Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Mercer County Portion of the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, OH-PA 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Associated Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory, 41246-41258 [E7-14589]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
41246
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rule, entitled, ‘‘Approval and
Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania;
VOC and NOX RACT Determinations for
Seven Individual Sources,’’ located in
the Proposed Rules section of the May
4, 2006 Federal Register (71 FR 26297).
EPA is withdrawing only the provisions
for two individual sources, namely,
Merck & Co., Inc., Northumberland
County, Pennsylvania; and The Frog,
Switch & Manufacturing Co.,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The
other actions in the May 4, 2006 Federal
Register are not affected.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: July 18, 2007.
James W. Newsom,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E7–14599 Filed 7–26–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R03–OAR–2007–0344; FRL–8447–1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the
Mercer County Portion of the
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, OH–PA
8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to
Attainment and Approval of the
Associated Maintenance Plan and 2002
Base-Year Inventory
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
a redesignation request and State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) is requesting that the Mercer
County portion of the YoungstownWarren-Sharon, OH-PA ozone
nonattainment area (‘‘Youngstown
Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’) be redesignated as
attainment for the 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).
The Area is comprised of Mercer
County, Pennsylvania and Trumbull,
Mahoning, and Columbiana Counties,
Ohio. In this rulemaking action EPA is
proposing to approve the ozone
redesignation request, maintenance
plan, and 2002 base year inventory for
Mercer County. In a separate rulemaking
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:35 Jul 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
action (72 FR 19435, April 18, 2007)
EPA proposed to approve the ozone
redesignation request for Trumbull,
Mahoning, and Columbiana Counties. In
conjunction with its redesignation
request, the Commonwealth submitted a
SIP revision consisting of a maintenance
plan for Mercer County that provides for
continued attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after
redesignation. EPA is proposing to make
a determination that Mercer County has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
based upon three years of complete,
quality-assured ambient air quality
monitoring data for 2004–2006. EPA’s
proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone
redesignation request is based on its
determination that the Area has met the
criteria for redesignation to attainment
specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA). In
addition, the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania has also submitted a 2002
base-year inventory for Mercer County,
and EPA is proposing to approve that
inventory for Mercer County as a SIP
revision. EPA is also providing
information on the status of its
adequacy determination for the motor
vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that
are identified in the maintenance plan
for Mercer County for purposes of
transportation conformity, and is also
proposing to approve those MVEBs.
Note that separate conformity budgets
are being established by Ohio for
Trumbull, Mahoning, and Columbiana
Counties. EPA is proposing approval of
the redesignation request and of the
maintenance plan and 2002 base-year
inventory SIP revisions in accordance
with the requirements of the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before August 27, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2007–0344 by one of the
following methods:
A. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. E-mail:
Cripps.Christopher@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2007–0344,
Christopher Cripps, Acting Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode
3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2007–
0344. EPA’s policy is that all comments
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
received will be included in the public
docket without change, and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103. Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box
8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Caprio, (215) 814–2156, or by
e-mail at caprio.amy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Table Of Contents
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing To
Take?
II. What Is the Background for These
Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation
to Attainment?
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
V. What Would Be the Effect of These
Actions?
VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the
Commonwealth’s Request?
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets Established and Identified in the
Maintenance Plan for Mercer County
Adequate and Approvable?
VIII. Proposed Actions
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is
Proposing To Take?
On March 27, 2007, the PADEP
formally submitted a request to
redesignate Mercer County from
nonattainment to attainment of the 8hour NAAQS for ozone. Concurrently,
Pennsylvania submitted a maintenance
plan for Mercer County as a SIP revision
to ensure continued attainment
throughout the Youngstown Area over
the next 11 years. PADEP also submitted
a 2002 base-year inventory for Mercer
County as a SIP revision. The
Youngstown Area is comprised of
Mercer County, Pennsylvania and
Trumbull, Mahoning, and Columbiana
Counties, Ohio. It is currently
designated a basic 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area. EPA is proposing to
determine that Mercer County has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
that it has met the requirements for
redesignation pursuant to section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is,
therefore, proposing to approve the
redesignation request to change the
designation of Mercer County from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also
proposing to approve the Mercer County
maintenance plan as a SIP revision for
Mercer County (such approval being one
of the CAA criteria for redesignation to
attainment status). The maintenance
plan is designed to ensure continued
attainment in Mercer County for the
next 11 years. EPA is also proposing to
approve the 2002 base-year inventory
for Mercer County as a SIP revision.
Additionally, EPA is announcing its
action on the adequacy process for the
MVEBs identified in the Mercer County
maintenance plan, and proposing to
approve the MVEBs identified for
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) for Mercer
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:35 Jul 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
County for transportation conformity
purposes. Note that in a separate
rulemaking action (72 FR 19435, April
18, 2007) EPA is proposing to approve
Trumbull, Mahoning, and Columbiana
Counties, Ohio MVEBs.
II. What Is the Background for These
Proposed Actions?
A. General
Ground-level ozone is not emitted
directly by sources. Rather, emissions of
NOX and VOC react in the presence of
sunlight to form ground-level ozone.
The air pollutants NOX and VOC are
referred to as precursors of ozone. The
CAA establishes a process for air quality
management through the attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a
revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08
parts per million (ppm). This new
standard is more stringent than the
previous 1-hour standard. EPA
designated, as nonattainment, any area
violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
based on the air quality data for the
three years of 2001–2003. These were
the most recent three years of data at the
time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The
Youngstown Area was designated a
basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
in a Federal Register notice signed on
April 15, 2004 and published on April
30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its
exceedance of the 8-hour health-based
standard for ozone during the years
2001–2003.
On April 30, 2004, EPA issued a final
rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) to revoke the
1-hour ozone NAAQS in the
Youngstown Area (as well as most other
areas of the country), effective June 15,
2005. See, 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at
23996 (April 30, 2004); 70 FR 44470
(August 3, 2005).
However, on December 22, 2006, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1
Implementation Rule for the 8-hour
Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30,
2004). South Coast Air Quality
Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882
(DC Cir. 2006) (hereafter ‘‘South
Coast’’). On June 8, 2007, in South Coast
Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA,
Docket No. 04–1201, in response to
several petitions for rehearing, the DC
Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 Rule
was vacated only with regard to those
parts of the rule that had been
successfully challenged. Therefore, the
Phase 1 Rule provisions related to
classifications for areas currently
classified under subpart 2 of Title I, part
D of the Act as 8-hour nonattainment
areas, the 8-hour attainment dates and
the timing for emissions reductions
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41247
needed for attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS remain effective. The
June 8 decision left intact the Court’s
rejection of EPA’s reasons for
implementing the 8-hour standard in
certain nonattainment areas under
Subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By
limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand
EPA’s revocation of the 1-hour standard
and those anti-backsliding provisions of
the Phase 1 Rule that had not been
successfully challenged. The June 8
decision reaffirmed the December 22,
2006 decision that EPA had improperly
failed to retain four measures required
for 1-hour nonattainment areas under
the anti-backsliding provisions of the
regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New
Source Review (NSR) requirements
based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment
classification; (2) Section 185 penalty
fees for 1-hour severe or extreme
nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be
implemented pursuant to section
172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the
contingency of an area not making
reasonable further progress toward
attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for
failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4)
certain transportation conformity
requirements for certain types of federal
actions. The June 8 decision clarified
that the Court’s reference to conformity
requirements was limited to requiring
the continued use of 1-hour motor
vehicle emissions budgets until 8-hour
budgets were available for 8-hour
conformity determinations. Elsewhere
in this document, mainly in section
VI.B. ‘‘Mercer County Has Met All
Applicable Requirements Under Section
110 and Part D of the CAA and Has a
Fully Approved SIP Under Section
110(k) of the CAA,’’ EPA discusses its
rationale why the decision in South
Coast is not an impediment to
redesignating Mercer County to
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The CAA, title I, Part D, contains two
sets of provisions—subpart 1 and
subpart 2—that address planning and
control requirements for nonattainment
areas. Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as
‘‘basic’’ nonattainment) contains
general, less prescriptive requirements
for nonattainment areas for any
pollutant—including ozone—governed
by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA
refers to as ‘‘classified’’ nonattainment)
provides more specific requirements for
ozone nonattainment areas. In 2004, the
Youngstown Area was classified a basic
8-hour ozone nonattainment area based
on air quality monitoring data from
2001–2003. Therefore, the Youngstown
Area is subject to the requirements of
subpart 1 of Part D.
Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour
ozone standard is attained when the 3-
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
41248
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone
concentrations is less than or equal to
0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when
rounding is considered). See 69 FR
23857 (April 30, 2004) for further
information. Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period
must meet data completeness
requirements. The data completeness
requirements are met when the average
percent of days with valid ambient
monitoring data is greater than 90
percent, and no single year has less than
75 percent data completeness as
determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR
part 50. The ozone monitoring data
indicates that the Youngstown Area has
a design value of 0.083 ppm for the 3year period of 2004–2006, using
complete, quality-assured data.
Therefore, the ambient ozone data for
the Youngstown Area indicates no
violations of the 8-hour ozone standard.
B. The Youngstown Area
The Youngstown Area consists of
Mercer County, Pennsylvania and
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties, Ohio. Prior to its designation
as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area,
the Youngstown Area was a marginal 1hour ozone nonattainment area, and
therefore, was subject to requirements
for marginal nonattainment areas
pursuant to section 182(a) of the CAA.
See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).
EPA determined that the Youngstown
Area has attained the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS by the November 15, 1993
attainment date (60 FR 3349, January 17,
1995). The Ohio counties were
subsequently redesignated as attainment
(Mahoning and Trumbull Counties on
January 31, 1996 (61 FR 3319) and
Columbiana County on February 8, 1995
(60 FR 7453)).
On March 27, 2007, the PADEP
requested that Mercer County be
redesignated to attainment for the 8hour ozone standard. The redesignation
request included three years of
complete, quality-assured data for the
period of 2004–2006, indicating that the
8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been
achieved in the Youngstown Area. The
data satisfies the CAA requirements that
the 3-year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentration (commonly
referred to as the area’s design value),
must be less than or equal to 0.08 ppm
(i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is
considered). Under the CAA, a
nonattainment area may be redesignated
if sufficient complete, quality-assured
data is available to determine that the
area attained the standard and the area
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:35 Jul 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
meets the other CAA redesignation
requirements set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E).
III. What Are the Criteria for
Redesignation to Attainment?
The CAA provides the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area
to attainment. Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, allows for
redesignation, providing that:
(1) EPA determines that the area has
attained the applicable NAAQS;
(2) EPA has fully approved the
applicable implementation plan for the
area under section 110(k);
(3) EPA determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP
and applicable Federal air pollutant
control regulations and other permanent
and enforceable reductions;
(4) EPA has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section
175A; and
(5) The State containing such area has
met all requirements applicable to the
area under section 110 and Part D.
EPA provided guidance on
redesignations in the General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the
CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16,
1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented
this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR
18070). EPA has provided further
guidance on processing redesignation
requests in the following documents:
• ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Design Value Calculations,’’
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June,
18, 1990;
• ‘‘Maintenance Plans for
Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,’’
Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs
Branch, April 30, 1992;
• ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from
G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1,
1992;
• ‘‘Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4,
1992;
• ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Actions Submitted in Response to Clean
Air Act (Act) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni Director, Air Quality
Management Division, October 28, 1992;
• ‘‘Technical Support Documents
(TSDs) for Redesignation Ozone and
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment
Areas,’’ Memorandum from G.T. Helms,
Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
• ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after
November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, September 17, 1993;
• Memorandum from D. Kent Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality
Management Division, to Air Division
Directors, Regions 1–10, ‘‘Use of Actual
Emissions in Maintenance
Demonstrations for Ozone and CO
Nonattainment Areas,’’ dated November
30, 1993;
• ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part D
NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary
D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994;
and
• ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress,
Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’
Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, May 10, 1995.
