Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
CFR Citation: 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
EPA ID: [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-1022; FRL-8301-7]
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 the Ohio Portion of the Youngstown Area to Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone Standard
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 18, 2007.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: On February 15, 2007, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA), submitted a request for a redesignation of its portion of the Youngstown area to attainment of the 8hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), and a request for EPA approval of an ozone maintenance plan for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio. The State public hearing on the submittal was held on January 9, 2007.
EPA is proposing to determine that the Youngstown area has attained
the 8hour ozone NAAQS. EPA believes that the State's ozone maintenance
plan for the area is acceptable and, in conjunction with projected
emissions in the Pennsylvania portion of the area (Mercer County), will
provide for maintenance of the 8hour ozone NAAQS in these Counties
through 2018. EPA is proposing approval of the State's request to
redesignate Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio to
attainment of the 8hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also 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 Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? II. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?
III. What Is the Background for These Actions?
IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
V. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request and What Is the Basis for EPA's Proposed Actions?
VI. Has Ohio Adopted Acceptable Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Ozone Maintenance Plan Which Can Be Used To Support Conformity Determinations?
VII. What Action Is EPA Taking?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
2. Follow directionsThe EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
II. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?
We are proposing to take several related actions for Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio. First, we are proposing to
determine that the interstate Youngstown area (officially, the
YoungstownWarrenSharon PAOH area as defined for 8hour ozone
designation purposes) has attained the 8hour ozone NAAQS. Second, we
are proposing to approve Ohio's ozone maintenance plan for Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties as a requested revision to the Ohio
State Implementation Plan (SIP). The maintenance plan is designed to
keep the area in attainment of the 8hour ozone NAAQS for the next 11
years, through 2018. Thirdly, we are proposing to find that the Ohio
portion of this area (Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties), has
met the requirements for redesignation to attainment of the 8hour
ozone NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Fourth, as supported by, and consistent with, the ozone maintenance
plan, we are also proposing to approve the 2009 and 2018 VOC and
NO
These proposed actions pertain to the designations of Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio for the 8hour ozone NAAQS and
to the emission controls in these counties related to the attainment
and maintenance of the 8hour ozone NAAQS. If you own or operate a VOC
or NO
A. General Background
In EPA's April 30, 2004, rulemaking establishing designations and classifications for the 8hour ozone standard, EPA designated the Youngstown area as subpart 1 nonattainment for the 8hour ozone standard. EPA based the designation on ozone data collected during the 20012003 period.
On December 4, 2006, the State of Ohio submitted a request for redesignation of Mahoning, Trumbull,
[[Page 19437]]
and Columbiana Counties to attainment of the 8hour ozone NAAQS based
on ozone data collected in these counties and Mercer County,
Pennsylvania during the 20042006 period. On January 9, 2007, the State
of Ohio held a public hearing on the ozone redesignation request and
ozone maintenance plan. Based on a February 15, 2007, submittal from
the State, all information contained in the State's December 4, 2006,
ozone redesignation request submittal was unchanged through the State's public review process.
B. What Is the Impact of the December 22, 2006, United States Court of
Appeals Decision Regarding EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule? 1. Summary of Court Decision
On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8 hour Ozone Standard (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F. 3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The Court held that certain provisions of EPA's Phase I Rule were inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The Court rejected EPA's reasons for implementing the 8hour standard in nonattainment areas under Subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the Act. The Court also held that EPA improperly failed to retain four measures required for 1hour nonattainment areas under the antibacksliding provisions of the regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an area's 1hour nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) certain conformity requirements for certain types of Federal actions. The Court upheld EPA's authority to revoke the 1hour standard provided there were adequate antibacksliding provisions.
This section sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the Court's ruling on this redesignation action. For the reasons set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's ruling alters any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and does not prevent EPA from finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's decision, as it currently stands or as it may be modified based upon any petition for rehearing that has been filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of this area to attainment, because in either circumstance redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests.
