Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Second Limited Maintenance Plans for 1997 Ozone NAAQS, 42881-42887 [2019-17669]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
V. Proposed Action
Under section 175A of the CAA and
for the reasons set forth above, EPA is
proposing to approve the LMPs for the
Evansville, Fort Wayne, Greene County,
Jackson County, Muncie, and Terre
Haute, Indiana areas for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. These plans were
submitted by Indiana on April 25, 2019,
as a revision to the Indiana SIP. We
believe the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
LMPs are sufficient to provide for
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in these areas over the second
maintenance period.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely proposes to approve state
law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this proposed
action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• 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);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Aug 16, 2019
Jkt 247001
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: August 6, 2019.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019–17665 Filed 8–16–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2019–0216; FRL–9998–44–
Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Second
Limited Maintenance Plans for 1997
Ozone NAAQS
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Ohio. On April
12, 2019, the state submitted the 1997
8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS or standard)
Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) for the
Canton-Massillon (Stark County), Lima
(Allen County), and Toledo (Lucas and
Wood Counties) areas and the Ohio
portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta
[OH–WV] (Washington County),
Steubenville-Weirton [OH–WV]
(Jefferson County), Wheeling [OH–WV]
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42881
(Belmont County), and YoungstownWarren-Sharon [OH–PA] (Columbiana,
Mahoning, and Trumbull Counties)
multi-state areas. EPA is proposing to
approve these Ohio LMPs because they
provide for the maintenance of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS through the end
of the second 10-year portion of the
maintenance period. The effect of this
action would be to make certain
commitments related to maintenance of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in these
areas federally enforceable as part of the
Ohio SIP.
DATES: Written comments must be
received at the address below on or
before September 18, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2019–0216 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6031,
hatten.charles@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, the terms
‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for these actions?
E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM
19AUP1
42882
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules
III. EPA’s Evaluation of Ohio’s SIP Submittal
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
2. Maintenance Demonstration
3. Monitoring Network and Verification of
Continued Attainment
4. Contingency Plan
IV. Transportation Conformity
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
I. What action is EPA taking?
Under the CAA, EPA is proposing to
approve the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
LMPs for the Canton-Massillon (Stark
County), Lima (Allen County), and
Toledo (Lucas and Wood Counties)
areas and the Ohio portion of the
Parkersburg-Marietta [OH–WV]
(Washington County), SteubenvilleWeirton [OH–WV] (Jefferson County),
Wheeling [OH–WV] (Belmont County),
and Youngstown-Warren-Sharon [OH–
PA](Columbiana, Mahoning, and
Trumbull Counties) multi-state areas,
submitted by Ohio on April 12, 2019.
On June 15, 2004 these areas were
designated as nonattainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
Canton-Massillon (Stark County), Lima
(Allen County), Parkersburg-Marietta
(Washington County), SteubenvilleWeirton (Jefferson County), and
Wheeling (Belmont County) areas were
redesignated to attainment of that
standard on May 16, 2007 (72 FR
27647). The Toledo (Lucas and Wood
Counties) and Youngstown-WarrenSharon (Columbiana, Mahoning, and
Trumbull Counties) areas were
redesignated to attainment of that
standard, respectively, on August 9,
2007 (72 FR 44784), and June 12, 2007
(72 FR 32190).
These LMPs for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, submitted by Ohio, are
designed to maintain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS through the end of the
second 10-year period of the
maintenance period. EPA is proposing
to approve the LMPs because they meet
all applicable requirements under CAA
sections 110 and 175A.
II. What is the background for these
actions?
Ground-level ozone is formed when
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile
organic compounds (VOC) react in the
presence of sunlight. These two
pollutants, referred to as ozone
precursors, are emitted by many types of
pollution sources, including on-road
and off-road motor vehicles and
engines, power plants and industrial
facilities, and smaller area sources such
as lawn and garden equipment and
paints. Scientific evidence indicates that
adverse public health effects occur
following exposure to ozone,
particularly in children and adults with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Aug 16, 2019
Jkt 247001
lung disease. Breathing air containing
ozone can reduce lung function and
inflame airways, which can increase
respiratory symptoms and aggravate
asthma or other lung diseases.
Ozone exposure also has been
associated with increased susceptibility
to respiratory infections, medication
use, doctor visits, and emergency
department visits and hospital
admissions for individuals with lung
disease. Ozone exposure also increases
the risk of premature death from heart
or lung disease. Children are at
increased risk from exposure to ozone
because their lungs are still developing
and they are more likely to be active
outdoors, which increases their
exposure.1
In 1979, under section 109 of the
CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12
parts per million (ppm), averaged over
a 1-hour period. 44 FR 8202 (February
8, 1979). On July 18, 1997, EPA revised
the primary and secondary NAAQS for
ozone to set the acceptable level of
ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm,
averaged over an 8-hour period. 62 FR
38856 (July 18, 1997).2 EPA established
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on
scientific evidence demonstrating that
ozone causes adverse health effects at
lower concentrations and over longer
periods of time than was understood
when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone
NAAQS was set. EPA determined that
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard would
be more protective of human health,
especially for children and adults who
are active outdoors, and individuals
with a pre-existing respiratory disease,
such as asthma.
Following promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the
CAA to designate areas throughout the
nation as attaining or not attaining the
NAAQS. On April 15, 2004, EPA
designated the Ohio areas as
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, and the designations
became effective on June 15, 2004.
Under the CAA, states are also required
to adopt and submit SIPs to implement,
maintain, and enforce the NAAQS in
designated nonattainment areas and
throughout the state.
1 See ‘‘Fact Sheet, Proposal to Revise the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone,’’ January
6, 2010 and 75 FR 2938 (January 19, 2010).
2 In March 2008, EPA completed another review
of the primary and secondary ozone standards and
tightened them further by lowering the level for
both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a
review of the primary and secondary ozone
standards and tightened them by lowering the level
for both to 0.70 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 26,
2015).