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
On March 27, 2007, the PADEP
requested redesignation of Mercer
County to attainment for the 8-hour
ozone standard. On March 27, 2007,
PADEP submitted a maintenance plan
for Mercer County as a SIP revision, to
ensure continued attainment of the
8-hour ozone NAAQS over the next 11
years, until 2018. PADEP also submitted
a 2002 base-year inventory concurrently
with its maintenance plan as a SIP
revision. EPA has determined that
Mercer County has attained the 8-hour
ozone standard and has met the
requirements for redesignation set forth
in section 107(d)(3)(E).
V. What Would Be the Effect of These
Actions?
Approval of the redesignation request
would change the official designation of
Mercer County from nonattainment to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also
incorporate into the Pennsylvania SIP a
2002 base-year inventory and a
maintenance plan ensuring continued
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
in Mercer County for the next 11 years,
until 2018. The maintenance plan
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
includes contingency measures to
remedy any future violations of the
8-hour NAAQS (should they occur), and
identifies the NOX and VOC MVEBs
(Mercer County only) for transportation
conformity purposes for the years 2009
and 2018. These MVEBs are displayed
in the following table:
TABLE 1.—MERCER COUNTY MOTOR
VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS IN
TONS PER SUMMER DAY (TPSD)
Year
2009 ..................................
2018 ..................................
VOC
for the Youngstown Area. This data has
been quality assured and is recorded in
the AQS. The PADEP uses the AQS as
the permanent database to maintain its
data and quality assures the data
transfers and content for accuracy. The
fourth-high 8-hour daily maximum
concentrations, along with the threeyear average are summarized in Tables
2–5.
TABLE 2.—YOUNGSTOWN AREA
FOURTH HIGHEST 8-HOUR AVERAGE
VALUES MERCER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MONITOR/AQS ID 42–
085–0100
NOX
4.2
2.6
11.2
4.9
VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the
Commonwealth’s Request?
EPA is proposing to determine that
Mercer County has attained the 8-hour
ozone standard, and that all other
redesignation criteria have been met.
The following is a description of how
the PADEP’s March 27, 2007 submittal
satisfies the requirements of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
2004 ..........................................
2005 ..........................................
2006 ..........................................
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
EPA is proposing to determine that
Mercer County has attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may
be considered to be attaining the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS if there are no violations,
as determined in accordance with 40
CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of Part 50,
based on three complete, consecutive
calendar years of quality-assured air
quality monitoring data. To attain this
standard, the design value, which is the
3-year average of the fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentrations measured at each
monitor, within the area, over each year
must not exceed the ozone standard of
0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding
convention described in 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix I, the standard is attained if
the design value is 0.084 ppm or below.
The data must be collected and qualityassured in accordance with 40 CFR part
58, and recorded in the Air Quality
System (AQS). The monitors generally
should have remained at the same
location for the duration of the
monitoring period required for
demonstrating attainment.
In the Youngstown Area, there are
four ozone monitors, one located in
Mahoning County, Ohio, two located in
Trumbull County, Ohio and one in
Mercer County, Pennsylvania that
measure air quality with respect to
ozone. As part of its redesignation
request, Pennsylvania referenced ozone
monitoring data for the years 2004–2006
20:35 Jul 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
0.076
0.087
0.079
The average for the 3-year period 2004–
2006 is 0.079 ppm
A. Mercer County Has Attained the
8-Hour NAAQS
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Annual 4th
highest
reading
(ppm)
Year
TABLE 3.—YOUNGSTOWN AREA
FOURTH HIGHEST 8-HOUR AVERAGE
VALUES MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO
MONITOR/AQS ID 39–099–0013
Annual 4th
highest
reading
(ppm)
Year
2004 ..........................................
2005 ..........................................
2006 ..........................................
0.074
0.083
0.076
The average for the 3-year period 2004–
2006 is 0.077 ppm
TABLE 4.—YOUNGSTOWN AREA
FOURTH HIGHEST 8-HOUR AVERAGE
VALUES TRUMBULL COUNTY, OHIO
MONITOR/AQS ID 39–155–0009
Annual 4th
highest
reading
(ppm)
Year
2004 ..........................................
2005 ..........................................
2006 ..........................................
PO 00000
0.078
0.083
0.074
The average for the 3-year period 2004–
2006 is 0.078 ppm
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41249
TABLE 5.—YOUNGSTOWN AREA
FOURTH HIGHEST 8-HOUR AVERAGE
VALUES TRUMBULL COUNTY, OHIO
MONITOR/AQS ID 39–155–0011
Year
2004 ..........................................
2005 ..........................................
2006 ..........................................
Annual 4th
highest
reading
(ppm)
0.080
0.087
0.082
The average for the 3-year period 2004–
2006 is 0.083 ppm
The air quality data for 2004–2006
show that the Youngstown Area has
attained the standard with a design
value of 0.083 ppm. The data collected
at the Youngstown Area monitors satisfy
the CAA requirement that the 3–year
average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8–hour average ozone
concentration is less than or equal to
0.08 ppm. The PADEP’s request for
redesignation for Mercer County
indicates that the data is complete and
was quality assured in accordance with
40 CFR part 58. In addition, as
discussed below with respect to the
maintenance plan, PADEP has
committed to continue monitoring in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In
summary, EPA has determined that the
data submitted by Pennsylvania and
data taken from AQS indicate that the
Youngstown Area has attained the
8-hour ozone NAAQS.
B. Mercer County Has Met All
Applicable Requirements Under Section
110 and Part D of the CAA and Has a
Fully Approved SIP Under Section
110(k) of the CAA
EPA has determined that Mercer
County has met all SIP requirements
applicable for purposes of this
redesignation under section 110 of the
CAA (General SIP Requirements) and
that it meets all applicable SIP
requirements under Part D of Title I of
the CAA, in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has
determined that the SIP is fully
approved with respect to all
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these
proposed determinations, EPA
ascertained which requirements are
applicable to Mercer County and
determined that the applicable portions
of the SIP meeting these requirements
are fully approved under section 110(k)
of the CAA. We note that SIPs must be
fully approved only with respect to
applicable requirements.
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
41250
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
The September 4, 1992 Calcagni
memorandum (‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA’s
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E)
with respect to the timing of applicable
requirements. Under this interpretation,
to qualify for redesignation, States
requesting redesignation to attainment
must meet only the relevant CAA
requirements that came due prior to the
submittal of a complete redesignation
request. See also, Michael Shapiro
memorandum, September 17, 1993, and
60 FR 12459, 12465–12466 (March 7,
1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann
Arbor). Applicable requirements of the
CAA that come due subsequent to the
area’s submittal of a complete
redesignation request remain applicable
until a redesignation is approved, but
are not required as a prerequisite to
redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the
CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537
(7th Cir. 2004). See also, 68 FR at 25424,
25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of
St. Louis).
This section sets forth EPA’s views on
the potential effect of the Court’s rulings
on this proposed redesignation action.
For the reasons set forth below, EPA
does not believe that the Court’s rulings
alter any requirements relevant to this
redesignation action so as to preclude
redesignation, and do not prevent EPA
from proposing or ultimately finalizing
this redesignation. EPA believes that the
Court’s December 22, 2006 and June 8,
2007 decisions impose no impediment
to moving forward with redesignation of
this area to attainment, because even in
light of the Court’s decisions,
redesignation is appropriate under the
relevant redesignation provisions of the
Act and longstanding policies regarding
redesignation requests.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
1. Section 110
Requirements
General SIP
Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA
delineates the general requirements for
a SIP, which includes enforceable
emissions limitations and other control
measures, means, or techniques,
provisions for the establishment and
operation of appropriate devices
necessary to collect data on ambient air
quality, and programs to enforce the
limitations. The general SIP elements
and requirements set forth in section
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to
the following:
• Submittal of a SIP that has been
adopted by the State after reasonable
public notice and hearing;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:35 Jul 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
• Provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality;
• Implementation of a source permit
program; provisions for the
implementation of Part C requirements
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD));
• Provisions for the implementation
of Part D requirements for New Source
Review (NSR) permit programs;
• Provisions for air pollution
modeling; and
• Provisions for public and local
agency participation in planning and
emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs
contain certain measures to prevent
sources in a state from significantly
contributing to air quality problems in
another State. To implement this
provision, EPA has required certain
states to establish programs to address
transport of air pollutants in accordance
with the NOX SIP Call, October 27, 1998
(63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOX
SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298)
and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),
May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). However,
the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for
a State are not linked with a particular
nonattainment area’s designation and
classification in that State. EPA believes
that the requirements linked with a
particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classifications are the
relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements,
where applicable, continue to apply to
a state regardless of the designation of
any one particular area in the State.
Thus, we do not believe that these
requirements are applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation.
In addition, EPA believes that the
other section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan
submissions and not linked with an
area’s attainment status are not
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. The Area will still be
subject to these requirements after it is
redesignated. The section 110 and Part
D requirements which are linked with a
particular area’s designation and
classification are the relevant measures
to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation
request. This policy is consistent with
EPA’s existing policy on applicability of
conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and
oxygenated fuels requirement. See
Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and
final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October
10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final
rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996);
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking
(60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See
also, the discussion on this issue in the
Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR at
37890, June 19, 2000), and in the
Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR at
53099, October 19, 2001). Similarly,
with respect to the NOX SIP Call rules,
EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule to
Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS,
that the NOX SIP Call rules are not ‘‘an’’
’applicable requirement’ for purposes of
section 110(1) because the NOX rules
apply regardless of an area’s attainment
or nonattainment status for the 8-hour
(or the 1-hour) NAAQS.’’ 69 FR 23951,
23983 (April 30, 2004).
EPA believes that section 110
elements not linked to the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable
for purposes of redesignation. As we
explain later in this notice, no Part D
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation under the 8-hour standard
became due for Mercer County prior to
submission of the redesignation request.
2. Part D Nonattainment Requirements
Under the 8-Hour Standard
Pursuant to an April 30, 2004, final
rule (69 FR 23951), the Youngstown
Area was designated a basic
nonattainment area under subpart 1 for
the 8-hour ozone standard. Sections
172–176 of the CAA, found in subpart
1 of Part D, set forth the basic
nonattainment requirements applicable
to all nonattainment areas. Section 182
of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of Part
D, establishes additional specific
requirements depending on the area’s
nonattainment classification.
With respect to the 8-hour standard,
the court’s ruling rejected EPA’s reasons
for classifying areas under Subpart 1 for
the 8-hour standard, and remanded that
matter to the Agency. Consequently, it
is possible that this Area could, during
a remand to EPA, be reclassified under
subpart 2. Although any future decision
by EPA to classify this Area under
subpart 2 might trigger additional future
requirements for the area, EPA believes
that this does not mean that
redesignation of the Area cannot now go
forward. This belief is based upon (1)
EPA’s longstanding policy of evaluating
redesignation requests in accordance
with the requirements due at the time
the request is submitted; and (2)
consideration of the inequity of
applying retroactively any requirements
that might in the future be applied.
First, at the time the redesignation
request was submitted, Mercer County
was classified under subpart 1 and was
obligated to meet only subpart 1
requirements. Under EPA’s
longstanding interpretation of section
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to
qualify for redesignation, states
requesting redesignation to attainment
must meet only the relevant SIP
requirements that came due prior to the
submittal of a complete redesignation
request. See September 4, 1992 Calcagni
memorandum (‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division) See also
Michael Shapiro Memorandum,
September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459,
12465–12466 (March 7, 1995)
(Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor);
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th
Cir. 2004), which upheld this
interpretation. See 68 FR 25418, 25424,
25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of
St. Louis).
Moreover, it would be inequitable to
retroactively apply any new SIP
requirements that were not applicable at
the time the request was submitted. The
D.C. Circuit has recognized the inequity
in such retroactive rulemaking, see
Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F. 3d 63
(D.C. Cir. 2002), in which the D.C.
Circuit upheld a District Court’s ruling
refusing to make retroactive an EPA
determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date. Such a
determination would have resulted in
the imposition of additional
requirements on the area. The Court
stated: ‘‘Although EPA failed to make
the nonattainment determination within
the statutory time frame, Sierra Club’s
proposed solution only makes the
situation worse. Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the States,
which would face fines and suits for not
implementing air pollution prevention
plans in 1997, even though they were
not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68.
