Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
CFR Citation: 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
EPA ID: [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0891; FRL-8266-4]
NOTICE: PROPOSED RULES
ACTION: Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States; air quality planning purposes; designation of areas:
DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY: Redesignation of Jefferson County, Ohio To Attainment of the 8- Hour Ozone Standard
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 7, 2007. Submit
your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPAR05OAR20060891, by one of the following methods:
[[Page 712]]
Illinois. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office's official hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPAR05OAR 20060891. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://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 http://www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CDROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption, and should be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hardcopy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hardcopy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. It is recommended that you telephone Jennifer Dunn, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 3535899, before visiting the Region 5 office.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: On July 31, 2006, and supplemented on October 3, 2006, the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) submitted: a request
for EPA approval of redesignation of Jefferson County to attainment of
the 8hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), and a
request for EPA approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
for the ozone maintenance plan for Jefferson County. Jefferson County
is the Ohio portion of the SteubenvilleWeirton, WVOH 8hour ozone
nonattainment area. EPA is proposing to determine that this area has
attained the 8hour ozone NAAQS, based on three years of complete,
qualityassured ambient air quality monitoring data. Preliminary, non
quality assured data for the 2006 ozone season show that the area
continues to attain the NAAQS. EPA is also proposing approval of Ohio's
ozone maintenance plan for Jefferson County as a revision to the Ohio
SIP and the State's request to redesignate Jefferson County to
attainment of the 8hour ozone NAAQs. Finally, EPA is proposing to
approve the Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides
(NO
SUMMARY: Ohio,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:I. What Actions Are EPA Proposing To Take?
II. What Is the Background for These Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment? IV. What Are EPA's Analyses of the State's Requests and What Are the Bases for EPA's Proposed Actions?
V. Has Ohio Adopted Acceptable Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the End Year of the Ozone Maintenance Plans Which Can Be Used To Support Conformity Determinations?
VI. What Are the Effects of EPA's Proposed Actions?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Actions Are EPA Proposing To Take?
We are proposing to take several related actions for Jefferson County, Ohio. First, we are proposing to determine that Jefferson County has attained the 8hour ozone NAAQS.
Second, we are proposing to approve Ohio's ozone maintenance plan for Jefferson County as a requested revision of the Ohio SIP. The maintenance plan is designed to keep Jefferson County and, in conjunction with a West Virginia ozone maintenance plan for Hancock and Brooke Counties, the entire SteubenvilleWeirton, WVOH area in attainment of the 8hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years, through 2018.
Third, we are proposing to find that Jefferson County and the State
of Ohio have met the requirements for redesignation to attainment of
the 8hour ozone NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). We are, therefore, proposing to approve the July 31, 2006, and
October 3, 2006, requests from the State of Ohio to change the
designation of Jefferson County from nonattainment to attainment of the 8hour ozone NAAQS.\1\
\1\ A separate proposed rule from EPA published on October 2,
2006 (71 FR 57905) addresses a request from the State of West
Virginia to redesignate Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia to attainment of the 8hour ozone NAAQS.
Fourth, as supported by and consistent with the ozone maintenance
plan, we are also proposing to approve the 2018 VOC and NO
These proposed actions pertain to the designation of Jefferson
County for the 8hour ozone NAAQS, and to the VOC and NO
NO
EPA has determined that groundlevel ozone is detrimental to human
health. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated an 8hour ozone NAAQS (62 FR
38856) of 0.08 parts per million parts of air (0.08 ppm) (80 parts per
billion (ppb)).\2\ This 8hour ozone standard replaced a prior 1hour
ozone NAAQS, which was promulgated on February 8, 1979 (44 FR 8202) and revoked on June 15, 2005.
\2\ This standard is violated in an area when any ozone monitor
in the area (or in its impacted downwind environs) records 8hour
ozone concentrations with a three year average of the annual fourth
highest daily maximum 8hour ozone concentrations equaling or exceeding 85 ppb.
Groundlevel ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emitted NO
The CAA required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that violated the 8hour ozone NAAQS. The three most recent years of ozone data at the time (20012003 when the 8hour ozone designations were initially established) were considered to establish the ozone designations. The Federal Register notice making these designations was published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857).
The CAA contains two sets of provisionssubpart 1 and subpart 2
that address planning and emission control requirements for
nonattainment areas. (Both are found in title I, part D of the CAA).
Subpart 1 contains general, less prescriptive requirements for nonattainment areas for any pollutant
[[Page 713]]
governed by a NAAQS, and applies to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 2
contains more specific requirements for certain ozone nonattainment
areas, and applies to ozone nonattainment areas classified under section 181 of the CAA.