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
When a nonattainment area has three
years of complete, certified air quality
data that has been determined to attain
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the
area has met other required criteria
described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
CAA, the state can submit to EPA a
request to be redesignated to attainment,
referred to as a ‘‘maintenance area’’.3
One of the criteria for redesignation is
to have an approved maintenance plan
under CAA section 175A. The
maintenance plan must demonstrate
that the area will continue to maintain
the standard for the period extending 10
years after redesignation and contain
such additional measures as necessary
to ensure maintenance and such
contingency provisions as necessary to
assure that violations of the standard
will be promptly corrected. At the end
of the eighth year after the effective date
of the redesignation, the state must also
submit a second maintenance plan to
ensure ongoing maintenance of the
standard for an additional 10 years. See
CAA section 175A.
EPA has published long-standing
guidance for states on developing
maintenance plans.4 The Calcagni
memo provides that states may
generally demonstrate maintenance by
either performing air quality modeling
to show that the future mix of sources
and emission rates will not cause a
violation of the NAAQS or by showing
that future emissions of a pollutant and
its precursors will not exceed the level
of emissions during a year when the
area was attaining the NAAQS (i.e.,
attainment year inventory). See Calcagni
memo at 9. EPA clarified in three
subsequent guidance memos that certain
nonattainment areas could meet the
CAA section 175A requirement to
provide for maintenance by
demonstrating that the area’s design
value 5 was well below the NAAQS and
that the historical stability of the area’s
air quality levels showed that the area
was unlikely to violate the NAAQS in
3 Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA sets out the
requirements for redesignation. They include
attainment of the NAAQS, full approval under
section 110(k) of the applicable SIP, determination
that improvement in air quality is a result of
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions,
demonstration that the state has met all applicable
section 110 and part D requirements, and a fully
approved maintenance plan under CAA section
175A.
4 Calcagni, John, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, ‘‘Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’
September 4, 1992 (Calcagni memo).
5 The ozone design value for a monitoring site is
the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations.
The design value for an ozone nonattainment area
is the highest design value of any monitoring site
in the area.
E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM
19AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules
the future.6 EPA refers to this
streamlined demonstration of
maintenance as an LMP. EPA has
interpreted CAA section 175A as
permitting this option because section
175A of the CAA defines few specific
content requirements for maintenance
plans, and in EPA’s experience
implementing the various NAAQS,
areas that qualify for an LMP and have
approved LMPs have rarely, if ever,
experienced subsequent violations of
the NAAQS. As noted in the LMP
guidance memoranda, states seeking an
LMP must still submit the other
maintenance plan elements outlined in
the Calcagni memo, including: An
attainment emissions inventory,
provisions for the continued operation
of the ambient air quality monitoring
network, verification of continued
attainment, and a contingency plan in
the event of a future violation of the
NAAQS. Moreover, states seeking an
LMP must still submit their section
175A maintenance plan as a revision to
their state implementation plan, with all
attendant notice and comment
procedures.
While the LMP guidance memoranda
was originally written with respect to
certain NAAQS,7 EPA has extended the
LMP interpretation of section 175A to
other NAAQS and pollutants not
specifically covered by the previous
guidance memos.8 In this case, EPA is
proposing to approve the Ohio LMPs,
because the state has made a showing,
consistent with EPA’s prior LMP
guidance, that each of the Ohio area’s
ozone concentrations are well below the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and have
been historically stable. Ohio has
submitted LMPs for the areas of CantonMassillon (Stark County), Lima (Allen
County), Toledo (Lucas and Wood
Counties), and the Ohio portion of the
Parkersburg-Marietta (Washington
County), Steubenville-Weirton (Jefferson
County), Wheeling (Belmont County),
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon
(Columbiana, Mahoning, and Trumbull
Counties) to fulfill the second 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan
requirement in the CAA. Our evaluation
of these 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
LMPs is presented in section III.
Under CAA section 175A(b), states
must submit a revision to the first
maintenance plan eight years after
redesignation to provide for
maintenance of the NAAQS for 10
additional years following the end of the
first 10-year period. EPA’s final
implementation rule for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS and stated that one
consequence of revocation was that
areas that had been redesignated to
attainment (i.e., maintenance areas) for
the 1997 standard no longer needed to
submit second 10-year maintenance
plans under CAA section 175A(b).9 In
South Coast Air Quality Management
District v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit vacated
EPA’s interpretation that, because of the
revocation of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard, second maintenance plans
were not required for ‘‘orphan
maintenance areas,’’ i.e., areas that had
been redesignated to attainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
maintenance areas and were designated
attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
South Coast, 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir.
2018). Thus, states with these ‘‘orphan
maintenance areas’’ under the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS must submit
maintenance plans for the second
maintenance period. Accordingly, on
April 12, 2019, Ohio submitted a second
maintenance plan in the form of an LMP
for the areas of Canton-Massillon (Stark
County), Lima (Allen County), Toledo
(Lucas and Wood Counties),
Parkersburg-Marietta (Washington
County), Steubenville-Weirton (Jefferson
County), Wheeling (Belmont County),
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon
(Columbiana, Mahoning and Trumbull
42883
Counties). These LMPs show that each
area is expected to remain in attainment
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
through the end of the last year of the
second 10-year maintenance period, i.e.,
through the end of the full 20-year
maintenance period.
III. EPA’s Evaluation of Ohio’s SIP
Submittal
EPA has reviewed the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS LMPs which are
designed to maintain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS within the areas of
Canton-Massillon (Stark County, OH),
Lima (Allen County, OH), Toledo (Lucas
and Wood Counties, OH), and the Ohio
portion in the areas of ParkersburgMarietta (Washington County),
Steubenville-Weirton (Jefferson County),
Wheeling (Belmont County),
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon
(Columbiana, Mahoning and Trumbull
Counties) through the end of the 20-year
maintenance period beyond
redesignation, as required under CAA
section 175A(b). The following is a
summary of EPA’s interpretation of the
requirements 10 and EPA’s evaluation of
how each requirement is met.
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
For maintenance plans, a state should
develop a comprehensive, accurate
inventory of actual emissions for an
attainment year to identify the level of
emissions which is sufficient to
maintain the NAAQS. A state should
develop this inventory consistent with
EPA’s most recent guidance on
emissions inventory development. For
ozone, the inventory should be based on
typical summer day emissions of VOCs
and NOX, as these pollutants are
precursors to ozone formation. The Ohio
LMP’s ozone attainment inventories
reflect typical summer day emissions in
2014. Table 1 presents a summary of the
inventories for 2014 contained in the
maintenance plans.
