official designation of Boyd
County, Kentucky for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81.
Approval of Kentucky’s request would
also incorporate into the Kentucky SIP,
a plan for maintaining the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Huntington-Ashland
Area through 2018. The maintenance
plan includes contingency measures to
remedy future violations of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The maintenance plan
also establishes state MVEBs of 1.18
tons per day (tpd) for VOC and 1.30 tpd
for NOX for the year 2018 for Boyd
County, Kentucky. Approval of
Kentucky’s maintenance plan would
also result in approval of the state
MVEBs. Additionally, EPA is
announcing the status of its adequacy
determination for the 2018 state MVEBs
pursuant to 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1).
VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the
Request?
EPA is proposing to make the
determination that the Boyd County
portion of the Huntington-Ashland 8hour ozone nonattainment area has
attained the 8-hour ozone standard, and
that all other redesignation criteria have
been met for that portion of the
Huntington-Ashland 8-hour ozone area.
EPA has made this determination with
regard to West Virginia meeting the
other redesignation criteria through a
separate rulemaking (see 71 FR 39618).
Therefore, the entire HuntingtonAshland area has air quality monitoring
data showing attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The basis for EPA’s
determination for the Boyd County area
is discussed in greater detail below.
Criteria (1)—Boyd County Has Attained
the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Boyd County portion of the
Huntington-Ashland area has attained
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an
area may be considered to be attaining
26763
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no
violations, as determined in accordance
with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of
part 50, based on three complete,
consecutive calendar years of qualityassured air quality monitoring data. To
attain this standard, the 3-year average
of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8hour average ozone concentrations
measured at each monitor within an
area over each year must not exceed
0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding
convention described in 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix I, the standard is attained if
the design value is 0.084 ppm or below.
The data must be collected and qualityassured in accordance with 40 CFR part
58, and recorded in the EPA Air Quality
System (AQS). The monitors generally
should have remained at the same
location for the duration of the
monitoring period required for
demonstrating attainment.
EPA reviewed ozone monitoring data
from ambient ozone monitoring stations
in the Huntington-Ashland area for the
ozone season from 2003–2005. This data
has been quality assured and is recorded
in AQS. The fourth high averages for
2003, 2004 and 2005, and the 3-year
average of these values (i.e., design
value), are summarized in the following
table:
TABLE 1.—ANNUAL 4TH MAX HIGH AND DESIGN VALUE FOR 8-HOUR OZONE FOR HUNTINGTON-ASHLAND AREA
[Parts per million, ppm]
Huntington
(Cabell County)
Year
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
2003 .............................................................................................................................................................
2004 .............................................................................................................................................................
2005 .............................................................................................................................................................
Design Value ...............................................................................................................................................
As discussed above, the design value
for an area is the highest design value
recorded at any monitor in the area.
Therefore, the design value for the
Huntington-Ashland area is 0.079 ppm,
which meets the standard as described
above. Additionally, preliminary air
quality data from the 2006 monitoring
season indicates that the HuntingtonAshland Area is continuing to attain the
8-hour ozone standard. As discussed in
more detail below, KDAQ has
committed to continue monitoring in
this area in accordance with 40 CFR part
58. The data submitted by Kentucky
provides an adequate demonstration
that Boyd County (as a part of the
Huntington-Ashland area) has attained
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:37 May 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
Criteria (2)—Kentucky Has a Fully
Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) for
Boyd County and Criteria (5)—Kentucky
Has Met All Applicable Requirements
Under Section 110 and Part D of the
CAA
Below is a summary of how these two
criteria were met.
EPA has determined that Kentucky
has met all applicable SIP requirements
for the Boyd County under section 110
of the CAA (general SIP requirements).
EPA has also determined that the
Kentucky SIP satisfies the criterion that
it meets applicable SIP requirements
under part D of title I of the CAA
(requirements specific to subpart 1 basic
8-hour ozone nonattainment areas) in
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v).
In addition, EPA has determined that
the SIP is fully approved with respect to
all applicable requirements in
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0.080
0.066
0.082
0.076
Ashland
(Boyd County)
0.088
0.068
0.082
0.079
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii).
In making these determinations, EPA
ascertained which requirements are
applicable to the area and that if
applicable, they are fully approved
under section 110(k). SIPs must be fully
approved only with respect to
applicable requirements.
a. Boyd County, Kentucky 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).
Consistent with this interpretation, to
qualify for redesignation, states
E:\FR\FM\11MYP1.SGM
11MYP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
26764
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
requesting redesignation to attainment
must meet only the relevant CAA
requirements that come due prior to the
submittal of a complete redesignation
request. See also, Michael Shapiro
Memorandum (‘‘SIP Requirements for
Areas Submitting Requests for
Redesignation to Attainment of the
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide NAAQS
On or After November 15, 1992,’’
September 17, 1993), and 60 FR 12459,
12465–66 (March 7, 1995)
(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor,
Michigan). Applicable requirements of
the CAA that come due subsequent to
the area’s submittal of a complete
redesignation request remain applicable
until a redesignation is approved, but
are not required as a prerequisite to
redesignation. See, section 175A(c) of
the CAA; Sierra Club, 375 F.3d 537 (7th
Cir. 2004); see also, 68 FR 25424, 25427
(May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St.
Louis, Missouri).
General SIP requirements: Section
110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA delineates
the general requirements for a SIP,
which include enforceable emissions
limitations and other control measures,
means, or techniques, provisions for the
establishment and operation of
appropriate devices necessary to collect
data on ambient air quality, and
programs to enforce the limitations.
General SIP elements and requirements
are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of
title I, part A of the CAA. These
requirements include, but are not
limited to, the following: submittal of a
SIP that has been adopted by the state
after reasonable public notice and
hearing; provisions for establishment
and operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality;
implementation of a source permit
program; provisions for the
implementation of part C requirements
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)) and provisions for the
implementation of part D requirements
(New Source Review (NSR) permit
programs); provisions for air pollution
modeling; and provisions for public and
local agency participation in planning
and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs
contain certain measures to prevent
sources in a state from significantly
contributing to air quality problems in
another state. To implement this
provision, EPA has required certain
states to establish programs to address
the transport of air pollutants (NOX SIP
Call, Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)).
EPA has also found, generally, that
states have not submitted SIPs under
section 110(a)(1) to meet the interstate
transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). However, the section
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:37 May 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are
not linked with a particular
nonattainment area’s designation and
classification in that state. EPA believes
that the requirements linked with a
particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classifications are the
relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements,
where applicable, continue to apply to
a state regardless of the designation of
any one particular area in the state.
Thus, we do not believe that the CAA’s
interstate transport requirements should
be construed to be applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation.
In addition, EPA believes that the
other section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan
submissions and not linked with an
area’s attainment status are not
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. The area will still be
subject to these requirements after the
area is redesignated. The section 110
and part D requirements, which are
linked with a particular area’s
designation and classification, are the
relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request. This
approach is consistent with EPA’s
existing policy on applicability (i.e., for
redesignations) of conformity and
oxygenated fuels requirements, as well
as with section 184 ozone transport
requirements. See, Reading,
Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176,
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio,
final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final
rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December
7, 1995). See also, the discussion on this
issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio
redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19,
2000), and in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania redesignation (66 FR
50399, October 19, 2001).
EPA believes that section 110
elements not linked to the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable
for purposes of redesignation. Any
section 110 requirements that are linked
to the part D requirements for 8-hour
ozone nonattainment areas are not yet
due, since, as explained below, no part
D requirements for 8-hour standard
became due prior to submission of the
redesignation request. Therefore, as
discussed above, for purposes of
redesignation, they are both considered
applicable requirements. Nonetheless,
EPA notes that it has previously
approved provisions into the Kentucky
SIP addressing section 110 elements
(See 47 FR 30059, July 12, 1982). EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
believes that the section 110 SIP
approved for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
is also sufficient to meet the
requirements under the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (as well as satisfying the issue
raised by the D.C. Circuit Court in the
SCAQMD case).
Part D requirements: EPA has also
determined that the Kentucky SIP meets
applicable SIP requirements under part
D of the CAA since no requirements
became due prior to the submission of
the area’s redesignation request.
Sections 172–176 of the CAA, found in
subpart 1 of part D, set forth the basic
nonattainment requirements applicable
to all nonattainment areas. Section 182
of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of part
D, establishes additional specific
requirements depending on the area’s
nonattainment classification. Subpart 2
is not applicable to the Boyd County,
Kentucky area.
Part D, subpart 1 applicable SIP
requirements: For purposes of
evaluating this redesignation request,
the applicable part D, subpart 1 SIP
requirements for all nonattainment areas
are contained in sections 172(c)(1)–(9).
A thorough discussion of the
requirements contained in section 172
can be found in the General Preamble
for Implementation of Title I (57 FR
13498). No requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation under part D
became due prior to the submission of
the redesignation request, and therefore
none are applicable to the area for
purposes of redesignation. For example,
the requirements for an attainment
demonstration that meets the
requirements of section 172(c)(1) are not
yet applicable, nor are the requirements
for Reasonably Achievable Control
Technology (RACT) and Reasonably
Available Control Measures (RACM)
(section 172(c)(1)), reasonable further
progress (RFP) (section 172(c)(2)), and
contingency measures (section
172(c)(9)).
