Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 19435 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed action merely proposes 

to approve state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Because this rule proposes to approve 

pre-existing requirements under state 

law and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it does not contain any 

unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

states, on the relationship between the 

national government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This proposed rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action,’’ this action is also not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, 

requires Federal agencies to use 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus to 

carry out policy objectives, so long as 

such standards are not inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Absent a prior 

existing requirement for the state to use 

voluntary consensus standards, EPA has 

no authority to disapprove a SIP 

submission for failure to use such 

standards, and it would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in place of a program 

submission that otherwise satisfies the 

provisions of the Clean Air Act. 

Therefore, the requirements of section 

12(d) of the NTTAA do not apply. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, National parks, Wilderness 

areas. 

Dated: April 6, 2007. 

Walter W. Kovalick, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. E7–7348 Filed 4–17–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2006–1022; FRL–8301–7] 

Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of 

the Youngstown Area to Attainment of 

the 8-Hour Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

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 8- 

hour 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 8- 

hour 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 8-hour 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 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides 

(NOX) Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

(MVEBs) for Mahoning, Trumbull, and 

Columbiana Counties, Ohio for 

purposes of transportation conformity 

determinations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 18, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–

OAR–2006–1022, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (312) 886–5824. 

• Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

• Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, 

Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
19436 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

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. EPA–R05–OAR–2006–

1022. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI, or otherwise 

protected, through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your 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 CD-ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters and any 

form of encryption, and should be free 

of any defects or viruses. For additional 

instructions on submitting comments, 

go to section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

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 

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. We 

recommend that you telephone Patricia 

Morris, Environmental Scientist, at 

(312) 353–8656, before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia Morris, Environmental 

Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8656, 

morris.patricia@epa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY 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 directions—The EPA may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What 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 Youngstown-Warren-Sharon PA-OH 

area as defined for 8-hour ozone 

designation purposes) has attained the 

8-hour 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 8-hour 

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 8- 

hour 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 NOX MVEBs for 

Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana 

Counties for transportation conformity 

determination purposes. 

These proposed actions pertain to the 

designations of Mahoning, Trumbull, 

and Columbiana Counties, Ohio for the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and to the 

emission controls in these counties 

related to the attainment and 

maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. If you own or operate a VOC 

or NOX emissions source in these 

counties or live in these counties, this 

proposed rule may impact or apply to 

you. It may also impact you if you are 

involved in transportation planning or 

implementation of emission controls in 

this area. It may also impact you if you 

breathe air which has passed through 

the Youngstown area, or if you are 

concerned with clean air, human health 

or the environment. 

III. What Is the Background for These 

Actions? 

A. General Background 

In EPA’s April 30, 2004, rulemaking 

establishing designations and 

classifications for the 8-hour ozone 

standard, EPA designated the 

Youngstown area as subpart 1 

nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. EPA based the designation on 

ozone data collected during the 2001–

2003 period. 

On December 4, 2006, the State of 

Ohio submitted a request for 

redesignation of Mahoning, Trumbull, 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 19437 

1Clean 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. 

and Columbiana Counties to attainment 

of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on 

ozone data collected in these counties 

and Mercer County, Pennsylvania 

during the 2004–2006 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 8- 

hour standard in nonattainment areas 

under Subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2 of 

Title I, part D of the Act. The Court also 

held that EPA improperly failed to 

retain four measures required for 1-hour 

nonattainment areas under the antibacksliding provisions of the 

regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New 

Source Review (NSR) requirements 

based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment 

classification; (2) Section 185 penalty 

fees for 1-hour severe or extreme 

nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be 

implemented pursuant to section 

172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the 

contingency of an area not making 

reasonable further progress toward 

attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for 

failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) 

certain conformity requirements for 

certain types of Federal actions. The 

Court upheld EPA’s authority to revoke 

the 1-hour standard provided there were 

adequate anti-backsliding provisions. 

This section sets forth EPA’s views on 

the potential effect of the Court’s ruling 

on this redesignation action. For the 

reasons set forth below, EPA does not 

believe that the Court’s ruling alters any 

requirements relevant to this 

redesignation action so as to preclude 

redesignation, and does not prevent 

EPA from finalizing this redesignation. 