Similarly here it would be unfair to
penalize the area by applying to it for
purposes of redesignation additional SIP
requirements under subpart 2 that were
not in effect at the time it submitted its
redesignation request.
With respect to 8-hour subpart 2
requirements, if Mercer County initially
had been classified under subpart 2, the
first two Part D subpart 2 requirements
applicable to Mercer County under
section 182(a) of the CAA would be: a
base-year inventory requirement
pursuant to section 182(a)(1) of the
CAA, and, the emissions statement
requirement pursuant to section
182(a)(3)(B).
As stated previously, these
requirements are not yet due for
purposes of redesignation of Mercer
County, but nevertheless, Pennsylvania
already has in its approved SIP, an
emissions statement rule for the 1-hour
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:35 Jul 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
standard that covers all portions of the
designated 8-hour nonattainment area
and, that satisfies the emissions
statement requirement for the 8-hour
standard. See, 25 Pa. Code 135.21(a)(1),
codified at 40 CFR 52.2020; 60 FR 2881,
January 12, 1995. With respect to the
base-year inventory requirement, in this
notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA is
proposing to approve the 2002 base-year
inventory for Mercer County, which was
submitted on March 27, 2007,
concurrently with its maintenance plan,
into the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is
proposing to approve the 2002 base-year
inventory as fulfilling the requirements,
if necessary, of both section 182(a)(1)
and section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. A
detailed evaluation of Pennsylvania’s
2002 base-year inventory for Mercer
County can be found in a Technical
Support Document (TSD) prepared by
EPA for this rulemaking. EPA has
determined that the emission inventory
and emissions statement requirements
for Mercer County have been satisfied.
In addition to the fact that Part D
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation did not become due prior
to submission of the redesignation
request, EPA believes that the general
conformity and NSR requirements do
not require approval prior to
redesignation.
With respect to section 176,
Conformity Requirements, section
176(c) of the CAA requires states to
establish criteria and procedures to
ensure that Federally supported or
funded projects conform to the air
quality planning goals in the applicable
SIP. The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation
plans, programs, and projects
developed, funded or approved under
Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit
Act (‘‘transportation conformity’’) as
well as to all other Federally supported
or funded projects (‘‘general
conformity’’). State conformity revisions
must be consistent with Federal
conformity regulations relating to
consultation, enforcement and
enforceability that the CAA required the
EPA to promulgate. EPA believes it is
reasonable to interpret the conformity
SIP requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation
request under section 107(d) since State
conformity rules are still required after
redesignation and Federal conformity
rules apply where State rules have not
been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.
3d 426, 438–440 (6th Cir. 2001),
upholding this interpretation. See also
60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995).
In the case of Mercer County, EPA has
also determined that before being
redesignated, Mercer County need not
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41251
comply with the requirement that a NSR
program be approved prior to
redesignation. EPA has determined that
areas being redesignated need not
comply with the requirement that a NSR
program be approved prior to
redesignation, provided that the area
demonstrates maintenance of the
standard without Part D NSR in effect.
The rationale for this position is
described in a memorandum from Mary
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
entitled, ‘‘Part D NSR Requirements or
Areas Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment.’’ Normally, State’s
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) program will become effective in
the area immediately upon
redesignation to attainment. See the
more detailed explanations in the
following redesignation rulemakings:
Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467–12468 (March
7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH
(61 FR 20458, 20469–20470, May 7,
1996); Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665,
53669, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids,
MI (61 FR 31831, 31836–31837, June 21,
1996). In the case of Mercer County the
Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations in
the Pennsylvania SIP (codified at 40
CFR 52.2020(c)(1)) explicitly apply the
requirements for NSR in section 184 of
the CAA to ozone attainment areas
within the OTR. The OTR NSR
requirements are more stringent than
that required for a marginal or basic
ozone nonattainment area. On October
19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA fully
approved Pennsylvania’s NSR SIP
revision consisting of Pennsylvania’s
Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations that
cover Mercer County.
EPA has also interpreted the section
184 OTR requirements, including the
NSR program, as not being applicable
for purposes of redesignation. The
rationale for this is based on two
considerations. First, the requirement to
submit SIP revisions for the section 184
requirements continues to apply to areas
in the OTR after redesignation to
attainment. Therefore, the State remains
obligated to have NSR, as well as RACT,
and Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance (I/M) programs even after
redesignation. Second, the section 184
control measures are region-wide
requirements and do not apply to
Mercer County by virtue of the Area’s
designation and classification. See 61
FR 53174, 53175–53176 (October 10,
1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830–24832
(May 7, 1997).
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
41252
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
3. Part D Nonattainment Area
Requirements Under the 1-Hour
Standard
In its June 8, 2007 decision the Court
limited its vacatur so as to uphold those
provisions of the anti-backsliding
requirements that were not successfully
challenged. Therefore the Area must
meet the federal anti-backsliding
requirements, see 40 CFR 51.900, et
seq.; 70 FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005)
which apply by virtue of the area’s
classification for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS. As set forth in more detail
below, the area must also address four
additional anti-backsliding provisions
identified by the Court in its decisions.
The anti-backsliding provisions at 40
CFR 51.905(a)(1) prescribe 1-hour ozone
NAAQS requirements that continue to
apply after revocation of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS to former 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas. Section
51.905(a)(1)(i) provides that:
The area remains subject to the obligation
to adopt and implement the applicable
requirements as defined in section 51.900(f),
except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of
paragraph (b) of this section. * * *
Section 51.900(f), as amended by 70
FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005), states
that:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Applicable requirements means for an area
the following requirements to the extent such
requirements applied to the area for the
area’s classification under section 181(a)(1) of
the CAA for the 1-hour NAAQS at the time
of designation for the 8-hour NAAQS.
(1) Reasonably available control technology
(RACT).
(2) Inspection and maintenance programs (I/
M).
(3) Major source applicability cut-offs for
purposes of RACT.
(4) Rate of Progress (ROP) reductions.
(5) Stage II vapor recovery.
(6) Clean fuels fleet program under section
183(c)(4) of the CAA.
(7) Clean fuels for boilers under section
182(e)(3) of the CAA.
(8) Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
during heavy traffic hours as provided
section 182(e)(4) of the CAA.
(9) Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under
section 182(c)(1) of the CAA.
(10) Transportation control measures (TCMs)
under section 182(c)(5) of the CAA.
(11) Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provisions
of section 182(d)(1) of the CAA.
(12) NOX requirements under section 182(f)
of the CAA.
(13) Attainment demonstration or alternative
as provided under § 51.905(a)(1)(ii).
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.905(c), the
Area is subject to the obligations set
forth in §§ 51.905(a) and 51.900(f).
Prior to its designation as an 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area, the
Youngstown Area was designated a
marginal nonattainment area for the 1-
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:35 Jul 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
hour standard. With respect to the 1hour standard, the applicable
requirements under the anti-backsliding
provisions at 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1) for the
Youngstown Area are limited to RACT
and I/M programs specified in section
182(a) of the CAA and are discussed in
the following paragraphs:
Section 182(a)(2)(A) required SIP
revisions to correct or amend RACT for
sources in marginal areas, such as the
Youngstown Area, that were subject to
control technique guidelines (CTGs)
issued before November 15, 1990
pursuant to CAA section 108. On
December 22, 1994, EPA fully approved
into the Pennsylvania SIP all corrections
required under section 182(a)(2)(A) of
the CAA (59 FR 65971, December 22,
1994) (this covers the Mercer County,
PA portion of the Youngstown Area).
EPA believes that this requirement
applies only to marginal and higher
classified areas under the 1-hour
NAAQS pursuant to the 1990
amendments to the CAA; therefore, this
is a one-time requirement. After an area
has fulfilled the section 182(a)(2)(A)
requirement for the 1-hour NAAQS,
there is no requirement under the 8hour NAAQS.
Section 182(a)(2)(B) relates to the
savings clause for vehicle inspection
and maintenance (I/M). It requires
marginal areas to adopt vehicle I/M
programs. This provision was not
applicable to the Youngstown Area
because this Area did not have and was
not required to have an I/M program
before November 15, 1990.
In addition the Court held that EPA
should have retained four additional
measures in its anti-backsliding
provisions: (1) Nonattainment area NSR;
(2) Section 185 penalty fees; (3)
contingency measures under section
172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act; and (4)
1-hour motor vehicle emission budgets
that were yet not replaced by 8-hour
emissions budgets. These requirements
are addressed below:
With respect to NSR, EPA has
determined that areas being
redesignated need not have an approved
nonattainment New Source Review
program, for the same reasons discussed
previously with respect to the
applicable Part D requirement for the 8hour standard.
The section 185 penalty fee
requirement applies only in severe and
extreme nonattainment areas, and
therefore was never applicable in the
Youngstown 1-hour marginal
nonattainment area.
With respect to the requirement for
submission of contingency measures for
the 1-hour standard, section 182(a) does
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
not require contingency measures for
marginal areas.
The conformity portion of the Court’s
ruling does not impact the redesignation
request for Mercer County except to the
extent that the Court in its June 8
decision clarified that for those areas
with 1-hour MVEBs, anti-backsliding
requires that those 1-hour budgets must
be used for 8-hour conformity
determinations until replaced by 8-hour
budgets. There are no applicable 1-hour
MVEBs for Mercer County. (As
discussed elsewhere in this document,
EPA is only proposing to approve 8hour MVEBs for the Mercer County
portion of the Youngstown Area.) To
meet this requirement, conformity
determinations in such areas must
comply with the applicable
requirements of EPA’s conformity
regulations at 40 CFR part 93. The court
clarified that 1-hour conformity
determinations are not required for antibacksliding purposes.
Thus EPA has concluded that Mercer
County has met all requirements
applicable for redesignation under the
1-hour standard.
4. Transport Region Requirements
All areas in the Ozone Transport
Region (OTR), both attainment and
nonattainment, are subject to additional
control requirements under section 184
for the purpose of reducing interstate
transport of emissions that may
contribute to downwind ozone
nonattainment. The section 184
requirements include RACT, NSR,
enhanced vehicle inspection and
maintenance, and Stage II vapor
recovery or a comparable measure.
In the case of Mercer County, which
is located in the OTR, nonattainment
NSR will continue to be applicable after
redesignation. On October 19, 2001,
EPA approved the 1-hour NSR SIP
revision for the Area. See 66 FR 53094
(October 19, 2001).
EPA has also interpreted the section
184 OTR requirements, including NSR,
as not being applicable for purposes of
redesignation. Reading, PA
Redesignation, 61 FR 53174, (October
10, 1996), 62 FR 24826 (May 7, 1997).
The rationale for this is based on two
considerations. First, the requirement to
submit SIP revisions for the section 184
requirements continues to apply to areas
in the OTR after redesignation to
attainment. Therefore, the State remains
obligated to have NSR, as well as RACT,
and I/M even after redesignation.
Second, the section 184 control
measures are region-wide requirements
and do not apply to the area by virtue
of the area’s nonattainment designation
and classification, and thus are properly
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
41253
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
considered not relevant to an action
changing an area’s designation. See 61
FR 53174, 53175–53176 (October 10,
1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830–24832
(May 7, 1997).
3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any
additional measures it may approve in
conjunction with a redesignation action.
See, 68 FR at 25425 (May 12, 2003) and
citations therein.
5. Mercer County Has a Fully Approved
SIP for Purposes of Redesignation
EPA has fully approved the
Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of
this redesignation. EPA may rely on
prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request. Calcagni Memo,
p.3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth
Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989–
90 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.
C. The Air Quality Improvement in
Mercer County Is Due to Permanent and
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
Resulting From Implementation of the
SIP and Applicable Federal Air
Pollution Control Regulations and Other
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
EPA believes that the Commonwealth
has demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in Mercer County
is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP, Federal
measures, and other State-adopted
measures. Emissions reductions
attributable to these rules are shown in
Table 6.
TABLE 6.—TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2002 AND 2004 IN TONS PER SUMMER DAY (TPSD)
Year
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Total
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
2002 .............................................................................................................................................
2004 .............................................................................................................................................