In the April 30, 2004, designation rulemaking, EPA divided 8hour ozone nonattainment areas into the categories of subpart 1 nonattainment (``basic'' nonattainment) and subpart 2 nonattainment (``classified'' nonattainment) based on their 8hour ozone design values (i.e., on the threeyear average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8hour ozone concentrations at the worstcase monitoring sites in the designated areas) and on their 1hour ozone design values (i.e., on the fourthhighest daily maximum 1hour ozone concentrations over the threeyear period at the worstcase monitoring sites in the designated areas).\3\ 8hour ozone nonattainment areas with 1hour ozone design values equaling or exceeding 121 ppb were designated as subpart 2, classified nonattainment areas. Classification of the subpart 2 nonattainment areas were based on the levels of the monitored 8hour ozone design values for each nonattainment area. All other 8 hour nonattainment areas were designated as subpart 1, basic nonattainment areas, which have no areaspecific classifications. \3\ The 8hour ozone design value and the 1hour ozone design value for each area were not necessarily recorded at the same monitoring site. The worstcase monitoring site for each ozone concentration averaging time was considered for each area.
Emission control requirements for classified nonattainment areas
are linked to area classifications. Areas with more serious ozone
pollution problems are subject to more prescribed requirements. The
requirements are designed to bring areas into attainment by their specified attainment dates, which also depend on the area
classifications. For example, marginal nonattainment areas are subject
to the fewest mandated control requirements and have the earliest
attainment deadline. Severe nonattainment areas are required to meet
more mandated emission controls than marginal areas, including tighter
restrictions on the sizes of existing VOC and NO
Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 8hour ozone standard is attained when the threeyear average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8hour average ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., less than or equal to 0.084 ppm or 84 ppb based on data rounding conventions specified in appendix I of 40 CFR part 50) over the most recent threeyear period at all monitors in an area and in its impacted downwind environs (See 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information). Such supporting data must meet a minimum data completeness requirement. The completeness requirement (specified in appendix I of 40 CFR part 50) for ozone data supporting a determination of attainment and a redesignation to attainment is met when the annual average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent for the ozone seasons during the threeyear period, with no single year with less than 75 percent data completeness during the ozone season.
In the April 30, 2004, designation/classification rulemaking, the SteubenvilleWeirton, WVOH area, including Jefferson County, was designated as subpart 1 nonattainment for the 8hour ozone standard. The designation was based on ozone data collected during the 20012003 period.
On July 31, 2006, the State of Ohio submitted a draft request for
redesignation of Jefferson County to attainment of the 8hour ozone
NAAQS based on ozone data collected in the SteubenvilleWeirton WVOH
area during the 20032005 period. On October 3, 2006, the State of Ohio
completed the ozone redesignation request by submitting documentation
of the public hearing conducted by the State for the redesignation
request and ozone maintenance plan. The information contained in the
State's July 31, 2006, ozone redesignation request submittal was
unchanged through the State's public review process (summarized in the
October 3, 2006, submittal). The State of West Virginia has also
submitted an ozone redesignation request for the West Virginia portion
of the SteubenvilleWeirton, WVOH area (for Hancock and Brooke
Counties). A separate proposed rule from EPA published on October 2, 2006 (71 FR 57905), addresses this request.
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation provided that: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS based on current air quality data; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable state implementation plan for the area under section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP, Federal air pollution control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable emission reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and, (5) the state containing the area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
EPA provided guidance on redesignations in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents:
``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,'' Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18, 1990;
``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to
Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
``Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for Redesignation of Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms,
Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
[[Page 714]]
Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993;
``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting
Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993;
``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; and,
``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.
IV. What Are EPA's Analyses of the State's Requests and What Are the Bases for EPA's Proposed Actions?
EPA is proposing to: (1) Determine that Jefferson County has
attained the 8hour ozone standard; (2) approve the ozone maintenance
plan for this County and the VOC and NO
1. Jefferson County and the SteubenvilleWeirton, WVOH Area Have Attained the 8Hour Ozone NAAQS
Analyses of the attainment of the 8hour ozone NAAQS are conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50 appendix I. These analyses use the most recent three complete, consecutive calendar years of qualityassured air quality monitoring data at all monitoring sites in the area and in its impacted downwind environs. To attain this standard, the average of the annual fourthhigh daily maximum 8hour average ozone concentrations measured and recorded at each monitor (the monitoring site's ozone design value) within the area and in its impacted downwind environs over the most recent threeyear period must not exceed the ozone standard. Based on the ozone data rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50 appendix I, the 8hour ozone standard is attained if the area's ozone design value \4\ is 0.084 ppm (84 ppb) or less. The data must be collected and qualityassured in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, and must be recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). The ozone monitors generally should have remained at the same locations for the duration of the monitoring period required to demonstrate attainment (for three years or more). \4\ The worstcase monitoring sitespecific ozone design value in the area or in its impacted downwind environs.