EPA believes that the Court’s decision, 

as it currently stands or as it may be 

modified based upon any petition for 

rehearing that has been filed, imposes 

no impediment to moving forward with 

redesignation of this area to attainment, 

because in either circumstance 

redesignation is appropriate under the 

relevant redesignation provisions of the 

Act and longstanding policies regarding 

redesignation requests. 

2. Requirements Under the 8-Hour 

Standard 

With respect to the 8-hour standard, 

the court’s ruling rejected EPA’s reasons 

for classifying areas under Subpart 1 for 

the 8-hour standard, and remanded that 

matter to the Agency. Consequently, it 

is possible that this area could, during 

a remand to EPA, be reclassified under 

Subpart 2. although any future decision 

by EPA to classify this area under 

subpart 2 might trigger additional future 

requirements for the area, EPA believes 

that this does not mean that 

redesignation cannot now go forward. 

This belief is based upon (1) EPA’s 

longstanding policy of evaluating 

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, 

12465–66 (March 7, 1995) 

(redesignation of Detroit-Ann 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 1-Hour 

Standard 

With respect to the 1-hour 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 1-hour standard. The Court’s 

ruling does not impact redesignation 

requests for these types of areas. 

First, there are no conformity 

requirements that are relevant for 

redesignation requests, 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. 

Second, with respect to the three 

other anti-backsliding provisions for the 

1-hour standard that the Court found 

were not properly retained, Mahoning 

and Trumbull Counties and separately 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
19438 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

2The worst-case monitoring site-specific ozone 

design value in the area. 

3EPA 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. 

Columbiana County are attainment areas 

subject to maintenance plans for the 1- 

hour standard, and the NSR, 

contingency measure (pursuant to 

section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)) and fee 

provision requirements no longer apply 

to an area that has been redesignated to 

attainment of the 1-hour standard. 

Thus the decision in South Coast 

should not alter requirements that 

would preclude EPA from finalizing the 

redesignation of this area. 

IV. What Are the Criteria for 

Redesignation 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 8-hour ozone standard; (2) approve 

the ozone maintenance plan for the 

Ohio portion of this area (Columbiana, 

Mahoning and Trumbull counties) and 

the VOC and NOX MVEBs supported by 

this ozone maintenance plan; and, 3) 

approve the redesignation of the Ohio 

portion to attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

The basis for our proposed 

determination and approval is as 

follows: 

1. The Youngstown Area Has Attained 

the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

For ozone, an area may be considered 

to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

if there are no violations 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 fourth-high 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations measured and recorded 

over a three-year period must not 

exceed the ozone standard. Based on the 

ozone data rounding convention 

described in 40 CFR part 50 appendix 

I, the 8-hour 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 quality-assured 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). 

As part of the December 4, 2006, 

ozone redesignation request, the Ohio 

EPA submitted summarized ozone 

monitoring data indicating the top four 

daily maximum 8-hour ozone 

concentrations for each monitoring site 

in the Youngstown area during the 

2004–2006 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 worst-case ozone 

concentrations that are part of the 

quality-assured ozone data collected 

and recorded in these Counties. These 

data have been entered into EPA’s AQS. 

The annual fourth-high 8-hour daily 

maximum ozone concentrations, along 

with their three-year averages are 

summarized in Table 1. 

TABLE 1.—FOURTH-HIGH 8-HOUR 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 Kinsman-Bloomfield Rd ............................... 78 83 74 78 

Trumbull OH ......................................................... 842 Youngstown-Kingsville Rd ............................ 80 87 82 83 

Mercer PA ............................................................. Pa518 (New Castle Road) & Pa418 .................... 76 87 79 79 

These data show that the site-specific 

ozone design values (average fourthhigh daily maximum 8-hour ozone 

concentrations over the period of 2004–

2006) for all monitoring sites in the 

Youngstown area are below the 85 ppb 

average ozone standard violation cut-off. 