TABLE 1—TYPICAL 2014 SUMMER DAY VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
[Tons/day]
VOC
emissions
Area
Source category
Canton-Massillon (OH) .................................................
Nonroad ........................................................................
Onroad ..........................................................................
Point ..............................................................................
Area ..............................................................................
6 See ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable Ozone Nonattainment Areas’’ from
Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas’’ from
Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6, 1995; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Aug 16, 2019
Jkt 247001
‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas’’ from Lydia Wegman,
OAQPS, dated August 9, 2001.
7 The prior memos addressed: Unclassifiable
areas under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
nonattainment areas for the PM10 (particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6.46
7.59
2.87
14.85
NOX
emissions
4.74
12.66
3.81
3.31
microns) NAAQS, and nonattainment areas for the
carbon monoxide NAAQS.
8 See, e.g., 79 FR 41900 (July 18, 2014) (Approval
of second ten-year LMP for Grant County 1971 SO2
maintenance area).
9 See 80 FR 12315 (March 6, 2015).
10 See Calcagni memo.
E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM
19AUP1
42884
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—TYPICAL 2014 SUMMER DAY VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS—Continued
[Tons/day]
Area
Lima (OH) .....................................................................
Parkersburg-Marietta (OH–WV) ...................................
Steubenville-Weirton (OH–WV) ....................................
Toledo (OH) ..................................................................
Wheeling (OH–WV) ......................................................
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon (OH–PA) ........................
Ohio used 2014 summer day
emissions from ‘‘the EPA 2014 version
7.0’’ modeling platform as the basis for
the attainment inventory. These data are
based on the most recently available
National Emissions Inventory (2014 NEI
version 2).
Based on our review of the methods,
models, and assumptions used by Ohio
to develop the VOC and NOX estimates,
we propose to find that the Ohio 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS LMP areas
include a comprehensive, reasonably
accurate inventory of actual ozone
precursor emissions in attainment year
2014, and propose to conclude that the
plan’s inventory is acceptable for the
purposes of a subsequent maintenance
plan under CAA section 175A(b).
2. Maintenance Demonstration
The maintenance plan demonstration
requirement is considered to be satisfied
in a LMP if the state can provide
sufficient weight of evidence indicating
that air quality in the area is well below
the level of the standard, that past air
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Aug 16, 2019
VOC
emissions
Source category
Jkt 247001
Total Area .................................................................
Nonroad ........................................................................
Onroad ..........................................................................
Point ..............................................................................
Area ..............................................................................
31.77
1.35
2.29
5.08
4.55
24.52
1.57
4.46
7.62
1.03
Total Area .................................................................
Nonroad ........................................................................
Onroad ..........................................................................
Point ..............................................................................
Area ..............................................................................
13.27
2.82
4.00
2.84
8.29
14.68
1.55
7.71
16.81
6.21
Total Area .................................................................
Nonroad ........................................................................
Onroad ..........................................................................
Point ..............................................................................
Area ..............................................................................
17.95
2.07
2.31
2.13
15.76
32.28
1.09
3.84
37.54
4.53
Total Area .................................................................
Nonroad ........................................................................
Onroad ..........................................................................
Point ..............................................................................
Area ..............................................................................
22.27
8.70
11.51
7.37
21.19
47.00
8.41
22.62
12.48
9.37
Total Area .................................................................
Nonroad ........................................................................
Onroad ..........................................................................
Point ..............................................................................
Area ..............................................................................
48.77
2.69
4.36
1.25
27.64
52.88
1.26
8.50
24.68
5.97
Total Area .................................................................
Nonroad ........................................................................
Onroad ..........................................................................
Point ..............................................................................
Area ..............................................................................
35.94
9.71
13.33
5.01
40.73
40.41
6.68
27.92
7.07
10.53
Total Area .................................................................
68.78
52.20
quality trends have been shown to be
stable, and that the probability of the
area experiencing a violation over the
second 10-year maintenance period is
low.11 These criteria are evaluated
below with regard to the Ohio areas.
a. Evaluation of Ozone Air Quality
Levels
To attain the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, the three-year average of the
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentrations (design
value) at each monitor within an area
must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the
rounding convention described in 40
CFR part 50, appendix I, the standard is
attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm
11 ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable Ozone Nonattainment Areas’’ from
Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas’’ from
Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6, 1995; and
‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas’’ from Lydia Wegman,
OAQPS, dated August 9, 2001.
PO 00000
NOX
emissions
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
or below. Consistent with prior
guidance, EPA believes that if the most
recent air quality design value for the
area is at a level that is well below the
NAAQS (e.g., below 85% of the
standard, or in this case below 0.071
ppm), then EPA considers the state to
have met the section 175A requirement
for a demonstration that the area will
maintain the NAAQS for the requisite
period. Such a demonstration assumes
continued applicability of Prevention of
Significant Deterioration requirements,
any control measures already in the SIP,
and Federal measures will remain in
place through the end of the second 10year maintenance period, absent a
showing consistent with section 110(l)
that such measures are not necessary to
assure maintenance.
Table 2 presents the design values for
each monitor site in the subject areas
over the 2015–2017 period. For the
multi-state areas that Ohio is
addressing, Table 2 includes all
applicable monitors in the area,
including monitors located in other
E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM
19AUP1
42885
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules
states’ portions of the area, to address
whether the entire area is at or below 85
percent of the NAAQS. These
monitoring sites have been well below
the level of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS over the entire first 10-year
maintenance period. As shown below,
the most current design value for all
sites continues to be below the level of
85% of the NAAQS, consistent with
prior LMP guidance.
TABLE 2—1997 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS DESIGN VALUES
[Part per million]
Area
County
AQS site ID
Canton-Massillon (OH) ..................................
Canton-Massillon (OH) ..................................
Canton-Massillon (OH) ..................................
Lima (OH) ......................................................
Parkersburg-Marietta (OH–WV) ....................
Parkersburg-Marietta (OH–WV) ....................
Steubenville-Weirton (OH–WV) .....................
Steubenville-Weirton (OH–WV) .....................
Toledo (OH) ...................................................
Toledo (OH) ...................................................
Toledo (OH) ...................................................
Wheeling (OH–WV) .......................................
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon (OH–PA) .........
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon (OH–PA) .........
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon (OH–PA) .........
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon (OH–PA) .........
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon (OH–PA) .........
Stark ..............................................................
Stark ..............................................................
Stark ..............................................................
Allen ..............................................................
Washington ...................................................
Wood (WV) ...................................................
Jefferson .......................................................
Hancock (WV) ...............................................
Lucas ............................................................
Lucas ............................................................
Wood .............................................................
Belmont .........................................................
Mahoning ......................................................
Trumbull ........................................................
Trumbull ........................................................
Mercer (PA) ..................................................
Mercer (PA) ..................................................
39–151–0016
39–151–0022
39–151–4005
39–003–0009
39–167–0004
54–107–10021
39–081–0017
54–029–0009
39–095–0024
39–095–0027
39–173–0003
54–069–0010
39–099–0013
39–155–0011
39–155–0013
42–085–0100
42–085–9991
Therefore, the areas of CantonMassillon (Stark County, OH), Lima
(Allen County, OH), Toledo (Lucas and
Wood counties of OH), and the portions
of Ohio within Parkersburg-Marietta
OH–WV (Washington County),
Steubenville-Weirton OH–WV (Jefferson
County), Wheeling OH–WV (Belmont
County), and Youngstown-WarrenSharon OH–PA(Columbiana, Mahoning
and Trumbull Counties) multi-states
areas are eligible for the LMP option,
and we propose to find that the long
record of monitored ozone
concentrations that attain the NAAQS,
together with the continuation of
existing VOC and NOX emissions
control programs, adequately provide
for the maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in the areas through the
second 10-year maintenance period and
beyond.
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
3. Monitoring Network and Verification
of Continued Attainment
EPA periodically reviews the ozone
monitoring network that Ohio operates
and maintains, in accordance with 40
CFR part 58. This network is consistent
with the ambient air monitoring
network assessment and plan developed
by Ohio that is submitted annually to
EPA and that follows a public
notification and review process. Ohio
has committed to continue to maintain
a network in accordance with EPA
requirements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Aug 16, 2019
Jkt 247001
4. Contingency Plan
The contingency plan provisions are
designed to promptly correct or prevent
a violation of the NAAQS that might
occur after redesignation of an area to
attainment. Section 175A of the CAA
requires that a maintenance plan
include such contingency measures as
EPA deems necessary to assure that the
state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan
should identify the contingency
measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and
implementation of the contingency
measures, and a time limit for action by
the state. The state should also identify
specific indicators to be used to
determine when the contingency
measures need to be adopted and
implemented. The maintenance plan
must include a requirement that the
state will implement all pollution
control measures that were contained in
the SIP before redesignation of the area
to attainment. See section 175A(d) of
the CAA.
Ohio’s contingency plan defines a
warning level and action level response.
A warning level shall be prompted
whenever an annual fourth high
monitored value of 0.088 ppm occurs in
a single ozone season within the
maintenance area. The action level
response shall be prompted whenever a
two year average fourth high monitored
value of 84 ppb or greater occurs within
the maintenance area. A violation of the
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Design value
(DV)
2016–2018
0.069
0.066
0.068
0.067
0.064
0.065
0.062
0.066
0.066
0.064
0.064
0.067
0.059
0.068
0.066
0.068
0.065
DV <0.071 ppm
eligible LMP
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
standard (three year average fourth high
monitored value of 84 ppb or greater
occurs within the maintenance area)
shall prompt an action level response.
In the event that the action level is
triggered and is not due to an
exceptional event, malfunction, or
noncompliance with a permit condition
or rule requirement, Ohio will
determine additional control measures
needed to assure future attainment of
NAAQS for ozone. In this case,
measures that can be implemented in a
short time will be selected in order to
be in place within eighteen 18 months
from the close of the ozone season that
prompted the action level.
Contingency measures to be
considered will be selected from a
comprehensive list of measures deemed
appropriate and effective at the time the
selection is made. Listed below are
example measures that may be
considered. The selection of measures
will be based upon cost-effectiveness,
emission reduction potential, economic
and social considerations or other
factors that Ohio deems appropriate.
Ohio will solicit input from all
interested and affected persons in the
maintenance area prior to selecting
appropriate contingency measures. The
listed contingency measures are
potentially effective or proven methods
of obtaining significant reductions of
ozone precursor emissions. Because it is
not possible at this time to determine
what control measure will be
appropriate at an unspecified time in
E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM
19AUP1
42886
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules
the future, the list of contingency
measures outlined below is not
exhaustive. Ohio anticipates that only a
few of these measures will be required.
(1) Tighten reasonably available
control technology (RACT) on existing
sources covered by EPA’s Control
Technique Guidelines issued in
response to the 1990 CAA Amendments.
(2) Apply RACT requirements to
smaller existing sources.
(3) Require one or more transportation
control measures sufficient to achieve at
least 0.5% reduction in actual area wide
VOC emissions. Transportation
measures will be selected from the
following, based upon the factors listed
above after consultation with affected
local governments:
(a) Trip reduction programs,
including, but not limited to, employerbased transportation management plans,
area wide rideshare programs, work
schedule changes, and telecommuting.
(b) Transit improvements.
(c) Traffic flow improvements.
(d) Other new or innovative
transportation measures not yet in
widespread use that affects state and
local governments deemed appropriate.
(4) Apply alternative fuel and diesel
retrofit programs for fleet vehicle
operations.
(5) Require VOC or NOX emission
offsets for new and modified major
sources.
(6) Require VOC or NOX emission
offsets for new and modified minor
sources.
(7) Adopt NOX RACT requirements
for existing combustion sources.
(8) Apply high volume, low pressure
coating application requirements for
autobody facilities.
(9) Apply requirements for cold
cleaner degreaser operations (low vapor
pressure solvents).
EPA proposes to find that Ohio’s
contingency measures, as well as the
commitment to continue implementing
any SIP requirements, satisfy the
pertinent requirements of CAA section
175A.
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity is required
by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that
transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay
timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA
176(c)(1)(B)). EPA’s conformity rule at
40 CFR part 93 requires that
transportation plans, programs and
projects conform to SIPs and establish
the criteria and procedures for
determining whether or not they
conform. The conformity rule generally
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Aug 16, 2019
Jkt 247001
requires a demonstration that emissions
from the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) and the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) are
consistent with the motor vehicle
emissions budget (MVEB) contained in
the control strategy SIP revision or
maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.101,
93.118, and 93.124). A MVEB is defined
as ‘‘that portion of the total allowable
emissions defined in the submitted or
approved control strategy
implementation plan revision or
maintenance plan for a certain date for
the purpose of meeting reasonable
further progress milestones or
demonstrating attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS, for any
criteria pollutant or its precursors,
allocated to highway and transit vehicle
use and emissions (40 CFR 93.101).
Under the conformity rule, LMP areas
may demonstrate conformity without a
regional emission analysis (40 CFR
93.109(e)).
However, because LMP areas are still
maintenance areas, certain aspects of
transportation conformity
determinations still will be required for
transportation plans, programs and
projects. Specifically, for such
determinations, RTPs, TIPs and
transportation projects still will have to
demonstrate that they are fiscally
constrained (40 CFR 93.108), meet the
criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105)
and Transportation Control Measure
(TCM) implementation in the
conformity rule provisions (40 CFR
93.112 and 40 CFR 93.113,
respectively). Additionally, conformity
determinations for RTPs and TIPs must
be determined no less frequently than
every four years, and conformity of plan
and TIP amendments and transportation
projects is demonstrated in accordance
with the timing requirements specified
in 40 CFR 93.104. In addition, for
projects to be approved they must come
from a currently conforming RTP and
TIP (40 CFR 93.114 and 93.115).
V. Proposed Action
Under sections 110(k) and 175A of the
CAA, for the reasons set forth above,
EPA is proposing to approve the LMPs
for Canton-Massillon (Stark County),
Lima (Allen County), Toledo (Lucas and
Wood Counties) areas, and the Ohio
portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta
(Washington County), SteubenvilleWeirton (Jefferson County), Wheeling
(Belmont County), Youngstown-WarrenSharon (Columbiana, Mahoning, and
Trumbull Counties) multi-state areas for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These
LMPs were submitted by Ohio on April
12, 2019, as a revision to the Ohio SIP.
We find that the 1997 8-hour ozone
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NAAQS LMPs are sufficient to provide
for maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in these areas through
the second 10-year portion of the
maintenance period.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely proposes to approve state
law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this proposed
action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• 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);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM
19AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Aug 16, 2019
Jkt 247001
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
42887
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: August 6, 2019.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019–17669 Filed 8–16–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM
19AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 160 (Monday, August 19, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42881-42887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17669]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2019-0216; FRL-9998-44-Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Second Limited Maintenance Plans for
1997 Ozone NAAQS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation
plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Ohio. On April 12, 2019,
the state submitted the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS or standard) Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) for the
Canton-Massillon (Stark County), Lima (Allen County), and Toledo (Lucas
and Wood Counties) areas and the Ohio portion of the Parkersburg-
Marietta [OH-WV] (Washington County), Steubenville-Weirton [OH-WV]
(Jefferson County), Wheeling [OH-WV] (Belmont County), and Youngstown-
Warren-Sharon [OH-PA] (Columbiana, Mahoning, and Trumbull Counties)
multi-state areas. EPA is proposing to approve these Ohio LMPs because
they provide for the maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through
the end of the second 10-year portion of the maintenance period. The
effect of this action would be to make certain commitments related to
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in these areas federally
enforceable as part of the Ohio SIP.
DATES: Written comments must be received at the address below on or
before September 18, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2019-0216 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we'',
``us'', and ``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for these actions?
[[Page 42882]]
III. EPA's Evaluation of Ohio's SIP Submittal
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
2. Maintenance Demonstration
3. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
4. Contingency Plan
IV. Transportation Conformity
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA taking?
Under the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS LMPs for the Canton-Massillon (Stark County), Lima (Allen
County), and Toledo (Lucas and Wood Counties) areas and the Ohio
portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta [OH-WV] (Washington County),
Steubenville-Weirton [OH-WV] (Jefferson County), Wheeling [OH-WV]
(Belmont County), and Youngstown-Warren-Sharon [OH-PA](Columbiana,
Mahoning, and Trumbull Counties) multi-state areas, submitted by Ohio
on April 12, 2019. On June 15, 2004 these areas were designated as
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Canton-Massillon
(Stark County), Lima (Allen County), Parkersburg-Marietta (Washington
County), Steubenville-Weirton (Jefferson County), and Wheeling (Belmont
County) areas were redesignated to attainment of that standard on May
16, 2007 (72 FR 27647). The Toledo (Lucas and Wood Counties) and
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon (Columbiana, Mahoning, and Trumbull Counties)
areas were redesignated to attainment of that standard, respectively,
on August 9, 2007 (72 FR 44784), and June 12, 2007 (72 FR 32190).
These LMPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, submitted by Ohio, are
designed to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through the end of the
second 10-year period of the maintenance period. EPA is proposing to
approve the LMPs because they meet all applicable requirements under
CAA sections 110 and 175A.
II. What is the background for these actions?
Ground-level ozone is formed when oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) react in the
presence of sunlight. These two pollutants, referred to as ozone
precursors, are emitted by many types of pollution sources, including
on-road and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and
industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden
equipment and paints. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public
health effects occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in
children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone
can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase
respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases.
Ozone exposure also has been associated with increased
susceptibility to respiratory infections, medication use, doctor
visits, and emergency department visits and hospital admissions for
individuals with lung disease. Ozone exposure also increases the risk
of premature death from heart or lung disease. Children are at
increased risk from exposure to ozone because their lungs are still
developing and they are more likely to be active outdoors, which
increases their exposure.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``Fact Sheet, Proposal to Revise the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Ozone,'' January 6, 2010 and 75 FR 2938
(January 19, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm), averaged
over a 1-hour period. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On July 18, 1997,
EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the
acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over
an 8-hour period. 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).\2\ EPA established the
8-hour ozone NAAQS based on scientific evidence demonstrating that
ozone causes adverse health effects at lower concentrations and over
longer periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour
ozone NAAQS was set. EPA determined that the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
would be more protective of human health, especially for children and
adults who are active outdoors, and individuals with a pre-existing
respiratory disease, such as asthma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them further by lowering
the level for both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them by lowering the
level for both to 0.70 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. On April 15, 2004, EPA designated the Ohio areas
as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the designations
became effective on June 15, 2004. Under the CAA, states are also
required to adopt and submit SIPs to implement, maintain, and enforce
the NAAQS in designated nonattainment areas and throughout the state.
When a nonattainment area has three years of complete, certified
air quality data that has been determined to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, and the area has met other required criteria described in
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, the state can submit to EPA a request
to be redesignated to attainment, referred to as a ``maintenance
area''.\3\ One of the criteria for redesignation is to have an approved
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A. The maintenance plan must
demonstrate that the area will continue to maintain the standard for
the period extending 10 years after redesignation and contain such
additional measures as necessary to ensure maintenance and such
contingency provisions as necessary to assure that violations of the
standard will be promptly corrected. At the end of the eighth year
after the effective date of the redesignation, the state must also
submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing maintenance of the
standard for an additional 10 years. See CAA section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA sets out the requirements
for redesignation. They include attainment of the NAAQS, full
approval under section 110(k) of the applicable SIP, determination
that improvement in air quality is a result of permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions, demonstration that the state
has met all applicable section 110 and part D requirements, and a
fully approved maintenance plan under CAA section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has published long-standing guidance for states on developing
maintenance plans.\4\ The Calcagni memo provides that states may
generally demonstrate maintenance by either performing air quality
modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will
not cause a violation of the NAAQS or by showing that future emissions
of a pollutant and its precursors will not exceed the level of
emissions during a year when the area was attaining the NAAQS (i.e.,
attainment year inventory). See Calcagni memo at 9. EPA clarified in
three subsequent guidance memos that certain nonattainment areas could
meet the CAA section 175A requirement to provide for maintenance by
demonstrating that the area's design value \5\ was well below the NAAQS
and that the historical stability of the area's air quality levels
showed that the area was unlikely to violate the NAAQS in
[[Page 42883]]
the future.\6\ EPA refers to this streamlined demonstration of
maintenance as an LMP. EPA has interpreted CAA section 175A as
permitting this option because section 175A of the CAA defines few
specific content requirements for maintenance plans, and in EPA's
experience implementing the various NAAQS, areas that qualify for an
LMP and have approved LMPs have rarely, if ever, experienced subsequent
violations of the NAAQS. As noted in the LMP guidance memoranda, states
seeking an LMP must still submit the other maintenance plan elements
outlined in the Calcagni memo, including: An attainment emissions
inventory, provisions for the continued operation of the ambient air
quality monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a
contingency plan in the event of a future violation of the NAAQS.
Moreover, states seeking an LMP must still submit their section 175A
maintenance plan as a revision to their state implementation plan, with
all attendant notice and comment procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Calcagni, John, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' September
4, 1992 (Calcagni memo).
\5\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone nonattainment
area is the highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
\6\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6,
1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS,
dated August 9, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the LMP guidance memoranda was originally written with
respect to certain NAAQS,\7\ EPA has extended the LMP interpretation of
section 175A to other NAAQS and pollutants not specifically covered by
the previous guidance memos.\8\ In this case, EPA is proposing to
approve the Ohio LMPs, because the state has made a showing, consistent
with EPA's prior LMP guidance, that each of the Ohio area's ozone
concentrations are well below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and have been
historically stable. Ohio has submitted LMPs for the areas of Canton-
Massillon (Stark County), Lima (Allen County), Toledo (Lucas and Wood
Counties), and the Ohio portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta (Washington
County), Steubenville-Weirton (Jefferson County), Wheeling (Belmont
County), Youngstown-Warren-Sharon (Columbiana, Mahoning, and Trumbull
Counties) to fulfill the second 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance
plan requirement in the CAA. Our evaluation of these 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS LMPs is presented in section III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The prior memos addressed: Unclassifiable areas under the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS, nonattainment areas for the PM10
(particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10
microns) NAAQS, and nonattainment areas for the carbon monoxide
NAAQS.
\8\ See, e.g., 79 FR 41900 (July 18, 2014) (Approval of second
ten-year LMP for Grant County 1971 SO2 maintenance area).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under CAA section 175A(b), states must submit a revision to the
first maintenance plan eight years after redesignation to provide for
maintenance of the NAAQS for 10 additional years following the end of
the first 10-year period. EPA's final implementation rule for the 2008
ozone NAAQS revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and stated that one
consequence of revocation was that areas that had been redesignated to
attainment (i.e., maintenance areas) for the 1997 standard no longer
needed to submit second 10-year maintenance plans under CAA section
175A(b).\9\ In South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, the
D.C. Circuit vacated EPA's interpretation that, because of the
revocation of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, second maintenance plans
were not required for ``orphan maintenance areas,'' i.e., areas that
had been redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
maintenance areas and were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. South Coast, 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Thus, states with
these ``orphan maintenance areas'' under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
must submit maintenance plans for the second maintenance period.
Accordingly, on April 12, 2019, Ohio submitted a second maintenance
plan in the form of an LMP for the areas of Canton-Massillon (Stark
County), Lima (Allen County), Toledo (Lucas and Wood Counties),
Parkersburg-Marietta (Washington County), Steubenville-Weirton
(Jefferson County), Wheeling (Belmont County), Youngstown-Warren-Sharon
(Columbiana, Mahoning and Trumbull Counties). These LMPs show that each
area is expected to remain in attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
through the end of the last year of the second 10-year maintenance
period, i.e., through the end of the full 20-year maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 80 FR 12315 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. EPA's Evaluation of Ohio's SIP Submittal
EPA has reviewed the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS LMPs which are
designed to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS within the areas of
Canton-Massillon (Stark County, OH), Lima (Allen County, OH), Toledo
(Lucas and Wood Counties, OH), and the Ohio portion in the areas of
Parkersburg-Marietta (Washington County), Steubenville-Weirton
(Jefferson County), Wheeling (Belmont County), Youngstown-Warren-Sharon
(Columbiana, Mahoning and Trumbull Counties) through the end of the 20-
year maintenance period beyond redesignation, as required under CAA
section 175A(b). The following is a summary of EPA's interpretation of
the requirements \10\ and EPA's evaluation of how each requirement is
met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Calcagni memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
For maintenance plans, a state should develop a comprehensive,
accurate inventory of actual emissions for an attainment year to
identify the level of emissions which is sufficient to maintain the
NAAQS. A state should develop this inventory consistent with EPA's most
recent guidance on emissions inventory development. For ozone, the
inventory should be based on typical summer day emissions of VOCs and
NOX, as these pollutants are precursors to ozone formation.
The Ohio LMP's ozone attainment inventories reflect typical summer day
emissions in 2014. Table 1 presents a summary of the inventories for
2014 contained in the maintenance plans.
Table 1--Typical 2014 Summer Day VOC and NO Emissions
[Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO emissions
Area Source category VOC emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canton-Massillon (OH)......................... Nonroad......................... 6.46 4.74
Onroad.......................... 7.59 12.66
Point........................... 2.87 3.81
Area............................ 14.85 3.31
-------------------------------
[[Page 42884]]
Total Area 31.77 24.52
Lima (OH)..................................... Nonroad......................... 1.35 1.57
Onroad.......................... 2.29 4.46
Point........................... 5.08 7.62
Area............................ 4.55 1.03
-------------------------------
Total Area 13.27 14.68
Parkersburg-Marietta (OH-WV).................. Nonroad......................... 2.82 1.55
Onroad.......................... 4.00 7.71
Point........................... 2.84 16.81
Area............................ 8.29 6.21
-------------------------------
Total Area 17.95 32.28
Steubenville-Weirton (OH-WV).................. Nonroad......................... 2.07 1.09
Onroad.......................... 2.31 3.84
Point........................... 2.13 37.54
Area............................ 15.76 4.53
-------------------------------
Total Area 22.27 47.00
Toledo (OH)................................... Nonroad......................... 8.70 8.41
Onroad.......................... 11.51 22.62
Point........................... 7.37 12.48
Area............................ 21.19 9.37
-------------------------------
Total Area 48.77 52.88
Wheeling (OH-WV).............................. Nonroad......................... 2.69 1.26
Onroad.......................... 4.36 8.50
Point........................... 1.25 24.68
Area............................ 27.64 5.97
-------------------------------
Total Area 35.94 40.41
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon (OH-PA).............. Nonroad......................... 9.71 6.68
Onroad.......................... 13.33 27.92
Point........................... 5.01 7.07
Area............................ 40.73 10.53
-------------------------------
Total Area 68.78 52.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio used 2014 summer day emissions from ``the EPA 2014 version
7.0'' modeling platform as the basis for the attainment inventory.
These data are based on the most recently available National Emissions
Inventory (2014 NEI version 2).
Based on our review of the methods, models, and assumptions used by
Ohio to develop the VOC and NOX estimates, we propose to
find that the Ohio 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS LMP areas include a
comprehensive, reasonably accurate inventory of actual ozone precursor
emissions in attainment year 2014, and propose to conclude that the
plan's inventory is acceptable for the purposes of a subsequent
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A(b).
2. Maintenance Demonstration
The maintenance plan demonstration requirement is considered to be
satisfied in a LMP if the state can provide sufficient weight of
evidence indicating that air quality in the area is well below the
level of the standard, that past air quality trends have been shown to
be stable, and that the probability of the area experiencing a
violation over the second 10-year maintenance period is low.\11\ These
criteria are evaluated below with regard to the Ohio areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable Ozone
Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994; ``Limited
Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas''
from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6, 1995; and ``Limited
Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM10 Nonattainment
Areas'' from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS, dated August 9, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Evaluation of Ozone Air Quality Levels
To attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the three-year average of
the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations
(design value) at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.08 ppm.
Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, appendix
I, the standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below.
Consistent with prior guidance, EPA believes that if the most recent
air quality design value for the area is at a level that is well below
the NAAQS (e.g., below 85% of the standard, or in this case below 0.071
ppm), then EPA considers the state to have met the section 175A
requirement for a demonstration that the area will maintain the NAAQS
for the requisite period. Such a demonstration assumes continued
applicability of Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements,
any control measures already in the SIP, and Federal measures will
remain in place through the end of the second 10-year maintenance
period, absent a showing consistent with section 110(l) that such
measures are not necessary to assure maintenance.
Table 2 presents the design values for each monitor site in the
subject areas over the 2015-2017 period. For the multi-state areas that
Ohio is addressing, Table 2 includes all applicable monitors in the
area, including monitors located in other
[[Page 42885]]
states' portions of the area, to address whether the entire area is at
or below 85 percent of the NAAQS. These monitoring sites have been well
below the level of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS over the entire first
10-year maintenance period. As shown below, the most current design
value for all sites continues to be below the level of 85% of the
NAAQS, consistent with prior LMP guidance.
Table 2--1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Design Values
[Part per million]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design value
Area County AQS site ID (DV) 2016- DV <0.071 ppm eligible
2018 LMP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canton-Massillon (OH)............ Stark.............. 39-151-0016 0.069 Yes.
Canton-Massillon (OH)............ Stark.............. 39-151-0022 0.066 Yes.
Canton-Massillon (OH)............ Stark.............. 39-151-4005 0.068 Yes.
Lima (OH)........................ Allen.............. 39-003-0009 0.067 Yes.
Parkersburg-Marietta (OH-WV)..... Washington......... 39-167-0004 0.064 Yes.
Parkersburg-Marietta (OH-WV)..... Wood (WV).......... 54-107-10021 0.065 Yes.
Steubenville-Weirton (OH-WV)..... Jefferson.......... 39-081-0017 0.062 Yes.
Steubenville-Weirton (OH-WV)..... Hancock (WV)....... 54-029-0009 0.066 Yes.
Toledo (OH)...................... Lucas.............. 39-095-0024 0.066 Yes.
Toledo (OH)...................... Lucas.............. 39-095-0027 0.064 Yes.
Toledo (OH)...................... Wood............... 39-173-0003 0.064 Yes.
Wheeling (OH-WV)................. Belmont............ 54-069-0010 0.067 Yes.
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon (OH-PA). Mahoning........... 39-099-0013 0.059 Yes.
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon (OH-PA). Trumbull........... 39-155-0011 0.068 Yes.
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon (OH-PA). Trumbull........... 39-155-0013 0.066 Yes.
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon (OH-PA). Mercer (PA)........ 42-085-0100 0.068 Yes.
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon (OH-PA). Mercer (PA)........ 42-085-9991 0.065 Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the areas of Canton-Massillon (Stark County, OH), Lima
(Allen County, OH), Toledo (Lucas and Wood counties of OH), and the
portions of Ohio within Parkersburg-Marietta OH-WV (Washington County),
Steubenville-Weirton OH-WV (Jefferson County), Wheeling OH-WV (Belmont
County), and Youngstown-Warren-Sharon OH-PA(Columbiana, Mahoning and
Trumbull Counties) multi-states areas are eligible for the LMP option,
and we propose to find that the long record of monitored ozone
concentrations that attain the NAAQS, together with the continuation of
existing VOC and NOX emissions control programs, adequately
provide for the maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the areas
through the second 10-year maintenance period and beyond.
3. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
EPA periodically reviews the ozone monitoring network that Ohio
operates and maintains, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. This network
is consistent with the ambient air monitoring network assessment and
plan developed by Ohio that is submitted annually to EPA and that
follows a public notification and review process. Ohio has committed to
continue to maintain a network in accordance with EPA requirements.
4. Contingency Plan
The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or
prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation
of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a
maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should
identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures,
and a time limit for action by the state. The state should also
identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The
maintenance plan must include a requirement that the state will
implement all pollution control measures that were contained in the SIP
before redesignation of the area to attainment. See section 175A(d) of
the CAA.
Ohio's contingency plan defines a warning level and action level
response. A warning level shall be prompted whenever an annual fourth
high monitored value of 0.088 ppm occurs in a single ozone season
within the maintenance area. The action level response shall be
prompted whenever a two year average fourth high monitored value of 84
ppb or greater occurs within the maintenance area. A violation of the
standard (three year average fourth high monitored value of 84 ppb or
greater occurs within the maintenance area) shall prompt an action
level response. In the event that the action level is triggered and is
not due to an exceptional event, malfunction, or noncompliance with a
permit condition or rule requirement, Ohio will determine additional
control measures needed to assure future attainment of NAAQS for ozone.
In this case, measures that can be implemented in a short time will be
selected in order to be in place within eighteen 18 months from the
close of the ozone season that prompted the action level.
Contingency measures to be considered will be selected from a
comprehensive list of measures deemed appropriate and effective at the
time the selection is made. Listed below are example measures that may
be considered. The selection of measures will be based upon cost-
effectiveness, emission reduction potential, economic and social
considerations or other factors that Ohio deems appropriate. Ohio will
solicit input from all interested and affected persons in the
maintenance area prior to selecting appropriate contingency measures.
The listed contingency measures are potentially effective or proven
methods of obtaining significant reductions of ozone precursor
emissions. Because it is not possible at this time to determine what
control measure will be appropriate at an unspecified time in
[[Page 42886]]
the future, the list of contingency measures outlined below is not
exhaustive. Ohio anticipates that only a few of these measures will be
required.
(1) Tighten reasonably available control technology (RACT) on
existing sources covered by EPA's Control Technique Guidelines issued
in response to the 1990 CAA Amendments.
(2) Apply RACT requirements to smaller existing sources.
(3) Require one or more transportation control measures sufficient
to achieve at least 0.5% reduction in actual area wide VOC emissions.
Transportation measures will be selected from the following, based upon
the factors listed above after consultation with affected local
governments:
(a) Trip reduction programs, including, but not limited to,
employer-based transportation management plans, area wide rideshare
programs, work schedule changes, and telecommuting.
(b) Transit improvements.
(c) Traffic flow improvements.
(d) Other new or innovative transportation measures not yet in
widespread use that affects state and local governments deemed
appropriate.
(4) Apply alternative fuel and diesel retrofit programs for fleet
vehicle operations.
(5) Require VOC or NOX emission offsets for new and
modified major sources.
(6) Require VOC or NOX emission offsets for new and
modified minor sources.
(7) Adopt NOX RACT requirements for existing combustion
sources.
(8) Apply high volume, low pressure coating application
requirements for autobody facilities.
(9) Apply requirements for cold cleaner degreaser operations (low
vapor pressure solvents).
EPA proposes to find that Ohio's contingency measures, as well as
the commitment to continue implementing any SIP requirements, satisfy
the pertinent requirements of CAA section 175A.
IV. Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 176(c)(1)(B)). EPA's
conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 requires that transportation plans,
programs and projects conform to SIPs and establish the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or not they conform. The conformity
rule generally requires a demonstration that emissions from the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) are consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget
(MVEB) contained in the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance
plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). A MVEB is defined as ``that
portion of the total allowable emissions defined in the submitted or
approved control strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance
plan for a certain date for the purpose of meeting reasonable further
progress milestones or demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS, for any criteria pollutant or its precursors, allocated to
highway and transit vehicle use and emissions (40 CFR 93.101).
Under the conformity rule, LMP areas may demonstrate conformity
without a regional emission analysis (40 CFR 93.109(e)).
However, because LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain
aspects of transportation conformity determinations still will be
required for transportation plans, programs and projects. Specifically,
for such determinations, RTPs, TIPs and transportation projects still
will have to demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR
93.108), meet the criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105) and
Transportation Control Measure (TCM) implementation in the conformity
rule provisions (40 CFR 93.112 and 40 CFR 93.113, respectively).
Additionally, conformity determinations for RTPs and TIPs must be
determined no less frequently than every four years, and conformity of
plan and TIP amendments and transportation projects is demonstrated in
accordance with the timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104. In
addition, for projects to be approved they must come from a currently
conforming RTP and TIP (40 CFR 93.114 and 93.115).
V. Proposed Action
Under sections 110(k) and 175A of the CAA, for the reasons set
forth above, EPA is proposing to approve the LMPs for Canton-Massillon
(Stark County), Lima (Allen County), Toledo (Lucas and Wood Counties)
areas, and the Ohio portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta (Washington
County), Steubenville-Weirton (Jefferson County), Wheeling (Belmont
County), Youngstown-Warren-Sharon (Columbiana, Mahoning, and Trumbull
Counties) multi-state areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These LMPs
were submitted by Ohio on April 12, 2019, as a revision to the Ohio
SIP. We find that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS LMPs are sufficient to
provide for maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in these areas
through the second 10-year portion of the maintenance period.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
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);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical,
[[Page 42887]]
appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 6, 2019.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019-17669 Filed 8-16-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