In addition to the fact that no part D
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation became due prior to
submission of the redesignation request
and therefore are not applicable, EPA
believes it is reasonable to interpret the
conformity and NSR requirements as
not requiring approval prior to
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 projects conform to
the air quality planning goals in the
applicable SIP. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to
transportation plans, programs and
projects developed, funded or approved
E:\FR\FM\11MYP1.SGM
11MYP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
under title 23 of the United States Code
(U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act
(‘‘transportation conformity’’) as well as
to all other Federally supported or
funded projects (‘‘general conformity’’).
State conformity revisions must be
consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation,
enforcement and enforceability that the
CAA required the EPA to promulgate.
EPA believes it is reasonable to
interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation
request under section 107(d) because
state conformity rules are still required
after redesignation and Federal
conformity rules apply where state rules
have not been approved. See, Wall, 265
F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this
interpretation. See also, 60 FR 62748
(Dec. 7, 1995, Tampa, Florida).
EPA has also determined that areas
being redesignated need not comply
with the requirement that a NSR
program be approved prior to
redesignation, provided that the area
demonstrates maintenance of the
standard without a part D NSR program
in effect since PSD requirements will
apply after redesignation. The 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
(Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment.’’ Kentucky has
demonstrated that the area will be able
to maintain the standard without a part
D NSR program in effect, and therefore,
Kentucky need not have a fully
approved part D NSR program prior to
approval of the redesignation request.
EPA most recently approved Kentucky’s
NSR program (including a
nonattainment NSR and PSD program)
in the Kentucky SIP on July 11, 2006 (71
FR 38990). Kentucky’s PSD program
will become effective in Boyd County,
Kentucky upon redesignation to
attainment. See, rulemakings for Detroit,
Michigan (60 FR 12467–12468, March 7,
1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorraine, Ohio
(61 FR 20458, 20469–70, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665,
October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids,
Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21,
1996). Thus, Boyd County, Kentucky
has satisfied all applicable requirements
for purposes of redesignation under
section 110 and part D of the CAA.
b. The Area Has a Fully Approved
Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of
the CAA
EPA has fully approved the applicable
Kentucky SIP for Boyd County under
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:37 May 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
section 110(k) of the CAA for all
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation. EPA may rely on prior
SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request, see Calcagni
Memorandum at p. 3; Southwestern
Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v.
Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–90 (6th Cir.
1998); Wall, 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) and citations therein.
Following passage of the CAA of 1970
by the U.S. Congress, Kentucky adopted
and submitted, and EPA has fully
approved at various times, provisions
addressing the various 1-hour ozone
standard SIP elements applicable in the
Boyd County, Kentucky (60 FR 33748,
June 29, 1995).
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
redesignation. EPA also believes that
since the part D requirements applicable
for purposes of redesignation did not
become due prior to submission of the
redesignation request, they also are
therefore not applicable requirements
for purposes of redesignation.
Criteria (3)—The Air Quality
Improvement in the Boyd County
Portion of the Huntington-Ashland 8hour Ozone Area Is Due to Permanent
and Enforceable Reductions in
Emissions Resulting From
Implementation of the SIP and
Applicable Federal Air Pollution
Control Regulations and Other
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
EPA believes that Kentucky has
demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the area is due
to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP, Federal
measures, and other state-adopted
measures. EPA has determined that the
implementation of the following
permanent and enforceable emissions
controls, that occurred from 2001–2005,
have reduced local NOX and VOC
emissions and brought the area into
attainment:
2001–2005 EMISSION REDUCTION
PROGRAMS
Highway Mobile Source Reductions:
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs
(FMVCP)
Lower Reid Vapor Pressure
Fleet Turnover of Automobiles
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26765
2001–2005 EMISSION REDUCTION
PROGRAMS—Continued
Tier 2 Vehicle Emissions and Fuel Standards
Heavy Duty Engine and Vehicle Fuel
Standards
Point Source Emissions Reductions:
Reasonably Available Control Measures
(RACM)
Maximum Available Control Technology
(MACT)
Non-Highway Mobile Source Reductions:
Small Spark-Ignition engines
Large Spark-Ignition engines
Locomotives
Land based diesel engines
Additional Reductions:
NOX SIP Call Reductions
Notably, no credit specific emission
reduction is being claimed in the SIP for
the NOX SIP Call reductions although
this program has resulted in measurable
emissions reductions.
Kentucky has demonstrated that the
implementation of permanent and
enforceable emissions controls have
reduced local VOC and NOX emissions.
Most of the reductions are attributable
to Federal programs such as EPA’s Tier
2/Low Sulfur Gasoline program and
other national clean fuel programs that
began implementation in 2004.
Additionally, Kentucky has indicated in
its September 2006 submittal that the
Huntington-Ashland area has benefited
from emissions reductions that have
been achieved and will continue to be
achieved through the implementation of
the NOX SIP Call, beginning in 2002.
Kentucky has further demonstrated that
year-to-year meteorological changes and
trends are not the likely source of the
overall, long-term improvements in
ozone levels. In addition, the following
non-highway mobile source reduction
programs were implemented during the
2002–2004 period: Small spark-ignition
engines, large-spark ignition engines,
locomotives and land-base diesel
engines. EPA believes that permanent
and enforceable emissions reductions,
in and surrounding the nonattainment
area, are the cause of long-term
improvements in ozone levels, and are
the cause of the Huntington-Ashland
Area achieving attainment of the ozone
standard.
Criteria (4)—The Area Has a Fully
Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant
to Section 175A of the CAA
In its request to redesignate the Boyd
County, Kentucky area (as part of the
Huntington-Ashland 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area) to attainment,
KDAQ submitted a SIP revision to
provide for the maintenance of the 8hour ozone NAAQS in the Boyd County,
E:\FR\FM\11MYP1.SGM
11MYP1
26766
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Kentucky area for at least 10 years after
the effective date of redesignation to
attainment.
a. What is required in a maintenance
plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. Under
section 175A, the plan must
demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10
years after the Administrator approves a
redesignation to attainment. Eight years
after the redesignation, Kentucky must
submit a revised maintenance plan
which demonstrates that attainment will
continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year
period. To address the possibility of
future NAAQS violations, the
maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule
for implementation as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of
any future 8-hour ozone violations.
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the
elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. The
Calcagni Memorandum provides
additional guidance on the content of a
maintenance plan. The Calcagni
Memorandum explains that an ozone
maintenance plan should address five
requirements: The attainment emissions
inventory, maintenance demonstration,
monitoring, verification of continued
attainment, and a contingency plan. As
is discussed more fully below,
Kentucky’s maintenance plan includes
all the necessary components and is
approvable as part of the redesignation
request.
b. Attainment Emissions Inventory
In coordination with West Virginia,
Kentucky selected 2004 as ‘‘the
attainment year’’ for Boyd County (as
part of the Huntington-Ashland 8-hour
ozone area) for the purposes of
demonstrating attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. This attainment
inventory identifies the level of
emissions in the area which is sufficient
to attain the 8-hour ozone standard.
Kentucky began development of this
attainment inventory by first developing
a baseline emissions inventory for the
Boyd County. The year 2002 was chosen
as the base year for developing a
comprehensive ozone precursor
emissions inventory for which projected
emissions could be developed for 2004,
2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2018.
Non-road mobile emissions were
calculated using the most recent nonroad model. On-road mobile source
emissions were calculated using EPA’s
MOBILE6.2 emission factors model. The
2004 VOC and NOX emissions (as well
as the emissions for other years) for
Boyd County, Kentucky were developed
consistent with EPA guidance, and are
summarized in the table in the
following subsection.
c. Maintenance Demonstration
The September 29, 2006, final
submittal includes a maintenance plan
for the Boyd County area. This
demonstration:
(i) Shows compliance and maintenance of
the 8-hour ozone standard by providing
information to support the demonstration
that current and future emissions of VOC and
NOX remain at or below attainment year 2004
emissions levels. The year 2004 was chosen
as the attainment year because it is one of the
most recent three years (i.e., 2003, 2004, and
2005) for which the Huntington-Ashland area
has clean air quality data for the 8-hour
ozone standard.
(ii) Uses 2004 as the attainment year and
includes future emission inventory
projections for the 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014,
2017 and 2018.
(iii) Identifies an ‘‘out year,’’ at least 10
years after the time necessary for EPA to
review and approve the maintenance plan.
Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB was established
for the last year of the maintenance plan
(2018). See section VII below.
(iv) Provides the following actual and
projected emissions inventories for the Boyd
County portion of the Huntington-Ashland
nonattainment area.
TABLE 2.—BOYD COUNTY VOC EMISSIONS
[Tons per day] *
Source category
2004
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2018
Point .............................
Area ..............................
Mobile ** .......................
Nonroad .......................
17.52
2.97
2.50
0.71
17.76
2.97
2.28
0.68
18.49
2.97
1.91
0.61
19.09
2.97
1.63
0.56
19.81
2.97
1.38
0.55
20.54
2.97
1.23
0.56
20.79
2.97
1.18
0.56
Total ......................
23.70
23.69
23.98
24.25
24.71
25.30
25.50
* See further information in Section VI(4)(e) Verification of Continued Attainment.
** Calculated using MOBILE 6.2.
TABLE 3.—BOYD COUNTY NOX EMISSIONS
[Tons per day] *
Source category
2004
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2018
16.17
0.09
3.79
1.83
16.35
0.10
3.60
1.81
16.90
0.10
2.98
1.71
17.37
0.10
2.36
1.63
17.92
0.10
1.79
1.54
18.48
0.10
1.41
1.48
18.68
0.10
1.30
1.47
Total ......................