These data support the conclusion that 

the Youngstown area ozone monitors 

did not record a violation of the 8-hour 

ozone standard during the 2004–2006 

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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 19439 

area, including Mahoning, Trumbull, 

and Columbiana Counties, Ohio, has 

attained the 8-hour 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, 

12465–12466 (March 7, 1995) 

(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, 

Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS). Applicable 

requirements of the CAA that come due 

subsequent to the state’s submittal of a 

complete 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 1-hour 

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 (NOX SIP call 

and Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)). 

EPA has also found, generally, that 

states have not submitted SIPs under 

section 110(a)(1) of the CAA to meet the 

interstate transport requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA (70 FR 

21147, April 25, 2005). However, the 

section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a 

state are not linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s classification. EPA 

believes that the requirements linked 

with a particular nonattainment area’s 

classification are the relevant measures 

to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request. The transport SIP submittal 

requirements, where applicable, 

continue to apply to a state regardless of 

the designation of any one particular 

area in the state. 

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); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio 

final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 

1996); and Tampa, Florida final 

rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 

1995). See also the discussion on this 

issue in the Cincinnati, 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 1-hour 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
19440 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 

172–176 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 

4852–4853, in an ozone redesignation 

notice of proposed rulemaking for the 

St. Louis area, for a discussion of 

section 172 requirements. 

No requirements for the 8-hour 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 Federally-supported 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, 989–

990 (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 

State-adopted measures. In making this 

demonstration, the State has 

documented the changes in VOC and 

NOX emissions from all anthropogenic 

(man-made or man-based) sources in 

Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana 

Counties between 2002, an ozone 

standard violation year, and 2004, one 

of the years in which Mahoning, 

Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties 

recorded attainment of the 8-hour ozone 

standard. The Ohio EPA has also 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 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 NOX emissions totals from the 

anthropogenic sources in 2002 and 2004 

for all counties (Mahoning, Trumbull, 

Columbiana, and Mercer) in the 

nonattainment area as summarized in 

the State’s ozone redesignation 

submittal. The Youngstown 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area, which is a bistate area, must show emission 

reductions across the entire area. The 

table shows all the counties in the area 

including the Ohio and Pennsylvania 

counties. 

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-PA VOCs .................................................................................... 91.31 83.65 

Combined Total for Youngstown/Warren/Sharon OH-PA NOX ...................................................................................... 120.97 104.93 

From the above table, it can be seen 

that the Youngstown area experienced 

decreases in VOC and NOX

anthropogenic emissions between 2002 

and 2004. The State of Ohio concludes 

that the differences in the 2002 and 

2004 emissions are due primarily to the 

implementation of permanent and 

enforceable emission control 

requirements. The State asserts that 

these emission reductions along with 

those occurring elsewhere in the State 

and in upwind areas have led to 

observed improvements in ozone air 

quality in the Youngstown area. 

Also, the State notes a significant 

decline in regional NOX emissions 

between 2002 and 2004 as the result of 

the implementation of State NOX

emission control rules for combustion 

sources, primarily Electric Generating 

Units (EGUs), in compliance with EPA’s 

NOX SIP call and acid rain control 

requirements under title IV of the CAA. 

Besides the NOX emission reductions 

occurring within the State itself, the 

implementation of statewide NOX

emission control rules occurred in many 

States east of the Mississippi River. 

These emission reductions are assumed 

to have contributed significantly to the 

air quality improvements in the 

Youngstown area through the reduction 

of transported ozone and ozone 

precursors. The Youngstown area has 

several EGUs which show reductions 

between 2002 and 2004. The EGU NOX

emissions are reduced from 23.36 tons 

per year in 2002 to 17.93 tons per day 

in 2004. These reductions are 

documented in Table 23 of the Ohio 

submittal. In addition, the area has 

benefited from the NOX emission 

reductions occurring throughout the 

State of Ohio and in the surrounding 

areas. These regional NOX emission 

reductions are considered to be 

permanent and enforceable. 