2. Requirements Under the 8Hour Standard
With respect to the 8hour standard, the court's ruling rejected EPA's reasons for classifying areas under Subpart 1 for the 8hour standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency. Consequently, it is possible that this area could, during a remand to EPA, be reclassified under Subpart 2. although any future decision by EPA to classify this area under subpart 2 might trigger additional future requirements for the area, EPA believes that this does not mean that redesignation cannot now go forward. This belief is based upon (1) EPA's longstanding policy of evaluating redesignation requirements in accordance with the requirements due at the time the request was submitted; and (2) consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any requirements that might be applied in the future.
First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the
Youngstown area was classified under Subpart 1 and was obligated to meet the Subpart 1 requirements. Under EPA's longstanding
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to qualify
for redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must
meet only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the
submittal of a complete redesignation request. September 4, 1992
Calcagni memorandum (``Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division). See also Michael Shapiro
Memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 1246566 (March 7,
1995) (redesignation of DetroitAnn Arbor); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.
3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004), which upheld this interpretation. See, e.g.,
also 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).
Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was submitted. The DC Circuit has recognized the inequity in such retroactive rulemaking. See Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F. 3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002), in which the DC Circuit upheld a District Court's ruling refusing to make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that was past the statutory due date. Such a determination would have resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area. The Court stated: ``Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment determination within the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed solution only makes the situation worse. Retroactive relief would likely impose large costs on the States, which would face fines and suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even though they were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly, here it would be unfair to penalize the area by applying to it for purposes of redesignation additional SIP requirements under Subpart 2 that were not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation request.
3. Requirements Under the 1Hour Standard
With respect to the 1hour standard requirements, Mahoning and Trumbull Counties and also, separately, Columbiana County were designated as an Attainment area subject to a Clean Air Act section 175A maintenance plan under the 1hour standard. The Court's ruling does not impact redesignation requests for these types of areas.
First, there are no conformity requirements that are relevant for
redesignation requests, including the requirement to submit a
transportation conformity SIP.\1\ Under longstanding EPA policy, EPA
believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirement as not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation
request under section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still
required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where
state rules have not been approved. 40 CFR 51.390. See Wall v. EPA, 265
F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See also 60
FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995) (Tampa, FL redesignation). EPA approved Ohio's
general and transportation conformity SIPs on March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9646) and May 30, 2000 (65 FR 34395), respectively.
\1\ Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(E) currently requires States
to submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain Federal
criteria and procedures for determining transportation conformity.
Transportation conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle
emissions budgets that are established in control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.
Second, with respect to the three other antibacksliding provisions
for the 1hour standard that the Court found were not properly retained, Mahoning and Trumbull Counties and separately
[[Page 19438]]
Columbiana County are attainment areas subject to maintenance plans for
the 1hour standard, and the NSR, contingency measure (pursuant to
section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)) and fee provision requirements no
longer apply to an area that has been redesignated to attainment of the 1hour standard.
Thus the decision in South Coast should not alter requirements that would preclude EPA from finalizing the redesignation of this area. IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment 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 an 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 several guidance documents. A listing of
pertinent guidance documents is provided in other redesignation actions
(for example in the Federal Register of September 9, 2005, at 70 FR 53606).
V. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request and What Is the Basis for EPA's Proposed Actions?
EPA is proposing to: (1) Determine that the Youngstown area has
attained the 8hour ozone standard; (2) approve the ozone maintenance
plan for the Ohio portion of this area (Columbiana, Mahoning and
Trumbull counties) and the VOC and NO
The basis for our proposed determination and approval is as follows:
1. The Youngstown Area Has Attained the 8Hour Ozone NAAQS
For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 8hour
ozone NAAQS if there are no violations of the NAAQS, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50 appendix I based on the
most recent three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality
assured air quality monitoring data at all monitoring sites in the
area. For each monitor in the area and nearby, the average of the
annual fourthhigh daily maximum 8hour average ozone concentrations
measured and recorded over a 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 standard is attained if the
area's ozone design value \2\ is 0.085 ppm (85 ppb) or lower. 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 \3\).
\2\ The worstcase monitoring sitespecific ozone design value in the area.
\3\ EPA generally opposes terminating or relocating monitors at
sites that are currently recording violations of the ozone standard.
In addition, EPA encourages states to continue monitoring at most
sites over the long term to confirm maintenance of the ozone standard and to support the determination of robust ozone
concentration trends.
As part of the December 4, 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 Youngstown area during the 20042006 period. When the
redesignation request was submitted, the complete 2006 monitoring data
had not been quality assured and the data table submitted by Ohio EPA
shows less than 75% data for the Ohio monitoring sites. However, now
the Ohio EPA has completed all quality assurance procedures and the AQS
system has over 75% data completeness for the Ohio sites. The following
table summarizes the worstcase ozone concentrations that are part of
the qualityassured ozone data collected and recorded in these
Counties. These data have been entered into EPA's AQS. The annual
fourthhigh 8hour daily maximum ozone concentrations, along with their threeyear averages are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1.FourthHigh 8Hour Ozone Concentrations
[In parts per billion (ppb)]
County Monitoring site 2004 2005 2006 Average
Mahoning OH............................... 345 Oakhill................. 74 83 76 77
Trumbull OH............................... 6346 KinsmanBloomfield Rd.. 78 83 74 78
Trumbull OH............................... 842 YoungstownKingsville Rd 80 87 82 83
Mercer PA................................. Pa518 (New Castle Road) & 76 87 79 79 Pa418.
These data show that the sitespecific ozone design values (average fourthhigh daily maximum 8hour ozone concentrations over the period of 20042006) for all monitoring sites in the Youngstown area are below the 85 ppb average ozone standard violation cutoff. These data support the conclusion that the Youngstown area ozone monitors did not record a violation of the 8hour ozone standard during the 20042006 period, and monitored attainment of the standard during this period.
As discussed below with respect to the ozone maintenance plan, the State commits to continue ozone monitoring in these Counties.
We believe that the data submitted by the State to the AQS provide
an adequate demonstration that the Youngstown area has attained the 8
hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, we propose to find that the Youngstown [[Page 19439]]
area, including Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio, has attained the 8hour ozone NAAQS.
2. Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Have Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and These Areas Have a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
We have determined that the State of Ohio has met all currently
applicable SIP requirements for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). We
have determined that the Ohio SIP meets 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 the
Ohio SIP is fully approved with respect to all applicable requirements. See section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA. In making these
determinations, we noted the CAA requirements that are applicable to
the areas, 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, those CAA requirements
applicable to Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties at the time
the State submits the final, complete ozone redesignation request for these areas.
a. Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Have 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 of an area to attainment under this interpretation, the state and the area must meet the relevant CAA requirements that come due prior to the State's submittal of a complete redesignation request for the area. See also the September 17, 1993, Michael Shapiro memorandum and 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 requirements and SIP elements 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.
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 existing policy on applicability of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for redesignation purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See: Reading, Pennsylvania proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174 53176, October 10, 1996 and 62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); ClevelandAkron Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, 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 [[Page 19440]]
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 ozone SIP requirements under part D of the CAA. Under part D, for ozone, 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 for ozone nonattainment areas depending on the area's nonattainment classification.
Part D, subpart 1 requirements: For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request, the applicable requirements are those contained in Subpart I of Part D, in particular 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, in an ozone redesignation notice of proposed rulemaking for the St. Louis area, for a discussion of section 172 requirements.
No requirements for the 8hour ozone standard under part D of the CAA will come due for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties prior to June 15, 2007. 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)). All of these required SIP elements are required for submittal after June 15, 2007, and Ohio has submitted the public hearing transcript and response to comment to complete the ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties prior to the due date. Therefore, none of the part D requirements are considered to be applicable to Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties for purposes of redesignation for ozone.
Section 176 conformity requirements: Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federallysupported or funded activities, including highway projects, conform to the air 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 Federallysupported or funded projects (general conformity). State conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate.
In addition to the fact that part D requirements will not become due prior to Ohio's submittal of the complete ozone redesignation request for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, 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. 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 approved Ohio's general and transportation conformity SIPs on March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9646) and May 30, 2000 (65 FR 34395), respectively.
We conclude that Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties 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.
b. Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties have a fully approved applicable SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA
EPA has fully approved the Ohio SIP for Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties under section 110(k) of the CAA for all applicable
requirements. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request, plus any additional measures it may approve in
conjunction with a redesignation action. 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) 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 Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties for purposes
of redesignation. No Mahoning, Trumbull, or Columbiana 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 review of the State's redesignation
request. EPA also believes that since the part D requirements did not
become due prior to Ohio's submittal of the final, complete
redesignation request, they also are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
3. The Air Quality Improvements in Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties Are Due To Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
We believe that the State of Ohio has adequately demonstrated that
the observed air quality improvements in Mahoning, Trumbull, and
Columbiana Counties are due to permanent and enforceable emission
reductions resulting from the implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other Stateadopted measures. In making this
demonstration, the State has documented the changes in VOC and
NO
[[Page 19441]]
discussed permanent and enforceable emission reductions have occurred
elsewhere in the State and in other upwind areas that have contributed
to the air quality improvement in Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties. Table 2 summarizes the VOC and NO
Table 2.Total Anthropogenic VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio and Mercer County, Pennsylvania
[Tons per summer day]
2002 2004
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions
Total All Source Categories................... 70.51 64.60
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
Total All Source Categories................... 95.53 82.50
Mercer County Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions
Total All Source Categories................... 20.80 19.05 Mercer County Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
Total All Source Categories................... 25.44 22.43
Combined Total for Youngstown/Warren/Sharon OH 91.31 83.65 PA VOCs......................................
Combined Total for Youngstown/Warren/Sharon OH 120.97 104.93 PA NOX.......................................
From the above table, it can be seen that the Youngstown area
experienced decreases in VOC and NO
Also, the State notes a significant decline in regional
NO
NO
Besides the implementation of the regional NO
The State of Ohio commits to maintain the existing VOC and
NO
4. Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Have a Fully Approvable Ozone Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to redesignate Mahoning, Trumbull,
and Columbiana Counties to attainment of the 8hour ozone NAAQS, Ohio
submitted SIP revision requests to provide for maintenance of the 8
hour ozone NAAQS in the Youngstown area through 2018, exceeding the 10 year minimum maintenance period required by the CAA.
[[Page 19442]]
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 Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties?
Ohio EPA prepared VOC and NO
i. Point Sources
The primary source of point source information was facility
specific emissions and source activity data collected annually by the
State for sources covered by Title V \4\ source permits. This
information includes emissions, process rates, source operating
schedules, emissions control data, and other relevant source
information. The State also used emissions data provided by EPA's EGU
emission inventory, maintained to support the NO
Ohio EPA defines point source emissions as those which occur at 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). LADCO applied temporal and spatial profiles to calculate July weekday emissions rates. The Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties' emissions derived from this set of emissions data were split into EGU emissions and nonEGU emissions for inclusion in the base year emissions inventory used to support the Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties 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 generally calculated using various surrogates, such as population, estimates of employees in various occupational groups, etc., and grouped by general source types. The area source emissions are typically defined at the county level.
Ohio EPA has either used published Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) emissions estimation methodologies or other methodologies typically used by other states to estimate the area source emissions. Area source categories include: Various stationary combustion sources (not including the EGU sources included in the point source portion of the emissions inventory); agricultural pesticides; architectural surface coatings; auto body refinishing; consumer and commercial solvent usage; solvent cleaning; fuel marketing; graphic arts; hospital sterilizers; industrial surface coating (minus point source emissions for this source category); municipal solid waste disposal; portable fuel containers; privately owned treatment works; traffic markings; human cremation; industrial fuel combustion; residential fuel combustion; structural fires; and miscellaneous source categories. The State has documented the data sources used for each of these source categories.
iii. NonRoad Mobile Sources
The nonroad mobile source emissions inventory was generated regionally by running EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM). LADCO applied spatial and temporal allocations to derive emissions for a July weekday. 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 mobile 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 special distribution of each vessel type.
Locomotive activity was divided into various rail categories: Class
I operations; Class II/III operations; passenger trains; commuter lines; and yard operations. Since Class I operations
[[Page 19443]]
are expected to be the most significant rail operations in the three
Counties, operators of Class I operations were queried for activity and
emissionsrelated information for each railroad line. This approach
provided for more specific estimates of emissions by railroad line.
Class II/III emissions were based on national fuel consumption and per
employee fuel consumption estimates. The number of railroad employees
in each county was used to allocate the fuel consumption to each county and, therefore, the emissions to each county.
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), emissions were calculated and assigned to each county in the State, including Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties.
The MAR data were processed by LADCO to calculate July 2002 daily emissions of VOC and NO
v. OnRoad Mobile Sources
The inventories of onroad mobile source emissions for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties were developed by the Ohio EPA in conjunction with the Ohio Department of Transportation (Ohio DOT), the Eastgate Regional Council of Governments (Eastgate), LADCO, and EPA. Eastgate utilized a regional travel demand forecast model to simulate traffic and to forecast traffic flow for given growth expectations in the metropolitan areas of Mahoning and Trumbull counties. In rural areas that are not covered by the network model, such as Columbiana County, the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) data was used to estimate vehicle mile of travel (VMT). The travel demand forecasting model was used to predict the total daily vehicle miles traveled and speeds on roadways. MOBILE6.2 is used to calculate emissions per mile based on the VMT and speed projections from the travel demand forecast model. The most current vehicle age distribution data, temperature data and fuel properties data provided by Ohio EPA was used in the analysis. vi. Projected Emissions for the Attainment Year
Ambient ozone air quality data showed that Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties met the 8hour ozone NAAQS in the 20042006 period. Ohio EPA used emission estimates for 2004 as the ``attainment year'' emissions for the area, to represent the base period emissions for the demonstrations of maintenance. See the discussion of the demonstrations of maintenance below. The 2004 emissions were estimated by growing the emissions from the 2002 base year emission levels.
Ohio EPA used point source growth data provided by individual point
source facilities along with other source categoryspecific growth
estimates and emission control estimates to estimate stationary source
VOC and NO
As part of the December 4, 2006, redesignation request submittal,
Ohio EPA included requested revisions to the Ohio SIP to incorporate
the ozone maintenance plan for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties as required under section 175A of the CAA. Included in the
maintenance plan is the ozone attainment maintenance demonstration.
This demonstration shows maintenance of the 8hour ozone NAAQS through
2018 by documenting attainment year and future projected VOC and
NO
The Ohio EPA projected the VOC and NO
Table 3 summarizes the VOC and NO
Point (includes EGU)........................ 6.02 6.39 7.75 ..............
Area (Other)................................ 24.10 22.86 23.03 ..............
NonRoad Mobile............................. 7.95 6.24 4.90 ..............
OnRoad Mobile.............................. 26.21 17.03 9.01 .............. [[Page 19444]]
MarineAirRailroad......................... 0.32 0.29 0.29 ..............
Total VOC Emissions..................... 64.60 52.81 44.98 *19.62 NOX Emissions:
Point....................................... 20.25 8.32 12.69 ..............
Area (Other)................................ 2.49 2.79 2.96 ..............
NonRoad Mobile............................. 10.26 8.23 4.21 ..............
OnRoad Mobile.............................. 43.50 29.32 11.56 ..............
MarineAirRailroad......................... 6.00 4.30 4.01 ..............
Total NOX Emissions..................... 82.50 52.96 35.43 *47.07
* Difference between 2004 attainment year emissions and 2018 maintenance year emissions.
Table 4.Projected VOC and NOX Emissions In Mercer County, Pennsylvania
[Tons/day]
2004 2018
Source sector Attainment 2009 Interim Maintenance Safety margin VOC Emissions:
Point....................................... 1.73 2.73 3.66 ..............