As part of the July 31, 2006, ozone redesignation request, the Ohio
EPA submitted summarized ozone monitoring data indicating the top four
daily maximum 8hour ozone concentrations for each monitoring site in
the SteubenvilleWeirton, WVOH area during the 20022005 period. These
summarized worstcase ozone concentrations are part of the quality
assured ozone data collected in this area and recorded in the AQS. The
annual fourthhigh 8hour daily maximum concentrations for each year
during the 20032005 period, along with the threeyear averages, are
summarized in Table 1 for Jefferson County, Ohio and Hancock County,
West Virginia. All monitoring sites achieved at least 99% data completeness.
Table 1.Annual FourthHigh Daily Maximum 8Hour Ozone Concentrations in Parts Per Million (ppm) for Jefferson
County, Ohio and Hancock County, West Virginia *
County Monitoring site 2003 2004 2005 Average
Jefferson County, Ohio.................... 227 North 5h................ 0.079 ........ ........ ........
618 Logan................... ........ 0.071 0.083 0.078
Hancock County, West Virginia............. Oak St. & Owin.............. 0.077 0.073 0.075 0.075
* Data for Hancock County was included in appendix A of the Ohio EPA's submission and is used in Table 1. The
data table in the main body of the State's submission included data for Ohio County, West Virginia (part of
the Wheeling area and not part of the SteubenvilleWeirton area) rather than Hancock County, West Virginia.
The monitoring site in Jefferson County was relocated to a site \1/ 3\ mile from the original site after 2003 because Ohio EPA lost access to the original site. The new site meets all citing criteria described in 40 CFR 58 Appendix E. The original and final sites are sufficiently close to each other, and removed from sources of ozone precursors such that the two sites represent the same air quality. Therefore, the data from the two sites can be combined when calculating the threeyear average ozone concentration in Table 1.
The monitored ozone concentrations for 20032005 show that the entire SteubenvilleWeirton, WVOH area has attained the 8hour ozone standard. The current threeyear average (20032005) for Jefferson County, Ohio is 0.078 ppm. The current threeyear average (20032005) for Hancock County, West Virginia is 0.075 ppm. The data collected at the Jefferson County and Hancock County, West Virginia monitoring sites show that the area satisfies the CAA requirement that the ozone standard must be attained at all sites in and around the ozone nonattainment area. The threeyear ozone design value for the nonattainment area is less than 0.085 ppm. Furthermore, available (non quality assured) ozone monitoring data from 2006 indicates that this area continues to attain the ozone NAAQs.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection have committed to continue ozone
monitoring in this area as part of the State's ozone maintenance plan.
This commitment meets a redesignation requirement, in accordance with
40 CFR part 58, that ozone monitoring will be continued to assure
continued attainment of the 8hour ozone standard. Furthermore, the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the West Virginia Department
of Environmental Protection will consult with EPA prior to altering the existing
[[Page 715]]
monitoring network if changes become necessary in the future. The two
states will continue to quality assure the data to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 58 and all other federal requirements. The data
will be available in real time on the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency's Web site and will be entered into AQS on a timely basis and in accordance with federal guidelines.
We find that the ozone monitoring data submitted by the States of
Ohio and West Virginia provide an adequate demonstration that the
SteubenvilleWeirton, WVOH area has attained the 8hour ozone NAAQS.
Therefore, we propose to determine that Jefferson County, Ohio, as part
of the SteubenvilleWeirton, WVOH area, has attained the 8hour ozone NAAQS.
2. Jefferson County and the State of Ohio Have Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and This Area Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
We have determined that Jefferson County and the State of Ohio have
met all currently applicable SIP requirements for Jefferson County
under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). We have
determined that the Ohio SIP meets the currently applicable SIP
requirements under subpart 1 part D of title I of the CAA (requirements specific to basic ozone nonattainment areas). See section
107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA. In addition, we have determined that all
applicable requirements are approved into the Ohio SIP. See section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA. In making these determinations, we
determined the CAA requirements which are applicable to Jefferson
County, and determined that the applicable portions of the SIP meeting
these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA.
We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to currently
applicable requirements of the CAA, which in this case are those CAA
requirements applicable to Jefferson County at the time the State
submitted a complete ozone redesignation request for this area, on October 3, 2006.
a. Jefferson County has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA. The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum (see ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. To qualify for redesignation to attainment under this interpretation, the state and the area must meet the relevant CAA requirements that apply at the time of the State's submittal of a complete redesignation request for the area. See also the September 17, 1993, Michael Shapiro memorandum, and 66 FR 12459, 1246512466 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of DetroitAnn Arbor, Michigan to attainment of the 1hour ozone NAAQS). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the state's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable until a redesignation of the area to attainment of the standard is approved, but are not required as prerequisites to redesignation. See section 175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of the St. Louis/East St. Louis area to attainment of the 1hour ozone NAAQS).