Besides the implementation of the 

regional NOX emission controls, the 

State of Ohio notes that, in the mid1990’s, the State of Ohio promulgated 

statewide rules requiring Reasonably 

Available Control Techniques (RACT) 

for significant new sources of VOC 

emissions. The RACT rules have been 

implemented for significant new VOC 

sources locating in Ohio subsequent to 

the State’s adoption of the rules. The 

Ohio rules are found in OAC Chapter 

3745–21. Additional implemented, or 

soon to be implemented, emission 

control rules include several Federal 

rules: (1) Tier II emission standards for 

vehicles and gasoline sulfur content 

standards (promulgated by EPA in 

February 2000 and currently being 

implemented); (2) heavy-duty diesel 

engine emission control rules 

(promulgated by the EPA in July 2000 

and currently being implemented); and, 

(3) clean air non-road diesel rule 

(promulgated by the EPA in May 2004 

and currently being phased in through 

2009). All of these rules have 

contributed to reducing VOC and NOX

emissions throughout the State of Ohio 

(and in other States surrounding Ohio) 

and will contribute to further, future 

emission reductions in Ohio. 

The State of Ohio commits to 

maintain the existing VOC and NOX

emission controls after Mahoning, 

Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties are 

redesignated to attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, and these reductions are 

required to be maintained under the 

Ohio SIP. 

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 8-hour 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. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
19442 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

4Title V of the CAA requires source-specific 

emission permits detailing all applicable emission 

control requirements and emission limits, as 

specified in the SIP, for each source facility covered 

by the State’s Title V source permit program and 

requirements. 

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 NOX emissions inventories; (2) a 

maintenance demonstration showing 

maintenance for the first 10 years of the 

maintenance period; (3) a commitment 

to maintain the existing monitoring 

network; (4) factors and procedures to 

be used for verification of continued 

attainment; and, (5) a contingency plan 

to prevent and/or correct a future 

violation of the NAAQS. The Ohio 

maintenance plan is designed to work in 

conjunction with Pennsylvania’s 

maintenance plan to keep the 

Youngstown area in attainment for the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

b. What Are the Attainment Emission 

Inventories for Mahoning, Trumbull, 

and Columbiana Counties? 

Ohio EPA prepared VOC and NOX

emission inventories for Mahoning, 

Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, 

including point (significant stationary 

sources), other (area sources, smaller 

and widely-distributed stationary 

sources), Marine, Aircraft, and Railroad 

(MAR) mobile sources, non-road (offroad) mobile sources, and on-road 

mobile sources for 2002 (the base 

nonattainment year), 2004 (the 

attainment year), 2009, and 2018 (the 

projected maintenance year). To 

develop the 2004, 2009, and 2018 

emission inventories, the Ohio EPA 

projected the 2002 emissions applying 

various source category-specific growth 

factors and emission control factors. The 

State has documented how the 2002 

base year emissions were derived and 

how these emissions were projected to 

derive the 2004, 2009, and 2018 

emissions. The following summarizes 

the procedures and sources of data used 

by the Ohio EPA to derive the 2002 

emissions. 

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 NOX SIP call emissions 

trading program and the acid rain 

control/trading program. The sources 

included in the 2002 point source 

emissions inventory were identified 

using Ohio’s Title V STARS database 

system. The emissions included in this 

database are facility-reported actual 

emissions. 

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. Facility-specific 

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. Non-Road Mobile Sources 

The non-road 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 non-road 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 non-road 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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 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 Take-Off (LTO) rates by 

engine type for each airline and major 

airport in the State of Ohio. The LTOengine information was combined with 

engine type-specific 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 NOX. 

v. On-Road Mobile Sources 

The inventories of on-road 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 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in the 2004–2006 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 

category-specific growth estimates and 

emission control estimates to estimate 

stationary source VOC and NOX

emissions for Mahoning, Trumbull, and 

Columbiana Counties. LADCO provided 

growth and source control projection 

data to project VOC and NOX area 

source emissions. The Metropolitan 

Planning Organization for the area, 

Eastgate, provided projections of vehicle 

travel estimates (Vehicle Miles Traveled 

(VMT)) and emissions, with MOBILE 

6.2 providing the expected changes in 

vehicle emission factors. The estimated 

2004 emissions have been compared to 

the 2002 base year emissions to 

demonstrate the basis for the improved 

air quality in Mahoning, Trumbull and 

Columbiana Counties. See Table 2 above 

for a summary of the 2004 VOC and 

NOX emissions and for a comparison of 

these emissions with the 2002 

emissions. 