Difference (02–04) .......................................................................................................................
20.8
19.0
¥1.8
70.5
64.6
¥5.9
91.3
83.6
¥7.7
25.5
22.4
¥3.1
95.5
82.5
¥13.0
121.0
104.9
¥16.1
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
2002 .............................................................................................................................................
2004 .............................................................................................................................................
Difference (02–04) .......................................................................................................................
Between 2002 and 2004, VOC
emissions throughout the Area
decreased by 7.7 tpsd from 91.3 tpsd to
83.6 tpsd; NOX emissions throughout
the Area decreased by 16.1 tpsd from
121.0 tpsd to 104.9 tpsd. These
reductions, and anticipated future
reductions, are due to the following
permanent and enforceable measures.
4. Non-Road Sources
Non-road Diesel (69 FR 38958, June
29, 2004).
EPA believes that permanent and
enforceable emissions reductions are the
cause of the long-term improvement in
ozone levels and are the cause of Mercer
County achieving attainment of the 8hour ozone standard.
1. Stationary Point Sources
Federal NOX SIP Call (66 FR 43795,
August 21, 2001).
D. Mercer County Has a Fully
Approvable Maintenance Plan Pursuant
to Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to
redesignate Mercer County to
attainment status, Pennsylvania
submitted a SIP revision to provide for
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Area for at least 11 years
after redesignation. The Commonwealth
is requesting that EPA approve this SIP
revision as meeting the requirement of
CAA 175A. Once approved, the
maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS will ensure that the SIP for
Mercer County meets the requirements
of the CAA regarding maintenance of
the applicable 8-hour ozone standard.
2. Stationary Area Sources
Solvent Cleaning (68 FR 2206, January
16, 2003).
Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR
70893, December 8, 2004).
3. Highway Vehicle Sources
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Programs (FMVCP).
—Tier 1 (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991).
—Tier 2 (65 FR 6698, February 10,
2000).
Heavy-duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards (62 FR 54694, October 21,
1997, and 65 FR 59896, October 6,
2000).
National Low Emission Vehicle
(NLEV) Program (PA) (64 FR 72564,
December 28, 1999).
Vehicle Emission Inspection/
Maintenance Program (70 FR 58313,
October 6, 2005).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:35 Jul 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
What Is Required in a Maintenance
Plan?
Section 175 of the CAA sets forth the
elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. Under
section 175A, the plan must
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10
years after approval of a redesignation of
an area to attainment. Eight years after
the redesignation, the Commonwealth
must submit a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will
continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year
period. To address the possibility of
future NAAQS violations, the
maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule
for implementation, as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of
any future 8-hour ozone violations.
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the
elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. The
Calcagni memorandum dated September
4, 1992, provides additional guidance
on the content of a maintenance plan.
An ozone maintenance plan should
address the following provisions:
(a) an attainment emissions inventory;
(b) a maintenance demonstration;
(c) a monitoring network;
(d) verification of continued
attainment; and
(e) a contingency plan.
Analysis of the Mercer County
Maintenance Plan
(a) Attainment inventory—An
attainment inventory includes the
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
41254
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
emissions during the time period
associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment. PADEP determined
that the appropriate attainment
inventory year is 2004. That year
establishes a reasonable year within the
three-year block of 2004–2006 as a
baseline and accounts for reductions
attributable to implementation of the
CAA requirements to date. The 2004
inventory is consistent with EPA
guidance and is based on actual ‘‘typical
summer day’’ emissions of VOC and
NOX during 2004 and consists of a list
of sources and their associated
emissions.
The 2002 and 2004 point source data
was compiled from actual sources.
Pennsylvania requires owners and
operators of larger facilities to submit
annual production figures and emission
calculations each year. Throughput data
are multiplied by emission factors from
Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) Data
Systems and EPA’s publication series
AP–42, and are based on Source
Classification Codes (SCC). The 2002
area source data was compiled using
county-level activity data, from census
numbers, from county numbers, etc. The
2004 area source data was projected
from the 2002 inventory using temporal
allocations provided by the MidAtlantic Regional Air Management
Association (MARAMA).
The on-road mobile source
inventories for 2002 and 2004 were
compiled using MOBILE6.2 and
Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation (PENNDOT) estimates
for VMT. The PADEP has provided
detailed data summaries to document
the calculations of mobile on-road VOC
and NOX emissions for 2002, as well as
for the projection years of 2004, 2009,
and 2018 (shown in Table 8 below). The
2002 and 2004 emissions for the
majority of non-road emission source
categories were estimated using the EPA
NONROAD 2005 model. The
NONROAD model calculates emissions
for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum
gasoline, and compressed natural gasfueled non-road equipment types and
includes growth factors. The NONROAD
model does not estimate emissions from
locomotives or aircraft. For 2002 and
2004 locomotive emissions, the PADEP
projected emissions from a 1999 survey
using national fuel consumption
information and EPA emission and
conversion factors. There are no
significant commercial aircraft
operations (aircraft that can seat over 60
passengers) in Mercer County. Mercer
County airports do not support enough
flights or the type of aircraft to create
measurable emissions from these
sources. Emissions from airport ground
support equipment are considered to be
zero. For 2002 and 2004 aircraft
emissions, PADEP estimated emissions
using small airport operations statistics
from https://www.airnav.com, and
emission factors and operational
characteristics in the EPA-approved
model, Emissions and Dispersion
Modeling System (EDMS).
More detailed information on the
compilation of the 2002, 2004, 2009,
and 2018 inventories can be found in
the Technical Appendices, which are
part of PADEP’s March 27, 2007 state
submittal.
(b) Maintenance Demonstration—On
March 27, 2007, the PADEP submitted
a maintenance plan as required by
section 175A of the CAA. The Mercer
County maintenance plan shows
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by demonstrating that current
and future emissions of VOC and NOX
remain at or below the attainment year
2004 emissions levels throughout
Mercer County through the year 2018. A
maintenance demonstration need not be
based on modeling. See, Wall v. EPA,
supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. See
also, 66 FR at 53099–53100; 68 FR at
25430–25432.
Table 7 specifies the VOC and NOX
emissions for the Youngstown Area for
2004, 2009, and 2018. The PADEP chose
2009 as an interim year in the
maintenance demonstration period to
demonstrate that the VOC and NOX
emissions are not projected to increase
above the 2004 attainment level during
the time of the maintenance period.
TABLE 7.—VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE YOUNGSTOWN AREA (TPSD); 2004, 2009, 2018
2004
PA
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Point.
VOC ..........................................................................
NOX ...........................................................................
Area.
VOC ..........................................................................
NOX ...........................................................................
Mobile.
VOC ..........................................................................
NOX ...........................................................................
Nonroad.
VOC ..........................................................................
NOX ...........................................................................
Total.
VOC ..........................................................................
NOX ...........................................................................
Additionally, the following programs
are either effective or due to become
effective and will further contribute to
the maintenance demonstration of the 8hour ozone NAAQS:
• The Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) (71 FR 25328, April 28, 2006).
• The Federal NOX SIP Call (66 FR
43795, August 21, 2001).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:35 Jul 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
OH
2009
Total
PA
Frm 00016
OH
Total
PA
OH
Total
1.7
2.9
6.0
20.3
7.8
23.2
2.7
4.3
6.4
8.3
9.1
12.6
3.7
5.5
7.8
12.7
11.4
18.2
7.6
0.8
24.1
2.5
31.7
3.3
7.4
0.9
22.9
2.8
30.2
3.7
7.8
0.9
23.0
3.0
30.9
3.9
5.9
15.8
26.2
43.5
32.1
59.3
4.5
11.6
19.6
33.7
24.1
45.3
3.0
5.3
10.4
13.3
13.4
18.5
3.8
2.8
8.3
16.3
12.1
19.1
3.4
2.3
6.5
12.5
9.9
14.8
2.6
1.4
5.2
8.2
7.8
9.6
19.1
22.4
64.6
82.5
83.6
104.9
18.0
19.1
55.4
57.4
73.4
76.4
17.1
13.1
46.3
37.2
63.4
50.2
• Area VOC regulations concerning
portable fuel containers (69 FR 70893,
December 8, 2004), consumer products
(69 FR 70895, December 8, 2004), and
architectural and industrial
maintenance coatings (AIM) (69 FR
68080, November 23, 2004).
• Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Programs (light-duty ) (Tier 1, Tier 2; 56
PO 00000
2018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
FR 25724, June 5, 1991; 65 FR 6698,
February 10, 2000).
• Vehicle emission/inspection/
maintenance program (70 FR 58313,
October 6, 2005).
• Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/
2007) and low sulfur on-road (2006); 66
FR 5002 (January 18, 2001).
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
• Non-road emission standards (2008)
and off-road diesel fuel (2007/2010); 69
FR 38958 (June 29, 2004).
• NLEV/PA Clean Vehicle Program
(54 FR 72564, December 28, 1999)—
Pennsylvania will implement this
program in car model year 2008 and
beyond.
• Pennsylvania Heavy-Duty Diesel
Emissions Control Program (May 10,
2002).
Based on the comparison of the
projected emissions and the attainment
year emissions along with the additional
measures, EPA concludes that PADEP
has successfully demonstrated that the
8-hour ozone standard should be
maintained in Mercer County.
(c) Monitoring Network—There are
four ozone monitors located throughout
the Youngstown Area, one located in
Mahoning County, Ohio, two located in
Trumbull County, Ohio and one in
Mercer County, Pennsylvania that
measure air quality with respect to
ozone, in accordance with 40 CFR part
58.
(d) Verification of Continued
Attainment—In addition to maintaining
the key elements of its regulatory
program, the Commonwealth will track
the attainment status of the ozone
NAAQS in the Youngstown Area by
reviewing air quality and emissions data
during the maintenance period. The
Commonwealth will perform an annual
evaluation of Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) data and emissions reported from
stationary sources, and compare them to
the assumptions about these factors
used in the maintenance plan. The
Commonwealth will also evaluate the
periodic (every three years) emission
inventories prepared under EPA’s
Consolidated Emission Reporting
Regulation (40 CFR part 51, subpart A)
to see if they exceed the attainment year
inventory (2004) by more than 10
percent. The PADEP will also continue
to operate the existing ozone monitoring
station in Mercer County pursuant to 40
CFR part 58 throughout the
maintenance period and submit qualityassured ozone data to EPA through the
AQS system. Section 175A(b) of the
CAA states that eight years following
redesignation of Mercer County, PADEP
will be required to submit a second
maintenance plan that will ensure
attainment through 2028. PADEP has
made the commitment to meet the
requirement section 175A(b).
(e) The Maintenance Plan’s
Contingency Measures—The
contingency plan provisions are
designed to promptly correct a violation
of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA
requires that a maintenance plan
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:35 Jul 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
include such contingency measures as
EPA deems necessary to ensure that the
Commonwealth will promptly correct a
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan
should identify the events that would
‘‘trigger’’ the adoption and
implementation of a contingency
measure(s), the contingency measure(s)
that would be adopted and
implemented, and the schedule
indicating the time frame by which the
state would adopt and implement the
measure(s).
The ability of Mercer County to stay
in compliance with the 8-hour ozone
standard after redesignation depends
upon VOC and NOX emissions in the
Youngstown Area remaining at or below
2004 levels. The Commonwealth’s
maintenance plan projects VOC and
NOX emissions to decrease and stay
below 2004 levels through the year
2018. The Commonwealth’s
maintenance plan outlines the
procedures for the adoption and
implementation of contingency
measures to further reduce emissions
should a violation occur.
Contingency measures will be
considered if for two consecutive years
the fourth highest 8-hour ozone
concentrations at any of the
Youngstown Area monitors are above 84
ppb. If this trigger point occurs, the
Commonwealth will evaluate, in
cooperation with the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency,
whether additional local emission
control measures should be
implemented in order to prevent a
violation of the air quality standard.
PADEP will also analyze the conditions
leading to the excessive ozone levels
and evaluate which measures might be
most effective in correcting the
excessive ozone levels. PADEP will also
analyze the potential emissions effect of
Federal, state (including states upwind
of Pennsylvania), and local measures
that have been adopted but not yet
implemented at the time the excessive
ozone levels occurred. PADEP will then
begin the process of implementing any
selected measures.
