Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio; Redesignation of Dayton-Springfield Area to Attainment for Ozone, 33937-33948 [E7-11958]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
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,
the relationship between the national
government and the States, or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
proposes to approve a State rule
implementing a Federal standard, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. The EPA interprets Executive
Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks such that the analysis
required under section 5–501 of the
Executive Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. This proposed
rule is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it would approve a State
program. Executive Order 12898 (59 FR
7629 (February 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on
environmental justice. Because this rule
merely proposes to approve a State rule
implementing a Federal standard, EPA
lacks the discretionary authority to
modify today’s regulatory decision on
the basis of environmental justice
considerations. In reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
State choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the 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 Act. 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 in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:23 Jun 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 11, 2007.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. E7–11942 Filed 6–19–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R05–OAR–2006–0956; FRL–8328–9]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Ohio; Redesignation of
Dayton-Springfield Area to Attainment
for Ozone
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make a
determination under the Clean Air Act
(CAA) that the nonattainment area of
Dayton-Springfield, Ohio (Clark, Green,
Miami, and Montgomery Counties) has
attained the 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). This determination is based
on complete, quality-assured ambient
air quality monitoring data for the 2004–
2006 seasons that demonstrate that the
8-hour ozone NAAQS have been
attained in the area. EPA is also
proposing to approve, as a revision to
the Ohio State Implementation Plan
(SIP), the State’s plan for maintaining
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2018
in the area.
EPA is proposing to approve a request
from the State of Ohio to redesignate the
Dayton-Springfield area to attainment of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA) submitted this request on
November 6, 2006 and supplemented it
on November 29, 2006, December 4,
2006, December 13, 2006, January 11,
2007, March 9, 2007, March 27, 2007,
and May 31, 2007. EPA is also
proposing to approve the State’s 2005
and 2018 Motor Vehicle Emission
Budgets (MVEBs) for the DaytonSpringfield area.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 20, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2006–0956, by one of the
following methods:
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33937
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 886–5824.
4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand delivery: John M. Mooney,
Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Regional
Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2006–
0956. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov
Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’
system, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as
part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional instructions
on submitting comments, go to Section
I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
33938
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone
Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, at (312) 886–1767 before
visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–1767,
dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
Table of Contents
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My
Comments for EPA?
II. What Actions Is EPA Proposing To Take?
III. What Is the Background for These
Actions?
A. What Is the General Background
Information?
B. What Is the Impact of the December 22,
2006 United States Court of Appeals
Decision Regarding EPA’s Phase 1
Implementation Rule?
IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
V. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take These
Actions?
VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions?
VII. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the Requests?
A. Attainment Determination and
Redesignation
B. Adequacy of Ohio’s MVEBs
VIII. What Actions Is EPA Taking?
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
When submitting comments,
remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
2. Follow directions—The EPA may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:23 Jun 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
3. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. What Actions is EPA Proposing To
Take?
EPA is proposing to take several
related actions. EPA is proposing to
make a determination that the DaytonSpringfield nonattainment area has
attained the 8-hour ozone standard and
that this area has met the requirements
for redesignation under section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus
proposing to approve Ohio’s request to
change the legal designation of the
Dayton-Springfield area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also
proposing to approve Ohio’s
maintenance plan SIP revision for
Dayton-Springfield (such approval being
one of the CAA criteria for redesignation
to attainment status). The maintenance
plan is designed to keep the DaytonSpringfield area in attainment of the
ozone NAAQS through 2018.
Additionally, EPA is proposing to
approve the newly-established 2005 and
2018 MVEBs for the Dayton-Springfield
area. The adequacy comment period for
the MVEBs began on November 14,
2006, with EPA’s posting of the
availability of the submittal on EPA’s
Adequacy Web site (at https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/
transconf/adequacy.htm). The adequacy
comment period for these MVEBs ended
on December 14, 2006. EPA did not
receive any requests for this submittal,
or adverse comments on this submittal
during the adequacy comment period.
On April 3, 2007, EPA published a
Federal Register notice announcing the
adequacy of the 2005 and 2018 MVEBs.
Please see the Adequacy section of this
rulemaking for further explanation on
this process. Therefore, we find
adequate, and are proposing to approve,
the State’s 2005 and 2018 MVEBs for
transportation conformity purposes.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
III. What Is the Background for These
Actions?
A. What Is the General Background
Information?
Ground-level ozone is not emitted
directly by sources. Rather, emissions of
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) react in the
presence of sunlight to form groundlevel ozone. NOX and VOCs are referred
to as precursors of ozone.
The CAA establishes a process for air
quality management through the
NAAQS. Before promulgation of the
current 8-hour standard, the ozone
NAAQS was based on a 1-hour
standard. On November 6, 1991 (56 FR
56693 and 56813), the DaytonSpringfield area was designated as a
moderate nonattainment area under the
1-hour ozone NAAQS. The area was
subsequently redesignated to attainment
of the 1-hour standard on May 5, 1995
(60 FR 22289). At the time EPA revoked
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, on June 15,
2005, the Dayton-Springfield area was
designated as attainment under the 1hour ozone NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a
revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08
parts per million (ppm). This new
standard is more stringent than the
previous 1-hour standard. On April 30,
2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA published a
final rule designating and classifying
areas under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
These designations and classifications
became effective June 15, 2004. 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
air quality data, 2001–2003.
The CAA contains two sets of
provisions, subpart 1 and subpart 2, that
address planning and control
requirements for nonattainment areas.
(Both are found in title I, part D, 42
U.S.C. 7501–7509a and 7511–7511f,
respectively.) Subpart 1 contains general
requirements for nonattainment areas
for any pollutant, including ozone,
governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2
provides more specific requirements for
ozone nonattainment areas.
Under EPA’s 8-hour ozone
implementation rule, (69 FR 23951
(April 30, 2004)), an area was classified
under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour
ozone design value (i.e., the 3-year
average annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration), if it had a 1-hour design
value at the time of designation at or
above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour
design value in Table 1 of subpart 2) (69
FR 23954). All other areas are covered
under subpart 1, based upon their 8-
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
hour design values (69 FR 23958). The
Dayton-Springfield area was designated
as a subpart 1, 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area by EPA on April 30,
2004, (69 FR 23857, 23927) based on air
quality monitoring data from 2001–2003
(69 FR 23860).
40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix I provide that the 8-hour
ozone standard is attained when the 3year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentration is less than or
equal to 0.08 ppm, when rounded. The
data completeness requirement is met
when the average percent of days with
valid ambient monitoring data is greater
than 90%, and no single year has less
than 75% data completeness. See 40
CFR Part 50, Appendix I, 2.3(d).
On November 6, 2006, Ohio requested
that EPA redesignate the DaytonSpringfield area to attainment for the 8hour ozone standard. Ohio
supplemented its submittal on
November 29, 2006, December 4, 2006,
December 13, 2006, January 11, 2007,
March 9, 2007, March 27, 2007, and
May 31, 2007. The redesignation request
included three years of complete,
quality-assured data for the period of
2004 through 2006, indicating the 8hour NAAQS for ozone had been
attained for the Dayton-Springfield area.
Under the CAA, nonattainment areas
may be redesignated to attainment if
sufficient complete, quality-assured data
are 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).
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
B. What Is the Impact of the December
22, 2006 United States Court of Appeals
Decision Regarding EPA’s Phase 1
Implementation Rule?
1. Summary of Court Decision
On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1
Implementation Rule for the 8-hour
Ozone Standard. (69 23951, April 30,
2004). South Coast Air Quality
Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882
(D.C. Cir. 2006). The Court held that
certain provisions of EPA’s Phase 1 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 Act. The Court also held
that EPA improperly failed to retain four
measures required for 1-hour
nonattainment areas under the antibacksliding provisions of the
regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:23 Jun 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
Source Review (NSR) requirements
based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment
classification; (2) Section 185 penalty
fees for 1-hour severe or extreme
nonattainment areas; (3) Measures to be
implemented pursuant to section
172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the
contingency of an area not making
reasonable further progress toward
attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for
failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4)
certain conformity requirements for
certain types of federal actions. The
Court upheld EPA’s authority to revoke
the 1-hour standard provided there were
adequate anti-backsliding provisions.
This section sets forth EPA’s views on
the potential effect of the Court’s ruling
on this redesignation action. For the
reasons set forth below, EPA does not
believe that the Court’s ruling alters any
requirements relevant to this
redesignation action so as to preclude
redesignation, and does not prevent
EPA from finalizing this redesignation.
EPA believes that the Court’s decision,
as it currently stands or as it may be
modified based upon any petition for
rehearing that has been filed, imposes
no impediment to moving forward with
redesignation of this area to attainment,
because in either circumstance
redesignation is appropriate under the
relevant redesignation provisions of the
Act and longstanding policies regarding
redesignation requests.
2. Requirements Under the 8-Hour
Standard
With respect to the 8-hour standard,
the Court’s ruling rejected EPA’s reasons
for classifying areas under Subpart 1 for
the 8-hour standard, and remanded that
matter to the Agency. Consequently, it
is possible that this area could, during
a remand to EPA, be reclassified under
Subpart 2. Although any future decision
by EPA to classify this area under
Subpart 2 might trigger additional future
requirements for the area, EPA believes
that this does not mean that
redesignation cannot now go forward.
This belief is based upon: (1) EPA’s
longstanding policy of evaluating State
submissions in accordance with the
requirements due at the time the request
is submitted; and, (2) consideration of
the inequity of applying retroactively
any future requirements.
First, at the time the redesignation
request was submitted, the DaytonSpringfield area was classified under
Subpart 1 and was obligated to meet
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
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33939
came due prior to the submittal of a
complete redesignation request.
September 4, 1992, Calcagni
memorandum (‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division) See also
Michael Shapiro Memorandum,
September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459,
12465–66 (March 7, 1995)
(Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor).
See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537
(7th Cir. 2004), which upheld this
interpretation. See, e.g. also 68 FR
25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003)
(redesignation of St. Louis).
Moreover, it would be inequitable to
retroactively apply any new SIP
requirements that were not applicable at
the time the request was submitted. The
D.C. Circuit has recognized the inequity
in such retroactive rulemaking, See
Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F. 3d 63
(D.C. Cir. 2002), in which the D.C.
Circuit upheld a District Court’s ruling
refusing to make retroactive an EPA
determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date. Such a
determination would have resulted in
the imposition of additional
requirements on the area. The Court
stated: ‘‘Although EPA failed to make
the nonattainment determination within
the statutory time frame, Sierra Club’s
proposed solution only makes the
situation worse. Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the States,
which would face fines and suits for not
implementing air pollution prevention
plans in 1997, even though they were
not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68.