c. Demonstration of Maintenance 

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 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS through 2018 by documenting 

attainment year and future projected 

VOC and NOX emissions and showing 

that future emissions of VOC and NOX

will remain at or below the attainment 

year emission levels. Note that an ozone 

maintenance demonstration need not to 

be based on ozone modeling. See Wall 

v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th 

Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 53099–

53100 (October 19, 2001) and 68 FR 

25430–25432 (May 12, 2003). 

The Ohio EPA projected the VOC and 

NOX emissions in Mahoning, Trumbull, 

and Columbiana Counties to the years of 

2009 and 2018 to demonstrate 

maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for at least 10 years after the 

expected redesignation dates for these 

areas. For all counties, Ohio EPA used 

source growth estimates provided by 

LADCO along with mobile source 

growth estimates provided by the 

Eastgate travel demand model and 

MOBILE 6.2 to project the Mahoning, 

Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties 

VOC and NOX emissions. 

Table 3 summarizes the VOC and 

NOX emissions projected to occur in 

Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana 

Counties Ohio during the demonstrated 

maintenance period. The State of Ohio 

chose 2018 as a maintenance year to 

meet the 10-year maintenance 

requirement of the CAA, allowing 

several years for EPA to complete the 

redesignation rulemaking process. The 

State also chose 2009 as an interim year 

to demonstrate that VOC and NOX

emissions will remain below the 

attainment year levels throughout the 

10-year maintenance period. Table 4 

summarizes the VOC and NOX

emissions projected to occur in Mercer 

County, Pennsylvania over the same 

maintenance period. 

TABLE 3.—PROJECTED VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS IN MAHONING, TRUMBULL, AND COLUMBIANA COUNTIES, OHIO

[Tons/day] 

Source sector 2004 

Attainment 

2009 

Interim 

2018 

Maintenance 

Safety 

margin 

VOC Emissions: 

Point (includes EGU) ................................................................................ 6.02 6.39 7.75 ........................

Area (Other) .............................................................................................. 24.10 22.86 23.03 ........................

Non-Road Mobile ...................................................................................... 7.95 6.24 4.90 ........................

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................... 26.21 17.03 9.01 ........................


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
19444 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3.—PROJECTED VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS IN MAHONING, TRUMBULL, AND COLUMBIANA COUNTIES, OHIO—

Continued 

[Tons/day] 

Source sector 2004 

Attainment 

2009 

Interim 

2018 

Maintenance 

Safety 

margin 

Marine-Air-Railroad ................................................................................... 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 ........................

Non-Road Mobile ...................................................................................... 10.26 8.23 4.21 ........................

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................... 43.50 29.32 11.56 ........................

Marine-Air-Railroad ................................................................................... 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] 

Source sector 2004 

Attainment 

2009 

Interim 

2018 

Maintenance 

Safety 

margin 

VOC Emissions: 

Point .......................................................................................................... 1.73 2.73 3.66 ........................

Area (Other) .............................................................................................. 7.61 7.36 7.83 ........................

Non-Road (includes MAR) ........................................................................ 3.78 3.41 2.59 ........................

On-Road 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 ........................

Non-Road (includes MAR) ........................................................................ 2.82 2.35 1.44 ........................

On-Road 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 NOX emissions control 

rules stemming from EPA’s NOX SIP call 

and Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), to 

be implemented after 2006, will further 

lower NOX emissions throughout the 

State and upwind of Mahoning, 

Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties. 

This will result in decreased ozone and 

ozone precursor transport into 

Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana 

Counties, and will support maintenance 

of the 8-hour ozone standard. 

The emissions projections for 

Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana 

Counties, Ohio and Mercer County, 

Pennsylvania along with the expected 

impacts of the State’s EGU NOX control 

rules lead to the conclusion that the 

Youngstown area should maintain the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS throughout the 

required 10-year maintenance period 

and through 2018. The projected 

decreases in local VOC and local and 

regional NOX emissions indicate that 

peak ozone levels in the Youngstown 

area may actually further decline during 

the maintenance period. 