Area (Other)................................ 7.61 7.36 7.83 ..............
NonRoad (includes MAR)..................... 3.78 3.41 2.59 ..............
OnRoad Mobile.............................. 5.93 4.23 2.63 ..............
Total VOC Emissions..................... 19.05 17.73 16.71 *2.34 NOX Emissions:
Point....................................... 2.93 4.30 5.52 ..............
Area (Other)................................ 0.85 0.88 0.89 ..............
NonRoad (includes MAR)..................... 2.82 2.35 1.44 ..............
OnRoad Mobile.............................. 15.83 11.22 4.89 ..............
Total NOX Emissions..................... 22.43 18.75 12.74 *9.69
* Difference between 2004 attainment year emissions and 2018 maintenance year emissions.
The Ohio EPA also notes that the State's EGU NO
The emissions projections for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana
Counties, Ohio and Mercer County, Pennsylvania along with the expected
impacts of the State's 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 should be maintained in
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties. We believe that this is
especially likely given the expected impacts of the NO
d. Contingency Plan
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 continue to 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
contingency plans to help address possible future ozone air quality
problems in the Youngstown area. The contingency plans have two levels
of actions/responses depending on whether a violation of the 8hour ozone standard is only threatened (Warning Level
[[Page 19445]]
Response), 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 in a single ozone season in the Youngstown area. A Warning Level Response will consist of a study to determine whether the high ozone value indicates a trend toward higher ozone concentrations 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 will be selected for evaluation and possible adoption. Implementation of necessary controls in response to a Warning Level Response triggering will take place as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than 12 months from the conclusion of the most recent ozone season (September 30).
An Action Level Response will be triggered whenever a two year averaged annual fourthhigh monitored 8hour ozone concentration of 85 ppb occurs within the Youngstown area, or whenever a violation of the 8hour ozone standard is actually monitored in either the Ohio or Pennsylvania portions of the Youngstown area. Ohio and Pennsylvania have agreed to work together to address any possible future violation of the 8hour ozone standard. 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 within 18 months from the close of the ozone season that prompted the Action Level Response. Any new emission control measure that is selected for implementation will be given a public review. If a new emission control measure is already promulgated and scheduled to be implemented at the Federal or State level and if that emission control measure is determined to be sufficient to address the ozone air quality problem, additional local measures may be unnecessary. Ohio EPA will submit to the EPA an analysis to assess whether the proposed emission control measures are adequate to reverse the increase in peak ozone concentrations and to maintain the 8hour ozone standard in the maintenance area. The selection of emission control measures will be based on cost effectiveness, emission reduction potential, economic and social considerations, or other factors that the Ohio EPA deems to be appropriate. Selected emission control measures will be subjected to public review and the State will seek public input prior to selecting new emission control measures. Finally, emission control measures that can be implemented in a short period of time will be selected in order to be in place within 18 months from the close of the ozone season in which the Action Level Response is triggered.
The State's redesignation request indicates that the 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 (after the need for contingency measures is triggered). The selection of candidate contingency measures will be based on cost effectiveness, emission reduction potential, economic and social considerations, and other factors that the Ohio EPA deems to be appropriate. Ohio will solicit input from interested and affected persons in the subject maintenance area prior to final selection of contingency measures.
Although it is not possible at this time to specify which
contingency measures would actually be implemented, the Ohio EPA has listed possible contingency measures. These include:
No contingency measures will be adopted and implemented without providing the opportunity for full public participation and comment in the contingency measure selection process.
A list of VOC and NO
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Patricia Morris, Environmental Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR18), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 3538656, morris.patricia@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 40 CFR Part 300 50 CFR Part 660 44 CFR Part 65 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 40 CFR Part 271 47 CFR Part 64 14 CFR Part 23 14 CFR Part 25 21 CFR Part 522 50 CFR Part 665 47 CFR Part 76 27 CFR Part 9