Contingency measures will also be
considered in the event that a violation
of the 8-hour ozone standard occurs at
any of the Youngstown Area monitors.
In the event of a violation of the 8-hour
ozone standard, PADEP will adopt
additional emissions reduction
measures as expeditiously as practicable
in accordance with the implementation
schedule listed later in this notice and
in the Pennsylvania Air Pollution
Control Act in order to return the
Youngstown Area to attainment with
the standard. Contingency measures to
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41255
be considered for Mercer County will
include, but not be limited to the
following:
Regulatory measures:
—Additional controls on consumer
products.
—Additional controls on portable fuel
containers.
Non-Regulatory measures:
—Voluntary diesel engine ‘‘chip
reflash’’ (installation software to
correct the defeat device option on
certain heavy-duty diesel engines).
—Diesel retrofit, including replacement,
repowering or alternative fuel use, for
public or private local on-road or offroad fleets.
—Idling reduction technology for Class
2 yard locomotives.
—Idling reduction technologies or
strategies for truck stops, warehouses
and other freight-handling facilities.
—Accelerated turnover of lawn and
garden equipment, especially
commercial equipment, including
promotion of electric equipment.
—Additional promotion of alternative
fuel (e.g., biodiesel) for home heating
and agricultural use.
The plan lays out a process to have
any regulatory contingency measures in
effect within 19 months of the trigger.
The plan also lays out a process to
implement the non-regulatory
contingency measures within 12–24
months of the trigger.
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets Established and Identified in
the Mercer County Maintenance Plan
Adequate and Approvable?
A. What are the Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets?
Under the CAA, States are required to
submit, at various times, control strategy
SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone
areas. These control strategy SIPs (i.e.,
RFP SIPs and attainment demonstration
SIPs) and maintenance plans identify
and establish MVEBs for certain criteria
pollutants and/or their precursors to
address pollution from on-road mobile
sources. In the maintenance plan, the
MVEBs are termed ‘‘on-road mobile
source emission budgets.’’ Pursuant to
40 CFR part 93 and § 51.112, MVEBs
must be established in an ozone
maintenance plan. An MVEB is the
portion of the total allowable emissions
that is allocated to highway and transit
vehicle use and emissions. An MVEB
serves as a ceiling on emissions from an
area’s planned transportation system.
The MVEB concept is further explained
in the preamble to the November 24,
1993, transportation conformity rule (58
FR 62188). The preamble also describes
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
41256
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
how to establish and revise the MVEBs
in control strategy SIPs and
maintenance plans.
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new
transportation projects, such as the
construction of new highways, must
‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with)
the part of the State’s air quality plan
that addresses pollution from cars and
trucks. ‘‘Conformity’’ to the SIP means
that transportation activities will not
cause new air quality violations, worsen
existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of or reasonable progress
towards the NAAQS. If a transportation
plan does not ‘‘conform,’’ most new
projects that would expand the capacity
of roadways cannot go forward.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth
EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for
demonstrating and ensuring conformity
of such transportation activities to a SIP.
When reviewing submitted ‘‘control
strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans
containing MVEBs, EPA must
affirmatively find the MVEB contained
therein ‘‘adequate’’ for use in
determining transportation conformity.
After EPA affirmatively finds the
submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that
MVEB can be used by state and federal
agencies in determining whether
proposed transportation projects
‘‘conform’’ to the SIP as required by
section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA’s
substantive criteria for determining
‘‘adequacy’’ of a MVEB are set out in 40
CFR 93.118(e)(4).
EPA’s process for determining
‘‘adequacy’’ consists of three basic steps:
public notification of a SIP submission,
a public comment period, and EPA’s
adequacy finding. This process for
determining the adequacy of submitted
SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in
EPA’s May 14, 1999 guidance,
‘‘Conformity Guidance on
Implementation of March 2, 1999,
Conformity Court Decision.’’ This
guidance was finalized in the
Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments for the ‘‘New 8-Hour
Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and Miscellaneous
Revisions for Existing Areas;
Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments—Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule Change’’
on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA
consults this guidance and follows this
rulemaking in making its adequacy
determinations.
The MVEBs for Mercer County are
listed in Table 1 of this document for
2009 and 2018, and are the projected
emissions for the on-road mobile
sources plus any portion of the safety
margin allocated to the MVEBs (safety
margin allocation for 2009 and 2018
only). Note that in a separate
rulemaking action (72 FR 19435, April
18, 2007) EPA proposed approval of
Trumbull, Mahoning, and Columbiana
Counties, Ohio MVEBs. These emission
budgets, when approved by EPA, must
be used for transportation conformity
determinations.
B. What is a Safety Margin?
A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference
between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the
projected level of emissions (from all
sources) in the maintenance plan. The
attainment level of emissions is the
level of emissions during one of the
years in which the area met the NAAQS.
The following example is for the 2018
safety margin: Mercer County first
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
during the 2004 to 2006 time period.
The Commonwealth used 2004 as the
year to determine attainment levels of
emissions for Mercer County. The total
emissions from point, area, mobile onroad, and mobile non-road sources in
2004 equaled 19.0 tpsd of VOC and 22.4
tpsd of NOX. The PADEP projected
emissions out to the year 2018 and
projected a total of 17.1 tpsd of VOC and
13.1 tpsd of NOX from all sources in
Mercer County. The safety margin for
2018 would be the difference between
these amounts, or 1.9 tpsd of VOC and
9.3 tpsd of NOX. The emissions up to
the level of the attainment year
including the safety margins are
projected to maintain the area’s air
quality consistent with the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The safety margin is the extra
emissions reduction below the
attainment levels that can be allocated
for emissions by various sources as long
as the total emission levels are
maintained at or below the attainment
levels. Table 8 shows the safety margins
for the 2009 and 2018 years.
TABLE 8.—2009 AND 2018 SAFETY MARGINS FOR MERCER COUNTY
VOC
emissions
(tpsd)
Inventory year
2004
2009
2009
2004
2018
2018
Attainment .......................................................................................................................................................
Interim .............................................................................................................................................................
Safety Margin .................................................................................................................................................
Attainment .......................................................................................................................................................
Final ................................................................................................................................................................
Safety Margin .................................................................................................................................................
The PADEP allocated 0.3 tpsd VOC
and 0.4 tpsd NOX to the 2009 interim
VOC projected on-road mobile source
emissions projection and the 2009
interim NOX projected on-road mobile
source emissions projection to arrive at
the 2009 MVEBs. For the 2018 MVEBs
the PADEP allocated 0.4 tpsd VOC and
0.4 tpsd NOX from the 2018 safety
margins to arrive at the 2018 MVEBs.
Once allocated to the mobile source
budgets these portions of the safety
19.0
18.0
1.0
19.0
17.1
1.9
NOX
emissions
(tpsd)
22.4
19.1
3.3
22.4
13.1
9.3
margins are no longer available, and
may no longer be allocated to any other
source category. Table 9 shows the final
2009 and 2018 MVEBs for Mercer
County.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
TABLE 9.—2009 AND 2018 FINAL MVEBS FOR MERCER COUNTY
VOC
emissions
(tpsd)
Inventory year
2009 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions ..................................................................................
2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs ................................................................................................................
2009 MVEBs ............................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:35 Jul 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
4.2
0.3
4.5
NOX
emissions
(tpsd)
11.2
0.4
11.6
41257
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 9.—2009 AND 2018 FINAL MVEBS FOR MERCER COUNTY—Continued
VOC
emissions
(tpsd)
Inventory year
2018 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions ..................................................................................
2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs ................................................................................................................
2018 MVEBs ............................................................................................................................................................
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?
The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for Mercer
County are approvable because the
MVEBs for VOCs and NOX continue to
maintain the total emissions at or below
the attainment year inventory levels as
required by the transportation
conformity regulations. Note that in a
separate rulemaking action (72 FR
19435, April 18, 2007) EPA proposed
approval of Trumbull, Mahoning, and
Columbiana Counties, Ohio MVEBs.
D. What Is the Adequacy and Approval
Process for the MVEBs in the Mercer
County Maintenance Plan?
The MVEBs for the Mercer County
maintenance plan are being posted to
EPA’s conformity Web site concurrently
with this proposal. The public comment
period will end at the same time as the
public comment period for this
proposed rule. In this case, EPA is
concurrently processing the action on
the maintenance plan and the adequacy
process for the MVEBs contained
therein. In this proposed rule, EPA is
proposing to find the MVEBs adequate
and also proposing to approve the
MVEBs as part of the maintenance plan.
The MVEBs cannot be used for
transportation conformity until the
maintenance plan and associated
MVEBs are approved in a final Federal
Register notice, or EPA otherwise finds
the budgets adequate in a separate
action following the comment period.
If EPA receives adverse written
comments with respect to the proposed
approval of the Mercer County MVEBs,
or any other aspect of our proposed
approval of this updated maintenance
plan, we will respond to the comments
on the MVEBs in our final action or
proceed with the adequacy process as a
separate action. Our action on the
Mercer County MVEBs will also be
announced on EPA’s conformity Web
site: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/index.htm
(once there, click on ‘‘Adequacy Review
of SIP Submissions’’).
VIII. Proposed Actions
EPA is proposing to determine that
Mercer County has attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to
approve the redesignation of Mercer
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:35 Jul 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
County from nonattainment to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. EPA has evaluated
Pennsylvania’s redesignation request
and determined that it meets the
redesignation criteria set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes
that the redesignation request and
monitoring data demonstrate that
Mercer County has attained the 8-hour
ozone standard. The final approval of
this redesignation request would change
the designation of Mercer County from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8hour ozone standard. EPA is also
proposing to approve the associated
maintenance plan for Mercer County,
submitted on March 27, 2007, as a
revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is
proposing to approve the maintenance
plan for Mercer County because it meets
the requirements of section 175A as
described previously in this notice. EPA
is also proposing to approve the 2002
base-year inventory for Mercer County,
and the MVEBs submitted by
Pennsylvania for Mercer County in
conjunction with its redesignation
request. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in
this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is
also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)). This action merely proposes
to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this
proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.). Because this rule proposes to
approve pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2.6
0.4
3.0
NOX
emissions
(tpsd)
4.9
0.4
5.3
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4). This proposed rule also
does not have a substantial direct effect
on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will
it have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), because it merely
proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a Federal requirement,
and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This proposed rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it
approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard. In reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this
context, in the absence of a prior
existing requirement for the State to use
voluntary consensus standards (VCS),
EPA has no authority to disapprove a
SIP submission for failure to use VCS.
It would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA, when it reviews
a SIP submission, to use VCS in place
of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air
Act. Redesignation is an action that
affects the status of a geographical area
and does not impose any new
requirements on sources. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. As required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this proposed rule, EPA has taken the
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
41258
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct. EPA
has complied with Executive Order
12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by
examining the takings implications of
the rule in accordance with the
‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings’’ issued under the executive
order.
This rule, proposing to approve the
redesignation of Mercer County to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, the associated maintenance
plan, the 2002 base-year inventory, and
the MVEBs identified in the
maintenance plan, does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 16, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E7–14589 Filed 7–26–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018–AU98
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for
Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of
availability of the draft economic
analysis; notice of public hearings.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
revise currently designated critical
habitat for Astragalus magdalenae var.
peirsonii (Peirson’s milk-vetch)
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act). In total,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:35 Jul 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
approximately 16,108 acres (ac) (6,519
hectares (ha)) in Imperial County,
California, fall within the boundaries of
the proposed revised critical habitat
designation. Lands being proposed as
critical habitat are under Federal
(15,857 ac (6,418 ha)), private (240 ac
(97 ha)), and State (11 ac (4 ha))
ownership.
Section 4 of the Act requires us to
consider the economic and other
relevant impacts of specifying any area
as critical habitat. We have conducted
an analysis of the economic impacts of
designating the aforementioned areas as
critical habitat for Astragalus
magdalenae var. peirsonii, and are
announcing the availability of the draft
economic analysis for public review. We
hereby solicit data and comments from
the public on all aspects of this revised
proposal, including data on the
economic and other impacts of the
designation.
We are also announcing that public
hearings will be held on both the
proposed critical habitat rule and the
draft economic analysis.
DATES: We will accept comments from
all interested parties until September
25, 2007. The public hearings will take
place on August 23, 2007, from 1 p.m.
to 3 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at
the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office in
Carlsbad, California (see ADDRESSESS).
ADDRESSES: Public Hearings. The public
hearings will be held at the Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden
Valley Road, Carlsbad, California,
92011.
Comments. If you wish to comment
on the proposed rule and/or the draft
economic analysis, you may submit
your comments and materials, identified
by RIN 1018–AU98, by any of the
following methods:
(1) You may send comments by
electronic mail (e-mail) to
fw8cfwocomments@fws.gov. Include
‘‘RIN 1018–AU98’’ in the subject line.
(2) You may fax your comments to Jim
Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish
and Wildlife Office at 760–431–5901.
(3) You may mail or hand-deliver
your written comments and information
to Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office at the address
above.
(4) You may submit your comments at
the Federal eRulemaking Portal, https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Comments and materials received, as
well as supporting documentation used
in the preparation of this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection,
by appointment, during normal business
hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Office at the above address (telephone
760–431–9440). Copies of the draft
economic analysis are available for
downloading from the Internet at
https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/ or by
contacting the Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office directly at the above
phone number or address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim
Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish
and Wildlife Office, at the address listed
under ADDRESSES (telephone 760–431–
9440; facsimile 760–431–5901). Persons
who use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments Solicited
We intend that any final action
resulting from this proposal will be as
accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, comments or suggestions
from the public, other concerned
governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, or any other
interested party concerning this
proposed critical habitat rule and its
associated draft economic analysis are
hereby solicited. On the basis of public
comment, during the development of
the final rule we may find that areas
proposed are not essential or are
appropriate for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) in which case they would be
removed from the final critical habitat
designation.
Comments particularly are sought
concerning:
(1) The reasons any habitat should or
should not be determined to be critical
habitat as provided by section 4 of the
Act, including whether the benefit of
designation will outweigh any threats to
the taxon caused by designation.
(2) Specific information on the
amount and distribution of Astragalus
magdalenae var. peirsonii habitat, and
what areas that were occupied at the
time of listing that contain features
essential for the conservation of the
taxon should be included in the
designation and why, and what areas
that were not occupied at the time of
listing are essential to the conservation
of the taxon and why.
(3) Additional information on the
specific physical and biological features
(primary constituent elements) that are
essential to the conservation of
Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii
(see ‘‘Primary Constituent Elements’’
section of this proposed rule for more
details).
(4) Land use designations and current
or planned activities in the subject areas
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 144 (Friday, July 27, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41246-41258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-14589]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0344; FRL-8447-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Mercer County Portion of the
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, OH-PA 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to
Attainment and Approval of the Associated Maintenance Plan and 2002
Base-Year Inventory
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a redesignation request and State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) is requesting that the Mercer County portion of the Youngstown-
Warren-Sharon, OH-PA ozone nonattainment area (``Youngstown Area'' or
``Area'') be redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The Area is comprised of Mercer
County, Pennsylvania and Trumbull, Mahoning, and Columbiana Counties,
Ohio. In this rulemaking action EPA is proposing to approve the ozone
redesignation request, maintenance plan, and 2002 base year inventory
for Mercer County. In a separate rulemaking action (72 FR 19435, April
18, 2007) EPA proposed to approve the ozone redesignation request for
Trumbull, Mahoning, and Columbiana Counties. In conjunction with its
redesignation request, the Commonwealth submitted a SIP revision
consisting of a maintenance plan for Mercer County that provides for
continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years
after redesignation. EPA is proposing to make a determination that
Mercer County has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based upon three
years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data
for 2004-2006. EPA's proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone
redesignation request is based on its determination that the Area has
met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean
Air Act (CAA). In addition, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has also
submitted a 2002 base-year inventory for Mercer County, and EPA is
proposing to approve that inventory for Mercer County as a SIP
revision. EPA is also providing information on the status of its
adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs)
that are identified in the maintenance plan for Mercer County for
purposes of transportation conformity, and is also proposing to approve
those MVEBs. Note that separate conformity budgets are being
established by Ohio for Trumbull, Mahoning, and Columbiana Counties.
EPA is proposing approval of the redesignation request and of the
maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory SIP revisions in
accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 27, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2007-0344 by one of the following methods:
A. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
B. E-mail: Cripps.Christopher@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0344, Christopher Cripps, Acting Chief,
Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2007-0344. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468,
400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Caprio, (215) 814-2156, or by e-
mail at caprio.amy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever
[[Page 41247]]
``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table Of Contents
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing To Take?
II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Commonwealth's Request?
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and
Identified in the Maintenance Plan for Mercer County Adequate and
Approvable?
VIII. Proposed Actions
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing To Take?
On March 27, 2007, the PADEP formally submitted a request to
redesignate Mercer County from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-
hour NAAQS for ozone. Concurrently, Pennsylvania submitted a
maintenance plan for Mercer County as a SIP revision to ensure
continued attainment throughout the Youngstown Area over the next 11
years. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base-year inventory for Mercer
County as a SIP revision. The Youngstown Area is comprised of Mercer
County, Pennsylvania and Trumbull, Mahoning, and Columbiana Counties,
Ohio. It is currently designated a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area. EPA is proposing to determine that Mercer County has attained the
8-hour ozone NAAQS and that it has met the requirements for
redesignation pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is,
therefore, proposing to approve the redesignation request to change the
designation of Mercer County from nonattainment to attainment for the
8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the Mercer County
maintenance plan as a SIP revision for Mercer County (such approval
being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status).
The maintenance plan is designed to ensure continued attainment in
Mercer County for the next 11 years. EPA is also proposing to approve
the 2002 base-year inventory for Mercer County as a SIP revision.
Additionally, EPA is announcing its action on the adequacy process for
the MVEBs identified in the Mercer County maintenance plan, and
proposing to approve the MVEBs identified for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) for Mercer County
for transportation conformity purposes. Note that in a separate
rulemaking action (72 FR 19435, April 18, 2007) EPA is proposing to
approve Trumbull, Mahoning, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio MVEBs.
II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions?
A. General
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emissions of NOX and VOC react in the presence of sunlight
to form ground-level ozone. The air pollutants NOX and VOC
are referred to as precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process
for air quality management through the attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent
than the previous 1-hour standard. EPA designated, as nonattainment,
any area violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the air quality data
for the three years of 2001-2003. These were the most recent three
years of data at the time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The Youngstown
Area was designated a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area in a
Federal Register notice signed on April 15, 2004 and published on April
30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its exceedance of the 8-hour health-
based standard for ozone during the years 2001-2003.
On April 30, 2004, EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) to
revoke the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Youngstown Area (as well as most
other areas of the country), effective June 15, 2005. See, 40 CFR
50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 (April 30, 2004); 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005).
However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule
for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). South
Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006)
(hereafter ``South Coast''). On June 8, 2007, in South Coast Air
Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, Docket No. 04-1201, in response to
several petitions for rehearing, the DC Circuit clarified that the
Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule
that had been successfully challenged. Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule
provisions related to classifications for areas currently classified
under subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the Act as 8-hour nonattainment
areas, the 8-hour attainment dates and the timing for emissions
reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS remain
effective. The June 8 decision left intact the Court's rejection of
EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in certain
nonattainment areas under Subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By limiting
the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-hour
standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that
had not been successfully challenged. The June 8 decision reaffirmed
the December 22, 2006 decision that EPA had improperly failed to retain
four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-
backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New
Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an area's 1-hour
nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour
severe or extreme nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be implemented
pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the
contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress toward
attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS;
and (4) certain transportation conformity requirements for certain
types of federal actions. The June 8 decision clarified that the
Court's reference to conformity requirements was limited to requiring
the continued use of 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8-
hour budgets were available for 8-hour conformity determinations.
Elsewhere in this document, mainly in section VI.B. ``Mercer County Has
Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA,'' EPA
discusses its rationale why the decision in South Coast is not an
impediment to redesignating Mercer County to attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
The CAA, title I, Part D, contains two sets of provisions--subpart
1 and subpart 2--that address planning and control requirements for
nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as ``basic''
nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive requirements for
nonattainment areas for any pollutant--including ozone--governed by a
NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as ``classified'' nonattainment)
provides more specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. In
2004, the Youngstown Area was classified a basic 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003.
Therefore, the Youngstown Area is subject to the requirements of
subpart 1 of Part D.
Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when
the 3-
[[Page 41248]]
year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08
ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). See 69 FR 23857
(April 30, 2004) for further information. Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet data completeness
requirements. The data completeness requirements are met when the
average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater
than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data
completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. The ozone
monitoring data indicates that the Youngstown Area has a design value
of 0.083 ppm for the 3-year period of 2004-2006, using complete,
quality-assured data. Therefore, the ambient ozone data for the
Youngstown Area indicates no violations of the 8-hour ozone standard.
B. The Youngstown Area
The Youngstown Area consists of Mercer County, Pennsylvania and
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio. Prior to its
designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the Youngstown Area
was a marginal 1-hour ozone nonattainment area, and therefore, was
subject to requirements for marginal nonattainment areas pursuant to
section 182(a) of the CAA. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). EPA
determined that the Youngstown Area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
by the November 15, 1993 attainment date (60 FR 3349, January 17,
1995). The Ohio counties were subsequently redesignated as attainment
(Mahoning and Trumbull Counties on January 31, 1996 (61 FR 3319) and
Columbiana County on February 8, 1995 (60 FR 7453)).
On March 27, 2007, the PADEP requested that Mercer County be
redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The
redesignation request included three years of complete, quality-assured
data for the period of 2004-2006, indicating that the 8-hour NAAQS for
ozone had been achieved in the Youngstown Area. The data satisfies the
CAA requirements that the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration (commonly referred to
as the area's design value), must be less than or equal to 0.08 ppm
(i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). Under the CAA, a
nonattainment area may be redesignated if sufficient complete, quality-
assured data is available to determine that the area attained the
standard and the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements
set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E).
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA,
allows for redesignation, providing that:
(1) EPA determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS;
(2) EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k);
(3) EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable
reductions;
(4) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section 175A; and
(5) The State containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and Part D.
EPA provided guidance on redesignations in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents:
``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,''
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June, 18, 1990;
``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas
to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in
Response to Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John
Calcagni Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
``Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for Redesignation
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from
G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17,
1993;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on
or after November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17,
1993;
Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air
Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10,
``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and
CO Nonattainment Areas,'' dated November 30, 1993;
``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for
Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration,
and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S.
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10,
1995.
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
On March 27, 2007, the PADEP requested redesignation of Mercer
County to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. On March 27, 2007,
PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for Mercer County as a SIP revision,
to ensure continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS over the next
11 years, until 2018. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base-year inventory
concurrently with its maintenance plan as a SIP revision. EPA has
determined that Mercer County has attained the 8-hour ozone standard
and has met the requirements for redesignation set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E).
V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?
Approval of the redesignation request would change the official
designation of Mercer County from nonattainment to attainment for the
8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate
into the Pennsylvania SIP a 2002 base-year inventory and a maintenance
plan ensuring continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Mercer
County for the next 11 years, until 2018. The maintenance plan
[[Page 41249]]
includes contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 8-
hour NAAQS (should they occur), and identifies the NOX and
VOC MVEBs (Mercer County only) for transportation conformity purposes
for the years 2009 and 2018. These MVEBs are displayed in the following
table:
Table 1.--Mercer County Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per
Summer Day (tpsd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009.................................................. 4.2 11.2
2018.................................................. 2.6 4.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Commonwealth's Request?
EPA is proposing to determine that Mercer County has attained the
8-hour ozone standard, and that all other redesignation criteria have
been met. The following is a description of how the PADEP's March 27,
2007 submittal satisfies the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA.
A. Mercer County Has Attained the 8-Hour NAAQS
EPA is proposing to determine that Mercer County has attained the
8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered to be
attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of Part 50,
based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured
air quality monitoring data. To attain this standard, the design value,
which is the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor, within the area,
over each year must not exceed the ozone standard of 0.08 ppm. Based on
the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the
standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The
data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58, and recorded in the Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors
generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of
the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment.
In the Youngstown Area, there are four ozone monitors, one located
in Mahoning County, Ohio, two located in Trumbull County, Ohio and one
in Mercer County, Pennsylvania that measure air quality with respect to
ozone. As part of its redesignation request, Pennsylvania referenced
ozone monitoring data for the years 2004-2006 for the Youngstown Area.
This data has been quality assured and is recorded in the AQS. The
PADEP uses the AQS as the permanent database to maintain its data and
quality assures the data transfers and content for accuracy. The
fourth-high 8-hour daily maximum concentrations, along with the three-
year average are summarized in Tables 2-5.
Table 2.--Youngstown Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Average Values Mercer
County, Pennsylvania Monitor/AQS ID 42-085-0100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 4th
highest
Year reading
(ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004....................................................... 0.076
2005....................................................... 0.087
2006....................................................... 0.079
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.079 ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--Youngstown Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Average Values Mahoning
County, Ohio Monitor/AQS ID 39-099-0013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 4th
highest
Year reading
(ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004....................................................... 0.074
2005....................................................... 0.083
2006....................................................... 0.076
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.077 ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--Youngstown Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Average Values Trumbull
County, Ohio Monitor/AQS ID 39-155-0009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 4th
highest
Year reading
(ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004....................................................... 0.078
2005....................................................... 0.083
2006....................................................... 0.074
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.078 ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5.--Youngstown Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Average Values Trumbull
County, Ohio Monitor/AQS ID 39-155-0011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 4th
highest
Year reading
(ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004....................................................... 0.080
2005....................................................... 0.087
2006....................................................... 0.082
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.083 ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The air quality data for 2004-2006 show that the Youngstown Area
has attained the standard with a design value of 0.083 ppm. The data
collected at the Youngstown Area monitors satisfy the CAA requirement
that the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The
PADEP's request for redesignation for Mercer County indicates that the
data is complete and was quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR part
58. In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance
plan, PADEP has committed to continue monitoring in accordance with 40
CFR part 58. In summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by
Pennsylvania and data taken from AQS indicate that the Youngstown Area
has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
B. Mercer County Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110
and Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k)
of the CAA
EPA has determined that Mercer County has met all SIP requirements
applicable for purposes of this redesignation under section 110 of the
CAA (General SIP Requirements) and that it meets all applicable SIP
requirements under Part D of Title I of the CAA, in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has determined that the SIP
is fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii).
In making these proposed determinations, EPA ascertained which
requirements are applicable to Mercer County and determined that the
applicable portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are fully
approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. We note that SIPs must be
fully approved only with respect to applicable requirements.
[[Page 41250]]
The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) with respect to the timing of applicable requirements.
Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation, States
requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant CAA
requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete
redesignation request. See also, Michael Shapiro memorandum, September
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-12466 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation
of Detroit-Ann Arbor). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due
subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request
remain applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not
required as a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the
CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also, 68 FR
at 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).
This section sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the
Court's rulings on this proposed redesignation action. For the reasons
set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's rulings alter
any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to
preclude redesignation, and do not prevent EPA from proposing or
ultimately finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's
December 22, 2006 and June 8, 2007 decisions impose no impediment to
moving forward with redesignation of this area to attainment, because
even in light of the Court's decisions, redesignation is appropriate
under the relevant redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding
policies regarding redesignation requests.
1. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general
requirements for a SIP, which includes enforceable emissions
limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques,
provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices
necessary to collect data on ambient air quality, and programs to
enforce the limitations. The general SIP elements and requirements set
forth in section 110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to the
following:
Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State
after reasonable public notice and hearing;
Provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate
procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;
Implementation of a source permit program; provisions for
the implementation of Part C requirements (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD));
Provisions for the implementation of Part D requirements
for New Source Review (NSR) permit programs;
Provisions for air pollution modeling; and
Provisions for public and local agency participation in
planning and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another State. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants in accordance with the NOX SIP Call, October
27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOX SIP Call, May
14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). However, the
section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are not linked with a
particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that
State. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to
apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular
area in the State. Thus, we do not believe that these requirements are
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an
area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes
of redesignation. The Area will still be subject to these requirements
after it is redesignated. The section 110 and Part D requirements which
are linked with a particular area's designation and classification are
the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request.
This policy is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability
of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels
requirement. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings
(61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and
Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See
also, the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65
FR at 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR
at 53099, October 19, 2001). Similarly, with respect to the
NOX SIP Call rules, EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule to
Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the NOX SIP Call
rules are not ``an'' 'applicable requirement' for purposes of section
110(1) because the NOX rules apply regardless of an area's
attainment or nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the 1-hour)
NAAQS.'' 69 FR 23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004).
EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
As we explain later in this notice, no Part D requirements applicable
for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due for
Mercer County prior to submission of the redesignation request.
2. Part D Nonattainment Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard
Pursuant to an April 30, 2004, final rule (69 FR 23951), the
Youngstown Area was designated a basic nonattainment area under subpart
1 for the 8-hour ozone standard. Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in
subpart 1 of Part D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the CAA, found in
subpart 2 of Part D, establishes additional specific requirements
depending on the area's nonattainment classification.
With respect to the 8-hour standard, the court's ruling rejected
EPA's reasons for classifying areas under Subpart 1 for the 8-hour
standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency. Consequently, it is
possible that this Area could, during a remand to EPA, be reclassified
under subpart 2. Although any future decision by EPA to classify this
Area under subpart 2 might trigger additional future requirements for
the area, EPA believes that this does not mean that redesignation of
the Area cannot now go forward. This belief is based upon (1) EPA's
longstanding policy of evaluating redesignation requests in accordance
with the requirements due at the time the request is submitted; and (2)
consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any
requirements that might in the future be applied.
First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, Mercer
County was classified under subpart 1 and was obligated to meet only
subpart 1 requirements. Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of
section
[[Page 41251]]
107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to qualify for redesignation, states
requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant SIP
requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete
redesignation request. See September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum
(``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division) See also Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September 17,
1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-12466 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004),
which upheld this interpretation. See 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May
12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).
Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new
SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was
submitted. The D.C. Circuit has recognized the inequity in such
retroactive rulemaking, see Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F. 3d 63 (D.C.
Cir. 2002), in which the D.C. Circuit upheld a District Court's ruling
refusing to make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date. Such a determination would have
resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area. The
Court stated: ``Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment
determination within the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed
solution only makes the situation worse. Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the States, which would face fines and
suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even
though they were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly here
it would be unfair to penalize the area by applying to it for purposes
of redesignation additional SIP requirements under subpart 2 that were
not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation request.
With respect to 8-hour subpart 2 requirements, if Mercer County
initially had been classified under subpart 2, the first two Part D
subpart 2 requirements applicable to Mercer County under section 182(a)
of the CAA would be: a base-year inventory requirement pursuant to
section 182(a)(1) of the CAA, and, the emissions statement requirement
pursuant to section 182(a)(3)(B).
As stated previously, these requirements are not yet due for
purposes of redesignation of Mercer County, but nevertheless,
Pennsylvania already has in its approved SIP, an emissions statement
rule for the 1-hour standard that covers all portions of the designated
8-hour nonattainment area and, that satisfies the emissions statement
requirement for the 8-hour standard. See, 25 Pa. Code 135.21(a)(1),
codified at 40 CFR 52.2020; 60 FR 2881, January 12, 1995. With respect
to the base-year inventory requirement, in this notice of proposed
rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base-year inventory
for Mercer County, which was submitted on March 27, 2007, concurrently
with its maintenance plan, into the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing
to approve the 2002 base-year inventory as fulfilling the requirements,
if necessary, of both section 182(a)(1) and section 172(c)(3) of the
CAA. A detailed evaluation of Pennsylvania's 2002 base-year inventory
for Mercer County can be found in a Technical Support Document (TSD)
prepared by EPA for this rulemaking. EPA has determined that the
emission inventory and emissions statement requirements for Mercer
County have been satisfied.
In addition to the fact that Part D requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation did not become due prior to submission of the
redesignation request, EPA believes that the general conformity and NSR
requirements do not require approval prior to redesignation.
With respect to section 176, Conformity Requirements, section
176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures
to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects conform to the
air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and
projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the
Federal Transit Act (``transportation conformity'') as well as to all
other Federally supported or funded projects (``general conformity'').
State conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability
that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate. EPA believes it is
reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying
for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section
107(d) since State conformity rules are still required after
redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where State rules have
not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426, 438-440 (6th Cir.
2001), upholding this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748 (December 7,
1995).
In the case of Mercer County, EPA has also determined that before
being redesignated, Mercer County need not comply with the requirement
that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation. EPA has
determined that areas being redesignated need not comply with the
requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation,
provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard without
Part D NSR in effect. The rationale for this position is described in a
memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D NSR Requirements
or Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' Normally, State's
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program will become
effective in the area immediately upon redesignation to attainment. See
the more detailed explanations in the following redesignation
rulemakings: Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467-12468 (March 7, 1995); Cleveland-
Akron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville,
KY (66 FR 53665, 53669, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, MI (61 FR
31831, 31836-31837, June 21, 1996). In the case of Mercer County the
Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP (codified at
40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1)) explicitly apply the requirements for NSR in
section 184 of the CAA to ozone attainment areas within the OTR. The
OTR NSR requirements are more stringent than that required for a
marginal or basic ozone nonattainment area. On October 19, 2001 (66 FR
53094), EPA fully approved Pennsylvania's NSR SIP revision consisting
of Pennsylvania's Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations that cover Mercer
County.
EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements,
including the NSR program, as not being applicable for purposes of
redesignation. The rationale for this is based on two considerations.
First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions for the section 184
requirements continues to apply to areas in the OTR after redesignation
to attainment. Therefore, the State remains obligated to have NSR, as
well as RACT, and Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) programs
even after redesignation. Second, the section 184 control measures are
region-wide requirements and do not apply to Mercer County by virtue of
the Area's designation and classification. See 61 FR 53174, 53175-53176
(October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830-24832 (May 7, 1997).
[[Page 41252]]
3. Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard
In its June 8, 2007 decision the Court limited its vacatur so as to
uphold those provisions of the anti-backsliding requirements that were
not successfully challenged. Therefore the Area must meet the federal
anti-backsliding requirements, see 40 CFR 51.900, et seq.; 70 FR 30592,
30604 (May 26, 2005) which apply by virtue of the area's classification
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. As set forth in more detail below, the area
must also address four additional anti-backsliding provisions
identified by the Court in its decisions.
The anti-backsliding provisions at 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1) prescribe 1-
hour ozone NAAQS requirements that continue to apply after revocation
of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS to former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas.
Section 51.905(a)(1)(i) provides that:
The area remains subject to the obligation to adopt and
implement the applicable requirements as defined in section
51.900(f), except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of paragraph
(b) of this section. * * *
Section 51.900(f), as amended by 70 FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005),
states that:
Applicable requirements means for an area the following
requirements to the extent such requirements applied to the area for
the area's classification under section 181(a)(1) of the CAA for the
1-hour NAAQS at the time of designation for the 8-hour NAAQS.
(1) Reasonably available control technology (RACT).
(2) Inspection and maintenance programs (I/M).
(3) Major source applicability cut-offs for purposes of RACT.
(4) Rate of Progress (ROP) reductions.
(5) Stage II vapor recovery.
(6) Clean fuels fleet program under section 183(c)(4) of the CAA.
(7) Clean fuels for boilers under section 182(e)(3) of the CAA.
(8) Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) during heavy traffic
hours as provided section 182(e)(4) of the CAA.
(9) Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under section 182(c)(1) of the
CAA.
(10) Transportation control measures (TCMs) under section 182(c)(5)
of the CAA.
(11) Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provisions of section 182(d)(1) of
the CAA.
(12) NOX requirements under section 182(f) of the CAA.
(13) Attainment demonstration or alternative as provided under Sec.
51.905(a)(1)(ii).
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.905(c), the Area is subject to the
obligations set forth in Sec. Sec. 51.905(a) and 51.900(f).
Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the
Youngstown Area was designated a marginal nonattainment area for the 1-
hour standard. With respect to the 1-hour standard, the applicable
requirements under the anti-backsliding provisions at 40 CFR
51.905(a)(1) for the Youngstown Area are limited to RACT and I/M
programs specified in section 182(a) of the CAA and are discussed in
the following paragraphs:
Section 182(a)(2)(A) required SIP revisions to correct or amend
RACT for sources in marginal areas, such as the Youngstown Area, that
were subject to control technique guidelines (CTGs) issued before
November 15, 1990 pursuant to CAA section 108. On December 22, 1994,
EPA fully approved into the Pennsylvania SIP all corrections required
under section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA (59 FR 65971, December 22, 1994)
(this covers the Mercer County, PA portion of the Youngstown Area). EPA
believes that this requirement applies only to marginal and higher
classified areas under the 1-hour NAAQS pursuant to the 1990 amendments
to the CAA; therefore, this is a one-time requirement. After an area
has fulfilled the section 182(a)(2)(A) requirement for the 1-hour
NAAQS, there is no requirement under the 8-hour NAAQS.
Section 182(a)(2)(B) relates to the savings clause for vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M). It requires marginal areas to adopt
vehicle I/M programs. This provision was not applicable to the
Youngstown Area because this Area did not have and was not required to
have an I/M program before November 15, 1990.
In addition the Court held that EPA should have retained four
additional measures in its anti-backsliding provisions: (1)
Nonattainment area NSR; (2) Section 185 penalty fees; (3) contingency
measures under section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act; and (4) 1-
hour motor vehicle emission budgets that were yet not replaced by 8-
hour emissions budgets. These requirements are addressed below:
With respect to NSR, EPA has determined that areas being
redesignated need not have an approved nonattainment New Source Review
program, for the same reasons discussed previously with respect to the
applicable Part D requirement for the 8-hour standard.
The section 185 penalty fee requirement applies only in severe and
extreme nonattainment areas, and therefore was never applicable in the
Youngstown 1-hour marginal nonattainment area.
With respect to the requirement for submission of contingency
measures for the 1-hour standard, section 182(a) does not require
contingency measures for marginal areas.
The conformity portion of the Court's ruling does not impact the
redesignation request for Mercer County except to the extent that the
Court in its June 8 decision clarified that for those areas with 1-hour
MVEBs, anti-backsliding requires that those 1-hour budgets must be used
for 8-hour conformity determinations until replaced by 8-hour budgets.
There are no applicable 1-hour MVEBs for Mercer County. (As discussed
elsewhere in this document, EPA is only proposing to approve 8-hour
MVEBs for the Mercer County portion of the Youngstown Area.) To meet
this requirement, conformity determinations in such areas must comply
with the applicable requirements of EPA's conformity regulations at 40
CFR part 93. The court clarified that 1-hour conformity determinations
are not required for anti-backsliding purposes.
Thus EPA has concluded that Mercer County has met all requirements
applicable for redesignation under the 1-hour standard.
4. Transport Region Requirements
All areas in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), both attainment and
nonattainment, are subject to additional control requirements under
section 184 for the purpose of reducing interstate transport of
emissions that may contribute to downwind ozone nonattainment. The
section 184 requirements include RACT, NSR, enhanced vehicle inspection
and maintenance, and Stage II vapor recovery or a comparable measure.
In the case of Mercer County, which is located in the OTR,
nonattainment NSR will continue to be applicable after redesignation.
On October 19, 2001, EPA approved the 1-hour NSR SIP revision for the
Area. See 66 FR 53094 (October 19, 2001).
EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements,
including NSR, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Reading, PA Redesignation, 61 FR 53174, (October 10, 1996), 62 FR 24826
(May 7, 1997). The rationale for this is based on two considerations.
First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions for the section 184
requirements continues to apply to areas in the OTR after redesignation
to attainment. Therefore, the State remains obligated to have NSR, as
well as RACT, and I/M even after redesignation. Second, the section 184
control measures are region-wide requirements and do not apply to the
area by virtue of the area's nonattainment designation and
classification, and thus are properly
[[Page 41253]]
considered not relevant to an action changing an area's designation.
See 61 FR 53174, 53175-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830-
24832 (May 7, 1997).
5. Mercer County Has a Fully Approved SIP for Purposes of Redesignation
EPA has fully approved the Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of
this redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request. Calcagni Memo, p.3; Southwestern Pennsylvania
Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall
v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it
may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. See, 68 FR at
25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein.
C. The Air Quality Improvement in Mercer County Is Due to Permanent and
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of
the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and
Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
EPA believes that the Commonwealth has demonstrated that the
observed air quality improvement in Mercer County is due to permanent
and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation
of the SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures.
Emissions reductions attributable to these rules are shown in Table 6.
Table 6.--Total VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in Tons per Summer Day (TPSD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Pennsylvania Ohio Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002............................................................ 20.8 70.5 91.3
2004............................................................ 19.0 64.6 83.6
Difference (02-04).............................................. -1.8 -5.9 -7.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002............................................................ 25.5 95.5 121.0
2004............................................................ 22.4 82.5 104.9
Difference (02-04).............................................. -3.1 -13.0 -16.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions throughout the Area decreased
by 7.7 tpsd from 91.3 tpsd to 83.6 tpsd; NOX emissions
throughout the Area decreased by 16.1 tpsd from 121.0 tpsd to 104.9
tpsd. These reductions, and anticipated future reductions, are due to
the following permanent and enforceable measures.
1. Stationary Point Sources
Federal NOX SIP Call (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001).
2. Stationary Area Sources
Solvent Cleaning (68 FR 2206, January 16, 2003).
Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004).
3. Highway Vehicle Sources
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (FMVCP).
--Tier 1 (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991).
--Tier 2 (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000).
Heavy-duty Engine and Vehicle Standards (62 FR 54694, October 21,
1997, and 65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000).
National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) Program (PA) (64 FR 72564,
December 28, 1999).
Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance Program (70 FR 58313,
October 6, 2005).
4. Non-Road Sources
Non-road Diesel (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004).
EPA believes that permanent and enforceable emissions reductions
are the cause of the long-term improvement in ozone levels and are the
cause of Mercer County achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone
standard.
D. Mercer County Has a Fully Approvable Maintenance Plan Pursuant to
Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to redesignate Mercer County to
attainment status, Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision to provide for
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Area for at least 11 years
after redesignation. The Commonwealth is requesting that EPA approve
this SIP revision as meeting the requirement of CAA 175A. Once
approved, the maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will ensure
that the SIP for Mercer County meets the requirements of the CAA
regarding maintenance of the applicable 8-hour ozone standard.
What Is Required in a Maintenance Plan?
Section 175 of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after approval of a
redesignation of an area to attainment. Eight years after the
redesignation, the Commonwealth must submit a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility
of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone
violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment. The Calcagni memorandum dated September 4, 1992, provides
additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. An ozone
maintenance plan should address the following provisions:
(a) an attainment emissions inventory;
(b) a maintenance demonstration;
(c) a monitoring network;
(d) verification of continued attainment; and
(e) a contingency plan.
Analysis of the Mercer County Maintenance Plan
(a) Attainment inventory--An attainment inventory includes the
[[Page 41254]]
emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment. PADEP determined that the appropriate attainment
inventory year is 2004. That year establishes a reasonable year within
the three-year block of 2004-2006 as a baseline and accounts for
reductions attributable to implementation of the CAA requirements to
date. The 2004 inventory is consistent with EPA guidance and is based
on actual ``typical summer day'' emissions of VOC and NOX
during 2004 and consists of a list of sources and their associated
emissions.
The 2002 and 2004 point source data was compiled from actual
sources. Pennsylvania requires owners and operators of larger
facilities to submit annual production figures and emission
calculations each year. Throughput data are multiplied by emission
factors from Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) Data Systems and EPA's
publication series AP-42, and are based on Source Classification Codes
(SCC). The 2002 area source data was compiled using county-level
activity data, from census numbers, from county numbers, etc. The 2004
area source data was projected from the 2002 inventory using temporal
allocations provided by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management
Association (MARAMA).
The on-road mobile source inventories for 2002 and 2004 were
compiled using MOBILE6.2 and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
(PENNDOT) estimates for VMT. The PADEP has provided detailed data
summaries to document the calculations of mobile on-road VOC and
NOX emissions for 2002, as well as for the projection years
of 2004, 2009, and 2018 (shown in Table 8 below). The 2002 and 2004
emissions for the majority of non-road emission source categories were
estimated using the EPA NONROAD 2005 model. The NONROAD model
calculates emissions for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum
gasoline, and compressed natural gas-fueled non-road equipment types
and includes growth factors. The NONROAD model does not estimate
emissions from locomotives or aircraft. For 2002 and 2004 locomotive
emissions, the PADEP projected emissions from a 1999 survey using
national fuel consumption information and EPA emission and conversion
factors. There are no significant commercial aircraft operations
(aircraft that can seat over 60 passengers) in Mercer County. Mercer
County airports do not support enough flights or the type of aircraft
to create measurable emissions from these sources. Emissions from
airport ground support equipment are considered to be zero. For 2002
and 2004 aircraft emissions, PADEP estimated emissions using small
airport operations statistics from https://www.airnav.com, and emission
factors and operational characteristics in the EPA-approved model,
Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS).
More detailed information on the compilation of the 2002, 2004,
2009, and 2018 inventories can be found in the Technical Appendices,
which are part of PADEP's March 27, 2007 state submittal.
(b) Maintenance Demonstration--On March 27, 2007, the PADEP
submitted a maintenance plan as required by section 175A of the CAA.
The Mercer County maintenance plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that current and future emissions of VOC
and NOX remain at or below the attainment year 2004
emissions levels throughout Mercer County through the year 2018. A
maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling. See, Wall v.
EPA, supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. See also, 66 FR at 53099-53100;
68 FR at 25430-25432.
Table 7 specifies the VOC and NOX emissions for the
Youngstown Area for 2004, 2009, and 2018. The PADEP chose 2009 as an
interim year in the maintenance demonstration period to demonstrate
that the VOC and NOX emissions are not projected to increase
above the 2004 attainment level during the time of the maintenance
period.
Table 7.--VOC and NOX Emissions for The Youngstown Area (TPSD); 2004, 2009, 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 2009 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA OH Total PA OH Total PA OH Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.
VOC........................ 1.7 6.0 7.8 2.7 6.4 9.1 3.7 7.8 11.4
NOX........................ 2.9 20.3 23.2 4.3 8.3 12.6 5.5 12.7 18.2
Area.
VOC........................ 7.6 24.1 31.7 7.4 22.9 30.2 7.8 23.0 30.9
NOX........................ 0.8 2.5 3.3 0.9 2.8 3.7 0.9 3.0 3.9
Mobile.
VOC........................ 5.9 26.2 32.1 4.5 19.6 24.1 3.0 10.4 13.4
NOX........................ 15.8 43.5 59.3 11.6 33.7 45.3 5.3 13.3 18.5
Nonroad.
VOC........................ 3.8 8.3 12.1 3.4 6.5 9.9 2.6 5.2 7.8
NOX........................ 2.8 16.3 19.1 2.3 12.5 14.8 1.4 8.2 9.6
Total.
VOC........................ 19.1 64.6 83.6 18.0 55.4 73.4 17.1 46.3 63.4
NOX........................ 22.4 82.5 104.9 19.1 57.4 76.4 13.1 37.2 50.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the following programs are either effective or due to
become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance
demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS:
The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (71 FR 25328, April
28, 2006).
The Federal NOX SIP Call (66 FR 43795, August
21, 2001).
Area VOC regulations concerning portable fuel containers
(69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004), consumer products