Based on the comparison of the 

projected emissions and the attainment 

year emissions, we conclude that Ohio 

EPA has successfully demonstrated that 

the 8-hour ozone standard should be 

maintained in Mahoning, Trumbull, and 

Columbiana Counties. We believe that 

this is especially likely given the 

expected impacts of the NOX SIP call 

and CAIR. This conclusion is further 

supported by the fact that other states in 

the eastern portion of the United States 

are also expected to reduce regional 

NOX emissions through implementation 

of their NOX emission control rules for 

EGUs and other NOX sources through 

the implementation of the NOX SIP call 

and CAIR. 

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 8-hour ozone standard 

is only threatened (Warning Level 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 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) 

fourth-high monitored 8-hour 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 fourth-high monitored 8-hour 

ozone concentration of 85 ppb occurs 

within the Youngstown area, or 

whenever a violation of the 8-hour 

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 8-hour 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 8- 

hour ozone standard in the maintenance 

area. The selection of emission control 

measures will be based on costeffectiveness, 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: 

• Low Reid vapor pressure gasoline; 

• Tightening of RACT on existing 

sources covered by EPA Control 

Technique Guidelines issued in 

response to the 1990 Clean Air Act 

amendments; 

• Application of RACT to smaller 

existing sources; 

• One or more transportation control 

measures sufficient to achieve at least 

half of a percent reduction in actual 

area-wide VOC emissions. The 

transportation control measures to be 

considered include: 

• Trip reduction programs, including: 

Employer-based transportation 

management plans; area-wide rideshare 

programs; work schedule changes; and 

telecommuting; 

• Traffic flow and transit 

improvements; and 

• Other new or innovative 

transportation measures not yet in 

widespread use that affected state and 

local governments deem appropriate; 

• Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit 

programs for fleet vehicle operations; 

• Controls on consumer products 

consistent with those adopted elsewhere 

in the United States; 

• Requirements for VOC or NOX

emission offsets for new and modified 

major sources; 

• Requirements for VOC or NOX

emission offsets for new and modified 

minor sources; 

• Increase of the ratio of emission 

offsets required for new sources; and 

• Requirements for VOC or NOX

emission controls on new minor sources 

(with emissions of less than 100 tons 

per year). 

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 NOX source types 

potentially subject to future emission 

controls include: 

NOX RACT: 

• EGUs 

• Asphalt batching plants 

• Industrial/commercial and 

institutional boilers 

• Process heaters 

• Internal combustion engines 

• Combustion turbines 

• Other sources with NOX emissions 

exceeding 100 tons per year 

VOC RACT: 

• Consumer products 

• Architectural and industrial 

maintenance coatings 

• Stage I gasoline dispensing facilities 

• Automobile refinishing shops 

• Cold cleaner degreasers 

• Portable fuel containers 

• Synthetic organic compound 

manufacturing 

• Wood manufacturing 

• Industrial wastewater 

• Aerospace industry 

• Ship building 

• Bakeries 

• Plastic parts coating 

• Volatile organic liquid storage 

• Industrial solvent cleaning 

• Offset lithography 

• Industrial surface coating 

• Other VOC sources with emissions 

exceeding 50 tons per year. 

e. Provisions for a Future Update of the 

Ozone Maintenance Plan 

As required by section 175A(b) of the 

CAA, the State commits to review the 

maintenance plans 8 years after 

redesignation of Mahoning, Trumbull, 

and Columbiana Counties to attainment 

of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS as required 

by section 175A of the CAA. 

We consider Ohio’s ozone 

maintenance demonstration and 

contingency plan to be acceptable. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
19446 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

VI. Has Ohio Adopted Acceptable 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 

the Ozone Maintenance Plan Which 

Can Be Used To Support Conformity 

Determinations? 