Similarly here it would be unfair to
penalize the area by applying to it for
purposes of redesignation additional SIP
requirements under Subpart 2 that were
not in effect at the time it submitted its
redesignation request.
3. Requirements Under the 1-Hour
Standard
With respect to the requirements
under the 1-hour standard, the DaytonSpringfield area was an attainment area
subject to a CAA section 175A
maintenance plan under the 1-hour
standard. The Court’s ruling does not
impact redesignation requests for these
types of areas.
First, there are no conformity
requirements that are relevant for
redesignation requests for any standard,
including the requirement to submit a
transportation conformity SIP. Under
longstanding EPA policy, EPA believes
that it is reasonable to interpret the
conformity SIP requirement as not
applying for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request under section
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
33940
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
107(d) because state conformity rules
are still required after redesignation and
federal conformity rules apply where
state rules have not been approved. 40
CFR 51.390. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d
426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this
interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748
(December 7, 1995) (Tampa, FL
redesignation).
Federal transportation conformity
regulations apply in all States prior to
approval of transportation conformity
SIPs. The Dayton-Springfield, Ohio 1hour ozone area was redesignated to
attainment without approved State
transportation conformity regulations
because the federal regulations were in
effect in Ohio. When challenged, these
1-hour ozone redesignations, which
were approved without state
regulations, were upheld by the courts.
See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir.
2001). See also 60 FR 62748 (December
7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida). Although
Ohio does not have approved state
transportation conformity regulations, it
has developed memoranda of
understanding, signed by all parties
involved in conformity, to address
conformity consultation procedures.
The federal transportation conformity
regulations, which apply in Ohio,
require the approved 1-hour ozone
budgets to be used for transportation
conformity purposes prior to 8-hour
ozone budgets being approved.
Second, with respect to the three
other anti-backsliding provisions for the
1-hour standard that the Court found
were not properly retained, the DaytonSpringfield area 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 an area that has been redesignated to
attainment of the 1-hour standard.
Thus, the decision in South Coast
should not alter requirements that
would preclude EPA from finalizing the
redesignation of this area.
IV. What Are the Criteria for
Redesignation?
The CAA provides the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area
to attainment. Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation
provided 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:23 Jun 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
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.
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:
‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design
Value Calculations,’’ Memorandum
from William G. Laxton, Director
Technical Support Division, June 18,
1990;
‘‘Maintenance Plans for Redesignation
of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum
from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30,
1992;
‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from
G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1,
1992;
‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests
to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’
Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management
Division, September 4, 1992;
‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Actions Submitted in Response to Clean
Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,’’
Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management
Division, October 28, 1992;
‘‘Technical Support Documents
(TSD’s) for Redesignation Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment
Areas,’’ Memorandum from G.T. Helms,
Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After
November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, September 17, 1993;
‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in
Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,’’
Memorandum from D. Kent Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Management Division, to Air Division
Directors, Regions 1–10, dated
November 30, 1993.
‘‘Part D New Source Review (part D
NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary
D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994;
and
‘‘Reasonable Further Progress,
Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’
Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, May 10, 1995.’’
V. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take
These Actions?
On November 6, 2006, Ohio requested
redesignation of the Dayton-Springfield
area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard. Ohio supplemented its
submittal on November 29, 2006,
December 4, 2006, December 13, 2006,
January 5, 2007, January 11, 2007,
March 9, 2007, March 27, 2007, and
May 31, 2007. EPA believes that the area
has attained the standard and has met
the requirements for redesignation set
forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions?
Approval of the redesignation request
would change the official designation of
the area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also
incorporate into the Ohio SIP a plan for
maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
through 2018. The maintenance plan
includes contingency measures to
remedy future violations of the 8-hour
NAAQS. It also establishes MVEBs of
29.19 and 14.73 tons per day (tpd) VOC
and 63.88 and 21.42 tpd NOX for the
years 2005 and 2018, respectively.
VII. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the
Requests?
A. Attainment Determination and
Redesignation
EPA is proposing to make a
determination that the DaytonSpringfield area has attained the 8-hour
ozone standard and that the area has
met all other applicable section
107(d)(3)(E) redesignation criteria. The
basis for EPA’s determination is as
follows:
1. The Area Has Attained the 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS. (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i))
EPA is proposing to make a
determination that the DaytonSpringfield area has attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may
be considered to be attaining the 8-hour
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
33941
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
ozone NAAQS if there are no violations,
as determined in accordance with 40
CFR 50.10 and part 50, Appendix I,
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 Aerometric Information
Retrieval System (AIRS). The monitors
generally should have remained at the
same location for the duration of the
monitoring period required for
demonstrating attainment.
OEPA submitted ozone monitoring
data for the 2004 to 2006 ozone seasons.
The OEPA quality-assured the ambient
monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR
58.10, and recorded it in the AIRS
database, thus making the data publicly
available. The data meet the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR 50,
Appendix I, which requires a minimum
completeness of 75 percent annually
and 90 percent over each three year
period. Monitoring data is presented in
Table 1 below. Data completeness
information is presented in Table 2
below.
TABLE 1.—ANNUAL 4TH HIGH DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATION AND 3-YEAR AVERAGES OF 4TH HIGH
DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS
2004
4th high
(ppm)
County
Monitor
Clark .................
Springfield, 39–023–001 ...................................................................
Mud Run, 39–023–0003 ...................................................................
Xenia, 39–057–0006 .........................................................................
Miami, 39–109–0005 ........................................................................
Webster, 39–113–0033 ....................................................................
Greene ..............
Miami ................
Montgomery ......
0.079
0.073
0.075
0.075
0.067
2005
4th high
(ppm)
0.086
0.081
0.083
0.079
0.082
2006
4th high
(ppm)
0.076
0.074
0.079
0.073
0.071
2004–2006
average
4th high
(ppm)
0.080
0.076
0.079
0.076
0.073
TABLE 2.—DATA COMPLETENESS IN PERCENT (%)
County
Monitor
Clark .................
Springfield, 39–023–001 ...................................................................
Mud Run, 39–023–0003 ...................................................................
Xenia, 39–057–0006 .........................................................................
Miami, 39–109–0005 ........................................................................
Webster, 39–113–0033 ....................................................................
Greene ..............
Miami ................
Montgomery ......
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
In addition, as discussed below with
respect to the maintenance plans, OEPA
has committed to continue operating the
ozone monitors listed above. OEPA has
also committed to consult with EPA
prior to making changes to the existing
monitoring network, should changes
become necessary in the future. OEPA
will continue to quality assure and
report monitoring data in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58 and all other
federal requirements. In summary, EPA
believes that the data submitted by Ohio
provide an adequate demonstration that
the Dayton-Springfield area has attained
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
2. The Area Has Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D; and the Area Has a Fully
Approved SIP Under Section 110(k).
(Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and
107(d)(3)(E)(ii))
We have determined that Ohio has
met all currently applicable SIP
requirements for purposes of
redesignation for the Dayton-Springfield
area under Section 110 of the CAA
(general SIP requirements). We have
also determined that the Ohio SIP meets
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:23 Jun 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
2004 (%)
all SIP requirements currently
applicable for purposes of redesignation
under part D of Title I of the CAA
(requirements specific to Subpart 1
nonattainment areas), in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition,
we have determined that the Ohio SIP
is fully approved with respect to all
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation, in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these
determinations, we have ascertained
what SIP requirements are applicable to
the area for purposes of redesignation,
and have determined that the portions
of the SIP meeting these requirements
are fully approved under section 110(k)
of the CAA. As discussed more fully
below, SIPs must be fully approved only
with respect to currently applicable
requirements of the CAA.
a. The Dayton-Springfield Area 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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2005 (%)
100
99
100
99
98
99
99
100
100
100
2006 (%)
100
100
100
99
100
2004–2006
average (%)
100
99
100
99
99
Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA’s
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA. Under this interpretation, a
state and the area it wishes to
redesignate must meet the relevant CAA
requirements that are due prior to the
state’s submittal of a complete
redesignation request for the area. See
also the September 17, 1993 Michael
Shapiro memorandum and 60 FR 12459,
12465–66 (March 7, 1995)
(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor,
Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS). Applicable
requirements of the CAA that come due
subsequent to the state’s submittal of a
complete request remain applicable
until a redesignation to attainment is
approved, but are not required as a
prerequisite to redesignation. See
section 175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra Club
v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See
also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003)
(redesignation of the St. Louis/East St.
Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS).
General SIP requirements. Section
110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the
general requirements for a SIP. Section
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
33942
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
110(a)(2) provides that the
implementation plan submitted by a
state must have been adopted by the
state after reasonable public notice and
hearing, and that, among other things, it
includes enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures,
means or techniques necessary to meet
the requirements of the CAA; provides
for establishment and operation of
appropriate devices, methods, systems
and procedures necessary to monitor
ambient air quality; provides for
implementation of a source permit
program to regulate the modification
and construction of any stationary
source within the areas covered by the
plan; includes provisions for the
implementation of part C, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part
D, NSR permit programs; includes
criteria for stationary source emission
control measures, monitoring, and
reporting; includes provisions for air
quality modeling; and provides for
public and local agency participation in
planning and emission control rule
development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA
requires that SIPs contain measures to
prevent sources in a state from
significantly contributing to air quality
problems in another state. To
implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish
programs to address transport of air
pollutants (NOX SIP Call,1 Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25162)).
However, the section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a state are not linked
with a particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classification. EPA
believes that the requirements linked
with a particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classification are the
relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request.
When the transport SIP submittal
requirements are applicable to a state,
they will continue to apply to the state
regardless of the attainment designation
of any one particular area in the state.
Therefore, we believe that these
requirements should not be construed to
be applicable requirements for purposes
of redesignation. Further, we believe
that the other section 110 elements
described above that are not connected
with nonattainment plan submissions
1 On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued
a NOX SIP call requiring the District of Columbia
and 22 states, including Ohio, to reduce emissions
of NOX in order to reduce the transport of ozone
and ozone precursors. In compliance with EPA’s
NOX SIP call, OEPA has developed rules governing
the control of NOX emissions from Electric
Generating Units (EGUs), major non-EGU industrial
boilers, and major cement kilns. EPA approved
Ohio’s rules as fulfilling Phase I of the NOX SIP Call
on June 27, 2005 (70 FR 36845).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:23 Jun 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
and not linked with an area’s attainment
status are also not applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation. A state remains subject to
these requirements after an area is
redesignated to attainment. We
conclude that only the section 110 and
part D requirements which are linked
with a particular area’s designation and
classification are the relevant measures
which we may consider in evaluating a
redesignation request. This approach is
consistent with EPA’s existing policy on
applicability of conformity and
oxygenated fuels requirements for
redesignation purposes, as well as with
section 184 ozone transport
requirements. See Reading,
Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176,
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio,
final rulemaking (61 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final
rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7,
1995). See also the discussion on this
issue in the Cincinnati ozone
redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19,
2000), and in the Pittsburgh ozone
redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19,
2001).
As discussed above, we believe that
section 110 elements which are not
linked to the area’s nonattainment status
are not applicable for purposes of
redesignation. Because there are no
section 110 requirements linked to the
part D requirements for 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas that have become
due, as explained below, there are no
part D requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation under the 8hour standard.
Part D Requirements. EPA has
determined that the Ohio SIP meets
applicable SIP requirements under part
D of the CAA, since no requirements
applicable for purposes of redesignation
became due for the 8-hour ozone
standard prior to OEPA’s submission of
the redesignation request for the
Dayton-Springfield area. Under part D,
an area’s classification determines the
requirements to which it will be subject.
Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections
172–176 of the CAA, sets forth the basic
nonattainment 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. The
Dayton-Springfield area was classified
as a subpart 1 nonattainment area, and,
therefore, subpart 2 requirements do not
apply.
Part D, Subpart 1 applicable SIP
requirements. For purposes of
evaluating these redesignation requests,
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the applicable part D, subpart 1 SIP
requirements for the Dayton-Springfield
area 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, April 16, 1992).
No requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation under part D
became due prior to submission of the
redesignation request, and, therefore,
none are applicable to the areas for
purposes of redesignation. Since the
State of Ohio has submitted a complete
ozone redesignation request for the
Dayton-Springfield area prior to the
deadline for any submissions required
for purposes of redesignation, we have
determined that these requirements do
not apply to the Dayton-Springfield area
for purposes of redesignation.
Furthermore, EPA has determined
that, since PSD requirements will apply
after redesignation, 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 NAAQS without
part D NSR. A more detailed rationale
for this view is described in a
memorandum from Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review
Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.’’ Ohio has
demonstrated that the area to be
redesignated will be able to maintain
the standard without part D NSR in
effect; therefore, EPA concludes that the
State need not have a fully approved
part D NSR program prior to approval of
the redesignation request. The State’s
PSD program will become effective in
the Dayton-Springfield area upon
redesignation to attainment. See
rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60
FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR
20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665,
October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids,
Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21,
1996).
Section 176 conformity requirements.
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires
states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that federallysupported or funded activities,
including highway projects, conform to
the air quality planning goals in the
applicable SIPs. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to
transportation plans, programs and
projects developed, funded or approved
under Title 23 of the U.S. Code and the
Federal Transit Act (transportation
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
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, which EPA promulgated
pursuant to CAA requirements.
EPA believes that it is reasonable to
interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation
request under section 107(d) for two
reasons. First, the requirement to submit
SIP revisions to comply with the
conformity provisions of the CAA
continues to apply to areas after
redesignation to attainment since such
areas would be subject to a section 175A
maintenance plan. Second, EPA’s
federal conformity rules require the
performance of conformity analyses in
the absence of federally-approved state
rules. Therefore, because areas are
subject to the conformity requirements
regardless of whether they are
redesignated to attainment and, because
they must implement conformity under
federal rules if state rules are not yet
approved, EPA believes it is reasonable
to view these requirements as not
applying for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request. See Wall v. EPA,
265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding
this interpretation. See also 60 FR
62748, 62749–62750 (Dec. 7, 1995)
(Tampa, Florida).
EPA approved Ohio’s general and
transportation conformity SIPs on
March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9646) and May
30, 2000 (65 FR 34395), respectively.
Ohio has submitted on-highway motor
vehicle budgets for the DaytonSpringfield area of 29.19 and 14.73 tpd
VOC and 63.88 and 21.42 tpd NOX for
the years 2005 and 2018, respectively.
The area must use the MVEBs from the
maintenance plan in any conformity
determination that is effective on or
after the effective date of the
maintenance plan approval. Thus, the
Dayton-Springfield area has satisfied all
applicable requirements under section
110 and part D of the CAA.
b. The Dayton-Springfield Area Has a
Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under
Section 110(k) of the CAA
EPA has fully approved the Ohio SIP
for the Dayton-Springfield area 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 the
September 4, 1992 John Calcagni
memorandum, page 3, Southwestern
Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v.
Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–990 (6th
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:23 Jun 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426
(6th Cir. 2001)) plus any additional
measures it may approve in conjunction
with a redesignation action. See 68 FR
25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the
passage of the CAA of 1970, Ohio has
adopted and submitted, and EPA has
fully approved, provisions addressing
the various required SIP elements
applicable to the Dayton-Springfield
area under the 1-hour ozone standard.
No Dayton-Springfield area SIP
provisions are currently disapproved,
conditionally approved, or partially
approved.
3. The Improvement in Air Quality 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.
(Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii))
EPA finds that Ohio has demonstrated
that the observed air quality
improvement in the Dayton-Springfield
area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the
SIP, federal measures, and other stateadopted measures.
In making this demonstration, the
State has calculated the change in
emissions between 2002 and 2005, one
of the years the Dayton-Springfield area
monitored attainment. The reduction in
emissions and the corresponding
improvement in air quality over this
time period can be attributed to a
number of regulatory control measures
that Ohio and upwind areas have
implemented in recent years. The
Dayton-Springfield is impacted by the
transport of ozone and ozone precursors
from upwind areas. Therefore, local
controls as well as controls
implemented in upwind areas are
relevant to the improvement in air
quality in the Dayton-Springfield area.
a. Permanent and Enforceable Controls
Implemented
The following is a discussion of
permanent and enforceable measures
that have been implemented in the
areas:
NOX rules. In compliance with EPA’s
NOX SIP call, Ohio developed rules to
control NOX emissions from Electric
Generating Units (EGUs), major nonEGU industrial boilers, and major
cement kilns. These rules required
sources to begin reducing NOX
emissions in 2004. From 2004 on, NOX
emissions from EGUs and large
industrial boilers have been capped at a
level well below pre-2002 levels. OEPA
expects that NOX emissions will further
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33943
decline as the State meets the
requirements of EPA’s Phase II NOX SIP
call (69 FR 21604 (April 21, 2004)) and
CAIR.
Federal Emission Control Measures.
Reductions in VOC and NOX emissions
have occurred statewide as a result of
federal emission control measures, with
additional emission reductions expected
to occur in the future as the state
implements additional emission
controls. Federal emission control
measures include: The National Low
Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program, Tier
2 emission standards for vehicles,
gasoline sulfur limits, low sulfur diesel
fuel standards, and heavy-duty diesel
engine standards. In addition, in 2004,
EPA issued the Clean Air Non-road
Diesel Rule (69 FR 38958 (July 29,
2004)). EPA expects this rule to reduce
off-road diesel emissions through 2010,
with emission reductions starting in
2008.
Control Measures in Upwind Areas.
On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA
issued a NOX SIP call requiring the
District of Columbia and 22 states,
including Ohio, to reduce emissions of
NOX. The reduction in NOX emissions
has resulted in lower concentrations of
transported ozone entering the DaytonSpringfield area. Emission reductions
resulting from regulations developed in
response to the NOX SIP call are
permanent and enforceable.
b. Emission Reductions
Ohio is using 2002 for the
nonattainment inventory and 2005, one
of the years used to demonstrate
monitored attainment of the NAAQS,
for the attainment inventory. OEPA
developed a 2002 base year inventory
which they provided to the Lake
Michigan Air Directors Consortium
(LADCO). The base year inventory was
processed by LADCO to develop
summer day emissions for use in
regional air quality analyses and
attainment demonstration modeling.
Area source emissions data were taken
from the Ohio 2002 periodic inventory
submitted to EPA. Onroad mobile
source emissions were calculated using
MOBILE6.2. Point source emissions data
was compiled from Ohio’s STARShip
annual emissions inventory database
and EPA’s 2002 Air Markets acid rain
database. Nonroad mobile emissions
were generated using EPA’s National
Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM), with
the following exceptions. Recreational
motorboat populations and spatial
surrogates were updated and emissions
estimates were developed for aircraft,
commercial marine vessels, and
railroads, three nonroad categories not
included in NMIM. For 2005, OEPA
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
33944
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
estimated point, area, and nonroad
mobile source emissions by
interpolating between the 2002
inventory and the 2009 inventory
described below. Onroad emissions
were generated using MOBILE6.2.
Based on the inventories described
above, Ohio’s submittal documents
changes in VOC and NOX emissions
from 2002 to 2005 for the DaytonSpringfield area. Emissions data are
shown in Tables 3 through 5 below.
TABLE 3.—DAYTON-SPRINGFIELD AREA: TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT YEAR 2002 (TPD)
Clark
VOC
Greene
NOX
VOC
Miami
NOX
VOC
Montgomery
NOX
VOC
Total
NOX
VOC
NOX
Point .........................
Area ..........................
Nonroad ....................
Onroad .....................
0.55
10.40
1.94
6.62
0.11
0.70
3.56
14.54
0.05
5.98
1.79
6.22
9.30
0.67
3.70
12.26
0.29
6.34
1.74
4.95
0.05
0.53
3.49
9.88
2.61
22.35
8.62
20.80
29.32
2.43
12.17
41.77
3.50
45.07
14.09
38.59
38.78
4.33
22.92
78.45
Total ..................
19.51
18.91
14.04
25.93
13.32
13.95
54.38
85.69
101.25
144.48
TABLE 4.—DAYTON-SPRINGFIELD AREA: TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR ATTAINMENT YEAR 2005 (TPD)
Clark
VOC
Greene
NOX
VOC
Miami
NOX
VOC
Montgomery
NOX
VOC
Total
NOX
VOC
NOX
Point .........................
Area ..........................
Nonroad ....................
Onroad .....................
0.50
11.02
1.68
4.98
0.11
0.75
3.16
11.82
0.05
6.08
1.60
4.74
8.75
0.72
3.37
10.04
0.30
6.46
1.55
3.81
0.05
0.56
3.07
8.17
2.60
22.67
7.33
15.66
27.69
2.62
10.64
33.85
3.45
46.23
12.16
29.19
36.60
4.65
20.24
63.88
Total ..................
18.18
15.84
12.47
22.88
12.12
11.85
48.26
74.80
91.03
125.37
TABLE 5.—DAYTON-SPRINGFIELD AREA: COMPARISON OF 2002 AND 2005 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS (TPD)
VOC
NOX
Sector
2002
Net change
(2002–2005)
2005
2002
2005
Net change
(2002–2005)
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
Nonroad ...................................................
Onroad .....................................................
3.50
45.07
14.09
38.59
3.45
46.23
12.16
29.19
¥0.05
1.16
¥1.93
¥9.4
38.78
4.33
22.92
78.45
36.60
4.65
20.24
63.88
¥2.18
0.32
¥2.68
¥14.57
Total ..................................................
101.25
91.03
¥10.22
144.48
125.37
¥19.11
Table 5 shows that the DaytonSpringfield area reduced VOC emissions
by 10.22 tpd and NOX emissions by
19.11 tpd between 2000 and 2005.
Based on the information summarized
above, Ohio has adequately
demonstrated that the improvement in
air quality is due to permanent and
enforceable emissions reductions.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
4. The Areas Have Fully Approved
Maintenance Plans Pursuant to Section
175a of the CAA. (Section
107(d)(3)(E)(iv))
In conjunction with its requests to
redesignate the Dayton-Springfield
nonattainment area to attainment status,
Ohio submitted a SIP revision to
provide for the maintenance of the 8hour ozone NAAQS in the area through
2018.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:23 Jun 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
a. What is required in a maintenance
plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the required 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 ten
years after the Administrator approves a
redesignation to attainment. Eight years
after the redesignation, the State must
submit a revised maintenance plan
which demonstrates that attainment will
continue to be maintained for ten years
following the initial ten-year
maintenance period. To address the
possibility of future NAAQS violations,
the maintenance plan must contain
contingency measures with a schedule
for implementation as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of
any future 8-hour ozone violations.
The September 4, 1992 John Calcagni
memorandum provides additional
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
guidance on the content of a
maintenance plan. The memorandum
clarifies that an ozone Maintenance Plan
Should Address The Following Items:
The attainment VOC and NOX emissions
inventories, a maintenance
demonstration showing maintenance for
the ten years of the maintenance period,
a commitment to maintain the existing
monitoring network, factors and
procedures to be used for verification of
continued attainment of the NAAQS,
and a contingency plan to prevent or
correct future violations of the NAAQS.
b. Attainment Inventory
The OEPA developed an emissions
inventory for 2005, one of the years
Ohio used to demonstrate monitored
attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS, as
described above. The attainment level of
emissions is summarized in Table 4,
above.
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
33945
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
c. Demonstration of Maintenance
Ohio submitted with the
redesignation request a revision to the 8hour ozone SIP to include a
maintenance plan for the DaytonSpringfield area, in compliance with
section 175A of the CAA. This
demonstration shows maintenance of
the 8-hour ozone standard through 2018
by assuring that current and future
emissions of VOC and NOX for the
Dayton-Springfield area remain at or
below attainment year emission levels.
A maintenance demonstration need not
be based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA,
265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club
v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
See also 66 FR 53094, 53099–53100
(October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25413, 25430–
25432 (May 12, 2003).
Ohio is primarily using inventories
developed by LADCO for the years 2009
and 2018. Point and area source
emissions were projected from the 2002
base year to 2009 and 2018 using growth
factors. LADCO point source estimates
have been supplemented with point
source emissions projections based
upon data compiled from Ohio’s
STARShip annual emissions inventory
database and statewide EGU NOX
budgets from the Ohio NOX rule.
Nonroad mobile emissions were
generated for 2009 and 2018 using
NMIM, with the following exceptions.
Recreational motorboat populations and
spatial surrogates were updated and
emissions estimates were developed for
aircraft, commercial marine vessels, and
railroads, three nonroad categories not
included in NMIM. The Ohio
Department of Transportation prepared
onroad mobile source emissions
estimates using MOBILE6.2. Modeling
for 2009 and 2018 includes
implementation of the 7.8 low Reid
Vapor Pressure fuels program for the
area. It should be noted that because
Ohio is in the process of seeking
approval of the removal of the vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M)
program from the Dayton-Springfield
SIP, MOBILE6.2 modeling was
performed assuming no credit for I/M
related emissions reductions in 2009
and 2018. This results in conservatively
estimating onroad emissions to be
higher in 2009 and 2018 than would be
the case if the I/M program were to
continue to operate. While the issue of
I/M program discontinuation will be
addressed in a separate action, it should
be noted that Ohio’s maintenance plan
demonstrates that the area can maintain
the standard through 2018 without
operation of the I/M program. Emissions
estimates are presented in Table 6
below.
TABLE 6.—DAYTON-SPRINGFIELD AREA: COMPARISON OF 2005–2018 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS (TPD)
VOC
NOX
Sector
2005
2009
2018
Net change
2005–2018
2005
2009
2018
Net change
2005–2018
3.45
46.23
12.16
29.19
3.47
47.76
9.62
20.50
3.72
52.75
7.91
11.66
0.27
6.52
¥4.25
¥17.53
36.60
4.65
20.24
63.88
36.24
5.09
16.68
46.78
37.94
5.45
9.84
18.50
1.34
0.80
¥10.40
¥45.38
Total ..........................
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Point .................................
Area ..................................
Nonroad ...........................
Onroad .............................
91.03
81.35
76.04
¥14.99
125.37
104.79
71.73
¥53.64
The emission projections show that
OEPA does not expect emissions in the
Dayton-Springfield area to exceed the
level of the 2005 attainment year
inventory during the maintenance
period. In the Dayton-Springfield area,
OEPA projects that VOC and NOX
emissions will decrease by 14.99 tpd
and 53.64 tpd, respectively.
As part of its maintenance plan, the
State elected to include a ‘‘safety
margin’’ for the area. A ‘‘safety margin’’
is the difference between the attainment
level of emissions (from all sources) and
the projected level of emissions (from
all sources) in the maintenance plan
which continues to demonstrate
attainment of the standard. The
attainment level of emissions is the
level of emissions during one of the
years in which the area met the NAAQS.
The Dayton-Springfield area attained
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the
2004–2006 time period. Ohio used 2005
as the attainment level of emissions for
the area. In the maintenance plan, OEPA
projected emission levels for 2018. For
Dayton-Springfield, the emissions from
point, area, nonroad, and mobile
sources in 2005 equaled 91.03 tpd of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:23 Jun 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
VOC. OEPA projected VOC emissions
for the year 2018 to be 76.04 tpd of
VOC. The SIP submission demonstrates
that the Dayton-Springfield area will
continue to maintain the standard with
emissions at this level. The safety
margin for VOC is calculated to be the
difference between these amounts or, in
this case, 14.99 tpd of VOC for 2018. By
this same method, 53.64 tpd (i.e., 125.37
tpd less 71.73 tpd) is the safety margin
for NOX for 2018. The safety margin, or
a portion thereof, can be allocated to
any of the source categories, as long as
the total attainment level of emissions is
maintained.
d. Monitoring Network
Ohio currently operates two ozone
monitors in Clark County, and one
ozone monitor each in Greene, Miami,
and Montgomery Counties. OEPA has
committed to continue operating the
ozone monitors located in these
counties. OEPA has also committed to
consult with EPA prior to making
changes to the existing monitoring
network, should changes become
necessary in the future. OEPA will
continue to quality assure and report
monitoring data in accordance with 40
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
CFR part 58 and all other federal
requirements.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
Continued attainment of the ozone
NAAQS in the Dayton-Springfield area
depends, in part, on the State’s efforts
toward tracking indicators of continued
attainment during the maintenance
period. The State’s plan for verifying
continued attainment of the 8-hour
standard in the Dayton-Springfield area
consists of plans to continue ambient
ozone monitoring in accordance with
the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
f. Contingency Plan
The contingency plan provisions are
designed to promptly correct or prevent
a violation of the NAAQS that might
occur after redesignation of an area to
attainment. 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
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
33946
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
implementation of the contingency
measures, and a time limit for action by
the state. The state should also identify
specific indicators to be used to
determine when the contingency
measures need to be adopted and
implemented. The maintenance plan
must include a requirement that the
state will implement all measures with
respect to control of the pollutant(s) that
were contained in the SIP before
redesignation of the area to attainment.
See section 175A(d) of the CAA.
As required by section 175A of the
CAA, Ohio has adopted a contingency
plan for the Dayton-Springfield area to
address possible future ozone air quality
problems. The contingency plan
adopted by Ohio has two levels of
response, depending on whether a
violation of the 8-hour ozone standard
is only threatened (Warning Level
Response) or has occurred (Action Level
Response).
A Warning Level Response will occur
when an annual (1-year) fourth-high
monitored daily peak 8-hour ozone
concentration of 0.88 ppm is monitored
within the maintenance area. A Warning
Level Response will consist of a study
to determine whether the high ozone
value indicates a trend toward higher
ozone concentrations and whether
emissions appear to be increasing. The
study will evaluate whether the trend, if
any, is likely to continue. If so, control
measures necessary to reverse the trend
will be selected by the State for
evaluation and possible adoption.
Implementation of necessary controls in
response to a Warning Level Response
triggering will occur as expeditiously as
possible, but in no event later than 12
months from the conclusion of the most
recent ozone season (September 30).
An Action Level Response will be
triggered whenever a two-year average
fourth-high monitored value of 0.85
ppm or greater is monitored within the
area, or a violation of the NAAQS
(three-year average fourth-high value of
0.85 ppm or greater) is monitored
within the area. When an Action Level
Response is triggered, OEPA, in
conjunction with the metropolitan
planning organization or regional
council of governments, will determine
what control measures are needed to
assure future attainment of the NAAQS.
Measures that can be implemented in a
short time will be selected in order to
be in place within 18 months from the
close of the ozone season that prompted
the Action Level.
The State will select contingency
measures for consideration from a
comprehensive list of measures deemed
appropriate and effective at the time the
selection is made. In its maintenance
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:23 Jun 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
plan, OEPA included the following list
of possible contingency measures:
i. Lower Reid vapor pressure gasoline
program;
ii. Tighten RACT on existing sources
covered by U.S. EPA Control Technique
Guidelines issued in response to the
1990 CAA;
iii. Apply RACT to smaller existing
sources;
iv. Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit
programs for fleet vehicle operations;
v. Controls on consumer products
consistent with those adopted elsewhere
in the United States;
vi. Require VOC or NOX emission
offsets for new and modified major
sources;
vii. Require VOC or NOX emission
offsets for new and modified minor
sources;
viii. Increase the ratio of emission
offsets required for new sources; and
ix. Require VOC or NOX controls on
new minor sources (less than 100 tons).