General SIP requirements: Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the general requirements for a SIP, which include: enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques; provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality; and programs to enforce the emission limitations. General SIP elements and requirements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA. These SIP elements and requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State after reasonable public notice and a hearing; (b) provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; (c) implementation of a source permit program; (d) provisions for the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)) and part D requirements (New Source Review (NSR)) for new sources or major source modifications; (e) criteria for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, and reporting; (f) provisions for air quality modeling; and, (g) provisions for public and local agency participation.
SIP requirements and elements are discussed in the following EPA documents: ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992; ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; and ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, September 17, 1993. See also other guidance documents listed above.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires SIPs to contain certain
measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing
to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision,
EPA required states to establish programs to address transport of air
pollutants (NO
We believe that these requirements should not be construed to be
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. Further, we
believe that the other section 110 elements described above that are
not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and that are not
linked with an area's attainment status are also not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to
these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We
conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements which are
linked with an area's designation and classification are the relevant
measures for evaluating this aspect of a redesignation request. This
approach is consistent with EPA's policy on applicability of conformity
and oxygenated fuels requirements for redesignation purposes, as well
as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See: Reading,
Pennsylvania proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 5317453176, October
10, 1996 and 62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); ClevelandAkronLorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
[[Page 716]]
1996); and Tampa, Florida final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7,
1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio
ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania ozone redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001).
We believe that section 110 elements not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Nonetheless, we also note that EPA has previously approved provisions in the Ohio SIP addressing section 110 elements under the 1hour ozone standard. We have analyzed the Ohio SIP as codified in 40 CFR part 52, subpart KK and have determined that it is consistent with the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. The SIP, which has been adopted after reasonable public notice and hearing, contains enforceable emission limitations; requires monitoring, compiling, and analyzing ambient air quality data; requires preconstruction review of new major stationary sources and major modifications of existing sources; provisions for adequate funding, staff, and associated resources necessary to implement its requirements; requires stationary source emissions monitoring and reporting; and otherwise satisfies the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2).
Part D SIP requirements: EPA has determined that the Ohio SIP meets applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA. Under part D, an area's classification (subpart 1, marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme) indicates the requirements to which it will be subject. Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172176 of the CAA, sets forth the basic nonattainment area plan requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of part D, found in section 182 of the CAA, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the area's nonattainment classification.
Part D, subpart 1 requirements: For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request, the applicable subpart 1 part D requirements for all nonattainment areas are contained in sections 172(c)(1)(9) and 176. A thorough discussion of the requirements of section 172 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498). See also 68 FR 48524853, a notice of proposed rulemaking for an ozone redesignation for the St. Louis area, for a discussion of section 172 requirements.
No requirements for 8hour ozone under part D of the CAA came due for Jefferson County prior to the State's submittal (October 3, 2006) of a complete ozone redesignation request for this area. For example, the requirement for an ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in section 172(c)(1), is not yet applicable, nor are the requirements for Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) and Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) (section 172(c)(1)), Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) (section 172(c)(2)), and attainment plan and RFP contingency measures (section 172(c)(9)). Therefore, none of the part D requirements are applicable to Jefferson County for purposes of redesignation.
Section 176 conformity requirements: Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federally supported or funded activities, including highway projects, conform to the air planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects developed, funded, or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as well as to all other Federally supported or funded projects (general conformity). State conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability, which EPA promulgated pursuant to CAA requirements.
In addition to the fact that part D requirements did not become due prior to Ohio's submission of a complete ozone redesignation request for Jefferson County, and, therefore, are not believed by the EPA to be applicable for redesignation purposes in this case, EPA similarly believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the ozone redesignation request under section 107(d) of the CAA. Further, EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the ozone redesignation request under section 107(d) of the CAA because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation of areas to attainment of a NAAQS and Federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001). See also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida).
EPA has also determined that areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a New Source Review (NSR) program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard without part D NSR, since Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements will apply after redesignation. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' Ohio is not relying on reductions from NSR to attain the ozone standard, and so the State need not have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation request. The State's PSD program will become effective in Jefferson County upon redesignation to attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 1246712468, March 7, 1995); ClevelandAkronLorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 2046920470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 3183431837, June 21, 1996).
EPA approved Ohio's general and transportation conformity SIPs on
March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9646) and May 30, 2000 (65 FR 34395),
respectively. In its July 31, 2006 submission Ohio included the on
highway motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) for 2009 and 2018 that
Table 2 outlines. EPA reviewed the budgets for the West Virginia
portion of the SteubenvilleWeirton area on October 2, 2006 (71 FR 57905).
Table 2.2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for Jefferson County, Ohio
VOC NOX
Inventory year emissions emissions
(tpd) (tpd)
2009 projected onroad mobile source emissions.. 2.29 3.57
2009 safety margin allocated to MVEBs........... 0.34 0.53
2009 MVEBs...................................... 2.63 4.10
2018 projected onroad mobile source emissions.. 1.19 1.45 [[Page 717]]
2018 safety margin allocated to MVEBs........... 0.18 0.22
2018 MVEBs...................................... 1.37 1.67
The area must use the motor vehicle emissions budgets from the maintenance plan in any conformity determination that is effective on or after the effective date of the maintenance plan approval. We conclude that Jefferson County and the State of Ohio have satisfied all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA to the extent that these requirements apply for purposes of reviewing the State's ozone redesignation request for this area.
b. Jefferson County has a fully approved applicable SIP under
section 110(k) of the CAA. EPA has fully approved the Ohio SIP for
Jefferson County under section 110(k) of the CAA for all applicable
requirements. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request (See the September 4, 1992 John Calcagni
memorandum, page 3, Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v.
Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989990 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d
426 (6th Cir. 2001)) plus any additional measures it may approve in
conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25426 (May 12,
2003). Since the passage of the CAA of 1970, Ohio has adopted and
submitted, and EPA has fully approved, provisions addressing the
various required SIP elements applicable to Jefferson County for
purposes of redesignation. No Jefferson County SIP provisions are
currently disapproved, conditionally approved, or partially approved.
As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked to the
area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for
purposes of reviewing the State's redesignation request. EPA has also
noted that it may conclude that the section 110 SIP submission approved
under the 1hour standard will be adequate for purposes of attaining
and maintaining the 8hour standard. EPA also believes that since the
part D requirements for the eighthour ozone standard did not become
due prior to Ohio's submission of a final, complete redesignation
request for Jefferson County, they also are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
3. The Air Quality Improvement in the SteubenvilleWeirton, WVOH Area
Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting
From Implementation of the SIP, Federal Air Pollution Control
Regulations, and Other Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions
In making this demonstration, the States of West Virginia \5\ and
Ohio have documented changes in VOC and NO
\5\ West Virginia submitted a separate ozone redesignation
request for its portion of the SteubenvilleWeirton, WVOH area. The
West Virginia redesignation request is being addressed in a separate
EPA proposed rule (71 CFR 57905). West Virginia did supply emissions
data for the SteubenvilleWeirton area to the State of Ohio for
inclusion in Ohio's ozone redesignation request. The West Virginia
data summarized here are those data provided to the State of Ohio,
and may differ from those summarized in the West Virginia ozone
redesignation request. We have noticed minor differences in the two
sets of data, but emphasize that the differences are minor and
primarily due to rounding differences induced by how the two States
have handled the summarized data and by how various EPA reviewers have handled and rounded the data in the proposed rules.
\6\ Minor differences exist between the emissions summarized in
Table 3 and those summarized by the State of Ohio in its July 31,
2006, ozone redesignation request. For purposes of maintaining
significant figure consistency and for readability, we have rounded
all emissions to one significant decimal place. The State of Ohio
has not maintained this consistency, leading to some differences in individual category emissions and in emissions totals.
The States of Ohio and West Virginia conclude that the differences in the 2002 and 2004 emissions are due primarily to the implementation of permanent and enforceable emission control requirements. Table 3.Total Anthropogenic VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in the SteubenvilleWeirton, WVOH Area [Tons per day] County Point Area Nonroad Onroad Total 2002 Volatile Organic Compounds Jefferson County, Ohio................................... 1.1 3.1 1.0 4.2 9.4 Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia............... 6.7 4.5 1.5 3.2 15.9
2002 Total........................................... 7.8 7.6 2.5 7.4 25.3 [[Page 718]]
2004 Volatile Organic Compounds
Jefferson County, Ohio................................... 1.2 3.1 0.9 3.6 8.8
Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virgina................ 4.8 4.6 1.5 2.6 13.5
2004 Total........................................... 6.0 7.7 2.4 6.2 22.3
Difference (20022004) \7\........................... 1.8 0.1 0.1 1.2 3.0 2002 Nitrogen Oxides Jefferson County, Ohio................................... 190.0 0.2 2.4 6.3 198.9 Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia............... 5.9 4.6 4.3 4.3 19.1
2002 Total........................................... 195.9 4.8 6.7 10.6 218.0 2004 Nitrogen Oxides Jefferson County, Ohio................................... 154.7 0.2 2.3 5.4 162.6 Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia............... 4.5 4.8 5.3 3.6 18.2
2004 Total........................................... 159.2 5.0 7.6 9.0 180.8
Difference (20022004)............................... 36.7 0.2 0.9 1.6 37.2
The significant decline in NO
\7\ Positive differences indicate a decrease in emissions over
time from 2002 to 2004. Negative differences indicate emissions were
increasing over time, primarily as the result of emission changes
from source growth exceeding the impacts of implemented emission controls.
We concur with the States that NO
Besides implementation of the NO
The State of Ohio commits to continuing the existing VOC and
NO
In conjunction with its request to redesignate Jefferson County to attainment of the ozone NAAQS, Ohio submitted a SIP revision request to provide for maintenance of the 8hour ozone NAAQS in Jefferson County and in the entire SteubenvilleWeirton, WVOH area through 2018, exceeding the minimum 10 year maintenance period required by the CAA.
a. What Is Required in an Ozone Maintenance Plan? Section 175A of
the CAA sets forth the required elements of air quality maintenance
plans for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment
of a NAAQS. Under section 175A, a maintenance plan must demonstrate
continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years
after the Administrator approves the redesignation to attainment. Eight
years after the redesignation, the State must submit a revised
maintenance plan which demonstrates that maintenance of the standard
will continue for 10 years following the initial 10 year maintenance
period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the
maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures, with a
schedule for implementation, as EPA deems necessary, to assure prompt
correction of any future NAAQS violations. The September 4, 1992 John
Calcagni memorandum provides additional guidance on the content of
maintenance plans. An ozone maintenance plan should, at minimum,
address the following items: (1) The attainment VOC and NO
b. What Are the Attainment Emission Inventories for Jefferson
County? Ohio EPA prepared comprehensive VOC and NO
[[Page 719]]
years (2009 and 2018) emissions, the Ohio EPA projected the 2002
emissions applying various source categoryspecific growth factors and emission control factors.
The State has thoroughly documented how the 2002 base year emissions were derived. The following summarizes the procedures and sources of data used by the Ohio EPA to derive the base year emissions.
i. Point Sources. The primary source of point source information
was facilityspecific information collected annually by the State for
sources covered by Title V source permits. This information includes
emissions, process rates, operating schedules, emissions control data,
and other relevant information. The State also used emissions data
provided by EPA's EGU emission inventory, maintained to support the
NO
Ohio EPA defines point source process emissions as those that occur at a Title V facility with an identifiable stationary stack or vent. Point source emissions not emitted from discrete stacks or vents are defined to be fugitive emissions. Facilityspecific fugitive emissions are also reported by each Title V facility and stored in the Title V STARS database.
Point source emissions included in the 2002 base year emissions inventory were provided to the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) in National Emissions Inventory Input Format (NIF) 3.0 format. LADCO imported and processed the NIF files in the Emissions Modeling System (EMS) and applied temporal and spatial profiles to calculate July weekday emissions rates. The Jefferson County emissions derived from this set of emissions data were split into EGU emissions and non EGU emissions for inclusion in the base year emissions inventory used to support the Jefferson County ozone redesignation request.
ii. Area (Other) Sources. Area sources are those sources which are generally small, numerous, and have not been inventoried as specific point, mobile, or biogenic sources. The emissions for these sources are calculated and grouped by source type and are estimated using various surrogates, such as population, energy usage, estimates of employees in various occupational groups and facilitytypes. The area source emissions are typically defined at the county level.
To estimate the area source emissions, Ohio EPA has either used published Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) emissions estimation methodologies or other methodologies typically used by other states. Area source categories include: Various stationary combustion sources (not including the EGU sources included in the point source portion of the emissions inventory); human cremation; agricultural pesticides; architectural surface coatings; auto body refinishing; consumer and commercial solvents; degreasing and solvent cleaning (not included in point source emissions); fuel marketing; graphic arts (the emissions from the smaller facilities not included in the Title V STARS database); hospital sterilizers; small industry surface coating; small industry rubber and plastics coating; landfills; portable fuel containers; traffic markings; and Privately Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). The State has documented the data sources and emission factors or calculation procedures used for each of these area source categories.
iii. NonRoad Mobile Sources. The nonroad mobile source emissions inventory was generated regionally by running EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM). The NMIM output was converted to the NIF format and submitted to LADCO for processing in the EMS to obtain spatially and temporally allocated summer emission rates. The basic nonroad algorithm for calculating emissions in NMIM uses base year equipment populations, average load factors, available engine powers, activity hours and emission factors to calculate the emissions.
iv. Marine, Aircraft, and Rail (MAR) Sources. Due to the significance of the emissions from these source types, the Ohio EPA has decided to treat these source categories separately from other nonroad mobile sources. The MAR emissions include emissions from commercial marine, aircraft, and locomotive sources.
Commercial marine vessels consist of several different categories of vessel types. For each vessel type, there are unique engine types, emission rates, and activity data sets. The emissions inventory documentation lists the vessel types and activity data sources by vessel type, along with the spatial range of each vessel type.
Locomotive activity was divided into various rail categories: Class I operations; Class II/III operations; passenger trains; consumer lines; and yard operations. Since Class I operations are expected to be the most significant rail operations in most areas, including Jefferson County, operators of Class I operations were queried for activity and emissionsrelated information for each railroad line. Class I activity levels were provided by county in terms of tonmiles of freight movement and estimated fuel consumption. This approach provided for more specific estimates of emissions by railroad line. Class I railroads, however, could not provide information about their switching rail activity. Class II/III emissions were based on national fuel consumption and per employee fuel consumption estimates.
EPA provided the aircraft emission estimates based on Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published Landing and TakeOff (LTO) rates by engine type for each airline and major airport in the State of Ohio. The LTOengine information was combined with engine typespecific emission factors developed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and, through use of a FAA Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS), which calculates aircraftspecific emissions.
LADCO processed all of the MAR emissions data through the EMS to
calculate July 2002 summer day emissions for VOC and NO
v. OnRoad Mobile Sources. A regional transportation model operated
by the Brooke, Hancock, Jefferson Transportation Study (BHJTS), West
Virginia Department of Transportation (WVDOT), and Ohio Department of
Transportation (Ohio DOT) was used to estimate traffic levels, vehicle
age and type distributions, vehicle speeds, and other emissionsrelated
vehicle parameters for the roadways in Jefferson County and elsewhere
in the SteubenvilleWeirton, WVOH area. This vehicle travel
information, along with the MOBILE 6.2 vehicle emission factor model,
was used to estimate mobile source VOC and NO
vi. Projected Emissions for the Attainment Year. Ambient air
quality data showed that the SteubenvilleWeirton, WVOH area met the
8hour ozone NAAQS in 2004. Ohio EPA projected point source emissions
from the 2002 baseline to 2004 with the statewide EGU NO
[[Page 720]]
emissions for its portion of the SteubenvilleWeirton, WVOH area. The
estimated 2004 emissions have been compared to the 2002 emissions to
demonstrate the basis for the improved air quality in the Steubenville
Weirton, WVOH area. See Table 3 above for the 2004 attainment level emissions.
c. Demonstration of Maintenance. As part of the July 31, 2006,
redesignation request submittal, Ohio EPA included a requested revision
to the Ohio SIP to incorporate an ozone maintenance plan for Jefferson
County. This plan demonstrates maintenance of the 8hour ozone NAAQS through 2018 by documenting current and projected VOC and
NO
The State of Ohio and the State of West Virginia projected the VOC
and NO
Table 4 summarizes the VOC emissions projected to occur in
Jefferson County, Ohio and in Hancock and Brooke Counties, West
Virginia during the demonstrated ozone maintenance period. Similarly,
Table 5 summarizes the NO
Table 4.Projected VOC Emissions in the SteubenvilleWeirton, WVOH Area
[tons/day]
2004 2009 2018 Safety
Source sector Attainment Interim Maintenance margin
Jefferson County, Ohio VOC Emissions
EGU Point................................................... 0.9 1.0 1.0 ...........
NonEGU Point............................................... 0.2 0.2 0.2 ...........
Area (Other)................................................ 3.1 2.9 2.9 ...........
NonRoad Mobile............................................. 0.9 0.8 0.6 ...........
OnRoad Mobile.............................................. 3.6 *2.6 *1.4 ...........
MarineAirRailroad......................................... 0.1 0.1 0.1 ...........
Total Jefferson County.................................. 8.8 7.6 6.2 **2.6 Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia VOC Emissions EGU Point................................................... 0 0 0 ........... NonEGU Point............................................... 4.8 4.3 5.3 ........... Area (Other)................................................ 4.6 4.5 5.2 ........... NonRoad Mobile (MAR included).............................. 1.5 1.2 1.0 ........... OnRoad Mobile.............................................. 2.6 *2.0 *1.0
Total Hancock and Brooke Counties....................... 13.5 12.0 12.5 **1.0
Total SteubenvilleWeirton, WVOH....................... 22.3 19.6 18.7 **3.6 * Includes 15 percent mobile source budget increase as a safety margin. Actual projected 2018 onroad mobile source VOC emissions in Jefferson County are 1.19 tons per day. In Brooke and Hancock Counties, the actual projected 2018 onroad mobile source VOC are 0.88 tons per day. ** Difference between 2004 attainment year emissions and 2018 maintenance year emissions. Table 5.Projected NOX Emissions in the SteubenvilleWeirton, WVOH Area [tons/day] 2004 2009 2018 Safety Source sector Attainment Interim Maintenance margin Jefferson County, Ohio NOX Emissions EGU Point................................................... 148.8 60.8 41.0 ........... NonEGU Point............................................... 5.9 5.6 5.4 ........... Area (Other)................................................ 0.2 0.2 0.2 ........... NonRoad Mobile............................................. 0.7 0.6 0.3 ........... OnRoad Mobile.............................................. 5.4 *4.1 *1.7 ........... MarineAirRailroad......................................... 1.5 1.4 1.3 ...........
Total Jefferson County.................................. 162.5 72.7 49.9 **112.6 [[Page 721]]
Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia NOX Emissions
EGU Point................................................... 0 0 0 ...........
NonEGU Point............................................... 4.5 5.1 5.6 ...........
Area (Other)................................................ 4.8 4.9 5.2 ...........
NonRoad Mobile (MAR included).............................. 5.3 3.8 3.2 ...........
OnRoad Mobile.............................................. 3.6 *2.8 *1.2 ...........
Total Hancock and Brooke Counties....................... 18.2 16.6 15.2 **3.0
Total SteubenvilleWeirton, WVOH....................... 180.7 89.3 65.1 **115.6 * Includes 15 percent mobile source budget increase as a safety margin. Actual projected 2018 onroad mobile source NOX emissions in Jefferson County are 1.45 tons per day. Actual projected 2018 onroad mobile source NOX emissions in Hancock and Brooke Counties are 0.94 tons per day. ** Difference between 2004 attainment year emissions and 2018 maintenance year emissions.
The Ohio EPA also notes that the State's EGU NO
The emission projections for Jefferson County and the Steubenville
Weirton, WVOH area as a whole coupled with the expected impacts of the
States' EGU NO
Based on the comparison of the projected emissions and the
attainment year emissions, we conclude that Ohio EPA has successfully
demonstrated that the 8hour ozone standard can be maintained in
Jefferson County and in the SteubenvilleWeirton, WVOH area. We
believe that this is especially likely given the expected impacts of
the NO
d. Contingency Plan. The contingency plan provisions of the CAA are designed to result in prompt correction or prevention of violations of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation of an area to attainment of the NAAQS. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the State will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation. The maintenance plan must identify the contingency measures to be considered for possible adoption, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation of the selected contingency measures, and a time limit for action by the State. The State should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that the State will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant(s) that were included in the SIP before the redesignation of the area to attainment. See section 175A(d) of the CAA.
As required by section 175A of the CAA, Ohio has adopted a contingency plan to address a possible future ozone air quality problem in the SteubenvilleWeirton, WVOH area. The contingency plan has two levels of actions/responses depending on whether a violation of the 8 hour ozone standard is only threatened (Warning Level Response) or has actually occurred or appears to be very imminent (Action Level Response).
A Warning Level Response will be triggered whenever an annual (1 year) fourthhigh monitored 8hour ozone concentration of 88 ppb occurs within the ozone maintenance area (within the SteubenvilleWeirton, WV OH area). A Warning Level Response will consist of a study to determine whether the ozone value indicates a trend toward higher ozone concentrations and/or whether emissions appear to be increasing. The study will evaluate whether the trend, if any, is likely to continue and, if so, the control measures necessary to reverse the trend. This would involve taking into consideration ease and timing for implementation, as well as economic and social considerations. Implementation of necessary controls in response to a Warning Level Response will take place as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than 12 months from the conclusion of the most recent ozone season.
An Action Level Response will be triggered whenever a twoyear averaged annual fourthhigh monitored 8hour ozone concentration of 85 ppb or greater occurs within the maintenance area. A violation of the 8hour ozone standard (threeyear average fourthhigh value of 85 ppb or greater) will also prompt an Action Level Response. In the event that an Action Level Response is triggered and is not due to an exceptional event, malfunction, or noncompliance with a source permit condition or rule requirement, Ohio EPA will determine the additional emission control measures needed to assure future attainment of the ozone NAAQS. Emission control measures that can be implemented in a short time will be selected in order to be in place wit
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Jennifer Dunn, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 3535899, dunn.jennifer@epa.gov.
Common CFR Searches
14 CFR Part 39 40 CFR Part 52 14 CFR Part 71 33 CFR Part 165 26 CFR Part 1 50 CFR Part 679 40 CFR Part 180 47 CFR Part 73 33 CFR Part 117 50 CFR Part 17 44 CFR Part 67 50 CFR Part 648 14 CFR Part 97 33 CFR Part 100 40 CFR Part 63 26 CFR Part 301 50 CFR Part 622 39 CFR Part 111 50 CFR Part 660 44 CFR Part 65 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 40 CFR Part 271 47 CFR Part 64 40 CFR Part 300 14 CFR Part 23 14 CFR Part 25 21 CFR Part 522 50 CFR Part 665 47 CFR Part 76 27 CFR Part 9