A. How Are the Motor Vehicle Emission 

Budgets Developed and What Are the 

Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for 

Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana 

Counties? 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, SIP revisions 

and ozone maintenance plans for 

applicable areas (for ozone 

nonattainment areas and for areas 

seeking redesignations to attainment of 

the ozone standard or revising existing 

ozone maintenance plans). These 

emission control SIP revisions (e.g. 

reasonable further progress and 

attainment demonstration SIP 

revisions), including ozone maintenance 

plans, must create MVEBs based on onroad mobile source emissions that are 

allocated to highway and transit vehicle 

use that, together with emissions from 

other sources in the area, will provide 

for attainment or maintenance of the 

ozone NAAQS. 

Under 40 CFR part 93, MVEBs for an 

area seeking a redesignation to 

attainment of the NAAQS are 

established for the last year of the 

maintenance plan (for the maintenance 

demonstration year). The State has the 

option to establish additional MVEBs 

for additional years as deemed 

appropriate by the interagency 

consultation process. The MVEBs serve 

as ceilings on mobile source emissions 

from an area’s planned transportation 

system and are used to test planned 

transportation system changes or 

projects to assure compliance with the 

emission limits assumed in the SIP. The 

MVEB concept is further explained in 

the preamble to the November 24, 1993, 

transportation conformity rule (58 FR 

62188). The preamble also describes 

how to establish the MVEBs in the SIP 

and how to revise the MVEBs if needed. 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation projects, such as the 

construction of new highways, must 

‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with) 

the part of the SIP that addresses 

emissions from cars, trucks, and other 

on-roadway vehicles. Conformity to the 

SIP means that transportation activities 

will not cause new air quality standard 

violations, or delay timely attainment of 

the NAAQS. If a transportation plan 

does not conform, most new 

transportation projects that would 

expand the capacity of the roadways 

cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 

CFR Part 93 set forth EPA’s policy, 

criteria, and procedures for 

demonstrating and assuring conformity 

of transportation activities to a SIP. 

The Transportation Conformity Rule, 

in 40 CFR 93.118(f), provides for 

adequacy findings through two 

mechanisms. First, 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1) 

provides for posting a notice to the EPA 

conformity Web site at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ 

transconf/adequacy.htm and providing 

a 30-day public comment period. 

Second, a mechanism is described in 40 

CFR 93.118(f)(2) which provides that 

EPA can review the adequacy of an 

implementation plan submission 

simultaneously with its review of the 

implementation plan itself. For this 

area, EPA is using the first process and 

posted the notice on our adequacy Web 

site on December 11, 2006. The 

comment period closed January 11, 

2007, without any comments from the 

public on the adequacy of the MVEBs. 

Both Ohio and Pennsylvania are 

establishing separate State budgets in 

the Ohio and Pennsylvania maintenance 

plans. When conducting transportation 

conformity determinations, the Eastgate 

Regional Council of Governments will 

use the budgets established for 

Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana 

Counties. Mobile source emissions will 

be constrained by both the Ohio 

maintenance plan budgets and the 

budgets established for Mercer County 

by Pennsylvania. These budgets will 

assure that mobile source emissions do 

not increase and that the air quality 

remains below the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

The Mahoning, Trumbull, and 

Columbiana Counties ozone 

maintenance plan contains VOC and 

NOX MVEBs for the years 2009 and 

2018. EPA has reviewed the submittal 

and has found that the MVEBs for 

Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana 

Counties meet the adequacy criteria in 

the Transportation Conformity Rule. 

EPA, through this rulemaking, is 

proposing to approve the MVEBs for 

Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana 

Counties because EPA has determined 

that the budgets are consistent with the 

control measures and future emissions 

projected in the SIP and that Mahoning, 

Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties 

can maintain attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS for the relevant required 

10-year period with mobile source 

emissions at the levels of the MVEBs. 

Ohio EPA has determined the 2018 

MVEBs for Mahoning, Trumbull, and 

Columbiana Counties to be 10.36 tons 

per day for VOC and 13.29 tons per day 

for NOX and the 2009 MVEBs for 

Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana 

Counties to be 19.58 tons per day for 

VOC and 33.71 tons per day for NOX. 