It should be noted that a lower Reid
vapor pressure gasoline program would
only be creditable as a contingency
measure to the extent that it goes
beyond the program currently approved
and included in the maintenance plan
emissions estimates.
g. Provisions for Future Updates of
the Ozone Maintenance Plan
As required by section 175A(b) of the
CAA, Ohio commits to submit to the
EPA updated ozone maintenance plans
eight years after redesignation of the
Dayton-Springfield area to cover an
additional 10-year period beyond the
initial 10-year maintenance period. As
required by section 175(A) of the CAA,
Ohio has committed to maintaining the
existing controls after redesignation
unless the State demonstrates that the
standard can be maintained without one
or more controls. Ohio commits that any
changes to its rules or emission limits
applicable to VOC and/or NOX sources,
as required for maintenance of the
ozone standard in the DaytonSpringfield area will be submitted to
EPA for approval as a SIP revision.
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 Ohio for
the Dayton-Springfield area meets the
requirements of section 175A of the
CAA.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
B. Adequacy of Ohio’s MVEBs
1. How Are MVEBs Developed and
What Are the MVEBs for the DaytonSpringfield Area?
Under the CAA, states are required to
submit, at various times, control strategy
SIP revisions and ozone maintenance
plans for ozone nonattainment areas and
for areas seeking redesignations to
attainment of the ozone standard. These
emission control strategy SIP revisions
(e.g., reasonable further progress SIP
and attainment demonstration SIP
revisions) and ozone maintenance plans
create MVEBs based on onroad mobile
source emissions for criteria pollutants
and/or their precursors to address
pollution from cars and trucks. The
MVEBs are the portions of the total
allowable emissions that are allocated to
highway and transit vehicle use that,
together with emissions from other
sources in the area, will provide for
attainment or maintenance.
Under 40 CFR Part 93, a MVEB for an
area seeking a redesignation to
attainment is established for the last
year of the maintenance plan. 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 how
to revise the MVEB if needed.
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new
transportation projects, such as the
construction of new highways, must
‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with)
the part of the SIP that addresses
emissions from cars and trucks.
Conformity to the SIP means that
transportation activities will not cause
new air quality violations, worsen
existing air quality violations, or delay
timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a
transportation plan does not conform,
most new transportation projects that
would expand the capacity of roadways
cannot go forward. Regulations at 40
CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy,
criteria, and procedures for
demonstrating and assuring conformity
of such transportation activities to a SIP.
When reviewing SIP revisions
containing MVEBs, including
attainment strategies, rate-of-progress
plans, and maintenance plans, EPA
must affirmatively find that the MVEBs
are ‘‘adequate’’ for use in determining
transportation conformity. Once EPA
affirmatively finds the submitted
MVEBs to be adequate for transportation
conformity purposes, the MVEBs are
used by state and federal agencies in
determining whether proposed
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
transportation projects conform to the
SIP as required by section 176(c) of the
CAA. EPA’s substantive criteria for
determining the adequacy of MVEBs are
set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
EPA’s process for determining
adequacy of a MVEB consists of three
basic steps: (1) Providing public
notification of a SIP submission; (2)
providing the public the opportunity to
comment on the MVEB during a public
comment period; and, (3) EPA’s finding
of adequacy. The process of determining
the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs
was initially outlined in EPA’s May 14,
1999 guidance, ‘‘Conformity Guidance
on Implementation of March 2, 1999,
Conformity Court Decision.’’ This
guidance was codified 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,’’
published on July 1, 2004 (69 FR
40004). EPA follows this guidance and
rulemaking in making its adequacy
determinations.
The Dayton-Springfield area’s
maintenance plan contains new VOC
and NOX MVEBs for the years 2005 and
2018. The availability of the SIP
submission with these 2005 and 2018
MVEBs was announced for public
comment on EPA’s Adequacy Web page
on November 14, 2006 at: https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/
transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public
comment period on adequacy of the
2005 and 2018 MVEBs for the DaytonSpringfield area closed on December 14,
2006. No requests for this submittal or
adverse comments on the submittal
were received during the adequacy
comment period. In a letter dated
February 9, 2007, EPA informed OEPA
that we had found the 2005 and 2018
MVEBs to be adequate for use in
transportation conformity analyses. EPA
published a Federal Register notice
announcing the adequacy of the 2005
and 2018 MVEBs on April 3, 2007 (72
FR 15879).
EPA, through this rulemaking, is
proposing to approve the MVEBs for use
to determine transportation conformity
in the Dayton-Springfield area because
EPA has determined that the area can
maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for the relevant maintenance
period with mobile source emissions at
the levels of the MVEBs. OEPA has
determined the 2005 MVEBs for the
Dayton-Springfield area to be 29.19 tpd
for VOC and 63.88 tpd for NOX. OEPA
has determined the 2018 MVEBs for the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:23 Jun 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
area to be 14.73 tpd for VOC and 21.42
tpd for NOX. These MVEBs exceed the
onroad mobile source VOC and NOX
emissions projected by MDEQ for 2018,
as summarized in Table 6 above
(‘‘onroad’’ source sector). OEPA decided
to include safety margins (described
further below) of 3.07 tpd for VOC and
2.92 tpd for NOX in the MVEBs to
provide for mobile source growth. Ohio
has demonstrated that the DaytonSpringfield area can maintain the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS with mobile source
emissions of 14.73 tpd of VOC and
21.42 tpd of NOX in 2018, including the
allocated safety margins, since
emissions will still remain under
attainment year emission levels.
2. What Is a Safety Margin?
A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference
between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the
projected level of emissions (from all
sources) in the maintenance plan. As
noted in Table 6, the Dayton-Springfield
area VOC and NOX emissions are
projected to have safety margins of
14.99 tpd for VOC and 53.64 tpd for
NOX in 2018 (the difference between the
attainment year, 2005, emissions and
the projected 2018 emissions for all
sources in the Dayton-Springfield area).
Even if emissions reached the full level
of the safety margin, the area would still
demonstrate maintenance since
emission levels would equal those in
the attainment year.
The MVEBs requested by OEPA
contain safety margins for mobile
sources smaller than the allowable
safety margins reflected in the total
emissions for Dayton-Springfield area.
The State is not requesting allocation of
the entire available safety margins
reflected in the demonstration of
maintenance. Therefore, even though
the State is requesting MVEBs that
exceed the projected onroad mobile
source emissions for 2018 contained in
the demonstration of maintenance, the
increase in onroad mobile source
emissions that can be considered for
transportation conformity purposes is
well within the safety margins of the
ozone maintenance demonstration.
Further, once allocated to mobile
sources, these safety margins will not be
available for use by other sources.
VIII. What Actions Is EPA Taking?
EPA is proposing to make a
determination that the DaytonSpringfield area has attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to
approve the maintenance plan SIP
revision for the Dayton-Springfield area.
EPA’s proposed approval of the
maintenance plan is based on Ohio’s
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33947
demonstration that the plan meets the
requirements of section 175A of the
CAA, as described more fully above.
After evaluating Ohio’s redesignation
request, EPA has determined that it
meets the redesignation criteria set forth
in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve
the redesignation of the DaytonSpringfield area from nonattainment to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The final approval of this
redesignation request would change the
official designation for the DaytonSpringfield area from nonattainment to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard. Finally, EPA is proposing to
approve the 2005 and 2018 MVEBs
submitted by Ohio in conjunction with
the redesignation request.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, September 30, 1993), this action
is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
and, therefore, is not subject to review
by the Office of Management and
Budget.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not impose
an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed action merely proposes
to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. 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 rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule proposes to approve
pre-existing requirements under state
law, and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required
by state law, it does not contain any
unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4).
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
33948
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the
national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). Redesignation is an
action that merely affects the status of
a geographical area, does not impose
any new requirements on sources, or
allows a state to avoid adopting or
implementing other requirements, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.
Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This proposed rule also does not have
tribal implications because it will not
have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This proposed rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy
action,’’ this action is also not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001).
National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTA), 15 U.S.C. 272,
requires federal agencies to use
technical standards that are developed
or adopted by voluntary consensus to
carry out policy objectives, so long as
such standards are not inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise
impracticable. In reviewing program
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:23 Jun 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the CAA. Absent a prior
existing requirement for the state to use
voluntary consensus standards, EPA has
no authority to disapprove a program
submission for failure to use such
standards, and it would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in place of a program
submission that otherwise satisfies the
provisions of the Act. Redesignation is
an action that affects the status of a
geographical area but does not impose
any new requirements on sources. Thus,
the requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: June 12, 2007.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E7–11958 Filed 6–19–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 9 and 20
[PS Docket No. 07–114; WC Docket No. 05–
196; FCC 07–108]
Wireless E911 Location Accuracy
Requirements; E911 Requirements for
IP-Enabled Service Providers
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In this document the FCC
seeks comment on several issues
relating to Enhanced 911 (E911) location
accuracy and reliability requirements, in
order to ensure that E911 service meets
the needs of public safety and the
American people, while taking into
account the evolution in the use of
wireless devices and the further
development of location technologies.
DATES: Written comments on the
geographic scope of the current wireless
location accuracy requirements and the
question of deferring enforcement of
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
§ 20.18(h) at the PSAP service area level
are due on or before July 5, 2007 and
reply comments are due on or before
July 11, 2007. Written comments on all
other questions raised in the NPRM are
due on or before August 20, 2007 and
reply comments are due on or before
September 18, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by PS Docket No. 07–114 and
WC Docket No. 05–196, by any of the
identified methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web Site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Follow the instructions for
paper filers below.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carol Simpson, Policy Division, Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau,
(202) 418–2391, or TTY (202) 418–7233.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Federal
Communications Commission’s Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in PS
Docket No. 07–114 and WC Docket No.
05–196, FCC 07–108, adopted on May
31, 2007, and released on June 1, 2007.
In section III.A of the NPRM, the FCC
seeks comment on its tentative
conclusion to adopt a proposal by the
Association of Public-Safety
Communications Officials-International,
Inc. (APCO) to clarify § 20.18(h) of the
Commission’s rules, which specifies the
standards for wireless E911 Phase II
location accuracy and reliability, to
require licensees subject to this rule to
satisfy these standards at a geographical
level defined by the coverage area of
each respective local Public Safety
Answering Point (PSAP). We also grant
APCO’s request for an expedited
consideration of its proposal, and seek
comment on whether, if we adopt this
tentative conclusion, we should defer
enforcement of § 20.18(h) to allow
wireless carriers to come into
compliance.
In section III.B, of the NPRM, the FCC
seeks comment on a number of other
tentative conclusions and proposals,
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 20, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33937-33948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-11958]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0956; FRL-8328-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio; Redesignation of
Dayton-Springfield Area to Attainment for Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make a determination under the Clean Air
Act (CAA) that the nonattainment area of Dayton-Springfield, Ohio
(Clark, Green, Miami, and Montgomery Counties) has attained the 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This determination
is based on complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring
data for the 2004-2006 seasons that demonstrate that the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS have been attained in the area. EPA is also proposing to approve,
as a revision to the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP), the State's
plan for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2018 in the area.
EPA is proposing to approve a request from the State of Ohio to
redesignate the Dayton-Springfield area to attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) submitted
this request on November 6, 2006 and supplemented it on November 29,
2006, December 4, 2006, December 13, 2006, January 11, 2007, March 9,
2007, March 27, 2007, and May 31, 2007. EPA is also proposing to
approve the State's 2005 and 2018 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
(MVEBs) for the Dayton-Springfield area.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 20, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0956, by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 886-5824.
4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding
federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-0956. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to
Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov
[[Page 33938]]
index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, at (312) 886-1767 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-1767, dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
Table of Contents
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Actions Is EPA Proposing To Take?
III. What Is the Background for These Actions?
A. What Is the General Background Information?
B. What Is the Impact of the December 22, 2006 United States
Court of Appeals Decision Regarding EPA's Phase 1 Implementation
Rule?
IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
V. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take These Actions?
VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions?
VII. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Requests?
A. Attainment Determination and Redesignation
B. Adequacy of Ohio's MVEBs
VIII. What Actions Is EPA Taking?
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
2. Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. What Actions is EPA Proposing To Take?
EPA is proposing to take several related actions. EPA is proposing
to make a determination that the Dayton-Springfield nonattainment area
has attained the 8-hour ozone standard and that this area has met the
requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
EPA is thus proposing to approve Ohio's request to change the legal
designation of the Dayton-Springfield area from nonattainment to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve
Ohio's maintenance plan SIP revision for Dayton-Springfield (such
approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment
status). The maintenance plan is designed to keep the Dayton-
Springfield area in attainment of the ozone NAAQS through 2018.
Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve the newly-established 2005
and 2018 MVEBs for the Dayton-Springfield area. The adequacy comment
period for the MVEBs began on November 14, 2006, with EPA's posting of
the availability of the submittal on EPA's Adequacy Web site (at http:/
/www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm). The adequacy
comment period for these MVEBs ended on December 14, 2006. EPA did not
receive any requests for this submittal, or adverse comments on this
submittal during the adequacy comment period. On April 3, 2007, EPA
published a Federal Register notice announcing the adequacy of the 2005
and 2018 MVEBs. Please see the Adequacy section of this rulemaking for
further explanation on this process. Therefore, we find adequate, and
are proposing to approve, the State's 2005 and 2018 MVEBs for
transportation conformity purposes.
III. What Is the Background for These Actions?
A. What Is the General Background Information?
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (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. Before promulgation of the current 8-hour standard, the
ozone NAAQS was based on a 1-hour standard. On November 6, 1991 (56 FR
56693 and 56813), the Dayton-Springfield area was designated as a
moderate nonattainment area under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The area was
subsequently redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour standard on May
5, 1995 (60 FR 22289). At the time EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
on June 15, 2005, the Dayton-Springfield area was designated as
attainment under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent
than the previous 1-hour standard. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA
published a final rule designating and classifying areas under the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. These designations and classifications became
effective June 15, 2004. 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 air quality data, 2001-2003.
The CAA contains two sets of provisions, subpart 1 and subpart 2,
that address planning and control requirements for nonattainment areas.
(Both are found in title I, part D, 42 U.S.C. 7501-7509a and 7511-
7511f, respectively.) Subpart 1 contains general requirements for
nonattainment areas for any pollutant, including ozone, governed by a
NAAQS. Subpart 2 provides more specific requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas.
Under EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation rule, (69 FR 23951 (April
30, 2004)), an area was classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour
ozone design value (i.e., the 3-year average annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration), if it had a 1-hour
design value at the time of designation at or above 0.121 ppm (the
lowest 1-hour design value in Table 1 of subpart 2) (69 FR 23954). All
other areas are covered under subpart 1, based upon their 8-
[[Page 33939]]
hour design values (69 FR 23958). The Dayton-Springfield area was
designated as a subpart 1, 8-hour ozone nonattainment area by EPA on
April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23857, 23927) based on air quality monitoring
data from 2001-2003 (69 FR 23860).
40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix I provide that the 8-hour
ozone standard is attained 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, when rounded. The data completeness
requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient
monitoring data is greater than 90%, and no single year has less than
75% data completeness. See 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, 2.3(d).
On November 6, 2006, Ohio requested that EPA redesignate the
Dayton-Springfield area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard.
Ohio supplemented its submittal on November 29, 2006, December 4, 2006,
December 13, 2006, January 11, 2007, March 9, 2007, March 27, 2007, and
May 31, 2007. The redesignation request included three years of
complete, quality-assured data for the period of 2004 through 2006,
indicating the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been attained for the Dayton-
Springfield area. Under the CAA, nonattainment areas may be
redesignated to attainment if sufficient complete, quality-assured data
are 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).
B. What Is the Impact of the December 22, 2006 United States Court of
Appeals Decision Regarding EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule?
1. Summary of Court Decision
On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-
hour Ozone Standard. (69 23951, April 30, 2004). South Coast Air
Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The
Court held that certain provisions of EPA's Phase 1 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 Act. The
Court also held that EPA improperly failed to retain four measures
required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding
provisions of the regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New Source Review
(NSR) requirements based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment
classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or
extreme nonattainment areas; (3) Measures to be implemented pursuant to
section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the contingency of an
area not making reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-
hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) certain
conformity requirements for certain types of federal actions. The Court
upheld EPA's authority to revoke the 1-hour standard provided there
were adequate anti-backsliding provisions.
This section sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the
Court's ruling on this redesignation action. For the reasons set forth
below, EPA does not believe that the Court's ruling alters any
requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to preclude
redesignation, and does not prevent EPA from finalizing this
redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's decision, as it currently
stands or as it may be modified based upon any petition for rehearing
that has been filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward with
redesignation of this area to attainment, because in either
circumstance redesignation is appropriate under the relevant
redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding policies regarding
redesignation requests.
2. Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard
With respect to the 8-hour standard, the Court's ruling rejected
EPA's reasons for classifying areas under Subpart 1 for the 8-hour
standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency. Consequently, it is
possible that this area could, during a remand to EPA, be reclassified
under Subpart 2. Although any future decision by EPA to classify this
area under Subpart 2 might trigger additional future requirements for
the area, EPA believes that this does not mean that redesignation
cannot now go forward. This belief is based upon: (1) EPA's
longstanding policy of evaluating State submissions in accordance with
the requirements due at the time the request is submitted; and, (2)
consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any future
requirements.
First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the
Dayton-Springfield area was classified under Subpart 1 and was
obligated to meet 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. September 4, 1992, Calcagni
memorandum (``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas
to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division) See also Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September 17,
1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor). See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004), which upheld this interpretation. See, e.g. also 68 FR 25418,
25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).
Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new
SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was
submitted. The D.C. Circuit has recognized the inequity in such
retroactive rulemaking, See Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F. 3d 63 (D.C.
Cir. 2002), in which the D.C. Circuit upheld a District Court's ruling
refusing to make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date. Such a determination would have
resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area. The
Court stated: ``Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment
determination within the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed
solution only makes the situation worse. Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the States, which would face fines and
suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even
though they were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly here
it would be unfair to penalize the area by applying to it for purposes
of redesignation additional SIP requirements under Subpart 2 that were
not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation request.
3. Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard
With respect to the requirements under the 1-hour standard, the
Dayton-Springfield area was an attainment area subject to a CAA section
175A maintenance plan under the 1-hour standard. The Court's ruling
does not impact redesignation requests for these types of areas.
First, there are no conformity requirements that are relevant for
redesignation requests for any standard, including the requirement to
submit a transportation conformity SIP. Under longstanding EPA policy,
EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirement as not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation
request under section
[[Page 33940]]
107(d) because state conformity rules are still required after
redesignation and federal conformity rules apply where state rules have
not been approved. 40 CFR 51.390. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th
Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748
(December 7, 1995) (Tampa, FL redesignation).
Federal transportation conformity regulations apply in all States
prior to approval of transportation conformity SIPs. The Dayton-
Springfield, Ohio 1-hour ozone area was redesignated to attainment
without approved State transportation conformity regulations because
the federal regulations were in effect in Ohio. When challenged, these
1-hour ozone redesignations, which were approved without state
regulations, were upheld by the courts. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426
(6th Cir. 2001). See also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (Tampa,
Florida). Although Ohio does not have approved state transportation
conformity regulations, it has developed memoranda of understanding,
signed by all parties involved in conformity, to address conformity
consultation procedures. The federal transportation conformity
regulations, which apply in Ohio, require the approved 1-hour ozone
budgets to be used for transportation conformity purposes prior to 8-
hour ozone budgets being approved.
Second, with respect to the three other anti-backsliding provisions
for the 1-hour standard that the Court found were not properly
retained, the Dayton-Springfield area 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 an area that has been redesignated to
attainment of the 1-hour standard.
Thus, the decision in South Coast should not alter requirements
that would preclude EPA from finalizing the redesignation of this area.
IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for
redesignation provided 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.
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:
``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,'' Memorandum
from William G. Laxton, Director Technical Support Division, June 18,
1990;
``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to
Clean Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
``Technical Support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms,
Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or
After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993;
``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting
Director, Air Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors,
Regions 1-10, dated November 30, 1993.
``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.''
V. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take These Actions?
On November 6, 2006, Ohio requested redesignation of the Dayton-
Springfield area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. Ohio
supplemented its submittal on November 29, 2006, December 4, 2006,
December 13, 2006, January 5, 2007, January 11, 2007, March 9, 2007,
March 27, 2007, and May 31, 2007. EPA believes that the area has
attained the standard and has met the requirements for redesignation
set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions?
Approval of the redesignation request would change the official
designation of the area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part
81. It would also incorporate into the Ohio SIP a plan for maintaining
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2018. The maintenance plan includes
contingency measures to remedy future violations of the 8-hour NAAQS.
It also establishes MVEBs of 29.19 and 14.73 tons per day (tpd) VOC and
63.88 and 21.42 tpd NOX for the years 2005 and 2018,
respectively.
VII. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Requests?
A. Attainment Determination and Redesignation
EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Dayton-
Springfield area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard and that the
area has met all other applicable section 107(d)(3)(E) redesignation
criteria. The basis for EPA's determination is as follows:
1. The Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. (Section
107(d)(3)(E)(i))
EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Dayton-
Springfield area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an
area may be considered to be attaining the 8-hour
[[Page 33941]]
ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance
with 40 CFR 50.10 and part 50, Appendix I, 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 Aerometric Information Retrieval System
(AIRS). The monitors generally should have remained at the same
location for the duration of the monitoring period required for
demonstrating attainment.
OEPA submitted ozone monitoring data for the 2004 to 2006 ozone
seasons. The OEPA quality-assured the ambient monitoring in accordance
with 40 CFR 58.10, and recorded it in the AIRS database, thus making
the data publicly available. The data meet the completeness criteria in
40 CFR 50, Appendix I, which requires a minimum completeness of 75
percent annually and 90 percent over each three year period. Monitoring
data is presented in Table 1 below. Data completeness information is
presented in Table 2 below.
Table 1.--Annual 4th High Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentration and 3-Year Averages of 4th High Daily Maximum
8-Hour Ozone Concentrations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004-2006
2004 4th 2005 4th 2006 4th average
County Monitor high (ppm) high (ppm) high (ppm) 4th high
(ppm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark........................... Springfield, 39-023-001... 0.079 0.086 0.076 0.080
Mud Run, 39-023-0003...... 0.073 0.081 0.074 0.076
Greene.......................... Xenia, 39-057-0006........ 0.075 0.083 0.079 0.079
Miami........................... Miami, 39-109-0005........ 0.075 0.079 0.073 0.076
Montgomery...................... Webster, 39-113-0033...... 0.067 0.082 0.071 0.073
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Data Completeness in Percent (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004-2006
County Monitor 2004 (%) 2005 (%) 2006 (%) average (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark........................... Springfield, 39-023-001... 100 99 100 100
Mud Run, 39-023-0003...... 99 99 100 99
Greene.......................... Xenia, 39-057-0006........ 100 100 100 100
Miami........................... Miami, 39-109-0005........ 99 100 99 99
Montgomery...................... Webster, 39-113-0033...... 98 100 100 99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance
plans, OEPA has committed to continue operating the ozone monitors
listed above. OEPA has also committed to consult with EPA prior to
making changes to the existing monitoring network, should changes
become necessary in the future. OEPA will continue to quality assure
and report monitoring data in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and all
other federal requirements. In summary, EPA believes that the data
submitted by Ohio provide an adequate demonstration that the Dayton-
Springfield area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D; and the Area Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k).
(Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 107(d)(3)(E)(ii))
We have determined that Ohio has met all currently applicable SIP
requirements for purposes of redesignation for the Dayton-Springfield
area under Section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). We have
also determined that the Ohio SIP meets all SIP requirements currently
applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D of Title I of the
CAA (requirements specific to Subpart 1 nonattainment areas), in
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, we have
determined that the Ohio SIP is fully approved with respect to all
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation, in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these determinations, we have
ascertained what SIP requirements are applicable to the area for
purposes of redesignation, and have determined that the portions of the
SIP meeting these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k)
of the CAA. As discussed more fully below, SIPs must be fully approved
only with respect to currently applicable requirements of the CAA.
a. The Dayton-Springfield Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements
Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (see ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Under this interpretation, a state and the
area it wishes to redesignate must meet the relevant CAA requirements
that are due prior to the state's submittal of a complete redesignation
request for the area. See also the September 17, 1993 Michael Shapiro
memorandum and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the
state's submittal of a complete request remain applicable until a
redesignation to attainment is approved, but are not required as a
prerequisite to redesignation. See section 175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra
Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 25424, 25427
(May 12, 2003) (redesignation of the St. Louis/East St. Louis area to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
General SIP requirements. Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA
contains the general requirements for a SIP. Section
[[Page 33942]]
110(a)(2) provides that the implementation plan submitted by a state
must have been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and
hearing, and that, among other things, it includes enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures, means or techniques necessary
to meet the requirements of the CAA; provides for establishment and
operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures
necessary to monitor ambient air quality; provides for implementation
of a source permit program to regulate the modification and
construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the
plan; includes provisions for the implementation of part C, Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part D, NSR permit programs;
includes criteria for stationary source emission control measures,
monitoring, and reporting; includes provisions for air quality
modeling; and provides for public and local agency participation in
planning and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain measures
to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants (NOX SIP Call,\1\ Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) (70 FR 25162)). However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements
for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's
designation and classification. EPA believes that the requirements
linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and
classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request. When the transport SIP submittal requirements
are applicable to a state, they will continue to apply to the state
regardless of the attainment designation of any one particular area in
the state. Therefore, we believe that these requirements should not be
construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
Further, we believe that the other section 110 elements described above
that are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not
linked with an area's attainment status are also not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to
these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We
conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements which are
linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the
relevant measures which we may consider in evaluating a redesignation
request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on
applicability of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for
redesignation purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport
requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings
(61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 20458, May 7, 1996);
and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995).
See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati ozone
redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh ozone
redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a
NOX SIP call requiring the District of Columbia and 22
states, including Ohio, to reduce emissions of NOX in
order to reduce the transport of ozone and ozone precursors. In
compliance with EPA's NOX SIP call, OEPA has developed
rules governing the control of NOX emissions from
Electric Generating Units (EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers,
and major cement kilns. EPA approved Ohio's rules as fulfilling
Phase I of the NOX SIP Call on June 27, 2005 (70 FR
36845).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, we believe that section 110 elements which are
not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable for
purposes of redesignation. Because there are no section 110
requirements linked to the part D requirements for 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas that have become due, as explained below, there are
no part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under
the 8-hour standard.
Part D Requirements. EPA has determined that the Ohio SIP meets
applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA, since no
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation became due for
the 8-hour ozone standard prior to OEPA's submission of the
redesignation request for the Dayton-Springfield area. Under part D, an
area's classification determines the requirements to which it will be
subject. Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172-176 of the CAA,
sets forth the basic nonattainment 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. The Dayton-Springfield area was
classified as a subpart 1 nonattainment area, and, therefore, subpart 2
requirements do not apply.
Part D, Subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements. For purposes of
evaluating these redesignation requests, the applicable part D, subpart
1 SIP requirements for the Dayton-Springfield area 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, April 16, 1992).
No requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under part
D became due prior to submission of the redesignation request, and,
therefore, none are applicable to the areas for purposes of
redesignation. Since the State of Ohio has submitted a complete ozone
redesignation request for the Dayton-Springfield area prior to the
deadline for any submissions required for purposes of redesignation, we
have determined that these requirements do not apply to the Dayton-
Springfield area for purposes of redesignation.
Furthermore, EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements will
apply after redesignation, 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
NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale for this view is
described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D New
Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment.'' Ohio has demonstrated that the area to be redesignated
will be able to maintain the standard without part D NSR in effect;
therefore, EPA concludes that the State need not have a fully approved
part D NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation request. The
State's PSD program will become effective in the Dayton-Springfield
area upon redesignation to attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit,
Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain,
Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66
FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-
31837, June 21, 1996).
Section 176 conformity requirements. Section 176(c) of the CAA
requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that
federally-supported or funded activities, including highway projects,
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIPs. The
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans,
programs and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 of
the U.S. Code and the Federal Transit Act (transportation
[[Page 33943]]
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, which EPA promulgated
pursuant to CAA requirements.
EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request under section 107(d) for two reasons. First, the
requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with the conformity
provisions of the CAA continues to apply to areas after redesignation
to attainment since such areas would be subject to a section 175A
maintenance plan. Second, EPA's federal conformity rules require the
performance of conformity analyses in the absence of federally-approved
state rules. Therefore, because areas are subject to the conformity
requirements regardless of whether they are redesignated to attainment
and, because they must implement conformity under federal rules if
state rules are not yet approved, EPA believes it is reasonable to view
these requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001),
upholding this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748, 62749-62750 (Dec.
7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida).
EPA approved Ohio's general and transportation conformity SIPs on
March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9646) and May 30, 2000 (65 FR 34395),
respectively. Ohio has submitted on-highway motor vehicle budgets for
the Dayton-Springfield area of 29.19 and 14.73 tpd VOC and 63.88 and
21.42 tpd NOX for the years 2005 and 2018, respectively. The
area must use the MVEBs from the maintenance plan in any conformity
determination that is effective on or after the effective date of the
maintenance plan approval. Thus, the Dayton-Springfield area has
satisfied all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of
the CAA.
b. The Dayton-Springfield Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP
Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
EPA has fully approved the Ohio SIP for the Dayton-Springfield area
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 the September 4, 1992 John
Calcagni memorandum, page 3, Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance
v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265
F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001)) plus any additional measures it may approve
in conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25413, 25426 (May
12, 2003). Since the passage of the CAA of 1970, Ohio has adopted and
submitted, and EPA has fully approved, provisions addressing the
various required SIP elements applicable to the Dayton-Springfield area
under the 1-hour ozone standard. No Dayton-Springfield area SIP
provisions are currently disapproved, conditionally approved, or
partially approved.
3. The Improvement in Air Quality 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. (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii))
EPA finds that Ohio has demonstrated that the observed air quality
improvement in the Dayton-Springfield area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of
the SIP, federal measures, and other state-adopted measures.
In making this demonstration, the State has calculated the change
in emissions between 2002 and 2005, one of the years the Dayton-
Springfield area monitored attainment. The reduction in emissions and
the corresponding improvement in air quality over this time period can
be attributed to a number of regulatory control measures that Ohio and
upwind areas have implemented in recent years. The Dayton-Springfield
is impacted by the transport of ozone and ozone precursors from upwind
areas. Therefore, local controls as well as controls implemented in
upwind areas are relevant to the improvement in air quality in the
Dayton-Springfield area.
a. Permanent and Enforceable Controls Implemented
The following is a discussion of permanent and enforceable measures
that have been implemented in the areas:
NOX rules. In compliance with EPA's NOX SIP call, Ohio
developed rules to control NOX emissions from Electric
Generating Units (EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, and major
cement kilns. These rules required sources to begin reducing
NOX emissions in 2004. From 2004 on, NOX
emissions from EGUs and large industrial boilers have been capped at a
level well below pre-2002 levels. OEPA expects that NOX
emissions will further decline as the State meets the requirements of
EPA's Phase II NOX SIP call (69 FR 21604 (April 21, 2004))
and CAIR.
Federal Emission Control Measures. Reductions in VOC and
NOX emissions have occurred statewide as a result of federal
emission control measures, with additional emission reductions expected
to occur in the future as the state implements additional emission
controls. Federal emission control measures include: The National Low
Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program, Tier 2 emission standards for
vehicles, gasoline sulfur limits, low sulfur diesel fuel standards, and
heavy-duty diesel engine standards. In addition, in 2004, EPA issued
the Clean Air Non-road Diesel Rule (69 FR 38958 (July 29, 2004)). EPA
expects this rule to reduce off-road diesel emissions through 2010,
with emission reductions starting in 2008.
Control Measures in Upwind Areas. On October 27, 1998 (63 FR
57356), EPA issued a NOX SIP call requiring the District of
Columbia and 22 states, including Ohio, to reduce emissions of
NOX. The reduction in NOX emissions has resulted
in lower concentrations of transported ozone entering the Dayton-
Springfield area. Emission reductions resulting from regulations
developed in response to the NOX SIP call are permanent and
enforceable.
b. Emission Reductions
Ohio is using 2002 for the nonattainment inventory and 2005, one of
the years used to demonstrate monitored attainment of the NAAQS, for
the attainment inventory. OEPA developed a 2002 base year inventory
which they provided to the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium
(LADCO). The base year inventory was processed by LADCO to develop
summer day emissions for use in regional air quality analyses and
attainment demonstration modeling. Area source emissions data were
taken from the Ohio 2002 periodic inventory submitted to EPA. Onroad
mobile source emissions were calculated using MOBILE6.2. Point source
emissions data was compiled from Ohio's STARShip annual emissions
inventory database and EPA's 2002 Air Markets acid rain database.
Nonroad mobile emissions were generated using EPA's National Mobile
Inventory Model (NMIM), with the following exceptions. Recreational
motorboat populations and spatial surrogates were updated and emissions
estimates were developed for aircraft, commercial marine vessels, and
railroads, three nonroad categories not included in NMIM. For 2005,
OEPA
[[Page 33944]]
estimated point, area, and nonroad mobile source emissions by
interpolating between the 2002 inventory and the 2009 inventory
described below. Onroad emissions were generated using MOBILE6.2.
Based on the inventories described above, Ohio's submittal
documents changes in VOC and NOX emissions from 2002 to 2005
for the Dayton-Springfield area. Emissions data are shown in Tables 3
through 5 below.
Table 3.--Dayton-Springfield Area: Total VOC and NOX Emissions for Nonattainment Year 2002 (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Greene Miami Montgomery Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point..................................... 0.55 0.11 0.05 9.30 0.29 0.05 2.61 29.32 3.50 38.78
Area...................................... 10.40 0.70 5.98 0.67 6.34 0.53 22.35 2.43 45.07 4.33
Nonroad................................... 1.94 3.56 1.79 3.70 1.74 3.49 8.62 12.17 14.09 22.92
Onroad.................................... 6.62 14.54 6.22 12.26 4.95 9.88 20.80 41.77 38.59 78.45
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 19.51 18.91 14.04 25.93 13.32 13.95 54.38 85.69 101.25 144.48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--Dayton-Springfield Area: Total VOC and NOX Emissions for Attainment Year 2005 (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Greene Miami Montgomery Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point..................................... 0.50 0.11 0.05 8.75 0.30 0.05 2.60 27.69 3.45 36.60
Area...................................... 11.02 0.75 6.08 0.72 6.46 0.56 22.67 2.62 46.23 4.65
Nonroad................................... 1.68 3.16 1.60 3.37 1.55 3.07 7.33 10.64 12.16 20.24
Onroad.................................... 4.98 11.82 4.74 10.04 3.81 8.17 15.66 33.85 29.19 63.88
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 18.18 15.84 12.47 22.88 12.12 11.85 48.26 74.80 91.03 125.37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5.--Dayton-Springfield Area: Comparison of 2002 and 2005 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2002 2005 (2002-2005) 2002 2005 (2002-2005)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 3.50 3.45 -0.05 38.78 36.60 -2.18
Area.................................................... 45.07 46.23 1.16 4.33 4.65 0.32
Nonroad................................................. 14.09 12.16 -1.93 22.92 20.24 -2.68
Onroad.................................................. 38.59 29.19 -9.4 78.45 63.88 -14.57
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 101.25 91.03 -10.22 144.48 125.37 -19.11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5 shows that the Dayton-Springfield area reduced VOC
emissions by 10.22 tpd and NOX emissions by 19.11 tpd
between 2000 and 2005. Based on the information summarized above, Ohio
has adequately demonstrated that the improvement in air quality is due
to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions.
4. The Areas Have Fully Approved Maintenance Plans Pursuant to Section
175a of the CAA. (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv))
In conjunction with its requests to redesignate the Dayton-
Springfield nonattainment area to attainment status, Ohio submitted a
SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
in the area through 2018.
a. What is required in a maintenance plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the required 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 ten years after the
Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after
the redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan
which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for
ten years following the initial ten-year maintenance period. To address
the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must
contain contingency measures with a schedule for implementation as EPA
deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone
violations.
The September 4, 1992 John Calcagni memorandum provides additional
guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. The memorandum clarifies
that an ozone Maintenance Plan Should Address The Following Items: The
attainment VOC and NOX emissions inventories, a maintenance
demonstration showing maintenance for the ten years of the maintenance
period, a commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network,
factors and procedures to be used for verification of continued
attainment of the NAAQS, and a contingency plan to prevent or correct
future violations of the NAAQS.
b. Attainment Inventory
The OEPA developed an emissions inventory for 2005, one of the
years Ohio used to demonstrate monitored attainment of the 8-hour
NAAQS, as described above. The attainment level of emissions is
summarized in Table 4, above.
[[Page 33945]]
c. Demonstration of Maintenance
Ohio submitted with the redesignation request a revision to the 8-
hour ozone SIP to include a maintenance plan for the Dayton-Springfield
area, in compliance with section 175A of the CAA. This demonstration
shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard through 2018 by assuring
that current and future emissions of VOC and NOX for the
Dayton-Springfield area remain at or below attainment year emission
levels. A maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling. See
Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.
3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 53099-53100 (October 19,
2001), 68 FR 25413, 25430-25432 (May 12, 2003).
Ohio is primarily using inventories developed by LADCO for the
years 2009 and 2018. Point and area source emissions were projected
from the 2002 base year to 2009 and 2018 using growth factors. LADCO
point source estimates have been supplemented with point source
emissions projections based upon data compiled from Ohio's STARShip
annual emissions inventory database and statewide EGU NOX
budgets from the Ohio NOX rule. Nonroad mobile emissions
were generated for 2009 and 2018 using NMIM, with the following
exceptions. Recreational motorboat populations and spatial surrogates
were updated and emissions estimates were developed for aircraft,
commercial marine vessels, and railroads, three nonroad categories not
included in NMIM. The Ohio Department of Transportation prepared onroad
mobile source emissions estimates using MOBILE6.2. Modeling for 2009
and 2018 includes implementation of the 7.8 low Reid Vapor Pressure
fuels program for the area. It should be noted that because Ohio is in
the process of seeking approval of the removal of the vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M) program from the Dayton-Springfield
SIP, MOBILE6.2 modeling was performed assuming no credit for I/M
related emissions reductions in 2009 and 2018. This results in
conservatively estimating onroad emissions to be higher in 2009 and
2018 than would be the case if the I/M program were to continue to
operate. While the issue of I/M program discontinuation will be
addressed in a separate action, it should be noted that Ohio's
maintenance plan demonstrates that the area can maintain the standard
through 2018 without operation of the I/M program. Emissions estimates
are presented in Table 6 below.
Table 6.--Dayton-Springfield Area: Comparison of 2005-2018 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2005 2009 2018 2005-2018 2005 2009 2018 2005-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................... 3.45 3.47 3.72 0.27 36.60 36.24 37.94 1.34
Area............................................ 46.23 47.76 52.75 6.52 4.65 5.09 5.45 0.80
Nonroad......................................... 12.16 9.62 7.91 -4.25 20.24 16.68 9.84 -10.40
Onroad.......................................... 29.19 20.50 11.66 -17.53 63.88 46.78 18.50 -45.38
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 91.03 81.35 76.04 -14.99 125.37 104.79 71.73 -53.64
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emission projections show that OEPA does not expect emissions
in the Dayton-Springfield area to exceed the level of the 2005
attainment year inventory during the maintenance period. In the Dayton-
Springfield area, OEPA projects that VOC and NOX emissions
will decrease by 14.99 tpd and 53.64 tpd, respectively.
As part of its maintenance plan, the State elected to include a
``safety margin'' for the area. A ``safety margin'' is the difference
between the attainment level of emissions (from all sources) and the
projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan
which continues to demonstrate attainment of the standard. The
attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of
the years in which the area met the NAAQS. The Dayton-Springfield area
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2004-2006 time period. Ohio
used 2005 as the attainment level of emissions for the area. In the
maintenance plan, OEPA projected emission levels for 2018. For Dayton-
Springfield, the emissions from point, area, nonroad, and mobile
sources in 2005 equaled 91.03 tpd of VOC. OEPA projected VOC emissions
for the year 2018 to be 76.04 tpd of VOC. The SIP submission
demonstrates that the Dayton-Springfield area will continue to maintain
the standard with emissions at this level. The safety margin for VOC is
calculated to be the difference between these amounts or, in this case,
14.99 tpd of VOC for 2018. By this same method, 53.64 tpd (i.e., 125.37
tpd less 71.73 tpd) is the safety margin for NOX for 2018.
The safety margin, or a portion thereof, can be allocated to any of the
source categories, as long as the total attainment level of emissions
is maintained.
d. Monitoring Network
Ohio currently operates two ozone monitors in Clark County, and one
ozone monitor each in Greene, Miami, and Montgomery Counties. OEPA has
committed to continue operating the ozone monitors located in these
counties. OEPA has also committed to consult with EPA prior to making
changes to the existing monitoring network, should changes become
necessary in the future. OEPA will continue to quality assure and
report monitoring data in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and all other
federal requirements.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
Continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the Dayton-Springfield
area depends, in part, on the State's efforts toward tracking
indicators of continued attainment during the maintenance period. The
State's plan for verifying continued attainment of the 8-hour standard
in the Dayton-Springfield area consists of plans to continue ambient
ozone monitoring in ac