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Point .............................
Area ..............................
Mobile ** .......................
Nonroad .......................
21.89
21.86
21.69
21.46
21.35
21.47
21.55
* See further information in Section VI(4)(e) Verification of Continued Attainment.
** Calculated using MOBILE 6.2.
Although the Kentucky SIP
submission provided VOC and NOX
emissions for the attainment and future
years for Boyd County, EPA considers
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:37 May 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
emissions from the entire HuntingtonAshland area for a demonstration of
maintenance. Maintenance is
demonstrated if the future year NOX and
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
VOC emission for the entire area
remains at or below the level of the
attainment year emissions. Both
Kentucky and West Virginia chose 2004
E:\FR\FM\11MYP1.SGM
11MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
for their ‘‘attainment year’’ for this area.
While the VOC emissions for the Boyd
County, Kentucky portion of the
Huntington-Ashland area indicate a
steady increase of emissions beyond the
attainment year, it is important to note
that this area is comprised of three
counties for which emissions should be
considered. EPA’s review of VOC
emissions for the entire area indicates
that these emissions are 47.40 tpd in
2004, and 45.20 tpd in 2018, which is
an overall downward trend in emissions
for the area. Similarly, EPA’s review of
NOX emissions for the entire area also
indicates an overall downward trend in
emissions for the area, with a total of
59.29 tpd in 2004 and 48.55 tpd in 2018.
Therefore, it is highly likely that
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
standard will be maintained in the
future for the Huntington-Ashland area.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
d. Monitoring Network
There are currently two monitors
measuring ozone in the HuntingtonAshland 8-hour ozone area (one in
Cabell County, West Virginia and one in
Boyd County, Kentucky). KDAQ has
committed in the maintenance plan to
continue operation of the monitor in
Boyd County in compliance with 40
CFR part 58, and has addressed the
requirement for monitoring. West
Virginia has provided a similar
commitment for the monitor in Cabell
County, West Virginia.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
Kentucky has the legal authority to
enforce and implement the
requirements of the ozone maintenance
plan for the Boyd County, Kentucky
area. This includes the authority to
adopt, implement and enforce any
subsequent emissions control
contingency measures determined to be
necessary to correct future ozone
attainment problems.
Kentucky will track the progress of
the maintenance plan by performing
future reviews of actual emissions for
the area using the latest emissions
factors, models and methodologies. For
these periodic inventories Kentucky
will review the assumptions made for
the purpose of the maintenance
demonstration concerning projected
growth of activity levels. If any of these
assumptions appear to have changed
substantially, Kentucky will re-project
emissions. Following the redesignation
of the area, sources are prohibited from
reducing emission controls already in
place when attainment is achieved
unless EPA approves a SIP revision
consistent with section 110 of the CAA.
Kentucky and EPA have instituted the
following programs that will remain
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:37 May 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
enforceable and are included as part of
Kentucky’s September 2006 SIP
submittal, to maintain air quality which
meets the NAAQS for the 8-hour ozone
standard.
• All new major VOC or NOX sources
locating in Kentucky shall as a
minimum apply control procedures that
are reasonable, available, and practical;
• All major modifications to existing
major VOC or NOX sources are subject
to RACM requirements as well as the
BACT requirement of the Kentucky
Division of Air Quality PSD regulations;
• Federal Motor Control Standards
apply in Kentucky;
• Transportation Conformity
Requirements;
• PSD Requirements;
• Federal Controls on certain nonroad
engines (e.g. diesel and other Federal
requirements, industrial diesel
equipment, locomotives) after 2000;
• Federal controls on the VOC
content for Architectural and
Maintenance Paints, Auto Body Shops
and Consumer Products.
In addition to these measures,
Kentucky explains that more controls
are expected to occur in the Boyd
County area which are not factored into
the projected future year emissions
analyses. For example, a major refinery,
Marathon Ashland Oil Cattlesburg is
undergoing a project entitled the
Refinery Modernization Project, which
involves new operational and emissions
limitations. The proposed Refinery
Modernization Project involves
installation of new equipment and
upgrading of existing equipment. The
following emission reductions were
expected to occur from the Ashland
Project by 2006:
• PM 33 tons per year (decrease)
• PM10 33 tons per year (decrease)
• SO2 3,605 tons per year (decrease)
• NOX 730 tons per year (decrease)
• CO 4 tons per year (decrease)
• VOC 64 tons per year (decrease)
When these reductions are factored
into future emission inventories, the
totals for the emission inventories for
Boyd County are expected to decrease.
f. Contingency Plan
The contingency plan provisions are
designed to promptly correct any
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA
requires that a maintenance plan
include such contingency measures as
EPA deems necessary to assure that the
state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan
should identify the contingency
measures to be adopted, a schedule and
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26767
procedure for adoption and
implementation, and a time limit for
action by the state. A state should also
identify specific indicators to be used to
determine when the contingency
measures need to be implemented. The
maintenance plan must include a
requirement that a state will implement
all measures with respect to control of
the pollutant that were contained in the
SIP before redesignation of the area to
attainment in accordance with section
175A(d). This requirement is met
because all SIP measures are retained
for maintenance. Kentucky’s submittal
satisfies all the contingency plan
requirements described in section 175A
of the CAA.
In the September 29, 2006, final
submittal, Kentucky affirms that a
combination of all programs instituted
by Kentucky and EPA have resulted in
cleaner air in the Huntington-Ashland
area and the anticipated future benefits
from these programs are expected to
result in continued maintenance of the
8-hour ozone NAAQS in this area.
Sources are prohibited from terminating
emissions controls following the
redesignation of Boyd County unless
EPA approves a SIP revision consistent
with section 110 of the CAA. The
contingency plan includes tracking and
triggering mechanisms to determine
when contingency measures are needed
and a process of developing and
adopting appropriate control measures.
The primary trigger is a measured
violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
If there is a measured violation of the
8-hour ozone NAAQS in Boyd County,
Kentucky commits to develop
regulations for at least one of the
following control measures for
submission to the EPA within nine
months. All regulatory programs will be
implemented within 18 months from a
measured violation. Kentucky will
consider one or more of the measures
contained in the list of potential
contingency measures below.
The secondary triggers in the
contingency plan are (1) if a measured
value of the fourth highest maximum is
0.087 ppm or greater at the Boyd County
monitor in a single ozone season, or (2)
if periodic emission inventory updates
reveal excessive or unanticipated
growth greater than 10 percent in ozone
precursor emissions. If either of these
two triggers are met, Kentucky will
evaluate existing control measures to
determine if any further emission
reduction measures should be
implemented at that time.
Potential Contingency Measures:
• Implementation of a program to
require additional emission reductions
on stationary source;
E:\FR\FM\11MYP1.SGM
11MYP1
26768
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
• Implementation of a program to
enhance inspection of stationary sources
to ensure emission control equipment is
functioning properly;
• Open burning restrictions during
ozone season;
• High-volume, low pressure spray
guns and low VOC degreaser solvents;
• Implementation of incentives for
alternative fuels programs;
• Restriction of certain roads or lanes
to, or construction of such roads or
lanes for use by, passenger buses or high
occupancy vehicles;
• Trip-reduction ordinances;
• Employer-based transportation
management plans including incentives;
• Programs to limit or restrict vehicle
use in downtown areas, or other areas
of emission concentration particularly
during periods of peak use;
• Programs for new construction and
major reconstructions of paths or tracks
for use by pedestrians or by nonmotorized vehicles when economically
feasible and in the public interest.
EPA has concluded that the
maintenance plan adequately addresses
the five basic components of a
maintenance plan: Attainment
inventory, maintenance demonstration,
monitoring network, verification of
continued attainment, and a
contingency plan. The maintenance
plan SIP revision submitted by
Kentucky for Boyd County meets the
requirements of section 175A of the
CAA and is approvable.
VII. What Are the Proposed State
MVEBs for Boyd County, Kentucky?
Under the CAA, states are required to
submit, at various times, control strategy
SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone
areas. These control strategy SIPs
(reasonable further progress SIPs and
attainment demonstration SIPs etc.) and
maintenance plans create MVEBs for
criteria pollutants and/or their
precursors to address pollution from
cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a
MVEB is established for the last year of
the maintenance plan. The MVEB is the
portion of the total allowable emissions
in the maintenance demonstration that
is allocated to highway and transit
vehicle use and emissions. See, 40 CFR
93.101. The MVEB serves as a ceiling on
emissions from an area’s planned
transportation system. The MVEB
concept is further explained in the
preamble to the November 24, 1993,
transportation conformity rule (58 FR
62188). The preamble also describes
how to establish the MVEB in the SIP
and revise the MVEB.
Kentucky and West Virginia have
elected to develop separate state MVEBs
to cover their individual portions of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:37 May 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
Huntington-Ashland 8-hour ozone area.
As required, Kentucky is only
establishing state MVEBs for NOX and
VOC for the last year of the maintenance
plan (2018). EPA is now proposing to
approve these state MVEBs. The state
MVEBs for Boyd County, Kentucky are
defined in the table below.
TABLE 4.—BOYD COUNTY 2018
MVEBS
[Tons per day]
NOX
VOC
1.30
1.18
Through this rulemaking, EPA is
proposing to approve the 2018 state
MVEBs for NOX and VOCs for Boyd
County, Kentucky because EPA has
determined that the HuntingtonAshland area maintains the 8-hour
ozone standard with emissions at the
levels of the budgets. As mentioned
above, these MVEBs will be separate
state area budgets for Boyd County,
Kentucky. West Virginia established
MVEBs for the remainder of the
Huntington-Ashland 8-hour ozone area
(i.e., Cabell and Wayne counties)
through the 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan that was submitted with West
Virginia’s request for redesignation.
Through a separate rulemaking, EPA
found adequate and approved the
MVEBs for the West Virginia portion of
this 8-hour ozone area (see 71 FR
39618). Once the new state MVEBs for
Boyd County, Kentucky (the subject of
this rulemaking) are approved or found
adequate (whichever is done first), they
must be used for future transportation
conformity determinations. As is
discussed in greater detail below, EPA
is also announcing the status of its
adequacy determination for the
proposed 2018 MVEBs for Boyd County,
Kentucky pursuant to 40 CFR
93.118(f)(1).
VIII. What Is the Status of EPA’s
Adequacy Determination of the MVEBs
for Boyd County, Kentucky?
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new
transportation projects, such as the
construction of new highways, must
‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with)
the part of the State’s air quality plan
that addresses pollution from cars and
trucks. ‘‘Conformity’’ to the SIP means
that transportation activities will not
cause new air quality violations, worsen
existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of the NAAQS. If a
transportation plan does not ‘‘conform,’’
most new projects that would expand
the capacity of roadways cannot go
forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
set forth EPA policy, criteria, and
procedures for demonstrating and
assuring conformity of such
transportation activities to a SIP. The
regional emissions analysis is one, but
not the only, requirement for
implementing transportation
conformity. Transportation conformity
is a requirement for nonattainment and
maintenance areas. Maintenance areas
are areas that were previously
nonattainment for a particular NAAQS
but have since been redesignated to
attainment with a maintenance plan for
that NAAQS.
When reviewing submitted ‘‘control
strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans
containing MVEBs, EPA must
affirmatively find the MVEB contained
therein ‘‘adequate’’ for use in
determining transportation conformity.
Once EPA affirmatively finds the
submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that
MVEB can be used by state and Federal
agencies in determining whether
proposed transportation projects
‘‘conform’’ to the SIP as required by
section 176(c) of the CAA.
EPA’s substantive criteria for
determining ‘‘adequacy’’ of an MVEB
are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e). The
process for determining ‘‘adequacy’’
consists of three basic steps: Public
notification of a SIP submission, a
public comment period, and EPA’s
adequacy finding. This process for
determining the adequacy of submitted
SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in
EPA’s May 14, 1999 guidance,
‘‘Conformity Guidance on
Implementation of March 2, 1999,
Conformity Court Decision.’’ This
guidance was finalized in the
Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments for the ‘‘New 8-Hour
Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and Miscellaneous
Revisions for Existing Areas;
transportation conformity rule
amendments—Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule Change’’
on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA
follows this guidance and rulemaking in
making its adequacy determinations.
Kentucky’s maintenance plan
submission contained new VOC and
NOX MVEBs for Boyd County, Kentucky
for the year 2018. The availability of the
Kentucky SIP submission with the Boyd
County MVEBs was announced for
public comment on EPA’s adequacy
Web page on June 21, 2006 at: https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/
transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public
comment period on adequacy of the
2018 MVEBs for the Boyd County,
Kentucky closed on July 21, 2006. EPA
did not receive any adverse comments
E:\FR\FM\11MYP1.SGM
11MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
regarding the MVEBs or requests for the
submittal.
EPA’s current intentions are to make
its determination of the adequacy of the
2018 MVEBs for Boyd County, Kentucky
for transportation conformity purposes
in the final rulemaking on the
redesignation of the Boyd County,
Kentucky portion of the HuntingtonAshland 8-hour ozone area. If EPA finds
the 2018 MVEBs adequate and approves
the 2018 MVEBs in the final rulemaking
action, the new MVEBs must be used for
future transportation conformity
determinations. The new 2018 MVEBs,
if found adequate and approved in the
final rulemaking, will be effective the
date of publication of EPA’s final
rulemaking in the Federal Register. For
required regional emissions analysis
years that involve the year 2017 or
before, the applicable budget for the
purposes of conducting transportation
conformity will be the MVEBs for Boyd
County from the Huntington-Ashland
1-hour ozone maintenance plan. For
required regional emissions analysis
years that involve 2018 or beyond, the
applicable budgets are defined in
section VII of this rulemaking.
IX. Proposed Actions on the
Redesignation Request and the
Maintenance Plan SIP Revision
Including Proposed Approval of the
2018 MVEBs
Today, EPA is proposing to determine
that Boyd County, Kentucky has met the
criteria for redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8hour ozone NAAQS. Further, EPA is
proposing to approve Kentucky’s
redesignation for Boyd County,
Kentucky (as a part of the HuntingtonAshland 8-hour ozone area). In a
separate action, EPA approved the 8hour ozone redesignation of the West
Virginia portion of this area from
nonattainment to attainment. See, 71 FR
54421 (September 15, 2006). After
evaluating Kentucky’s SIP submittal
requesting redesignation, EPA has
determined that it meets the
redesignation criteria set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes
that the redesignation request and
monitoring data demonstrate that the
Boyd County portion of the HuntingtonAshland area has attained the 8-hour
ozone standard.
EPA is also proposing to approve the
September 29, 2006, SIP revision
containing Kentucky’s 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for Boyd County,
Kentucky. The maintenance plan
includes state MVEBs for 2018, among
other requirements. EPA is proposing to
approve the 2018 MVEBs for Boyd
County because the maintenance plan
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:37 May 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
demonstrates that expected emissions
for the area in 2018, including the 2018
MVEBs plus the estimated emissions for
all other source categories, will continue
to maintain the 8-hour ozone standard.
Further, as part of today’s action, EPA
is providing the status of its adequacy
determination for the 2018 MVEBs for
Boyd County in accordance with 40 CFR
93.118(f)(1). Within 24 months from the
effective date of EPA’s adequacy finding
for the MVEBs, or the publication date
for the final rule for this action, the
transportation partners will need to
demonstrate conformity to these new
MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e) as
effectively amended by section
172(c)(2)(E) of the CAA as added by the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA–LU), which was
signed into law on August 10, 2005.
X. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is
also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This proposed action merely
proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and
imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.
Redesignation of an area to attainment
under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the CAA
does not impose any new requirements
on small entities. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a
geographical area and does not impose
any new regulatory requirements on
sources. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule
proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable
duty beyond that required by state law,
it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4).
This proposed rule also does not have
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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26769
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 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
affects the status of a geographical area,
does not impose any new requirements
on sources, or allow 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. 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 and because the Agency does
not have reason to believe that the rule
concerns an environmental health risk
or safety risk that may
disproportionately affect children.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
absence of a prior existing requirement
for the State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a
geographical area 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. 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.).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
E:\FR\FM\11MYP1.SGM
11MYP1
26770
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
• Comments also may be sent via
facsimile (fax) to (978) 978–9135.
• E-mail: YellowtailSAP@Noaa.gov
Include in the subject line the following
‘‘Comments on CA II YT SAP.’’
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 3, 2007.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E7–9130 Filed 5–10–07; 8:45 am]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Grant, Fishery Management
Specialist, phone: (978) 281–9218, fax:
(978) 281–9135, e-mail:
Mark.Grant@noaa.gov.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 070427094–7094–01;I.D.
042407A]
RIN 0648–AV50
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the
Northeastern United States; Northeast
Multispecies Fishery; Allocation of
Trips to Closed Area II Yellowtail
Flounder Special Access Program
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the
Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS
(Regional Administrator), is proposing
to allocate zero trips in the Closed Area
(CA) II Yellowtail Flounder Special
Access Program (SAP) during the 2007
fishing year (FY) (i.e., May 1, 2007,
through April 30, 2008). The Regional
Administrator has determined that the
available catch of Georges Bank (GB)
yellowtail flounder is insufficient to
support a minimum level of fishing
activity within the CA II Yellowtail
Flounder SAP for FY 2007. The intent
of this action is to help achieve
optimum yield (OY) in the fishery by
maximizing the utility of available GB
yellowtail flounder TAC throughout FY
2007.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before 5 p.m., local time, May 29,
2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Written comments (paper, disk, or
CD-ROM) should be sent to Patricia A.
Kurkul, Regional Administrator, 1
Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
Mark the outside of the envelope,
‘‘Comments on CA II YT SAP.’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:45 May 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
The final
rule implementing Framework
Adjustment (FW) 40B (70 FR 31323;
June 1, 2005), authorized the Regional
Administrator to allocate the total
number of trips into the CA II Yellowtail
Flounder SAP based upon several
criteria, including: GB yellowtail
flounder total allowable catch (TAC)
level, as established through the U.S./
Canada Resource Sharing
Understanding; and the amount of GB
yellowtail flounder caught outside of
the SAP. A formula was developed in
FW 40B to assist the Regional
Administrator in determining the
appropriate number of trips for this SAP
on a yearly basis. The formula is
intended to allow the SAP to be
adjusted for changing stock conditions
to help achieve OY for GB yellowtail
flounder.
FW 40B authorized the Regional
Administrator to allocate zero trips to
this SAP if the available GB yellowtail
flounder catch (GB yellowtail flounder
TAC projected catch of GB yellowtail
flounder outside the SAP) is not
sufficient to support 150 trips with a
15,000–lb (6,804–kg) trip limit (i.e., if
the available GB yellowtail catch is less
than 1,021 mt), as required. The
proposed U.S./Canada GB yellowtail
flounder TAC for 2007, as
recommended by the Transboundary
Management Guidance Committee and
the Council, is 900 mt (72 FR 10967;
March 12, 2007). During FY 2006,
vessels fishing outside of the SAP
landed over 1,500 mt of GB yellowtail
flounder. Therefore, based on the
proposed 900–mt U.S./Canada GB
yellowtail flounder TAC, assuming
similar fishing behavior in 2007, and
using the criteria specified under
§ 648.85(b)(3)(vii) to determine the
appropriate number of trips for FY 2007,
the Regional Administrator has
determined that there will be
insufficient GB yellowtail flounder TAC
to support the CA II Yellowtail Flounder
SAP for FY 2007 (900 mt – 1,500 mt
<1,020 mt). Therefore, a limit of zero
trips is proposed for FY 2007.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Classification
Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, I have
determined that this proposed rule is
consistent with the NE Multispecies
FMP, other provisions of the MagnusonStevens Act, and other applicable law,
subject to further consideration after
public comment.
This proposed rule has been
determined to be not significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of
the Department of Commerce certified
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA)
that this proposed rule, if adopted,
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. As a result, an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required and
none has been prepared.
The SBA size standard for small
commercial fishing entities is $ 4.0
million in gross receipts. Individuals
that would be impacted by this
proposed action include all limited
access NE multispecies DAS permit
holders. All commercial fishing entities
affected by this proposed rule would fall
under the SBA size standard for small
commercial fishing entities and there
would be no disproportionate impacts
between small and large entities. The
proposed action would affect a
substantial number of small entities, as
approximately 66 percent of the vessels
affected by this action (i.e., 100 out of
150) had participated in the CA II
Yellowtail Flounder SAP when it was
open during FY 2004. However, the
proposed action will not significantly
reduce profit for affected vessels.
The proposed allocation of zero trips
into the SAP would help ensure that the
GB yellowtail flounder TAC is available
throughout the fishing year, minimizing
the impacts of depressed prices that
could otherwise be caused by temporary
floods of yellowtail flounder on the
market, and therefore would help avoid
the premature closing of the Eastern
U.S./Canada Area due to catching the
available GB yellowtail flounder TAC.
This would enable vessels greater
opportunity to fully harvest the
available GB cod and GB haddock TAC
allocated to the Eastern U.S./Canada
Area and to achieve the full economic
benefit from the U.S./Canada
Management Area by more efficiently
using the small GB yellowtail flounder
TAC. Analysis prepared for FW 40B
indicates that flexibility for vessels to
target species other than yellowtail
flounder is seen as critical to
maintaining the profitability of vessel
operations within the U.S./Canada
E:\FR\FM\11MYP1.SGM
11MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 91 (Friday, May 11, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26759-26770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9130]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0362-200702; FRL-8312-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Kentucky:
Redesignation of the Boyd County, Kentucky Portion of the Huntington-
Ashland 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment for Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 29, 2006, the Commonwealth of Kentucky
(Kentucky), through the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ),
submitted a request to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the bi-state
Huntington-Ashland 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment for
the 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS); and to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a
maintenance plan for the Kentucky portion of the bi-state Huntington-
Ashland area. The bi-state Huntington-Ashland 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area is comprised of one county in Kentucky (Boyd County)
and two counties in West Virginia (Cabell and Wayne counties). In this
action, EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's 8-hour ozone
redesignation request for Boyd County, which is the Kentucky portion of
the bi-state Huntington-Ashland 8-hour ozone nonattainment area.
Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve the 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan for Boyd County, Kentucky, including the state motor vehicle
emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). This proposed approval of Kentucky's
redesignation request is based on EPA's determination that Kentucky has
demonstrated that Boyd County, Kentucky has met the criteria for
redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA),
including the determination that the entire (both the Kentucky and West
Virginia portions) Huntington-Ashland 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. On May 17, 2006, the State of
West Virginia submitted a redesignation request and maintenance plan
for the West Virginia portion (Cabell and Wayne counties) of this 8-
hour ozone area. EPA has taken action on West Virginia's redesignation
request and maintenance plan through a separate action. The final
rulemaking approving the West Virginia submittal was published in the
Federal Register on September 15, 2006. In this action, EPA is also
providing the status of its transportation conformity adequacy
determination for the new MVEBs for 2018 that are contained in the 8-
hour ozone maintenance plan for Boyd County, Kentucky. MVEBs for Cabell
and Wayne counties in West Virginia are included in the West Virginia
submittal.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 11, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2006-0362, by one of the following methods:
(a) www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
(b) E-mail: LeSane.Heidi@epa.gov.
(c) Fax: 404-562-9019.
(d) Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0362 Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
(e) Hand Delivery or Courier: Heidi LeSane, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2006-0362. 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 through www.regulations.gov or e-
mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
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, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
[[Page 26760]]
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heidi LeSane, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9074. Mrs. LeSane can also be reached via electronic mail at
LeSane.Heidi@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Background for EPA's Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These Actions?
V. What Is the Effect of EPA's Proposed Actions?
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request?
VII. What Are the Proposed State MVEBs for Boyd County, Kentucky?
VIII. What Is the Status of EPA's Adequacy Determination for the
MVEBs for Boyd County, Kentucky?
IX. Proposed Action on the Redesignation Request and Maintenance
Plan SIP Revision Including Proposed Approval of the 2018 MVEBs
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA Taking?
EPA is proposing to take three related actions, which are
summarized below and described in greater detail throughout the notice
of proposed rulemaking: (1) To redesignate Boyd County, Kentucky to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2) to approve Kentucky's 8-hour
ozone maintenance plan, including the associated MVEBs; and (3) to
notify the public of the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the
Boyd County MVEBs.
First, EPA is proposing to determine that the bi-state Huntington-
Ashland 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone
standard, and that the Boyd County, Kentucky portion has met the
requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
The bi-state Huntington-Ashland 8-hour ozone area is comprised of one
county in Kentucky (Boyd County) and two counties in West Virginia
(Cabell and Wayne counties). Today's proposal addresses only the
Kentucky portion of the bi-state Huntington-Ashland 8-hour ozone area.
In a separate rulemaking, EPA approved the redesignation request and
maintenance plan for the West Virginia portion of this 8-hour ozone
area (see 71 FR 39618). EPA is now proposing to approve a request to
change the legal designation of Boyd County, Kentucky from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Second, EPA is also proposing to approve Kentucky's 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for Boyd County, Kentucky (such approval being one of
the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The
maintenance plan is designed to help keep the Huntington-Ashland area
(of which Boyd County is a part) in attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS through 2018. Consistent with the CAA, the maintenance plan that
EPA is proposing to approve today also includes 2018 state MVEBs for
NOX and VOCs. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the
2018 state MVEBs that are included as part of Kentucky's maintenance
plan. These MVEBs apply only to Boyd County, Kentucky. MVEBs for Cabell
and Wayne counties in West Virginia are included in the West Virginia
submittal.
Third, EPA is announcing the status of EPA's Adequacy Process for
the newly-established 2018 MVEBs for Boyd County, Kentucky. Through a
separate action, MVEBs for West Virginia portion of this 8-hour ozone
area were established (see 71 FR 39618). The Adequacy comment period
for the Boyd County, Kentucky 2018 MVEBs began on June 21, 2006, with
EPA's posting of the availability of this submittal on EPA's Adequacy
Web site (https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/
currsips.htm). The Adequacy comment period for these 2018 MVEBs closed
on July 21, 2006. No requests for or adverse comments on this submittal
were received during EPA's Adequacy comment period. Please see section
VIII of this rulemaking for further explanation of this process, and
for more details on the MVEBs.
Today's notice of proposed rulemaking is in response to Kentucky's
September 29, 2006, SIP submittal which supersedes Kentucky's June 7,
2006, submittal that included a request for parallel processing. The
September 29, 2006, submittal requested redesignation of Boyd County,
Kentucky as part of the bi-state Huntington-Ashland Area, and included
a SIP revision addressing the specific issues summarized above, and the
necessary elements for redesignation described in section 107(d)(3)(E).
II. What Is the Background for EPA's Proposed Actions?
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emissions of NOX and VOCs react in the presence of sunlight
to form ground-level ozone. NOX and VOCs are referred to as
precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process for air quality
management through the NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent
than the previous 1-hour ozone standard. Under EPA regulations at 40
CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year
average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08
ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). (See, 69 FR 23857
(April 30, 2004) for further information.) Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness
requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness
requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient
monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less
than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of part
50. Specifically, section 2.3 of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I,
``Comparisons with the Primary and Secondary Ozone Standards'' states:
The primary and secondary ozone ambient air quality standards
are met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The number of
significant figures in the level of the standard dictates the
rounding convention for comparing the computed 3-year average annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration with
the level of the standard. The third decimal place of the computed
value is rounded, with values equal to or greater than 5 rounding
up. Thus, a computed 3-year average ozone
[[Page 26761]]
concentration of 0.085 ppm is the smallest value that is greater
than 0.08 ppm.
The CAA required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that
was violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent
years of ambient air quality data. The Huntington-Ashland 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area was designated using 2001-2003 ambient air quality
data. The Federal Register document making these designations was
signed on April 15, 2004, and published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR
23857). The CAA contains two sets of provisions--subpart 1 and subpart
2--that address planning and control requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas. (Both are found in title I, part D.) Subpart 1
(which EPA refers to as ``basic'' nonattainment) contains general, less
prescriptive, requirements for nonattainment areas for any pollutant--
including ozone--governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as
``classified'' nonattainment) provides more specific requirements for
certain ozone nonattainment areas. Some 8-hour ozone nonattainment
areas are subject only to the provisions of subpart 1. Other 8-hour
ozone nonattainment areas are also subject to the provisions of subpart
2. Under EPA's Phase 1 8-hour ozone implementation rule (69 FR 23857)
(Phase 1 Rule), signed on April 15, 2004 and published on April 30,
2004, an area was classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone
design value (i.e., the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations), if it had a 1-hour
design value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in
Table 1 of subpart 2). All other areas are covered under subpart 1,
based upon their 8-hour ambient air quality design values.
Various aspects of EPA's Phase 1 8-hour ozone implementation rule
were challenged in court and on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court)
vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone
Standard. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (SCAQMD) v. EPA, 472
F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The D.C. Circuit Court held that certain
provisions of EPA's Phase I Rule were inconsistent with the
requirements of the CAA. The Court rejected EPA's reasons for
implementing the 8-hour standard in nonattainment areas under subpart 1
in lieu of subpart 2 of title I, part D of the CAA. The Court also held
that EPA improperly failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour
nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of EPA's
regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR)
requirements based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment classification;
(2) CAA section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or extreme
nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be implemented pursuant to section
172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, on the contingency of an area not
making reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour
NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) certain conformity
requirements for certain types of federal actions. The D.C. Circuit
Court upheld EPA's authority to revoke the 1-hour standard provided
that there were adequate anti-backsliding provisions in place.
This section sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the
Court's ruling on this redesignation action. For the reasons described
throughout this notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA does not believe
that the D.C. Circuit Court's ruling alters any requirements relevant
to the redesignation of the Kentucky portion of the Huntington-Ashland
Area (Boyd County) so as to preclude redesignation, and does not
prevent EPA from proposing to finalize, or finalizing, the Boyd County,
Kentucky redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's decision, as it
currently stands or as it may be modified based upon the petitions for
rehearing that have been filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward
with redesignation of the Huntington-Ashland Area to attainment,
because redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation
provisions of the CAA and longstanding policies regarding redesignation
requests.
The Huntington-Ashland Area was originally designated as moderate
nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard on November 6, 1991 (56 FR
56694). The Area was redesignated as attainment for the 1-hour ozone
standard on June 29, 1995 (60 FR 33748). On April 30, 2004, EPA
designated the Huntington-Ashland Area (of which Boyd County is a part)
as a ``basic'' 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. (69 FR 23857)
The D.C. Circuit Court's decision in 2006 also addressed the 8-hour
ozone classification scheme. The Court rejected EPA's reasons for
classifying areas under subpart 1 for the 8-hour standard, and remanded
that matter to the Agency. Consequently, it is possible that the
Huntington-Ashland Area could, as a result of the remand to EPA, be
reclassified under subpart 2. Although any future decision by EPA to
classify this area under subpart 2 might trigger additional future
requirements for the area, this does not mean that redesignation cannot
go forward now. EPA's position is based upon: (1) EPA's longstanding
policy of evaluating requirements in accordance with the requirements
due at the time that the request is submitted; and (2) consideration of
the inequity of retroactively applying any requirements that might be
applied in the future.
In September 2006, when Kentucky submitted its final redesignation
request, the Huntington-Ashland Area was classified under subpart 1of
the CAA, and was obligated to meet only the subpart 1 requirements.
Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
CAA, to qualify for redesignation, states requesting redesignation to
attainment must meet only the relevant SIP requirements that came due
prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. See,
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992; see also, Michael Shapiro
Memorandum, ``SIP Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for
Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide NAAQS On
or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17,
1993; and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor). See, Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004), which upheld this interpretation. See also, 68 FR 25418, 25424,
25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri).
Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new
SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was
submitted. The D.C. Circuit Court recognized the general inequity in
retroactive rulemakings in Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F. 3d 63 (D.C.
Cir. 2002), in which the D.C. Circuit Court upheld a district court's
refusal to make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date. Such a determination would have
resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area. In
Sierra Club, the D.C. Circuit Court stated, ``[a]lthough EPA failed to
make the nonattainment determination within the statutory time frame,
Sierra Club's proposed solution only makes the situation worse.
Retroactive relief would likely impose large costs on the states, which
would face fines and suits for not
[[Page 26762]]
implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even though they
were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly, with regard to
Kentucky's redesignation request, it would be unfair to penalize
Kentucky by retroactively applying to it for purposes of redesignation,
additional SIP requirements under subpart 2 that were not in effect at
the time it submitted its redesignation request, and that are not
currently in effect, but that might be in effect as a result of the
D.C. Circuit Court's remand.
With respect to the requirements under the 1-hour standard ozone
standard, Boyd County, Kentucky was originally designated as moderate
nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard in November 6, 1991 (56 FR
56694). The Area was redesignated as attainment for the 1-hour ozone
standard on June 29, 1995 (60 FR 33748). Therefore, Boyd County,
Kentucky was designated to attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard
prior to its nonattainment designation for the 8-hour ozone standard.
As a result, it is considered to be a 1-hour attainment area subject to
a CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the 1-hour standard. The D.C.
Circuit Court's ruling does not impact redesignation requests for these
types of areas for two main reasons.
First, there are no conformity requirements relevant for the
Huntington-Ashland redesignation request, such as a transportation
conformity SIP.\1\ It is EPA's longstanding policy position that it is
reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying
for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under section 107(d)
because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation,
and federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been
approved. See, 40 CFR 51.390; see also, Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th
Cir. 2001) (upholding EPA's interpretation). See also, 60 FR 62748
(Dec. 7, 1995) (redesignation of Tampa, Florida).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to submit revisions
to their SIPs to reflect certain federal criteria and procedures for
determining transportation conformity. Transportation conformity
SIPs are different from the motor vehicle emissions budgets that are
established in control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, with regard to the three other anti-backsliding provisions
for the 1-hour standard that the D.C. Circuit Court found were not
properly retained, Boyd County, Kentucky is an attainment area subject
to a maintenance plan for the 1-hour standard, and the NSR, contingency
measure (pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)), and fee provision
requirements no longer apply to this area because it was redesignated
to attainment of the 1-hour standard. As a result, the decision in
SCAQMD should not alter any requirements that would preclude EPA from
finalizing the Boyd County portion of the Huntington-Ashland area to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard.
As noted earlier, in 2005, the ambient ozone data for the
Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area indicated no further violations
of the 8-hour ozone standard, using data from the 3-year period of
2003-2005 (with a 2003-2005 design value of 0.079 ppm), to demonstrate
attainment. As a result, on September 29, 2006, Kentucky requested
redesignation of Boyd County, Kentucky to attainment for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The redesignation request includes three years of
complete, quality-assured ambient air quality data for the ozone
seasons (March 1st until October 31st) of 2003-2005, indicating that
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been achieved for the entire Huntington-
Ashland area. Under the CAA, nonattainment areas may be redesignated to
attainment if sufficient, complete, quality-assured data is available
for the Administrator to determine that the area has attained the
standard and the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements in
section 107(d)(3)(E).
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA
allows for redesignation providing that: (1) The Administrator
determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the
Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that
the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable
SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other
permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully
approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of
section 175A; and, (5) the state containing such area has met all
requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the
CAA.
EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents:
1. ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,''
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, Director, Technical Support Division,
June 18, 1990;
2. ``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;
3. ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
4. ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the
``Calcagni Memorandum'');
5. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in
Response to Clean Air Act Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28,
1992;
6. ``Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for Redesignation of
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum
from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch,
August 17, 1993;
7. `` State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
On or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17,
1993;
8. ``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;
9. ``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
10. ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S.
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May
10, 1995.
IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These Actions?
On September 29, 2006, Kentucky requested redesignation of the
Kentucky portion (Boyd County) of the bi-state Huntington-Ashland 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard. EPA's evaluation indicates that Kentucky has
[[Page 26763]]
demonstrated that Boyd County, Kentucky (as part of the Huntington-
Ashland area) has attained the standard and has met the requirements
for redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is
also announcing the status of its adequacy determination for the 2018
state MVEBs, which is relevant to the requested redesignation.
V. What Is the Effect of EPA's Proposed Actions?
EPA's proposed actions establish the basis upon which EPA may take
final action on these issues being proposed for approval today.
Approval of Kentucky's redesignation request would change the official
designation of Boyd County, Kentucky for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found
at 40 CFR part 81. Approval of Kentucky's request would also
incorporate into the Kentucky SIP, a plan for maintaining the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in the Huntington-Ashland Area through 2018. The
maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy future
violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The maintenance plan also
establishes state MVEBs of 1.18 tons per day (tpd) for VOC and 1.30 tpd
for NOX for the year 2018 for Boyd County, Kentucky.
Approval of Kentucky's maintenance plan would also result in approval
of the state MVEBs. Additionally, EPA is announcing the status of its
adequacy determination for the 2018 state MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR
93.118(f)(1).
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request?
EPA is proposing to make the determination that the Boyd County
portion of the Huntington-Ashland 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has
attained the 8-hour ozone standard, and that all other redesignation
criteria have been met for that portion of the Huntington-Ashland 8-
hour ozone area. EPA has made this determination with regard to West
Virginia meeting the other redesignation criteria through a separate
rulemaking (see 71 FR 39618). Therefore, the entire Huntington-Ashland
area has air quality monitoring data showing attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The basis for EPA's determination for the Boyd County area
is discussed in greater detail below.
Criteria (1)--Boyd County Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
EPA is proposing to determine that the Boyd County portion of the
Huntington-Ashland area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone,
an area may be considered to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if
there are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10
and Appendix I of part 50, based on three complete, consecutive
calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To
attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor
within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the
rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the
standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The
data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58, and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors
generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of
the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment.
EPA reviewed ozone monitoring data from ambient ozone monitoring
stations in the Huntington-Ashland area for the ozone season from 2003-
2005. This data has been quality assured and is recorded in AQS. The
fourth high averages for 2003, 2004 and 2005, and the 3-year average of
these values (i.e., design value), are summarized in the following
table:
Table 1.--Annual 4th Max High and Design Value for 8-Hour Ozone for
Huntington-Ashland Area
[Parts per million, ppm]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ashland (Boyd
Year (Cabell County) County)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.............................. 0.080 0.088
2004.............................. 0.066 0.068
2005.............................. 0.082 0.082
Design Value...................... 0.076 0.079
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, the design value for an area is the highest
design value recorded at any monitor in the area. Therefore, the design
value for the Huntington-Ashland area is 0.079 ppm, which meets the
standard as described above. Additionally, preliminary air quality data
from the 2006 monitoring season indicates that the Huntington-Ashland
Area is continuing to attain the 8-hour ozone standard. As discussed in
more detail below, KDAQ has committed to continue monitoring in this
area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The data submitted by Kentucky
provides an adequate demonstration that Boyd County (as a part of the
Huntington-Ashland area) has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Criteria (2)--Kentucky Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k)
for Boyd County and Criteria (5)--Kentucky Has Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
Below is a summary of how these two criteria were met.
EPA has determined that Kentucky has met all applicable SIP
requirements for the Boyd County under section 110 of the CAA (general
SIP requirements). EPA has also determined that the Kentucky SIP
satisfies the criterion that it meets applicable SIP requirements under
part D of title I of the CAA (requirements specific to subpart 1 basic
8-hour ozone nonattainment areas) in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has determined that the SIP is fully
approved with respect to all applicable requirements in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these determinations, EPA
ascertained which requirements are applicable to the area and that if
applicable, they are fully approved under section 110(k). SIPs must be
fully approved only with respect to applicable requirements.
a. Boyd County, Kentucky 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). Consistent with this interpretation, to qualify for
redesignation, states
[[Page 26764]]
requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant CAA
requirements that come due prior to the submittal of a complete
redesignation request. See also, Michael Shapiro Memorandum (``SIP
Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide NAAQS On or After November
15, 1992,'' September 17, 1993), and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7,
1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan). Applicable
requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the area's
submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable until a
redesignation is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to
redesignation. See, section 175A(c) of the CAA; Sierra Club, 375 F.3d
537 (7th Cir. 2004); see also, 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003)
(redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri).
General SIP requirements: Section 110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA
delineates the general requirements for a SIP, which include
enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means, or
techniques, provisions for the establishment and operation of
appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality,
and programs to enforce the limitations. General SIP elements and
requirements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of
the CAA. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the
following: submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after
reasonable public notice and hearing; provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air
quality; implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the
implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)) and provisions for the implementation of part D
requirements (New Source Review (NSR) permit programs); provisions for
air pollution modeling; and provisions for public and local agency
participation in planning and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address the transport
of air pollutants (NOX SIP Call, Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR)). EPA has also found, generally, that states have not submitted
SIPs under section 110(a)(1) to meet the interstate transport
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). However, the section
110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. EPA
believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment
area's designation and classifications are the relevant measures to
evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP
submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state
regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state.
Thus, we do not believe that the CAA's interstate transport
requirements should be construed to be applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation.
In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an
area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes
of redesignation. The area will still be subject to these requirements
after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D
requirements, which are linked with a particular area's designation and
classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing
policy on applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of conformity and
oxygenated fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone
transport requirements. See, Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458,
May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748,
December 7, 1995). See also, the discussion on this issue in the
Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001).
EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Any section 110 requirements that are linked to the part D requirements
for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are not yet due, since, as
explained below, no part D requirements for 8-hour standard became due
prior to submission of the redesignation request. Therefore, as
discussed above, for purposes of redesignation, they are both
considered applicable requirements. Nonetheless, EPA notes that it has
previously approved provisions into the Kentucky SIP addressing section
110 elements (See 47 FR 30059, July 12, 1982). EPA believes that the
section 110 SIP approved for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS is also sufficient
to meet the requirements under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (as well as
satisfying the issue raised by the D.C. Circuit Court in the SCAQMD
case).
Part D requirements: EPA has also determined that the Kentucky SIP
meets applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA since no
requirements became due prior to the submission of the area's
redesignation request. Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1
of part D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to
all nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of
part D, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the
area's nonattainment classification. Subpart 2 is not applicable to the
Boyd County, Kentucky area.
Part D, subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements: For purposes of
evaluating this redesignation request, the applicable part D, subpart 1
SIP requirements for all nonattainment areas are contained in sections
172(c)(1)-(9). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in
section 172 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of
Title I (57 FR 13498). No requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation under part D became due prior to the submission of the
redesignation request, and therefore none are applicable to the area
for purposes of redesignation. For example, the requirements for an
attainment demonstration that meets the requirements of section
172(c)(1) are not yet applicable, nor are the requirements for
Reasonably Achievable Control Technology (RACT) and Reasonably
Available Control Measures (RACM) (section 172(c)(1)), reasonable
further progress (RFP) (section 172(c)(2)), and contingency measures
(section 172(c)(9)).
In addition to the fact that no part D requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation became due prior to submission of the
redesignation request and therefore are not applicable, EPA believes it
is reasonable to interpret the conformity and NSR requirements as not
requiring approval prior to 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 projects conform to the air quality
planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects
developed, funded or approved
[[Page 26765]]
under title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal
Transit Act (``transportation conformity'') as well as to all other
Federally supported or funded projects (``general conformity''). State
conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability
that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate.
EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request under section 107(d) because state conformity
rules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity
rules apply where state rules have not been approved. See, Wall, 265
F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See also, 60
FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995, Tampa, Florida).
EPA has also determined that areas being redesignated need not
comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to
redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the
standard without a part D NSR program in effect since PSD requirements
will apply after redesignation. The 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 (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.'' Kentucky has demonstrated that the area
will be able to maintain the standard without a part D NSR program in
effect, and therefore, Kentucky need not have a fully approved part D
NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation request. EPA most
recently approved Kentucky's NSR program (including a nonattainment NSR
and PSD program) in the Kentucky SIP on July 11, 2006 (71 FR 38990).
Kentucky's PSD program will become effective in Boyd County, Kentucky
upon redesignation to attainment. See, rulemakings for Detroit,
Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorraine,
Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-70, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR
53665, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837,
June 21, 1996). Thus, Boyd County, Kentucky has satisfied all
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation under section 110
and part D of the CAA.
b. The Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of
the CAA
EPA has fully approved the applicable Kentucky SIP for Boyd County
under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in
approving a redesignation request, see Calcagni Memorandum at p. 3;
Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984,
989-90 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall, 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) and citations therein.
Following passage of the CAA of 1970 by the U.S. Congress, Kentucky
adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved at various times,
provisions addressing the various 1-hour ozone standard SIP elements
applicable in the Boyd County, Kentucky (60 FR 33748, June 29, 1995).
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 redesignation. EPA also believes that since the part D
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation did not become
due prior to submission of the redesignation request, they also are
therefore not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
Criteria (3)--The Air Quality Improvement in the Boyd County Portion of
the Huntington-Ashland 8-hour Ozone Area Is Due to Permanent and
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of
the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and
Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
EPA believes that Kentucky has demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP,
Federal measures, and other state-adopted measures. EPA has determined
that the implementation of the following permanent and enforceable
emissions controls, that occurred from 2001-2005, have reduced local
NOX and VOC emissions and brought the area into attainment:
2001-2005 Emission Reduction Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Mobile Source Reductions:
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (FMVCP)
Lower Reid Vapor Pressure
Fleet Turnover of Automobiles
Tier 2 Vehicle Emissions and Fuel Standards
Heavy Duty Engine and Vehicle Fuel Standards
Point Source Emissions Reductions:
Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)
Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT)
Non-Highway Mobile Source Reductions:
Small Spark-Ignition engines
Large Spark-Ignition engines
Locomotives
Land based diesel engines
Additional Reductions:
NOX SIP Call Reductions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notably, no credit specific emission reduction is being claimed in the
SIP for the NOX SIP Call reductions although this program
has resulted in measurable emissions reductions.
Kentucky has demonstrated that the implementation of permanent and
enforceable emissions controls have reduced local VOC and
NOX emissions. Most of the reductions are attributable to
Federal programs such as EPA's Tier 2/Low Sulfur Gasoline program and
other national clean fuel programs that began implementation in 2004.
Additionally, Kentucky has indicated in its September 2006 submittal
that the Huntington-Ashland area has benefited from emissions
reductions that have been achieved and will continue to be achieved
through the implementation of the NOX SIP Call, beginning in
2002. Kentucky has further demonstrated that year-to-year
meteorological changes and trends are not the likely source of the
overall, long-term improvements in ozone levels. In addition, the
following non-highway mobile source reduction programs were implemented
during the 2002-2004 period: Small spark-ignition engines, large-spark
ignition engines, locomotives and land-base diesel engines. EPA
believes that permanent and enforceable emissions reductions, in and
surrounding the nonattainment area, are the cause of long-term
improvements in ozone levels, and are the cause of the Huntington-
Ashland Area achieving attainment of the ozone standard.
Criteria (4)--The Area Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant
to Section 175A of the CAA
In its request to redesignate the Boyd County, Kentucky area (as
part of the Huntington-Ashland 8-hour ozone nonattainment area) to
attainment, KDAQ submitted a SIP revision to provide for the
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Boyd County,
[[Page 26766]]
Kentucky area for at least 10 years after the effective date of
redesignation to attainment.
a. What is required in a maintenance plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the
redesignation, Kentucky must submit a revised maintenance plan which
demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility
of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone
violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment. The Calcagni Memorandum provides additional guidance on the
content of a maintenance plan. The Calcagni Memorandum explains that an
ozone maintenance plan should address five requirements: The attainment
emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring,
verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. As is
discussed more fully below, Kentucky's maintenance plan includes all
the necessary components and is approvable as part of the redesignation
request.
b. Attainment Emissions Inventory
In coordination with West Virginia, Kentucky selected 2004 as ``the
attainment year'' for Boyd County (as part of the Huntington-Ashland 8-
hour ozone area) for the purposes of demonstrating attainment of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. This attainment inventory identifies the level of
emissions in the area which is sufficient to attain the 8-hour ozone
standard. Kentucky began development of this attainment inventory by
first developing a baseline emissions inventory for the Boyd County.
The year 2002 was chosen as the base year for developing a
comprehensive ozone precursor emissions inventory for which projected
emissions could be developed for 2004, 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017,
and 2018. Non-road mobile emissions were calculated using the most
recent non-road model. On-road mobile source emissions were calculated
using EPA's MOBILE6.2 emission factors model. The 2004 VOC and
NOX emissions (as well as the emissions for other years) for
Boyd County, Kentucky were developed consistent with EPA guidance, and
are summarized in the table in the following subsection.
c. Maintenance Demonstration
The September 29, 2006, final submittal includes a maintenance plan
for the Boyd County area. This demonstration:
(i) Shows compliance and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
standard by providing information to support the demonstration that
current and future emissions of VOC and NOX remain at or
below attainment year 2004 emissions levels. The year 2004 was
chosen as the attainment year because it is one of the most recent
three years (i.e., 2003, 2004, and 2005) for which the Huntington-
Ashland area has clean air quality data for the 8-hour ozone
standard.
(ii) Uses 2004 as the attainment year and includes future
emission inventory projections for the 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017
and 2018.
(iii) Identifies an ``out year,'' at least 10 years after the
time necessary for EPA to review and approve the maintenance plan.
Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB was established for the last year of the
maintenance plan (2018). See section VII below.
(iv) Provides the following actual and projected emissions
inventories for the Boyd County portion of the Huntington-Ashland
nonattainment area.
Table 2.--Boyd County VOC Emissions
[Tons per day] *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category 2004 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................... 17.52 17.76 18.49 19.09 19.81 20.54 20.79
Area.................................... 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97
Mobile **............................... 2.50 2.28 1.91 1.63 1.38 1.23 1.18
Nonroad................................. 0.71 0.68 0.61 0.56 0.55 0.56 0.56
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 23.70 23.69 23.98 24.25 24.71 25.30 25.50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See further information in Section VI(4)(e) Verification of Continued Attainment.
** Calculated using MOBILE 6.2.
Table 3.--Boyd County NOX Emissions
[Tons per day] *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category 2004 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................... 16.17 16.35 16.90 17.37 17.92 18.48 18.68
Area.................................... 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Mobile **............................... 3.79 3.60 2.98 2.36 1.79 1.41 1.30
Nonroad................................. 1.83 1.81 1.71 1.63 1.54 1.48 1.47
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 21.89 21.86 21.69 21.46 21.35 21.47 21.55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See further information in Section VI(4)(e) Verification of Continued Attainment.
** Calculated using MOBILE 6.2.
Although the Kentucky SIP submission provided VOC and
NOX emissions for the attainment and future years for Boyd
County, EPA considers emissions from the entire Huntington-Ashland area
for a demonstration of maintenance. Maintenance is demonstrated if the
future year NOX and VOC emission for the entire area remains
at or below the level of the attainment year emissions. Both Kentucky
and West Virginia chose 2004
[[Page 26767]]
for their ``attainment year'' for this area. While the VOC emissions
for the Boyd County, Kentucky portion of the Huntington-Ashland area
indicate a steady increase of emissions beyond the attainment year, it
is important to note that this area is comprised of three counties for
which emissions should be considered. EPA's review of VOC emissions for
the entire area indicates that these emissions are 47.40 tpd in 2004,
and 45.20 tpd in 2018, which is an overall downward trend in emissions
for the area. Similarly, EPA's review of NOX emissions for
the entire area also indicates an overall downward trend in emissions
for the area, with a total of 59.29 tpd in 2004 and 48.55 tpd in 2018.
Therefore, it is highly likely that maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
standard will be maintained in the future for the Huntington-Ashland
area.
d. Monitoring Network
There are currently two monitors measuring ozone in the Huntington-
Ashland 8-hour ozone area (one in Cabell County, West Virginia and one
in Boyd County, Kentucky). KDAQ has committed in the maintenance plan
to continue operation of the monitor in Boyd County in compliance with
40 CFR part 58, and has addressed the requirement for monitoring. West
Virginia has provided a similar commitment for the monitor in Cabell
County, West Virginia.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
Kentucky has the legal authority to enforce and implement the
requirements of the ozone maintenance plan for the Boyd County,
Kentucky area. This includes the authority to adopt, implement and
enforce any subsequent emissions control contingency measures
determined to be necessary to correct future ozone attainment problems.
Kentucky will track the progress of the maintenance plan by
performing future reviews of actual emissions for the area using the
latest emissions factors, models and methodologies. For these periodic
inventories Kentucky will review the assumptions made for the purpose
of the maintenance demonstration concerning projected growth of
activity levels. If any of these assumptions appear to have changed
substantially, Kentucky will re-project emissions. Following the
redesignation of the area, sources are prohibited from reducing
emission controls already in place when attainment is achieved unless
EPA approves a SIP revision consistent with section 110 of the CAA.
Kentucky and EPA have instituted the following programs that will
remain enforceable and are included as part of Kentucky's September
2006 SIP submittal, to maintain air quality which meets the NAAQS for
the 8-hour ozone standard.
All new major VOC or NOX sources locating in
Kentucky shall as a minimum apply control procedures that are
reasonable, available, and practical;
All major modifications to existing major VOC or
NOX sources are subject to RACM requirements as well as the
BACT requirement of the Kentucky Division of Air Quality PSD
regulations;
Federal Motor Control Standards apply in Kentucky;
Transportation Conformity Requirements;
PSD Requirements;
Federal Controls on certain nonroad engines (e.g. diesel
and other Federal requirements, industrial diesel equipment,
locomotives) after 2000;
Federal controls on the VOC content for Architectural and
Maintenance Paints, Auto Body Shops and Consumer Products.
In addition to these measures, Kentucky explains that more controls
are expected to occur in the Boyd County area which are not factored
into the projected future year emissions analyses. For example, a major
refinery, Marathon Ashland Oil Cattlesburg is undergoing a project
entitled the Refinery Modernization Project, which involves new
operational and emissions limitations. The proposed Refinery
Modernization Project involves installation of new equipment and
upgrading of existing equipment. The following emission reductions were
expected to occur from the Ashland Project by 2006:
PM 33 tons per year (decrease)
PM10 33 tons per year (decrease)
SO2 3,605 tons per year (decrease)
NOX 730 tons per year (decrease)
CO 4 tons per year (decrease)
VOC 64 tons per year (decrease)
When these reductions are factored into future emission
inventories, the totals for the emission inventories for Boyd County
are expected to decrease.
f. Contingency Plan
The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct
any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section
175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such
contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state
will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency
measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and
implementation, and a time limit for action by the state. A state
should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when
the contingency measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan
must include a requirement that a state will implement all measures
with respect to control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP
before redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with
section 175A(d). This requirement is met because all SIP measures are
retained for maintenance. Kentucky's submittal satisfies all the
contingency plan requirements described in section 175A of the CAA.
In the September 29, 2006, final submittal, Kentucky affirms that a
combination of all programs instituted by Kentucky and EPA have
resulted in cleaner air in the Huntington-Ashland area and the
anticipated future benefits from these programs are expected to result
in continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in this area.
Sources are prohibited from terminating emissions controls following
the redesignation of Boyd County unless EPA approves a SIP revision
consistent with section 110 of the CAA. The contingency plan includes
tracking and triggering mechanisms to determine when contingency
measures are needed and a process of developing and adopting
appropriate control measures. The primary trigger is a measured
violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. If there is a measured violation
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Boyd County, Kentucky commits to develop
regulations for at least one of the following control measures for
submission to the EPA within nine months. All regulatory programs will
be implemented within 18 months from a measured violation. Kentuc