These MVEBs exceed the on-road 

mobile source VOC and NOX emissions 

projected by the Ohio EPA for 2009 and 

2018, but do not exceed the levels 

necessary for continued maintenance of 

the NAAQS. Through discussions with 

all organizations involved in 

transportation planning for Mahoning, 

Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, 

Ohio EPA decided to include 15 percent 

safety margins in the MVEBs to provide 

for mobile source growth not 

anticipated in the projected 2009 and 

2018 emissions. Ohio EPA has 

demonstrated that Mahoning, Trumbull, 

and Columbiana Counties can maintain 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile 

source emissions at the levels of the 

MVEBs since total source emissions 

with the increased mobile source 

emissions will remain under the 

attainment year levels. These MVEBs 

will be separate state area budgets for 

Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana 

Counties, Ohio. Pennsylvania 

established MVEBs for Mercer County 

through the 8-hour ozone maintenance 

plan that was submitted with 

Pennsylvania’s request for 

redesignation. Action on the 

Pennsylvania MVEBs will be taken 

through separate rulemaking. 

B. What Is a Safety Margin? 

A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference 

between the attainment level of 

emissions (from all sources) and the 

projected level of emissions (from all 

sources) in the maintenance plan for a 

future maintenance year. As noted in 

Tables 3 and 4 above, Mahoning, 

Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties are 

projected to have a VOC safety margin 

of 22.42 tons per day and a NOX safety 

margin of 47.07 tons per day in 2018. 

The addition of a portion of the safety 

margin to the MVEBs continues to 

maintain the emissions levels below the 

attainment level. 

C. Are the MVEBs Approvable? 

The 2009 and 2018 VOC and NOX

MVEBs for Mahoning, Trumbull, and 

Columbiana Counties (see Table 5) are 

approvable because they maintain the 

total emissions for Mahoning, Trumbull, 

and Columbiana Counties at or below 

the attainment year emission inventory 

levels, as required by the transportation 

conformity regulations. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 19447 

TABLE 5.—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION

BUDGETS FOR COLUMBIANA, 

MAHONING AND TRUMBULL

COUNTIES, OHIO

Mahoning, Trumbull, and 

Columbiana Counties Ohio 

budgets 

Year 

2009 

Year 

2018 

VOC (tons/day) ..................... 19.58 10.36 

NOX (tons/day) ..................... 33.71 13.29 

VII. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that the Youngstown area 

is attainment the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

and EPA is proposing to approve Ohio’s 

maintenance plan for assuring that the 

area will continue to attain this 

standard. The maintenance plan 

demonstrates maintenance to the year 

2018 and includes contingency 

measures to remedy possible future 

violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

and establishes 2009 and 2018 MVEBs 

for these Counties. EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2018 MVEBs submitted by 

Ohio in conjunction with the 

redesignation request. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, September 30, 1993), this action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

and, therefore, is not subject to review 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed action merely proposes 

to approve state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Because this rule proposes to approve 

pre-existing requirements under state 

law and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it does not contain any 

unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

states, on the relationship between the 

national government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This proposed rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action,’’ this action is also not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, 

requires Federal agencies to use 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus to 

carry out policy objectives, so long as 

such standards are not inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Absent a prior 

existing requirement for the state to use 

voluntary consensus standards, EPA has 

no authority to disapprove a SIP 

submission for failure to use such 

standards, and it would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in place of a program 

submission that otherwise satisfies the 

provisions of the Clean Air Act. 

Therefore, the requirements of section 

12(d) of the NTTA do not apply. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: April 6, 2007. 

Walter W. Kovalick, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. E7–7352 Filed 4–17–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 07–1448, MB Docket No. 05–228; RM–

11255] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Kiowa, 

KS 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal. 

SUMMARY: This document dismisses a 

pending petition for rulemaking filed by 

Charles Crawford to allot Channel 233A 

at Kiowa, Kansas for failure to state a 

continuing interest in the requested 

allotment. The document therefore 

terminates the proceeding. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Helen McLean, Media Bureau (202) 

418–2738. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, MB Docket No. 05–228, 

adopted March 28, 2007, and released 

March 30, 2007. The full text of this 

Commission decision is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS